Loading...
1992-06-01 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 1, 1992 7:00 P.M. MTG #55 RES# 305-320 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Ted Turner, Harry Hansen, Ralph VanDusen, Kathleen Kathe, Helen Otte, Bruce Carr PRESS: GF Post Star, Channel 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TUCKER Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... Councilman Caimano stated for the record, I was asked, along with Mr. Tucker, to attend a meeting a very short and informal meeting regarding, not a personal problem, but ajob problem with the Water Department today. Unfortunately through a mixup, three us, three of us as Board members wound up at the same meeting. I would like to put on the record, the fact that at 3:00 this afternoon Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, and myself met with the Water Department to discuss a job and how a job was to be handled. We met for approximately eight minutes and because there were three of us there, I think it ought to be on the record. Supervisor Brandt-This has to do with the open meetings law. It says, that if your going to have three members of a Board and you might conduct business or discuss business your suppose to notify the press first. So, I guess the confession is out, we didn't notify the press, but I'm sure there was no bad intent there. Councilman Caimano-If anyone wants to know what the meeting was about, I will be glad to discuss it with them later. Supervisor Brandt-Why don't you just put it on the record. The meeting was about a layoff that was taking place and the potential replacing or not replacing that person. Councilman Caimano-And the change of a particular job. The other people that were there, were Ralph VanDusen and Tom Flaherty. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW CODE OF ETHICS OPENED 7:03 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to open it right up to anyone who wants the floor to discuss the Code of Ethics. Come right up, don't be shy. Karl Schroeder-54 Old Forge Road, Queensbury. The Code of Ethics, I see here is all well and good, it's not clear to me about one problem that I personally have on my street. I have a tan Bronco that belongs to the Town of Queensbury, I believe the numbers A67925, is the license plate, that goes by my house every morning at approximately quarter of seven at 50 m.p.h. It gets down to the corner of Dixon and Old Forge Road and it runs the stop sign. I've tried several times to get in back of him, there is just no way. Also, this same tan Bronco is being used to go shopping at the Price Chopper. I want to know, does the Code of Ethics include all of this for the service of these people that have Town vehicles? Supervisor Brandt-There aren't many Town vehicles out. The Code of Ethics does not cover this. It's a different problem and we can address it, I think we're willing to. I appreciate your input. We will take it into consideration because there aren't many of those vehicles out. I think we can probably figure out whose vehicle that is. Mr. Schroder-I don't know whose it is. I just want to know why it isn't covered? Supervisor Brandt -Code of Ethics is for conflicts of interest by officials that are making decisions, it's not for the way to drive town vehicles. But, we'll get the word where it belongs. Councilman Goetz-Can you give me the numbers again, A67295? Mr. Schroeder-925. Councilman Caimano- Y ou know which one that is? Supervisor Brandt-I think, I know what that is. We'll take care of it, thank you. Anyone on the Code of Ethics? Mike O'Connor-Mr. Supervisor, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Mike O'Connor and I'm speaking as an individual. I did meet with a group of people as a committee and unfortunately the Board that we report to doesn't meet prior to our meeting and tonight's meeting, so I can't speak officially on behalf of anybody, I don't intend to be speaking officially on behalf of anybody. I will give you the sum and substance of our concerns and our thoughts with regard to your proposed code of ethics. The Town Board should be applauded for undertaking the task of considering and updating the Queensbury Ethics Law. It's a difficult task and one that we think is due. We looked at the proposed law as volunteer's, from a volunteer oriented basis, speaking from experience of recruiting key members of the community as volunteers and what possible effects your proposed law might have upon the Town recruiting individuals, quality individuals as volunteers to serve on the various Town Boards. Our concern with the proposed law is that it have a positive effect upon the operation of government in the Town of Queensbury, not a negative effect. We have a serious concern that we would loose good solid leaders who might otherwise volunteer because of certain aspects of the law. Specifically, we looked toward a balancing of restrictions against our concern of losing quality volunteers and would suggest perhaps the following. By way of housekeeping, just a couple of comments to start with. We believe that Paragraph 14.4-A, should be amended to include the term official, as part of the definition. You use interchangeably the word, officer and official in different sections of the code, but here you define only, officer or employee. We would suggest that you caption that to be, officer, official, or employee, so that it would be uniform throughout the code. We would suggest that 14-4-B-2, be amended as follows: 'A firm, partnership or association of which an official or employee or spouse of such official or employee is a member or employee wages whose wages or salary is directly or proportionally related to the firms, partnership, or associations sales, or business volume, or in which the officer, employee or spouse owns five or more ownership interest in the firm, partnership or association.' There appears to be confusion between 14.4-B-2, and 14.4-B-3. I think that 14.4-B-2, was addressed to firm, partnership or association which you left there in language that would be applicable to a corporation. That needs to be dressed up so that 14.4-B-2, deals solely with unincorporated entities and you leave 14.4- B-3, to deal with corporations. We're not talking about changing the substance of that, but you've got some confusion there. Supervisor Brandt -Also, Mike your saying, to leave out the clause, or his or her personnel sales or business activity, right? Mr. O'Connor-Yes. That did not seem to add anything to the meaning of what you had there. It makes it unduly long... Councilman Caimano-It almost seems like, that there was a sentence added into a sentence there, when you redid that Paul, you see that? Attorney Dusek-Certainly there is an error in terms of the word, corporation. It should have been firm, partnership or association, that's clear. I'm looking at the rest of it though. If, I understand correctly your saying, period basically after business volume? Mr. O'Connor-Yes. We didn't understand what the reasoning was for adding, or his or her own personal sales or business activity. Attorney Dusek -You could argue that it's repetitive language. Maybe a little bit repose there just adding more words, that it's not needed. I don't know that it really changes the context at all. Mr. O'Connor-1 understood that the first part, it would mean that salary was based upon commission or volume of the corporation businesses. Attorney Dusek-Right. Councilman Monahan-Or if that contract would change their salary in anyway, which is what New York State says. Mr. O'Connor-But then you get into, or with his own volume of business. I don't think that adds anything. Attorney Dusek-I think what it is, it's considering for instance some people are paid in a firm, partnership or other relationship based just on a chunk of whatever the firm owns. An upper level officer, for instance might not be in the street, so to speak, selling, but yet he gets a piece of the action. Whereas, other people, maybe like a sales manager, may get part of his under people sales activities or maybe even part of his own. So that would be a personal sales type situation as opposed to gaining profit from the business volume itself. What I'm saying, I think at this point, I think you could read business volume to maybe be broad enough to incorporate personal sales, but I think it's a little debatable. Mr. O'Connor-1 think there is another provision that says, that if he has a contract or an interest in a contract, it's a prohibited activity. Here your talking about his firms business association or corporation having a contract, but your kind of mixing the two. Attorney Dusek-No. I think, the one thing is when you look at the Ethics Law you always have to keep in mind that the focus is the officer, official or employee of the Town, that's always the focus. We don't really get into regulating what other businesses who are not connected with the Town can do, we only can regulate internally what our people can do. What we're saying is, is that you can't as an officer, employee, have a contract with the Town directly, obviously. But, what we're also saying, is that your firm or partnership can't have a contract with the Town in which you have an interest, focusing in on the employee. But saying that you will be deemed to have an interest, if your firm or corporation has a contract. Mr. O'Connor-That's my point, but here your mixing them both in the same thing. Attorney Dusek-I think there are three areas that are of concern under interest, actually four. One is your own, one is your spouse or child, one is a firm or partnership or association, the last is a corporation. They are all different types of entities that could possibly have a relationship with the Town and you in turn have a conflict. Mr. O'Connor-And you handle contracts of his own in other provisions. In here your trying to say that the contracts of his spouse or firm, partnership, or corporation are also deemed to be something that he has an interest in. Attorney Dusek-Right. Mr. O'Connor-I'm just saying that your putting them both in the same paragraph when I don't think that's your intention. We did not understand what was added to that provision by adding those terms, or his or her own personal sales, or business activity. Councilman Caimano- Y ou used the right term, you said repose and maybe by going over it again, you can clean it up. Attorney Dusek-I see what he's saying. You could eliminate that last sentence because it's already covered elsewhere in the law, basically the last part of that sentence. Mr. O'Connor-Paragraph 14.5.B. On the second line, I'm sorry it's 14.5.C, it says, or vote on any contract, in the second line there. We would suggest that you put, or matter. You may not necessarily be voting upon a contract, you may be voting upon a resolution or something of that nature. Attorney Dusek-Before you do that you have to, I think note that C, D, and E, all cover different types of situations. C, it focuses in on the contract situation. D, focuses on a situation where you'll have any kind of financial gain or suffer a loss as a result of an action. E, focuses in on any matter under consideration where you have a business or other financial relationship. I think it's already covered, I just split them up into different categories. Mr. O'Connor-We as a group thought that C, was including more thanjust contract by the language that followed. You may be correct Paul. 14.5.E, we suggested eliminating, as it appears to be saying, advocates have undue influence over board members they personally represent. There are other rules and restrictions that prohibit such activity particularly if the advocates are Attorneys. Basically what you would be doing, is penalizing board members in that they could not retain the more active law firms to personally represent them. You would be penalizing applicants, where perhaps a full board is required because of a majority required on a particular issue or a majority plus one. There does not appear to be any great benefit from this restriction as it is already elsewhere controlled so there will not be an abuse. There are very strict prohibitions against, particularly an Attorney trying to take advantage or taking advantage of a personal relationship with a board member in his presenting something to that particular board. If that is the issue and if that is the fear that you have by this particular provision, we think it is elsewhere taken care of. Those provisions, other requirements and other areas where it is taken care of, do provide that simply because of the existence of the relationship, it does not mean that there is a prohibition of the board member continuing. If you take a look at the various law firms that do present things to various boards, basically your saying that those law firms cannot represent anybody on the board. Your going to restrict your board members from employing those people... Attorney Dusek-I guess, I don't follow on the comment. At least the way, I interpret, we're talking about 14.5.E, right? Mr. O'Connor-Right. Attorney Dusek-The way I interpret that, it just simply says, the officer and the employee. First of all, that's the focus here again, so it's the board member, he cannot participate in his official capacity, in discussion or vote, on a matter that is of that quality, the firm or whoever he may have a connection with or business relationship, is before him. All it does is say, that person is off the board for purposes of that matter going before the board. Mr. O'Connor-That's what I'm saying is what we thought was objectionable. That, that board member would not be able to vote on that particular issue simply because a member of a law firm that he personally utilizes for some other matter was, in fact representing the applicant. Councilman Caimano- That's not the way, I read that. Mr. O'Connor-That's the way a group of us read it. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute, say that again Mike. Mr. O'Connor- Here it says, a board member may not participate in a discussion in his or her official capacity or vote on any matter under consideration by the Town or any agency, board or employee, thereof where the official or officer maintains a business relationship or other financial relationship with any person, business, entity, or association who is advocating or otherwise suggesting that the Town take a certain course of action. Attorney Dusek-I just figured out what he's getting at. That wasn't the intent of this section. The intent of this section was to control those situations or affect those situations where the person on the board is related in terms of a partnership, association or whatever, in having an on going business relationship. It was not intended, I think this is what your getting at, it was not intended to affect, just because the lawyer happens to represent a board member in another matter say, maybe involving insurance or something else outside of Town, that lawyer then comes before the Board. Supervisor Brandt-How can we make that very clear? Councilman Caimano-My intent of that was, that if I was a lawyer that if you were coming before this Board to represent someone as an advocate and I was a partner with you in a law firm, then I was in violation. Mr. O'Connor-That's something different and that's handled elsewhere. What happens if, I represent you or perhaps, I even represent one of your unemancipated children on a separate matter and I come before this Board? Councilman Caimano- That's certainly not the intent here, I see what your saying though. Councilman Monahan-But, I see what Mike is saying, it should be written according to our intent. Mr. O'Connor-If I read this, it says that you then have to step down. The disadvantage to Board members is that, loran active law firm when you come to see me is going to say, I'm sorry I can't represent you because you are in a position where your going to be in a conflict with me from time to time. Supervisor Brandt-It is this word, or other financial relationship isn't it? Attorney Dusek-The business relationship could be broadly interpreted to mean the relationship of the, maybe the way to do it would be to handle it by saying somewhere in there just accepting a professional relationship with the Board. Do you know what I'm trying to say, is to isolate that off then so that the Board member if your representing him as a professional be you an engineer, an attorney, a doctor, whatever that type of relationship would be exempt. Would that answer your question? Mr. O'Connor-If you had a broad enough exemption, yes. I speak specifically for attorney's, but your also talking about bankers, anybody that represents a number of people throughout the community. Councilman Monahan-Almost any profession really. Councilman Caimano-I see what your saying, I never read it that way, but that's a good point. Mr. O'Connor-1 hadn't read the point that you are talking about Paul. That what you were trying to reach into was the partnership that Nick is talking about, but I think that is covered elsewhere. I don't think that an advocate can make a presentation to a board sitting partner, that board sitting partner has to disqualify himself. Councilman Monahan-Are you talking about a normal legal Code of Ethics, not this one here particularly? Mr. O'Connor-Under the normal legal Code of Ethics, but also I think under here. I think elsewhere it's provided for in here. Attorney Dusek-I didn't think so. I think that was the clause that was intended to cover it. Mr. O'Connor-This was the whole discussion we got into before about the fact, firms of board members were prohibited from appearing before the board. Attorney Dusek-Not under this now. Councilman Monahan-Top of page 4, I think the changes have been made. Mr. O'Connor-1 haven't addressed it, I won't try to answer your question sitting here, but I had the impression that it was covered. We would also suggest that you eliminate entirely 14.5.G, this appears to be redundant to paragraph C. Attorney Dusek-There would be a difference. Paragraph C, controls the participation and Paragraph G, controls the right of the board member to come before and appear before the Board representing someone else. So your really hitting two different issues. Mr. O'Connor-We thought it was redundant, if you think it's not then, I really don't have a problem with it. '14.5.K, we would suggest that you eliminate this entirely as again, we believe it is redundant to other provisions as employees of the Town are prohibited elsewhere from participating in activities that will benefit themselves directly or their spouses directly or indirectly.' You honestly appear to be picking upon, your writing the ordinance for one individual which is not, I think a way to do it. You should be writing it for a general application. Attorney Dusek-'K, wasn't written for one individual, it is written for general application in terms of real estate type of matters because different offices could be affected by that.' Town Board positions could be affected by it, assessment positions could be affected by it, building and codes, there are a number of different agencies in Town that have an awful lot to do with real estate. That was what that clause was primarily designed to do was to make sure that you didn't have a potential for even an appearance of impropriety. Councilman Caimano-His point, I think is that we're picking on the real estate business as specifically, right? Mr. O'Connor-That's part of it. We think that basically you've prohibited employees from having conflicts of interest. This is just another example of a potential conflict of interest. You don't use other example type prohibitions. Councilman Caimano- I'm not sure I understand that. Mr. O'Connor-All conflicts with employees are prohibited by this. What you've done is just single out in this particular paragraph saying that this is a conflict but, you haven't gone into it with other relationships. Supervisor Brandt-I have some problem with what your saying especially in...sitting on the board rezoning land and they certainly can have some benefits there and few people would ever know it, I think they might be the only person that might know it. Now, if you just simply put it in the law and say that's a no no, then nobody's got to know it and it's a no no. If you leave it out of the law and it is prohibited, no one will ever know it. They can sit there and pull something off and who is the wiser? I like it in there, it applies to me or anybody on this board and any other board. Personally, I just as well leave it. Mr. O'Connor-A good part of our objection was, we thought it was redundant. We thought you were singling out one profession and we didn't think that was really the manner in which to approach the problem or the subject that you had before you. We're not saying that we are for it, okay. Supervisor Brandt-I understand. Mr. O'Connor-We think that it is a question of policing the other provisions of the code as well as the other sections of the code. This is something once you put into effect to be effective, it's going to have to be policed. Those were the comments that I had, thank you for your attention. Supervisor Brandt-It's a public hearing on the Code of Ethics, anyone else that would like to speak? Councilman Monahan-Mike, I would just like to ask Paul Dusek a question about something that Mike O'Connor said. Paul looking at K, I'm rating this with what Mike O'Connor said, that nobody that is a real estate sales person or broker could run for the Town Board. Can we make a rule and regulation like that or are we in conflict with New York State Election Law? Attorney Dusek-It doesn't say that you can't run for the Town Board. What it says, once your on the Town Board, you can no longer be part of that. So it doesn't affect the actual running of the person. Councilman Monahan-Do we have a right to do that, that's what I'm wondering, do we have a right? I mean I've never heard restricting who can run for Congress or the State Assembly. I've never heard that you had to give up any license once you've been on any of those boards. That's what I'm saying, do we have a right to do this? Attorney Dusek-I'd have to give it a little bit more thought. Initially, I thought yes obviously cause I drafted it for you, but you've raised an interesting point. Councilman Monahan-I thought of that after listening to Mike, that's why I raised the question, are we doing something that is legal. I've never heard of it in any other government position that people run for where there is any kind of restriction of that kind. Supervisor Brandt-Aren't you really saying that the person who is a realtor who is on the board can't vote on the matter? Councilman Monahan-If you say they can't vote, that's one thing, but this says more than that. Attorney Dusek- This says they won't be associated with a real estate business. Councilman Monahan-This says much more than that Mike, when you stop and really read it carefully. Supervisor Brandt -Give us a minute to make notes here to see if we can come to an answer on that one or at least know that we've got to address it. Dean Beckos-President of Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. I'd like to read this letter into the record. It's a resolution that was passed at the May regular monthly meeting by the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. At the direction of the Board of Directors of QEDC I am writing to explain the grave concern they have as it relates to the town's proposed new Ethics Law. The QEDC consists of 13 members charged with the responsibility of promoting economic development in the town and region. The QEDC owns approximately 15 acres in the Queensbury Technical Park which is currently being marketed. The Board, through its members, acquires and disburse what might be considered confidential information from time to time and has and probably will in the future appear on its own behalf and on behalf of others before various town boards and agencies. As you know, the Board is made up of active and busy community leaders and professionals who are interested in promoting economic growth in the area and who have been willing to lend their time and expertise to this endeavor. Much of this work occurs during business hours which can result in financial sacrifice and operations inconvenience in their own businesses. The proposed Ethics Law as it applies to the QEDC seems to require further infringement upon the lives of the members. It prevents some board members from conducting their unrelated business activities which requires town agency contacts, as well as personal financial disclosure. Because of these additional proposed sacrifices, several members, several members have indicated that they will have no choice but to resign if the QEDC is included within the terms of the proposed Ethics Law. Believe it or not, volunteers of the caliber and expertise of members currently serving on the board are not standing in line waiting for board membership. Recruitment has been tedious, careful and time consuming. The proposed law would also appear to hamper the QEDC's efforts since no members could appear before other town boards in any official capacity to urge a position or particular decision upon that other board. It also prevents the dissemination of confidential information (whatever that is) which QEDC must, from time to time, pass on in its development capacity. No one can object to an Ethics Law which is properly balanced to allow governments and boards to function honestly and at the same time utilize volunteers upon which all municipalities rely. However, the proposed law, particularly as it applies to the QEDC, will simply cripple its membership and interfere with its independence and its operation. The QEDC is an independent corporation. It is not involved in the running or administration of government and is not an advisory body. We believe it should be excluded from the operation of the proposed Ethics Law and subject only to the terms set forth in Article 18 of the General Municipal Law. Councilman Goetz-Paul, can you address some of that because I previously talked to you about it? Attorney Dusek-The only major point, I think that I caught there you know it's like a discrepancy, if you will. I don't think there is anything that would prohibit the QEDC members from coming before any agency and advocating positions on behalf of QEDC. The reason for that is, is that there are only three paragraphs that would prohibit discussion in an official capacity. One, would be if you had a contract which, I'm talking about personal contract with the Town which wouldn't apply in the case of QEDC because you'd be advocating QEDC's interest. The second would be if you enjoyed a financial gain as an employee which you would not because QEDC would be the agency that would be enjoying any kind of financial gain as a result of the Board. The last would be a business relationship or financial relationship. Here again, you don't have a business relationship yourself with QEDC rather any of the members would be members of QEDC which is treated under this Code of Ethics for the most part like another governmental agency. I think it would be all together proper, in fact for a member of QEDC to come before any board to advocate a position on behalf of QEDC. Now, if you had a personal interest in it that would be a different story as far as my reading of this particular law. Another thing that I might add that I mentioned to Sue before the meeting, this is the type of thing that could also be backed up by a request for an advisory opinion from the Ethics Advisory Board to be sure that they are in agreement with what I've just said. If they aren't, then the Town Board could always re-legislate or change, but I believe that's my understanding of reading this. Councilman Monahan-Paul, let's do a for instance. Are QEDC members considered employees of the Town or Town officials or any category's that we've been talking? Attorney Dusek-Under this local law, yes. Councilman Monahan-Supposing on that board we have an engineer, he can come as a member of QEDC and advocate some firm that they are trying to get in here or something like that. But, supposing also in his own private business, is doing a site for a private client, now does the fact that he is on QEDC and the way this is written prevent him coming from say, the Planning Board to present the interest of his client at a site plan review? Attorney Dusek-I think it does. It would be just like a Zoning Board member who is an Attorney and he was representing somebody else before another agency in the firm they would be under the same restrictions. Councilman Monahan-That's an awful distant relationship to penalize somebody with a distant relationship to this Town and to the boards that their coming in front of, to penalize somebody that's giving their volunteer time. Councilman Goetz-I feel strongly that the QEDC should be included in the Code of Ethics and disclosure. I feel by the very virtue of the scope of their work, there can be conflicts of interest. I think, you know I hope a lot of people don't resign. I do think there are good people out there that would be willing to serve if they don't chose to do that. I think that just by the fact that they would fill out the disclosure, it would be on paper what possible conflicts they would have. As individual instances came down the pike, it may not be a conflict per say. I think their overreacting to the disclosure part of it. I was very happy to hear that Paul thought that the QEDC could come before say, the Town Board on a rezoning because that would be a very important function of the QEDC. Councilman Monahan-But, an engineer could not come for his client if he was on QEDC. He couldn't come for a private client in front of the Town Board. Councilman Goetz-That's a choice that person would have to make. That's my way of thinking, that's the choice you make when your involved when working with government. That's what the people out there are looking for, is some assurance that at least these things will be talked about and on paper. Mr. Beckos-My comment to that would be, is that you under estimate the potential difficulty and hardship in disclosing information. Councilman Goetz-Why is it so hard? Mr. Beckos-Because quite frankly, a lot of that information is private information and nobody's business. Councilman Goetz-A lot of it is the connection with working with the town business. There are going to be people that aren't going to want to fill it out and I understand that. But it's just what I said, it's a choice that you have to make. Mr. Beckos-Right, our point is, that hardship potentially cripples the amount of applicants that come to serve in the capacity of QEDC or any other Town Board or agency. I don't want to belabor the point, thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to comment on our Code of Ethics? Doug Persons- Stephanie Lane, Queensbury. Page 12, the employees excluded, under the temporary or seasonal employees... Councilman Monahan-Excuse me, Doug would you give us that page number again. Mr. Persons-Twelve. I can see a possible problem if this does not have, I don't know how I want to say this, if a temporary or seasonal employee is hired to do a particular job such as someone who is hired for assessment department or something of that nature. Why are these people excluded, I could see a possible conflict coming there? Attorney Dusek-As far as the list is concerned, the list was simply drawn up to be a listing of people who we thought in a non-managerial, non-policy making positions. We tried to list all of those types of names because the first time around we tried to use a general blanket category that ran into some difficulties because people didn't know for sure whether or not they were included, so we decided to go with job title. I don't see anybody in there that's a manager or a policy maker, I mean I'm talking upper level management or policy maker. But if you think there is somebody, you might mention it to the Board, then they could reconsider it. The titles can be added or taken away from the list at the board's pleasure. Mr. Persons-I can see a temporary or seasonal employee who works under one of these titles that have been exempted. But if they were to be included in the department where these people have to make disclosures then I can see a problem. It may not be but, I think it should be addressed, it could save a problem later on. Councilman Caimano-Let me ask a question here. Let's go back to something that Dean said before and something that Betty hit on, I want to make sure that I understand it. Let's assume that Dean was an engineer, as a member of QEDC he would not be allowed to appear as a third party paid engineer advocate in front of the Planning Board or the ZBA? Attorney Dusek -Correct. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak to us? Let's leave it open a little while. Anyone want to come and speak on the Code of Ethics? I declare the hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:44 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Brandt-Do you want to take that up as a local law at this point? Councilman Caimano-I think there are some things that Paul has to address in the law itself. I guess, I want to make sure that it's emphasized that the Code of Ethics is meant to set a tone, it is not meant to single out. There was a question here about singling out real estate people. It's not meant to single out anybody, it's not meant to catch anybody, we don't know who to catch if we tried. But, there is a growing resentment concerning town government and part of it is trust and this is simply to set a tone. I wouldn't care if it was one sentence long. I think one of the things that we over look here is that in all the problems that everybody brings up, we have incorporated in this law a group of independent people. Independent of us, independent of the town, who will review and make judgements and make penalties. I think that it's right and proper that people like Mike O'Connor and Dean Beckos come forward and help us correct it. I think there are things that need to be corrected, but I don't want to loose track of what we're doing here and that's setting the tone, that's what the whole purpose of this is. Supervisor Brandt-My observation is that tonight the language that was discussed, really doesn't change significantly what we put to public hearing. What I'd like to do, is make those changes and get on with it and bring it to a vote. But I'm not sure procedurally, it be smart to go back and do that on a computer and take a little time with it and then bring it forth next week. Maybe that's what makes the most sense. I'd like to get a feeling from the Board. Councilman Caimano-I agree, I think it's too important. I think if it's going to be done, it should be done right. Councilman Goetz-I'd like to consider it on June 15th. Supervisor Brandt-That will not require public hearing it's fairly small language changed, so let's schedule it for June 15th. Councilman Monahan-I have a few comments that I would like to make. Nick says that this is about trust and it's setting the tone. I agree with Nick, I think it is setting a tone. Frankly, I think with this Ethics Law we've thrown out the baby with the bath water. I think what we have said to our employees, our boards, etc., we don't trust you, prove it to us that we can trust you. I think we have a document here like the IRS, your presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. My feeling is that you get back from people what you expect. When we've appointed people to boards, we've expected them to do their best, to do the job within their abilities, we've expected them to disclose any conflict of interest. In the ten years that I have been on the board, there have maybe been four to six instances where we've had some problems, problems that the Town Board has been able to step in and dissolve. We're talking about an independent lay group being the committee that judges this, our Code of Ethics Advisory Councils. When we've had Attorney's argue about the meanings of the words in this document, when we ourselves who supposedly wrote this document through our Attorney, have set down and questioned what certain section, certain phases say, I think that we've got another piece of legislation here that's a poor piece of legislation and it's going to lead to problems in the future. I know that I'm in the minority on this board, that's fine, but I want you to know how I feel. I feel we've got good employees in this town, usually I back them to the hilt, once in a while I've had to speak to some of them or ask them questions to find out what I expect is correct. A lot of other things I think go on in the Town that can be a conflict of interest or can be unethical, aren't even mentioned in this type of the law and these are the things that really cause us a problem. As I said, Nick says it's a matter of trust, yes it is. I think we should have some trust in our employees and in our volunteer boards. Supervisor Brandt-I disagree with you wholeheartedly, whole- heartedly. I think there have been abuses, if you haven't seen them, your blind. I think that there are a lot of people in this community that are fed up with it and it's time to change it. It's a tough law, you bet, it affects everyone of us and we're saying we'll live by it. I think that's a commitment and I'm all for it. Councilman Monahan-As I said Mike, many of the things that are conflicts or unethical, this law does not even address. Supervisor Brandt-It addresses a whole bunch of them that have been abused. Councilman Monahan-I will refer back to your change in the insurance agent and the outcry that made. Supervisor Brandt-That was resolved very well by this board. Councilman Monahan-Absolutely, that's what I'm saying, it was resolved. Supervisor Brandt-It was not a violation of this Code of Ethics either. Councilman Monahan-That's what I'm saying. It was resolved, it was something that this code would not cover and yes the Town Board did resolve it. Supervisor Brandt-Without pulling out all the dirty linens, it's high time for a Code of Ethics in this Town, couldn't disagree with you more and I will certainly push for it. Councilman Monahan-Some of the dirty linen has not been dirty linen except by innuendo. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, let's move on. DISCUSSION-QUEENSBURY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Steve Sutton-President of Queensbury Business Association. Read the following statement into the record. The Queensbury Business Association would like to express our concern about the actions of three members of the Queensbury Planning Board regarding the Dexter Factory Outlet expansion project. These three members affectively stated that they would vote against any additional commercial development in the Route 9 corridor until a traffic study is completed and present traffic congestion is alleviated. By adopting this position and voting against the Dexter Project these members have created what we see as two major problems for the Town. First, they have effectively created a moratorium for commercial development along the Route 9 corridor and sent a clear message of this back to potential developers wishing to locate in the Town of Queensbury. Secondly, and more importantly, they may have driven away Dexter Factory Outlet at a time when they had shown their willingness to be a prime mover in an effort to get developers along the Route 9 corridor to find solutions to the present traffic issues. Prior to the vote by the Planning Board, Dexter representatives had worked to get the cooperation of existing developments along the corridor and had personally committed to making any recommended roadway improvements in front of their own property at no expense to the Town. We believe that it has become obvious that the New York State Department of Transportation does not intend to provide funding for any traffic improvement projects in the Route 9 area for many years. Therefore, it will fall back either to the Town of Queensbury or to the private developers to provide funding for necessary improvements. By turning away the Dexter project we believe the Town has lost a golden opportunity to have private developers fund improvements along this corridor. The Queensbury Business Association would request that the Town Board pass a resolution which makes it clear that they have not declared a moratorium on development along the Route 9 corridor. Further, that the Board will support the unified and individual efforts of developers to solve the traffic issues along the Route 9 corridor. The Queensbury Business Association appreciates your time and consideration regarding these issues. Recommended to the Town Board that when they appoint members to the various Boards in the Town, they give extra consideration in appointing them, for the future of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. David Kenny-I own the Adirondack Outlet Mall and the Days Inn. My property today, generates approximately seventeen million dollars in sales, five hundred thousand in sales tax to Warren County. I have one hundred twenty people working on my property. The strip where we supposedly have all this traffic congestion generates over sixty million dollars in sales approximately or 1.8 million dollars in Warren County Sales tax. I believe this number is about the same or if not more than all the motels in Warren County. On the strip today there are over five hundred people working. We should be thankful for this economic growth. I ask, is there traffic, yes, without it, the stores would close, we'd lose the sales tax, the jobs and the economic growth. All I hear is how we missed the boat and caused this perceived traffic problem ourselves. If you look at other areas such as Kittery, Maine, Conway, New Hampshire, or Manchester, Vermont, they all have traffic and are glad they do. These areas continue to let development grow since there are always new major tenants entering this business. Without capturing these new business the...to attract the outlet shopper will slowly die and we will wind up with empty stores and no economic growth. When I visit all of these areas, they all have traffic and most of them have a lot more than ours, I can verify this by the sales figures. Do they consider it a problem? No, they consider it a blessing. There are plenty of other locations in New York and throughout the states trying to lure these outlet developers to their areas in order to gain this economic growth. Dexter has been a great neighbor and has tried to answer all the questions put before it. I strongly feel at this time, we not only told Dexter no, this word will travel very quickly throughout the outlet industry and in effect, we have told these new prospective tenants, we do not want them in Queensbury. You can be sure they will go elsewhere since there are plenty of towns throughout the country that would love to have them and the economic growth, sales tax, and jobs they generate and yes, they will accept the traffic and consider it a blessing. Thank you. A discussion was held. It was the decision of the Town Board to set up a meeting as soon as possible with the Queensbury Planning Board and Dexter Factory Outlet to try to solve this matter. Bernard Rahill-Queensbury. Spoke to the Town Board regarding the planning process of the Town. Requested the Board to look into the benefits that would be provided to the people by stretching out the Town's development to the whole community rather than by putting it into one corridor. Noted he feels the officers of the Town of Queensbury have to serve the people and the best interest of the people in this particular matter. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 305, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of May 12th, 1992. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None AbsentNone RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESOLUTION NO. 306, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution No. 239, 92, a Resolution Adopting Determination of Non-Significance of Rezoning regarding F. T. & E. P. Collins, Donald Smith and Stanislaw Kostek, which referred to a Negative Declaration, and WHEREAS, said Negative Declaration may have been erroneously omitted or cannot be located and, therefore, a new Negative Declaration has been prepared, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approves the new Negative Declaration and authorizes the appropriate filing of the same. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF REVOCABLE LICENSEIPERMIT RESOLUTION NO.:307, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of allowing the use of its recreational facilities, from time to time, by private persons or groups for non-profit events that result in either the award of prizes or donations to not -for-profit corporations or both, and WHEREAS, an agreement for a Revocable LicenseIPermit to authorize the use of the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park was previously drafted and used by the Town of Queensbury (see attached copy) and found workable, and the Director of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the Town continue use the form for any person or group wishing to use the softball facilities at the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park for non-profit events, and that the Town Supervisor be allowed to execute the same on an "as needed" basis without further resolution by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Director of Parks and Recreation has assured the Town Board that he will monitor compliance by the group or persons with the terms and conditions set forth between the Town of Queensbury and the user of the Revocable LicenseIPermit are adhered to, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the regular use of the aforesaid form agreement titled, Revocable LicenseIPermit, and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, whenever private persons or groups are desirous of using the recreational facility, without the adoption of further resolutions of authorization by this Town Board and until this Town Board revokes this resolution, provided that all terms and conditions of the Revocable LicenseIPermit remain the same, with the exception of course, that the hours of use, identity of the person or group using the facility, and the number of fields being used at anyone time, may change. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1992 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 181 TO BE ENTITLED, "ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS," WHICH CHAPTER PROVIDES FOR THE AMENDMENT, SUPPLEMENT, OR SUPERSESSION, AS MAY BE NECESSARY, OF TOWN LAW SECTION 267 CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT MAY BE APPOINTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THE TERMS THEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 308, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1992, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Adding a New Chapter 181 to be Entitled, "Zoning Board of Appeals Appointment of Members," which Chapter provides for the amendment, supplement, or supersession, as may be necessary, of Town Law Section 267 concerning the number of members that may be appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the terms thereof, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the action proposed herein, an amendment to the Code of the Town of Queensbury concerning membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals, qualifies as a Type II Action under the SEQRA regulations, since it is administrative in nature and does not include a new program or a major reordering of priorities, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 15th day of June, 1992, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1992 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _,1992 in the manner provided by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is authorized to send a copy of this resolution and Local Law to the Adirondack Park Agency, if required by laws or regulations. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 309, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget: RECREATION: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-7020-1991 001-7020-1910 $ 13,441.12 Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY RESOLUTION NO.: 310,1992 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of contracting with Michael J. Y oung/Torrington Explosives to conduct a fireworks display as follows: SPONSOR: Town of Queensbury PLACE: West Glens Falls Fireman's Field DATE: June 28, 1992 (July 5, 1992, Rain date) TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approx.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions: A. An application for permit be filed which sets forth: 1. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display. 2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. 3. The exact location planned for the display. 4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. 5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged. 6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. 7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions. B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury; C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, provides: the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated points as possible within the actual area of the display, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute a contract between Michael J. Y oung/Torrington Explosives for the fireworks demonstration, the form of the contract to be approved by the Town Attorney and the amount of the contract not-to-exceed four thousand five hundred ($4,500.00) dollars to be paid for from account no.: 001-7550-4400. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Caimano-Spoke to the Board regarding the dark spot in the road on the corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. Has spoken with John Murphy from Niagara Mohawk and received a letter from him regarding this matter. It was the decision of the Board to pass a resolution for authorizing the installation of a street light. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STREET LIGHT RESOLUTION NO. 311, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Michel Brandt. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to take such action and expend such funds as maybe necessary to arrange for a 150 Watt High Pressure Sodium Street Light at the intersection of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road at a total annual charge not to exceed $176.54, with the understanding that will be the charge every year and with the understanding that the Town will have to keep the light for a 15 year term, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this shall be paid for from the appropriate account. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion Held Councilman Monahan-Requested that the Board look at the intersection of Blind Rock Road and Quaker Road. COMMUNICATIONS Bid Opening- 1988 Dodge 600 Discussion Held Attorney Dusek-Noted that the high bidder did not submit a non- collusive affidavit. Stated it is up to the Board in the manner in which they proceed with this. It was the decision of the Board to pass a resolution with the condition that an Affidavit of non-collusion be submitted. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID RESOLUTION NO. 312, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. WHEREAS, the Town Board having considered bids submitted on a 1988 Dodge 600 Series K Car, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the bid to the highest bidder, Charles and Marygrace Joyce for $795.20, upon the condition that an Affidavit of Non-Collusion be submitted and that all other terms of the bidding documents be complied with, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funds from the sale shall be deposited in the appropriate account as determined by the Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None Discussion Held Councilman Goetz-Spoke to the Board regarding property located at 18 Homer Avenue, Queensbury. Noted a water problem exits at this property and that the constituent has requested that signs be posted noting problems with the water...Attorney Dusek-Recommend that documentation be obtained first and a report from Dave Hatin before action be taken...Councilman Goetz-Asked the status about a memo that was received in February from Mike Shaw regarding a section of the code book that he wanted changed...Attorney Dusek noted that this language still has to be drafted...Councilman Goetz noted that she has received a memo from Mike Shaw regarding a variance waiver request from hooking up to the sewer from Bruce Main. Noted that Mike Shaw has requested that the Town Board send a letter noting that three estimates have to be obtained from the approved list in order to do the work...Councilman Goetz-Asked the status of the utility assessments...Councilman Caimano to have an answer for the Board next week. Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board regarding an engineering proposal on the Clark Street drainage. Stated that the engineer has indicated that there are two ways of solving the problem and he recommends the first way as more economical. The concern is that Mr. Daigle, feels based on his experience that this will not resolve the problem. Requested to meet with the engineer, Mr. Daigle, Mr. Naylor to see if a solution can be resolved regarding this matter. Noted a resolution is needed to authorize engineering services regarding this matter. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RETAINAGE OF RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.c. RESOLUTION NO. 313, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Nick Caimano. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retainage of the services of Rist-Frost Associates, P.C., to work with the Town Attorney, Mr. Daigle, Mr. Naylor, concerning the Clark Street drainage situation at a sum not to exceed $250.00 and to be paid for from the Engineering Account set forth in the Town General Budget. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ABOLISHING TWO HOUR SICK LEAVE RESOLUTION NO. 314,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz Attorney Dusek-There is a letter in your packet addressed to the union concerning a union contract matter. It's really just a matter of under the current contract there is two provisions dealing with sick leave, personnel leave, two hour increments that is set to expire in June. I heard that there was some interest in the board in just addressing the issue in terms of just dealing with it one way or another. I proposed a letter which, I thought was consistent with what you might be looking at. I would recommend that the letter be sent so there is no confusion as to what your desires are in terms of either extending or not extending the time. Now, the letter does include both sick and personal, you may not want it both sick and personal, you may want just sick or personal or whatever. But, I just put a general draft together and I'm looking for the boards input on it. Councilman Caimano- I read this and my preference is to keep it as sick. I can't imagine taking sick leave in increments, but I certainly can personal leave. Supervisor Brandt-Don't forget personal leave can be done at four hour increments. I talked to both the Highway Department, Water Department, and some of the departments in the Town office building. Unanimously the people that were working troops would like to get rid of this. In limited cases its working, but on the whole its not working. The recommendation from each department head involved said, do away with it. I would propose it as a resolution, I guess is what we really need to do to find out where we are in the concensus to send this letter telling both personnel and sick, what do you call it sick leave in two hour increments. Councilman Monahan-I think personal leave was done originally with the thought and at one time it was four hours and we thought that was a little unwielding. If somebody had a doctor appointment or dentist appointment why should they have to lose a whole half a day for going to a doctor or dentist. That's why the two hour came up for that type of stuff. Councilman Caimano-But, now we're hearing that they want to get rid of it completely. Councilman Monahan-I don't know if the employees are, apparently department heads are. Supervisor Brandt-I'm sure the employees don't want too, but I feel we have a responsibility as an employer. I feel its not working, it's not cost effective and we should get rid of it. Councilman Tucker-What takes it to move it? Supervisor Brandt -So I'll offer it as a motion. Councilman Goetz-I'll second it. Supervisor Brandt-Any discussion? Will you take a vote. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: Mrs. Monahan Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Helen Otte, Town Assessor-Requested that the Board approve the hiring of Hill Pierce Appraisers as an independent contractor to review the 950 parcels that are contiguous to Lake George at a price of $10.00 per parcel. This includes field review of state generated values and public hearings in early 1993 prior to the publication of the tentative roll with the completed town wide up dated figures on it. Supervisor Brandt-Noted one of the concerns that came up was that if they were invited to come into homes that they would do that. Mrs. Otte-Noted they will be instructed to do this. RESOLUTION HIRING HILL PIERCE APPRAISERS RESOLUTION NO. 315, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the hiring of Hill Pierce Appraisers to perform services consisting of the appraisal services of 950 parcels around Lake George area for the Assessor's Office, and hereby further authorizes the Supervisor to execute a contract to be in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amounts to be paid to Hill Pierce shall be $10.00 a parcel with a total cost not to exceed $9,500.00 and to be paid for from the Revaluation Budget Account. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt Noes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker Absent: None Discussion Held Before Vote Bob Stewart -Questioned the Board if the reevaluation of properties on Lake George will be appraised differently than that of the Town? Mrs. Otte-Noted that this is going to all be done using the same market value standards set at a certain year, 1991-1992, is going to be the market value standard. All of the properties will be judged using the same criteria, this is Town wide. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that Hill Pierce is very familiar with the shores of Lake George and they have done a lot of work to understand the soils of slopes, drainage, all the different conditions regarding the shoreline. It's an attempt to bring in this expertise and merged it with the outside company. Mrs. Otte-Noted that she will be doing the values on all of the properties. These contractors are being hired just to review the values that she has set for the whole Town. Discussion Held Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Board about an issue that has arose regarding Civil Service. The Civil Service rules provide for layoff units. When an employee is laid off, they will have certain rights to other peoples, jobs if there in terms of seniority etc., within the same layoff unit. At the Warren County level, the layoff unit has been set to be the departments. In the Town of Queensbury, by default because the question has never been answered, its been set to be departments. I have been told by the Warren County Civil Service Director that the Town has an option as to whether the Town Board would like the layoff unit to be department wide or town wide... Supervisor Brandt noted that input should be received from department heads first... Attorney Dusek to send memo to department heads regarding this matter...Attorney Dusek noted a question has been raised by the accountants who are doing the annual audit as to certain funding in connection with the landfill. As to whether funds that are being received from other Towns as part of our consolidated landfill operation should be thrown into one pot in connection with the monies that are generated between the city and the town in connection with their relationship...The Town Board agreed that they should be separate accounts. RESOLUTION RELATING TO ACCOUNTING RECORDS CONCERNING LANDFILL RESOLUTION NO. 316, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Town Board that there may be a question as to the crediting and debiting of certain funds in the account records concerning the landfill, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates it's feeling based on it's understanding of the matter that any funds being received from other Town's as a result of consolidated landfill contracts should be kept separate and not co-mingle with any of the funds being received in connection with the Glens Falls/Town of Queensbury relationship and none of those funds being received from the consolidated Town's should be credited or debited to any of the account relationships between the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None OPEN FORUM 8:45 P.M. Doug Persons-President of CSEA, Local 857. Spoke to the Board regarding his concern with the abolishment of the two hour sick leave and the establishment of the four hour increments for sick leave... Spoke to the Board regarding layoffs, believes they are covered in the contract. Supervisor Brandt-Noted he has spoken with Jim Counters and both agree this is being done correctly. John Hack-Attorney, Guilderland, New York. Representing Victor Thomas and James Mehalick, Queensbury. Spoke to Board regarding his concern for the Great Escapes application to construct an amusement pool facility which is mostly accessible from Round Pond Road. Attorney Dusek-Noted that the Board was in the scope of their authority to approve this application. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 9:00 P.M. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZING HEPATITIS B SHOTS FOR CREMATORY EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION NO. 317,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the payment of shots for those crematorium workers who want shots for Hepatitis B inoculations at a cost not to exceed $420.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to take whatever action including the signing of papers that may be necessary to authorize the shots, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the shots shall be paid for from the contingency fund account of the general town budget. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT RESOLUTION NO. 318, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract June 1st, 1992 numbering 92223000 through 92239600 and totaling $84,438.56 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None Abstain:Mr. Caimano (vendor #00127 G.F. Newspaper) Discussion Held Before Vote Councilman Monahan-Questioned voucher number 92229700 for the Allied Specialty Inc. for $500.00, for fireworks deposit. Noted that this is an insurance payment and the resolution did not state paying for any Insurance. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that they are paying the exact amount specified in the resolution and that he had specified that one check go to the insurance company to guarantee that the coverage be there and the other check to Michael Young. RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 319,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into Executive Session to discuss one matter property acquisition, two matters potential litigation, two matters attorney/client privilege, one matter personnel, one matter collective bargaining. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 320, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session. Duly adopted this 1st day of June, 1992, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent:None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk, Town of Queensbury