1994-06-20
TOWN BOARD MEETING
JUNE 20, 1994
7:04 P.M.
MTG #31
RES 284-318
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE
COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN
COUNCILMAN DR. R. GEORGE WISW ALL
COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO
COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
JIM MARTIN, TOM FLAHERTY, MIKE SHAW
PRESS: GF Post Star
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN PULVER
Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order ... welcomed everyone.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ROUND POND WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION
NOTICE SHOWN
7:05 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone here to speak pro or con, relative to the Round Pond Water
District Extension? Okay, Mr. Flaherty, do you care to make a statement relative to that or?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. TOM FLAHERTy-It stands on it's facts.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank you. Alright, we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Executive Director, Mr. Jim Martin lead the Town Board through the Short Environmental Assessment
Form, Part II: Impact on Land. I, Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
Answer, Yes, Small to Moderate. 2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? Answer, No. Impact on Water. 3, Will proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected? Answer, No.4, Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Answer, No.5, Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Answer, Yes,
Small to Moderate - other impacts - just during construction. 6, Will proposed action alter drainage flow or
patterns, or surface water runoff? Answer, No. Impact on Air. 7, Will proposed action affect air quality?
Answer, No. Impact on Plants and Animals. 8, Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered
species? Answer, No.9, Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species? Answer, No. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources. 10, Will the proposed action affect
agricultural land resources? Answer, No. Impact on Aesthetic Resources. II, Will proposed action affect
aesthetic resources? Answer, No. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources. 12, Will proposed
action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? Answer, No.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation. 13, Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing
or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Answer, No. Impact on Transportation. 14, Will there
be an effect to existing transportation systems? Answer, No. Impact on Energy. 15, Will proposed action
affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Answer, No. Noise and Odor Impacts. 16, Will
there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? Answer, Yes, Small to
Moderate - other impacts - just during construction. Impact on Public Health. 17, Will proposed action
affect public health and safety? Answer, Yes, a positive effect. Impact on Growth and Character of
Community or Neighborhood. 18, Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
Answer, No. 19, Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts? Answer, No.
Councilman Caimano-I will move the resolution for non-significance based upon the items that we have
added as went along.
Councilman Pulver-I'll second it.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
ROUND POND WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION TO THE
QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 284, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of adopting a
resolution establishing an extension to the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, to be known
as the Round Pond Extension, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires
environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the rules and regulations of
SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in
Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns,
determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action
will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and complete such other information as may be necessary
to indicate such, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting
is hereby approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in
accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
ROUND POND WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION
TO THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 285, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing an extension
to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, to be known as the Round Pond Extension with certain
excess facilities, and
WHEREAS, a map, plan and report has been prepared regarding the said extension of the existing
Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such extension to serve an area adjacent to, in and around that
area of the Town of Queensbury in the northerly portion of the Town east of U S. Route 9 along Round
Pond Road and Birdsall Road and including a subdivision known as the Round Pond Subdivision, as more
specifically set forth in the said map, plan and report, and
WHEREAS, the map, plan and report have been filed in the Town Clerk's Office, in the Town of
Queensbury, and are available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the map, plan and report was prepared by Thomas W. Nace, P.E., Haanen
Engineering, 253 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, 12804, an Engineer licensed by the State of New
York, and
WHEREAS, said map, plan and report shows the boundaries of the proposed extension of the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District and a general plan of the water system, and a report of the
proposed water system and method of operation, and
WHEREAS, the map shows the water distribution mains, gate valves and hydrants, together with
the location and a general description of all related or appropriate public works existing or required, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to establish the said proposed
Water District Extension pursuant to Town Law Article 12A and consolidate the same with the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, pursuant to ~206(A) of the Town Law of the State of New York, and
WHEREAS, Thomas W. Nace, P.E., in developing the map, plan, and report for Mr. Passarelli
previously ascertained that an 8" diameter water main along Round Pond Road would be sufficient for
purposes of providing water service to the area that Mr. Passarelli has requested be served, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Consolidated Water Superintendent has recommended that the
pipeline to be installed along Round Pond Road be increased from an 8" diameter main to a 12" diameter
main since such excess capacity would provide sufficient capacity for further water needs in that area of the
Town and provide a pipe that could be extended in the future to allow the Town to tie into other water pipes
located at or near Round Pond and Bay Road intersections, thereby increasing the reliability of the
transmission system and basically being consistent with overall good planning for the future growth and
reliability of the water system, and
WHEREAS, the engineers for Mr. Passarelli, Thomas W. Nace, P.E., Haanen Engineering has
advised that there will be an additional cost for such an increase in pipe in the amount up to $27,000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by separate resolution, provided
authorization for excess facilities and made the same subject to a Permissive Referendum as is required by
Town Law ~192-A, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning the establishment of the District Extension was duly held
on June 20, 1994 at which time all persons interested were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the said Town Board has considered the establishment of said extension in
accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a negative
declaration concerning environmental impacts,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS
RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that:
I. notice of said public hearing was published and posted as required by law and is
otherwise sufficient;
2. it is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Round Pond Extension
to the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, as the same has been described in the map, plan
and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and as more specifically described
herein;
3. all property and property owners within said extension are benefitted thereby;
4. all property and property owners benefitted are included within the limits of said
extension;
5. pursuant to ~206a of the Town Law of the State of New York, it is in the public interest
to assess all expenses of the district, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established as a charge
against the entire area of the district as extended and it is in the public interest to extend the district only if
all expenses of the district shall be assessed against the entire district as extended, and
IT IS FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that:
1. The Round Pond Extension to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District be and the same is
hereby authorized, approved and established in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth
herein and in the previously described map, plan and report, and construction of the improvement may
proceed and service provided and subject to the following;
a.
of Health;
the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
b. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation;
c. the approval by the Town Board of the execution of an agreement between the
Developer, Mr. Guido Passarelli, and the Town of Queensbury, providing for the payment of the cost of
installation of the water pipes and contribution to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and
payment by the Town of Queensbury for excess facilities.
d. a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article 7 of the Town Law of the
State of New York;
e. the adoption of a final Order by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury;
2. The boundaries of the Round Pond Extension to the Queensbury Consolidated Water
District are as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ROUND POND EXTENSION
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK
Beginning at a point, said point being the intersection of the northerly boundary of the
Round Pond Road right of way and the easterly boundary of the existing Town of Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, said point being approximately 500 feet east of the easterly edge of the US.
Route 9 right of way; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of the Round Pond Road right of way to
a point, said point being the southwesterly corner of a portion of Parcel I-Block 2-Section 67 of the Tax
Maps of the Town of Queensbury and the southeasterly corner of Parcel 3. I-Block 2-Section 36; thence
northerly along the easterly boundary of a portion of Parcell-Block 2-Section 67 to the northwest corner of
said Parcell-Block 2-Section 67; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Parcell-Block 2-
Section 67 crossing the Birdsall Road Right of Way to a point, said point being the intersection of the
easterly boundary of the Birdsall Road right of way and the northerly boundary of Parcel I-Block 2-Section
67; thence southeasterly along the Birdsall Road right of way to a point, said point being the intersection of
the easterly boundary of the Birdsall Road right of way and the northerly boundary of the Round Pond
Road right of way; thence southeasterly along an extension of the easterly boundary of the Birdsall Road
right of way and crossing the Round Pond Road right of way to a point on the southerly boundary of the
Round Pond Road right of way; thence westerly along the southerly boundary of the Round Pond Road
right of way to a point, said point being the intersection of the easterly boundary of the existing Town of
Queensbury Consolidated Water District and the southerly boundary of the Round Pond Road right of way,
and said point being approximately 500 feet east of the easterly edge of the US. Route 9 right of way;
thence northerly along the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District boundary crossing the Round
Pond Road right of way to the point of beginning.
3. The improvements to be constructed by the Developer and included and made a part of
the extension shall consist of the purchase and installation of water distribution mains, hydrants and gate
valves and such other facilities as more specifically set forth in the aforesaid map, plan and report prepared
by Thomas W. Nace, P.E. and the costs shall also include a proportionate share of the cost of the Water
Treatment Plant, mains and other facilities of the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District;
4. All proposed water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in full accordance with the
Town of Queensbury specifications and ordinances and in accordance with approved plans and
specifications and under competent engineering supervision and thereafter all water mains and
improvements shall be turned over to the Town of Queensbury without charge;
5. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvement is estimated to be
$147,000.00, said amount to be paid by the Developer and except that the Town will be responsible for the
payment of up to $27,000 thereof as a cost for excess facilities consisting of changing the water line from
an 8" main to a 12" main as required by the Town;
6. There will be no financing of the proposed Water District Extension improvements by the
proposed District, the Town of Queensbury, or the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, the Developer
will contribute towards existing facilities, and parcels in the proposed District will contribute to the
Consolidated Water District as herein set forth and the Town shall pay, from current funds, the cost of the
excess facilities;
7. In accordance with ~206(A) of the Town Law of the State of New York, all of the
expenses of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter
established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended;
8. Expenses occasioned after the creation of the extension shall be assessed, levied, and/or
collected from the several lots and parcels of land within the extension on the same basis as the
assessments, levies, and/or collections are made in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District and such
assessments shall be made on an ad valorem basis and user charge basis (water meter charges);
9. The map, plan and report describing the improvements is on file with the Town Clerk of
the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in
the provisions of Article 7 and Article 12-A of the Town Law of the State of New York and the Town
Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file, post, and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be
required by law.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW / NO PARKING - PORTION OF ALGONQUIN
DRIVE
NOTICE SHOWN
7:15 P.M.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Open the public hearing. Any discussion, anyone to speak for or against
the proposed law for no parking on a portion of Algonquin Drive? Yes sir.
MR EDWARD TROMBLEY -Yes, I'm Edward Trombley and I live on Algonquin Drive. Most of those
people in that row back there are immediate neighbors on that intersection and we have some pictures here
of cars that are parked there illegally there constantly, over night. And the school bus stops there four times
a day and there can be no two way traffic there. You have to stop. He's cars are parked some times on the
blacktop, most of the time on the shoulder, right to the edge of the road. Now, I have pictures here
(presented to the Town Board) He's advertising that corvette. This van has been there for a month, it hasn't
been moved.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Have you seen these before?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-I've been over there, they're parked up and down.
MR. TROMBLEY-That's parked there over night most of the time and there it is parked again most of the
time.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-And then they park this way so the buses can't get through.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Betty have you seen these?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I haven't.
COUNCILMAN PULVER-Anybody who walks up and down the street, they can't see beyond the ...
MR. TROMBLEY-But this is parked here for spite most of the time.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Is it?
MR. TROMBLEY... now here's the school bus stopping there, it stops there four times a day for pickup
and sometimes there's twenty kids there. We have petitions.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes, you want to give the petitions over to the Clerk.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else care to speak for or against no parking on Algonquin Drive?
MR. ANTHONY MARTIN-My name is Anthony Martin, I live up on Upper Sherman Avenue and I go by
this area on Algonquin three or four times a week on my bicycle and between dodging cars and dodging
kids and cars coming off John Street, somebody's going to get killed there one of these days. I mean,
there's no reason why they've got to park cars half in the road and half off the road. Something should be
done. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak?
MR. WILSON HERSCHLEB-My name is Wilson Herschleb from 33 Herald Drive, Queensbury. I'm not a
resident of Algonquin or just the immediate area but I've gone through there an awful lot of times and I
have a friend there and when ever I visit, I see the conditions of the cars that are parked there. Four cars,
three cars and sometimes two cars unregistered and I didn't know that, that was allowed in Queensbury, that
you should have two cars anyhow. It seems to me that, that creates, there's no use to have two cars
unregistered. One car possibly and I stand in objection to it because I can see this spreading and I can see it
starting in my area and I do not like that at all. So, I strongly object to it and I stand with Mr. Trombley on
this.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You're only allowed one car anyway.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Two.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You're allowed two?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, your allowed two unlicensed vehicles, right?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think it's one.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think it's one, too.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do you?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes.
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I do too.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You got your book with you?
SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else care to speak for or against the issue? Okay, I'll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:20 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON
A PORTION OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 286, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law
which would provide for the regulating of parking on a portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of
Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the said proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Regulating Parking on
a Portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury" has been presented at this meeting, a copy of
said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, a public hearing on said proposed Local Law was duly conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts and enacts the
proposed Local Law Regulating Parking on a portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury, to be
known as Local Law No.: 6, 1994, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a
copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the Local
Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home
Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 6th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 6,1994
A LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON A PORTION OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE
IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this Local Law is to prohibit, under penalty of fine for violation, the parking of any
vehicle on the east side of Algonquin Drive from Sherman Avenue to John Street, in the Town of
Queensbury.
2. Definitions:
Curbline: The prolongation of the lateral line of a curb or, in the absence of a curb, the lateral
boundary line of the pavement of the roadway.
For the purpose of this Local Law, the words "Motor Vehicle," "Vehicle," "Person," and "Park"
shall have the same meaning as set forth for the definitions of such words in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of
the State of New York. The "side of' a road shall mean that area of the road or road right -of-way which
adjoins that portion of the road which is currently used for vehicular travel.
3. No Parking on a Portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury:
No motor vehicle or other vehicle of any kind shall be allowed or permitted to park and no persons
shall park a motor vehicle or other vehicle for any period of time on the east side of or in the right -of-way
of the east side of that portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of
New York, lying and existing between Sherman Avenue and John Street.
4. Penalty:
Any person violating any provision or paragraph of Section 3 of this Local Law, shall, upon
conviction, be punishable for a first offense by a fine not to exceed $25.00, and for a second offense by a
fine not to exceed $50.00. In addition to the aforesaid penalties, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury may institute any proper action, suit, or proceeding, to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate any
violation of this Local Law.
5. No-Parking Signs:
The Town of Queensbury Superintendent of Highways shall be authorized and directed to:
A. indicate the designation of the no-parking area on that portion of Algonquin Drive
referred to in paragraph 3 hereof, by appropriate markings and/or signs made in accordance with and as
may be provided by, the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and any applicable
State rules or regulations.
B. Maintain all markings or other traffic control devices required by reason of this Local
Law.
6. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing thereof in the Office of the
Secretary of State.
DISCUSSION - NORTH QUEENSBURY SEWER
7:23 P.M.
Supervisor Champagne-This is the discussion on the North Queensbury Sewer System. With us this
evening is Bill Remington, Deputy Superintendent for the Warren County Department of Public Works and
Shawn Veltman from Clough, Harbour Associates, the engineers working on the project. So, with that Bill
or Shawn, who ever wants to go first.
Mr. Bill Remington-Okay, we came here at Fred Champagne's request. There's two issues
Supervisor Champagne-I might ask for those of you that are here for the first time, I believe this is the third
in a series of public informational meetings. I know it seems like thirty but I believe it's three or four?
Mr. Remington-Yea, that's three since you took office, I believe. We had many before that.
Supervisor Champagne-Right, that's all I'm interested in.
Mr. Remington-Okay, Shawn and I are here to help people again and the Board make a decision on which
way they want to go with the sewer. What we're looking at now, is the dollars left in the budget to cover
the North Queensbury Sewer, the Environmental Impact Statement, they're pretty much used up. We have
enough dollars to finish alternative and do details on that for the Environmental Impact Statement. The
other issue is on July 12th, we have representatives from Warren County going to Washington to look for
money for the sewer project. We really need input to know whose in the project and whose not. We'd like
to have Queensbury with us in the project, I see no reason they can't be. But it's basically where we're at,
it's decision making time and that's pretty much what we're here for. There's two alternatives I think are
being heavily considered. One and Shawn will brief everybody on it, is an alternative on John Salvador's
site and another one at Queensbury Country Club. We're just here to answer questions for the Board.
Which ever the Board wants to go, the direction is fine with us, we just need a direction and I think the
Board just needs input from the people involved. Do you want Shawn just to brief us the options?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes, if you would please, just walk us through that, at least the Pickle Hill area so
these folks are aware of what the plans are.
Mr. Shawn Veltman-Thank you very much Supervisor Champagne. I think Bill was correct in his
assessment that I don't want to go back through all the alternatives that we've looked at over time. I was
here at the Town Board meeting, what, a month ago, when we talked about the latest alternative that we
had developed. We had a concept where we're going to collect the wastewater from the North Queensbury
area and then take that down to John Salvador's property which if any of you had come up and looked at
this map a little earlier, it would be this property right down behind Dunham's Bay Lodge and we had
developed a concept where we would develop a nine hole golf course that we would use as an integral part
of the treatment system. We would essentially treat on site the wastewater that we receive from that service
area that we've identified on our map. We would treat it to a high level of treatment and then during the
Summer we would apply the wastewater, we would spray apply the wastewater on the fairways of the golf
course which would allow us to get the larger volumes of wastewater into the ground or evaporated during
the Summer period and then during the Winter, what we would do is we would have constructed under the
fairways of the golf course infiltration systems. When we're dealing with the lower flows during the
Winter months, it would be much simpler task for us to try to get the volume of wastewater that we would
be dealing with into the ground and we would build that as an integral part of the golf course facility. The
feedback that we got at that meeting, was that there was generally consensus that this seemed to, this option
addressed alot of the concerns that had been brought forth so far on the project and it kind of was a
compilation of alot of input from alot of different people. But one issue was raised at the meeting last
month and that was Gene Smith from the Queensbury Country Club spoke out and indicated that he would,
he expressed interest in receiving the effluent for his property and expressed some concern that the town by
building a nine hole golf course would be operating in competition with the private golf courses that
already exist in the area and the Board did adopt a resolution at the conclusion of the meeting that basically
said, that they were in favor of the concept that involved the use of a golf course facility for effluent
disposal but they wanted, they directed the county to continue in evaluation. To expand that evaluation to
look at the possibility of using existing golf courses in the project area. One of the issues that we raised at
the meeting was the fact that the, there is a law on the record, on the books now that prohibits the out of
base in transfer of water and there was a concern by going to the Queensbury Country Club, we're not clear
at that point in time but there was a concern that part or all the property was outside of the Lake George
Basin and that would essentially preclude or make very difficult the feasibility of that option. Well, what
happened was after the meeting, we did arrange to get together with Gene Smith, we got the tax parcel
mapping for his property and in fact the Queensbury Country Club which is located where we've shown
this area highlighted in green on the corner of 9L and 149. It's an eighteen hole golf course, the boundaries
of the Lake George Basin are identified by this yellow dotted line and for the most part, the property is
within the Lake George Basin, so there would be no problem with the need to get the approval from the
Great Lakes Governors to allow this to happen. So, we did proceed, we met with Gene Smith, we talked
about the concept. He has expressed an interest in the concept, we think that the details could be worked
out to do a similar proposal to what we had proposed on John Salvador's property here at the Queensbury
Country Club. The difference between this is in the concept that we had expressed at the last meeting, we
would take the effluent from the service area and we would treat it down at a treatment plant down on
Dunham's Bay Lodge property and then apply to the ground either through the spray irrigation or the
subsurface discharge on that golf course property that would encompass the back part of the lands that are
owned by John Salvador. In this concept, in order to get the effluent to the golf course in Queensbury,
what we would recommend is treatment down on the lake and probably on Dunham's Bay Lodge and I
know that, that concept was discussed at the Lake George Affairs Committee meeting but it would mean
we would need to convey treated effluent from that site and looking at the possible means to route the
effluent to the Queensbury Country Club property. The most logical routing would be to come down Bay
Road until we got to Pickle Hill Road and then go over Pickle Hill Road and either go over Sunset Trail or
go over Wildwood and down into the Queensbury Country Club property and that would be essentially a
treated effluent force main that once we put it in the ground, it would be like a water line in the ground, it
would not be a, there would be no ongoing impacts related to that facility. But then once we reach the golf
course we would do the same concept that we had talked about on John Salvador's property. We would
need to reconstruct a number of the fairways that exist at the golf course to provide the necessary facilities
to get the wastewater into the ground. There's a few more legal complications in terms of the joint
ownership issues and the fact that you have a private owner of the golf course facility and that facility
would be an integral part of your treatment system. The other difference is, there is a considerable saving
in terms of site development costs because you're dealing with an existing golf course facility and there is
no need to essentially de-vegetate a large area of forested land. But you trade that off against the additional
lengths of force main that you need to construct for the project and when you balance those two things, at
least on a cost basis, you're about a net wash. I mean as close as we can estimate the figures, either way,
going to John Salvador's property and developing the nine hole golf course concept or going to the
Queensbury Country Club option, they're about comparable on a cost basis. I had asked at the Lake George
Affairs Committee meeting knowing the sentiment that was raised two years ago I think it was about this
time of year in July and it was hot, by the people that live in the vicinity of Sunset Trail and Pickle Hill
Road, before we proceeded with any of these options. We do want to get the opportunity for public input
to know whether or not there is public support and board support for the option that would be developed in
the EIS. Our concern is that if we were to go forward with this option without that input, the first time that
the public would have an opportunity to comment on that option would be when the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement is completed and the public hearing, the actual formal public hearing on
the project is scheduled and at that time, it's too late to back track and look at other options. We would
have expended a considerable amount of time and expense to do a detailed environmental evaluation of that
particular option. And what we're hoping to do is by soliciting input at each stage of this process, get some
kind of concurrence and direction on what solution or option best meets all of the needs of the community
and basically what we're here tonight for is to get input.
Councilman Monahan-Fred, can I ask Shawn something first?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, could you give us the pros and cons of each site, please?
Mr. Veltman-Well, on the if you look at the John, let me just start with the original concept that we had
developed, John Salvador's property. You are dealing with, we have certainly plenty of land area there.
There is no need for this long, we would be able to locate the treatment plant right on the property and we
eliminate the need for the long force main to convey the wastewater. It is about three and a half miles that
you would have to pump the wastewater to get up to the Queensbury Country Club. So, we eliminate that
and putting the treatment operation close to the golf course site and you have a much more consolidated
operation from a maintenance point of view and the other advantage is, is that the concept that we had
looked at on the Salvador property was a Town ownership of the entire facility. Now, whether or not the
golf course operation would be contracted out to private individuals to run that or whether the Town did
that we never got into that level of detail but those are certainly options. But, the big advantage would be
that we always envisioned that the Town would own the entire treatment system the integral treatment
system consisting of both the treatment facilities and the land application facilities meaning the golf course.
In the other option to go down to the Queensbury Country Club.
Councilman Monahan-Excuse me just a minute, Shawn, do you foresee any difficulties of because of the
location, wetlands any of the Lake George laws, etc. up there?
Mr. Veltman-No, we had looked at and laid out on the property to make sure that it was viable to do that a
golf course concept and we, there are wetlands on the property we did map the boundaries of the wetlands,
we are really impacting only about twenty five percent of the actual available site area there and the
concept was by putting the golf courses rather than de-vegetating one large area what we would have is
fairway areas where we would be removing trees and developing golf course fairways along the contours of
the property. So, we looked at the golf course as a way to mitigate some of the construction impacts that
would be related to the construction of a large fill absorption type system. The negative side of this is that
we obviously are starting with a site that is heavily wooded now, there would be concerns about the visual
impacts of that, there would be concerns about obviously from the standpoint of the other businesses that
operate golf courses within the region they would be concerned about addition competition and the effect
that, that might have on their businesses. The other down, you could look at it as a down side, the Town
whether they do it by contract operations or whether they do it themselves would have to get involved in
the golf course business. So, those are some of the pluses and minuses when we looked at the Salvador
property.
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, still staying with Salvador, what about consideration of the chemicals that
would have to be applied to fairways and etc. and so on, did you think of the impact of that?
Mr. Veltman-Yes, we did and I think that came up at the last meeting that we talked about when we did, we
had developed a similar concept for the Lake Placid Resort partnership when they were looking at
expansion of the golf course facilities and we did extensive water quality modeling to look at the impact of
the pesticides, the herbicides and the nutrients that are applied to those facilities and to see how that moves
and you know, we are convinced that you can engineer this site to address the water quality considerations
that you would need to address to be able to make this work effectively within the Lake George basin. It is
certainly something that needs to be looked at, site specific in the supplemental EIS but we are comfortable
based on the work that we have done in the past on other facilities like this that we could engineer this
system to address those concerns.
Councilman Monahan-When you came up with a cost for the John Salvador site did you factor in the cost
of like, bathrooms and some kind of a building facility there, there would have to be some type of a
building facility.
Mr. Veltman-Yes, we did, we included a cost ofa club house that would be again, you know as the integral
part of the golf course that would either be operated, again, under private contract operation by the Town or
by the Town itself. Now, some of the other
Unknown-Can I ask a question on the golf course?
Councilman Caimano-No
Unknown-No not yet?
Supervisor Champagne-Your time is coming.
Mr. Veltman-Those are some of the pros and cons of this site the pros and cons of the other site obviously
when we are starting with an existing golf course facility we are not going to have to cut down a lot of
trees, de-vegetate a large area, we have a much larger facility to work here, we have an eighteen hole
established golf course there is ownership issues that start to get make things a little more complicated
because you would be looking at joint ownership in essence of the treatment facilities and we did discuss
with Jean Smith some of the possible ways thorough permanent easements that those issues could be
addressed it would precluded in the long terms some possible re-uses of the golf course property if the
effluent system in an integral part of this site it won't be possible for Jean's Smith at some point in the
future without major concerns to stop using this as a golf course and then say sub-divide it into a real estate
subdivision and build houses on it because the Town would have to rely upon that for the long term as an
integral part of the treatment system. In absent another way to deal with it that would have to remain. You
are also dealing with people who know how to they are willing on a to operate the golf course part of the
system you have got people that are professionally involved in doing this and they have been doing this for
a long time. It would be a major plus in terms of the upkeep of the golf course because it would give them
an economical source of irrigation water to try to maintain the fairways and they do not currently practice
fairway irrigation, they water the approaches and I guess they water the greens but they do have an
irrigation system in there but it does not cover the fairways and this would obviously give them a way to
provide a better facility for the public to use. The down side is you have got to go as I said you have got to
transport the waste water about three and a half miles by pipe to get to the site you have got two operations,
you would have the treatment plant on one end three and a half miles away you would have the effluent
disposal facility so, there is good things and there is bad things about each options and I am sure that we
could engineer either one to make it satisfy the needs of the project and address the environmental concerns
but I know there are going to be issues associated with this site I mean we are not that far from the site that
we originally proposed for subsurface disposal off from Pickle Hill Road and the concern that I expressed
at the Lake George Affairs Committee Meeting is that we may have a lot of those same concerns voiced
over this particular alternative.
Councilman Monahan-But, you were going to put the treatment site there at the Pickle Hill Site too? The
Treatment Plant.
Supervisor Champagne-Ok, Lets now open it up to the Public?
Georgette would you like, I am going to ask you to come up to the microphone we need to pick
Ms. Georgette Foley-I wanted to sort of ask this question when he was talking about the Salvador Project.
Why do you have to have a golf course on it
Councilman Monahan-Excuse me Fred
Councilman Caimano-Lets gets name
Councilman Monahan-We need name and address
Ms. Foley-do all these effluent areas have a golf course associated with it.
Supervisor Champagne-Have a seat,
Councilman Caimano-Give us your name.
Supervisor Champagne-Give us your name.
Ms. Foley-My name is Georgette Foley,
Councilman Monahan-And address for the record
Ms. Foley-Sunset Trail, Queensbury.
Supervisor Champagne-Ok, now the question is why do we have to have a golf course part of this system.
Councilman Caimano-We don't.
Supervisor Champagne-At the Salvador property.
Ms. Foley-Yes, right because do you usually have a golf course associated with the effluent?
Supervisor Champagne-Mr. Veltman, answer that.
Mr. Veltman-No. You know that issue did come up at the last meeting and there is no reason why you
would necessarily have to have a golf course. We could have soccer fields there, we could have walking
trails, greenways, green areas. The thing that's important though is that the construction of those green
areas be designed so that we an apply wastewater at volumes that would allow to get good root uptake of
the water that we apply. We want to be able to keep the area mowed because we want to collect the
clippings and that way remove some of the nutrients that are applied to the soils via the land application,
there's spay irrigation. It's just a natural, it would be a natural extension if you were to have all these grassy
areas, you know to go the extra step to develop a golf course and then generate some revenue to offset
some of the costs that would be associated with project development. It just seems to make sense from a
business point of view.
Councilman Caimano-In short, it was an economic decision.
Ms. Foley-And you have worked out the financing on that?
Mr. Veltman-Yes.
Ms. Foley-To say that, that would be the most economic way to do it. That's why you've gone the golf
course route?
Councilman Caimano-As opposed to what?
Supervisor Champagne-A grassy field.
Ms. Foley-A grassy field.
Councilman Caimano-Oh yea, because there's some income coming back in.
Ms. Foley-But is there enough income to make it
Mr. Veltman-It's not a huge, it's not a huge difference.
Councilman Caimano-Mrs. Foley you should know
Ms. Foley-Because this is important if we're worried about money here.
Councilman Caimano-Well, no, no you should know also that one of the, one of the strong negatives to it is
that the town would a facto become an owner of a golf course and we're not sure that we want to do that.
That's the down side of this whole thing.
Ms. Foley-So have you looked at not making it a golf course and doing something else?
Councilman Caimano-Oh, sure.
Ms. Foley-I just didn't hear him talk about that.
Mr. Veltman-We never presented that option, although it was discussed at the last meeting. There is no
reason why that couldn't be done.
Ms. Foley-That would solve your negative problem with the golf course ownership by the Town of
Queensbury that you have.
Councilman Caimano-It could if it really is a problem that's just one of the things we have to look at. We
don't know that it is a problem that's one of the things that has been brought up as a problem.
Ms. Foley-Thank you.
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, question. You said we'd mow it and pick up the clippings because then
we're going to take the nutrients away.
Mr. Veltman-Right.
Councilman Monahan-Are we also getting in those clippings insecticides and pesticides and all the stuff
that's applied on golf courses that are going to be in these clippings that have got to go some place?
Mr. Veltman-No more than you would in any, there are a lot of communities now have gone to leaf and
grass composting. I know that down in the Town of Bethlehem, I got about six truck loads of it because I
just planted potatoes and I used it to hill in my potatoes because they've been doing that for years now and
they generate a tremendous quality material. A lot of the people in the Town of Bethlehem put a lot of
stuff on their lawn, but they've tested it the quality of the material is really good. Our concept would be is
that we would take those grass clippings and compost those to develop a usable product to put back in. If it
were a golf course you might use it for repairs and those types of things. A lot of places it is composting in
the Town of Bethlehem they give it away to anybody who is a resident in the town and there is a lot of
other similar examples throughout the area.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes sir.
Dick Waldron-I'm a seasonal resident on Dunham's Bay. I would like to list six reasons why I think we
should have a grassy field south of Salvador and not send the water to the Queensbury Country Club. The
municipal golf course would put government in competition with ten other area private courses with all the
potential political problems associated, isn't this working?
Councilman Monahan-You have to speak directly into these microphones.
Mr. Waldron-It would put government in a competitive position with ten other area courses. A nine hole
course on forty acres is a tight course and if it were to prove uninteresting it probably would be a money
loser in two years. Then in addition to the unnecessary expense with building the course in the first place
we would face additional expenses as a district to keep it going. A golf course without a bar is a bad
investment and that would bring into play all the problem with the liquor license. While polished effluent
need be acceptable in the south and southwest, I believe it would not be accepted well here. If that were the
case and people were to vote with their feet and go neither to the Queensbury Country Club nor to the
course south of Salvador's the thing was going to be a money loser and we're really going to have to pay for
it ourselves and it could well happen. If someone were to agree to accept effluent pipe to another location
there would have to be guarantees that this arrangement could not be terminated which just might happen if
effluent irrigation is not accepted. The original plan with the golf course south of Salvador's contained 2.3
million for a golf club house that would not be necessary if we were just a grassy field. In the latest figures
that we have Clough Harbour estimates close to 2 million dollars to run that pipe from Dunham's Bay down
to the Queensbury Country Club. But, all the rest of the pipes in the system are costing something like 1.6
million dollars. It is hard to see how you can spend more money for a three and a half mile pipe with just
the pipe than it would to run it all around the North Queensbury collecting all the sewage. I think we all
know that sewage treatment plant is right up there with popularity with landfills and incinerators and if it
turns out that the people don't want to play on a course irrigated with effluent we got a problem. Thank
you.
Councilman Caimano-Just a question. Why would you think that polished effluent might not be acceptable
here as opposed to other places?
Mr. Waldron-Well, because I think in other places there are much more serious water problems in the
South, in Florida and in the South West and the States of Arizona. Now, I believe that some of those
courses require no notice on them, warning this course is irrigated with re-cycled water, I believe. Now our
own DEC requirements I think on the Part 360, prohibit you eating vegetables that are grown on land
irrigated with effluent. You may grow hay and grain feed, and feed them to animals and eat the animals
but you cannot eat the vegetables off this field for some reason.
Councilman Caimano-You are talking about DEC after all.
Mr. Waldron-I am sorry I did not hear you.
Councilman Caimano-I said you are talking about DEC after all. Many of the rules we do not understand.
Mr. Waldron-Understand them or not, you are going to have a hard time getting around them.
Councilman Caimano- That is right, we have no way of getting around them.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you.
Mr. Waldron-Thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else? Yes, Sir.
Mr. Jack Erceg-My name is Jack Erceg and I live on 32 Wildwood Place and a Street that has come up and
mentioned of one of the Streets that could be selected for the pipe, piping the effluent. One of the problems
that I have and I am strongly against bring the water down to the Queensbury golf course. Strongly against
it, just a year and a half ago I had a major problem with the possibility of contamination of my water by the
Queensbury golf course, a possibility arose, all right, therefore my house because worthless if my well was
no good my house was worthless, I could not sell my home. I do not want effluent coming out into or
close to the property, I am within fifty feet of the fifth tee. My well is within one hundred and fifty feet of
the golf course I do not want effluent coming on the golf course and leaching into my well. I just do not
want it. Is that there were problems before and that was the possibility of wrong chemicals being utilized
by the golf course to green their property. Now, the possibility was investigated thoroughly by the State and
was found to be unfounded. But the possibility exists that chemicals could be put on that property that
could contaminate the well water. Now, I think there is a conflict somewhat between the Town and having
it on private ownership of the golf course who has the liability? Ifby chance the ground water is
contaminated is it the problem of the Town or is it the problem of the golf course? Who did it. Now, I
have a sincere, sincere problem because I have people coming to be right now today, saying you are close
to a golf course your water is probably contaminated. I say that is not true, I had it tested thoroughly but in
certain parts of the country it is very strongly true. Because they are using chemicals they are using them
much too heavily and they are contaminating the ground water. So, I really am vehemently against it. One
thing I also want to point out is with regards to the golf course you are looking at a major expense. Having
a field there to take care of just the evaporation of the water seems to be very simplistic and sometimes we
should look at things that are simplistic and low cost instead of things that are very difficult that create
problems. It seems to me we always try to look at the most difficult ways of doing things and not the
easiest, sometimes the easiest why don't we get a five year old child to give us an idea as to what to do they
will probably come up with a much better idea. Is that, lets make it simple. The other thing I do want to
point out is that I am not for golf courses, I am not a golfer, I stink. The thing is though is that this
community if you drive down Route 149 right now it is funnel the cars are parked on both sides of the area
where the golf course is. You get a semi coming down at you and you get nervous you get real nervous and
if you want to know the statistics, golf courses are being built one per day in this country, 360 per year it is
not keeping up with the entrance of people going into this sport. Golfing is the most, is the most heavily
involved sport right now. More people are getting involved in golfing than any particular sport and it's
primarily older people. I am saying I do not see a lot of younger people around here I am seeing more
older people so I think the golfing is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. The need for another golf
course I do not really know, but I have to say this, if that Queensbury is getting pretty congested over there.
I cannot see where Queensbury is going to be able to handle the crowd of people that they do have right
now unless some major changes are made for parking or some widening of that road. I think there is some
work that is going on with regards to that, but right now that is a very, very dangerous area and if, I drive
that area I go through that area two to three times per day and the cars are packed and on the weekends it is
worse. So, there is not much room for additional business there. So, really if you are looking at it is that if
you have to go, golf course I do not think I would go Queensbury all right, I think I would look someplace
else. But, I do not even see the need for a golf course. I am strongly, strongly, strongly against this. I do
not want another situation where I thought I had a Love Canal, a Love Canal and that is what I thought I
had because I put a lot of money into a house into a dream home and I thought I blew it. I thought it was
over and it was washed and now I see that this thing is cropping up again I do not want the water there.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Yes, Sir.
Mr. John Tata-Good evening, my name is John Tata and I too live on
Wildwood Place my property does abut the Queensbury Golf Course and I am also opposed to this project
as it is listed here. I would like to reiterate basically several of the things that Jack already said. I am very
concerned about the whole idea of running pipes down Bay Road through or near to wetlands. All of us
who bought land from Ed Grant were made very clear that these wetlands are really very precious. We do
treat them that way. Where we placed our homes was very dependant on where they were written on our
maps. In the concept of running these pipes granted not through but very close to concerns me. And that is
a risk that I am concerned about. Again, what Jack said, I am very concerned about the water supply for all
the same reasons. The whole idea of looking at these two projects if you look at it from a risk benefit ratio
I do not see a lot of benefit coming down Bay Road. If this was a patient and we were looking at a risk
benefit analysis of what to do for them this would not be one of my choices. The other thing of more
sensitive issue that Jack did refer to is if Queensbury does become involved with the golf course I would be
concerned that it too would be totally 100% accountable and responsible for any actions that had been
taken and any activities that went on previous on the golf course. Like any litigation that might occur,
people look for the broader shoulders and the deepest pockets and that would be the municipality. I am
very concerned and I oppose it. Thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Vidi Marcinkevicius-I am a resident of 12 Sunset Trail. I am looking at the two choices that are being
offered and to me I do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to come up with the answer. I have been
in business in this area for well over two decades and any time I have seen a town or any type government
mixed with private business that has lead to nothing but disasters. We have a situation here where the
Town of Queensbury can have full control over where the effluent goes that will not involve any other
neighborhoods it will not involve a private business it does not even require a golf course it just requires
open fields. So, why don't we just keep it simple. I am very much against running any type of effluent to
the Queensbury Golf Course because you never know, private business goes out of business there is such a
thing as bankruptcy it happens all the time in private business. They may sell, there could be some
leaching from the fairways, the fairways have never been irrigated before who knows that the end result
with irrigation is going to be? Maybe it will damage the water sheds if it damages the water sheds like Jack
was saying it could be a lot of law suits. Where is the lawsuits fall? On the shoulders of our the broadest
and contain the biggest wallets and that would be the Town of Queensbury. So, I am very much against
running down Pickle Hill out Sunset Trail lets keep the problem contained lets keep the problem controlled
by the Town of Queensbury and lets keep it as an open field and not a golf course and I believe that myself
and all my neighbors on Sunset Trail, Wildwood, Pickle Hill we will do everything in our power to try to
prevent that from occurring. In other words running the pipe through our neighborhood. Thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else? Yes, Sir, the gentleman in the back?
Mr. Kenneth Footlocker-My name is Ken Footlocker and I live on Upper Bay Road I just have a few
questions which maybe at an earlier meetings have been hashed over but I was not here from them, I would
like to have them answered. Basically I would like to address the engineers that are doing the project.
Between the two sites the Queensbury Golf Course site and the Salvador site the soil situation I know as a
kid I used to do a lot of hiking up behind Dunhams Bay Lodge I know there is a lot of rock ledge up there
is it really suited for this sort of thing?
Mr. Shawn-For those of you that were here at the last meeting, we did discuss the soils issues, initially
when we proposed the first concept for subsurface disposal for this project we looked at the property that
was on Pickle Hill Road because in our evaluation it was strictly an engineering evaluation, the best soils
the best area for discharge was that site. When you start to take into consideration some of the other factors
that have to be involved in make a decision we came back to the Salvador property. We have been out
there we have looked at the property, know it is not ideal and the reason why we are looking at this grassy
field or golf course concept is for the very reason that the soils are relatively limited there and in order to
make this work effectively we need a large area in which to infiltrate the wastewater and what we are doing
by using the grass field or the golf course concept is that during the summer when we have the highest
flows we were able to get a lot of evaporation and transpiration because we have large areas that we are
applying it to. We are not expecting a lot of this dumped to the ground. During the winter when we have
our lowest flows we obviously cannot spray or irrigate those periods of time we have limited subsurface
disposal areas that we believe we can work within the constraints of the site. So, that is why we initially
developed this concept for that piece of property it is not a case that we did not feel comfortable from an
engineering point of view that you could construct a fill system to reliable discharge into the ground the full
amount of flow that we would have during the summer months when we had the highest flow in the
system. When we did numbers and I presented them at the last meeting it shows the relative proportion of
the effluent that we would generate each month. How much goes into the irrigation how much goes into
the ground and on a golf course concept with the evaporation and transpiration we basically had a deficit
need in terms of water for that facility during the summer months.
Mr. Footlocker-I have a couple of other questions. If it is decided to pipe it to the Queensbury Country
Club, I also have a residence on Dunhams Bay and I am familiar with the base or the foot of the bay and
basically the road is built on rocks that have been cut out of the various rock cuts. How would you lay your
pipes if you were to bring it around the foot of the Bay since it is all exposed?
Mr. Shawn-There was a couple of options because we have been out and walked the property with John
Salvador. Anyone of these construction alternatives, the reason that we have gone and I do not know if you
have attended any of the earlier meetings we are looking at an effluence system, it is a pressure sewer
system we are not looking at gravity sewers so we are looking at relative, we are keeping our cuts to a
minimum so we are hoping to avoid to the greatest extent possible work in rock. We know that, that is a,
that is going to be a fact of life if this project were to go forth, it is not just going to be constrained to this
area there are a lot of other areas where we have factored in and considered that we are going to have to
deal with rock and that is just an unavoidable situation, we did talk to John Salvador in fact he suggested an
alternate routing rather than coming back across here, coming in the back side there is an old road that runs
into the back of this property when you come from Harris Bay. There is another potential way to get in
there but until we have a more comfortable feel that the Town is comfortable with one option we are just
not in a position to go into any more detail engineering to look at those things. But, those are things that
would be developed as part of the SEIS the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Mr. Footlocker-Ok. What I am concerned about at the base of Dunhams Bay where the road goes across
the Bay whoever built the road dumped rock in there and basically it is like a causeway on rock. You can
go eight feet of vertically on either side of the road and straight down you would be either in the lake or in
the creek. My question is how are you going to run the pipe across that portion of the Bay? First if you lay
it on top of the rock it is going to be exposed to the cold and we all know that water freezes at thirty two
degrees and it does not matter how fast it runs when it reaches thirty two degrees it freezes. So, my
question is how would you deal with that problem?
Mr. Shawn-Well, I think we are getting into site specific construction impacts. There is no reason why we
cannot drill and blast to make way for the construction of a pipe line there are options in terms of insulating
the pipe line, you are dealing with wastewater effluent it typically when wastewater leaves the home you
are up, even during the winter time you are up to sixty to seventy degrees fahrenheit and the likely hood
you can get away with a lot of shallower bury depth on a wastewater pipe line than you can with a water
line because, water lines if you start with water from Lake George in the middle of winter the Lake itself is
thirty-two degrees so it does not take a lot of thermal loss for that to freeze but if you let the waste water it
is a whole different situation. But, again the site specific you know, the site specific details of how we
would deal with the specific environmental issues, you know the crossing of areas like that, wetlands
crossings, stream crossings, all those things would need to be identified in the EIS but none of them are
unsurmountable engineering problems.
Mr. Footlocker-Okay. The third question I have, if you did use the Salvador site and you did not go the
golf course idea but went with the straight grass field idea, would it be necessary to use chemicals on that
or can you just use the effluent itself?
Mr. Veltman-No, you wouldn't need to use chemicals and in a golf course situation too, I mean the
chemicals are used for weed control and other things. I mean, it would be more like, if you were to develop
it as a grassy field, it would be more like a farmer's field that you do haying on versus a, I can't imagine that
you would cut it quite as often as you would a golf course. It wouldn't be maintained to the same extent
which would save some costs. So, it would be a little different.
Mr. Footlocker-So, there would be a plus to that in the fact that these chemicals won't eventually leach into
the wetlands?
Mr. Veltman-Well, I'm not convinced that you can't engineer this golf course system, in fact I'm certain that
you could engineer the golf course system to protect against any impact from the application of chemicals
that would be used for weed control.
Mr. Footlocker-Well, as the people here have said, the simpler it is the better it is and I know no matter
where you put water around here, eventually it makes it's way to the lake, it depends upon on how much
soil it has to go through to do that. By just making it a field area back there, you lessen the chance of more
pollution into the lake itself through the wetlands. That's all I have to say, thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? John?
Mr. John Salvador-My name is John Salvador. I'd like to back track a little bit and for those people in the
audience who haven't been at the previous meetings and haven't followed this project, I'd like to make a
few things clear. Number one, this is a Warren County project. It is not a Town of Queensbury project.
Warren County is the lead agency for SEQRA. These people, the engineer and Bill Remington represent
the county. We got involved in this as a town, as a citizens committee a couple of years ago in an effort to
help the consultant and the county identify reasonable alternatives to something they came up with that
didn't seem to fly politically. Reasonable alternatives is all we're trying to put on the table, whether it's the
Queensbury Country Club, the Dunham's Bay Lodge site, the Town of Lake George or the Village of Lake
George, do nothing, go to a pump out system, all the alternatives we looked at, all we're trying to do is get
together a list of reasonable alternatives. This is required under SEQRA. The lead agency is incumbent to
identify reasonable alternatives and their engineer is required to identify the environmental impacts
associated with those alternatives, mitigate those impacts, put a number on the solutions, evaluate social
impacts and come up with a recommendation. It's not our job as citizens, it's not your job as a Town Board.
It's the engineer and the lead agency. As many of you know, I have been a plaintive in a law suit against
the Lake George Park Commission and the DEC concerning the Lake George Park Commission's
Wastewater Regulations. The wastewater regulations are the very underpinnings of the project. Tomorrow
I intend to deliver this letter to Mr. Grant. On June 14th the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals let
stand the Appellate Division's affirmation of the order by Supreme Court, nullifying the wastewater
regulations adopted 1990 by the Lake George Park Commission. As you know, the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Warren County Sewer project based the need for the sewer project on the ability of many
property owners to comply with the wastewater regulations. Now that the wastewater regulations have
been struck down by the courts, the Warren County sewer project and it's subject EIS is without purpose
and meaning. We respectfully request that this Board step back from the sewer project and repeal the
resolutions which adopted the EIS. May we look forward to this action at your next meeting of the Board.
And the three plaintiffs in this law suit will sign this letter. I'd like to read to you the language of the
Appellate Division in their brief, in their decision. SEQRA regulations mandate consideration of all
impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action and this includes subsequent
actions which are likely to be undertaken as a result thereof. The record amply demonstrates that the
construction of a sewer system for at least part of the area covered by the regulations would have been
expected to result from their implementation and that this was apparent and was drawn to the attention of
the commission at the time the regulations were being considered. Supreme Court found the Commission's
Negative Declarations to be incredible as a matter of law, reasoning that the inevitable consequence of
these regulations would be the construction of an expensive sewering system in the Lake George area.
Supreme Court declared the regulations null and void and enjoined their enforcement until the preparation
of a environmental impact statement. Now, in light of that, I don't know what your intentions are tonight
but if you want to proceed further, I have further comments.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Yes.
Ms. Mary Arthur Beebe-I'm Mary Arthur Beebe, I'm the Executive Director of the Lake George
Association and I'd like to thank all of you and all of the public who turned out here tonight to talk about an
issue that has been of deep concern to all the citizens in the town since the mid seventies. We have a
problem at Lake George in that we want to preserve the quality of the water at the lake and the quality of
the lake itself and it has for a long time, been identified that there are several different things causing the
deterioration of the water quality of the lake. One, is the nutrient loading, the phosphorous and nitrogen
that's being fed into the lake as a result as improper wastewater treatment from septic systems, from runoff
and from some other sources. In addition, we're concerned about the bacterial quality of the water because
untreated or improperly or not effectively treated waste from septic systems can be a serious human health
problem and has been, we've known of many areas around the lake where that is a serious problem. So the
challenge is to find a system within that, that is reasonable, that is rationale, that's cost effective and that
will let the people of this area continue to enjoy a high quality, really the best lake in the state. Last year a
number of the citizens in the area got together as a task force and I'm just repeating this because I'm not
sure that all of the people who are here tonight realize the amount of private citizen effort that has gone into
coming up with some of the solutions that we're discussing in regard to the sewer. But the people who
we're involved in the different neighborhood groups all around the lake who would effectively have to
address the wastewater improvement plans for their areas were brought in to the town to participate in
trying to develop a rational solution. They decided that they would like to keep the problem within the
town and solve it within the town rather then to be held subject other communities and their financial needs
in the future. That led to looking at sites within the town that might be able to manage the problem. There
are not a whole lot of locations in the immediate vicinity of the lake that are large enough or have the site
conditions to do the job in the ways that we have seen in other communities. We don't have the depth of
soil that's necessary or the size of the undeveloped lands to do a full job without some creative and rational
thinking. The reason for coming up with a system that is a combination of conservation, wastewater
systems at the homes themselves to reduce the amount of the fluids that will flow to the treatment plant and
the reason for using evaporation as a third stage of treatment was because within the town, as we
understand at LGA, those combinations of things are needed in order to find a site large enough to deal
with the problem, that has the right conditions. That's what we're trying to come up with here. The plan
from here would be for the engineering firm to look at one of these proposals or both of them, very
intensely and do the detailed studies to see if it really will work and to start to plan the solutions and to
compare the costs and then to go to Washington with the other towns around the lake which have already
finished their homework for over a year previous to this to seek some federal assistance to get the job done
after twenty years of planning and studying. I think it's high time we move on. I think the amount of work
that's gone into this needs to be looked at very, very carefully by everyone. The quality of the water that is
proposed to be treated through the evaporation part of the process is very high quality. The bacteria
contamination as Shawn Veltman has explained before, has already been totally removed. Most of the
health hazard types of contaminates would have been removed. We're talking about the final stage of
treatment to reduce the nutrients so that they will not go into the lake and do further damage to the lake's
quality as an echo system. I think we should take another look before we get worked about and fired about
that this is going to damage neighborhoods, this stage of the treatment system. It just doesn't seem possible
when we really look at the facts. Further more, there's nothing to prevent an existing golf course from
starting watering it's own system later in the future with or without the town's sewer system. I don't think
that it's proper, in the past there were lots of arguments about limiting sewers for the area because they
would limit the use of the land and the growth and the development in the Lake George Watershed. That's
not really the proper way to plan and manage growth, through the absence of decent sewer systems for
existing development. What is really needed, is good zoning which this town has very good zoning and
that's the way you manage growth and development. You don't do it by failing to provide facilities to treat
and make the area that is developed save for people and to destroy the quality of the environment that's
there for the people who live here and use the lake. I really encourage all of us to look hard, not to get
worked up and shoot down once more a sewer proposal that before we've looked at the facts, let's look
more carefully and see if we can't get behind a solution. It's very important. I know the Town Board has
spent alot of time on this and you've done a great job listening to us over and over again. Thank you very
much.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you Mary Arthur. Let's have this lady over here.
Ms. Beth Sweeney-My name is Beth Sweeney and I'm a resident of Sunset Trail. I have a list of questions I
can ask but the first thing I'd like to say is I'm very opposed to the alternative of pumping the water out of
Dunham's Bay down Bay Road, across Pickle Hill up either Sunset Trail or Wildwood or Boulderwood. I
believe the potential spraying the effluent on the golf course, there's alot of potentials and questions that
remain unanswered and I really have not seen anything presented here tonight that would make me think
otherwise. I'm also hearing alot of we believe and probably's and that really scares me. One other thing I'd
like to put on the record is, I got a note at my home on Sunset Trail and I called the town office here and
was told that, "Well, we had a short notice and we couldn't get these out to everybody". I personally
believe that every resident of Boulderwood and Wildwood should have received that note and to my
knowledge, they did not and I'd like to put that on the record.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you.
Councilman Caimano-Do you see a shortage of people here tonight?
Ms. Sweeney-No.
Councilman Caimano-Okay.
Ms. Sweeney-But is it fair that hardworking people had to spend extra time telling their neighbors of what
was going on?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
Mr. Karl Kroetz-My name Karl Kroetz. I was sitting here thinking how fortunate we are.
Councilman Caimano-Karl, they can't hear you back there.
Mr. Kroetz-I was sitting here and thinking how fortunate we all are including the Town Board. More then
a year ago the Town of Queensbury started to find a solution to this problem and until a month ago we
didn't do so very good. And here we are tonight with not one solution but two solutions, maybe three
solutions and we're banging our heads against the wall. Now, I live as far away from the golf course as you
can get, I live at the end of Cleverdale but I am opposed to taking that water from the sewer, from the sewer
system and pumping it down to the golf course because of all the problems that we have heard. They were
very specific, Dick Waldron made some very, very good points that I agree with one hundred percent. It's a
problem if we go down to the golf course now and in the future. My solution is to build a grassy field on
John Salvador's property because it solves all the negatives that we have heard tonight. There is no
problem to put it up there where nobody has any objection to it. The Citizens Advisory Committee
suggested that each property owner have it's own secondary tank in good repair which is the primary
treatment. That will help the entire sewer process and it would then be pumped up on top of John
Salvador's property. I think this is the simplest solution there is. I know of no objection to it. I've heard
Shawn Veltman explain why it won't except the same kind of water unless they put the same as a golf
course, unless they put the same kind of soils in. I say, put the same kind of soils in then but if you do that,
I don't think we need people walking over it to make it work. So, we don't need a golf course with all the
inherent problems with a golf course. Forget the golf course, forget the Queensbury Golf Course. Put it up
on Salvador's property where there is no serious objections that I know of. Thank you very much.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you Karl. We'll have first timers through then we'll come back to the
second round.
Mr. Dennis MacElroy-My name is Dennis MacElroy, I'm a resident of Sunset Trail and coincidentally a
property owner on Assembly Point and in that capacity I served on the Citizens Advisory Committee and I
guess with the exception of the May 16th meeting last month, attended the various sessions that we had in
devising alternatives and recommendations to the county. I was a bit surprised when I read in the paper the
following day, May 17th, the golf course concept. It surprised me because in my knowledge of the
Advisory Committee meetings and what not, we never talked about that concept. We did talk about the use
of John Salvador's property as one of the solutions. Sometimes good ideas come along late but I'm not sure
that, that qualifies. I won't reiterate what many of the comments that have been made about that proposal.
I don't think the Town of Queensbury should be in the golf course business. The Smiths run a terrific
business, I don't know that that's an appropriate solution for North Queensbury's problems. I think we have
an opportunity to look into an alternative that satisfies and solves the problem of wastewater disposal for
our North Queensbury area in our more immediate neighborhood. I wouldn't feel that it's appropriate to
pipe treated effluent the three and a half miles or whatever down to the Queensbury Golf Course. I would
suggest that Clough Harbour and the county follow up as their alternative the proposal of using John
Salvador's property in a constructed field area without any golf course involvement. I think that's a
situation that you should and must stay away from. I have some questions just as being an Assembly Point
resident whether this project will ever come to pass but we should solve our problems at home so to speak,
if we can and it appears that there is a solution for doing that. As an aside, I would comment on the plan
prepared that shows the area of town from town line to Dunham's Bay on Route 9L, this is a pet peeve of
mine, I'm glad to see at least now that Clough identifying that as a future sewer area. I would hope that, as
I've said in the past, that that's an area that's included in any proposed district initially and right from the
start. I don't understand and never have understood why that area is considered not in need anymore so
then any of the other areas in North Queensbury. Thank you.
Councilman Caimano- Thanks Dennis.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you. Yes.
Mr. Gilbert Boehm-I'm Gilbert Boehm from Dunham's Bay. We're talking about this extra area that's
required for the supplemental additional load in the Summer. As I look at the figures that were given to us,
the maximum really exists in 2040, that's fifty years roughly from now or forty-five years and they're
talking about two hundred and thirteen thousand gallons that they'll have to dispose of in August. I'd like to
know what they'd have to dispose of in the next ten or twenty years because this assumes a maximum build
out in this area?
Councilman Caimano-Got an answer for him?
Mr. Veltman-If you look at the last meeting Gilbert, I've got a copy here, we did present a, we gave resident
population projections and flows not only for the year 2040 but for the year 1990, the year 2000, the year
2010, the year 2020, the year 2030. So there, all of the numbers are in there and if you look at the two
hundred and thirteen thousand gallons in the year 2040, the number today, say the year 2000 which is, the
nearest projection we have to that is about a hundred and sixty-six thousand nine hundred gallons a day.
So, those numbers are in the figures that we presented. What we looked at was not total build out situation.
What we looked at is, based on the existing projections for what was going to be developed with or without
the sewer, what the possible future increase in flow for that, this facility would be. Obviously the issue of
designing to build, to meet existing needs and some of the constraints of the Lake George law, are issues
that would need to be addressed in the SEIS and whether or not the facility was built for two hundred and
thirteen thousand gallons a day or a hundred and sixty-six thousand nine hundred and five days, I think is
yet to be resolved.
Mr. Boehm-Yea, okay but the cause of the fact I believe right now, you're sizing everything on the basis of
the 2040 year.
Mr. Veltman-Yes, we are.
Mr. Boehm-You could get by with alot less for the next ten or twenty years and in affect, build out later,
expand.
Mr. Veltman-You know, the treatment plant is something that you could do that in a modular way but it
would not make sense at all to build lines in the ground, collection lines. Typically, good practice whether
you expect growth or not, good practice for designing collection lines, effluent conveyance systems would
dictate that you design for the life cycle of the expected materials that you're going to incorporate into the
construction and it would only be a small incremental cost differential for those facilities to go from today,
or the year 2000, say to the year 2040. There would be a substantial savings, incremental savings to build
the treatment facility in a modular fashion to address what you need today and maybe for a reasonable
point into the future and then build on additional facilities. If you recall, when we did the original Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Warren County, the other communities in Warren County, phasing
is something that we included in every evaluation as part of the full assessment. But obviously what we're
trying to do is compare everything on a uniform basis, an apples and apples comparison and just for the
purposes and analysis we have used, it's a conservative approach but we've used the year 2040. But
phasing and those issues are something that would need to be addressed in the SEIS.
Mr. Boehm-Okay, thanks.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you Gil. Anyone else? Okay, John, second time around.
Mr. Salvador-Again, by way of clarification, Mr. MacElroy asked a question, will this project ever come to
fruition. The Draft Environmental Impact State prepared by Clough Harbour mentions two alternatives for
the creation of this sewer system. One, a district and two, an authority. It's very likely that the legislature
could in fact create the Lake George Basin Sewer Authority and that authority could in fact build a sewer
system. They don't need our approval, they don't need anything, the legislature can mandate. They've done
it before, the record shows that. We would have no choice but to hook up and pay. Mrs. Beebe mentioned
the problem of nutrient enrichment of the lake. I have here a page out of the Lake George Park
Commission Wastewater Regulations that the same consultant, Clough Harbour prepared showing that
septic tank phosphorous represents three point seven percent of the phosphorous loading to Lake George.
Three point seven percent is what we're talking about and what we're trying to take care of. Now, based on
that, the Warren County Board of Supervisors prepared a program narrative to obtain the State Grant to
prepare this study and this environmental impact statement and they say in this, "a continuing deterioration
of the water quality of the waters of Lake George", is their concern. A method to reduce the nutrient
loading from wastewater disposal within the Lake George Basin in areas immediately adjacent to the west
side and lower east side, is essential. The two present public sewage disposal systems are at the limits of
their capacities and in place expansion is really not feasible, nor from a nutrient loading standpoint,
desirable. Now, we came to these two golf course options by addressing this program narrative and the
alternative to take the wastewater to the Lake George Village Treatment Plant. I mean, this says they're
not, it's not even feasible to expand them. Nor do we want to discharge the nutrients in the basin, what ever
our percentage is. That's how we got here. There are many, many questions that I have brought forth as a
result of comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that have not been answered to date and
they have not been answered because the consultant said that Queensbury was taken out of the project so
we don't have to answer his questions. Now, we're back in the project. I'd like an answer to them. We've
got a long way to go in this process. I know the County is anxious to finish this study. I don't subscribe to
the fact that they're running out of money. My God, if a developer sat here and told you people trying to
get an EIS through your approval saying he ran out of money, you would just laugh at him. He either pours
more into it or he folds his cards, that's his choice and I think the County has the same choice. There
appeared an article in this week's newspaper, Supervisors want to keep gambling option. They mentioned
in this option a resolution passed on Friday was similar to one passed by the board in 1979 . You know,
what was going on also in 1979? Warren County Sewer District Number One. This project and casino
gambling are inseparable.
Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else? Yes sir.
Mr. Jerry Cashion-My name is Jerry Cashion and I live on 19 Sunset Trail and I think, first of all, I'd like to
say that there are two people who are probably more affected by this Queensbury Golf Course project then
anyone else and that's myself and Mr. Bird who I see sitting in the audience. This is because we own
property between Sunset Trail and Gene Smith's property. Okay, so, this line does not run directly into
Wildwood property. There are properties owned by people on Sunset Trail between this. So, we are
concerned. I don't plan on giving an easement to anyone at any cost. My neighbor asked me, would I do it
for five hundred thousand and I had to think for a little bit but I'm still not going to give an easement to
anyone. And another thing I'd like all the people to be aware of, this was from the summary of the meeting
on May 26th. Mr. Smith, the owner of the golf course, mentioned that there was a forty-eight acre wooded
parcel of land to the northwest of the course, which is QCC land, Queensbury Country Club, this may
accommodate the wastewater treatment facility. So, somewhere in this area, they could put the whole
treatment plant. It could be put there. There's also a twenty acre parcel across the road where the driving
range is located, the soils on this parcel were said to be sandy, gravely soils. The soil survey mapping
confirms this. This may potentially be used for subsurface disposal of effluent. So, in other words, we may
not just be looking at treated water, we may be looking at sewage piped to this area and then treated right in
backyard. This is right from the summary of this meeting. Now, I'd like to say, I'm not as eloquent as
Mary Arthur but I'd like to say that, we have empathy for Lake George but we also have empathy for our
own area and we'd like to see our area remain clean and unpolluted as well. Thank you.
Councilman Caimano-Before that goes any further, do you want to answer that, about the sewage treatment
plant?
Mr. Veltman-Well, I think that if you read the summary of the meeting, what we were exploring with Mr.
Smith were a number of options that were available. I don't recall tonight when I described what we were
proposing that we ever mentioned treatment down on the Queensbury Country Club property and for
everyone who has been at these meetings over the years, I have always been a firm advocate of when you're
pumping sewage for any long distance that you want to pump it at the highest level of treatment possible
and the proposal that we did describe tonight involves treatment at the Salvador property and the discharge
of the wastewater up to the golf course. Some of those other options that were discussed or some of these
other properties that Mr. Smith owns are not within the Lake George Basin and there would very big
regulatory concerns in terms of trying to be able to utilize that property for a portion of the systems. So, I
think that should be clear. We have not proposed pumping raw sewage up to that property.
Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else?
Mr. Frank Munoff-Good evening. Frank Munoff. I just want to comment on the previous meetings that
we've been going to, alot of people here may not be aware and it's the thing that still bothers me the most
about the proposed sewer project. Very little talk, we talk about saving the lake, we talk about establishing
a better environment for the lake, we still aren't talking about the entire lake. We still haven't opened the
politics of dealing with another township. To me, all this could be for not if places like Pilot Knob which
are on Lake George, I mean if you're going to have a sewer project, I'm not convinced we need one. But if
in fact we do, to leave out those pieces of the puzzle, to me is ludicrous. And the fact that it's never in our
discussion. That, well, Pilot Knob isn't going to be part of this because they're in another township and
they're in another county and we haven't opened those channels yet. We're talking about Lake George. If
you truly are talking about Lake George and if truly, as Mary Arthur said, if that is truly our problem that
we're dealing with, how can you be talking about part of the puzzle. Before we were talking about 9L and
one of the earlier alternatives at these meetings, was that the sewer, if it had to have gone to Lake George,
the people on 9L would not between Dunham's Bay and the Town of Lake George would not have to be
hooked up, if you remember that when we were talking about that. And to me, I just don't understand how
you can be talking about an entire entity without including the entire entity. I mean, to put all this money
and all this effort and all this time into something without having everyone that's involved with the lake,
living on the lake. As I said, I am, I'm not for the sewer project but if in fact we do have to have the sewer
project, I don't want part of the people on the lake to be involved and part of the people on the lake not to
be involved. I find it very discouraging to know that I'm going to have to hook up to a sewer when I have
absolutely no problem, septic problem and I am not polluting the lake. Okay and to know that there's going
to be neighbors on Pilot Knob who probably do have a problem because they are on the lake and not have
to be part of this. So, I guess my question is and I'll stop meandering, when are those associations, when is
that channel of communication going to be opened up with people that are on the, with Pilot Knob or
anyone on that part of the lake? If and whenever and I know that it's not part of this government project to
get money for this project but it doesn't make any sense to do that without including them. Has there been
any progress, any talk at all?
Supervisor Champagne-Frank, to try to answer that is to say that we recognize, certainly the need is there.
I've been hanging around this project now for only about six months but my previous experience tells me
that when you try to get through the gates that we're trying to get through even with this group here tonight,
that when you mix and blend that with other governmental agencies, I can tell you that the curtain would be
pulled like yesterday. So, it's my belief and I think I can say this coming from the engineers, that once we
get this in place, once we've been to Washington if you will, this is going to go no where without federal
funding. I think our purpose here tonight is to try to arrive at a scenario that at least we'll get something in
paper as a plan, a bonafide plan that we can go to Washington with and look for some funding to make this
happen. Now, if that doesn't happen, all bets are lost. If that does happen, then it's my feeling that certainly
Pilot Knob would be invited to come in, the project will certainly be built, am I right in saying that Shawn,
to accommodate the Pilot Knob and other places westerly of where the plan is starting out now. In other
words, there could be other sections of 9L west of where we're starting brought into the plan once we're
underway and once we have the money to do it. So, that's going to happen.
Mr. Munoff- Well, I think you realize when you use the word invitation, people aren't going to show up to
your party, if you use invitation.
Supervisor Champagne-Well, is that the word I used?
Mr. Munoff- Yes.
Supervisor Champagne-Oh, I take that back.
Councilman Caimano- Y ou did and actually what's going to happen is, you're really referring back to what
John Salvador said earlier, in the final analysis what this thing will probably wind up being is an act of
legislature and then everybody won't be invited, they'll be told and we'll have nothing like this, we won't be
able to do this. We will simply, well, it will be there, we'll have the opportunity to go to Albany and fight
it.
Mr. Munoff- W e won't have the choices.
Councilman Caimano-We won't have any choice.
Mr. Munoff-Correct. Thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, anyone else? Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott Smith-My name is Scott Smith, I'm Gene Smith's son, I'm the Superintendent at the Queensbury
Country Club and I'm not very good at public speaking, so in get a little nervous, excuse me. We got
involved in this project because we didn't think that we needed another golf course competing with us. We
have Hiland competing with us and now we have Kingswood competing with us. We do not need fairway
irrigation, we've survived without fairway irrigation. It would be nice. It will increase our costs as far as
mowing, we'll have to mow more. As far as pesticides usage, it may increase our pesticide usage. Our
fairways are going to be wetter, that's one point. As far as irrigating golf courses with effluent, it's a very
common practice throughout the country, throughout the southwest and throughout the west. Turf is a very
good filter. You're talking evapo-transpiration, not leaching water into the ground and I think that the
public's perception about using effluent is their reality. You're talking tertiary, right Shawn?
Mr. Veltman-Yes.
Mr. Smith-How pure is that water?
Mr. Veltman-We had done a calculation at one point in time where we, with the level of treatment that we
were, that would be provided at this treatment facility, you know we talk about trying to make comparisons
that people can understand, there were about fifty homeowners or fifty residences that were represented
when we had that meeting on Pickle Hill, with the residents from Pickle Hill when we discussed that
option. Well, the level of pollutants that they discharge, because each one of those now are on an
individual septic system so they give it primary treatment and it goes into the ground. There's no tertiary
treatment, no further level of treatment. The amount of pollutants, the pollutant loading that those fifty
systems put into the ground would be more then what would come out of this tertiary treatment plant. And
you know, that's the facts of the level of treatment that would be provided by the system so I would be
more concerned and this is from an engineering point of view and it's not a popular point of view but I
would be more concerned if I were those residents about their own septic systems than I would, that are
probably within a hundred or two hundred feet of their own wells then I would be of the application of this
effluent on the golf course.
Mr. Smith-Now, Shawn when you talk about removing the clippings, is that totally necessary? Removing
the clippings from the irrigated fairways?
Mr. Veltman-To cover nutrients, it would be desirable.
Mr. Smith-It would be desirable. Okay. Now, I'd really think that the public and the people that live
around here, you know, Mr. Cashion is just talking about a water line coming through and they're scared by
it. They're scared by you know, this sewage water coming by, I think they need to be, well, it's going to be
very clean water. I don't understand why everybody is so scared about this. You guys are trying to solve a
big problem and it's not going to contaminate people's wells, it's not going to cause all these problems that
everybody is scared about. It's going to be very clean water being piped down through there. That's all I
have to say.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith-Good Luck.
Councilman Caimano- Thanks.
Supervisor Champagne-Anyone else care to speak? Okay, yes.
Mr. Remington-I'd like to say, whatever the outcome, it's really up to the Town Board. I don't really care. I
do want to thank Scott and Gene Smith, they worked with us very well. In fact, Gene drove down to
Albany to meet with us to talk about the project and I don't think in any time, they were being selfish at all.
I think, you know, I would like to thank them on the county level for trying to help us solve a problem and
if it is or isn't the solution we determine, I don't think it makes a difference to me and I really don't think the
Smiths will be greatly upset by it but I do want to thank them on the basis and I think Clough Harbour
would say the same, for working with us. They've cooperated with us and they've shown to be potentially
very cooperative on this project and thank you for that.
Supervisor Champagne-Thank you Bill.
Councilman Caimano-We need to give a direction to these folks and where to go. I'll just start as a random
thought for myself alone. It's been a long project and it's thankful, I'm thankful to both sides of the question
for working hard over the last several years. There's alot of things to absorb, not the least of which of
course is we have, I can think of off the top of my head at least a dozen golf courses that leach chemicals
into all of our water every single day and one of the reasons that they can do that today is because the
government mandates the type of things that they put on their golf course. The second thing of course is,
while we're wrestling with this thing and people are talking about leaching and all of this, where do we all
think that our septage goes after it goes through our septic tanks? I wonder where we all think it goes. But
having said all that, I really think that the kiss system that everybody has talked about and that is, keeping it
simple stupid, is the right way to go. I first thought at the last meeting that Gene or anybody else, this
would be a reasonable alternative but having listened here tonight and having thought about it, I'm of the
opinion that we ought to keep it simple and if we're going to do this, then we simply have a little grass plain
and spray the tertiary effluent on it and not make a battle field out of it.
Supervisor Champagne-Well, Betty this is in your ward, let's hear from you next.
Councilman Monahan-Well, I think I tend to agree with Nick. You know we had never just discussed a
grassy field and when you think
Unknown-We can't hear you.
Councilman Caimano-Get closer Betty.
Councilman Monahan-I'm sorry. I said, I think we hadn't before seriously discussed just doing a grassy
field and it seems to take care of alot of the problems without creating any more problems of it's own. So,
right now, I would be of a mind that that's the alternative that we should pursue.
Supervisor Champagne-Carol?
Councilman Pulver-I would say that they again need to come back with more some facts and figures on that
alternative.
Supervisor Champagne-I guess what my comment would be that having been through the first two sessions
earlier on this year, getting a feel for, at least we have a compromise, we have a North Queensbury
neighborhood that did come together and I felt kind of good coming out of that last meeting, say that we've
accomplished something here and it looks very favorable, that there will be a sewering system in the North
Queensbury area. And then we got into the discussion at our last meeting in May relative to a golf course
and my logic, I guess, led me to believe that, you know, if you have a piece of property already owned by
someone and you can lease it for a buck for ninety-nine years and you can get water to it and you're not
having to do alot of reconstruction, it just took the cost of that sewering project, to me, I guess I was hoping
to look at twenty-five to thirty percent less cost. Well, as you heard tonight, we're nickels and dimes apart
as far as moving from the Dunham's Bay location to the Queensbury Country Club. So, certainly I guess
again a logic would dictate in my opinion, if we can do it by keeping the effluent within the basin, close to
home, the benefit would be certainly to those users, it would be my opinion that that's the route we take
also.
Councilman Wiswall- Y ou don't want to hear from me. Our property got thrown into Queensbury Quaker
Road Sewer system, our grassy acres are all in the taxable assessed sewer district but we don't have any
water put on them or any consideration. We pay an exorbitant, huge tax on that property. We had to hook
up to the sewer system when it went by, that was mandated. We didn't need it, we're like most of you folks,
we had an adequate septic tanks and leach facilities that had been renewed over the years and were working
very well. I didn't know as much as I know now about sewer systems and what it's going to cost and it's
been quite an education to listen to all of this. But I think that when you get all through, you're sewage is
going to go to Lake George to the plant down there because that's the only that really wants it and it would
pick up from Pilot Knob right down through over the mountain between Dunham's Bay and the town line
and Lake George and if it takes an act of the legislature, that's what's going to happen. You may not like it,
it's going to be the most expensive thing you can do. In the mean time, take good care of your own septic
tank and make sure it isn't polluting the lake cause it's going to take a long while before this is going to
happen.
Councilman Monahan-Fred?
Supervisor Champagne-Yes Betty.
Councilman Monahan-Scott wanted to say something.
Supervisor Champagne-I'm sorry, sure.
Mr. Smith-I know that the dump is out of the basin and it's closed, but that could be capped and turfed and
irrigated, get permission from the governors?
Councilman Caimano-I don't think so.
Supervisor Champagne-I'm not an engineer, I really don't know. The question was, could irrigate the
landfill once it's capped and send water over there. We might even want to put a golf course there, I don't
know.
Councilman Caimano-Boy, there's two cans of worms we don't want to deal with, I'll tell you that.
Mr. Salvador-Anything will be better then what you have at Mud Pond.
Councilman Caimano-Yes, that's true.
Supervisor Champagne-We don't want to talk about that tonight. Okay, thank you very much for joining us
this evening.
Councilman Wiswall-I'djust like to say to John Salvador, wait until they put all your land in the sewer
district and you pay tax on the whole, sewer tax on that whole field out there.
Mr. Salvador-Exactly why I'm trying to get the most economical solution to the public.
Councilman Wiswall-That's what I figured.
Mr. Salvador-Okay.
Unknown-May I have an opportunity to speak?
Mr. Larry Gaibrois-My name is Larry Gaibrois and I live on Sunset Trail and I would like to know what the
path forward is from here? In other words, what is the
Unknown-We can't hear you.
Mr. Gaibrois- What I would like to know is what is the path forward from here, where are we going, what is
the direction and what we would expect the next event to be that the public might be, have an opportunity
to learn about the next step?
Councilman Caimano-Shawn?
Mr. Veltman-Well, I think, obviously we've got to go back as John Salvador aptly pointed out this is a
Warren County project. I think what we have to do is go back to the Lake George Affairs Committee and
speak with Bill. I think the sense that I got, if not by formal resolution is that the board favors an option
that considers the grassy field, let's call it the grassy field concept down at the Dunham's Bay Lodge and
certainly I don't have any problem doing that. I don't think the county has any problem or concerns doing
that and if that's what the consensus is, what would happen is we would move forward with the preparation
of the actual Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement which would describe all of the options that
had been considered to date. It would bring into consideration all these factors that have been used in
trying to come up with a proposed solution and start to look at in more detail with the site specific impacts
that would be associated with that particular alternative. There would be a requirement for a, once that
document is completed, there would be a public hearing that would have to be noticed. There's the
opportunity for public comment. Following that public comment the county would have to get back with a
response, it's know, it would be a Final Environmental Impact Statement that would incorporate and
address any comments and concerns that were raised at the public hearings and assuming that all those
issues were adequately addressed in that Final Environmental Impact Statement, the county would lastly
issue a Statement of Findings that basically says that this is what they recommend and go forth with.
Mr. Gaibrois-Fred, may I speak?
Councilman Monahan-Shawn, and I don't know
Mr. Gaibrois-May I speak?
Councilman Monahan-Yea, I just wanted to ask Shawn a question please about what he said. I don't know
whether to ask you or Bill this. That public hearing on the SEIS, would that be held here or up at the
county?
Mr. Veltman-More then likely I would think that we would hold it down in the, probably in the fire house
which is
Councilman Monahan-At North Queensbury?
Mr. Veltman-Particularly if we're talking about this concept that involves, you know the people down in
that area, it would be much more convenient for them to get that site.
Councilman Monahan-Okay.
Mr. Gaibrois-Fred, Shawn indicates that he senses what your direction is. Could you clarify so that there's
no question?
Councilman Caimano- There isn't any formal declaration.
Mr. Gaibrois-Is there an informal instruction?
Councilman Caimano- Y ou heard it just like he did. There is no formal declaration.
Supervisor Champagne-I don't think we can leave here tonight with anything firm. Okay, let's assume
Mr. Gaibrois-Is there a hesitant
Supervisor Champagne-Excuse me. Let's assume that he goes with the DEIS and and for what ever reason
DEC comes back and says that you're locating too near Lake George with a grassy field and you're going to
flow north and you're going to continue pollute. Now, we've got to go back to the planning board and
reshuffle the deck. But right now, I think that's the message that he has and we're going to go forward with
that.
Mr. Gaibrois-Could you please restate that message, just for my understandings because I don't necessarily
sense, I don't have a sense, I guess I just would like to be instructed as to what the direction is that would be
the consensus.
Councilman Caimano-Well, the question is here, I don't know that we have to, we are supposed to take any
kind of a formal action. We are, we're an outside agency, right?
Mr. Gaibrois-Do we have an informal
Councilman Caimano-Just a second, let him answer the question.
Attorney Dusek-I think, you know certainly as a matter of law, there's no formal step that has to be taken
by the board. If you wish to adopt a resolution that indicates what the board's views are with contingencies,
I think you can do that as well, to have a board statement as opposed to individual statements. Although
your individual statements were all alike so, you know, I think that's a consensus. So, I think the board has
a choice.
Supervisor Champagne-I personally don't feel that we need to be any stronger then what we are at this
point.
Mr. Gaibrois-I guess, I don't know what the other people's opinion is but you know it's been quite a long
time that people have been here and there's alot of people that went out of their way to attend this function
and to become aware and involved in the project and I would think that the general population would be in
favor of some, of a takeout from this session that indicates where we're heading in a more structured
fashion even if it's not, we may not call it formal but I'd rather not call if informal and I'd rather not call it
and I don't recall the word that you used, perceived or a sense
Councilman Caimano-Do you understand where we're going Shawn? Do you understand what we want to
do?
Mr. Veltman-Yes, I do and I think that the board is correct in evaluating, this is, they are not the lead
agency on this project. Warren County is and I think that the reason that Bill Remington is here tonight is
because he's going to convey that information back. The county has to make the decision. I don't think the
board, certainly no, any resolution that this board adopted would not be binding upon the county and I think
that even if we did go forward with any of the options that are discussed here tonight, we haven't ended the
public participation in this project. There are still the opportunity for the public hearing and you know, I
don't think it's necessary, I think that the county is prepared to make a decision as to which direction they
wish to go and I think that they're willing to discuss that in the next Lake George Affairs Committee
meeting when the committee meets and they'll make a decision.
Unknown-Which will be when?
Mr. Gaibrois-In closing that, I'll go and maintain my seat. What Bill started off this session, was that he
was looking for some assistance or direction from the town in terms of which alternative to pursue because
the cost of funding was becoming limited and we did not want to pursue alternatives then we had funding
available for. Am I to understand then that we are suggesting to the county that they pursue the alternative
that includes the Salvador property in lieu of the alternative that includes the Queensbury County Club?
Did I understand that correctly from tonight's session?
Mr. Remington-I'm not sure I fully understand your question or statement. What I'm going back to the
county with, now correct me if I'm wrong, everybody, if you have any thoughts, is to the Warren County
Lake George Affairs Committee to indicate to them that the general senses from the board in Queensbury is
to give consideration to the John Salvador site with either grassy field or some alternative that works for
this project.
Mr. Gaibrois- Thank you for stating that, that's what I was looking for.
Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute.
Councilman Caimano-Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. One alternative that we were careful to avoid though was
the monetary one of the golf courses. Did you get that? We do not want that alternative, at least the
consensus here.
Mr. Remington-Okay.
Councilman Monahan-We are for the open field not the golf course.
Mr. Remington-Open field or some other economical means. I mean, there might be, when the project is
built, we're looking possible maybe five years down the road.
Councilman Caimano-But we only have two options here that we're talking about. We don't know of any
other options so you can't go back and say any other option because we didn't say that. We had say of the
two options that we're brought here tonight
Councilman Monahan-Really three Nick.
Councilman Caimano- What?
Councilman Monahan-Really three.
Councilman Caimano-Really three. Of the three that were brought here tonight, the one that we are
recommending is the John Salvador open field project. You can't go back
Mr. Remington-Okay, does that
Councilman Caimano-Wait a minute, you can't go back and say or any other economical because we didn't
say that. We didn't even suggest that.
Councilman Monahan-Don't put words in our mouth Bill.
Mr. Remington-Okay what, well
Supervisor Champagne-I serve on the Lake George Affairs Committee and I plan to go back to the
committee and say, this is the answer or we have no answer and that answer is the John Salvador grassy
field, Amen.
Mr. Gaibrois- Thank you very much Fred.
Supervisor Champagne-Now whether that works totally or not, I don't know but we're going to say that and
we'll mean that.
Councilman Monahan-Fred, I would like to thank the people tonight for the hours that they've put in
researching this, participation, coming to meetings, the volunteers that have worked on committees. It's a
hot night tonight and I'm sure alot of people would rather have been home in their pool or in the lake and I
really want to thank them for their participation in government.
Ms. Foley-I just want to know what I can do. You're going to go to your meeting, may I go to that
meeting?
Supervisor Champagne-Absolutely, it's an open meeting.
Ms. Foley-When is it going to be?
Supervisor Champagne-John Salvador probably knows. When is the next Lake George Affairs meeting?
Mr. Salvador-They usually wait until after a meeting like this to decide when and it's probably not on the
schedule.
Councilman Pulver-It would be published though, wouldn't it?
Mr. Remington-The schedule was just put out today, I don't have when it is but Harold Robillard would
know tomorrow and you can call him.
Supervisor Champagne-Georgette you give your phone number to my secretary over there Kim and I'm
sure she would be glad to call you as soon as we get the announcement.
Ms. Foley-Okay, thank you.
Supervisor Champagne-Okay, we're going to take a quick break for about five minutes. Thank you very
much for joining us, it's been very valuable.
(five minute recess)
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 287, 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 approve the Town Board
Minutes of May 16th and June 6th of 1994.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Supervisor Champagne-Item number 3.2 on the agenda, Resolution Authorization and Establishing
Employee Policy Manual, we're going to pull that one for further discussion at the our meeting next
Monday.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF JOB EVALUATION CONSULTANTS
RESOLUTION NO. 288, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of retaining consultants for
purposes of reviewing job descriptions and developing a Job Evaluation Plan, and
WHEREAS, Michael 1. Foley and Robert W. Howard have offered to perform services consistent
with the plans of the Town Board for the sum of $5,400.00,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor to retain the services of Michael 1. Foley and Robert W. Howard for purposes of developing a
Job Evaluation Plan at a sum not to exceed $5,400.00, to be paid for from the Appropriate Account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to enter into an
agreement with Michael 1. Foley and Robert W. Howard for the performance of the services with the form
of the agreement to be approved by the Town Attorney.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GIFT OF TERRA COTTA BRICKS
RESOLUTION NO. 289, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Desourdy of Lexington Avenue, Glens Falls, has offered to donate to the
Town of Queensbury, 31 terra cotta bricks from the old Clark Terra Cotta Company, and
WHEREAS, the Town Historian advises that the bricks are representative of the brick
manufacturing industry at the turn of the century and are excellent examples of the work of this period, and
WHEREAS, under the Collections Management Policy enacted by the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury in November of 1993,
...the Town Board may, on behalf of the Town, take by gift, grant, bequest, or devise, and hold
real and personal property absolutely or in trust for parks or gardens, or for the erection of statutes,
monuments, buildings, or structure, or for any public use, upon such terms or conditions as may be
prescribed by the grantor or donor and accepted by the Town and provide for the proper administration of
the same; Town Law ~64(17-a) provides that the Town Board may provide for the preservation and
protection of places, buildings, works of art and other objects having a special character or aesthetic interest
or value...
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in accordance with criteria set
forth in the Collections Management Policy, hereby determines that the gift of the Terra Cotta Bricks
reflects the historical culture, religion, education, industry, or customs that illustrate life in the Town of
Queensbury; that the bricks are in adequate physical condition for display; that the gift of the bricks carries
out the intention of the Collections Management Policy; and the donation is hereby accepted, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Town of
Queensbury, hereby indicates its sincere appreciation of the gift made by Mr. Desourdy.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Discussion before vote:
Councilman Pulver recommended that it would be appropriate for a letter of thank you from the Town
Board to be sent.
Councilman Monahan noted, Mr. Joseph Desourdy offered the town 32 Terra Cotta bricks and they're much
bigger then what we think of bricks and you're welcome to see these pictures here. They're excellent
examples of one of the few turn of the century manufacturing industry in Queensbury, 1875 to 1904. The
bricks crafted from clay and mural found on the site and at the Oneida in Queensbury were considered to be
a first class quality rivaling the well known Philadelphia bricks. The artistic patterns made from special
molds were created by the most skilled of the one hundred workmen employed by the company. Of
significance is one large brick which bares the name Clark Terra Cotta Company 1889. The bricks were
applied to public buildings, residences and churches. Only a few examples of Terra Cotta work now
remain locally. Smith's Flats Building at 55 Bay Street, art deco tiles on the front of First National Bank
building, Elli's Deli, McLaughlin Art Gallery on Ridge Street, Company Office and Resident Manager's
Home now 318 Ridge Street, Clemens Real Estate and the decora on a few private residences. Placing the
bricks in our town government setting would be a fitting way to preserve this piece of Queensbury's history
along with the old kilns at the Hautala residence and the relief logo from the Glens Falls Insurance
Company at the Chapman Museum. The bricks in the future will serve to shown and tell the public as well
as school children about the development of nineteen century industry in the town. And I only wish we had
these when these buildings went up so that they could have been incorporated. And you really should come
up and see these pictures of them, they're absolutely fantastic.
Councilman Pulver-I'd like to add, the memo from the historian is that the Town Board accept option 3 for
her recommendation and that is, place the tiles inside the town hall at the north foyer entrance on a wall
mount or in the foyer either mounted on the right hand wall under a 36 inch high chair rail or mounted
around the atrium upper walls overhead. This is the best possibility for long term preservation and public
enjoyment. And I would certainly go with that suggestion.
Councilman Caimano-Should we add this to the resolution?
Councilman Monahan-She wants to research it a little bit more, we have to think of weight barring and
stuff like that. Why don't we just say the consensus is of the board is that we approve option 3.
vote was taken.
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR #2 FUEL OIL,
DIESEL OIL, AND KEROSENE
RESOLUTION NO. 290, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for #2 fuel oil, diesel oil, and kerosene, pursuant to Town of Queensbury
Specifications, and
WHEREAS, Beecher H. Baker!B&B Fuels, has submitted the lowest bid for the fuel oil, diesel oil,
and kerosene for all locations, and
WHEREAS, copies of the bids have been presented to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Darleen M. Dougher, Town Clerk, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the
aforesaid bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
hereby awards the bid for #2 fuel oil, diesel oil, and kerosene for all locations, to Beecher H. Baker!B&B
Fuels, and that said #2 fuel oil, diesel oil and kerosene be paid for from appropriate accounts in each
department from the 1994 budgets.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(bids on file in the Town Clerk's Office)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1994 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 291, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1994 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1994 budget:
BUILDING & GROUNDS:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
01-1620-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
01-1620-4400-0024
(Misc. Contractual)
2)00.00
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the 1994 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1994 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 292, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1994 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1994 budget:
LANDFILL:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
910-8160-4449 910-8160-1840 57,000
(NON-BURN DISPOSAL (EQUIPMENT OPERATOR)
FEES)
910-8160-4449 910-8160-4447 53,000
(NON-BURN DISPOSAL (BURN PLANT (ARRA)
FEES)
910-8160-1400 910-9795-7095 11,800
(LABORER A) (INTERFUND LOAN INTEREST)
910-8160-1400 910-8160-4448 10,000
(LABORER A) (HAULING)
910-8160-1400 910-9040-8040 6,000
(LABORER A) (WORKER'S COMP.)
910-8160-1400 910-8160-1410 4,000
(LABORER A) (LABORER A, PART-TIME)
LANDFILL, CONT'D:
FROM: TO: AMOUNT:
910-8160-1400 910-8160-1840-2 1,000
(LABORER A) (EQUIPMENT OPERATOR -
OVERTIME)
910-8160-1400 910-8160-1410-2 1,000
(LABORER A) (LABORER A, PT -
OVERTIME)
910-8160-1400 910-8160-1002-2 500
(LABORER A) (MISC. PAYROLL -
OVERTIME)
910-8160-1400 910-8160-4500 250
(LABORER A) (FUEL OIL AND/OR
NATURAL GAS)
910-8160-4449 FUND BALANCE 10,000
(NON-BURN DISPOSAL
FEES)
910-8160-1400 FUND BALANCE 11,450
(LABORER A)
910-8160-4454 FUND BALANCE 32,000
(NON-BURN HAULING)
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the following revenue accounts shall be amended as follows:
1994
REVENUE
$
$
REVENUE
NEW PROPOSED
ACCOUNT NAME
ACCOUNT
ORIGINAL
NUMBER
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
REFUSE & GARBAGE CHARGES 910-2130
420,000
REFUSE & GARBAGE (NON-PROCESS) 910-2130-8002 225,000
GF SHARE OF JOINT EXPENSES 910-2390
o
QBY SHARE OF JOINT EXPENSES 910-2390-0001 3,050
SALE OF SCRAP 910-2650
7,000
310,000
79,550
25,000
3,050
o
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the 1994 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS 4TH ANNUAL
ONE MILE FIREMENS RUN
RESOLUTION NO. 293, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runner Club has requested permission to conduct their 4th Annual
One Mile Firemens Run as follows:
SPONSOR:
The Adirondack Runners Club
EVENT:
ONE MILE FIREMENS RUN
DATE:
Saturday, June 25, 1994,9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Beginning at Lower Broad Street and Ending at West Glens
Falls Firehouse, Luzerne & Veterans Roads
(Letter and map regarding location
of run attached);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges receipt of
proof of insurance from the Adirondack Runners Club to hold their 4th Annual One Mile Firemens Run in
the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this be subject to the approval of the Queensbury Highway Superintendent,
which approval may be rescinded or which may modify the authorized date.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY
RESOLUTION NO. 294, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Dr. R. George Wiswall
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, Bay Fireworks, Inc., on behalf of Karamatt Broadcasting - WCKM Radio Station,
has requested permission to conduct a fireworks display as follows:
SPONSOR:
WKBE FM! AM Radio Station
PLACE: West Mountain Ski Center
DATE: July 3, 1994
TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approx.)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York,
Section 405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions:
A. An application for permit be filed which sets forth:
I. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in
charge of the firing of the display.
2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held.
3. The exact location planned for the display.
4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual
discharging of the fireworks.
5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged.
6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display.
7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the
fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication,
the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or
telephone lines or other overhead obstructions.
B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance
company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional
insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of
Queensbury;
C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.,
D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must
be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of
Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, provide:
the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the
nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from
the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience
at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which
the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these
lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as
nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a
lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from
the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the
display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks
remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a
velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall
be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two
such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved
type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated
points as possible within the actual area of the display.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano
Town Board held discussion regarding proposed resolutions on road dedication of Hunter Brook Lane.
Town Board concerned with past problems with drainage and agreed to hold resolutions until proper
drainage has been addressed.
Attorney Dusek noted the following changes regarding the proposed resolution: I) wherever the map, plan
and report is referred to, it should say the map, plan and report as amended June 17, 1994
2) wherever the maximum amount proposed to be expended is listed in the resolution, it's currently listed at
13,100,000.00, that figure should be changed 13,280,00.00 3) there should be a dates put in for a public
hearing and in addition to that, on page 7, I just want to bring to the board's attention, the notice of public
hearing, the third line down says, hearing will be held by the board on 1994, that date would go in there as
well.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INCREASE
OR IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES OWNED BY THE QUEENSBURY
CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT AND SERVICING SEVERAL OTHER
WATER DISTRICTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 295, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, there exists in the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District, a Water
Treatment Plant, water storage facilities, and certain water transmission mains and related real property
holdings servicing the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, Sherman Avenue Extension Water
District, Peggy Ann Road Water District, Easy Street Water Extension, and Hiland Park Water District,
hereinafter referred to as the "Effected Districts and Extensions," and to some extent, certain adjacent
communities pursuant to Water Supply agreements, and
WHEREAS, after considering the capacity, age, efficiency, and effectiveness of existing Water
Treatment Plant and distribution facilities, the future water needs of the areas serviced by the said Plant and
distribution facilities and those areas expected to be served in the future, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury, hereinafter referred to as the "Town Board" previously determined it appropriate to consider
the expansion of the aforesaid Water Treatment Plant, purchase of certain additional lands, construction of
various improvements to the Water Distribution System, and assessment of the cost of construction of the
improvements and subsequent operation and maintenance to all the aforedescribed Effected Districts and
Extensions, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board caused a map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, of
proposed improvements and land acquisition, together with an estimate of the cost thereof and Part I of an
Environmental Assessment Form, to be prepared by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., a copy of the same
being presented at this meeting, and to be kept on file with the Town Clerk hereafter, and
WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements is not to
exceed $13,228,000, and
WHEREAS, the map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, provided by O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc., states, in part, that
The existing water treatment plant does not have sufficient production capacity for meeting the
District's current water demands. With this shortfall, the reliability of the system is compromised. Also,
the transmission and storage system needs to be improved to take advantage of the increased plant capacity
by improving hydraulics and increasing reserve storage capacity.
We recommended that the Town make improvements to the water treatment plant to provide a
capacity of 15 mgd, construct a I-MG storage tank, construct a 16-inch transmission main, and incorporate
other miscellaneous improvements as outlined in this report. Specifically, the improvements include the
installation of variable frequency drives on all raw and finished water pumps and construction of a new
high lift pumping station within the proposed filter building;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has had numerous conversations and discussions with officials from
various communities including the Village of Hudson Falls and it is recognized that the Village of Hudson
Falls will most likely desire to acquire an interest in the aforesaid expansion, such that the Village reserves
I million gallon per day capacity in the expanded Plant, and that the Village will be making a
corresponding payment towards such acquisition, which is anticipated, in turn, to lower the cost that has
been anticipated will be paid by the residents of the affected water districts, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board notes that arranging for participation by the Village of Hudson Falls
will take some time and that there is the possibility that an agreement cannot be reached, but, upon review
of the map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, has determined that, regardless of whether the
Village of Hudson Falls or other communities should decide to join in or later purchase water from the
Town, it is appropriate to continue to proceed with plans for the expansion of the aforesaid Water
Treatment Plant, acquire additional lands therefore, construct additional water storage facilities, install a
new water transmission main along Gurney Lane from West Mountain Road to New York State Route 9,
and make other appropriate or necessary improvements, more specifically referred to in the map, plan, and
report as amended June 17, 1994, and hereinafter referred to as the "Expansion Project," and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, by previous resolution, indicated it was considering the Expansion
Project, and determined the action was subject to SEQRA, identified certain involved agencies,
preliminarily classified the action as a Type I under the SEQRA regulations, indicated it desired to be Lead
Agency for purposes of SEQRA review, authorized the completion of initial applications to New York
State DEC, DOH, and DOT, and other permitting agencies, and authorized notification to all other agencies
that it desired to be Lead Agency for the SEQRA review, and that a Lead Agency must be designed within
30 days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board hereby recognizes that in order to proceed, that it must now
I. designate itself Lead Agent and make a determination as to significance as allowed and
required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
2. hold a public hearing on the proposed improvements as required by Town Law ~202-b;
and
3. after the aforesaid hearing, decide upon the evidence given thereat, whether it is in the
public interest to acquire the lands involved and/or construct the improvements proposed hereinabove and
correspondingly, to determine whether to direct the engineer to prepare definite plans and specifications
and make a careful estimate of the expense with the assistance of the Town Attorney and to prepare a
proposed contract for the execution of the work and purchase the aforedescribed property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board considers the map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994,
prepared by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., concerning the proposed Expansion Project and presented at
this meeting as complete, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby designates itself as Lead Agency for purposes of
determining the significance of the proposed project and hereby further determines that it is appropriate to
wait until after the public hearing to determine the significance of the proposed project as further
information may be presented at the hearing which will have an impact on the Town Board's decision of
significance, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby states that the maximum amount proposed and
preliminary project cost estimate, including contingencies, engineering, legal, and miscellaneous expenses,
as more specifically set forth in the map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, for the Expansion
Project is $13,228,000, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines it appropriate to proceed to obtain authority
for the expansion project as provided by Town Law ~202-b jointly, on behalf of the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, Sherman Avenue Extension Water District, Peggy Ann Road Water District,
Easy Street Water Extension, and Hiland Park Water District, hereinafter referred to as the "Effected
Districts and/or Extensions," and further determines it appropriate to propose apportionment of the capital
construction costs associated with the Expansion Project on an ad valorem basis for all Effected Districts
and/or Extensions such that each District or Extension contributes or is taxed for the project according to
the assessed value of property within the same from time to time, and that the operation and maintenance
charges thereafter incurred annually, equally, and proportionately shared among the effected districts
and/or extensions in a manner similar to the costs associated with the Expansion Project, and the amounts
so apportioned shall be levied and collected in each district and/or extension as provided in Town Law
~202 and ~202-a, all in accordance with written agreements proposed to be entered into upon approval of
the Expansion Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines it appropriate to proceed with a public
hearing on the map, plan and report as amended June 17, 1994, which allocates the entire cost of the
proposed Expansion Project against the effected Districts and/or Extensions and not provide for the
assessment of any costs against the Village of Hudson Falls, since I) if the Village should join with the
Town on the Expansion Project, it will be allocated a reserved capacity of I million gallons or less and
share in of the costs of the Expansion Project and operation and maintenance, as well as transmission costs,
and accordingly reduce the amounts assessed against the lots or parcels within the various affected districts
within the Town, and 2) the Expansion Project as sized and as planned according to the map, plan and
report as amended June 17, 1994, is desired for purposes of the existing water district regardless of the
involvement of the Village of Hudson Falls, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby, in general terms, identifies the location of the lands
proposed to be acquired as part of the Expansion Project, as those currently owned by Warren County,
being part of a parcel being tax map no. 32-1-26.1 consisting of .52 +/- acres, and located near a currently
existing water storage tank and those lands owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and located in
the general vicinity of the existing Water Treatment Plant along Corinth Road, and consisting of three
parcels and comprising approximately 36 +/- acres, and being portions of those parcels bearing tax map
numbers 151-1-7.1 AND 148-1-2.1, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby calls for a public hearing to be held jointly on behalf of
the effected Districts and/or Extensions on the map, plan, and report and said proposed Expansion Project
outlined in the said map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, to be held at the Queensbury
Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, on the 11th day of July, 1994 at
7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed improvements and land acquisition, more specifically set forth in the
aforesaid map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, and to hear all persons interested in the subject
matter thereof, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the notice of the said public hearing shall constitute this resolution, with a lead
paragraph reading as follows:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
AND ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
EFFECTING ALL WATER DISTRICTS AND/OR EXTENSIONS IN THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN as authorized and directed by the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury that a public hearing will be held by the Town Board on July 11th, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at the
Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, at which time all persons interested
will be heard concerning proposed improvements consisting of an expansion to the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District Water Treatment Plant, construction of additional water storage facility, and
installation of a new transmission line, acquisition of certain land to accommodate the expansion of the
Water Treatment Facility, and other appropriate or necessary improvements as described in a map, plan,
and report dated February 1994 and amended June 17, 1994 by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., and on file
for public review at the Town Clerk's Office located for review during normal business hours at the Town
Office Building, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York,
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the maximum amount proposed and preliminary
project cost estimate including land acquisition, contingencies, engineering, legal and miscellaneous
expenses is $13,228,000, and that the expense of such project and land acquisitions and other costs are
proposed to be apportioned among the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, Sherman Avenue
Extension Water District, Peggy Ann Road Water District, Easy Street Extension Water District, and
Hiland Park Water District, on an ad valorem basis and the expenses associated therewith will be assessed,
levied, and collected in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges,
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that additional information and/or details are set forth in the
copy of the resolution provided with this Notice and set forth herein below, and that further information
may be obtained by reviewing the map, plan, and report as amended June 17, 1994, on file at the Town
Clerk's Office: (Copy of this resolution to be placed here)
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for publication and
posting of the Notice as aforedescribed, in the manner prescribed in Town Law ~ 193.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT DATED
12/31/93
RESOLUTION NO. 296, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, Edwards, Williams, McManus, Ricciardelli and Coffey, P.C., an independent public
accountant firm, have examined the Town of Queensbury's fiscal affairs for the 1993 fiscal year, and said
firm has furnished reports entitled, "Town of Queensbury, New York Independent Auditors' Report
General Purpose Financial Statements December 31, 1993," and "Town of Queensbury, New York Reports
on Internal Control Structure and Compliance with Laws and Regulations December 31, 1993," together
with a management letter, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ~35 of the General Municipal Law, the Town Board of the Town of
Queensbury may prepare a written response to the Independent Auditors' Report and file the same with the
Town Clerk,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recognizes that the Town
Clerk has received a copy of the reports referenced above, for filing in the Town Clerk's Office, and that the
Town Clerk will be publishing a Notice of Filing in the local newspaper, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor to prepare a written response to the Independent Auditors' Report not later than September 14,
1994, submit the same for approval by the Town Board, and thereafter file such written response in the
Office of the Town Clerk as public record, for inspection by all interested persons.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH
THE LAKE GEORGE OPERA FESTIVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 297, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Dr. R. George Wiswall
WHEREAS, the Lake George Opera Festival presents, in the Town of Queensbury, numerous
performances and events, and
WHEREAS, the Lake George Opera Festival promotes the cultural development of the
community, and
WHEREAS, the Lake George Opera Festival has requested funds for the promotion of its
performances and events, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to enter into an agreement with
the Lake George Opera Festival for the promotion of performances and events to the residents of the Town
of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Contract
set forth above, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that payment due on said Contract, in the sum of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,000.00), for the year 1994, be paid from the Appropriate Account.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne
NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver
ABSENT: None
Discussion before vote:
Councilman Monahan-Frankly, all of the boards that I've been on practically have supported this because of
what the opera festival brings to our community and roll over and salaries and in sales tax and also the
frankly the publicity and the status that brings to our community. One article I read not put out by the Lake
George Opera Festival in a national magazine rank this as probably the top road opera festival in the
country. And now, Paul, I have a question. I don't think I have a conflict of interest but I will say that I do
rent a camp to a person in the opera festival orchestra?
Attorney Dusek-No.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ON ABBEY LANE
RESOLUTION NO. 298, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Dr. R. George Wiswall
WHEREAS, there is currently situate on Abbey Lane in the Town of Queensbury, six street lights
which are currently on Town property and for which electricity usage is billed to the Town, and
WHEREAS, the owners of Ramada Inn have indicated a desire to replace the street lights at their
own cost with new street lights, and
WHEREAS, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation has indicated that they are willing to replace the
lights, so long as the Town of Queensbury approves the project, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury notes that the cost of replacement of the
lights will be at no expense to the Town of Queensbury and that the Niagara Mohawk has indicated that it
will, after installation of the new lights, maintain the buried cable, foundations, the poles and the bulb, and
that Ramada will maintain the actual fixtures, including the electrical photo cell,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the
replacement of the lighting fixtures on Abbey Lane, so long as the cost of replacement of the fixtures is of
no expense to the Town of Queensbury, and provided further that it is understood and agreed that the Town
of Queensbury is properly billed for the electricity usage of those lights, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute any and all documentation
that may be necessary to implement the terms and provisions of this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the lights located on Abbey Lane shall continue to be a charge to the lighting
district.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT
DURING 1994 ADIRONDACK BALLOON FESTIVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 299, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Balloon Festival will again occur in 1994, and
WHEREAS, during the time that the Adirondack Balloon Festival occurs, the local economies of
the Town of Queensbury, as well as other surrounding communities, are benefitted, and
WHEREAS, there is also a unique opportunity to advertise and generally promote the general,
commercial and industrial welfare of the Town by purchasing certain advertisements in connection with the
Adirondack Balloon Festival,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Supervisor to arrange with the appropriate sponsors of the Adirondack Balloon Festival for the
purchase of Name of Town of Queensbury on the printed cover and as part of the promotion brochure a
letter from the Town Board, at a cost not to exceed the sum of $ 1450.00, to be paid for from the Publicity
Account, Account #1-6410-4400, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor shall arrange for an Agreement to be executed between
the sponsors of the Adirondack Balloon Festival and the Town of Queensbury prior to the expenditure of
any funds in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Champagne
NOES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano
ABSENT: None
Discussion during vote:
Councilman Pulver-No, because I think that the taxpayers should support these themselves and the town
shouldn't be giving away the taxpayer's money.
Councilman Monahan-Yes, because I think this is, you might say seed money so that they people in
Queensbury are getting alot more sales tax into this town to reduce the real estate taxes.
Councilman Wiswall- Yes.
Councilman Caimano- The answer is no and again, the reason is the same, the law doesn't make any
distinctions and we have to begin to draw away from that, that the law says that we can't spend government
money for private things and that's why I'm voting no.
Councilman Monahan-No it doesn't.
Councilman Caimano- Y es it does.
Councilman Monahan-Under town law, this is authorized.
Attorney Dusek -Yes, maybe, I should probably address that. This is being paid for out of your promotions
account which allows you to publicize the advantages of the Town of Queensbury and I checked with EJ to
make sure you don't go over the threshold of the amount of money that you were authorized to spend. So,
that you know, there is a, you may not agree that it should be spent but there is a legal, there is a law that
says you can spend it.
Councilman Caimano- I understand.
Councilman Pulver-I still think that taxpayers should support these events themselves personally and the
town shouldn't be taking their money and deciding which events they should be supporting. Like we're
going to support this one but we're not going to be support that one, no I don't think the town is in a
position to support any of them.
Councilman Monahan-I just think it's a good business decision.
Councilman Caimano- That's not our job, it's not our money.
Councilman Monahan- I mean a good business decision as far as relieving our taxpayers of a portion of the
real estate property by the amount of sales tax this brings in.
Councilman Caimano- Which is accountable.
Supervisor Champagne-Yes.
(resolution passed)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION
OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 300, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, in connection with the operation of the summer Parks and Recreation program by the
Town of Queensbury, Harold Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has recommended to the Town
Board that recreation activities be provided in various areas of the Town and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is presently not the owner of lands in these various areas of
the Town that would be suitable for recreation activities to be conducted by the Town of Queensbury Parks
and Recreation Department thereon, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has made tentative arrangements, subject to the approval of the Town
Board, with the owners of certain lands in North Queensbury, West Glens Falls, and Glen Lake
respectively to lease said lands for use in connection with the Town's summer Parks and Recreation
program, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has recommended to the Town Board that the Town of Queensbury
lease said lands for recreation purposes for the period from June 29 to August 19, 1994, and
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has informed the Town Board that he has inspected these three
parcels of land and has found each to be suitable and appropriate for recreational purposes, and
WHEREAS, it would serve a legitimate Town purpose to provide summer Parks and Recreational
programs in North Queensbury, West Glens Falls and Glen Lake, and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions set forth in each of the proposed leases appear to be
reasonable,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury enter into written lease agreements with the respective
owners of the aforesaid three parcels ofland for a period from June 29, 1994 to August 19, 1994, under the
terms and conditions of the proposed lease agreement annexed hereto, and be it further
RESOLVED, that Fred Champagne, Town Supervisor, be authorized and empowered to execute
said leases on behalf of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION RETAINING BANKING SERVICES OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GLENS FALLS
RESOLUTION NO. 301,94
INTRODUCED By: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to employ a bank to perform
various banking services, and
WHEREAS, The First National Bank of Glens Falls has offered to render said professional
services, in accordance with their Bank Quotation presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services has recommended acceptance of the said Bank
Quotation from The First National Bank of Glens Falls, and
WHEREAS, the interest rates are slightly higher than the rates of the next highest bank, and
WHEREAS, the accounts are currently at the First National Bank of Glens Falls, and the Town
has received good service, as well as excellent investment rates, and
WHEREAS, the Town's main checking account (Accounts Payable) will remain as a N.O.W.
account, with the rate as shown in the attached proposal, and
WHEREAS, the Town's main deposit account will also remain as a N.O.W. account, with the rate
as shown in the attached proposal, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Fund accounts will remain as savings accounts, with the rates as shown
on the attached proposal, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Payroll account will remain at the Glens Falls National Bank, and
WHEREAS, the term of the agreement is one year, with a one-year extension at the Town's
option, beginning July I, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Town can invest any idle funds at the best C.D. rates available from the First
National Bank of Glens Falls or any other bank, and
WHEREAS, the Town may keep nominal deposits at other banks for purposes such as obtaining
B.A.N. and Bond quotes, maintaining account relationships, etc.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that The First National Bank of Glens Falls is hereby employed to perform various
banking services as outlined in their Bank Quotation presented at this meeting.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF CONTRACT OF SALE
BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND
QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO. 302, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is currently the owner of a certain parcel of land,
approximately 34 acres in size, bearing Tax Map No. 146-1-6, and more specifically described in a deed
from Helen M. Merritt and G. Robert Merritt to the Town of Queensbury, dated July 28, 1968, and
recorded at Liber 513, Page 226, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously expressed its interest and
desire to arrange for the sale of the aforesaid property with a grant of right -of-way to the Queensbury
Economic Development Corporation at an amount equal to its appraised value of $90,000.00, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as required by Section 1411 of the Not-
for-Profit Corporation Law, held a public hearing on the 21st day of March, 1994 concerning said sale and
thereafter determined that it would be appropriate to sell the property to the Queensbury Economic
Development Corporation, subject to approval by the Town Board of a Contract of Sale, and
WHEREAS, a Contract of Sale providing for the sale of the property described in the preambles of
this resolution to the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation was previously presented to the
Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and a revised contract has now been presented,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the revised
Contract of Sale between the Town of Queensbury and the Queensbury Economic Development
Corporation, providing for the sale of the real estate described in the preambles of this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Supervisor to execute the Contract on behalf of the Town and take such other and further steps as
may be necessary to complete the transaction and arrange for the conveyance of the property to the
Queensbury Economic Development Corporation in accordance with and so long as all of the conditions of
the Contract are satisfied, and the Town Supervisor is hereby also authorized and ordered to complete and
affix the seal of the Town of Queensbury to any other documents that may be necessary to complete the
transaction, including, but not limited to the Deed, Real Property Transfer Report and Capital Gains
Affidavit, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that any previous resolutions of this Town Board authorizing a different agreement
other than as approved at this meeting, are hereby rescinded.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 162, 94 CONCERNING
RETENTION OF ATTORNEY (MARK 1. SCHACHNER) FOR PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 303, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 162,
94 retaining the services of Mr. Mark 1. Schachner to service the Planning Board on a three month trial
basis, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to amend said resolution to
extend the retention of Mr. Mark 1. Schachner to provide professional legal advice and representation to the
Planning Board through December 31, 1994,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 162,
94, to extend the time period for the retention of Mark 1. Schachner to provide professional legal advice
and representation to the Planning Board through December 31, 1994, at a total cost not to exceed
TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($12,000.00), to be paid for from the appropriate Planning Account,
Account No. 01-8020-4130.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Discussion during vote:
Councilman Caimano-It should be noted that he's retained through December 31st at a cost not to exceed
twelve thousand dollars.
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR PURCHASE OF
INDUSTRIAL WHEEL BACKHOE LOADER 95 SAE NET HP &
16 FOOT 5 INCH DIGGING DEPTYCLASS FOR WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 304, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for the purchase of one Industrial Wheel Backhoe Loader 95 SAE Net HP + 16 Foot 5 Inch
Digging Depth Class, as more specifically identified in bid documents, specifications previously submitted
and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Town Water Superintendent, has made a recommendation in
connection with the bid,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
hereby awards the bid for the Industrial Wheel Backhoe Loader 95 SAE Net HP + 16 Foot 5 Inch Digging
Depth Class, to Schroon Lake Tractors, Inc., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that said item is to be paid for from the Water Department Account #78-8340-2001.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(bid on file in the Town Clerk's Office)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1994 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 305, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1994 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1994 budget:
TOWN CLERK:
FROM: TO: AMOUNT:
1-1410-4040 1-1410-2032 35.00
(Dues & Registrations) (Software)
1-1410-4060 1-1410-2032 620.00
(Service Contracts) (Software)
1-1410-4120 1-1410-2032 100.00
(Printing) (Software)
1-1410-4220 1-1410-2032 250.00
(Training & Education) (Software)
1-1410-4010 1-1410-2032 945.00
(Office Supplies) (Software)
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the 1994 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY
RESOLUTION NO. 306, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHEREAS, Charles R. Wood, Chairman & CEO of the Great Escape, has requested permission
to conduct a fireworks display as follows:
SPONSOR:
The Great Escape Fun Park
PLACE: The Great Escape Fun Park
DATE: July 7, 1994
TIME: 10:30 P.M. (approx.)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York,
Section 405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions:
A An application for permit be filed which sets forth:
I. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in
charge of the firing of the display.
2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held.
3. The exact location planned for the display.
4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual
discharging of the fireworks.
5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged.
6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display.
7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the
fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication,
the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or
telephone lines or other overhead obstructions.
B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance
company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional
insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of
Queensbury;
C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of the
Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.,
D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must
be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of
Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, provides:
the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the
nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from
the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience
at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which
the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these
lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as
nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a
lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from
the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the
display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks
remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a
velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall
be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two
such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved
type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated
points as possible within the actual area of the display.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Champagne
NOES: Mr. Caimano
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT FOR WATER TESTING IN CONNECTION
WITH THE GLEN LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 307,94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in accordance with Town Board
resolution no. 119, 94, supported the concept of watershed management and planning for the Glen Lake
Watershed, and
WHEREAS, interested citizens, the Director of Community Development and Councilperson
Betty Monahan have recommended that the water in Glen Lake, as well as the surrounding tributaries and
wetlands, be tested for the purposes of identifying nonpoint sources of pollution and assisting in the
development of a watershed management plan and also further assisting in the development of a
comprehensive land use plan for the entire Glen Lake Watershed area, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notes that the testing of the
water would, in fact, be supportive of the development of a comprehensive land use plan, as well as
supportive of other purposes, such as public health and aquatic plant growth and control,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes payment up to
the amount of $4,900.00 to cover the costs associated with the aforementioned testing, said costs to be paid
for from the Community Research Miscellaneous Contractual Account, Account No. 01-8030-4400 , and
hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents associated therewith.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Pulver-I just want to make one comment, I think this information is going to be very useful
when we really get down to doing our a comprehensive land use plan.
Councilman Monahan-We also want to thank all the volunteers at Glen Lake who are already prepared to
do the water testing and have been trained for it and bought some equipment. The Glen Lake Association
has put up some money to do some testing within the lake itself. So, this is a combination of public and
private effort.
DISCUSSIONS
9:50 P.M.
Councilman Wiswall-I'd like to say a word. We with held a resolution last time on the purchase of the
mower. He's looking at another mower that will do the job and can be used with the tractor that they have
now.
Councilman Caimano-Is it cheaper?
Councilman Wiswall-Probably about half. Harry has looked at the mower, he's quite excited about it and I
am too. We should make a decision on it because they need it.
Councilman Caimano-As far as I'm concerned, just the fact that we've done that and you've done that work,
I'm ready to go ahead and go with it.
Town Board agreed to prepare resolution for the next meeting.
ATTORNEY MATTERS
9:55 P.M.
Attorney Dusek noted that he received a letter from Paul Pontiff representing Queensbury Central
Volunteer Fire Company. Their station which is adjacent to Hovey Pond is the area that they have a
concern. There is a road which leads from Lafeyette Avenue to Hovey Pond and apparently the road is an
access road used by the town and that road from their survey shows that it's on fire company property and
they would like that road, there exact language is asking the town to remove the infringement on the fire
company property. So, whatever we have to do to move the road over or get off their property needs to be
addressed.
Town Board held discussion and agreed to hold from taking action until further information is obtained
regarding the matter.
Attorney Dusek noted in addition to that matter, I have five matters that are in litigation that I need to
discuss with the Board in Executive Session.
DISCUSSIONS
Councilman Caimano-A constituent questioned me on the reasonings for having laborers at the Ridge Road
Landfill on a Monday. He apparently went on the wrong day, Monday it's closed and he found a man from
the landfill sitting there and questioned his purpose for being there and was told, "I'm paid to work here
Monday to keep people away".
Supervisor Champagne-You mentioned that to me and I spoke with Mr. Coughlin and his comment was
that it was unfounded.
Town Board held discussion and Councilman Monahan noted that she'll research this and get back to the
board.
Councilman Caimano-I have a copy of a letter from Marv Lemery, the Warren County Fire Coordinator to
the members of the Board of Supervisors in which he says, and I quote, " The Queensbury Town Board is
considering establishing a policy that would prohibit town employees or members of rescue and or
volunteer departments from leaving work to respond to emergency calls". That is wrong and I would
suggest that Mr. Lemery before shouting that the sky is falling, might want to check with us to find out
what was said. I don't remember that we were going to pass a resolution that would ban that. There was
some question concerning it but I would hope that Mr. Lemery and he wrote this to the Board of
Supervisors.
Supervisor Champagne-I plan on calling Mr. Lemery myself.
Councilman Pulver referred to letter dated June 7th, regarding acquisition of lands for west end recreation
park from Tim Brewer and Jim Martin.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-This field, the firemen's field has always been used for softball or
recreation type activities informally and he thought it might be a good idea to establish this facility on a
permanent basis for the people of that area. That's what he's interested in doing and he wants an
opportunity to meet with the board to discuss this.
Councilman Monahan- I suggested to Jim that that piece of property be put on our tour when we go out June
23rd.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Harry and I went to look at it, make sure that you take a good look at the
outfield there. Due to the fact that that's the dumping ground for city snow, there's alot of waste that's been
ground into the dirt. We should take a long hard look at that, that were not accepting something that's
going to be alot of work to get to a point of ever being used as a recreation field.
Councilman Pulver-Jim, do we know that the City wants to sell it?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's the whole dialogue that's got to be started.
Councilman Pulver-We're talking about it for the first time, but I know for a fact the Recreation
Commission is going out there now, looking at it, developing plan and so forth.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well, I don't know if they're developing a plan, there just looking at a very
preliminary conceptual phase.
Councilman Pulver-Why are they doing that prior to the Town Board even going out there and looking to
see whether or not there's an interest?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I just think it's in the interest of keeping everybody in the same
communication loop. There's no decisions being asked for by anybody. It's getting everyone's opinion at
the same time at a simultaneous fashion. Nobody is being preempted by one board or the commission or
anything like that.
Supervisor Champagne-Tim came in my office, we discussed this and he's very interested. Tim talked
about merely running a grader over the surface, leveling it up, putting bases down that are adequate. As far
as the purchasing, we don't see that happening right away not knowing if the city is even interested. The
other issue is, just bringing it to a level that's safe for the kids to play.
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The other facility that's available right across the street, it hasn't been used
in some time, it appears there's a field right behind the West Glens Falls Fire house. It's in better physical
condition in terms of the quality of the soil and that type of a thing. You might want to look at both of
them while you're there. It's very conceptual, we're just trying to get everybody's opinion on the matter.
Councilman Monahan-Jim, I would appreciate it before we go out on this tour if the Planning staff would
make a list of pros and cons for all this land that we're looking at.
OPEN FORUM
10:02 P.M.
Mr. Charlie Adamson, Assembly Point-Referred to the Open Forum part of the meetings and suggested to
hold at the beginning of the meeting like it used to be, you're likely to get alot more input from individuals.
Spoke to the Town Board regarding letter received in today's mail, the Determination of Board of
Assessment Review for the Town of Queensbury stating that my assessment has not been reduced because
it lacked compelling evidence and adequate proof. Noted that a great deal of supporting evidence and
material was submitted. Requested the Town Board to find out from the Board of Assessment what exactly
is the information that they're looking for. Requested the Town Board to find out from the Board of
Assessment if they actually took any time to review the material that was submitted, noting that the
material was lengthy and yet the determination was dated only two days after Grievance Day. Questioned
why a certain member of the Board of Assessment received a significant reduction in his assessment for the
kind of turn-key property for that area that is likely to sell in today's market. Questioned whether this
individual was allowed to participate in the discussion of this case and whether he was allowed to vote on
it.
Councilman Caimano recommended that the Chairman of the Board of Assessment appear before this
board to ask these questions.
Councilman Monahan recommended that supporting reasons should be stated along with the
determinations.
Councilman Caimano requested the Town Attorney to research whether or not a member of the Board of
Assessment is allowed to discuss, participate and vote on their own case.
Attorney Dusek noted that he would check the law and get an answer to the board, offering to fax Mr.
Adamson a copy too.
Mr. Adamson questioned the procedure involved in selecting the members to the Board of Assessment.
Noted, I hate to see Queensbury wasting money on a board that doesn't seem to understand it has the duty
to be fair to the citizens of the town.
Mrs. Lillian Adamson, Assembly Point-Noted complaint on her hearing of the twenty properties that she
represented, that she did not receive a fair hearing. Noted that she did not get all of her materials back,
she's very concerned and wants the material back. Stated further, "I want changes made now and I want
you to direct the board to give equal treatment to everybody who comes before the board, I don't think I got
fair treatment and I think there has to be time to make an adjustment to that". Referred specifically to two
cases noting the unfairness and requested the decisions to be rescinded.
Attorney Dusek-Agreed to look into those cases and would contact Mrs. Adamson early tomorrow
mornmg.
Mr. Pliney Tucker, Queensbury-Requested a copy of the paving schedule for the town.
Councilman Pulver-Recommended that Mr. Tucker contact the Highway Department for a copy.
Mr. Tucker-Noted that he does not deal with the Highway Department and that the board members should
have the schedule.
Councilman Caimano-Noted that he no longer has a copy of the schedule.
Supervisor Champagne-Noted that he no longer has a copy either.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned if the town has a total accounting of what was spent on the drainage in Hidden
Hills?
Supervisor Champagne-Suggested to contact his office tomorrow and would supply him with a copy of
that.
Mr. Tucker-Referred to the fireworks display, questioned where it's being held?
Councilman Wiswall-Noted one is being held at West Mountain and the other at the Great Escape.
Mr. Tucker-Referred to West Glens Falls and questioned whether they were holding one?
Councilman Caimano-Noted that they decided against having one.
Mr. Tucker-Referred to QEDC sale of contract and questioned whether the sale has taken place yet?
Attorney Dusek-No.
Mr. Tucker-Noted that they're clearing the piece of property presently. Questioned whether the property
has been rezoned?
Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No, it's zoned Light Industrial.
Mr. Tucker-Referred to some prices of commercial property within the area noting Torrington has seven
and three quarter acres for sale at seven hundred thousand and seventeen acres at McDonald's for three
point two. Noted further that there was seven acres sold directly across from the Carey property in
February of 1992 for two hundred and eighty thousand dollars. Referred to residential property,
undeveloped land would sell for the average of ten thousand dollars per acre at the present time.
Questioned why the town is selling thirty-four acres of beautiful land for ninety thousand dollars?
Supervisor Champagne-That's what the land is appraised for and that's what the town went with.
Councilman Pulver-It was done by an independent appraiser and the Town Board had nothing to do with
putting a value on the land. Noted further that the properties that he has quoted are on Corinth Road and
this property has no access and the town has to put a road in to get to it.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned the attorney that when the town sells a piece of property, does it have to be
declared surplus?
Attorney Dusek-Yes.
Mr. Tucker-Stated that he was told from a good source, a political figure that when a piece of property is
declared surplus and the town is going to sell it, that it's got to be advertised to be sold.
Attorney Dusek-That would normally be true but there's a special provision under the not-for-profit
corporation law that allows a sale of this nature to occur to the Queensbury Economic Development
Corporation. It's actually a special provision and that's why we held the public hearing in accordance with
that provision.
Mr. Tucker-That eliminates the need?
Attorney Dusek-That's correct.
Mr. Salvador-Referred to the Lake George Park Commission Wastewater Regulations, noting that they
have been declared null and void. This town has an agreement with the Lake George Park Commission to
perform on site wastewater system inspections and I would like to suggest that you move to rescind that
resolution, that agreement and that you conduct a public hearing in the process.
Councilman Caimano-Questioned the attorney if he's received any notification?
Attorney Dusek -No and I would recommend
Councilman Caimano-We're not going to do anything until we get notification.
Attorney Dusek-Right.
Mr. Salvador-Suggested that the town hold a public hearing on this.
Attorney Dusek-There is no public hearing required by law.
Mr. Salvador-Spoke to the Town Board regarding the following subjects: the county's recycling law,
Queensbury employees participating in volunteer activities, the use of taxpayer's money for private
purposes, assessments on Lake George and the contents of chapter 791 of the laws of 1992 dealing with
public land laws and the two power plants presently being built.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
10:40 P.M.
AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 308, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract June 20th, 1994, numbering 94-228900
through 94-248700 and totally
$169,014.33, be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano Vendor # 000127
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 309,94
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular
Session to enter Executive Session to discuss five matters of litigation, one personnel matter and hiring of
professional services.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO. 310, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive
Session and enter Regular Session of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN ATTORNEY
TO RETAIN FIRM
RESOLUTION NO. 311, 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 authorizes the Town
Attorney to employ the firm of Daffner and Tang at a cost not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)
to assist in matters relating to Bankruptcy with John and Rita Flynn.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN ATTORNEY TO APPEAR!DEFEND AND TAKE SUCH
ACTION REGARDING WHC-5 REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
VERSUS REGENCY PARK ASSOCIATES
RESOLUTION NO. 312, 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 authorizes the Town
Attorney to appear, defend and take such action as he may deem appropriate on behalf of the Town of
Queensbury in connection with the matter of WHC-5 Real Estate Limited Partnership versus Regency Park
Associates and others including the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 313, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the settlement of
the matter of Maurice Lebowitz versus Helen Otte, Assessor of Town of Queensbury as follows:
128-9-29 $ 80,000.00
128-9-30 $ 40,000.00
131-1-16 to stay the same
131-1-15 $ 55,000.00
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the extent of this resolution and authorization of settlement is inconsistent with
any prior resolution adopted, the same is superseded.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 314,94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the settlement of
the matter of Dennis MacElroy, John R. MacElroy and others against Helen Otte as sole Assessor of the
Town of Queensbury and the Town of Queensbury property number 7-1-4 for an assessed value of six
hundred thousand dollars ($600,000.00).
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 315, 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 to continue the Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO. 316, 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 Executive
Session to enter Regular Session of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF SERVICES REGARDING
ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY GARAGE BUILDING
RESOLUTION NO. 317,94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retention of
the services of 1.M. Weller Associates, Inc. for the purposes of providing professional assistance to the
Town in analyzing the Highway Garage Building, the future building needs for the Highway Department,
and developing specifications for bids and bidding documents for immediate repairs at a cost not to exceed
$5,000 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement consistent
with the terms and provisions of this resolution and in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Dr. Wiswall, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN
RESOLUTION NO. 318, 94
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY