Loading...
2007-08-20 MTG37 1 TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #37 AUGUST 20, 2007 RES. 372-385 7:00 p.m. BOH 17-19 LL# 4 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER Town Officials Fiscal Manager Barbara Tierney Sr. Planner Stu Baker SUPERVISOR STEC LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1.0 BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 372.2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None 1.1Public Hearing On Sewage Disposal Variance Application of James Curcio NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 10, 2007 Supervisor Stec-This public hearing was set about two weeks ago the property is located at 62 Nottingham Drive and they are seeking 6.3’ from the side property line in lieu of the Code’s 10’ set back and 4’ from the front property line in lieu of the required 10’ set back. Again, it is 62 Nottingham Drive in Queensbury. If the applicant or his agent is present and wants to address the Board, Sir if you want to come to the microphone and state your name and address. These microphones not only amplify they also record for the purpose of the record. Mr. James Curcio-25 Whippoorwill Road, Queensbury, New York 2 Supervisor Stec-Yes, Sir, I am not sure if you have any anything that you want to present to the Board it is pretty easy to get your hands around. The Board may have some questions for you or not. Roger? Councilman Boor-It says here you do have a failed system is that correct? Mr. Curcio-Yes, Sir, I do. Councilman Boor-Did it come to the surface or it’s just things don’t flush? Mr. Curcio-No, it never came to the surface it backed into my home, the basement. I am on a pump every month now pretty much. Councilman Boor-Ok. Again, you have a very deep lot, I do not have any questions right now. Supervisor Stec-Any other questions? All right, again, the public hearing is open if there is any members of the public that would like to address the Board on this again, I ask again that you just raise your hand and I will call on people one at a time. Anybody at all? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING JAMES CURCIO’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO.: 17. 2007 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, James Curcio filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a replacement septic/leaching system: 1.6.3’ from the side property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 2.4.0’ from the front property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; on property located at 62 Nottingham Drive in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing th concerning the variance requests on August 20, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 3 RESOLVED, that 1.due to the nature of the variances, the Local Board of Health determines that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and 2.the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of James Curcio for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to install a replacement septic/leaching system: 1.6.3’ from the side property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 2.4.0’ from the front property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; on property located at 62 Nottingham Drive in the Town of Queensbury, and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.8-1-2.2. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None Resolution Setting Public Hearing-Sewer Variance Robert and 1.2 Elizabeth Birchenouth RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ROBERT AND ELIZABETH BIRCHENOUGH RESOLUTION NO.: 18. 2007 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 4 WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Robert and Elizabeth Birchenough have applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to install: 1.a leach field 5’ from a property line instead of the required 10’ setback; 2.the effluent line 3’ from a property line instead of the required 10’ setback; 3.a leach field 8’ from a basement/garage instead of the required 20’ setback; 4.260 LF of advantex leach field instead of the required 550’ for conventional system as set forth in Chapter 136 Tables 5 & 6; on property located at 340 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Robert and Elizabeth Birchenough’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 340 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 226.12-1-71) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None 5 Discussion held before vote: Councilman Boor-My only comment on this is we are going to be hearing from an applicant with a system that I don’t know if any of us are familiar with. Is it possible that we have our engineer give us a comment on this. Supervisor Stec- I will e-mail Dan Ryan tomorrow and ask him to do that for us. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 19.2007 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BYH: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its session. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD MEETING 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – Proposed Local law To Amend the Code of the Town of 2.1 Queensbury Adding Chapter Entitled Coordinated Assessment Program NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 10, 2007 Supervisor Stec-I will declare this public hearing open we set this a couple of weeks ago, talked about it at a couple of workshops. The City of Glens Falls and the Town both got advice from retiring assessor Helen Otte that she felt that it was in both of our interests going forward to dissolve the coordinated assessor program, it sounds like the City is also agreed with her recommendation. There are two resolutions tonight for the first resolution that is what required the public hearing because in order to repeal a local law you have to pass a local law that does that and that requires a public hearing. If there are any members of the public that would like to address this public hearing, I would just ask you to raise your hand. Anybody? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. : 4 OF 2007, A LOCAL LAW REPEALING LOCAL LAW NO. 9 OF 1998 ENTITLED, “A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED, ‘COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM’” RESOLUTION NO. 373, 2007 6 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury (Town) enacted Local Law No. 9 of 1998 amending the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter entitled “Coordinated Assessment Program,” and WHEREAS, since, as of September 1, 2007, the Town and the City of Glens Falls will no longer be employing the same Assessor, as required by State law, it is in the best interests of the Town to terminate the coordinated assessment program in the Town, and WHEREAS, therefore, it is the intention of the Town to repeal Town Local Law No. 9 of 1998, thereby terminating the coordinated assessment program in the Town, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, August 20, 2007 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 4 of 2007 Repealing Local Law No. 9 of 1998 as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None 7 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COUNTY OF WARREN, STATE OF NEW YORK LOCAL LAW 4 OF 2007 A LOCAL LAW REPEALING LOCAL LAW 9 OF 1998 ENTITLED A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED “COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM” Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as follows: Section 1.Repeal of Local Law 9 of 1998. Local Law No. 9 of 1998 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the New York State Secretary of State. RESOLUTION TERMINATING COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CITY OF GLENS FALLS RESOLUTION NO.: 374. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury (Town) entered into a Coordinated Assessment Agreement with the City of Glens Falls (City) on December 30, 1998, whereby the Town and the City agreed to appoint one Assessor to hold office in both the Town and the City, and WHEREAS, since, as of September 1, 2007, the Town and the City will no longer be employing the same Assessor, as required by State law, it is in the best interests of the Town to terminate the Coordinated Assessment Agreement with the City, and 8 WHEREAS, by separate Resolution of the same date hereof the Town introduced a Local Law to repeal Local Law 9 of 1998 which authorized the Coordinated Assessment program and an agreement for such program, and WHEREAS, in accordance with section 10 of such Coordinated Assessment Agreement, such Agreement may be terminated by a majority vote of either the Town Board or the Common Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: Section 1. The Queensbury Town Board hereby terminates the Coordinated Assessment Agreement made by and between the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls dated December 30, 1998 in accordance with section 10 of such Agreement. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held after vote: Supervisor Stec-Thanked Helen Otte for her years of service to the Town and the City of Glens Falls. Noted that Town Board has been interviewing for the position. 2.2Public Hearing-Proposed Local law to Amend Chapter 94 Freshwater Wetlands Concerning Development in and Adjacent to Wetlands NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 10, 2007 Supervisor Stec-We will not be taking any action on this tonight unless we have heard from APA or the County. We have forty five days and that was sent to them about two weeks ago. We can conduct the public hearing at the conclusion of whatever comment we get tonight with the Boards pleasure we can close the public hearing and just wait, similar to what we did for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or if the Board wants to we can leave it and open and take more public comment we will contemplate by ear. Councilman Sanford-Stuart could you e-mail me tomorrow and let me know when the expiration of those windows are for the APA and the County. Supervisor Stec-The forty five days. Councilman Sanford-The forty five days, thanks. 9 Supervisor Stec-We will take public comment on this tonight but we will not be acting on it as we just had that conversation and if there is any member of the public that would like to comment on this I ask that you to raise your hand and just please come to the microphone. Mr. Salvador. Mr. John Salvador-This might answer my question. Is this the fresh water wetlands map? Supervisor Stec-That is, I will let Stu describe it but that basically shows the DEC, APA and the wetlands all of them. Sr. Planner Stu Baker-That is correct it is the map that shows the wetlands data as the Town is currently aware of it, it is based on the map data from DEC, APA and the National wetlands inventory. It does not of course show wetlands that have not been mapped. Mr. Salvador-I noticed here that the Dunhams Bay Wetlands tract is, has been mapped and truly it is a wetland but somehow we have to distinguish between the fact that, that is also a part of the forest preserve. Now, in Helen Otte’s closing days I was finally able to convince her that the property classification code that the State of New York had assigned to that wetland tract was improper. That it in fact is the forest preserve. In recent weeks that property classification code has been changed. It should be to our benefit because then our assessor can assess the value of that land. But, this map does not distinguish between the forest preserve and just ordinary privately owned wetlands if you will. Councilman Sanford-I am not sure the relevance in terms of the revisions to Chapter 94, I think you have valid points in terms of the town having accurate records and classifications of things but what is the relevance towards this. Mr. Salvador-If I may continue. The way it is here now and the way it has been that wetland tract has been zoned forty two acre land conservation forty two acre. Land Conservation forty two acre is a residential zone. You cannot build a residence in a forest preserve. That has been going on for years this Councilman Boor-John, did you say that you got verification that it is forest preserve? Mr. Salvador-There is no question Councilman Boor-In other words where do we go to collaborate that? Mr. Salvador-Helen Otte has changed the property classification code. Councilman Boor-It shows up then in our assessment maps, tax maps as that. Mr. Salvador-Yes. Councilman Boor-Ok. Mr. Salvador-Recently. Just recently. Councilman Boor-No, no I was going to say I was unaware of that and that is interesting. Councilman Sanford-Same question and I appreciate what you are saying here we need to it right in terms of how we classify various parcels of land. But, in terms of Chapter 94 what is the relevance? Councilman Boor-I think what he is saying it is precluded from development for several reasons, not the least of which is that it may be wet but secondly that forest preserve does not allow for building. So, in that case there is a overlap and he is just Councilman Sanford-If he just wanted to point it out that is fine. 10 Mr. Salvador-The other thing I would like to mention is this Chapter 94 should be part of the Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Sanford-They took parts of it and put it into 179 and my question to the lawyers and the Zoning Administrator when we started looking at making the necessary improvements or revisions to 94 so it fulfilled the intent of the law was to make sure that we are not going to contradict ourselves with the way 179 reads. I received assurances from our Zoning Administrator and presumably from our lawyers that the revisions that we are contemplating here will not present future problems moving forward because that is exactly what happened two years ago when the Zoning Administrator made a determination. We on the Board were not, at least I was not notified of it which partially disabled Chapter 94. What we are trying to do now is have 94 live up to the intent stated in the Chapter and I will ask our Attorneys to further review 179 because we are going to be reviewing Zoning to make sure that there is a congruency between 179 which does have as you are well aware of a lot of Code regarding wetland to make sure it is a complement to 94 and not a contradiction. Mr. Salvador-But all too often these things get lost in the crack ok? We as applicants have a right to appeal a Zoning Administrator’s determination from a part of 179 not 94. Councilman Sanford-That is good, if he not going to be making determinations on 94, ok? Mr. Salvador-But, they may be relevant, they may be relevant and it is not only 94 how about 147 the storm water ordinance you see what has happened there. We have, all we do is nod to these ordinances like 94, 147 and 136 we nod to them in the opening page of the Zoning Code. We say related Codes. Councilman Sanford-You are absolutely right, in fact when I was on the Planning Board for four years the then Community Director did not even distribute to the Planning Board Chapter 94. When I inquired why don’t the whole Planning Board have Chapter 94 because I saw it applicable with many developments, she told me it is no longer applicable, it is incorporated into 179. Then when I saw our Attorneys to try to remedy the situation I raised that question and asked them to look into it because if it is an obsolete Chapter we do not need to revise it. What they found was no, it was very much an active piece of our Code and that is what we are doing now. But it is a very good point and in fact if we don’t give the proper tools to the Zoning Board, the Planning Board and for that matter this Board it is going to do exactly what you are going to say, Codes are going to be neglected not dealt with in the review of project applications. That has been happening, there is no question about it. Councilman Boor-And actually that contributes to the frustration of developers too, it works both ways. They can be looking at 179 and be unaware of 94 and visa versa so I think it is unfair for them to come up with applications only to find out you are not compliant here. Mr. Salvador-The most frustrating part about it is the lack of uniformity of the enforcement. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing this evening? Anyone, Yes, Sir Mr. Auer. Mr. Doug Auer-Goodevening, Doug Auer, I really hadn’t planned to comment on this but I will because I know that in the very, very early days when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the Zoning Ordinance and so forth was looked at Bob Vollaro who is Chairman of the Planning Board at the time wanted to very simply have these things cross foot to one another. Which would have gone a long way to resolving this ambiguity and I think quite by design ambiguity in the Code because it then becomes a bar game between attorneys and we know if you can get the best gun in town you are going to get what you want because you will read it the way or you will get it read the way you expect it to be read. Now, that all went right clean right out the window with this PORC thing. We 11 ended up with a camel that was originally supposed to be a horse designed by a committee. You know that is why people walked away from it. It was not the original intent, the original intent was to simply cross foot those two things and now we have a plan, I am not sure that this is going to go, to resolve anything. I think we are going to be back here in a year or two. Councilman Sanford-No, it is, let me explain, Doug, what happened. The intent was for wetlands not to be built on and also the adjacent areas a hundred feet from the wetland to be looked at very carefully and if an applicant was to infringe upon those areas they needed to apply for a fresh water permit. This is the intent of 94. What happened is due to a technicality the Zoning Administrator concluded a couple of years ago that it is only applicable to DEC wetlands. So, that left out APA wetlands Councilman Boor-Army Corp. Councilman Sanford-Yea, Army Corp. wetlands and actually field delineation wetlands in some specific cases. So, what we had is some projects that were obviously in wetlands but a permit was not required. If you read the criteria for a permit it specifically lists what criteria has to be met in order for one to be issued. In many cases none of those criteria were even closely satisfied. Councilman Boor-Weren’t even applied for. Councilman Sanford-What this is doing here is very simple, it is merely saying that we are really trying to recognize that a wetland is a wetland and we are less concerned about whether it is a DEC wetland and Army Corp etc. So, what we are doing here is we are saying we are going to refine the Town map to reflect up to date delineations from all agencies that are applicable and then we are going to go into our Code and we are going to make sure that we recognize that the Chapter is applicable to all these agencies not just to the DEC. To that degree if what Mr. Salvador is concerned about is in fact executed and that means that the Code is complied with it will make a very important and material difference. All you have got to do is think about some of the projects that have been elevated in conversation over the last few months and then if this law was in place you can go back and second guess what would have been required which was not required, ok? Mr. Auer-It is laudable there is no question, I think this is you know, I have gotten away from the whole PORC thing because quite honestly I thought there was bigger fish to fry and you know I think this goes to fixing one of the problems but there is a whole myriad more and I am not sure we are going to be any better off. This is a big one I will give you that. Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else that would like to address this public hearing this evening for the first time? Ok, Mr. Salvador. Mr. John Salvador-On other thing I would like to point out is that the term wetland is a generic term. The State has the State Legislature adopted, passed the fresh water wetland act in 1975 and they distinguish between different types of lands that have characteristics of a generic wetland and they include a swamp, a marsh, a flat, a bog and a slough. Now, these different types of wetlands have different characteristics and maybe you can do some things in some of these types of wetlands that shouldn’t or can’t do in others. We do not distinguish between these. Everything is lumped in to this generic wetland. Councilman Boor-John, I think in an ideal world, I do not think we would want to build in any of what you just described. If you look at DEC and Army Corp. a lot of their determinations are based on flora, soils, modeling, and that is probably where they refine those terms that you came from. But, I think what we are really getting at we would prefer to not have buildings put in a marsh, buildings put in a bog, in a lake, in a pond. Mr. Salvador-Filling and dredging are the two things that we do. 12 Councilman Strough-John, we do have a definition of wetland in Chapter 94 that does expand on what you were saying it is the same definition that the DEC uses, word for word. So, you may want to look at it and see if it addresses all the things that you are asking it to. I think it does. Mr. Salvador-I can only refer to an application here it is probably a year old or more somewhere on Ridge Road here where we had some wetlands. The applicant had a permit from and was talking about a permit from the Army Corp. of Engineer that allowed a quarter of an acre of wetland to be filled. Is that what we want, I do not know. Councilman Sanford-No, it is a valid point now, here is what is relevant here ok, in that particular case if they had a permit from the Army Corp. of Engineers to allow that act that would not constrain presumably the Planning Board from requiring a fresh water permit and if they did not want to, not issuing it. So, while some federal or other governmental agency may take an action that we may not agree with the freshwater permit of Queensbury is the Queensbury’s Town Code and it can be stricter and we can enforce our need for the permit in order for the project to move forward. So, it can actually be beneficial in that regard. Mr. Salvador-But will you. Councilman Boor-As a Board of Health we will, I can’t speak for the Planning Board or the Zoning Board. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Salvador. Councilman Strough-Lands and waters and this is in Code 94 and like I said this is the same that DEC has, lands and waters lying within the boundaries of the Town of Queensbury as shown on a freshwater wetlands map which contain any or all the following; lands and submerged lands commonly called marshes, swamps, sloughs, bogs and flats, just as you said, supporting, and then it goes on it has a whole list of describing, it goes onto the next page. So, your concern I think has been addressed. You may want to look at it. Mr. Salvador-All of them lumped into the same generic term wetland. Councilman Strough-Chapter 94 page 3. Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing tonight? Seeing none, does the Board object if I close the public hearing? Unknown-Go ahead close it. Supervisor Stec-Anybody? We will close this public hearing we will not take action on it until we either hear back or forty five days has expired and Stu will update the Board tomorrow. 3.0CORRESPONDENCE NONE 4.0INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE 5.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road, Queensbury Questioned the 1% increase in County Sales Tax? 13 Supervisor Stec-I do not think there is a lot of support for it right now. The County will th have a special meeting on September 7 and we will then know what direction this may or may not take. Mr. Tucker-What is your take on it? Supervisor Stec-I think if we are going to build some of these other buildings we have some debt that is out there if it was something between zero and one percent that was ear marked for a specific purpose so control property taxes and then it either went away or forced to be looked at, at another public hearing and more State Legislation and allowed to go beyond a sunset then I think myself and a lot of other people on the Board would feel more comfortable about it. We have an eighty year old building and the falling down and we have been working on a suitable replacement at a price that is reasonable and we can afford we have not found that either. Mr. Tucker-If this was to happen would the Town of Queensbury continue to return sales tax to the County for property tax? Supervisor Stec-It depends on how it is structured. The way it has been discussed at the County so far has been that the additional 1% would be County share, not shared with the Towns, it would not affect our revenue at all. We would look at our rebate to the County every year. Mr. Tucker-It could be used some other place, the rebate that you give to the County could be used for some other thing that the Town wants to do. Supervisor Stec-The rebate is a misnomer in the sense that what it is, is a down payment on the towns share of the property taxes. It is a credit toward the towns share of the County Property tax. Mr. Tucker-Mr. Salvador was questioning how the library budget was handled as far as the town is concerned, your attorneys said you were doing this right? Supervisor Stec-Last year when this came up that is what our Attorney said. Dr. Mark Hoffman-Fox Hollow Lane Re: Sales Tax issue There is a statement in the Draft Comprehensive Plan which states that Warren Co. has the highest per capital sales tax revenue in any County in the State. Why do we need to raise our taxes we are already bring in such high revenues? Re: Connector Road Are there going to be sidewalks? Councilman Strough-One idea that was floated and we decided to put it away until we get the Connector Road done was to put a lighted multi mobile pathway that would connect Main Street with Luzerne Road, located on the Northway side. Dr. Hoffman-I would strongly encourage either sidewalks or some sort of pedestrian access noted the Tribune Building will employ a large number of people is going to be a short distance of Main Street, one of the towns goals in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to try to create more of a pedestrian friendly commercial district along Main Street. This is a road that has not been built yet but no arrangements have been made for pedestrian amenities. Councilman Strough-We should follow up on the concept that was brought up. Councilman Brewer-Noted that could be brought up at the time of the work shop with B&L. Mr. John Salvador-Re: Library Budget Further to Mr. Tucker’s comment on the advice you got concerning the issue of whether or not you should include the Library Budget in your Town Budget, I read to you the bond prospectus does tell bond holders that this is the procedure and you will follow that. The Counsel you had last year is no longer your counsel and the Counsel you have this year has already opined on this subject. Certainly 14 legal matters will be passed upon for the underwriters by Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth PC G.F. N.Y. Your current Counsel has participated in the preparation of this prospectus, that mandates that you include this in your town budget is something they have opined on. We would expect it be part of the Town Budget. I would like a copy of the library budget, I can foil that if you think it is necessary. Councilman Boor-Noted that he did not believe that we have received the library budget. Councilman Sanford-My understanding is John, that it eventually finds its way to their web site. Mr. Salvador-They usually have a public hearing in October, this is after you got your preliminary budget in place. Councilman Sanford-That is correct and also after they have put the proposal for the language. I attended that public hearing because the library’s representation was. that is the way in which the public understands all these things. I think there was you and me and two other people that showed up at the public hearing. I think the disclosure needs to be made available to the public. Mr. Salvador-RE: A letter address from Mr. Salvador to DEC concerning wastewater discharge at 2999 State Route 9L. I was hit with the comment that this is a system that has failed that you installed. It is true I had a part in certain aspects of this system. The part I played is twenty to twenty five years old, you cannot expect these systems to last forever. Not only that it is being used differently from the basis for which I installed in and used it. The real problem with this system in addition to the fact it is being used differently and more intensively than we ever used it and that is the issue of storm water. Some has channeled, since we operated the property, someone has taken the liberty to channel all of the roof run off and parking lot run off down the slope and onto the top of the infiltration system, we were channeling it in a different direction. This problem at this facility is going to come up again we have two other projects in North Queensbury marching through the approval process of this town that will involve participation by the Health Dept. as temporary residences and participation by DEC because they are in the Lake George Basin. The Town will play a minor role because the capacity is over a thousand gallons you will not be involved. I think the issue of compounding storm water management on top of waste water management in the same poor soils we have got to come to grips with. Councilman Boor-This surfaced in the Rockhurst area where we had several engineers come forward and propose leach fields within a foot of the road and after reviewing it. Further not only did we find out there were deed restrictions in a subdivision plat that required that the ten foot area be left undeveloped but it is very clear as you pointed out it’s the last thing you want to do is be plowing snow onto these systems that are really undersized for the types of use that they are taking, not only are they taking the effluent the sewage from inside the house but now they are being expected also to deal with snow banks and storm water run off. Clearly on some of the lots it is impossibility. It is very obvious in some places perhaps your former building is a little bit off the radar because one would not anticipate that the lot size would have the types of problems that obviously are occurring now. Mr. Salvador-Fundamental to the problem that is going on now is the fact that our zoning administrator has failed to make a determination that what is going on there the way the property is being managed and operated constitutes an expansion of a non conforming use, this is a residential area it is a commercial business. When they expand the use of the facility they are supposed to go to a site plan and if a site plan had been done on this we wouldn’t have the storm water from a huge parking lot and all this water shedding off the roof tops on top of a wastewater system. Mr. David Strainer-1124 Ridge Road Re: 1% sales tax increase Questioned where the meeting is going to be held? 15 Supervisor Stec-In the Board Room but I am not certain, it will be published where the site will be. Mr. Strainer-Trying to find out before the election who felt which way about it so they couldn’t hide after the election and all vote for the increase. Supervisor Stec-I think you will have a lot of direction from a lot of people on that th meeting on September 7 where ever it is. Mr. Strainer-Re: Cool Insurance / Warren County I had a problem with the Cool Insurance vote. I do think it is a conflict of interest when the Chairman of the majority party of the County and maybe there is no conflict but unfortunately the appearance of the conflict is there especially when people are looking for endorsements and they are trying to further their careers, politics, I feel it puts a bad light in Cool Insurance which is a fine company in the Town of Queensbury they employ a large number of employees. Unfortunately we could do away with this problem if Mr. Grasso chose not to be the Chairman of the Party and that form of influence would not be seen by the public. I feel there was a conflict of interest I understand you felt it was bi partisan there are three democrats on that Board I don’t know Supervisor Stec-And none of them objected and none of them voted no. Mr. Strainer-Was their fairness to the other people that bid especially when they said Cool got to go through and view the Sheriff’s and view Westmount, were these other companies notified that they had that opportunity also? I like the fact that we use a local company, I do not have a problem with that. I don’t find it a good feeling to think that something is miss here and I do not think it is fair to the taxpayers. If it appears to be a conflict then chances are it is. Mr. Doug Auer-RE: Cool Insurance In line with what Bill Kenny had asked it seems to me that coming from industry that in the RFP that sort of consideration would have been spelled out. Questioned if it was described in the RFP? If the bidders were given an opportunity to reduce the claim by a hundred thousand dollars is there was some consideration, what would you call forgoing the first years fee for this the forty thousand dollars what would you call that? Supervisor Stec-I do not know what it would be called. Mr. Auer-Questioned if there was a provision in the RFP for this? Supervisor Stec-I do not know if it was or wasn’t. Mr. Auer-The other thing that I’m puzzled about is that it’s my understanding that were ten bidders and the idea was that the top 5 bidders or best 5 would be chosen for th consideration and I guess Cool Insurance was 6 in the pecking order as I understand this and one of the best five was thrown out for some reason, so that Cool then dropped into slot number 5, you don’t remember that either. Supervisor Stec-I am not a member of that committee I was not involved in the deliberations or any interview Mr. Auer. There are thirty committees up there I did not participate in the interview or selection process until the very end when it came to the vote. I cannot give you every detail. Mr. Auer-Perhaps, if you could find out about that and I revisit this at another time, as a matter of fact I will do the research myself. Supervisor Stec-I would encourage you to address County business at the County. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening, hearing none the public comment period was closed. 6.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS 16 WARD 1 COUNCILMAN BOOR ? Addressed the Glen Lake Protective Association-re: District Formation-also heard a speaker at the meeting Ms. Heather Zakrajsek from ES Enviro Science power point presentation on weevil that has been effective in some areas attacking milfoil. ? Received letter from PALS Protective Association of Lake Sunnyside they have qualified for grant funding for eradication of nuisance species and they are looking here for a matching portion and they are also trying to form a district. ? Would like Ms. Zakraisek do a power point presentation to this Board for a televised meeting ? Noted in Ward I there are a lot of people that do not have the availability of Cable TV. Since we are soon entering into another contract one of the things would be helpful if we asked for greater latitude for some of these residences that are off the beaten path. Councilman Sanford-noted that there is an area on Queensbury Avenue that also does not have Cable TV. The demand along Queensbury Avenue is the internet connection. ? I think we should establish a better relationship with DOT specifically on 149. noted dangerous area on 149 between the golf course and Bay Road intersection there was a proposal for flattening of that area for better sight distances and straightening the road, it is not only a safety issue but there is commercial property that could be utilized if that road was safer, straighter and flatter. Asked that a letter be sent to DOT. Supervisor Stec-I have a meeting this Friday with DOT to talk about that specific stretch of road. I gather it is on DOT’s 2008 work schedule. Councilman Brewer-Noted that the Cable contract is coming up do we sit down with them and go over the contract page by page? Councilman Boor-We can approach it however we want, they are federally regulated and there is very little we can demand we would be foolish not to ask. I would advocate that we have a meeting right away with Time Warner. Supervisor Stec-We need to do that and our Attorneys are aware of it also. Councilman Strough-The contract was up in April 2007 that contract dealt with an analog world as of 2009 the analog world is going to be history all digital world, the contract will not be cut and dry. Even the State does not have the answers to some of our questions that we were asking. We need to have the State get re-involved and see if they now have the answers to our questions. We may want to get professional help in working out the best contract we can. We should go with the minimum five year contract and see how the digital world works. Councilman Brewer-Noted there is not much wiggle room in the contract. WARD II COUNCILMAN SANFORD ? Tribune Media noted e-mail that they were planning on executing the standard pilot agreement around 8/15/2007 has this been done? Supervisor Stec-To my knowledge they have not. Councilman Sanford-I want to make sure they go through with the standard pilot. ? Main Street Underground Utilities – costs of electrical, phone and Cable utilities would be higher than previously anticipated I urged for a public hearing so the people could be brought up to date and make comments on the project. Projected at one million dollars for a one mile project now we are being told the cost when you add in soft costs will be close to four million dollars, this is a very material increase. I think the goal is desirable but my concern is about the fiscal impacts. 17 I did some basic calculations, just an idea of what we may be talking about if the town goes forward and is responsible for the costs then it would cost the average household in Queensbury $325.00 based on an average assessment of 240,000. for others that are assessed at a different level it would be $1.36 per thousand. I certainly did not support the formation of a village up in North Queensbury but if you are talking some of those properties that are worth a million bucks you are talking about $1,360. for this one mile stretch of road in terms of underground utilities. I am not digging into a position but I do feel very strongly when these types of things come up that we have a responsibility to make sure the public knows about them because these decisions have an impact on them. ? Need status update on the proposal from Mike Wilbur. He is an expert in analyzing fire equipment we asked him to take a look at our companies here and come up with a schedule what he anticipates would be appropriate equipment for the companies as well as a replacement schedule. Supervisor Stec-I sent him an e-mail last week asking for the proposal. ? Ltr. from Hiland Park they wish to move forward with a phase on one of their units. We re-opened the SEQRA on Hiland Park PUD because there was a project on the other side of the road being contemplated that was in what appeared to be a wetland. DEC delineated it and where it stands the applicant was informed that they need to get a surveyor and put it on a map, to my knowledge nothing has been done. I think we need to say to the developer in this case proposing the office building if you are going to move forward give us the mapping so we can deal with that project and we will make a decision whether or not it can move forward. Then I think we as a Board need to perform a SEQRA which we will likely conclude that within the PUD which is huge we are going to find the soil conditions are mixed and in some cases there is potential major limitations because of water problems and other areas suitable. Logical conclusion is to pass a resolution merely specifying that all future developments be subject to SEQRA review, code compliance regarding wetland regulations and be treated on an individual basis. We are being held up because the application for the office building never moved it forward. Supervisor Stec-What kind of answer should I give the Glen, they are stuck between the Planning Board and Zoning Board because they were told they are in a holding pattern. Councilman Boor-That is unfair to the Glen because the other applicant won’t move on it. Councilman Sanford-The applicant for the office building has walked away and not come back and we have to say either come back or at the next workshop, before then I will discuss it with the Attorneys and find out whether it is a denial whether it is a pos deck or what ever the recommendation is on that one if they do not move forward and respond to our request. They may respond to the request in which case we did have the delineation from DEC and it is looking questionable. In terms of moving forward in the future I think we want to make sure that the Planning Board can review the application in a prudent manner and not hold up any applicant. Supervisor Stec-Is it at a state where the Planning Board can do the SEQRA on what the Glen is trying to do and move that along? Councilman Sanford-Not until we basically give it back to them Dan. We took it from the Planning Board at their request and we started dealing with it. I will talk to the lawyers I will also talk to staff and I think staff needs to communicate what the lawyers tell me is the appropriate message. ? Election season is here notice all the signs, noted some of his signs are missing he had not removed them. I think it is important for all people involved in this fall election to respect the law and not steal election signs. Councilman Boor-I would second that, in as much as I have not taken down my signs either in northern Queensbury, I would 18 like to think that they stay there when I put them there. You do not have to like me or my opponent but you need to respect the system. WARD III COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH ? Main Street development has gone on for several years, Underground utilities deals with all the utilities, natural gas, water, sewer, telephone, cable and electricity fiber optics there are a lot of figures you could spew around a lot those figures I just heard recently are kind of dubious so don’t take them too seriously. Everything is depending on a court case and I hope that we hear shortly a judgment on this so we will await that. ? Fire Marshal report – noted on how busy that office is, 281 Commercial occupancy inspections, CO inspections 218, Solid Fuel Inspections 63, re-inspections 320, smoke detectors 62, telephone conferences 1857 Thanked the Fire Marshal for his monthly activity report. ? A resident sent me an article regarding, Paris, people that want to go from one place to another, there are free bicycles available so you take the bike from point A to point B and leave bicycle do whatever they want and then go back to the bicycle spot and take another bicycle and go back to another bicycle drop off. ? Recently we have had two kids die from riding their bikes on busy roads, we are talking about widening the shoulders that is good an accommodates the adults I do not think it accommodates the children well if you are talking about some of the higher speed roads like West Mountain Road, we are not giving too many opportunities for your young people to be able to bicycle from point A to point B, we need to develop a net work of off road pedestrian multi mobile paths that are just safe, safe for kids. WARD IV COUNCILMAN BREWER ? Dan Ryan will be at the workshop to talk about Michaels and other projects in the Town? Supervisor Stec-Yes. ? Wanted to thank the Highway Dept. for quick response on Veterans Road, they did a beautiful job there, they widened that and made a turning lane. TOWN SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC ? I am a member of the Board of Directors of Literacy Northeast New York and recently I became their next President. This represents the areas of Saratoga,Warren and Washington Counties. Proclamation for Literacy Awareness Month (signed by the Queensbury Town Board Members) Whereas, more than thirty thousand adults in our community read or write below a fifth grade level and Whereas, low literacy skills prevent individuals from reaching their full potential as employees, parents and community members and Whereas, in order to make a difference in the lives of these citizens and their families it is critical to raise awareness about the importance and implication of literacy in our daily lives increasing knowledge and support and appreciation for literacy. Now, Therefore, we the Town Board of Queensbury, State of New York do hereby proclaim the month of September, 2007 to be Literacy Awareness Month in the Town of Queensbury. 19 ? Noted that the Highway Dept did a great job on Veterans Road. Also thanked the Highway Dept. for removing the concrete slab that was the base for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad allowing the continuation of the building of the Connector Road in West Glens Falls. The six contractors working on the Connector Road project have coordinated very well. ? Town’s website www.queensbury.net thanked Glens Falls National and TV8 for televising our meetings. 7.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING WARREN COUNTY TO RETAIN SALES TAX REVENUES AND OFFSET PROPERTY TAXES RESOLUTION NO.: 375, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Warren County receives sales tax revenues resulting from sales transactions taking place within the County and a substantial portion of such transactions occur within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, portions of the Warren County sales tax revenues are annually allocated and paid to the municipalities of Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has lowered Town residents’ County tax in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 by authorizing Warren County to withhold sales tax revenue, and WHEREAS, the Town Board would like to again authorize sales tax to be withheld by Warren County which would be applied to reduce 2008 Warren County property taxes, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the current total fund balance again exceeds the reasonable amount needed for revenue stabilization, cash flow, contingencies, and contemplated capital projects, and the Town Board wishes to again undertake a reduction of county taxes on Queensbury property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 20 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes Warren County to retain $2,000,000 of Warren County sales tax revenues allocated to the Town of Queensbury in 2008 and apply such revenues to reduce the annual County property taxes on real property in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board requests that Warren County evenly redistribute the annual amount(s) to be retained, thereby retaining the Town’s sales tax rebate on a quarterly basis, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file a certified copy of this Resolution with Warren County’s Chief Fiscal Officer by st mailing such Resolution by registered or certified mail before September 1, 2007 in order to take effect for the calendar year 2008, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk, Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to provide any other required st documentation to Warren County prior to September 1, 2007 and take any and all other action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-There is no right or wrong number here it is really a range, there is pressure to keep it as a certain level but the higher it is the less repeatable it is which is obviously a concern for some people. I will point out that when we increased it to two and a half million then the following year we cut it back to two million that half a million dollar less rebate contributed to half of the County tax rate increase. I am not saying that the County there isn’t room for improvement at the County but when people start complaining about eleven percent increase five and a half percent of that was a smaller rebate. So, the more that this changes the more variability there is in the County tax rate and so there is pressure to keep it there. Certainly repeatability is a concern. Councilman Sanford-We came to the realization that at this rate of two million dollars unless we either see a material increase in sales tax revenue or a reduction in town spending it is going to be hard to continue this two million dollar credit for all that must longer. The goal for the majority of the Board was to try to find a level that we could stick with and be able to do it for quite a long period of time. So, it may very well be that we can control costs and we have to continue to do that and it maybe the sales tax 21 revenues will increase but if they don’t, what was projected? In about three years? I do not think that is what we are looking for. We would like to see this perpetuate longer. Councilman Brewer-I agree but the other thing we have to keep in mind and we have to stress to our County Supervisors is they have to be more creative and spend less as we do. They have to work with us, just because we leave two million dollars there doesn’t give them a free ride. Supervisor Stec-Next year assuming that we pass this will be the fifth year that the Town has issued a rebate and when you add up the total of all five years of rebates that is seven million eight hundred and seventy five thousand dollars that went to lower County Taxes for folks in Queensbury. Historically our sales tax revenues have gone up I expect them to continue to go up but the rate and how long this will be repeatable is a moving target. I think five years and almost eight million dollars is a pretty admirable accomplishment in and of it itself and it will continue I am sure for the next few years. RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON MARIANNE MC DONOUGH DBA GRAYCOURT MOTEL AND THOMAS J. MC DONOUGH LAW OFFICE’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136 – SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL RESOLUTION NO.: 376, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Marianne McDonough dba GrayCourt Motel and Thomas J. McDonough Law Office (the McDonoughs) have applied to the Local Board of Health for a § second variance/waiver from 136-44, as the McDonoughs have requested an exemption from the Town’s connection requirements to connect their Graycourt Motel and Law Office properties to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as: connection with the lower Motel units must be constructed in a way to avoid destruction of a 200 year old sprawling oak tree; in addition to excavating earth, all connections will entail excavation of over 500 linear feet of black top and returning it to original condition after connection would require complete resurfacing costing anywhere between $52,500 to $88,000 - a financial hardship; current sewage disposal systems are in excellent working condition and are used two months per year at best so it would not be cost effective to connect; the Motel Office with seasonal residence is occupied during the same time period as the Motel and the house facilities are for private use only – not public; and the Law Office and Gift Shop separate from the Motel are open by appointment and have no regular employees other than the 22 th owner and his daughter; all as more fully set delineated in the McDonough’s June 30, 2007 letter and application presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold th a hearing on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Marianne McDonough dba GrayCourt Motel and Thomas J. McDonough Law Office (the McDonoughs)’s sewer connection variance/waiver application concerning the properties delineated in the preambles of this Resolution and located at 1082 and 1088 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.’s: 296.9-1-8 and 296.9-1-9), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to the McDonoughs as required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON JEFFREY SCHWARTZ’ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE LAMIRAGE HAIR DESIGN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 980 STATE ROUTE 9 RESOLUTION NO.: 377. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary 23 sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Jeffrey Schwartz has applied to the Town Board for a second § variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for an extension of the Town’s connection requirements to connect the LaMirage Hair Design property located at 980 State Route 9 to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District as the Applicant states that the property has a properly functioning septic system, as set forth in the Applicant’s application presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a hearing on Monday, th September 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Jeffrey Schwartz’ sewer connection variance/waiver application concerning the LaMirage Hair Design property located at 980 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-67), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to the Applicant required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TIM BURCH TO CARRY OVER UNUSED VACATION TIME RESOLUTION NO.: 378. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough 24 WHEREAS, Tim Burch, Maintenance Supervisor in the Town of Queensbury’s Water Department, has requested Town Board authorization to carry over 8½ days of st unused vacation time beyond his September 1, 2007 employment anniversary date, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board approve such request, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Tim Burch to st carry over 8½ days of vacation time, such time to be utilized by December 1, 2007. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION APPOINTING DEIRDRE BRENNAN AS AQUATICS SUPERVISOR RESOLUTION NO. 379. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Recreation Commission and Director of Parks and Recreation (Director) recommend appointment of a full-time Aquatics Supervisor in the Parks and Recreation Department, and WHEREAS, the Recreation Commission and Director posted availability for the vacant, full-time position in accordance with the Warren County Civil Service Department, reviewed resumes and interviewed interested candidates, and WHEREAS, the Recreation Commission Personnel Committee and Director have made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 25 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby endorses the appointment of Deirdre Breannan as Aquatics Supervisor, an overtime exempt and Grade 5 position within th the Town of Queensbury’s Non-Union Position Grade Schedule, effective August 20, 2007 or the date thereafter that she commences in such position, on a provisional basis subject to her successful completion of: 1) a pre-employment physical required by Town Policy; 2) a six month probation period; 3) a Warren County Civil Service Exam, if applicable; and 4) any other Civil Service requirements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Brennan shall be paid an annual salary of $32,561, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK MARILYN HAMMOND AND AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF ACCOUNT CLERK CONNIE GEBO TO SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 380. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Town Fiscal Manager has advised that Marilyn Hammond, Senior Account Clerk in the Accounting Department, has submitted her resignation, and 26 WHEREAS, the Town Fiscal Manager and Town Board wish to acknowledge Ms. Hammond’s years of service to the Town of Queensbury and accept her resignation, and WHEREAS, the Town Fiscal Manager has recommended the promotion of Connie Gebo from Account Clerk to Senior Account Clerk, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts with regret the resignation of Senior Account Clerk Marilyn Hammond and wishes Ms. Hammond the best of luck and good health, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the promotion of Connie Gebo from Account Clerk to Senior Account Clerk, a Grade 5 position within the Town of th Queensbury, effective August 20, 2007, subject to any Warren County Civil Service requirements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Gebo shall receive a salary increase of $1 per hour, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF BARBARA EDMUNDS AS ACCOUNT CLERK 27 RESOLUTION NO. 381. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by prior Resolution, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the promotion of Connie Gebo from Account Clerk to Senior Account Clerk, and WHEREAS, such promotion has created a vacancy in the Account Clerk position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to accept the application of a current employee within the Community Development Department, Barbara Edmunds, for the position of Account Clerk, and WHEREAS, it is the Town of Queensbury’s policy to consider internal candidates in order to foster good working relationships and therefore the Town Board wishes to appoint current Community Development Department Administrative Assistant Barbara Edmunds to the position of Account Clerk, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the appointment of Barbara Edmunds as Account Clerk, a Grade 4 position within the Town of th Queensbury, effective August 20, 2007 subject to any Warren County Civil Service requirements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Edmunds shall receive the same salary in the Account Clerk position as she currently receives in the Administrative Assistant position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms, budget amendments and take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: 28 AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING ROBERT EDWARDS TO TOWN CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 382. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, the term of Cemetery Commission member Robert Edwards recently expired and the Town Board wishes to re-appoint Mr. Edwards to the Commission for another three year term, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Robert Edwards to serve as a member of the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission until such term st expires on December 31, 2010. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held: Supervisor Stec-Thanked Mr. Edwards for his service to the town as well as the other members of the Cemetery Commission. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR BILLING AND COLLECTION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 383. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough 29 SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Emergency Squads have requested that the Purchasing Agent and Town Fiscal Manager obtain authorization from the Town Board to distribute a Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified companies for the billing and collection of emergency services, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize distribution of such RFP, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to distribute a Request for Proposals for the billing and collection of emergency services, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-The Town to date has collected one and a half million dollars in EMS Bill for services, this is insurance money. This has facilitated paid day time staff and lowered the tax rate. We have increased the service and safety out there and reduced response time, we are getting better service more quickly than before they have better facilities, better gear and we are paying less money for it. Thanked the squads for their support. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF AUGUST 20, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 384. 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer 30 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of August 15, 2007 and a payment date of August st 21, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thst run date of August 15, 2007 and payment date of August 21, 2007 totaling $585,415.30, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 385.2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury