Loading...
2007-12-03 MTG50REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 162 TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#50 DECEMBER 3, 2007 B.H. 30-31 7:00 P.M. RES# 506-517 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK NOORDSY TOWN OFFICIALS PRESS TV 8, POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened meeting. 1.0 RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 505, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL DOUGHER RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 30, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 163 WHEREAS, Michael Dougher has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to install: 1.a septic tank approximately 45’ from applicant’s well instead of the required 50’ setback; 2.a distribution box approximately 60’ from the applicant’s well and absorption field approximately 55 feet from the applicant’s well instead of the required 100’ setbacks; 3.a distribution box approximately 95’ from a neighbor’s well instead of the required 100’ setback; 4.an absorption system approximately 90’ from a neighbor’s well instead of the required 100’ setback; on property located at 6 Dream Lake Road South in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Michael Dougher’s sewage disposal variances application concerning property located at 6 Dream Lake Road South in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 279.17-1-22) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-Noted they have letters on numbers three and four from the neighbors. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 31, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 164 SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from the Queensbury Board of Health and moves into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None 2.0PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON MAIN STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DON FLETCHER PRESENT MR. FLETCHER-As you recall back from the later September, Public Hearing there were four items that the Town Board sent us back looking for additional information on. One was some justification or a discussion with Verizon on their cost estimate. The second one was some additional information discussing with National Grid the cost of undergrounding as well as the option of looking at candlestick overhead design. The third was any additional monetary assistance for either Senator Little or Assemblywoman Sawyard’s Office concerning undergrounding of utilities. The fourth was input from property owners along that corridor relative to the level of commitment to undergrounding of utilities since our cost estimate as you recall includes approximately one million dollars for easement acquisition and services associated with that. Out of those, the first one I think we will talk about is National Grid. We had a meeting back in early November that Mark and myself a couple board members attended. One of the first things that came out of that was National Grid gave us an updated cost for the betterment for undergrounding of utilities. The last memo I had sent to the Town Board was using figures from 2006 from National Grid it included a betterment cost of approximately 1.2 million dollars. They have sense went back relooked at the numbers assuming 2008 construction and they provided us with a betterment undergrounding cost now of 1.9 million dollars. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So it is gone up. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is this over the candlestick or over the regular aerial? MR. FLETCHER-This was against the regular aerial. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So our concerns in September were how high the cost would be for undergrounding after meeting with them instead of getting an indication that it could be less expensive, they are saying now it is even go to be more expensive. MR. FLETCHER-Back in August I provided a memo to the board on costs on the entire job. One of the line items was a summary of undergrounding betterment costs, which was approximately three point one million and that was using the one point two million from National Grid. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So now we are seven hundred thousand more. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It does raise a concern. There was a lot of interest in moving forward with a decision in September based on your representations and I was one who wanted to wait and do a number of things. However, if we had taken that action and approved what you were suggesting in September those numbers weren’t accurate. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 165 MR. FLETCHER-We were just at the time having a public hearing trying to solicit the input based on the Main Street plan whether the Town wants to consider the candle sticking or the undergrounding. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I guess my point is what point in time do these numbers stop becoming moving targets and become something that we can bank on? MR. FLETCHER-I think depending on the time line of the project that is one of the main criteria or main things that are going to affect it. As you know, we started back in the year 2001 with the job obviously; we are at the end of 2007 still discussing it in planning stages. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Alright that was just an ancillary comment. I guess your main point is it has gone up from that. MR. FLETCHER-It has gone up for the undergrounding with National Grid. We also had some discussion on the candle sticking. One of the things we discussed with them at the meeting was the potential to candle stick then the services could go underground then serving the north side with primary service at the intersections is a potential to go underground. That for them what they consider to be a hybrid design was the word that had used because they had primarily done traditional aerial so when they were looking at this if we went to the candlestick design, which they have done in other places then they would typically aerial at the cross streets. One of the things we have been talking to them if we consider not going underground and we go with the candlestick design is could we then underground at the cross streets and at the services. SUPERVISOR STEC-Of course, the answer to that is they will do anything we want if we are cutting the checks. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Did they give you costs for that? MR. FLETCHER-They have not. One thing they mentioned was the candlestick design is no more cost than the aerial design. I think the part that would become a discussion point with them would be the cross streets. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-As, I indicated I thought a surprisingly long amount of time to engineer that several months. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The candle sticking? MR. FLETCHER-Candle sticking. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-Where Verizon was ready to roll on that Nimo seemed to indicate that they had some time frame… MR. FLETCHER-They thought they would need a little bit of time…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is there different transformers on those candle sticking? MR. FLETCHER-No, it didn’t indicate different transformers. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-Verizon is ….on theirs right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They don’t have them do they? MR. FLETCHER-No, Verizon does not. They did not indicate it was different transformers I think their timeline concern was because of the hybrid design. If they went with candlestick then they always had aerial at the cross streets so this is a little bit different. One of the things they indicated is it would take a little bit of lead-time for the design so that is really the crux of what came from the National Grid meeting. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 166 COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we decided potentially in the next couple of months would that give them enough time you think? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Don just so the public is aware as far as National Grid we don’t have options B, C. We don’t bid we can’t solicit other bid prices I mean it is a monopolistic entity whatever they say, I guess we don’t have any options other than to say no or to go. We don’t have options to bid out and things of that nature sad, but true. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other there were three items. MR. FLETCHER-That was the National Grid. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The one with the property owners is the one I am interested in. SUPERVISOR STEC-Me too, or most curious about. MR. FLETCHER-The input we have received from R.K. Hite is similar to what they have been hearing during all of your negotiations. COUNCILMAN BOOR-People want money now. MR. FLETCHER-People want the money. SUPERVISOR STEC-Just for the public’s knowledge and I think the board knows this I know Don you know this. R.K. Hite was hired by both the County and the Town to go out and get two different sets of easements from the same groups of people one the County needs it for widening the road. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-That is actual acquisition. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is acquisition. Following that quite possibly there will be easement that the Town will have. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Outside of that. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-Which is why it is getting difficult to go through the donation following up… COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right because they are already taking actual property then you are extending an easement further. They want to be reimbursed for what they proceed as a taking. SUPERVISOR STEC-Certainly, Don has heard me complain about this. The board knows this Bruce Ostrander our Water Department guy and Mike Shaw our sewer guy are always very clear that when anytime the Town has done extensions of sewer and water districts knocking on doors different situation that you didn’t have the County knocking on doors two, three, months, before saying we want to acquire property and here is a check and oh by the way there is somebody coming right behind us and you should ask them for a check too. It‘s historically been we are bringing water and sewer to your property it is a betterment to your property and we will do it we want you to donate the property and historically it has been donated. I guess we can understand why, but it is in fact a difference from the norm as far as these easements and they are not just water and sewer easements either they are underground utilities easements they are a little different animal. MR. FLETCHER-There are easements for everything, but you are right it is a different set of circumstances verses just water or sewer or both. You are also looking at Verizon and National Grid easements for them. I think the perception of some of the public has changed because of that. SUPERVISOR STEC-And that number was in the neighborhood of between nine hundred and a million dollars right. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 167 MR. FLETCHER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-You pack that on to the whole scope of things a million dollars is a significant portion of the total potential exposure. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And it would be paid for by the entire Town of Queensbury not necessarily just those people benefiting. I believe certainly if you went, underground the rates would be raised throughout the Town is that correct for reimbursement. SUPERVISOR STEC-If we wanted to go that route. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what I am saying. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, that’s how it would work. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Those people benefiting are being subsidized by everybody in the Town of Queensbury besides getting a check for the easement. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Do you have another one there was one left. MR. FLETCHER-There was two left. One was we have had some discussions like I said concerning additional funding. There was a pot of money if you will that they showed us that the project is eligible for a half a million dollars to deal with the undergrounding of the services that money is still available but money beyond that for additional undergrounding of the main lines is not. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It sounds like that would only cover half of the costs of what people now want for the very easement itself. SUPERVISOR STEC-What was the third one. MR. FLETCHER-The fourth one was the meeting with Verizon. Myself and Counsel met with Verizon to discuss their numbers. They were very interested in the candlestick design. They had indicated the betterment cost would not be greater than ten thousand dollars that is prior to even discussions on it. They were interested with the candlestick that National Grid was going to look at candlestick design they may have some costs what they indicated at the meetings no greater than ten thousand. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think probably I am not sure I could speak for the whole board, but for myself at least. It will probably go into next year when the new board will be here it looks like actively pursing this candle sticking seems to make a lot more sense than continuing on the undergrounding direction. Certainly, the numbers I don’t have them with me that I understand them to be it would be an incredible depletion of the Towns resources to go to undergrounding. If you are looking from any input from me, I would think that in the first quarter of next year the new Town Board should be actively addressing pursing the candlestick the more attractive above ground lines. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me jump in here before we start lining up and everybody goes on record and just caution everyone that certainly I don’t disagree with what Councilman Sanford just said, but that is based on the assumption that things go against us with the court and it is in fact in litigation. The more we talk about how attractive candle sticking is or isn’t to the Town may or may not strengthen or weaken the Town’s position with National Grid and potentially Verizon. Certainly, it is a very valuable option I think that this Town Board and the next Town Board needs to take a good look at, which is why we asked you for the information. COUNCILMAN BOOR-To add to that Dan I think what really brings the point home is we had a meeting in September the undergrounding has gone up seven hundred thousand dollars from our September meeting. The notion that this lawsuit is going to be settled in a timely fashion is obviously not the case since it has been going on as long as it has. There seems to be an issue with the Judge not wanting to make a determination the longer REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 168 this goes on it is certainly not going to be less money even if we do win. I am just not sure…. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Plus furthermore I think our counsel advised us in September that even if we were to prevail that it would be a certain appeal so this thing would then drag on… COUNCILMAN BOOR-Will go on forever. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-National Grid I would anticipate that…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So the notion that this is going to be the spring of… TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-I am a little nervous about talking too much about it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If the Judge rendered a decision tomorrow a spring 2008 start is highly unlikely with an appeal then you really run a tremendous financial risk if you lose on appeal. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-If the courts rule tomorrow that Nimo has to bury the line for the reasons we have stated in our case we don’t have to wait for an appeal do we? SUPERVISOR STEC-Although this conversation is very important this isn’t one that I think that should take place on the public record. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-I would agree with that. I would happy to answer those sorts of questions in executive session afterwards. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I want to ask one question Don. Are those numbers real or are they a best guest for Nimo? SUPERVISOR STEC-They are a best guest they keep moving. MR. FLETCHER-It’s a best guest. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They keep moving because they are trying to scare us that’s my opinion they haven’t shown us real numbers yet. MR. FLETCHER-They indicated there are some contingency built in there so with one. They have also included in there a set of their overtime I think twenty five percent of the labor they estimated was overtime cost to be able to cover construction during it dealing with the prime contractor things of that nature those were some of their assumptions that went in there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What are the assumptions it doesn’t matter the numbers aren’t real they may be close I am just going to say that they are not real because they are not. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you have anything else for us. MR. FLETCHER-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, the public hearing is…. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Informational update is that what this was all about. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is a conclusion we had left the public hearing open. Again, if there is anyone that has anything they like to add to this the public hearing it is opened on Main Street Underground Utilities. I know you heard or may have recalled hearing at the previous one, which was a couple of months ago just raise your hand and I will call on REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 169 people. Anything else from board members, Don thank you. I will close this public hearing. Certainly, we have a lot more work to do on this Don and Mark you guys will be the front row for that it is a concerning issue. COUNCILMAN BOOR-A lot of work I am confused in what direction. SUPERVISOR STEC-To sort this out and decide what direction we are going to go in. I mean we have three options. The standard plain Jane do it the same way that they always have done it, which they wanted to do six years ago. Keep fighting and go all the way for underground utilities as well as hybrid. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN BOOR-If we had decided tonight to go with standard…. MR. FLETCHER-Standard or candlestick. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Either or a spring start is possible? MR. FLETCHER-Probably not spring, but 2008. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I want some realistic stuff here. When people think that even if we pass it tonight that they start in the spring I don’t think so. I don’t want us to be under the perception that even if we make a decision it is going to happen relatively quickly. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-Don did you get any indication from the County as far as what their timing is looking like. SUPERVISOR STEC-Last week Chazen came to talk to the County about the County’s portion with R.K. Hite they were looking at a February time frame for the County wrapping of its condemnation public hearing do over if you will. They are about two thirds of the way through the acquisition process on their end. The majority of people are fine with how things are going the majority of people are getting checks and a majority of the people are satisfied with the process. There are a couple properties that they think are going to be tricky the Mobile in particular just because it is a very complicated process. COUNCILMAN BOOR-What else would the County be responsible for besides that before we could move forward anything. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-More of the other way around. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just want to be clear that’s the only issue with the County then. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-I think the concern is more is the Town ready to roll when the County has to get going. 3.0CORRESPONDENCE NONE 4.0INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION FROM THE FLOOR NONE 5.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR NONE 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN SANFORD REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 170 ? Adirondack Regional BusinessIncubator Program-They were supposed to give an accounting of the 1.25 million dollars in consideration that was put up by the stakeholders they haven’t done this. Encouraged the board to insist upon that the contract of two years ago has not be a heard to. The accounting as specified in the contract through how the money was to exchange hands has not been accounted for in anyway at all. They have purchased that building and are contemplating selling it and leasing it back cannot tell what the terms will be. They cannot show were the 1.25 million in consideration has traveled. Three hundred thousand of that is in-kind services there has been no in-kind services provided by the stakeholders who pledge that as consideration. Asked that the Lawyer for the Adirondack Regional Business Incubator Program address the Town Board with their suggestions as to how those parties can honor the agreement strongly encouraged this particular board to diligently address those issues. ? Spoke regarding Resolution of Support and Concurrence with Warren County Empire Zone – I found out about this when I read the resolution there was no workshop discussions I have a lot of concerns about that. I don’t have enough of the particulars, but my understanding is involves adding….Supervisor Stec- delineating one property. Councilman Sanford-and adding others primarily including Finch Paper into. Supervisor Stec-It is a very standard resolution. Councilman Boor-the resolution is standard, but the background information necessary to understand what the resolution means was never presented Dan. Typically, Len Fosbrook calls us down every year prior to these meetings and goes over what they are going to be proposing so we are all comfortable with it. Supervisor Stec-if you are not comfortable with it tonight we can do it again in two weeks I am comfortable with it. Councilman Sanford-let me explain some of the reasons I am not too comfortable with it. I am not sure how or who made this decision to expand upon or to change the perimeters of the Empire Zone to include Finch Paper. We all know Finch Paper was recently sold stockholders were paid cash they tendered their stock. You have a new owner here. The purpose of including them in an Empire Zone typically is so they could receive Empire Zone credits, which means that they don’t have to pay taxes because the taxpayers pay their taxes. I am wondering if this was part and parcel of the arrangement that was put together for the sale of the company, in which case that’s putting the cart in front of the horse. It is problematic to me and there is also the potential of some conflicts on interests involved in this. I do note that on the Warren County Economic Development Corporation I know Mark Behan is a board member and they are also the corporate spokes person for Finch Paper. I am just saying that I would like to have a complete disclosure on this before this board contemplates moving forward. If the board wants to move forward with it tonight you are going to get at least one no vote. ? Michaels Group Project on Meadowbrook Road – Spoke regarding the resolution that partially addresses this it addresses the SEQRA Findings on the Hiland Park PUD. To me it is inappropriate that we are basically going to be dealing with that in a singular context and not going back to the main reason why we received it, which was that Michaels had an application in front of the Planning Board for a piece of property that appeared to be in a wetland. That property was delineated by DEC, Michaels Group has had over five months to put that on their application and present it back to this board, and they have not done so. I have no problem with moving ahead with that resolution 7.7. I certainly don’t think it is appropriate not to address the actual Michaels project I think instead we need to give them one week to either produce the actual mapping of their site plan on the map reflecting the new delineation. Or in the absence of that we will construe this application as being withdrawn and they would have to submit a new application if they want to move forward and contemplate anything on that site. To me, I don’t know where they have been for five months it is not that they haven’t been told they have been told time and time again they need to do this and they haven’t done it. Now they want to go back to the Planning Board presumably and address those issues. My understanding is that have not formally withdrawn their application is that correct. Stu Baker, Senior Planner-that is my understanding as well. I certainly would feel more comfortable with giving a greater since of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 171 direction rather than just saying okay we are going to require what is in that resolution, which is the long form SEQRA and a hearing to the finding statements of our engineer etc., etc., but we are not specially addressing the Michaels application and I think that it is irresponsible for us it was referred to us by the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN BOOR ? Echoed Councilman Sanford’s statement, but not in as much detail. I had an opportunity to speak with him prior to the meeting then also directly; before the meeting on the three resolutions had questions, I feel pretty much the same way on them. I can understand Dan that you are comfortable with the Empire Zone that is because you got all the information and we don’t. Again, that is problematic to sit up here in a position where you are essentially doling out taxpayer money and yet you have no idea what it is for. Typically, when we give Empire Zone credits it is because it is going to be the hiring of new employees the creation of new jobs I have no idea if that’s the case with Finch Pruyn. With the Michaels as Richard pointed out, they have had ample opportunity to send us that survey with the flagging. I believe that they are just dragging their feet with the hopes that when the new board comes in they don’t have a full history of what has taken place and what the actual wetlands are relative to what is being contemplated for development that they will come in a give a presentation and it will be a love fest so to speak. Then they will walk out of there with a totally inappropriate project that is going to have very detrimental effect on an already problematic area with regard to water. As, Richard pointed out on the incubator we met I believe once or twice Councilman Sanford and I at EDC with Mr. Farley. We had some very good discussions certainly he came on board relatively late in the process with regard to the incubator itself and is playing a little bit of catch-up and probably in a very difficult situation because of what I believe is a mishandling of the finances. If they haven’t been mishandled then we need to see a definitive accounting of where the money has gone. I don’t think the taxpayers realize that nine hundred thousand dollars of their money can’t be accounted for. We have essentially a concrete building with plywood on it that TV 8 is touting as offering these relatively new startup businesses. Then we have also three hundred thousand in kind service I have no idea what those in-kind services are. I don’t know what anybody has done there. I know there has been a little bit of hazmat work. I don’t believe those parties that were responsible for the in-kind are the ones that actually did the work. Again, I think it would be irresponsible to vote in favor of these things when in fact we have no information to support anything that might indicate that we do. Supervisor Stec-There is nothing on the agenda tonight involving the incubator. Councilman Boor-the only reason I bring it up is because TV 8 and a spokesman who works very closely with TV 8 has been running ads lately about the incubator. Even the Albany, Times Union picked it up and called it a virtual incubator because it is just this ply wooded up concrete building. I believe they are trying to set the stage for some new members to believe that in fact this thing a lot farther along than it is and that everything is in accord and that the finances are all straight in fact, it is going to be a viable incubator I hope it is. I am certainly not pleased with how the monies have been handled I certainly like to know where they are. Councilman Sanford-the 2005 contract everybody signed it, I mean you signed it Dan and so did a bunch of other parties. Then it hasn’t been complied with in a number of ways. The question is when you are faced with a situation like that you have what is known as a contractual breach. It seems like no one cares for remedy. I basically, asked ARBI to come up with their recommendations on how these breaches can be remedied this has been going on now for three months. Quite honestly now that I am coming to end of my term I would like some closure on this and it doesn’t appear that there is anything I have missed in my mailbox on this. I would like to make sure that it is addressed in a prompt manner. Councilman Boor-Just as a follow-up and an aside this is like the second to last televised meeting. Mr. Sanford and I are lame ducks there is relatively little that we can do except bring to light and make the public aware of some things that maybe other people don’t want to have brought to light. Granted ARBI is not on this list of resolutions, but I believe it will be one of the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 172 first ones that the new board sees. I see the two new board members are sitting in the audience and they better be very aware of the problems with the monies involved in this project. If we don’t get it on the record now and if the public isn’t aware of it, it is one of those things that will be intentionally covered up there is a lot of that, that takes place I just want to make sure that the public is aware of some of things that need to be addressed. Councilman Sanford-I addressed this with the Post Star way back when and their explanation to me was, well we can’t foil that information so therefore the suggestion was it is not a pursuable story. Then it begs the question if we set up all of this what I would call quasi-governmental types of corporations, and there are a whole bunch of them, and if they are not accountable then they lose transparency. Are they really in the best interest of the public to create these organizations who are taking certain actions, but they don’t have to disclose their information to the press and to the public. I am asking….to me because we are a stakeholder, but it doesn’t tie out, it wasn’t done according to how it was specified in the contract and I am talking about how the accounting was taking place. Then, I said well reconstruct it and they haven’t reconstructed it as we speak so I think it is something that is important it speaks to everybody’s collective responsibility here. SUPERVISOR STEC ? With respect to ARBI they will be seeking us out to discuss things with us in the very near future following tonight’s meeting. I do know that you guys have had some lengthy conversations down there that you left unsatisfied with the answers. I am going to have to just hope that the meetings that will take place between and when and if we pass the resolution to amend their contract will satisfy anyone in the public that cares to go all these meetings are public. As far as transparency goes I am on several of these boards by virtue of my position as Town Supervisor, Dennis was before me it goes with the job. I can tell you that I have been nothing but impressed with the character and the quality of the people that are on these boards like Dan Burke in particular. Yes, I know that there are probably a few hot names on there that maybe some Town Board members would raise an eyebrow at, but these boards are large they are full of a very diverse group of people that are generally well respected and I believe to be honest and forthcoming with information. I am sure that we will be satisfied ultimately when we do get around and ARBI resolution if we do in fact go that way. Councilman Sanford-let me ask you this since you have been on the boards Dan there is a responsibility when you serve on a board did you ever asked them why the initial seed capital of one point two five million dollars never traveled through into the financial statements of the ARBI Corporation. Supervisor Stec-I believe that they have been trying to give us that answer; I am not on the ARBI Board. Councilman Sanford-you are on the Warren County Economic Development Board. Supervisor Stec-Yes, I am Richard. With respect to 7.1, certainly I think the agenda for the remainder of the year is pretty clear but with respect to 7.1, I will just say this. I have been the Town Supervisor for almost four years now. Very, very early on in my first year as Town Supervisor it was suggested that we shot to have the agenda packets ready as early as possible I believe the initial request was Wednesday in practice that was not feasible with almost very, very few exceptions the agenda packets have been available on Thursdays. On numerous occasions in the four years, I have been Supervisor to a variety of different Town Board Members I have found myself in a position where I have had to implore and remind you that they are emailed to you in addition to being in your boxes. You have all day Friday, all Saturday and Sunday to think about it all day Monday to ask any questions. This ambush tactic that happens on the eleventh hour for something as vanilla as this EDC resolution is beyond me. We did anticipate that there might be some questions tonight, I think I can answer them, but I think I will let Jennifer who works for EDC answer them as well as Mark if he has anything to add on that I am not sure if he does. Jennifer if you want to come up here and explain the EDC boundary amendment we do one of these about once a year. Jennifer Switzer – Good evening first, I want to clarify something. First off, although Mr. Behan is a member of the EDC Board the Empire Zone in Warren County is administered by EDC. There is a complete and separate Zone Administrative Board that Mr. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 173 Behan is not a part of. Any decisions that have to do with certifications, boundary revisions, anything legislatively that is passed down to us to make the program work is not in anyway affected by any of the EDC Board Members, I just wanted to clear that up first. Secondly, this boundary revision is again they are not every year that these happen. Boundary revision take place when either we find that there is need to change the boundary revision or that the legislature actually requested to do that, that’s what happened in the last round of boundary revisions. In this case, the boundary revision that is being requested by EDC for Warren County is the Administrative Agent is to add two parcels in the City of Glens Falls. Currently one of many parcels surrounding the Finch Pruyn properties one that actually houses where the administrative services takes place is in the zone. Two contiguous properties, two that that total about twenty-eight acres were inadvertently left out of the last boundary revision. We found this out when after the sale took place in June of 2007, Finch Pruyn came to EDC in September and asked to be certified as a Company. They were previously certified under Finch Pruyn with the new company, new owners, new tax identification number they are required to go back through that process. Councilman Sanford-Let me interrupt you. Here were some of the things that I was interested in pursuing at greater detail preferably in a workshop. When Tribune Media was going to go with an Enhance Pilot Program, they were going to be paying over an extended period of time their tax liabilities with Empire Zone credits. We had a Workshop Meeting and I asked if this was from an ethical point of view as well as from a legal point of view appropriate because again they were moving down the street and I didn’t know if this made sense. I was assured by the people in the room Board Directors from EDC that this was fine and is totally appropriate. About a week or so later I found out and I read it in the paper that New York State Controller’s Office and the Governor was investigating this practice and felt that there were abuses surrounding the awarding of Empire Zone credits. Then about a week after that, Tribune wrote a letter saying that they were withdrawing their request for Empire Zone credits to be utilized in the Enhance Pilot Program. My question that I asked to the EDC Board and the assurances that I received perhaps weren’t totally accurate. I would like to have had the same kind of conversation on this because if in fact there is a contemplation for Finch Paper to apply for and to receive Empire Zone credits instead of paying the tax liabilities themselves I want to have a discussion of substance about whether or not this is appropriate basically it is the same company doing the same thing, but what you have had is a stock buyout. I haven’t had the opportunity for those discussions, which only seems to me at least to be a logical way to proceed. Mrs. Switzer-Again, there are some things we not only at EDC, but State wide this program has been under investigation “loosely” sense Governor Spitzer took over. He has appointed some new directors at the State level for economic development. Those folks who work for the Empire State Development who administer this program on the State level and those at the local level know that there have been problems. There have been problems in the past they are being addressed but it is not anything that has not been done within the parameters that the legislature set when they set this program up within the laws. It was over the past probably ten years there have been changes to the law to address some of the problems that have occurred. Councilman Sanford-From a policy point of view if in fact I want to buy the stock of a particular company there is valuation process that goes into it. One could argue the valuation of the stock goes up if in fact….Councilman Boor-the cost goes down. Councilman Sanford-If in fact the company that is doing the acquiring is going to be the recipient of tax credits instead of having to pay those taxes. If they had some reasonable assurance that that would be the case then one can almost say if you connect the dots that the shareholders and stakeholders of Finch Pruyn common stock received consideration that will ultimately be born through tax dollars because of the conduit traveling of the benefit. I think this is something that needs to be laid right out on the table. Mrs. Switzer-I think that maybe your perception, but first and foremost, the program yes there are tax credits that are given. These are tax credits and you may argue that it still comes out of the local taxpayers pockets, but these are tax credits that come off of the corporations State taxes. When they file their State taxes and if they have a tax liability that is where these credits come into play. Councilman Boor-The REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 174 question though Jennifer is we would of liked to have had an opportunity to have this type of discussion. I would like to know when their application for Empire Zone credits was filed relative to when the buying of the company or the purchasing of the company took place. I am not going to ask some of the questions that I really like to ask because the camera is on. Mrs. Switzer-You should ask whatever question that is it shouldn’t matter whether the camera is on or not. It really isn’t about Finch Pruyn what it is about is we have the second largest employer in the area that was recently sold. We are trying to use this tool that we have for economic development to keep those jobs here in Glens Falls. Councilman Sanford-We heard it with Tribune too. You know, I would really appreciate it I mean, I am just speaking for myself that if Warren County Economic Development Corporation got around to bringing some new jobs to this area instead we seem to be very concerned about not having company leave area. Councilman Boor-And we move them from one location to another or they stay right where they are they change their tax ID number and name and then get taxpayer dollars. That is not typically what I consider economic development I call it economic stability but not development. You are not developing jobs you are just maintaining them and not incenting them to leave. Mrs. Switzer-I think if you pick up the newspaper that is a problem that is all across New York State and we are all trying to retain jobs as well as bring jobs to the area. Supervisor Stec- Jennifer let me try to get us refocused on the task at hand here and some of the meat and potatoes big picture questions. There are three parcels that we are talking about two additions and one deletion. The two additions are the two parcels that were inadvertently overlooked in Glens Falls for Finch Pruyn. Ms. Switzer-That is correct they are Oakland Avenue and they are contiguous to the property on the corner of Glen and Oakland it was where their woodshop is it is. Councilman Strough-With all do respect Dan in the past we have gotten these we have gotten maps I think they usually were addressed in a workshop. I don’t know where these parcels are either there is a certain comfort level. Dan unless there is an urgency to pass it tonight. Supervisor Stec-Is there an urgency to pass this tonight? Mrs. Switzer-There is no urgency to pass it tonight we would like it passed by the end of this calendar year. Supervisor Stec-So we can wait two weeks if we have to? Mrs. Switzer-We can wait two weeks if we have to because we do have concurring resolutions from the City of Glens Falls and we have adopted the local law at the County level. Supervisor Stec-You have a concurring resolution from Glens Falls and I know you have the one from the Board of Supervisor because I was there. Queensbury is involved why because there is delineation in Queensbury. Mrs. Switzer-There is delineation in Queensbury. Supervisor Stec-So that is the relative part to Queensbury. Mrs. Switzer-So there is delineation in the Town of Queensbury the property owner is aware of the delineation. The property that we have identified no longer meets the development plan the property was recently rezoned to highway commercial intensive. We do not allow that and the development plan is part of one of three items that you need to become a certified company you need to be in compliance with our development plan. Supervisor Stec-It is the Vic Macri parcel we rezoned it at his request to retail. Mrs. Switzer-That is correct. Supervisor Stec-Retail is not allowed in the Empire Zone in Queensbury. Mrs. Switzer-That is correct. Supervisor Stec-We have thirty-eight acres of retail non Empire Zone eligible acreage in the Town of Queensbury that is being tied up. The Empire Zone is a finite total amount of acreage, but we want to add Empire Zone acres somewhere else you have to take them from somewhere else so that’s why we are here. Mrs. Switzer-That is correct. Supervisor Stec-I thought that that was the big picture and I wanted to make sure that everybody….Councilman Boor-We have been doing this every year Dan. Supervisor Stec-It is not the same every year Roger. Councilman Boor-We change boundary lines a lot of times. Councilman Brewer- If there are changes we can only do them once a year. Councilman Boor-I say we do it every year we change the boundary line. Councilman Brewer-Just for my own information did Vic know that the retail didn’t qualify for the empire because I thought he touted on the empire….Councilman Boor-Don’t forget part of his property is light industrial Tim. Councilman Brewer-That is what I was getting too. Councilman Boor-But he doesn’t lose his contiguous aspect. Mrs. Switzer- Part of the reason one of the other reasons why this parcel was taken was because REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 175 of where it is located and the area one will still remain contiguous while removing this piece. Councilman Strough-Is the rest of his light industrial….Mrs. Switzer- The rest of his light industrial is still in the zone and anyone who comes to his property and builds appropriately can apply for zone benefits. Supervisor Stec- Again, you need a concurring resolution from Queensbury and Glens Falls and the County in order to forward this. You need it from Queensbury because one of the parcels is in Queensbury. If they were, taking twenty-eight acres from Chester Queensbury would not be in this. Mrs. Switzer-That is correct. Supervisor Stec-The issue for Queensbury is the delineation of these thirty-eight acres in Queensbury. Councilman Boor-The new properties are in. Mrs. Switzer- In the City of Glens Falls. Right now, the Town of Queensbury has approximately fifty-eight percent of the zone acreage in the entire County and this will drop it to fifty five percent of the total zone acreage in Warren County. Supervisor Stec-Any other questions for Jennifer thanks why don’t you stick around just in case we need you again. ? Spoke regarding the Town of Queensbury’s website www.queensbury.net ? Thanked TV 8 currently there are no sponsors except for TV 8. Tim Brewer has been out looking for a sponsor I know he has one that might be on line. I have talked to two I have had several emails back and forth with Jessie. I think we are going to be able to secure our sponsors to make sure we can continue to bring this to television. 7.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND CONCURRENCE WITH WARREN COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 506, 2007 DEFEATED INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mt. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §961 and by Warren County’s Local Law No.: 2 of 2001, Warren County authorized its application for designation of certain areas as an Empire Zone within the meaning of such statute and such designation was approved by the New York State Commissioner of Economic Development and such lands were formally designated by the Empire Zones Designation Board, and WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature and the Governor have enacted into law certain changes to the Empire Zones program whereby each existing Empire Zone must configure its existing zone acreage into six “distinct and contiguous” areas, and WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §957(d)(1), the Town of Queensbury has proposed the redesignation of the existing Warren County Empire Zone into six “distinct and contiguous areas,” which will include the Town of Queensbury, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 176 WHEREAS, such redesignation could greatly benefit the Town in that new businesses would be encouraged to locate in the zone area, existing businesses would be encouraged to expand in the zone area and new and expanded businesses would generate new jobs for Town residents, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury intends to authorize the submission of an application for the redesignation of areas within the Town of Queensbury as an Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to redesignate certain areas within the Town as part of the proposed Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to work with Warren County through the Empire Zone Program to provide enhanced job opportunities for its residents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, in its capacity as governing body of the Town of Queensbury, does hereby support and concur with the Warren County Empire Zone revision application to include: ? The addition of 11.10 acres to include tax parcel number: 310.5-7-8 ? The addition of 17.43 acres to include tax parcel number: 310.5-7-1 ? The deletion of 37.55 acres to include tax parcel number: 303.15-1-25 which parcels and tax map numbers must coincide exactly with the map presented at this meeting and made a part hereof in order to be effective, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to inform the Warren County Board of Supervisors of this action and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to take any and all actions necessary to effect this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Boor ABSENT :None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC. TO TRANSFER PORTION OF UNUSED 2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 177 RESTRICTED DEBT FUNDS TO OPERATIONS FUND AND USE REMAINING UNUSED RESTRICTED DEBT FUNDS FOR DEBT REDUCTION AND CONTINUED OPERATIONS RESOLUTION NO.: 507, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. (Squad) have entered into an Agreement for emergency services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not transfer any leftover funds from one budget line to any other budget line if those funds are to be used to reduce debt, without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Squad has advised the Town Board that it has approximately $39,783.28 unused funds in its Year 2007 restricted debt fund, which it does not anticipate to expend on debt service in its entirety and has therefore requested Town Board authorization to apply $28,222 of such unused restricted debt funds toward Year 2007 operations and the remaining approximate amount of $11,561.00 in unused restricted debt funds toward debt reduction, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide such authorization in order to reduce the Fire Company’s debt and ensure continued operations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.’s transfer of $28,222 in unused restricted debt funds to its Year 2007 operations fund and apply the remaining $11,561.00± of unused restricted debt funds toward debt reduction for debt currently held by Adirondack Trust Bank, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 178 NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION TO WARREN-HAMILTON COUNTIES ACEO, INC. - COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.: 508, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury duly advertised for bids for transportation for senior citizens in the Town of Queensbury for the year 2008, and WHEREAS, the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency has offered to provide the transportation services for the year 2008 for the amount of $19,500, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency, the only and therefore lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the contract for transportation of senior citizens for the Town of Queensbury for the year 2008 to the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency for the amount of $19,500 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Fiscal Manager, Accountant and/or Purchasing Agent to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 179 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WARREN COUNTY ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARREN- HAMILTON COUNTIES’ OFFICE FOR THE AGING AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 509, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Warren County, on behalf of the Warren-Hamilton Counties’ Office for the Aging, is authorized to establish, operate and maintain programs and services for the elderly in Warren County and is authorized to contract with public, private and non-profit and voluntary agencies to provide such needed services for adults 60 years of age and over, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is capable of assisting Warren County in fulfilling this responsibility, and WHEREAS, Warren County has presented the Town Board with an Agreement for transportation for the elderly services for 2008, with Warren County to reimburse the Town up to fifty percent of the actual expenses incurred or up to the amount of $6,607 for the Town’s provision of these services, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Agreement with Warren County on behalf of the Warren-Hamilton Counties’ Office for the Aging for the year 2008 substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with insurance provisions consistent with Town Policy and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 180 RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2007 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 510, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Fiscal Manager and/or Accountant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2007 Town Budget as follows: From To General Fund Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1110-4120 Court Printing 001-1110-1020 Overtime 200 001-1910-4201 Uninsured Deductibles 001-3410-4400 Misc. Contractual 2000 001-5182-4400 Street Lighting Misc. Contractual 001-8540-2899 Drainage Construction 3000 001-7020-1010 Recreation Salaries 001-7110-4823 Rec. Facilities Repair 3000 001-7020-1010 Recreation Salaries 001-7020-4400 Rec. Misc. Contractual 3000 001-7020-1010 Recreation Salaries 001-7110-4110 Parks Vehicle Repair 1000 001-7020-1010 Recreation Salaries 001-7110-4824 Rec. Programs 1000 EMS/Fire Protection 005-9025-8025-4981 Service Award Contribution EMS 005--3410-4400-4981 Misc. Contractual EMS 4192 005-9025-8025-4981 Service Award Contribution EMS 005-3410-4401-4981 CPA Audit EMS 2520 005-9025-8025-4981 Service Award Contribution EMS 005-3410-4407-4981 Bank Charges EMS 550 005-9025-8025-4980 Service Award Contribution Fire 005-3410-4401-4980 CPA Audit Fire 2010 rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – RD WARRANT OF DECEMBER 3, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 511, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 181 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of November 29, 2007 and a payment date of th December 4, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of November 29, 2007 and payment date of December 4, 2007 totaling $416,308.95, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION CONSIDERING STORMWATER IMPACTS TO HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SEQRA FINDINGS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING THERETO RESOLUTION NO.: 512, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 73 of 1987 the Queensbury Town Board established itself as Lead Agency for review of the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 95 of 1987, the Town Board designated the PUD as a Type 1 Action and required that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be prepared, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 104 of 1987 the Town Board accepted the DEIS th as complete and set a public hearing on such DEIS, and on April 28, 1987 a public hearing was duly held to consider the environmental impacts of the PUD, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 182 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 201 of 1987, the Town Board accepted a Final nd Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the PUD and on July 2, 1987 the Town Board issued a Notice of Completion for the FEIS, and th WHEREAS, on July 14, 1987, by Resolution No. 211 of 1987, the Town Board adopted a SEQRA Findings Statement on the PUD, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 212 of 1987, the Town Board enacted the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development, and th WHEREAS, on April 17, 2007, the Queensbury Planning Board adopted a Resolution requesting the Town Board to reconsider the SEQRA Findings Statement on the PUD due to recent developments regarding stormwater, wetlands and flooding, along with a recommendation for a comprehensive watershed analysis of the Meadowbrook Road Corridor, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has asked the Town Engineer to consider updated wetlands information relevant to the environmental impact of this project before the Planning Board, and rd WHEREAS, at an April 23, 2007 Town Board Workshop Meeting, the Town Board discussed the possibility of scheduling a public hearing and the reopening of its th original July 14, 1987 SEQRA findings for the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development zone, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 224,2007, the Town Board adopted a Resolution scheduling a public hearing to hear all interested parties concerning new information related to stormwater management, pre-development groundwater levels, floodplains and soils and the prior SEQRA approval and indicated its wish to reopen the SEQRA review of the Project, and th WHEREAS, on Monday, June 4, 2007, the Town Board conducted a public hearing, heard all interested persons and considered new information related to stormwater management, pre-development groundwater levels, floodplains and soils and the prior SEQRA approval, and WHEREAS, the Town’s engineer has prepared a report on the groundwater and stormwater matters in the Hiland Park PUD, which report is dated November 2, 2007 titled “Northern Meadowbrook Road Watershed and Drainage Study” (hereafter the “Study”), and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 183 WHEREAS, the Study makes numerous long term and short term recommendations aimed at alleviating currently existing stormwater issues in the Hiland Park PUD, and WHEREAS, some of the recommendations in the Report include short term solutions that the Town Board and Departments will consider in the coming years, and other recommendations include areas of concern that the Town should take into account when reviewing projects in this area of the town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Report and finds it to be sound and the recommendations contained therein to be based on the evidence and expert analysis of the Town’s engineer, and that the recommendations contained therein should be followed, and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that, with regard to future development in the Hiland Park PUD, the Town engineer’s comments with regard to wetlands delineation, and paying particular attention to enforcing wetland setbacks, and the overall consideration of stormwater impacts should be particularly followed by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Town Board wishes to provide for recommendations to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals as contained herein, and as provided for under SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, upon reviewing new information consisting of the Report identified above related to stormwater management, pre- development groundwater levels, floodplains and soils for the Hiland Park PUD, and after thoroughly analyzing the development potential in the Hiland Park PUD again for potential environmental impacts, hereby determines that in taking into account stormwater impacts of any future development, and zoning and planning applications, the Planning Board and the all Zoning Board of Appeals should carefully consider of the recommendations contained in the Report with particular focus on recommendations 1, 2, and 5 on page 14 of the Report, and should also at a minimum, require all applicants for all future development in the Hiland Park PUD to submit a full or long Environmental Assessment Form for all Unlisted Actions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all members of the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and staff in the Zoning and Planning Department, should be forwarded a copy of the Report for their consideration when reviewing zoning and planning applications, and the Town Clerk is directed to forward such copies of same. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 184 rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t want the basis of all-long form SEQRA’s to be solely on Dan Ryan’s Report because Dan Ryan’s report only deals with a very small section of the PUD, which is seven hundred acres. It should not be construed as it is the only viable or package of writing to be looked at when making a determination. I think Councilman Sanford’s has some issues with regards to the tardiness with respect to the applicant who five months ago DEC went out and flagged the wetlands for this project it was obvious to all who saw this that the project as proposed wouldn’t fit. Not only could they not meet the hundred-foot setback in our ninety-four in some instances the actual project itself was within the wetlands not even a hundred feet away. They have yet to produce a survey map that shows the DEC flagging, which has been requested multiple times. I am going to ask our Attorney I will let Richard take over if they don’t produce this map with the flagging within a week or so that this application be terminated. I don’t see them moving forward with it, it is holding up other projects in the Hiland Park PUD. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned why is this holding up other projects. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We put a halt to anything taking place in the PUD. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Until they do a long form or it’s mapped. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This came to us because it was an application in front of the Planning Board. They were reviewing a professional office building just south of Waverly Place. They were concerned about the wetland people were talking at the public comment period. Gretchen thought it would a good idea since it was PUD for us to revisit the SEQRA Findings. It became apparent after some of us spent time going over the original 1987 Finding Report that the PUD is huge in scope and the Meadowbrook Corridor is just a small part of it. Any conclusions that you reach cannot be definitive throughout the whole PUD. We had two things we were dealing with one was a way, which we could put something in motion for the future that would be in the best interest of the PUD. The second one was that it was specifically addressed the actual Michael’s Project, which was why we received the referral. What this resolution does in a somewhat satisfactory manner it addresses how the PUD can be addressed moving forward with maybe projects that are going to take place in other locations. What have you it is basically prescribing that certain things have to be done they have to reference this they have to do a long form etc. What it doesn’t address at all in here is the topic or issue of our basic referral, which was the Michaels application and what are we going to do with that. Again, my feeling is it is inappropriate for us to at this particular point in time send it back to the Planning Board when it seems to be something that we should be able to resolve since the referral was to us. They haven’t complied after five months if this board feels that it is appropriate I would say we give them a phone call Stuart and say next week produce the mapping. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Wait a minute Richard if they don’t comply then they cannot move forward, right. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-They can’t move forward until they comply. The question is do they have an option to go forever without complying. When do we basically say look at the application… COUNCILMAN BREWER-If they don’t comply they do no where. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 185 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Then what we need to do is we need to make a determination that would deny them without prejudice. TOWN COUNSEL NOORDSY-If you were adopting these requirements then how can they move forward without…. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-First of all this resolution doesn’t specify I sent an email to Mr. Fuller over the weekend specifying that there should be a provision in this resolution that states that in regards to the Michaels application they must submit a new mapping of the flagged wetland by DEC prior to any additional action being taken it is not included in the resolution. COUNCILMAN BOOR-In other words their application isn’t accurate we know it isn’t accurate because we know DEC has given a totally different delineation then they show on their application. TOWN COUNSEL NOORDSY-I don’t know I would add Michaels to this. You could do a separate resolution with regards to Michaels is what I am saying. This you are trying to make applicable to the whole PUD. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-All right. If you want to treat it that way we can move with th this, but then I would recommend that at our December 17, meeting we have a resolution prepared, which specifically addresses the Michaels application and our insistence that they follow through on what they basically have been instructed to do. Failure to do so then that’s where we get into a debate means what. I don’t think it means that they have an option to go forever and then ten years down the road submit a mapping. I think basically, there has to be a sunset provision in there. If by such and such a date they have not done it then we will conclude that this is denied application for non-compliance. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Also, Mark there is a De-facto Determination by DEC that the application map is not accurate so I question that the application is even valid. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we pass this resolution as it is written it requires criteria that he has to submit for an application correct or not? If it requires him to submit a map for him to move forward then this accomplishes what you are trying to do. If he does not submit a map, he cannot move forward. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This does not address that Tim the mapping is not in his resolution. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that in our file downstairs was that remapped. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It is reflected in our minutes I believe. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But, he hasn’t produced a map. In other words, DEC says that the application map that he has submitted is not accurate and that the wetlands are much faster and greater than what he has shown. I am saying I think he would want to get that corrected because I believe he has an invalid application now. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Why don’t we precede this way Mark I think you suggested it take action on this one and then on the seventieth we will do the other one. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is the easiest way to go. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-Then you will have proposed resolution specifically with regard to the Michaels ready for the next meeting. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Stu you will call him and say we need that map. I would like to think that we have it by the time we have this resolution. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Craig Brown did contact Mr. Miller who has been the agent for this who basically said that their position is they are going to wait and see what action REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 186 the Town Board takes before they go further with this. I thought that was highly irregular because we gave them at the last public hearing direction to do a field survey and put it on the map. I do not think it is appropriate for them to say well wait a second we are not going to do that now until after we decide what you are doing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Two things. One is I was at the Planning Board Meeting where I saw the problem arising it wasn’t just the Michaels Group there were other developments there that seemed to be having problems. There were accusations of storm water being rerouted cellars flooding that did not occur before. It became obvious at that meeting that we did need to do a Comprehensive Study. To our credit here and I am talking to all Town Board members we agreed that we needed a Town Engineer who was going to be sensitive and have a hands on approach to what is going on in this Town. I think the perfect example is Dan Ryan’s Northern Meadowbrook Road Watershed and Drainage Study an excellent study very comprehensive with an offering of remediation. A discussion of the need for floodplains and what we could to help remediate some of those problems in that area that is exactly what we should have been doing a long time ago, but at least we are going it now so that’s my comment I think it is a good thing. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF KEVIN MONETTE FROM WATER PLANT OPERATOR TRAINEE TO WATER PLANT OPERATOR 1 RESOLUTION NO. 513, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Superintendent and Civil Engineer have recommended that the Town Board authorize the promotion of Kevin Monette from Water Plant Operator Trainee to the existing, vacant position of Water Plant Operator 1 at the Town’s Water Treatment Plant as Mr. Monette has: 1) over one year experience operating the Plant, 2) attained a 2A license from New York State and 3) proved proficiency in the laboratory, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the promotion of Kevin Monette from Water Plant Operator Trainee to Water Plant Operator 1 th at the Town Water Treatment Plant effective on or about December 4, 2007 at the rate of pay specified in the Town’s CSEA Union Agreement for the position for the year 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Town’s Agreement with CSEA, such promotion shall be subject to a 90 day trial (probationary) period, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 187 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Civil Engineer and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD AND A DEFERRED LOAN FOR CASE #5515IN CONNECTION WITH THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 514, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS , the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and WHEREAS , the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs to cover eligible project costs, and WHEREAS , the Town of Queensbury has also established a Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which provides a deferred loan to very low income eligible property owners for the owners cost of rehabilitation, and WHEREAS#5515 , a single family property Case File has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and a loan through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and the owner of the property has requested such assistance and loan, and WHEREAS , property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS , the low bid cost to complete the work specified is Thirty-five thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars and no cents ($35,525.00) , and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 188 WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development and Building & Codes four thousand dollar ($4,000.00) staff recommend including an additional contingency for possible additional costs, and WHEREAS , Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant and loan process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grants and loan, and WHEREAS , a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation, WHEREAS , the property owner will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Town of Queensbury which will be filed with the Warren County Clerk’s Office with the principal balance of the loan due in full upon the transfer of title of the property THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant in the amount not to exceed Thirty-four thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars and no cents ($34,525.00) for Case File #5515, Queensbury, New York; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Queensbury also 5515 approves a rehabilitation loan for Case File #, in an amount not to five thousand dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) , exceedand BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development to execute Grant Award and Loan agreements and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd 3December, 2007 Duly adopted this day of , by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: Mr. Sanford ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Boor DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BREWER-This was to set a public hearing. SUPERVISOR STEC-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what you told me Tim. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s what I thought it was. SENIOR PLANNER, STU BAKER-No public hearing is required on this. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 189 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Tim this is the one that we discussed at a workshop. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, sir it is. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-And I saw the pictures. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t recall pictures Richard. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-I don’t believe we had pictures. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This is the one where Shelter Planning was present at the time, but their was talk about maybe an alternative approach. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The trailer…. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This is the one. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Much more money. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know, but this is the application. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t remember the pictures though. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-There were some pictures. Again, I am not going to support this for a couple of reasons. I maybe in the minority, but I want to get them out there for discussion purposes. I think through the course of the last year on at least two or three occasions we made it clear at least I made it clear and some others have made it clear to Stuart that we were seeing a number of these getting to a magnitude that were higher than we were comfortable with. The thinking there is if we give so much money to one particular recipient then, of course, that is less money that can go to others. We approved a few of these that were over what we thought was the prudent level that we wanted to give awards on. We made sure that you had a clear understanding that I think the threshold not counting loans twenty thousand or something like that. We said we didn’t want to see anymore of these in excess of that magnitude. Then on this Monday just today I got one that with loans and what have you is knocking on forty thousand dollars. This particular house is in such a state of disrepair I don’t question for one minute that it requires that kind of cost to rehab it. It may even require more based on what I saw when I saw the pictures and stuff. At the time, we discussed it there were some people who thought it would be better if the building was leveled and they started over. For the reasons of the magnitude of the costs and the state of disrepair that exists here. I don’t think it is a prudent thing for us to be doing when we could probably put the money to better use to benefit more people in other ways. Again, I am not going to support it, but I am speaking just for myself. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Richard, I can tell you, and I understand exactly what you are saying. I have been involved with this loan and grant program since day one. I would like to help as many people as we possibly can. With the amount of applications, that we have had and I have seen this is probably one of the more severe ones. You know what sometimes you just REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 190 have to make a decision that you are going to help one person or one family. There is always going to be more money we have more money coming next year. It is not to say that other people are not deserving of it. These people you know they are hard working people one of them is disabled they have children. It is just something unless you go look at them, see them, and talk to the people you do not understand. I will support this type of an application every time it comes to us maybe I am selfish for that reason. John and I went over there again Saturday he looked at the conditions I think he is in concurrence with the way I feel. Let the chips fall where they may, but I think this is well deserving of this grant program. This is what it is for this is exactly what this program is for with this type of a setting. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I will concur with you Richard. Once in a while, there is going to be an exception to the all the hard and fast rules there is always going to be an exception. After looking at this situation and the needs of the couple that are there I think this is the once in the long long while exception. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I appreciate that. It is a philosophical concept I spent time thinking of it in that sense. My conclusion I don’t want to sound insensitive, but I don’t believe it is the intent to essentially provide complete and total housing for people it is to provide ways in which improvements can take place. You are talking about a structure now that I couldn’t put a dollar value on it I have liken it to my 1993 Dodge Van I brought in because the brakes failed. The guy said to get those brakes fixed it is going to cost you about five times more than the vehicle is worth so the vehicle went and got crushed. That is what the reality of it is it would have been throwing good money after bad. In this particular situation, you have a situation where you have a building that probably should be taken down…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And then where do the people go Richard where do they go. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Tim we discussed this in the Workshop…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I take offense to what you are saying I think you are wrong. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-How about the other people in that area of the community they are not the only people that are in need. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You are right they are not. We have helped many people do you know how many people we helped. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This is forty thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is not forty thousand dollars from the Town. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-In any way lets vote. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We got this like today. Tim when we talked you said it was going to be a public hearing and I said fine then I am not even going to worry about going over the details of it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 191 COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was my impression Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Now, I see we are supposed to be voting on it, it is twice what we normally do. I am not going to vote yes or no on it I am going to abstain because I have not gone out and looked at the property I would have if I had known we were going to have this resolution. I got this at what time did this come in…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Today. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-Early this afternoon. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am sorry so I am going to abstain that is all I am going to say. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s fine. I didn’t try to mislead you I thought it was setting a public hearing that is the god’s honest truth. SUPERVISOR STEC-For the purpose of the record this is the low bid to complete the work it is $35, 525. Shelter Planning has recommended a contingency of $4,000, which brings it to $39,525. This would award a Community Development Block Grant for $34,525 and a loan from a revolving loan fund for $5,000, which would go against the property. RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 515, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Str ough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters into Executive Session to discuss matters that may lead to actions that may involve the hiring of a potential employee and other contractual compensationof firms and any other matters to be discussed. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 516, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 -03-2007 MTG #50 192 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 517, 2007 INTRODUCED BY:Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough Noes: None Absent:None On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury