The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-08-22 MTG #24 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 735 TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. # 24 August 22, 2011 RES. 255-272 7:00 PM TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER- ABSENT TOWN OFFICIALS MIKE SHAW, WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER PRESS POST STAR LOOK TV PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC SUPERVISOR STEC OPENED MEETING 1.0PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING- SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY GARY AND SUSAN HIGLEY FROM MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, this public hearing is for property that is located down, essentially on the corner of Quaker and Glenwood. We were contacted by the property owners, Gary and Susan Higley who are supportive of rezoning their property. To summarize where things stand they have discovered in their process now that some of the neighboring property owners are also interested in pursuing a similar rezoning, which I think most of the Town Board would think probably makes sense. What they’ve asked us to do is not take action on this evening and basically wait until perhaps these other properties are included in another public hearing in the future. What my game plan is, since we have advertised the public hearing for tonight, we will take any public comment that there may be on this and then after that public hearing we will, in all likelihood not take any action this evening, and in which case we’ll just wait until future time where they have identified all the properties that they want us to consider rezoning and we will have a separate public hearing when that presents itself. With that said, does anyone that would like to comment on that public hearing regarding the rezoning the property from moderate density residential to commercial intensive down off Quaker Road? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and again I don’t think the Town Board will take any action on that this evening. PUBLIC HEARING- REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT FOR CHARLIE VROOMAN NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 12-2011 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 736 SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, and again anytime we want to locate or request to locate a mobile home outside of a mobile home court that does require a public hearing. This property is located off of Pinello Road and is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing? All right, two for two; seeing none I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion to approve by Councilman Montesi TOWN COUNSEL, ROBERT HAFNER- Wait, authorizing or not authorizing? SUPERVISOR STEC- Authorizing, by Councilman Montesi C OUNCILMAN STROUGH- I’ll second SUPERVISOR STEC- Seconded by Councilman. Any discussion? Let’s go ahead and vote please RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR CHARLIE VROOMAN RESOLUTION NO.: 255, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Charlie Vrooman filed an “Application for Placing a Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" to seek Town Board approval to replace his mobile home with a new, 2012 mobile home on his property located at 44 Pinello Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing concerning this application on nd Monday, August 22, 2011 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the issuance of a Revocable Permit to Charlie Vrooman in accordance with the terms and provisions of Queensbury Town Code §113-12, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community Development Department and/or Town Clerk to take any and all actions necessary to effectuate the issuance of such Permit and the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 737 nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer PUBLIC HEARING- ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011 SUPERVISOR STEC- Each year, about this time of year, Mike Shaw our Wastewater Superintendent brings to us the following three resolutions that all have to do with establishing the following year’s sewer district benefit tax roll. Basically, it’s the opportunity in the tax district where they basically recalculate and determine what the benefitted units are in each sewer district. So we have three public hearings on that tonight. They usually go about as rough as the first two did this evening, but we will hear anyone that wants to comment. Again, this first one is on the Route 9 sanitary sewer district benefit tax roll for 2012. The public hearing is open, if there is any members of the public that would like to comment on this just raise your hand and I will call on folks one at time. Seeing none, I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: 256, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and nd WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 22, 2011 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 738 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 for payment of public improvement § expenses within the District in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer PUBLIC HEARING- SOUTH QUEENSBURY- QUEENSBURY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 NOTICE SHOWN DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUGUST 12, 2011 SUPERVISOR STEC- Likewise, for the South Queensbury- Queensbury Avenue sanitary sewer district, the same idea that this is the annual sewer district benefit tax roll public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to comment on that public hearing? All right, seeing none I will close that public hearing and entertain a motion RESOLUTION ADOPTING SOUTH QUEENSBURY – QUEENSBURY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: 257, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 739 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and nd WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 22, 2011 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 for payment of public improvement expenses within the District in accordance with New York State § Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer PUBLIC HEARING- WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 NOTICE SHOWN DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUGUST 12, 2011 SUPERVISOR STEC- Again, this is the third one, sewer district benefit tax roll 2012 for West Queensbury. The public hearing is open, if there is any members of the public that would like to comment just raise your hand and I will call on you. Seeing none, I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion RESOLUTION ADOPTING WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: 258, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 740 SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and nd WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 22, 2011 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 for payment of public improvement expenses within the District in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and § 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer PUBLIC HEARING- GLEN LAKE AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH CONTROL DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUGUST 12, 2011 SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, thank you. Good evening again everybody, I certainly appreciate everyone coming out this evening. I usually try to frame the discussion, as those of you that come to the Board Meetings or perhaps watch us on television for every resolution that we entertain. The history of the Glen Lake Aquatic Plant Growth Control District goes back at REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 741 least four years actively with Town involvement. I know that the idea of talking to some of you it’s an idea that may as much as ten years old there. I can tell you that off and on over the years, my twelve years at Town government that the Town general fund has sporadically and occasionally supported fighting the aquatic plant issues and certainly anyone that has been following the news in the region the last couple of years invasive species are an issue and potentially very expensive issue in a lot of lakes surrounding us beyond just Glen Lake. I would say probably in earnest the last couple of years the Town has moved in conjunction with the leadership of the Glen Lake Association towards the formation of this district. I think that perhaps at some point if necessary our Attorney can probably explain a little more of the particulars of what can and can’t be done in a district, but the bottom line is like anything else that Town government in New York State is suppose to do, the Town of Queensbury government actually follows the rules and procedures that are laid out for us. What it can and can’t be, it’s not necessarily up to the whim of the five of us or what we would all want. We have to follow a certain parameter that’s set for us in forming these districts in the State and there is a process to follow. We did hire some time ago Vision Engineering and their Principal, Dan Ryan is here this evening as well to first step in the district formation is to create a document that’s called a map, plan and report, which I think has been the subject of some concern and discussion off and on over the last couple of weeks. That is basically an overall guiding document that sets up and is required in the process for district formation, whether it’s this kind of district or sewer district or water district. It lays out what the districts purpose is and who’s in the district and what the estimated cost or typical costs may be projected for that district. It’s an important planning document; however it is not in and of itself a proscriptive document or a code or not town code. It’s a document for planning purposes to form the district. I think the Town Board did two weeks ago vote to go ahead and move forward with the public hearing tonight. I know at the time there was some concerns whether or not all the questions had been answered that had to do with the map, plan and report. I also know that in the last two weeks, and as recently as this morning, I think a lot of those issues may have been addressed, but certainly we’re going to be able to answer to any questions and take any public comment on the subject tonight that may be offered. I certainly as I see it there’s really three options that are facing Glen Lake as I’ve watched Glen Lake fight, in particular milfoil but I know there are other aquatic plants that are of concern there and lord knows what the future may hold as far as species that may not yet be present in Glen Lake. As always, there is a do nothing option, we do nothing and science will tell us that if you do nothing to a body of water like this regardless of outside environmental impacts by humans a body of water like this would eventually turn to a bog status and I’m sure that no one in the room is in favor of that option. The second option is you are faced with a treatment, how are we going to control plants and you are going to do that one of two ways, you are going to continue to pass the hat around amongst the property owners. It is private property and you can hope that the passing the hat option raises the funds at a fair manner and a consistent manner where you can keep up with the plants. That hasn’t been very successful to this point, which is why a few years ago the Glen Lake Protective Association approached the Town and asked us what the options were and what the possibilities were for an aquatic plant growth control district, a taxing district, which is where we are tonight. In order to do that, we conduct a public hearing such as this and lay out the estimated cost of the district and rules of what the goals are of the district. I think one of the important things that we want to put out and I think we did put out to the leadership of the Glen Lake Protective Association; we’re realizing that they don’t speak for everyone in the room. But that’s who we’ve been dealing with off and on over the years. As the situation evolves and as technology evolves as new treatment options become available that there’s enough flexibility in this sort of district that we’re forming up where we can react to that this district formation should it get formed tonight does not allocate or budget one nickel. It does not raise one nickel in taxes. That will occur at a future meeting in part of the budget process. So I know that there’s a lot of people concerned about the numbers that are in the planning document, the map, plan and report, but those numbers may change over time. Certainly, they are going to be determined just as is every other part of the Town’s budget through a very public process and a budgeting process where we’ve received input. I think some of the concerns that we’ve heard in particular the last couple of weeks that some people felt that maybe the current map, plan and report was falling short was whether or not it adequately addressed where we would be getting that input from, whether or not it would be formalized or commemorated in any way and I think we went a long way this morning to make sure that that kind of language was memorialized in the official resolution that we’ve got in front of us. That spells out and acknowledges the existence of the Glen Lake Association, the property owners are going to be given the opportunity to provide input to us. We the Town and the rest of the Town taxpayers outside the district stand to gain nothing one way or the other so it’s not as though there’s any other entity REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 742 that could possibly benefit from whatever decisions we make. If we don’t want to spend the money on treatment for whatever reason and that’s the input that we get than we don’t spend it, however, if you want to be more aggressive and we hear that message loud and clear than we will be more aggressive. That has been the Town of Queensbury’s modus operandi for dealing with all of our budgeting decisions for at least for the last twelve that I can recall and I’m quite certain long before that. This is new territory for a lot of people in the room and that’s fine we understand that. I wanted to frame that a little bit because I know there is some confusion or concern out there, if I’m not clear or I missed anything we will certainly answer any questions or comments as we come, at a later point. So with that said, Bob, did I miss anything? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- No, you stole all the things I had on my list to talk about. I’m sorry SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, so with that said I will open the public hearing and I know that I’m not sure if it was Paul or Dean or Don wanted to have the opportunity to be the first to speak to the Board but we will hear any and all that want comment this evening. Again, as I call on people, as I always say these microphones not only amplify but they record for the purpose of the record and when you come to the microphone we just ask that you state your name and address for the record; like I said, direct your comments to the board. If there are questions are in there we will do our best to get you answers. Gentlemen, good evening DEAN BOECHER- Good evening, I want to extend my appreciation to the Board for acting as quickly as they have. I know this process has taken an awful long time. As of a little over a week ago after we had our meeting the same day you did we indicated to our membership that we were going to get this tabled for another year. Through the diligent work of this Town Board and members of our association they have come a long way in a very short time. I need to publically thank all of you for participating in that; Bob, you for doing the legal part. We still have some things that we are going to fine tune but that can come at another point. I think we have gotten so close it would be ashamed to see this extended for another year without the approval of this particular district. With that said, I would like introduce Don Milne who will update us on some of the procedures we have gone through and Don please DON MILNE- Donald Milne, 25 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury; one of the past presidents, many past presidents of the Glen Lake Association; luckily I’m one of the few still alive. Again, I want to thank the Board, Dan and Tony especially and their Town Attorney. I was directed by the Board of the Glen Lake Association to produce a position paper requesting the Town to take over the map, plan and report until it could adequately amended to more clearly represent the goals initially put forth by our association. The reaction of our Town Supervisor and others has been admirable. They immediately initiated dialogue with us and set aside time as late as this morning to forge a consensus to go forward. As a result, we strongly recommend the resolution as amended and the resolutions drafted be approved by our Town Board. We are particularly cognizant of the fact that as items came up in our meeting Mr. Hafner brought up in the idea that there are resolutions, whereas’ that can be added which have even greater strength of law than the map, plan and report. Seeing those we feel very confident in going forward. Paul will go through the nitty gritty of some of the items we discussed. PAUL DERBY- Paul Derby, 86 Ashe Drive, current vice president of the Association and former president. Yea, I want to thank all of the guys, it’s been really been a learning experience for me and I think for many of us out here in figuring out how this whole thing comes to be. I feel confident that we can move forward with this. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks MR. DERBY- I prepared a statement, these are kind of the nuts and bolts pieces, if I leave anything out let me know. First, I want to say I’ve worked on this with Don for ten years at least. I have always been a strong supporter of the management district. It’s probably the fairest way to get everyone who benefits to contribute to the health of Glen Lake. Even so, a few weeks ago, I won’t take much of the credit because I believe I was the strongest voice that asked for the don’t rush into this campaign. I’m a cautious person by nature and I wanted to feel confident and I wanted the people to feel confident that if we had the document that we could go forward with it. But, with these last few weeks, in particular over the last week or seventy two hours we were working with Dan and Tony and the Board and Mr. Hafner becoming better educated about how REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 743 these districts actually work and practice. Second, this process has reaffirmed my confidence in local government’s ability to work in collaboration with the local people they serve. Now I am confident that we will come to an agreement this evening about what this district is, how it should be, because we need it to control our nuisance aquatic vegetation in Glen Lake. So, I’m just going to go over basically some of the points we had and some of the nuts and bolts pieces. First and most importantly, I think all of us here agree, in fact I’m sure all of us here agree that the health of Glen Lake is the most important thing. We need to manage these invasive plants, we need the money to do that and this is the mechanism we need to get. Number two, we have clarified the role of Glen Lakers in the district, a district advisory committee is included in the revised map, plan and report document that states that a committee made up of Glen Lake residents will annually review water quality and aquatic vegetation surveys to assess the Lake’s health, review the treatment methods and outcomes and propose an annual budget and recommendations for aquatic control to the Town to decide the type of treatment options that will meet the management goals. We further ask the Town if they would appoint five Glen Lake residents from the Glen Lake Protective Association to make up this initial tax advisory committee. This is important because it gives us a voice in what’s going on. Number three; through conversations with the Town we have clarified our goals. We did have some philosophical differences with the approaches described in the map, plan and report. For example, the report seems to have a bias for hand harvesting and reservations about the use of aquatic herbicides. Our experience managing the Lake however, have been to the contrary, we have had excellent success managing invasive plants with aquatic herbicides. This year we used … super K. The Lake is super, it’s beautiful, it’s clean, the fishery is healthy and the recreation is great. Therefore, we request that the initial management techniques with aquatic herbicide, further that in the future that we will work together with the Town and with aquatic biologists to re-evaluate the alternate options that will work best for the needs for the Lake. Costs were a big concern. We made it clear that we need to keep cost under control, we explained in our intent that the formation of the district was to provide about a hundred thousand dollars every three years for a large scale control technique. The report provides estimated costs including the cost of district formation, these are not actual costs as Dan said but they are estimates of what might happen. If this goes forward this evening the district advisory committee will be asked to produce a budget for 2012. We told the lay residents that the costs would be around a hundred and twenty five dollars per household and if we stick with that we would have enough to pay for the district formation in the first year and accumulate enough for the next two years to have a hundred thousand dollars to a large scale treatment. Further, it’s been clarified that it is not in the Town’s interest to contract for unneeded services or do things that the effected people of Glen Lake don’t want. So, I think we want to reiterate that. Further, we need to make sure that everyone knows that all the money collected for this district must stay and be used for aquatic management in Glen Lake. We’ve discussed with Town Board Members that the approaches of contractors can differ greatly, therefore it’s necessary to hire aquatic biologists that knows specifics of Glen Lake and are willing to work in collaboration with the needs and wants of the lay community to determine the most appropriate and agreed upon management techniques. Again, the district advisory committee has a role and will recommend aquatic biologists that we feel comfortable with and that we now know the Lake and the community. The map, plan and report document number six recommended a full aquatic vegetation survey immediately after the district is formed. We explained this morning that our biologists, … biological in fact last Monday just completed the survey and will provide this report, which the association will then provide to the Town. Thus, if the Town stipulates this in this resolution this (cell phone ringing- unable to make out rest of sentence). I will also note to lake residents that the aquatic biologists sorry to say did find some re-growth in a couple of areas, some small plants and pond weed and some … milfoil. So we know that this stuff is going to come back, it’s just the way it is, it’s an ongoing process. Finally, if this district doesn’t work there is new legislation in New York State as you’ve mentioned to dissolve this tax district and we asked the Board to explicitly state this in the accompanying resolution this evening. I think those were the main points. SUPERVISOR STEC- And Paul, if I could react just off the cuff to a couple of them. What you said last is true that until not too long ago it used to be exceptionally difficult to dissolve a district and the State has changed those rules so there’s a little more leniency or flexibility for local government to officially dissolve a district. In the past, and what we have tried to explain before, which is still true, but in the past typically what would be done if a district ran its course and there was no use for it anymore is while it would exist on the books it would just simply be defunded and it would be come defunct that way. But, what Paul just pointed out is true and I don’t think that we have any problems stipulating to that or I think anything else that you just REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 744 said in the resolutions. Certainly, if you have a valid or a fresh hot off the presses report we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, if you’ve got a biologist that has redone the report and we can avoid that cost as well. We are not here to, certainly four or five of us aren’t biologists, aren’t plan experts and we don’t have an informed opinion on whether or not hand harvesting versus herbicides, that’s what the professionals are for. We also, what we’ve learned in the process is that you can have more than one qualified expert in the room on something like this and you will have opinions all over and in fact, people that lived there with it. I mean most of you people in the room are more expert about controlling aquatic plants than certainly the four of us are and yet we’re aware that there’s some difference of opinion whether it’s more or less hand harvesting, or which chemical to use or not to use is better. Over the last few years and I guess in this year in particular you started to find something that seems to be working for you so again once you find something that works, we don’t have a motivation to want to deviate from that. Our goal is to help you control the plant growth better and more reliably so that you don’t feel like you’re constantly panicking to scrape together whatever the money is to try to address them. Specifically, you’re point about state laws now in place where if five, ten, one, twenty years from now people say you know what this isn’t for us, there’s a similar process that we can follow, again we don’t invent the process here, we follow the process that the State provides us. So there is an out, for those of you are concerned that this doesn’t work out and can we ever un-ring this bell. Apparently, it’s easier for local government to do that COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Paul, just one question, when you talked about the five members as an advisory committee. Did you say you wanted the Town Board to appoint them? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- The Town Board has to appoint them COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Okay TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- I mean, it’s your authority COUNCILMAN MONTESI- You also said that they have to be members of the association TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- That’s not SUPERVISOR STEC- They don’t have to COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I was just going to say, are their homeowners that aren’t members of the association? MR. DERBY- Yea, I think the way it’s actually written, it’s a Glen Lake resident, somebody in the taxing district COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Okay, I didn’t want to exclude somebody TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER- We drafted it figuring, thinking that there might be some people who weren’t and that there definitely would be representation from the Protective Association that has had so much history with this SUPERVISOR STEC- Although, not something that we would try to do tonight but there’s enough people in the room where I’m sure some of you wondering how are we going to arrive at those names? Bob or anyone else correct me, and I haven’t discussed this with anybody but my assumption would be like any other board we would take letters of interest from people that qualify, people that live in the district. In this case MR. BOECHER- And in fact, excuse me Dan, we are encouraging as the Association, we want to get more people included within the association so we can all work together. It’s important that we have this be available for all the residents and part of the tax district TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- But it does seem that with all the history that the Protective Association has to have their voices as the experience that you are looking for SUPERVISOR STEC- Recommendation REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 745 MR. BOECHER- The history from last time we had a workshop if you will, a year or so ago. Everybody here at that time was in favor of the district except for one person and that was just a philosophical difference. He contributed money also. We have looked at it and we don’t see another alternative. We appreciate the time you’ve given us and again we have come a long, long way here. If you have any other questions for us we would like to answer them or if any of our members or residents or friends of Glen Lake we would like to interact with them as well, or you SUPERVISOR STEC- All right COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Not necessarily a question but a confirmation, I recently attended the Lake George Association annual meeting and the Fund for Lake George annual meeting. It is clear that those organizations, which do receive a lot of contributions but a lot of grant money to have discussed as far as Lake George goes their management programs work. We all know that we’re not going to get rid of invasive species and we all know that if you don’t do anything it will ruin the quality of the Lake, it will ruin the quality of life of people living around the Lake, it will ruin property values. We all know that, so it’s important that you maintain a management system. It’s here to stay, it’s something we have to live with and that’s what you guys have put together and I congratulate you for doing that. This is very innovative, proactive and needed in my mind. Also, it doesn’t prohibit us from going for grant money, which will reduce the burden on all of us; so it’s in our best interest to strive for that as much as we can. We didn’t forget about that, it’s something we are going to work on. But again, I want to thank the efforts of you three especially, but the people in the Glen Lake Protective Association that are … with this program SUPERVISOR STEC- The public hearing is open. Don’t go too far because I imagine that you guys may be needed for answers to some of the questions that maybe we don’t have. Again, we will take any and all comment on this public hearing. Just raise your hand and when you get to the mic., yes ma’am, when you get to the mic. please just state your name and address for the record. Thank you LAURIE GRAVES- 82 Ashe Drive SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes ma’am MS. GRAVES- I am in support of the taxing district and for the past three fundraisers that we’ve had to raise funds for the treatment of Lake, I can attest to the fact that passing the hat does not work. We have forty percent of the residents on the Lake that contribute and the other sixty percent benefit from our funds. So, something needs to happen and I am in support of the Association in going forward with this. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you Ms. Graves. Anybody else like to comment on this public hearing this evening? Mr. O’Connor MIKE O’CONNOR- Thank you Dan SUPERVISOR STEC- Your welcome MR. O’CONNOR- I’m Mike O’Connor, I am a resident on Pioneer Point and I do support the formation of a tax district. I have a couple of questions though I don’t know that have been answered and I went online to get some answers, didn’t get them. Briefly, outside they said we would probably get them in here. SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay MR. O’CONNOR- I haven’t seen the legislation that actually empowers the district to do different things. I would be very concerned if the legislation contained any power to control upland activities in addition to treatment of aquatic life within the Lake. Additional legislation a few years ago followed the State legislation suggesting that it did have authority for the tax district to also control upland activity. So, we have enough regulations on Glen Lake, if you want to put a porch on you have to spend ten thousand dollars to get it approved. SUPERVISOR STEC- And you’ve got to hire a lawyer REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 746 MR. O’CONNOR- Yea, I used to complain but now I send thank you notes. I think it’s ridiculous, I really think it’s ridiculous SUPERVISOR STEC- I couldn’t resist, I’m sorry MR. O’CONNOR- Why do we have to come here to get a variance to put infiltration devices within a hundred feet of the Lake. Everybody knows that stormwater run downhill, everybody knows that every piece of property on the Lake is pitched towards the Lake and there’s another regulation says you can’t pump stormwater. So, you make people go through the process of getting a variance if you’re going to put any infiltration devices within a hundred feet of the lake. Most lots are only two hundred feet deep and you are trying to put the septic in the back. So, we’ve got more regulations than we need for Glen Lake. But, that’s my concern, if there is no authority SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, it’s certainly not in the map, plan and report TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- It’s not in our map, plan and report and MR. O’CONNOR- Not part of the report isn’t SUPERVISOR STEC- … legislation TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Let me finish. The authority for this district is in Article 12 of Town law and the language there doesn’t have a lot of details. It talks about aquatic plant control district and it gives the Town Board authority to control the aquatic plants. I hadn’t envisioned that they had any intention of thinking about anything, the statue talks about aquatic plant control district MR. O’CONNOR- My reading to that Bob, is it could be a back door to new stormwater regulations, which I don’t think we need. We have enough stormwater regulations already in the Town TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- But, I think stormwater regulations are something that is under different type of authority MR. O’CONNOR- Okay, but that’s also in that section I believe. My other concern is how we’re going to raise the funds or pay for them. I have an elderly neighbor with a very modest cottage who probably hasn’t been on the Lake in the last five years, but this is a benefit tax as opposed as an ad valorem tax. I don’t think that’s fair, I think it should be ad valorem tax even though I’d probably pay more taxes than I would if it were a benefit tax. I also noted that in the map, plan and report, I don’t know if this is true or not, properties that are listed as apartments are charged one unit, properties that are listed as multiple families are charged one unit and commercial units are charged one unit. My friend, Chris Mozal back there is not going to like me saying that COUNCILMAN METIVIER- We talked about that during one of those meetings SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, that was something that we’ve had extensive dialogue with numerous members and in fact that one evening that Tony and I a couple of years ago we were in this very room, not at our meeting but at a Glen Lake Protective Association meeting, there was probably almost as many people here then as are here now. It was my recollection, if it wasn’t unanimous is was darn close unanimous consent by everyone there that they preferred the benefit the tax roll and everyone except for the Town of Queensbury’s boat launch to be treated equivalently. I agree with that there’s apartment question versus the duplex versus a vacant lot versus a restaurant that they’ve felt that, as people come up to the microphone later, correct me if I’m wrong, if you were there and I’ve got a bad memory, but I’m still a young man; I like to think I am. I had to put that in there too. That was consciously and very loud and clearly determined by everyone that, now maybe there was one or two that were, I wasn’t going to disagree with in a room full of my neighbors but I mean it seemed like I am right now a lot of heads nodding yes, this is what we think works best REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 747 MR. O’CONNOR- I disagree with that and the argument is everybody gets the same benefit out of the Lake. Well, everybody gets the same benefit out of our fire protection and we don’t pay that on a benefit basis we pay that on an ad valorem tax. I think that’s a fair way of sharing the obligations. My last comment is that I think the Town of Queensbury is not stepping to the table at all with the percentage that they should. I listened to the presentation; I think it was Mike O’Keefe made as to public use of Glen Lake either by the boat launch facility or the two or three private boat launches that are on the Lake. I see the people that are on the Lake, I think this is a playground for a good portion of Queensbury. I don’t think fifteen percent represents, or let me say this, it sounds, it should be a minimum; thirty two hundred dollars for year one, twenty eight hundred dollars for year two just don’t seem to be realistic. I would think that you ought to do a survey of the recreation. List all your different areas of recreation and what they cost to operate and maintain them and you out to come up with something that’s a benefit, an average benefit for Glen Lake. The Town benefits greatly by maintenance of the Lake as well. Not only for providing a recreation facility for others but also by keeping our tax base up, by keeping our values up. Even if this turned into a bog, which I think is SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, eventually it would. It may be few hundred years but if done nothing, or do nothing that’s what will happen MR. O’CONNOR- And the earth may freeze in two hundred years too, or may burn out. I guess that’s the new theory, is that we’re going to have global warming. I think you should be paying a minimum and I think thirty two hundred and twenty eight hundred dollars is no place near what I would suggest for a minimum COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, what you didn’t mention Mike was important, the third year, thirteen thousand SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, I was going to say we’re fifteen percent of whatever we’re raising COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I know you missed that MR. O’CONNOR- I think COUNCILMAN STROUGH- … it did go on and there was discussion about the Town not having as much …. as fifteen percent MR. O’CONNOR- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So the argument could go back more, whether you’re talking about motorized gasoline boats versus kayaks or canoes. The consensus was that fifteen percent was fair TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Can I just jump in, I mean, the last two comments point in opposite directions. The statutory scheme for a district like this starts with it being an ad valorem tax and if it’s an ad valorem tax we would pay as little as anybody on the Lake, but the Town Board does have the option to come up with a benefit tax and you determine after your analysis and putting together a map, plan and report that you agreed with it being a benefit tax but if you had ad valorem there would be nothing like that SUPERVISOR STEC- If we had ad valorem MR. O’CONNOR- Without … you’re comment… there is one person that’s listed in here, an individual property owner that runs a marina that has to have maybe ten, fifteen boats COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We talked about all that and in terms of impact should you pay not ad valorem, not benefit, maybe should pay on the amount of impact you have on the Lake, because you are contributing the degradation in theory MR. O’CONNOR- I think, my idea is that the more universal accepted way of spreading the tax base is by ad valorem, it’s typically your value of your property reflects your usage of the property. So, I thank you REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 748 SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you. Anybody else this evening like to address this public hearing? Anybody? Yes, Mr. Kruger DON KRUGER- Hi, I’m Don Kruger and I … I have a letter from Ron and Ellen Kuhl that they asked me to read to you if I could SUPERVISOR STEC- Sure MR. KRUGER- It says, “We understand that we owe you thanks for not voting to go ahead with this tax district proposal at this time, thank you. Having that said Ron and I will be unable to attend Monday night’s meeting, we will be on vacation, if we were not taking the grandchildren we have postponed it. We would like to be on the record that we are not in favor of moving ahead at this time with the tax district. We will never be in favor until the words are reverted back to what the Glen Lake Protective Association originally agreed to. In other words you and your Board can be quoted as promising us as many fact finding meetings. Dan if there was ever was a cause you wanted to help, I ask you to help us, Glen Lake Protective Association to … Sincerely, Ron and Ellen Kuhl.” With that being said, my position is real simple, kicking and screaming, I reluctantly agree to the tax district because I see the necessity of it but I also want to be proactive that we need to go, we’ve talked before about the green lawn syndrome. The guy that has to have the green lawn is dumping pollution in our lake, the guy with the bad septic system. One hundred percent, if I have to have a tax district, I want to go on record saying I want a dye test regularly on the Lake for every homeowner there. The guy who tells me his septic system isn’t failing is wasting his time, because I put them in for a living and when I dig up three oil barrels in a man’s yard I have to tell him his septic system has failed and it goes on and on. There are people in our Association that think that the Great Escape is dumping water lines into us. I don’t know, but somehow the nutrition is coming there and to just keep treating it and not stop it is to me doesn’t make any sense. SUPERVISOR STEC- Actually that’s a good segway on, John’s chomping as the bit here to jump in. But later this evening we will be setting a public hearing on another project that we’ve been working on for the last couple of years, a fertilizer regulation for Lake George, Glen Lake and Sunnyside that basically restricts, eliminates all fertilizer use within fifty feet and then phosphorus bearing fertilizers within two hundred feet. So, I agree with you, I agree with your analysis that I don’t see any other feasible way to control the plant growth that’s plaguing Glen Lake than to move forward with something like this. However, you want to make sure that you’re not treating the symptoms, you want to make sure that you’re treating the causes and some of the causes are exactly what you pointed out, the over fertilization around the Lake and the septic issues that we strongly suspect are going on around all these lakes. We tried to push forward with a way to get on top of that at Lake George and we had a room about half as many, well maybe about this many people up in North Queensbury’s Firehouse. I think what carried the day is that they didn’t want the Town sticking their nose in the septic fields on Lake George at all and they were, that was a strong consensus in the room that evening and we work for you so we walked away. I tend to agree with your analysis that I don’t know if there’s a MR. KRUGER- The only way it will work is if the Town gets involved with it. I believe the department makes us as builders put septic systems in right, and I want to go on record as saying that it’s a fair system because before the Town building inspector got tough on it people were putting the darnedest things in, you’d see a guy with a single … load of stone put two septic systems in … the guy has to pay a twenty year mortgage. I have to tell you that’s not right, to put a tandem load of stone in there to me is absolutely of no value but that is my opinion. I think it is great that the Town has tightened down on that and I think we could tighten down on the rest of this. I see nothing wrong with a simple dye test, but for some reason the guilty don’t want it but the innocent have no problem with it. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Don. Is there anyone else that would like to address this public hearing this evening? C OUNCILMAN STROUGH- Going along with John just said one thing we all have to keep in mind is that there are two hundred and sixty six parcels immediately on the Lake and that doesn’t count the parcels off the Lake that’s the parcels that are on the Lake. That means that everybody has to be careful and conscience, everybody; so, Don’s basically right REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 749 LINDA CLARK- I live on Benmost Bur Lane, I’m also the membership secretary to the Glen Lake Protective Association. I’m kind of at a point right now where I’m not too sure exactly where I’m going with this because I have not seen the newest version of the agreed document between the Town and the Glen Lake Protective Association but I do want you to know that I am absolutely in favor of the tax district. I see the need for it; I also know that with all the membership moneys that we take in that we only get about forty percent and we’re not getting everyone on the Lake to share the cost of treating the Lake. With that said, I want you to know how much trust I put into the Glen Lake Protective Association to do this right, these people I have worked with for years, I have been on the Board for over ten years and I know what they put into it. I know that they are devoted to making sure that the Lake is clean, it’s treated properly for the invasive species and I also know that they are very aware of the concerns of the people on the Lake regarding costs. I will say that when I did read the document that came out that’s on the website I was concerned. I was concerned because I saw the Town really going in a total different direction than I know what we have put into it. I saw expense of consultants, I saw expense of Town equipment being used, I saw the folks on hand pulling, rather than the treatments that we’ve been doing and hand pulling is extremely expensive, extremely expensive and by the time I was done I realized the cost had doubled from what we had landed on in terms of the need and how much we were willing to invest on this. But, I’m hearing something different now and I want you to know that in hearing that difference and knowing that our committee sat up here and said to you we’re very comfortable with this, if they say they are very comfortable with this than I’m on board. But, I do want you to know I have my concerns and I’d really, really like to read the report myself just to alleviate my own anxiety as to what’s coming, because I really want the people of the Lake to make the decisions as to what will happen on the Lake. We are the property owners, we are the ones that live there, we know what’s going on, not some consultant who sits in an office and never even rows a boat on our Lake. I think that’s it SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you MS. CLARK- Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- And Linda I want to recognize to you what a compliment I think you just paid those three neighbors of yours in front of all of your other neighbors that was a nice compliment to those three men MS. CLARK- You have no idea how much time these people have put in, it’s phenomenal SUPERVISOR STEC- I have a small idea, but I know that you know better than I do MS. CLARK- Yea SUPERVISOR STEC- So, thank you for your comment and Don is dying to refute everything that you just said. Go ahead Don DON MILNE- I was thinking of this earlier when Paul was talking about the responsiveness of the Board and concerned about being vegetation surveyed that the association has already done and in fact in the MPR it says that we will do an initial survey and as of today’s meeting Mr. Hafner with the agreement of the Town Supervisor and others put in a whereas in the resolution that says the GLPA recently obtained a full aquatic vegetation survey and will provide it to the Town so that the Town can avoid this cost on formation of the district. So, there’s one example and I have to further reiterate that when I left this meeting about a half hour later that resolution showed up on my email. That’s great service, would it be appropriate for Bob to read some of those words SUPERVISOR STEC- I was going to do it, if you don’t mind. Linda I apologize, and again this is because this did get put together this morning, these handful of whereas’ that I think addressed most of the concerns: Whereas, the Town Board clearly stated that treatment methods can change depending on circumstances these are the new whereas’, most of the new whereas’ and, whereas, after input from the Glen Lake Protective Association and the public, the Town Board intends to only use herbicide in the initial years of operation and will reevaluate based on the circumstances and input from property owners and the Glen Lake Protective Association, and whereas, the Town Board currently intends to form a District Advisory Committee composed of five (5) property owners and representatives from the Glen Lake Protective Association, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 750 UNKNOWN- Can you read a little more slowly please SUPERVISOR STEC- I sure can TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- And this will be on the Town website SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, if you are interested, and whereas, the Town Board acknowledges that the use of aquatic herbicides have been shown to provide effective control of aquatic, invasives in Glen Lake, and whereas, the Town Board acknowledges that past experience in Glen Lake show that portions of section 3.2 of the Map, Plan and Report are subject to philosophical differences and appears to be contrary to Glen Lake’s actions and experience, and whereas, the Town Board acknowledges that, in the past, Glen Lake has benefited from the expertise of qualified aquatic plan biologists and intends to continue to benefit from their scientific knowledge in operating this District, and whereas, the Glen Lake Protective Association recently obtained a full aquatic vegetation survey and will provide it to the Town so that the Town can avoid this cost upon the formation of the District, and whereas under current State Law, there is a process by which districts can be amended or terminated, so should future conditions warrant it, the Town Board could use this process to amend or terminate the District. That’s the new section that was added in response to the meetings that we had today that I think were born from the concerns that you all have been discussing for the ten days. If you want to think of a way to meet us half way kind of thing, I will tell you that I will take more credit if you want to give us than we deserve but really these things were fairly easy for us to agree to. This wasn’t a difficult, like I said we don’t have a dog in the fight or a belief that we’ve got the wisdom on how to deal with milfoil cornered. These were reasonable things that were brought to our attention that were clearly important to you all that may not have popped on our radar as important to make sure were adequately addressed, but the things that were asked of us they were fairly easy to agree to. So, or you can give them credit for being really good negotiators, take your pick. It was a pleasant hour that we spent this morning and there was some calls and emails that were shot around over the last week or so, and Linda like you, I do think as a community you owe those three gents, they’ve got your best interest at heart and they know the issue and they know the subject; and to my knowledge they don’t stand to make a dime on any of this, other than those that don’t agree a hundred percent with what they’ve said are going to be a little ticked off at them for the rest of your lives; that’s all right you guys have broad shoulders and thick skin. Lorraine, yes LORRAINE STEIN- 86 Ashe Drive. I do want to say first and foremost that I do still at the moment have reservations about the taxing district, however I cannot come up with a better solution because as Linda mentioned and Laurie Graves has mentioned not everyone on the Lake contributes so it’s frustrating to know that people benefit without having contributed and obviously not caring enough to participate. One of the questions I have is when you were just going to the resolutions and what not, does the public have time to review that before you vote on it, how does that work? SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, by law and I apologize in advance, there’s no statutory you’ve got to provide it for x number of hours and whatever, I think it’s morally, ethically, politically, I think it’s wise for us to get the information out as early as we can. Every meeting I go through and make a plug for two things that we do here particularly well and I will do it again now and I will probably do it again when I normally do it. One is, we televise our meetings and we put everything on the website as soon as possible, it’s on the website, so I mean between the Town’s website and televising of our meeting I think that we’ve got a very good outreach. It is unusual for us to add a bunch of whereas’ like this on a Monday morning, but is it lawful, yes absolutely. What’s the rush and all that, the decision is not being driven solely or by majority or mainly by this but a factor is and I tried to put it as eloquently as possible this morning when I was talking to the three other gentlemen is that while there’s some concerns I think the decision has to be made by all of us in the room collectively tonight and ultimately by the four of us tonight. The value of let’s take more time because again, we’re driven by a process, we don’t make up the rules as we go here and if this District is to be in place in order to start taking action in the next year, then we have a hard deadline by September first. So, if we say let’s wait another two weeks, than you may as well wait another fifty two weeks and I don’t think, I think most people would agree the things that we had to hammer out were fairly minor and could be hammered out but, that’s why we’re here tonight REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 751 MS. STEIN- These were the resolutions that were included as the SUPERVISOR STEC- The whereas’ MS. STEIN- The whereas’ that were mentioned by the officers of the Glen Lake Association, those are all there and you would vote on them collectively SUPERVISOR STEC- I just read them, its one resolution with all those whereas’, that’s the language in the resolution MS. STEIN- Okay SUPERVISOR STEC- Subject to change right up until when we vote on it MS. STEIN- All right, just couple other comments, I just wanted to mention I was at the meeting when we were discussing benefit base and the majority people absolutely in favor SUPERVISOR STEC- It wasn’t fifty one, forty nine was it MS. STEIN- No SUPERVISOR STEC- I mean it was ninety, ten MS. STEIN- Yes, and I will tell you right now, we live in an inlet portion of the Lake and I will tell you there is one person, and I’m sure there is more than one person that goes into the … this year it hasn’t been a huge issue because the milfoil has not grown to the top whereas in the past it was matted and grown at the top. There are people that there’s one boat in particular, one fisherman that drives in there back and forth, back and forth, back and forth and if one person can chop up that much weeds, which will spread significant amounts of plant matter than I am all for SUPERVISOR STEC- Do you know who it is because public pressure is a wonderful thing. You’ve got television camera MS. STEIN- I don’t know the gentleman’s name but COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Was he catching fish MS. STEIN- NO SUPERVISOR STEC- Is his name Ron Montesi? Well, that’s just it you know the idea behind any district is and this is State Law, this isn’t Dan Stec, this isn’t the Town of Queensbury, everyone that benefits is in the District, and everyone in the District benefits. The problem that you’ve had is when you pass the hat in the past you’ve got people that are putting far more than their fair share and you have others of your neighbors that don’t put in a nickel but yet benefit from the generosity of their other neighbors. That’s a fairness issue, that’s not spreading the wealth around issue, that’s a hey, you’ve got as much at stake on that Lake as your next door neighbor does and you ought have as much skin in the game as he does. I mean to me that’s just sandlot, that’s playground rules, that’s kindergarten. MS. STEIN- I just want to comment, I just want to put it on the record that I hope that the Town Board does listen to the community and mainly with the fact that the hand harvesting is not the route to go. We’ve done hand harvesting, it does work in small areas where there are scattered plants, it does not work in large beds SUPERVISOR STEC- No, we’ve got you and again MS. STEIN- And I consider ourselves experts SUPERVISOR STEC- You are, no questions, everyone that’s been fighting this fight the last ten years you’re all experts, truly REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 752 MS. STEIN- And if you don’t believe, you can come and join us SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, John and Tony have volunteered for hand harvesting, the dandelions in your lawn MS. STEIN- Exactly SUPERVISOR STEC- We’ve heard you on this issue and we know it’s a concern and I think what we want everyone to take away here is that we’re going to learn from your experience MS. STEIN- Of course the Association will continue its efforts obviously going around trying to get the small plants where they can SUPERVISOR STEC- But if hand harvesting isn’t the way to go than hand harvesting isn’t the way we’ll go. And if something happens ten years from now and you know what radiation is the way to go and if that’s the science of the time and everyone’s comfortable with it. I mean a lot of people wouldn’t believe it today but I mean we’ll evolve, but we’ll evolve in a very public manner with input from you because it’s your checkbook we’re talking about COUNCILMAN MONTESI- We’re just very lucky we’re not in the Adirondack Park MS. STEIN- And unfortunately, we’re not Lake George that has an endless pocketbook so we don’t have the resources and our Lake is not as deep as Lake George SUPERVISOR STEC- But they don’t have an endless pocketbook MS. STEIN- Well, I mean to some degree SUPERVISOR STEC- No, but that’s what I mentioned earlier today at the County, it seems the two words I hear the most at the County in the last few weeks has been Asian clams. MS. STEIN- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- I’ll tell you, you know what, as much the perception of as much money that the people think that’s floating around available to throw at environmental problems or Lake George problems you get the State or any of those hodge podge of organizations that are around Lake George and they don’t have the answer to how they are going to fight Asian clams MS. STEIN- And hopefully we don’t get them next SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, I was going to say that this isn’t covered by that I believe but heaven forbid that somebody likely inadvertently but dumps something in Glen Lake where now you’ve got Asian clams to deal with, and that’s what you’re up against. Again, is it possible at some point in the future, five, ten, twenty years from now, it’s just so out of control because there are three or four species that we haven’t even identified yet that decided to make Glen Lake a home and it fiscally can’t be done that will be a decision that that Town Board and the residents of the Lake at that time and that district are going to be faced with. How much do we keep fighting this? The errors of Lake Tahoe is they identified these Asian clams eight years ago and did nothing. Now we’re spending a million dollars a year just to keep it out of the resort beach areas but it’s running rampant, they’ve got two hundred acres of it, it’s running rampant, they’ve lost Lake Tahoe. Glen Lake is not Lake Tahoe, it’s a lot smaller and it’s not nearly as well known but for you it’s your Lake Tahoe. MS. STEIN- Right, okay, I think that’s it. Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Lorraine. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening on this public hearing? Good evening MARGARET WALLACE- Reardon Road and thank you for all your negotiations and everything you’ve been doing, it sounds great. I am in favor of the tax district. I do see the need for chemicals. I do a lot of hand pulling and I’m happy to see that we won’t have to go with the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 753 plan as set out because we did pretty well in small areas on our own. I have one concern about the Reardon Road right of way lot. On all of the maps, and I don’t know if you discussed this or if it has been changed but on the Map, Plan that I saw it was a blue lot, which means a full hundred and twenty five dollar tax, and then the whole area all of the back lot owners of Reardon Road are in green so to me it looks like the front lake lot is going to be taxed a hundred and twenty five dollars and it’s not anybody’s lot. It’s in thirteen deeds and those thirteen deeds are being charged the half share SUPERVISOR STEC- So that hundred and twenty five dollars is going to get split thirteen ways? MS. WALLACE- Plus, we’re being charged the seventy five dollar half fee. So, it’s only a ten dollar difference, I don’t know if you’ve addressed that? SUPERVISOR STEC- I don’t think, we haven’t talked about that unless that’s the same lot that was mentioned this morning but I don’t see a way around changing that MS. WALLACE- There’s no way around it? SUPERVISOR STEC- Not tonight MS. WALLACE- No, but if it’s voted on is it SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, then it would be its own; it gets a tax bill I presume? MS. WALLACE- Who will get the tax bill? SUPERVISOR STEC- Whoever gets the tax bill today. I mean MS. WALLACE- I’m taxed for my portion of it in my tax bill SUPERVISOR STEC- However it’s getting split, it will continue to get split that way. There’s a tax MS. WALLACE- So, it will be split and then we will get the seventy five dollar fee also SUPERVISOR STEC- Whoever gets the COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Wouldn’t the seventy five dollar fee gets splits thirteen ways because there’s thirteen MS. WALLACE- No, I’m a back lot owner so I’m in the green zone on it so I have to pay a half portion. But then the front lot is blue, I don’t know who’s going to pay that SUPERVISOR STEC- The front lot, somebody gets a tax bill. There’s a tax bill TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- The owners of that lot SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, the owners of that lot, whoever they are, somebody’s getting a bill MS. WALLACE- We’re all getting, it’s in all our tax bills. We had it split about ten years ago into sections TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Then you own one thirteenth of a lakefront lot and then you own a full amount of an off lake lot. So you are going to pay based on what you own SUPERVISOR STEC- Let me take a swing at it Bob TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Sure SUPERVISOR STEC- That lot right now that thirteen people share REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 754 MS. WALLACE- Yea SUPERVISOR STEC- The thirteen people are paying their thirteenth of the school taxes on that lot, county taxes on that lot, fire taxes on that lot, however their paying that now, are you saying that that is going in onto their regular tax bill? MS. WALLACE- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Well then that hundred and twenty five or whatever the District is will get split the same way MS. WALLACE- Okay and what about the right of way access seventy five dollar half fee that we’re going to be paying? SUPERVISOR STEC- If you’re a green lot and that’s a separate tax than you’re going to get the bill for MS. WALLACE- So, we’re going to be paying both? SUPERVISOR STEC- You’re going to be paying half COUNCILMAN MONTESI- It’s just as if you owned both lots COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You pay half of whatever the assessment is for the lakeside properties, I don’t know about seventy five dollars SUPERVISOR STEC- And then a thirteenth of whatever a full MS. WALLACE- And is how all of the right of way lots have been treated? SUPERVISOR STEC- You know, it’s a separate tax bill MS. WALLACE- There is no separate tax bill for that lot SUPERVISOR STEC- That lot is getting taxed; I guarantee you the government is taxing that lot MS. WALLACE- In thirteen tax bills SUPERVISOR STEC- Correct, and if that goes up a little bit more because of this action than that will get split out over those thirteen as well MS. WALLACE- And then we’ll be paying as a back lot owner SUPERVISOR STEC- So you’re going to pay your half as a back lot plus a thirteenth of a full lot MS. WALLACE- Okay SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, thank you. Anyone else like to address this public hearing this evening? Mr. Underwood JAMES UNDERWOOD- I live at 99 Mannis Road on Glen Lake. I’ve lived on Glen Lake since 1990 and I think that you’ve heard pretty much from the forty percent of the people that support the Glen Lake Protective Association but you have not heard from the sixty percent of the Lake residents who do not participate in the Lake Association. I at one time was a very active participant in the Lake Association; I volunteered my time as a water tester and did all the water testing in the Great Escape and around the Lake. I spent a whole summer testing for coli form bacteria in front of every single property on the Lake. Those tests were backed up by .... …, professors at the Adirondack Community College in a joint project that was done through the Association at the time. I think that what we’ve done here is in a formulation of the district it may not be a bad idea but I think what we’re doing is we’re at the end of the rainbow with essentially what’s being requested by the Glen Lake Protective Association, they’ve always REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 755 advocated the use of chemicals as far as treatment, and as you know chemicals just like lawn chemicals if you want to get rid of dandelions they give you the illusion of control in your lawn but you have to put them on every single year in order to keep the dandelions off your lawn if you want it to look the golf course. The Lake Association through the years has tried to implement some practices on the Lake that have been effective but ultimately have proved ineffective and I will go into those a little bit. We had a situation over the years where we had the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation set up a deal where people could pump out their septic systems on the Lake. The deal was that should we get rebated money back and the Town is very generous in also kicking in some money towards that effect. At the time that it occurred everyone could have taken advantage of this, less than half of the residents on the Lake took advantage of it. I think that Don Kruger spelled it out pretty clearly why that was because most of them didn’t have a septic system you could pump out; they just had a fifty gallon drum in the ground. Now when I did my septic testing that summer I got hot samples back with coli form. I took all those samples at seven and eight o’clock in the morning before the wind came up, I went to every third property and made my way around the Lake over the course of a month at a time. Anytime I got a hot sample return from the samples that were run over at ACC I quickly went out within twenty four hours and took a second sample to confirm. When I was finished at the end of the summer I had a map, I had all the tax maps from around the Lake and I red dotted all the ones that were hot and it was pretty much all the properties that if you went around just with the layman’s eye in your motor boat and said I bet that one’s failing and of course they all were. When I turned over that data to the Association in their proactive mode they did nothing with that data. I still have all that data sitting at my house, some of it was on a disk that may be over at ACC somewhere, but the reason they didn’t do anything about it because it was going to ruffle feathers, as you said that’s why the Town didn’t get involved in it either. The next year they went out and they did dye testing but they took the dye test from the ends of people’s docks not on the shoreline. They all came back ineffectively done so they got no results at all. So, they just determined that everybody had an adequate system that worked on the Lake. When I first moved on the Lake in 1990 there were no problems on our Lake and for a period of about ten years we had a slight algae problem that cropped up every spring due to the die back of vegetation from the previous summer. They proposed to do a copper and sulfate treatment so they could instantly cleanse the Lake so it would be perfect when people came up in June. I was very adverse to that idea, I ended having to go to court, we had a … hearing that occurred with the DEC, who also backed me up on that one and they were not allowed to do that treatment. So, at that point in time I became sort of the pariah because I fought the Association and won. It was not something I did for my own benefit but because the DEC puts trout into that Lake I thought that it was important that they maintain the fishery and not jeopardize what they have built up over the years. Now I know that the Town listens clearly to all the residents and I want you to remember that not all of us participate because some of us don’t believe that the chemical treatment does anything more than mask what’s there and what the problem is. All the things that should have been done over the years like the elimination of lawns and vegetative barriers put up between the water and properties those things have not been done. There’s no intention of those things to be done, there’s no guts to the program and as Don Kruger said, the only people that you can deal with is somebody who’s going to do a redo of their house and then you can stipulate it that way with the Zoning or Planning Board and hope that people do that. I think that it’s important for you to realize too when I first heard your report I was a little bit tickled because I said wow hand picking of all the vegetation on the Lake, that’s what I do in front of my property and a lot of us actively pursue that on our own, people that scuba dive and people that snorkel. That’s been very effective and as Ron said you’re lucky that you don’t live in the APA control part of the Adirondack Park but they’ve done it on large lakes like upper Saranac Lake. Upper Saranac Lake has done it, the first year they took out seven tons of stuff, the second year they took out three tons of stuff and the third year they took out three hundred pounds of stuff and now they have basically no milfoil left on that Lake. Physically removing it removes it, chemically all it does is senesces and dies back to the level of the lake and this year if this time of year if you go out and you go up into the inlet of the Lake where it was very heavy and where the motor boats chop it up, in normal years what you’ll see is that it’s all a creeping back up and it’s starting to grow. It’s going to grow all winter long, by next spring it’s going to be back and the only thing it’s going to do is if the chemical treatment is done again, it’s going to die back and be low growing and no one will be effected by it through the summer but your endlessly going to be tapping the chemical market, the Glen Lake Protective Association’s allied biological guy’s, the guy that sells them this chemical so off course he’s going to be for chemicals. I was a little bit mortified to hear tonight that now you’ve backed away from the hand pulling, which does work despite what they say, they’ve never done hand pulling to any great degree nor have they done any kind REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 756 of barriers, … barriers or things like that. Yea, they’re more expensive but they do result in an end result, they physically change, they make things better. The chemically change just creates the illusion, so I’m not in favor of the District, I think it’s premature and I think unless there’s some guts put into it you’re not going to do anything other than mask the effects of what you’re doing with the chemicals. It does work, I will admit that it works but for sixty days after the application of chemicals I can’t draw water out to water my lawn or my organic gardens because it will kill them if I do. So, that tells me that that’s not a good thing and a significant number of people draw lake water and use lake water as they do up on Lake George and I think that’s part of the reason why the APA is against the use of chemicals too is that for potable water purposes it’s a biocide. If it kills plants it can’t be good for you to drink it either. I think it’s something for you to consider. I’m going to ask that you hold off on this because you changed the language also I don’t think it’s fair that you’re going to just have five members of the Glen Lake Protective Association who are just going to say chemical, chemical, chemical, chemical over three years with nothing innovative, nothing changing. The chemicals work some years, other years they don’t work. There’s an effectiveness to some of them and there’s an ineffectiveness to the biocides that they use for milfoil as far as I’m concerned and they do nothing to clarify the problem or clarify the water, it’s an illusion. Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Jim COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But Jim, I just want you to understand that hand harvesting is still looked at as something that will be considered by the Association and this Board. Chemical versus hand harvesting, and hand harvesting has worked very well in Lake George, maybe it wouldn’t work as well in Glen Lake but there’s nothing in this that says we’re not going to look at that as a viable alternative nor anything else new like you said. I don’t know if radiation is the best word but SUPERVISOR STEC- I did that for shock value COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, to say we’re always going to be investigating a workable way to control the problem regardless of what it is SUPERVISOR STEC- We don’t have a crystal ball what the method of treatment will be in the future COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And Jim it’s also right about and we have it right here whether it only applies to new development or new redevelopment going up on our lakes but we do have the buffer, which has shown to be effective in limiting developments eluding impacts on your … and more people should consider planting a buffer rather than putting a lawn right to the lake, which is absolutely the worst thing you can do, especially if you’re fertilizing it. But anyways I just wanted to assure Jim that we didn’t completely rewrite it we are going to look at alternatives in agreement and in discussions with the Association and Town residents of Glen Lake SUPERVISOR STEC- If I could try to summarize, I lost Jim, oh there’s Jim, I think the changes that are made acknowledge two things, one that there is a difference in philosophy and that certainly depending on who you talk to whether its engineers, preparing map, plan and report or even lake owners that there’s going to be disagreement over whether hand harvesting or chemical treatment is the way to go. The second thing is it acknowledges that at least for the foreseeable future we’re going to not change course we are going to stay on the course that we’re on but I think it’s pretty clear that as conditions change and or maybe the prevailing philosophy over what’s the better way to go at these maybe it swings back in two three years from now and we’re like you know what Jim was a hundred percent right on August 22, 2011 and ten years before that or whenever that debate first started. But, for right now I guess the preponderance of how you’ve been handling it and how it’s been run while not done with unanimous support I think my read has been the vast majority of people on the Lake believe that whatever you’ve been doing to control the weeds is working that doesn’t mean that a few years from now we’re going to say wow you know what there was a better way and if we only had the wisdom a couple of years ago we would have changed the course then. But, none of that prevents us from doing that in the future so if that makes you or anyone else feel more comfortable about the direction I think there’s enough, and is it lack of teeth, I think it’s acknowledgement that things are going to change and that works today or is right today may not be right in the future and we’re going to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 757 continue to make these decisions with all ya’lls input. Is there anyone else that would like to comment this public hearing? Sure Dean DEAN BOECHER- I would like to invite Jim to come back to the Association and those others that have dropped out. It’s important that we get that type of feedback and as far as Don’s comments; we are all interested in preserving and taking care of the Lake. We wouldn’t be there otherwise, so I don’t think we need to be singled out by anybody in particular but this really needs to be a group effort from the Town and from our Community, I think if we can pull these … together. As far as the septic system, some of those houses have been there for many, many years; I would expect there may be some concerns. Perhaps we need to address that, perhaps make that moratorium so people can take care of the problem. But that doesn’t address what we’re talking about tonight, that’s another issue. I appreciate Jim’s comments; I would like to invite him to have a conversation. We have not restricted anything with this agreement SUPERVISOR STEC- Correct MR. BOECHER- We are trying to get the best, we know that things will be changing in the future as well. The Association has had different methods over the years and each year’s tried to, to my knowledge, improve and go forward as best they can. If others have more information, we would certainly appreciate that. I whole heartedly at this point suggest and recommend that we go forward with the tax district as we have today, if we delay now we will not have the funds available to treat next year, whether we hand harvest, whether we do the chemical, whatever. We need the funds set up now, we can’t wait for another two years. When we started this conversation it was really for a couple of reasons, one is to control the budget, and I think we got wording out and we’ve done that, the other is to be fair to all the members of the District. I think by doing this we’re doing that as well. We’re trying to protect the Lake, we are all concerned with it, we all live there, it all affects our property values and if we can’t come together on that than that’s a major concern. But I think, and that’s why I’m glad we’re here tonight, I think we have come to that conclusion and I encourage the Board to go ahead with the resolution. Thank you very much for your time and thank all of you for coming tonight, I appreciate your time as well. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Dean. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board? ROBERT HUGHES- Mannis Road. I speak in opposition to the tax district. You know, I’ve heard some things and I’ve been lead to believe that the Lake is going to crash in a couple of years. I remind everybody that the Lake is over ten thousand years old since the last ice age. I don’t deny that this is a threat but I don’t think it’s an imminent threat. I don’t think there’s any sense of urgency that’s been shown, and if there is going to be a problem with the Lake it’s probably going to be over the next hundreds or thousands of years. I like the idea of hand picking because I like the idea that everyone who is on this Lake has a responsibility to maintain that shore front in front of his house. If everyone did that I think you wouldn’t have near the problems and we probably wouldn’t even be here, which will bring a point later. You know, I’m concerned about more taxes; I’m concerned about the concept of another way to tax us. It is in the best interest of this community and the community leaders to protect the property values of every property on Glen Lake at this time. It has to do with the values and the taxes you get from that. This Town likes our tax revenues and it likes it a lot; you devalue the properties, you devalue the revenue. I have a couple of concerns regarding the trust I have in the community and community leaders. First, the Town has been found to have problems in determining property values of the Lake owners. I have no more trust now than I’ve had over the last several years on that issue. Second, I’m really bothered that when given coli form study reports nothing has been done over that, and I’ve been watching that for twenty something years. You know I’m not Marg McPhillips, god rest her sole, but I’ve been summering on this Lake for over fifty five years and I know that many people in this room longer than that and I respect them and their opinions, but I think we need to be open and we need to be more realistic. Another point that was made by Mike O’Connor that this Lake is a marketing tool for the community and it’s a very important marketing tool for the community. There again, the Town has a responsibility to keep this Lake up, it’s not just car tops either. Its other reasons that this is a value to the community and the community leaders have a responsibility to maintain that. So, that’s the second point after the value point. So, let me ask you really a question, why are we all here? What was the impetuous to this beginning of this in the first place? And it’s been said already it’s the people who are freeloading, it’s the freeloading neighbors, the freeloading residents and the people who are REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 758 using boat docks who aren’t being responsible citizens. I personally don’t feel bigger government is the answer to that problem because it’s a community problem and it’s an individual responsibility and choice problem. And I have two quotes that I would like to give and one is from Ronald Regan, it’s the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”; that’s just my philosophy, and the second one is my concern about perpetuity, Ronald Regan’s second quote, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program”. So, I’ll ask you to be careful what you’re wishing for and careful what you’re asking for. I think it’s a matter of personal and individual responsibility, not relinquishing that responsibility to gov. Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board this evening on this public hearing? Seeing none I will close the public hearing and the Board desires there is a SEQRA that would be associated with this. Bob do you want to walk us through the SEQRA please TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Sure DEPUTY TOWN CLERK, MELLON- Three letters that were received on August 19, 2011, one from Eileen Kane, another is from Bill and Terrie Mansmann, and one from Donald Milne. The letters will be kept on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. PART II IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) A.DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.4? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND USE THE FULL EAF. No B.WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.6? IF NO, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED AGENCY. No ANY C.COULD ACTION RESULT IN ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF LEGIBLE) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal. Potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. NO **SEE END OF FORM FOR DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly. NO C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly. NO **SEE END OF FORM FOR DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land, or other natural resources? Explain briefly. NO C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. NO C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 759 NO C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?) Explain briefly. NO D.WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY NO E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. NO **C1 DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Could that be a yes as far as the water quality? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- I think that SUPERVISOR STEC- Not for the creation of a district TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- I think that’s a good question but what their getting at is adverse effects. I think that if you wanted you could say that there is an effect but it is not adverse if that’s what the Town Board found. That’s a good thing to have in the record. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- All right TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Is that okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- YES SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- So, when you said no that SUPERVISOR STEC- Means no COUNCILMAN METIVIER- No adverse effects TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Yea, no adverse SUPERVISOR STEC- No adverse TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Yes **C3 DISCUSSION TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- I think this is going to have an effect on vegetation but it’s to get rid of invasive species SUPERVISOR STEC- Correct, no adverse TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- But again I think that needs to be in the public record REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 760 RESOLUTION APPROVING ESTABLISHMENT OF GLEN LAKE AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH CONTROL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 259, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (the "Board") is considering forming the Glen Lake Aquatic Plant Growth Control District (the "District") in accordance with Article 12-A of New York Town Law for the purpose of controlling milfoil and other invasive aquatic plant species in Glen Lake, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report (the “Map, Plan and Report”) concerning the proposed District was prepared by VISION Engineering, LLC, filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and made available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report describes the boundaries of the proposed District, the proposed aquatic plant control plan and method of operation, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the plan, and the cost of the proposed District to the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home, and the proposed method of financing to be employed, if any, and WHEREAS, there was extensive discussion during the public hearing by the public and the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board clearly stated that treatment methods can change depending on circumstances, and WHEREAS, after input from the Glen Lake Protective Association (GLPA) and the public, the Town Board intends to only use herbicide in the initial years of operation and will reevaluate based on the circumstances and input from property owners and the GLPA, and WHEREAS, the Town Board currently intends to form a District Advisory Committee composed of five (5) property owners and representatives from the GLPA, and WHEREAS, the Town Board acknowledges that the use of aquatic herbicides have been shown to provide effective control of aquatic invasives in Glen Lake, and WHEREAS, the Town Board acknowledges that past experience in Glen Lake show that portions of §3.2 of the Map, Plan and Report are subject to philosophical differences and appears REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 761 to be contrary to Glen Lake’s actions and experience, and WHEREAS, the Town Board acknowledges that, in the past, Glen Lake has benefitted from the expertise of qualified aquatic plant biologists and intends to continue to benefit from their scientific knowledge in operating this District, and WHEREAS, the GLPA recently obtained a full aquatic vegetation survey and will provide it to the Town so that the Town can avoid this cost upon the formation of the District, and WHEREAS, under current State Law, there is a process by which districts can be amended or terminated so, should future conditions warrant it, the Town Board could use this process to amend or terminate the District, WHEREAS, establishment of the proposed District was determined to be an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) was prepared for the proposed District and the Town Board determined to conduct uncoordinated SEQRA review of the proposed District establishment; and th WHEREAS, on August 8, 2011 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting (a) the boundaries of the proposed District; (b) the proposed services and the proposed method of operation; (c) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the services; (d) the cost of the District to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) that no capital improvements are anticipated for the District and, therefore, no financing will be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the proposed District and services is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed District, and WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of the District to the typical property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection, and nd WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on August 22, 2011 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed Part I of the EAF and completed Part II based on the information included in the Map, Plan and Report and provided at the Public Hearing; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 762 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed District as detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that establishment of the District and providing of the services described in the Map, Plan and Report will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the Town Board hereby authorizes the filing of the completed EAF as a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the action, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1.Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2.All of the property and property owners within the District are benefited thereby; 3.All of the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the District; 4.It is in the public interest to establish the District as described in the Map, Plan and Report: and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the establishment of the District in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth in the Map, Plan and Report, and the services described in the Map, Plan and Report may be provided subject to the following: 1.The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 2.The obtaining of any required approval(s) of the New York State Comptroller’s Office; 3.Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and 4.The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 763 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12-A and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and publish such Notice of this Resolution as may be required by law and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the Petition and to distribute a supply to any person requesting such Petition, and if no such Petition is filed within 30 days after adoption of this Resolution to file a Certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer 2.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR PLINEY TUCKER- Questioned Resolution 3.11 regarding authorizing acceptance of parcel of land from Sammantha and Matthew Ball SUPERVISOR STEC- Explained that the parcel is located at the end of Michaels Drive and the owners Sammantha and Matthew Ball would like to dedicate it to the Town. The Highway Superintendent has looked at it and would like it to use for a turnaround for the plows. MR. TUCKER- ? Questioned Supervisor Stec regarding Warren County matters. ? Spoke concerning the agreement the Town has with the City of Glens Falls with regards to the Luzerne Road Transfer Station. JOHN SALVADOR- ? Spoke regarding Mellowstone and Drew West’s application before the Lake George Park Commission regarding a modification boat dock up on Dunham’s Bay. A letter was sent to Craig Brown and the Town Board with regards to the building and codes requirements for the renovations to historic buildings. ? Spoke regarding Warren County and Lake George Park Commission issues. Supervisor Stec requested that privilege of the floor be limited to Town issues C. POWELL SOUTH- ? This past Friday we laid to rest Floyd Martindale, Sr., a long time citizen of the Town of Queensbury; one who served as the Deputy Highway Superintendent, one who served as a Chief Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, and one whose family was a mainstay on the Farm to Market Road. While at Mr. Martindale’s services at Pineview Cemetery Mr. South noted the large numbers of geese. This has been a problem in the past. In fact, last year he spoke to the Board about the same issue and Supervisor Stec and Councilman Strough made a visit to the Cemetery. To help eradicate the problem beacons were placed on the pond. Mr. South explained that the beacons are not working and something else needs to be done. SUPERVISOR STEC- Will speak to Mike Genier tomorrow regarding his concerns REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 764 3.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INCLUDING WATER PIPES AND FIXTURES IN SHORE COLONY WATER PROJECT AND ITS EXTENSION RESOLUTION NO.: 260, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 232,2011, the Queensbury Town Board established an Extension of the Shore Colony Water District and replacement of obsolete pipes in the District, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent wishes to accordingly advertise for bids for the purchase of such water pipes and fixtures to be used on the Town of Queensbury’s Shore Colony Water Project as set forth in bid documents and specifications to be prepared and to be on file with the Water Superintendent and/or Purchasing Agent, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in such bidding documents and specifications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury concerning the purchase of water pipes and fixtures to be used on the Town of Queensbury’s Shore Colony Water Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 765 AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION CLARIFYING DATE FOR CONNECTION TO WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 261, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (Town Board) duly established the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District (Sewer District) in connection with extensive renovations to the Main Street corridor, including construction of Sewer District improvements, widening of the Main Street roadway and relocating utilities underground (Main Street Project), and WHEREAS, although various components of the Main Street Project involve different levels of complexity and are expected to be completed at different times, all portions of the Project are expected to be completed by October 31, 2011, and WHEREAS, Queensbury Town Code §136-44 requires the owner(s) of properties situated within a sewer district to install suitable sanitary facilities and to connect such facilities directly with the public sewer within one year, and WHEREAS, the ability of property owners to connect to the Sewer District facilities has been significantly affected by progress on the other components of the Main Street Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that owners of property within the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District will be deemed to be in compliance with the connection requirements of Queensbury Town Code §136-44 if their sanitary facilities are connected to the Sewer District no later than November 1, 2012, one (1) year after anticipated completion of the Main Street Project, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Town Wastewater Director and Town Counsel to take any actions necessary to effectuate this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 766 nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2011 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 107 ENTITLED, “LAWN FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE RUNOFF CONTROL” RESOLUTION NO.: 262, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2011 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter 107 entitled "Lawn Fertilizer and Pesticide Runoff Control,” in an effort to better regulate land use management practices specifically by limiting water body exposure to nitrates, phosphorus compounds and pesticide-related chemicals, reduce water body contamination, improve water body ecosystem integrity and assure healthier human, animal and plant habitats, such regulations pertaining to the shores of Glen Lake, Lake Sunnyside and the portion of Lake George within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the th Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 12, 2011 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: __ of 2011, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 767 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of 2011 in the manner provided by law. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPOINTING SCOTT JARVIS AS HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (HEO) AND PETER HIGGINS AS LABORER ON PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO.: 263, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 184,2011, the Queensbury Town Board appointed Scott Jarvis as a full-time Heavy Equipment Operator (HEO) and Peter Higgins as a full-time Laborer for the Cemetery Department subject to a 90 day trial period, and WHEREAS, the Cemetery Superintendent has advised that Messrs Jarvis and Higgins have successfully completed their respective 90 day trial period(s) and therefore has requested that the Town Board appoint them to their respective positions on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Scott Jarvis as a full-time Heavy Equipment Operator (HEO) and Peter Higgins as a full-time Laborer for the Cemetery rd Department on a permanent basis effective August 23, 2011, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Cemetery Superintendent and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 768 nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PARKS AND RECREATION’S REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS SPORTS CENTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE CHAPTER 160 ENTITLED, “TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKETS, PEDDLERS/SOLICITORS” RESOLUTION NO.: 264, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Commission has submitted a request to the Queensbury Town Board for designation as a Sports Center in accordance with §160-6.1(A) of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 160 entitled, “Transient Merchants, Transient Merchant Markets, Peddlers/Solicitors,” and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Code Chapter 160, the Town Board wishes to schedule a public hearing to consider such request, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing and hear all th interested persons on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to consider the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Commission’s request for designation as a Sports Center substantially in the form presented at this meeting and in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 160, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the official newspaper of the Town a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the time of the hearing.. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 769 NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPOINTING CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO SERVE AS ACTING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DURING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S ABSENCE OR OTHER INABILITY TO ACT RESOLUTION NO.: 265, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §88-6, in the event of the Town Zoning Administrator’s absence or inability to act, the Town Supervisor, with the consent of the Town Board, may designate any qualified Town employee or officer to act on behalf of and to exercise the powers conferred upon the Zoning Administrator, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor wishes to designate the Town’s Code Compliance Officer of Community Development to serve as Acting Zoning Administrator at any time when the Zoning Administrator is absent, has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unable to perform his duties as Zoning Administrator, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of and consents to the appointment of the Town’s Code Compliance Officer of Community Development as Acting Zoning Administrator, with authority to act on behalf of and exercise all of the power conferred upon the Town’s full-time Zoning Administrator during any absence of the Zoning Administrator or in any case where the Zoning Administrator has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unable to act for any reason, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §88-6, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 770 AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OFFICERS REGARDING CERTAIN MS4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 266, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is a regulated municipality under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program (MS4), which regulations help to protect and improve the quality of public water bodies in more densely-populated areas of the State, specifically focusing on stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board recently entered into an agreement (the Agreement) with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District to perform certain mapping, reporting and public education/outreach functions which the Town is required to perform as a regulated municipality under MS4, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to appoint the Town Highway Superintendent and the Zoning Administrator as Stormwater Management Officers in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 147, to carry out certain administrative and enforcement provisions of MS4 and the Town Stormwater Management Code which are not covered under the Agreement with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints the Highway Superintendent and the Zoning Administrator as Stormwater Management Officers in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 147 and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any Agreement or documentation needed to effectuate these appointments, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 771 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints and designates the Code Compliance Officer of Community Development to serve as Acting Stormwater Management Officer, and to exercise the same authority as the Zoning Administrator as Stormwater Management Officer, in the event the Zoning Administrator is absent or otherwise unable to serve as Stormwater Management Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints and designates the Deputy Highway Superintendent to serve as Acting Stormwater Management Officer, and to exercise the same authority as the Highway Superintendent as Stormwater Management Officer, in the event the Highway Superintendent is absent or otherwise unable to serve as Stormwater Management Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer ND RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS - AUGUST 22, 2011 RESOLUTION NO.: 267, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a thrd Warrant with a run date of August 18, 2011 and a payment date of August 23, 2011, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run thrd date of August 18, 2011 and a payment date of August 23, 2011 totaling $959,106.58, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 772 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2011 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 268, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier 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 Budget Officer, 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 amend the 2011 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1355- 001-1990-4400 Contingency 4740 Article 7 Assessment 2,000 001-7110- 001-1990-4400 Contingency 4400 Misc Contractual 1,600 002-8810- 002-8810-1010 Wages 2020 Vehicles 8,200 004-5110- 004-5110-4620 Paving Materials 1001 Meal Tickets 100 004-5110- 004-5110-4620 Paving Materials 1020 O/T 2,500 032-8110- 032-8120-4400 Misc. Contractual 4200 Insurance 900 040-8340- 040-8320-1020 O/T 1020 O/T 6,000 nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 773 ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINANCING FOR QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S FIREHOUSE EXPANSION AND 2012 – 2014 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 269, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) previously contracted for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, the Agreement for fire protection services sets forth a number of terms and conditions, including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has presented to the Town Board a proposal to construct an expansion of its firehouse on Lafayette Street for a principal amount not to exceed $1,700,000 and proposes to finance the expansion project through tax-exempt financing provided under §150(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company plans to negotiate with local banksto enter into a financing agreement for the amount of $1,700,000 for 15-20 years at a market rate expected to be approximately 2.5% and this financing arrangement is intended to qualify as tax-exempt under §150(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, if tax-exempt financing is available, and, if not, non tax-exempt financing is estimated to be approximately 3.75%,and WHEREAS, in accordance with §150(e)(3) and §147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the Fire Company has requested that the Town Board conduct a public hearing to authorize approval of the financing and the Town Supervisor to execute approval of the financing to comply with the statutory requirements, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Fire Company and Town residents as required by the Internal Revenue Code to conduct a public hearing concerning the proposed expansion project, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 774 WHEREAS, the Town and the Fire Company have also negotiated terms for a new three (3) year Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the proposed 2012-2014 Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, th September 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to consider approval of the financing of Queensbury Central Fire Company, Inc.’s, proposed firehouse expansion on Lafayette Street for a principal amount not to exceed $1,700,000 and the proposed 2012-2014 fire protection services Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Hearing in The Post-Star as required by statute at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the notice shall be in substantially the following form: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, th New York on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing, as required by §150(e)(3) and §147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, shall be for the purpose of considering the adoption of a Resolution approving issuance of a tax- exempt bond by the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. in a principal amount not to exceed $1,700,000, the purpose of which is to finance a firehouse expansion for the housing and administration of the equipment and activities of the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., as related to its obligation under its fire protection service agreement with the Town of Queensbury. The facility shall be owned, operated, and managed by the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and the location of the facility shall be on Lafayette Street, Queensbury. And at such time the Town Board shall also hear all interested persons concerning the Fire Company’s proposed 2012-2014 fire protection services Agreement with the cost of such services to be $743,000 for 2012, $743,000 for 2013 and $750,000 for 2014 per year." and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board will, after the public hearing, consider adoption of a Resolution approving the Fire Company's incurrence of financial obligations for the firehouse REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 775 expansion, with the understanding that the Town of Queensbury shall not, by the adoption of any Resolution, create or intend to create any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury of any obligation or liability for such financing, other than that which may exist by virtue of the Agreement entered into between the Town of Queensbury and the Fire Company for fire protection services. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PARCEL OF LAND FROM SAMMANTHA AND MATTHEW BALL RESOLUTION NO.: 270, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, Matthew and Sammantha Ball have offered to donate a small piece of vacant land at the south end of Michaels Drive (tax map no.: 308.6-1-88) for the purposes of a cul-de-sac, which will help the Town Highway Department with plowing Michaels Drive, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has approved such proposed conveyance, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to accept parcel of land as the Town Board has determined that such property will benefit Town residents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the dedication to the Town of a small piece of vacant land at the south end of Michaels Drive in the Town of Queensbury (tax map no.: 308.6-1-88) from Matthew and Sammantha Ball, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to complete this transaction in form acceptable to Town Counsel, including, without limitation, any needed real estate documents and Real Property Transfer Reports and the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 776 nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN BILLING RATES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THIRD PARTY BILLING (BILL FOR SERVICE) RESOLUTION NO.: 271, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously entered into Agreements with the Town’s three (3) Emergency/Rescue Squads (Squads) for a bill for service (third party billing) program, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 596,2004, the Town Board authorized the establishment of billing rates for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) third party billings in the Town of Queensbury; by Resolution No.: 462.2005, the Town Board increased the billing rate for the Mileage (loaded) rate due to an increase in gasoline prices; by Resolution No.: 47,2007, the Town Board authorized the addition of ALS II billing rate; and by Resolution No.: 371,2008 authorized revisions to all billing rates, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 179,2008, the Town Board entered into a Billing Service Agreement with Emergency Management Resources, LLC (EMR) for provision of billing and collection of emergency services, and WHEREAS, EMR has recommended that the Town Board authorize revisions to all billing rates for EMS third party billings in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the following billing rates for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) third party billings in the Town of st Queensbury, effective as of September 1, 2011: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 777 BLS - $ 600.00 ALS1 - $ 900.00 ALS2 - $1,100.00 Mileage - $ 18.00 per loaded mile and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Emergency Management Resources, LLC, the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take the necessary actions to implement such billing rate changes and effectuate the terms of this Resolution. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer 4.0CORRESPONDENCE- NONE 5.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We have some anniversaries coming up. thth ? Invited everyone to ACC on Saturday, September 17 to help celebrate their 50 anniversary. ? Thanked Warren County Board for giving Rachel Delsignore recognition for her logo th commemorating Warren County’s upcoming 200 anniversary. th ? We will be celebrating the Town’s 250 anniversary in 2012. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- ? The parking area is complete on Meadowbrook Road. On Wednesday and Thursday Warren County Soil and Water and the Recreation Department will be installing the signs that identify the trail and some of the species in there. ? The bills have been paid to cover the damage at the Hudson River Park. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Nothing to report SUPERVISOR STEC- ? Thanked the Look TV and our sponsors for televising these meetings. We are the only municipality in Warren County that televises regular town board meetings ? Reminded everyone of the Town’s website www.queensbury.net. There is a lot of information available there. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 272, 2011 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-22-2011 MTG #24 778 SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury