1994-01-31
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 31, 1994
7:00 P.M.
MTG #8
RES. 61-69
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
FRED CHAMPAGNE-SUPERVISOR
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
R. GEORGE WISW ALL-COUNCILMAN
NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN
CAROL PULVER-COUNCILMAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
JAMES MARTIN, MIKE SHAW, HELEN OTTE
PRESS: GF Post Star, Moreau Sun
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN WISW ALL
Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order ... first, I'd like to extend my appreciation for all of you that
made it to tonight's meeting. The first item on the agenda is a discussion North Queensbury Sewer.
DISCUSSION - NORTH QUEENSBURY SEWER
Supervisor Champagne-I just want to again, recognize those of you that are here tonight that have served
on our committee in the past in looking at the North Queensbury Sewering project. Last week I met with
the county group along with our engineers to take another look at the sewering at North Queensbury and in
the process of looking at it, they have come back with another option that although it was on the books
early on, we haven't really been studying it over the past year or so. So, we're at that point now and I think
it's up to us, those of us that have been involved most recently, to proceed ahead with the Village of Lake
George. I think we have a viable plan here that at least we want to study further to see in fact if it's going to
be a workable plan and a doable plan. With that, I'd like to introduce to you Bill Remington, the Deputy
Superintendent of Public Works for Warren County.
Mr. Bill Remington-I'm very fortunate to have worked with the advisory committee through this last year
for the North Queensbury Sewer Project. Working with the committee and closely with Clough Harbor we
once again looked at everything, we talked with Lake George in detail and they were willing to talk to us
about allowing North Queensbury to go into the Village of Lake George Sewer Treatment Plant and also
for the effluent disposal as well. It's a good development that they accepted, at least they would consider
accepting sewage from Queensbury in order to make the project work for everybody. We have Hague,
Bolton, Lake George and now hopefully, North Queensbury back into the project. I don't know if there's
any questions of a technical nature, Shawn Veltman from Clough Harbor is here to answer those. Any
questions in regard to how the county is administering this project, I can answer those.
Mr. Shawn Veltman-Again, my name is Shawn Veltman, I'm with Clough Harbor and Associates. Our
firm has been retained by Warren County to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact
statements and the design work for the Warren County Sewer Project and as Bill indicated, I too was
fortunate to be able to work with the members of the Queensbury Advisory Committee over the course of
about a six month time frame. At this point in time, I guess procedurally what we're looking to do, the
county is proposing to move forward with what is known as Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement and the purpose of that document is to re-open the examination of alternatives for handling the
wastewater management needs within North Queensbury. As most people here are aware, when the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Warren County Sewer Project first came out, the proposal was to
construct a central collection system in the area of North Queensbury that would encompass Assembly
Bay, Cleverdale, Rockhurst area and convey that sewage, after treatment to a subsurface disposal site that
was located tentatively off of Bay Road and Pickle Hill Road. That option met with a considerable amount
of public concern and as a result of that the committee was established to open up the investigation of
alternatives. We did meet here and there were a number of new options that were introduced. Some of
those involved, treatment and wetlands discharge into the lake itself. There was a proposal to construct a
constructed fill system behind the North Queensbury Fire House site and go into the ground at that
location. Also, an option of limited wastewater management would involve the construction of cluster
systems in that area of North Queensbury with holding tanks for those properties that couldn't be
accommodated by individual onsite cluster systems. The purpose of the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, one of the concerns that the county had is that in order to move forward with that, we did
not want to be in a position where we were the last time, to go down the road with an alternative only to
find that there was alot of opposition to that. We've already heard that there are some concerns from some
of the neighboring residents in the area of the North Queensbury Fire House site. And one option that we
know of that was initially considered in the DEIS was the concept of conveying the sewage from North
Queensbury to the Village of Lake George Wastewater Treatment Plant and there's two ways we can do
that. Either we can treat it first in Queensbury and then convey treated effluent to the Village Treatment
Plant and discharge it into the rapid infiltration percolation beds that they maintain. Or another option
might be to convey raw sewage directly from that area which would mean there would be no treatment in
Queensbury and then take it to the Village of Lake George Treatment Plant and expand the plant and then
go into the beds at that location. It's an option which before we elected to consider as part as the options
that would be looked at in the Supplemental EIS. We first wanted to gain the support or at least an
indication from the Village of Lake George whether or not that would be an acceptable option to them
because obviously there could be some concerns over the quantities of additional sewage that would have
to be handled by that facility. As Supervisor Champagne indicated, there was a resolution by the Village
Board on Friday morning which indicated that they would entertain, favorably entertain the consideration
of a plan which did involve the discharge of sewage in their treating facility. So, what the county is
looking to do at this point in time is to gain concurrent from the Queensbury Town Board as well as the
Village of the Lake George and to move forward with the preparation of the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement which is essentially like starting over the Environmental Impact Statement process for
this part of the project. What it would mean is moving forward with an evaluation of the alternatives that
were, the additional alternatives that were raised by the committee as well as further exploration of the
option of going to the Village of Lake George. At some point in time, a decision would have to be made on
which of those options would be pursued in more detail to be presented as a recommended option in the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Once that determination and decision had been made, that
recommended option would be presented at a public hearing and there would be an opportunity for public
comment to be solicited. We plan initially to have a scoping session for the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement that would allow public input in terms of the types of issues that would be raised and
discussed in that document and hopefully after we go through the process, we'll be able to come to terms
with a solution that meets the needs of everybody that's involved. What we're hoping to do is try and finish
up the project. As Bill has stated, the county has moved forward, we have solutions proposed for Hague,
for Bolton, for Lake George and now, the only missing piece of the puzzle is to try resolve a solution for
the area of North Queensbury. The county is proposing to undertake this. They've evaluated the funds that
are available under the special item that they had received from the state to conduct these studies and
they're prepared to advance this document at no cost to the town, it would come out of the funds that were
appropriated with the project. Basically, I think what they're looking for is support from the Town Board
tonight as to whether or not you would like to move forward in the direction that's been outlined.
Councilman Monahan-What options are you going to look at under the Supplemental EIS?
Mr. Veltman-The specific options that we had identified in our, in the narrative discussion of the options
that we would look at is, are the options that were originally presented in the DEIS, there was a number of
those. Some of those would be eliminated because of the changes in the law with the Great Lakes Water
Conservation and Management Act, it is no longer permissible to discharge sewage of the basin without
first securing the approval of the eight, I think it's eight Governors of the Great Lakes States that are in the
Great Lakes Basin. So, that eliminates some of the options that were originally considered. But we would
look at the remaining ones and one of those is of course the option of treating or taking the sewage to the
Village of Lake George Treatment Plant. In addition to that, the options that had been proposed and
developed by the advisory committee would be examined in the DEIS and they include the concept of
collecting the sewage in Queensbury, conveying it to a site for treatment and through an artificial wetlands
with discharge into the lake. I have to say that there are some serious concerns about that option because in
violation right now of the Lake George law, it would require an amendment of the Lake George law. We
would also look at the option of treatment and subsurface discharge at a site behind the North Queensbury
Fire House. And lastly, we would look at the option, what I call, the limiting and sewering option which
would look at installing and constructing cluster systems where it was possible to try and solve as many of
the problems in North Queensbury as could be done on a limited scale basis and relying on holding tanks
and pump out situations for those that could not be resolved. Those are the options that we would propose
to explore in the Supplemental EIS.
Mr. John Salvador-I'm a resident of North Queensbury. It's my understanding that you're entertaining this
discussion in an effort to access whether or not you should pass a similar resolution supporting what we've
heard tonight?
Supervisor Champagne-That's correct.
Mr. Salvador-That resolution is not listed here.
Supervisor Champagne-I understand that and the reason it's not is because we received the resolution on
Friday afternoon as printed by the county and these are in the hands of the Board members on Thursday.
So, obviously it's going to be a new entry for you and I and the rest of them.
Mr. Salvador-Is a copy of that available for us.
(Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell issued extra copies to Mr. Salvador and others in the audience)
Mr. Salvador-I attended the Lake George Village Board meeting on Friday morning. There was no
discussion pertaining to permission to allow their plant to be used for this arrangement. Their resolution
reflects their agreement that a study would be undertaken but in no way has permission been given by the
Village or anyone to entertain the thought of expanding that plant. That was not the nature of their
resolution. I don't have a copy of it but I did attend the meeting.
Mr. Remington-That's correct, what we talked about with Lake George last week and what was proposed to
them as a resolution was in fact to consider accepting the sewage from Queensbury. We're not asking
anybody to commit themselves to anything at this time except for, be aware and approve that we are going
to look at closer in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Mr. Veltman-Without the facts that would be contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, it would be our opinion that it would be inappropriate to draft or adopt a binding resolution that
would bind either the Village of Lake George to go forward with any particular option or the Town. What
we were attempting to try to do is to at least get on the record that there was willingness to consider these
options so that we did not pursue an alternative and then get down the road and ...
Mr. Salvador-That's my point.
Councilman Caimano-We should actually read a certain portion of this under the whereas clauses it talks
about developing a plan and under the resolved clause it talks about, resolved that the Town Board supports
this action as long as cost associated with the preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement will be funded entirely by Warren County and with the understanding that should the proposal
prove viable, remember, I just said, should the proposal prove viable, the town will not be obligated to
proceed with construction or undertake operation of any sewage system or incur any costs without further
approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury which approval will rest with the sole discretion
of the said town board. So, we're talking about a plan. We're not talking about committing money, we're
not talking about committing anything. We're talking about a plan and we should keep that in mind while
we're talking about these things.
Mr. Salvador-Just a comment. The plan can lead to the establishment of an authority and the authority
would have the power to sell the bonds, raise the money and construct the system. You, I, no one has a
voice in the proceedings of that establishment.
Councilman Caimano-I don't recognize that from this document. Do you Paul?
Mr. Salvador-Exactly, my point.
Attorney Dusek-I think what Mr. Salvador is getting at is that, this document, I think Nick was absolutely
right, that it's nothing more then support of an environmental impact study which is something you have to
do before you can do anything else anyway and it does nothing more then that and it commits the town to
nothing else. In fact it doesn't even commit the town to fund the cost, it's up to Warren County. Now, as
far as an authority goes, that's something that would have to be created legislatively and I presume John
that you're concerned that maybe that will come about through the efforts of the county.
Mr. Salvador-Yes.
Attorney Dusek-But that to me is a county issue that, this right here in and of itself is not going to either
trigger or not trigger that.
Mr. Salvador-Alright. Anyway, with regard to the Village, I want you to know I went to the Village Board.
There was mention here earlier of the Great Lakes law, I can't think of something easier to change in my
life. The signature of nine governors, that's not a difficult thing to get when the pressure is there and
believe me, it can happen. So, don't think of that as being impediment to transferring wastewater from the
Lake George Basin to Glens Falls. I am fundamentally against you adopting this resolution. I would like
however to reserve my comments after I've heard the comments of any of those who might be in favor of
you doing this and I defer to that later on.
Councilman Monahan-Fred, may I interject a minute because I'm not sure what we're discussing here
because I purposely asked the engineer what options the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
was going to cover and yet this resolution that we're passing here for the SEIS only mentions those options
that are connected with the Village of Lake George Wastewater Treatment Plant. So, is seems to me when
we pass this resolution, we're telling them, forget the other options and just look at the ones at the
wastewater treatment plant and I have a little problem with that.
Mr. Remington-Shawn and I worked with the Advisory Committee for the North Queensbury sewer project
and the county said, we will address the options and the alternatives that the committee talked about.
Councilman Monahan-Then they should be listed in this resolution. I would not feel comfortable passing
this resolution in the manner in which it's written right now.
Mr. Remington-And that's not a problem to do. The only thing, in speaking of costs associated with a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, it's very closely. To look at every option in great detail is
really out of reach for us at this time. Financially, we could not do it. We need to break down and look at
the alternatives that are available, rationalize what is available, what makes sense and try to focus the
details on this. As I say, we will actually address every alternative and if it is not fully investigated or not
alot of detail on it, we'll explain why.
Mr. Veltman-Our intent is to make sure the public is aware of each and every alternative that would be
considered. I was here with the members of the Queensbury Advisory Committee several months ago and
we presented the conclusions of the committee which identified publicly the options that they had explored
and considered would be viable options to be looked at in this study. Since that time, the county has
identified with discussions with the village that, that too is a viable option but before again, putting that up
for discussion, we wanted to bring that out. The purpose of these meetings is solely to bring it to the
forefront of the public early on so if there are major issues that have to be addressed, that we get those out
on the table right up front and we don't get to the end of the process where there are major problems, we get
down the road and we can't change the direction.
Supervisor Champagne-Coming out of that meeting, I was of the opinion, that we're talking conceptually
about a project here working cooperatively with the Village of Lake George that will accept North
Queensbury Sewage. It's my understanding that, that kind of an agreement with the two municipalities will
in fact reinforce or super support, if you will, the objective here to go to Washington and seek federal
funds. In addition to needing that information in place, signed, sealed and delivered, it was further of my
opinion that these other options, seven that are listed, you can't do very much going to Washington with
seven different options. It's my opinion, that if we can nail it down to something that's reasonable and
doable, that we can complete the documentation that will go to Washington for signature and at least seek
federal monies. We know we're not going to go anywhere without the federal dollar. Now, when this
comes back, if you're saying to me that it shuts down all other options, then obviously it's not a very wise
move.
Councilman Monahan-It does. Let's hear from the audience first, then I'll go on with my discussion.
Mr. Karl Kroetz-Mr. Veltman and Mr. Remington were at all these meetings that we had. I was there and
we discussed many things but not once to my knowledge we discussed what all of us are now in the plan
and that is to tie into Lake George Village. We sent a letter, I don't know who it was sent to but it was four
or five options and you know this, you helped us develop it. Now, that was in September and we've heard
nothing until last Friday. My question is, why didn't we discuss at our lengthy committee meetings this
option that we're now saying we want to adopt? I'm not for or against it but I'd like you to explain in
simple terms, what happened after the last meeting that we held.
Mr. Remington-Okay. What happened with the options that the committee discussed, we brought them
before the Lake George Affairs Committee, they were accepted as they should be looked at in an
environmental impact statement. Warren County has already accepted that we will evaluate the options
that the committee considered. That's already gone through the Lake George Affairs Committee and been
approved. Where it stopped was when we got to the Finance Committee coming up with the dollars to do
it.
Mr. Kroetz- When you said we will discuss, are you speaking for Clough Harbor?
Mr. Remington-I'm speaking for Warren County.
Mr. Kroetz-But we asked for the details of these options and how feasible they are. That's what the report
of the committee was asking, not that they just be considered.
Mr. Remington-We will provide details and costs and some information on the alternatives on each
alternative that the committee looked at and concluded at. But we can't go into a level of detail on every
single alternative available because the funding is not there.
Councilman Caimano-Mr. Kroetz's question I don't think is answered. Apparently you went over a number
of alternatives and the alternative you chose was one that you never discussed. Is that right.
Mr. Veltman-Let me say that no alternative has been selected at this point in time. Again, we would
develop the figures to evaluate each alternative, one of them would have to be pursued. I think the
distinction between what is being proposed at this point in time, is the level of detail that would be
expended to look at each option. Each one would be compared on a relative basis to a level of detail
sufficient to make a comparison of the alternatives and allow one to be selected. I will say that, all through
the discussions of the meetings, it was always understood and always my understanding that the other
options that were originally presented in the DEIS were always in consideration and I think that every piece
of correspondence that discussed which options would be discussed, always had a line item that said, and
the other options that had been previously discussed in the DEIS. The committee did not explore those in
great detail other then at the initial meeting, to talk about the options that had already been presented and
the Village of Lake George option, is one that was already discussed and presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The committee specifically focused on identifying additional or new
alternatives that had not previously been discussed, add to the list of options that were to be explored. That
was my understanding.
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, you concern me with what I'm hearing and frankly, I'm hearing alot of
double talk here but I'm going to go into that later. But you said, the environmental impact statement that
you presented and all those options are still to be explored. Are you including the Pickle Hill one that this
whole Board or the other Board was so totally against, as were all the people in Pickle Hill? I don't see the
point of wasting money on an option that isn't going to fly with the town.
Mr. Veltman-No, we will present, we've already done the numbers. Basically, there are a number of factors
when it comes down to a ranking and rating of each of the options. I mean, the message has been clear to
the county. The message has been clear to me and I don't need to have it hammered into me any further,
that the Pickle Hill option is not an acceptable option. I mean, the county has dismissed that, we've been
told categorically but none the less, it should be indicated in the DEIS that it was an option that was
considered. Cost concerns are not the only ranking and rating criteria that you use in selecting options. We
have documented evidence that there is a great deal of public concern and there are a number of issues that
have been raised that make that not realistic or practical alternative. We had always intended that it be
discussed but I do not in any stretch of the imagination expect that the county, you know, I'm not going to
be the one that is going to decide which option is going to be the subject of the public hearing that the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement would be on, it will be the Lake George Affairs committee
that ultimately makes that decision and I can assure you that the opinion of that Board is that they want
nothing to do with Pickle Hill Road. So, I don't suspect that you'll ever see that again.
Mr. Dick Sage-I've got two hats on tonight. First hat, as a representative of the Queensbury Environmental
Committee, I've been a member of that committee for quite a few years. Like all of these committees
which are advisory, we clearly advise. We don't take action, we can only try to provide the Town Board
and anyone else in the town, with environmental facts relating to things they may be considering. The case
of the Lake George sewers we've been swimming around with for quite a while. I think it was back, Steve
Borgos came to us and asked us to take a look at the Lake George sewer system. We gave him what we
felt were reasonable facts at the time. We looked at the data, we looked at the reports the Freshwater
Institute had come up with and we sent him report dated August 28, 1990 which we sent to each member of
the Town Board. In 1993, at the request of Mike Brandt, we again looked at it. We discussed it again at
some length, looked at our report of 1990 and came to the conclusion that our 1990 report was still valid
from an environmental point of view. In that report, I'd like to summarize some of the things that we said.
The big problem in water quality in the Lake George basin is not wastewater. Wastewater is a red herring
that's being used, in our opinion, to push for what many people, well meaning people feel is the solution to
the water quality problem. All of the technical studies show that wastewater is not the problem. The
problem is stormwater runoff. That is where the pollutants that are deteriorating the quality of Lake
George are coming from. I'm not saying that the contribution of wastewater is nothing. Relatively, though,
it is small. There's always been stormwater runoff. It comes from the vegetation, from animal waste, from
all of the things that go on in nature and they run into the lake and the lake deteriorates. The lake quality
will deteriorate normally. We felt in the environmental committee that any action which in affect said,
we're going to put in sewers or we're going to do all those things and totally ignores the fact that the
stormwater is the big contributor, would be a poor action. Suppose you put in sewers. Our conclusion is
that sewers will allow significant development. Stormwater and development are directly related. If you
put a sewer in, you are going to build homes in North Queensbury where you couldn't possibly conceive of
a home being built. To go ahead and work on a system which is related to wastewater without working
first on the stormwater problems, is putting the cart before the horse. Sewers are going to promote
development. We have always felt, the option that was suggested originally to have small cluster systems
where there are critical areas. So, this is the point that the environmental committee would like make to the
Town Board, that we hope you will not lose sight of the fact that any effort in this direction is not
necessarily going to make a contribution to the better quality in Lake George. Chances are pretty much it
will go significantly in the other direction. My hat for myself, now I'm a private citizen who lives in North
Queensbury. I'd like to make a couple of points. I think there's too much feeling that Lake George quality
is going to be preserved. If you're in the environmental atmosphere these days, preservation is the big
thing. But you are not going to preserve Lake George quality. It is going to deteriorate if every single one
of us moved out of the basin tomorrow morning. That's the way nature does it and unless we're planning to
make mother nature mad, you're not going to accomplish anything. You can slow it down, you don't want
to increase it and that's why we feel that those steps that move in the direction of more development would
be wrong. It's people that are the problem, development brings in people. Now, I realize and we've noted
that in our report back to you in 1990, we're a tourist area, we are committed to that, we can not change it,
we don't want to change it, it's our way of life. But we shouldn't blindly go ahead with something that will
precipitate more of a problem then we have today without at least being aware of it. I'd also like to make a
comment on your resolution. It says in there, it will not cost us a cent. That's not true. We're all residents
of Warren County, when Warren County spends a buck, we spend a buck and I think when the State spends
a buck, we spend a buck And you're going down to Washington and you're going to ask them for bucks,
and where do you think that's going to come from? They don't even have them to send up here. We are
going to pay for the sewer system if it goes in. I don't think we want to fool anybody on that, I think it's a
mistake. That is not for the environmental committee, that's for Dick Sage.
Mr. Ron Montesi-I serve on the county committee for sewers as a County Supervisor from Queensbury and
as a citizen, I just had some questions. The boundaries of this district that we're talking about along Route
9L including Assembly Point, Cleverdale, Rockhurst up to the Fort Ann town line in Katskill Bay, am I
assuming that correctly?
Mr. Remington-Yes.
Mr. Montesi-One of the questions that was always raised when I was on served on the Town Board was, if
in fact you are protecting or trying to protect or preserve the lake by putting in sewers, how can you leave
Fort Ann out? That's a substantial part of that bay and that was always a problem for me to deal with
because it wasn't just another town that might be coming into a sewer district, it was another county. I don't
know if your DEIS or EIS will address that at all but there's a substantial portion of roadway up there. The
other question I have is the alternative. Is Lake George now saying they will consider this, and up to this
point has said absolutely no in previous times? Is that the change that's come about?
Mr. Veltman-The option of going to Lake George was never formally discussed with the village and the
committee felt it was appropriate to solicit their input before that option was explored in any greater detail
because this may, like the residents of Pickle Hill Road area have major objections to that option that would
not be worthwhile to spend any dollars to go forward.
Mr. Montesi-As an engineer and I know you said that you have some figures done, if you were to do the
section that we just outlined the perimeters of, how many pump stations would you need to get to Lake
George Sewer Treatment Plant?
Mr. Veltman-I would say probably about six or eight.
Mr. Montesi-And these are major pump stations too.
Mr. Veltman-One of the options that we had suggested that be considered is the concept of taking treated
sewage. Treating the sewage in Queensbury and then pumping treated sewage, which has the
characteristics alot like water.
Mr. Montesi-So, you would eliminate the grind pumps?
Mr. Veltman-It would eliminate the need to expand the village treatment plant. Essentially we would come
into their plant after it had gone through the processing steps and right into the infiltration, percolation beds
which greatly reduces the cost. That is one option.
Mr. Montesi-In almost all of those options, as you look at the terrain, driving along Route 9L if you were
truly going to service many of those homes, they're going to require a goodly amount of grind pumps,
maybe residential grind pumps but grind pumps per sa to many of those homes in order to get them to the
main line. Will your final EIS with this option include some dollars, some figures that we could look at?
Mr. Veltman-Yes and I'm surprised you asked that question because the DEIS contained dollars for each of
the options.
Mr. Montesi-But this is going to be an updated one.
Mr. Veltman-Yes.
Mrs. Betty Little-I'll try to briefly go back with some history of this for the length of time that I've been
involved in this project. This went way back to when Ham Robertson was Chairman of the Board and at
that time the milfoil problem first began in Lake George and at that time they felt that the sewage may be a
contributing factor, a big contributing factor to the milfoil problem, that we needed to do something about it
to protect Lake George. Since that time, as Mr. Sage said, the philosophy and the thought has been that
stormwater runoff is a much bigger contributor to problems in the lake. A group of Supervisors, I wasn't
one of them, went to Washington and talked to Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato, made the rounds
in looking for, is there any federal clean water money available for curing and protecting Lake George.
They said, you have to do a study and right now we're working with Onondaga Lake but when that is done,
we'd be happy to consider Lake George. So, Senator Stafford got a million dollars for a study to study the
whole issue on Lake George. The idea of the study is to be able to finish it and go back with a complete
study that shows what we think the problems are, what some of the solutions we think are. Now, we've
been doing this right now, I think it's like six and a half years. I think the main thing here and I'm sure
there will be varying opinions on that, is to finish the project, to have something in hand. And two years
ago when this Board was going to jump out of the project because or one year, because of the Pickle Hill, I
attended alot of meetings. The Pickle Hill site was never the preferred site. We were always told that
behind the fire house looked like a very available piece of land for a small sewage treatment plant for
Assembly Point, Rockhurst and Cleverdale and at the very end the soils were not suitable. So, then Pickle
Hill became a more preferred site and in order to pick one site, you have to examine two or three others,
even though you hopefully have no intention of using them and that's how we got into that. The Pickle Hill
site was an unacceptable site as far as the Town of Queensbury was concerned and the committee was
concerned despite the engineers felt it was the best site. For Queensbury to jump out, I felt would be a
mistake because how do you take a study down to Washington that says we need help on our lake, we need
money for this lake and, oh yea, we're not going to do anything with the bottom, the southern half of the
lake, that's not having a problem. You wouldn't get any place. So, in order to get the funding, which is
first of all going to be Hague and they're going to have an innovative treatment system. Then you have
Bolton for the expansion of their sewage treatment plant that they already have and then you have Lake
George which has an older sewage treatment plant and needs expansion to continue doing what they're
doing just for the people they're doing it for. And then you get down to North Queensbury. It would seem
to me that completing the project is the most important thing so that you can go and see if we are going to
get any money and perhaps, we are next in line. Senator Moynihan certainly has some years behind him to
get some money for us. If we do get the money and in ten years you finally get down to the North
Queensbury facility, you can't tell me that you have to look at a study that was done ten, fifteen years ago
and say this is your only choice. That would be ridiculous, there would be other choices by that time that
you could then examine and say that, the smaller sites are a better way of doing it then the pumping over to
Lake George. And I believe that the option of pumping it to Lake George which was not the preferred one
but one of the other options, does not include making it a sewer district from Assembly Point and
Cleverdale to Lake George. There wouldn't be any hookup in many of those homes in many of those areas
because those areas had suitable soils for septic systems. And as far as the cost, what's happened is Clough
Harbor, what is the contract, eight hundred and some thousand?
Mr. Remington-Eight hundred and fifty thousand.
Mrs. Little-And the money is gone, the rest of the money with different projects that went along with it and
the idea is to get the project finished, go to Washington, see if we can get some money and come back and
began and hopefully, I would think that we could include the work that, that committee did. I attended one
of their meetings and I think they've had alot of interesting options, better options then a great big sewer
line running from Assembly Point all the way to Lake George and maybe in the end that's what we can do
and if those things are able to be included so that ten years, five years, that's totally optimistic, nothing in
government happens that fast, more like ten or twenty years, then you look at it. Then you do an
environmental impact, a supplemental, whatever you would have to do.
Councilman Caimano- Y ou seemed to indicate early on that you are leaning Mr. Sage, that you felt he was
correct and that most of it was stormwater runoff. Is that correct or not correct?
Mrs. Little-I think that's correct and the original plan, what was that, ten years ago, was to sewer the whole
lake and I don't think that that's been considered as being anything that needed to be done.
Councilman Caimano- If stormwater then truly is the problem...
Mrs. Little-Is a bigger contributor but the sewage is still considered to be a contributor especially in
particular areas.
Councilman Caimano-That's what I was confused about, why continue the project if the stormwater is the
problem.
Mr. Veltman-I think there's a misconception there and I think that alot of people haven't taken the time to
read the DEIS. Water quality is a consideration in the planning that has gone forth to study bringing sewers
to North Queensbury but the very fact that there are people that have limited sewage disposal systems that
have conceivably no relationship whatsoever to water quality is an important consideration that is evaluated
and discussed in the DEIS. There are alot of communities across this State that have initiated studies to
construct wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems to serve problems that had nothing to do
with water quality. The DEIS does acknowledge and we have stated from the very beginning, we agree
wholeheartedly with the studies that have been done that stormwater runoff is a major contributing factor to
the water quality issues within Lake George. Wastewater is a contributing factor but it is not the major
contributing factor. This study is designed to address the wastewater issue. There are other agencies of
government, specifically the Lake George Park Commission that are charged with the issues of trying to
tackle the stormwater management problem. I think that the effort is to try to move forward on all of the
fronts. This is one issue and it's not an issue that is strictly related to water quality and it's an issue related
to providing sanitary sewage disposal for residents because there alot of people who have to or been forced
to rely upon holding tanks because they can't the wastewater in the ground. Know that the convenience
factor and the problems that you have to deal with in living with those types of situations, is also something
that needs to be considered even if they don't have a direct impact on water quality. I think those are
important issues to keep in mind.
Mrs. Little-I think my point that I'm trying to make, the county is interested in having the project
completed, the study completed so that they can then go to Washington, see if we can get some money. If,
in four or five years, ten years when they begin to get down to the North Queensbury site, the study is
outdated and then you do something else to alter it and hopefully, you would use some of those options and
some of the newer options that will come to the for-front between now and then, those options of the
committee.
Mr. Remington-It was fairly clear in talking with Lloyd Demboski and quite a few others involved with the
sewer project, that this sununer we have one of the better shots of getting funding for the project then we
will in future years.
Unknown-Why?
Mr. Remington-The political makeup, the elections.
Unknown-Specifically?
Supervisor Champagne-Senator Moynihan's term is up this year. My understanding is that he is the
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that things are winding down at Onondaga and it's Lloyd
Demboski and a couple of other folks, it's their feelings that we may be in line this year. I guess that's one
reason why I have some strong feelings that somewhere along the way, we need to bring this to a focus and
begin to take a hard look at it in terms of where do we go from here.
Mr. Gilbert Boehm, Dunham's Bay-It's always been my belief, before we spend any money, we ought to
have a reason. The reason it was put forth in the EIS was that presumably the Lake George Wastewater
Regulations would be driving alot of people towards clamoring for a sewer because they couldn't meet the
regulations. The courts have struck that down, the Lake George Wastewater Regulations are null and void
because they hadn't generated an EIS. He brings up the point, there are other reasons besides the
wastewater contaminating the lake and that is presumably, there are some people that are limited. But I
haven't seen you people being besieged by people who are clamoring for a sewer because they can't make
use of their property. Have you?
Supervisor Champagne-I have not.
Councilman Caimano-I haven't either.
Mr. Boehm-Now, where is this great need that he talks about? If there is no need, why should we go for
money? Not only will we be spending money from the point of view of paying for the sewer, but one thing
that has never been discussed clearly and pointed out to people, is what some of their connection costs are
going to be. You don't get water from down low along the lake up to a sewer that's up two hundred feet on
the road without spending money and that's not covered in here. When that cost gets added to your normal
operating costs here, that's going to be a big surprise to alot of people. And they're going to say, why the
hell was this done, I didn't need a sewer. Just because there maybe money available, that's not a reason to
go for money if there's no need and right now there doesn't seem to be a demonstrated need for any sewer.
Why do anything?
Mrs. Mary Arthur Beebe, Lake George Association-I'm very glad that you gave us an opportunity to talk
tonight because it's been quite hard for the public to be involved in this process. The advisory committee
that Queensbury set up last year, spent alot of hours on this problem. We met every other week for the
whole morning passed lunch time, many times and it was very interesting that alot of new options were
discussed. Someone mentioned that we had not discussed very much about going to Lake George Village
Treatment Plant as a solution. That's because it was quite clear that at the time, Lake George Village did
not want Queensbury and so that was not a subject for discussion. I haven't heard anything tonight that
tells me that they seriously want us, that they seriously want Queensbury in their project or that they're
willing to limit their future growth and development expansion to have Queensbury there. I think those
things we need to, when we do this study, if we're going to go forward, we better have a plan A and we
better have a plan B because it could very well come to the day where you're going to decide that maybe
Lake George Village doesn't want us after all and we better have a very good, well investigated second
choice if we're going to look at that as a priority now. I'd like to know how much money this new
Supplemental Impact Study is going to cost the county right now? What are they planning to spend to get
this study done according to this resolution?
Mr. Remington-The cost is thirty thousand dollars approximately and the money is coming out of the
original grant of a million dollars.
Mrs. Beebe-I'm concerned because the proposals that the public took to the Lake Affairs Committee last
fall suggested that they look at an option to do a created wetlands treatment type solution and Clough
Harbor gave us alot of information about how that type of technology now is capable of producing a very
high quality effluent that would be able to meet the standards to be discharged into the Harris Bay Wetland.
Right?
Mr. Veltman-What we said Mary Arthur, was that we could treat it to a level that I felt from a technical
point of view, could be demonstrated not to impact the lake quality. I did not say it would meet the
standards because the standards do not allow direct discharges at this point in time.
Mrs. Beebe-That's not a standard, that's a law, that's a different thing then a standard.
Mr. Veltman-That's correct.
Mrs. Beebe-And our understanding was that if this high quality effluent could be produced, that we would
have the reason and the technology and the science behind having that law changed and that's why we were
willing to all go forward with that and have the environmental study show that there was a reason to amend
the law. Right? Is that what we agreed to?
Mr. Veltman-Yes but the consideration that the county has addressed, the fact that the law exists and the
law is there and to pursue an option that is in violation of the law, is contrary to common sense in terms of
the public expenditure of money. I mean, it's the fact of the matter remains is that, that option right now is
not a practical option because it is against the law. Technically, in my opinion, I would agree, it's
technologically viable. I believe they are a way of the future, in terms of low cost, effective, wastewater
treatment but that doesn't change the fact that the Lake George law does not allow you to have a surface
discharge into Lake George.
Mrs. Beebe-I would like to advise the Town Board to give very serious consideration to that situation
because where we get stuck in government decision making is with these types of barriers that get set up.
We have a law that exists that was written back in the sixties, the Lake George law. Technology has
changed alot in the last thirty-five years and in the last ten years, it's changed even more. If we could do an
environmental study like the committee asked for that would show that this option was feasible, it might
give us an alternative to go into Lake George Village if Lake George Village doesn't want it or if the cost of
going to Lake George is not satisfactory to the Queensbury Town residents, and that could happen too. It
might be worth spending a little extra of the county's money now to get that done at this time so that we
have those types of options available. It certainly is what the public wanted to have looked into when they
were discussing all the options this summer. I really think that we should think carefully before that option
is casually dropped. I'd like to talk a little bit about stormwater and wastewater. Everybody agrees that
stormwater pollution is a problem at Lake George and it's a very important problem and it's probably one of
the big contributors to the degradation of the quality of the lake. That does not mean that wastewater is not
a big contributor. Wastewater and stormwater together probably interface into a problem that's bigger then
any of us know today, scientifically. I just came from a conference last fall in Washington State that was a
nation wide conference on lakes. One of the things that's been proven out there is that some of the coliform
work that has been done to detect whether wastewater is polluting lakes or not, gives us very low quality
information. They have found out there, at several of their lakes that they have tested, that the coliform
data originally gave them a feeling that they were quite comfortable with, about how septic systems work
They found a different way of doing that work and they're now finding that one out of three septic systems
around their lakes are failing. That's a pretty high number and they just found that out in the last couple of
years. They're quite astounded by it because they were quite comfortable that wastewater pollution was not
such an important pollutant, that stormwater was the major problem. It depends on the methodology that's
enabled to be used and how much care is taken and money is spent on doing a whole lot of tests with
coliform to find out where it is. North Queensbury has been very lightly tested with the coliform testing
program. It's barely had any testing at all, one or two sites every year. Most of this work that has been
done, has been on the west shore of the lake where the big populations are. So, I think that wastewater is a
problem that deserves attention at Lake George if we want to keep this area a place that people can drink
the water and swim safely, we need to pay attention to sewage pollution, not just stormwater. Thank you
very much for the chance to talk I encourage you to listen to the public's priorities as well to the Lake
George option.
Councilman Monahan-Have any of the coliform testing been done within the wetlands themselves?
Mrs. Beebe-To my knowledge the only place that any testing has been done directly in the wetland is near
where the Harris Bay Yacht Club septic system was. Dan Olson did some work there a few years ago when
they were having problems. I'm not aware of any other testing in the wetlands.
Councilman Monahan-But it hasn't been a series that's been followed or anything?
Mrs. Beebe-They've done some phosphorous levels testing so that they can tell where the phosphorous
comes out from the wetlands.
Councilman Caimano-Something that's troublesome and you mentioned it too. We've talked about
stormwater runoff and wastewater and how much it contributes and how much it doesn't contribute and
which is greater and which is lesser but we have no quantification and we're going to look to make a
decision that's going to amount to millions of dollars and disruption of people's lives, without
quantification, without scientific data. Is there no way to get it?
Mrs. Beebe-There is scientific data but what you're asking for is nutrient budgets and pollutant... budgets
and things like that. Alot of them have been done. One of the big pollutants is sanding and salting of the
roads. Another is the stuff that, you know, just drops the dust out of the air and lands on the lake. You
can't control all of the sources. You can't control all of the stormwater inputs either. You can control some
just like you can control of what comes from the wastewater and you try to get a handle on what you can
get a handle on if you're trying to control the problem. Alot of it you can't deal with at all. The question is,
can you deal with enough of the man-caused impacts to make a difference. I don't know if that question
has been a hundred percent answered.
Mr. Veltman-One of the additional pieces of data that would be looked at in the Supplemental EIS and this
is something that the advisory committee brought forward, is that although the Lake George Park
Commission regulations have been struck down, the town has gone forward and done a series of
inspections of the facilities out there, there is a tabulation of the systems that are out there and whether or
not they meet certain, very minimum, very basic standards. I can't recall the exact numbers offbut of the
systems that are out there, I think there are nine hundred homes in that area that we are considering. Well
over a third of those systems don't even meet the very basic standards of construction that you would
expect in a properly designed and constructed system.
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, are you considering the fact that the regs now call for two hundred feet back
from the lake which they didn't before?
Mr. Veltman-No, the specs specifically, and obviously, that's something the study, the results of that work
that have been done is something that we had proposed that we would explore in greater detail because it is
the first comprehensive inspection of the systems out there in probably the last twenty years and it will
provide alot of additional information on the condition of the systems and what we can expect. But the
basic standards are basically, separation between groundwater and adequate septic tanks, as I understand it.
Mike White who is a member of the commission, he's not here but he's much more qualified to the results
then I am but I think they're pretty interesting.
Mrs. Beebe-There's just one other thing that I'd like to say. I have been around since 1978 when they were
still fighting over the original sewer plan for the south basin and at that time, it is true that they thought
sewage was very important pollutant that could be controlled. And one of the methods at that time and one
of the arguments at that time that's still is here today was, well don't worry about sewage, stormwater is the
problem. And here we are, all these years later, still having the same discussion. The Lake George Park
Commission and the people themselves around Lake George are paying attention to both problems. The
individual homeowners themselves are trying to do what they can do to make their properties somewhat
self containing for stormwater. They're trying to improve their plantings, do landscaping in ways that will
help. They're paying a great deal of attention to both issues. It's important that our governments follow
that example. We just went to the Lake George Adirondack Tourism Advisory Board meeting and it was
very interesting to know that the tourist themselves that we count on for our way of life here, for sustaining
our economy recognize also that Lake George needs to be preserved and that was one of their primary
statements, protect those lakes. Thank you.
Mr. Lew Stone-Just a small point. I want to go back to something that Betty said. I'm not taking a position
one way or other on this but I think the resolution, as it is written binds the town and will be thrown back at
the town because it says, this particular proposal. I think Betty's idea is a very good one. The proposal, if
you're going to adopt it, should be expanded to include all of the or at least a good number of the proposals
that had been made, not just the one that's listed.
Mr. Charlie Adamson, Assembly Point-Before I get to what I wanted to ask, I'd like to say what I call the
Brandt Committee of this summer, did a splendid job. We were blind sided by this idea that the county was
going to, without further consideration, without even comment in the direction of the engineering problem
or the obvious expense of going from Dunham's Bay down 9L through, which I think has been determined
is largely rock and hillsides of roughly a forty-five degree angle, if people aren't horrified by that, then I
guess I'm a loner. I can't believe that anybody is seriously considering that at this point. And I can't
believe that you would go to Washington proposing that and I do agree with the gentleman or the lady that
said, you don't have to ask for the money simply because you think it's there. There's alot of good things
that have been said tonight and I agree with a great many things. But one thing is not clear to me. The
solution proposed by the Brandt Committee was initially turned down, Pickle Hill. That was replaced by
going behind the fire house in the wetland. Is that the solution?
Mr. Veltman-I don't think there was ever any, to my knowledge and I attended everyone of the meetings
except one, there was never any decision on which solution. There were three solutions, possible
alternatives identified and I think that everyone recognized that each one ...
Mr. Adamson-Well one was Pickle Hill, that was turned down.
Mr. Veltman-No, the three additional that were recommended and examined were the wetlands option
discharged behind the fire house and the small cluster type limited alterative for that area.
Mr. Adamson-I'm after the wetland option because as I recall, I don't recall the details and I haven't been
down to look it up, the Federal Environmental Impact Statement which was being done and finished ten
years looked at this thing, the Pickle Hill wetlands approach and they say the examined three or four
different areas. My point is, if you're going to go to Washington, if it get's that far, I think that obviously
the wetland Pickle Hill like solution is it and I would suspect that you can find a place to put that effluent in
the ground somewhere down the Ridge Road where the population is reasonably sparse. I think you can
find a solution like that sooner than you could get anybody to approve of a sewer system going over 9L. If
you're going to do anything, that would be a better proposal. Thank you.
Mr. Salvador-You mentioned the innovative design someone did for the Hague system. Why can't we get
in on the innovation? The Harris Bay coliform, Mary Arthur mentioned, that data has been made available
to Jim Martin a year ago. The point I would like to make tonight, this is a Warren County Board of
Supervisor's project, they don't need your resolution to do anything. The decision is theirs. They didn't
need this town's resolution nor did they have it, to be taken out of the project. They did it themselves, it
was their vote that did it and you are reminded that the Warren County Board of Supervisor's is in the
SEQRA process and SEQRA talks about environmental, social and economic factors. It does not address
political concerns. Resolution 399 of 1992 is what is purported to have taken you out of this project, your
resolution, this Board's resolution. It said, you'd like to go on record with a recommendation that the
Warren County sewer project exclude North Queensbury sewer system. It was your recommendation.
They didn't need this to take you out or keep you in. As far as this project goes, Warren County got this
million dollar grant by participating in, what we call local assistance program, the State Municipal
Assistance Program. The program narrative for this project reads like this, I'd like to read one paragraph
for you, while many causes are cited for this degradation, they're referring to the degradation of the water
of Lake George, over the years it has become apparent that a method to reduce the nutrient loading from
wastewater disposal within the Lake George basin, is essential. Two present public sewage disposal
systems are at the limits of their capacity and in place expansion is not readily feasible, nor from a nutrient
loading stand point, desirable. Now, that's what the Warren County Board of Supervisor's stated when they
went to get their money. I repeat, in place expansion is not feasible nor from a nutrient loading standpoint,
desirable.
Councilman Caimano-Who wrote that, John?
Mr. Salvador-Warren County.
Councilman Caimano-Do you have an author?
Mr. Veltman-I think it was Ham Robertson.
Mrs. Little-Since that time I believe the Lake George Village Sewage Treatment Plant has been operated
somewhat differently and is now, not even using it's capacity.
Mr. Salvador-Neither has the business intensity been what it was.
Mrs. Little-No, the economy is certainly not.
Mr. Salvador-This community dependency is something, Lake George is sitting over there and they would
just love to charge us for that wastewater we'd send them. I mean, they want a free ride. The Town of
Lake George now participates to the tune of thirty-five percent in the capital improvement of that plant, as
they stand now, the town and the village and they have absolutely nothing to say about what's spent there.
They come along for thirty-five percent or they can shut the valve. Now, that's a very uncomfortable
feeling for me as someone who would be in that district, that dependency. The other thing that I'd like to
point out, there's a request for proposal for the design of an intercepter sewer line in Warren County. This
is what this project is all about, an intercepter sewer line. It's not your affair. It talks here, the results of
this project will be the necessary design and construction drawings and specifications necessary to bid and
construct an intercepter sewer line for the west shore and southern basin of Lake George to the City of
Glens Falls.
Supervisor Champagne-Where are we now, 1988?
Mr. Salvador-January 29, 1990.
Councilman Monahan-Is that the request for proposal that went out to engineering firms and as a result of
that request for proposal, Clough Harbor, got this work to do?
Mr. Salvador-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-So, the request for proposal said the line to Glens Falls?
Mr. Salvador-Yes.
Mr. Veltman-And I think that if you follow the record, the first thing you'll find in the record is that we
identified that under the laws of the State of New York, this is not the appropriate procedural ... single
solution without doing an environmental impact statement that properly investigates the alternatives. Both
the local assistance contract and the proposal were revised to incorporate a full examination of the
alternatives for treatment rather then to focus on one specific predisposed alternative.
Mr. Salvador-This is a DEC grant, I don't want to debate this with you but it's a DEC grant and it was
granted on the basis of doing that sort of thing. The County Board of Supervisor's will have to answer for
that. But in any case, this is what we're supposed to get out of this and this has been my point for a long
time. This is not an argument that I have with you folks. It's an argument I have with the County. The
citizens, taxpayers of the State of New York paid a million bucks on a lump sum bid. I don't understand
this, running out of money. A lump sum bid, you get goods for a price. The goods are defined in the RFP.
Prepare construction plans and specifications based upon the approved design basis report in accordance
with the current Local State and Federal codes, etcetera, etcetera. These documents will include all
information required for bidding contractors to bid, procure, install and properly test all equipments in
components of the project. Man, that's a hell of a package of work This is nothing and we in North
Queensbury, whatever solution comes up, we get a design package. We can do anything we want with it.
We can alternate, we can change it.
Councilman Monahan-That's a scary thing when you only have one option addressed in this resolution.
Supervisor Champagne-I agree.
Mr. Salvador-Again, I don't know why the Board of Supervisor's has asked you folks for a resolution.
They don't need it.
Councilman Caimano-I do take exception to your comment about SEQRA and politics. The last line of the
SEQRA forms says, is there or is there likely to be public controversy regarding this matter and I think
that's pretty political.
Mr. Salvador-That isn't what the law says. The other point I would like to make and this will be discussed
in another arena and some other people in the audience have already mentioned this. This project is simply
not state of the art. Pumping sewage over hill and dale, is not state of the art. Now, I've got all kinds of
literature here. There's an organization, Small Flows. I mean the literature is loaded with this stuff. We
learned a long time ago, we don't want to put in big massive big inch pipes, large sewage treatment plants.
Keep it small and simple. Keep it at something we can afford. We have a solution in North Queensbury.
We have the land available. We haven't gone to the extent of host community benefits yet. Certainly no
one want's in their backyard. I wouldn't want it in my backyard but let's talk and we haven't done that yet
in North Queensbury.
Mrs. Lillian Adamson, Assembly Point-My big concern up on the lake for a number of years has been the
taxes and the assessments up there and one of the things that therefore I'm very concerned about is how
anybody even with any kind of money from the feds, from the state, from where ever, are in any way going
to be able to afford to pay for this. If somebody can explain to me, I can understand how a sewer system
works where you have people that live there twelve months of the year and almost everybody lives there
twelve months of the year. But I can't figure out how you pay for a sewer system, equitably on the lake
when some people live there for twelve months and some people live there for two months. How have you
done this in other areas? Do you find an equitable way? Can you tell me how they do that?
Mr. Veltman-There's a benefit formula described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was
originally proposed for North Queensbury that does take into consideration of ... for year round use. There
is a specific formula for how that would be done.
Mrs. Adamson-You talked about going over to Lake George and I found that so amusing because a few
years ago when they were considering whether they were going to build a new school in Lake George or
whether they were going to be remodel what they had. There was adamant support for keeping the old
school because they did not want to sell the building and have somebody else move in because they said
there was no way that the village could accept any more sewage from any business that moved in there.
The only way they could handle having the school there was because the school was used in the Winter
time and not in the Summer time. Now, I understand they've made some changes over there but I don't
think that there's any way that their changes could have been extensive enough to take our sewage which
makes me concerned if we're talking about a limited thirty thousand dollars that you have to work with if
they're going to expend money going over to Lake George on that. My other brief concern is and is one of
the things we talked about runoff and septic, I recently read an article about Maryland having a tremendous
problem with birds in their water areas. And not only do they have ducks down there and not only
probably the seagulls, they have vultures and the vultures are even worse as far as the droppings they leave
behind. But I'm kind of curious when you talk about testing water and that sort of thing, when I get out in
the boat which is rare these days, we go over around Speaker Heck Island and it's unbelievable what the
docks look like, what the rocks look like and thousands and thousands of birds. I've lived here since 1960,
my husband goes back seventy years but it seems to me, we didn't used to have the seagulls, not like now.
We never had the ducks and we never had this mess that we have all over the lake and I think we need to
explore some of these other things that might be a little less costly. We have people up at the lake and on
an average they're paying five hundred dollars a year for the fire departments. Some people are paying a
whale of alot more then that and we're talking the school taxes on the average of about three thousand
dollars. County taxes on the average of two thousand dollars. The town tax is the only tax that's low and
that's because you have the seven percent sales tax but our taxes up there are so astronomical. I talked to
somebody who recently bought a property up there, incidently they paid two hundred and sixty thousand
dollars less then the property is assessed, and they said they only could afford to pay that much money
because the taxes are so bad up here they don't know how people can possibly afford to pay the taxes and
that this was a prime concern that they had in even purchasing that property at that amount of money. I
think we need to look into how people are going to pay to do something that we possibly don't even have to
do and I want to be sure that if you go ahead and do this, that we have a referendum that everybody has a
chance to vote.
Mr. Dick Walden, Dunham's Bay Association-I was on the Citizen's Advisory Committee last Summer and
I wangled an invitation to go over to look at the Lake George Treatment Plant and when I got there, I think
the man's name was Mr. Stein and he said that in the X number of years that's he's been there, I was number
two person to come through and look They've got twenty-nine pits over there, I think they use five. My
question is, how expensive would it be to enlarge this system if they aren't using twenty-nine pits now, or
do the other people that are attaching to it, is that going to push it over the edge?
Mr. Veltman-Well no, that's the whole concept with the improvements that they've made to the plant, they
have the available bed area. We don't envision that in order to accommodate this that they're looking at
major changes. If the treatment were provided in Queensbury then essentially it would bypass the
treatment plant and go directly into the percolation beds. All the things that we're talking about here today
are the same issues that I raised when we recommended that we go to public meetings at both the Village of
Lake George and the Town of Queensbury, the issues of local control. I said the issue of local control
would come up. Everything that I've heard here tonight are things that we expected would come up. I don't
think we're going to find a solution that everybody is going to like. The solution from an engineering point
of view that we believe is the best solution is the solution that's not politically acceptable. But put that
aside, the other issue that we looked at in terms of options is building a treatment plant in Queensbury was
the option that I recommended and then take the treated sewage over to the Village of Lake George. It will
eliminate the concerns about tying in along the way that would induce growth and development that would
create stormwater, additional runoff, those are all concerns that I was viewing when I looked at that, the
cost of the transporting and treating and all of the pumping and the fact that that's not current state of the art
technology. But then the issue was raised, the people in Queensbury, we already have opposition from the
people that they're not going to want a treatment plant in there neighborhood and the concern that I had is
that the people in the Village of Lake George wouldn't want everything in their backyard. Obviously,
there's alot of issues that have to be addressed and discussed. What we're hoping is to get those out right up
front and on the table because there are no easy answers and no easy solutions. The purpose of the SEIS is
to try to identify all those options and alternatives. Frankly, I'm not convinced that there is going to be a
solution that technically viable from an engineering point of view that is politically acceptable to everybody
that's involved. I'm not convinced that option exists but I think it's worthwhile to move forward to see if
something can be determined. As a result of these meetings, I think the position the County is going to
take, if there isn't an acceptable solution to go forward, there's no point spending the thirty thousand dollars
to go any further then tonight. I think that's where the county is on this.
Councilman Monahan-Shaw, you were asked a question and I didn't hear an answer. What is the
innovative plan for Hague?
Mr. Veltman-The innovative plan for Hague involves a nutrient ... but it also involves subsurface discharge.
It's not a surface discharge into the lake, they do have the availability, it's a treatment device but it still
relies on a point of discharge into the ground. There is soils in the ground in Hague where you go into the
ground. So, what it involves, rather then having like the Village of Lake George Treatment Plant, a
conventional treatment system, you have a different treatment system to treat the wastewater to a higher
level before you put it into the ground.
Mr. Montesi-One last question about options. Holding tanks are an option being considered?
Mr. Veltman-Yes, that's the cluster systems where it's practical and possible to do that.
Mr. Montesi-At one point when I served on this Town Board we had an engineering study done on all six
hundred houses or any part of those six hundred houses that had some sensitivity putting in holding tanks,
whether it was a thousand or fifteen hundred gallon with an alarm system and as part of that sewer district,
buying or contracting the trucks to pump that out weekly, daily, whatever the needs are and that cost would
be borne by that sewer district. No environmental impact to speak of. No digging up of roads. Not a big
engineering project, the engineers didn't like it, I have to be honest with you, there wasn't alot of money
involved in it for them but it solved the problem for the residents of North Queensbury rather simply.
Without looking at a major project, is that something as an option that the Federal Government would look
at, the State Government would look at as funding, buying six hundred holding tanks?
Mr. Veltman-Yes, we spent alot of time in evaluating that, when we talked about the limited wastewater
management alternative, that's basically what you described is what we had proposed.
Mr. Montesi-That's something that I feel strongly about. I think that should be something considered as an
alternative if you're going to pass this resolution.
Councilman Caimano-Fine, the consensus of the Board is, it's not going to go with just the option it states,
if it goes at all.
Executive Director, Mr. Jim Martin-I sat in on many of those meetings of the advisory committee and what
I recall as a very specific option was a system by which primary treatment would occur on site in individual
tanks at individual homes with a meter, that way you could bill on individual uses if you have a seasonal
person or a year round person, then it would go from there into a central system at a plant to be located
behind the North Queensbury Fire House into a subsurface discharge. Then there was a question as to
whether we would have open air pits, as they were less expensive to install but more expensive to maintain
or you would have covered pits that were more expensive to install but less expensive to maintain. That
was a very defined alternative that I recall coming out of that committee.
Councilman Monahan-Jim, when you say primary treatment at the tanks at a person's residence or business,
how do you do that?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's a typical septic tank and then rather going from there to an individual
leach bed, it's pump into the central system and secondary treatment occurs at a central treatment facility.
Councilman Monahan-A question for the committee. It's my understanding that the area behind the fire
house was looked into and it was found inappropriate because there was alot of fill in that land. Is that
correct?
Mr. Salvador-It was cleared to us that this option behind the fire house or where ever in North Queensbury,
you're going to infiltrate into the ground, you're probably going to have to import soils. That's clear and
that should be a factor in the equation.
Discussion closed ...
Town Board held further discussion regarding changes to the resolution and the following resolution was
proposed:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PREPARATION OF SEIS
NORTHQUEENSBURYSEWER
RESOLUTION NO. 61, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, representatives of Warren County have proposed the preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Warren County Sewer Project, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this SEIS is to develop a plan to resolve the wastewater management
deficiencies for properties in the northern portion of the Town of Queensbury that lie within the Lake
George Drainage Basin, and
WHEREAS, representatives of Warren County have expressed a desire to resolve the wastewater
management deficiencies for northern Queensbury through a certain plan,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury supports the preparation of the
SEIS but only if the same does not pre-select one solution but rather equally and fully evaluates the
potential socio-economic and environmental impacts of solutions for the northern portion of the Town of
Queensbury, which include: a Wastewater Management District (holding tanks /clustering systems),
Conveyance to an area behind the North Queensbury Fire House solution, a Wetlands Distribution solution,
a Lake George Sewage Plant Conveyance solution together with any other usually required alternatives that
may exist and would be required to be explored in the SEQRA process, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board supports this action as stated in the previous paragraph of this
Resolution as long as the costs associated with the preparation of the SEIS will be funded entirely by
Warren County and with the understanding that should any of the proposed solutions or alternatives prove
viable, the Town will not be obligated to proceed with construction or undertake operation of any sewage
system or incur any costs without further approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury which
approval will rest with the sole discretion of the said Town Board.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne
NOES: Dr. Wiswall
ABSENT: None
Discussion while vote was taken:
Councilman Caimano-I had a couple of thoughts. You needed your questioned answered, Gil. You
mentioned that there's no human cry and that there's no demonstrated need for sewers in the residences and
I think you're right, there's about twenty of you here tonight. However, this is a long on going process and
once in a while, government has to just keep the process going and find out where it's going to end and
make it come to a logical conclusion. While your point is well taken, as well as the one about the
stormwater runoff, at some point, we have to come to a conclusion and that's why I'm going to vote yes for
it.
Discussion after vote:
Councilman Monahan-I want to thank our Lake George Committee who did so much work on this.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes, I again want to compliment you, you've done an excellent job and we
appreciate that.
Discussion closed
9: 10 P.M.
(five minute recess)
DISCUSSION - CABLE T.v.
Attorney Dusek submitted handouts to the Town Board. Noted, this was for discussion, I'd like to briefly
go over it with you and make a recommendation and then possibly consider taking action with the proposed
resolution for next meeting. The town is faced with making a decision and notifying the State Commission
by February 28th of whether or not you want to regulate Cable TV in the Town of Queensbury. When we
say regulate, there's two things to be considered. First, the Town of Queensbury is the licensing or is the
person responsible for licensing Harron Cable for it's franchise. It's currently under contract under a license
agreement, it's got a couple of years to run yet, my recollection is 96 and it comes for renewal every once in
awhile. Prior to, roughly last year, the Town of Queensbury did not have any right to regulate what the
basic rates were, the lowest tier of rates and the equipment type charges that the cable company could
assess. The Federal Communications Commission in a series of regulations they developed basically
granted to the local governments the right to regulate the most basic of rates should the municipality desire
to do so. In the federal regulations however, they said, you don't have to do it, it's optional. After that, the
State Cable Commission then said, what we'll do is we'll volunteer to regulate the basic rates for all of the
municipalities in New York State so as to save them money and time and expense because basically it's
going to be the same job everywhere and we'll develop a set of rules, regulations and staff to do that. They
will do this at no charge for the Town of Queensbury. At this point, what is up for consideration by the
town is whether you want to regulate basic cable rates yourself. If you do, you have to follow a set of FCC
regulations which I understand is quite an involved process and quite complicated. Also from the
information that I have read on the topic, it is my understanding that no matter who does the regulating of
the rates, whether it's the local municipality or the state, the answer comes up the same because you have to
follow the FCC rules to get whatever the proper rates should be for basic low level television cable
offerings and the equipment charges that go with it. My recommendation to this Board would be and I've
prepared a resolution for you, is to consider passing the basic rate regulation onto the State because it
doesn't seem like you have anything to lose in doing so.
Town Board held discussion, agreed with option number 2 and the following resolution was proposed:
RESOLUTION MAKING ELECTION TO UNDERTAKE REGULATION OF
CABLE TELEVISION RATES
RESOLUTION NO. 62, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury may determine whether the rates charged for basic cable
service and associated equipment by Harron Cable TV, franchised to provide cable services within the
Town of Queensbury will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of 47 C.F.R. ~76.900 et seq., and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury must make an initial election to regulate or not regulate, or
request that the State Commission regulate basic cable service and associated equipment charges, on or
before February 28, 1994, or the State Commission may undertake such rate regulation or other action as
may be necessary consistent with the public interest, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of electing to have the New
York State Commission on Cable Television regulate basic cable service and associated equipment rates
charged by Harron Cable TV,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby elects to have the New
York State Commission on Cable Television undertake the regulation of rates for basic cable service and
associated equipment charge by Harron Cable TV, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. ~76.900 et seq., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notes that this resolution
was adopted at a regular Town Board meeting, and that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
understands that the election shall be effective on the date that a certified copy of this resolution is received
by the Commission, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Clerk
to complete and fill out no. 2 of the Municipal Options set forth on the form presented at this meeting,
indicating that the Town of Queensbury is familiar with the requirements of the Cable Act of 1992
concerning cable television rates and on this date resolved to have the New York State Commission on
Cable Television undertake rate regulation for the Town of Queensbury in compliance with federal law as
implemented by the Federal Communications Commission, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to
complete any documents and execute and place the Town seal on any other documents that may be
necessary to effectuate the terms and provisions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 63, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, three vacancies currently exist on the Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of filling these vacancies,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury makes the following
appointments:
Catherine LaBombard
Term to Expire
12/31/96
James Obermayer
12/31/97
Robert Paling
12/31/2000
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
RESOLUTION NO. 64, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has in existence a Citizens Advisory
Committee on Environmental Issues,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints the following
persons for a term on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues, to expire on December
31,1994:
David Hodgson
Thomas Jarrett
Charles H. Maine
Ralph Nestle
Richard Sage
Stephen Traver
Dr. David Welch
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
RESOLUTION NO. 65, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Board of Assessment
Review,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Lewis N. Stone to
serve as a member of the Board of Assessment Review to fill a vacancy, term to expire September 30,
1998.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT DIRECTORS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO. 66, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has caused to be created the Queensbury
Economic Development Corporation, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has the authority to appoint Directors of
the not-for-profit corporation, and
WHEREAS, the By-Laws of the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation state that
appointments of Directors are for a one year term, and
WHEREAS, the period of the term is from January 1 to December 31,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that Mr. Cullen O'Brien and Mr. Howard Shames are hereby appointed to serve on
the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation for the calendar year 1994.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REPEALING THE SUNSET PROVISION
OF CHAPTER 78, LAWS OF 1989 ESTABLISHING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RECORDS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT FUND
RESOLUTION NO. 67, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the appropriate management of local government records through their creation, use,
maintenance, and disposition is essential to efficient and effective government, and
WHEREAS, local government records document the responsibilities and prerogatives of local
governments and protect the property and rights of citizens, and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund was established in
Chapter 78, Laws of 1989, to benefit the local governments of New York State through grants for records
management and through establishment of a program of regionally-based technical assistance administered
by the New York State Archives and Records Administration of the New York State Education
Department, and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund has enormously
benefitted the Town of Queensbury through one (1) grant totalling $23,247.00, frequent and readily
accessible consultation by the Improvement Fund-supported State Archives and Records Administration
Regional Advisory Officer and through Improvement Fund-sustained training available through regularly
scheduled workshops on records and information management-related subjects attended by Town of
Queensbury employees, and
WHEREAS, the grant has supported a successful project to inventory active and inactive records,
whose data will lead to the systematic disposition of said records, a records management needs assessment
and development of a records management program, and
WHEREAS, the grants, consultation, workshops, and other services to the Town of Queensbury
supported by the Fund have contributed significantly to the improved management of its records, to the
availability and accessibility of those records to its officials and citizens and to economical and responsive
administration saving taxpayer's dollars, and
WHEREAS, there is much more to be accomplished here in the Town of Queensbury and in the
other local governments of New York State, where needs will continue in the future with the growth in the
volume of records, as needs change and information technologies present new challenges, and
WHEREAS, grants and technical advice are essential in assisting all the local governments of
New York State in developing records management programs adequate to the demands of governments and
citizens, and demand for those grants and services remains critical, and
WHEREAS, these needs are served and programs sustained without the use of state tax revenues,
through modest surcharges on fees for records filed and recorded by County Clerks and the Register of the
City of New York which sustain the Improvement Fund, and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund was created with a
sunset date of December 31, 1995,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury fully supports the perpetuation of the Local
Government Records Management Improvement Fund through the elimination of its sunset provision and
supports its continued administration by the New York State Archives and Records Administration of the
New York State Education Department with oversight by the Local Government Records Advisory
Council, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury forward copies of this resolution to its state
legislators, the leadership of the state legislature and to the Governor of New York State.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE AN AIR CONTAMINATION SOURCE
INCINERATOR UNIT - AT PINE VIEW CREMATORIUM
RESOLUTION NO. 68, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town has received a renewal application for a Certificate to Operate - Town of
Queensbury - Pine View Crematorium Emission Point No. 00001 and a copy of the same has been
presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Supervisor to execute and place the Town seal or, if necessary, the renewal application for the
Certificate to Operate the Incinerator at the Pine View Crematorium presented at this meeting, along with
any and all documentation necessary to effectuate the renewal, and to submit the same to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation along with any fees that may be associated with the
application.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Salvador-Just one comment. Unfortunatley, last evening we had a structure fire in North Queensbury.
We are fortunate that Dunham's Bay Road was open for traffic for the fire vehicles to draft water from the
lake. In the absence of no parking signs, they were able to get in there, that was the only way they could
fight the fire, draft water from the lake. If that had happen during the day, they would not have gotten to
that lake. Especially, in the Summer time when the people who park there are out on their boats. So, I
think something has got to be done about that. They do rely on access to the lake. The road was plowed
but I understand sanding trucks had to be brought in while they were working, I think the county did that.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
DISCUSSION - STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Executive Director, Mr. Martin (submitted handout to the Town Board) Spoke to the Town Board
regarding the existing Stormwater Management Regulations, noting his primary complaint being that
nothing is being done. Stormwater continues to go into the lake and I think that's one of the grave concerns
with pollution into the lake. Of the existing systems, nothing is being done because the regulations are
arduous, too expensive to follow up with and they're just not working. We have poor participation by the
towns throughout the basin in adopting their model ordinance, Queensbury being one of them. I think
they're overly restrictive, the thresholds for exemptions are too low, the variance procedure is nearly
impossible to get through. It's expensive for people to prepare for it, to undertake and to maintain. Another
fundamental error is, municipalities or public agencies are not held to any standard at all in terms of our
municipal roads. In sununary, first and foremost nothing is being done. Phosphorous right now continues
to go in the lake, there's virtually no stormwater management in process even though laws are on the books,
the Park Commissions is simply ignoring it. It's costly and complicated, it's not acceptable by many of the
communities, it's not being enforced and it's not targeting the principal problem which is runofffrom the
highways and runoff in the Spring time. Further more in alot of these cases, construction of the systems
they're asking for may actually require further clearing of vegetation. I think there's a better answer and I
have basically prepared a two fold argument. One would be regulation of stormwater for municipal roads.
The second would be, provide a practical straight forward means of regulating stormwater for residential
and commercial development.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Reviewed with the Town Board some of his ideas and recommendations.
Supervisor Champagne-It sounds great, where do we start?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The Zoning Administrators of the Basin by which all this has come to pass,
have been meeting informally for over a year and we've taken focus on this stormwater issue. We've met
once with the Park Commission already, they presented their view on things, they want to hear back from
us now and we're meeting with them Wednesday afternoon to give our point of view. The same thing I'm
saying to you now, I'll say to them with your concurrence. I've already talked with the Zoning
Administrators from Lake George and Hague, they are of the same view and what they'd like to advance
and I have copies for you here (submitted to Town Board) is a model ordinance. It's very straight forward,
simply written, nine page model ordinance for stormwater regulations which the individual towns could
adopt through local law to regulate stormwater until the Park Commission gets it's act together.
Councilman Monahan-You're basically saying, the cost should correlate with the benefit. In other words,
you don't make a high cost to an individual if the benefit is very minor to the lake.
Town Board held discussion and agreed to send Mr. Martin to the meeting with the consensus of the Town
Board which agrees with Mr. Martin's direction.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 69, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular
Session and enters Executive Session to discuss one matter that's litigation involved in a zoning matter and
a personnel matter.
Duly adopted this 31st day of January, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action was taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY