Loading...
1993-09-20 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG #68 RES 519-536 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, Mike Shaw, Ralph VanDusen PRESS: GF POST STAR, WENU PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN CAIMANO Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... the first item on our agenda is a public hearing on a proposed local law establishing a Department of Public Utilities. Legally, notices have been sent and properly advertised. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT. NOTICE SHOWN 7:01 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'll open it for discussion. Anybody that would like to speak to us on it, come on right up and talk to us. MR. RON MONTESI -Good evening Board Members. Board Members and Mike, my concern and my comments are to you that I've heard in the newspaper and I've heard you say, Mike, that eventually during budget time, if this piece of legislation that we're addressing tonight passes or is considered, that you would then at budget time review and make up a budget for these departments or this new kind of a utility department. I'm hard pressed to understand that logic because as a businessman, you and I and Pliney when he builds a house, all of us, have to sit down and put costs to things and I was hoping tonight that on that bulletin board there would be a chain of command, I know that exists of this new utilities department and some cost affixed to it. If we're going to save two to three hundred thousand dollars, I can understand that and I can be supportive of something in that area, or if it's going to be more or less. But I truly as a citizen and as a taxpayer, not withstanding any political positions here tonight, need to ask you and implore you before you enact this legislation, that we as a public have a right to look at and review with you the same thought process that Mike, you're going over. I don't know if the rest of the Board has but I ask Pliney, if you were to build a house, have you ever built a house where someone has said, how much? Obviously, that's an important consideration. How much is the house going to cost me? How much is this utility going to cost? I'd like to see the dollars, what we have and what we're going to have. The other issue that I have asked a few times and I've gotten a couple of answers from folks is that, included in this utility legislation is a consolidation with the Water Department, bringing that together. And, we, after twenty years, I lived in the consolidated central water district, it's a separate taxing district, not all of the taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury pay for that. The assets, whether they be trucks, cars, personnel, it's separately taxed, it really has no bearing on the town tax. It creates it's own budget, it creates it's own revenue and the shortfall is what we pay in taxes. I'm hard pressed to understand how we're going to take that department and transfer the assets to this utility. However we do it, it's probably going to be done with creative accounting and that isn't a knock, I mean, I gather that's just the way it will have to be done. But, once you transfer that, you can not use and I know that for a fact, you can't use the assets, the trucks, the cars, the equipment of the consolidated water district without charging the other parts of town for that and I envision that as being a bookkeeping nightmare. I just don't think it's going to be that easy. If you were to take the pay-loader from the water department and bring it up and use it in the landfill, the man hours involved in that have to be transferred somehow. So, at what rate? Are we going to use the State Prevailing rate for hourly labor and equipment or are we going to do our own rate structure within the Town of Queensbury? So, those are two things that sort of trouble me, cost and how are we're going to work around a consolidated water district which is a separate taxing district. I would hope that this kind of legislation, tonight's public hearing would only give you more information, you and the Board to look at and to try and understand some of the concerns of the citizenry out here in wanting to see some numbers and now wait until September 30th when you put the budget together and then have it that way. I think that you and I and all of us need to make a decision based on cost effectiveness on this piece of legislation. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Ron, before you go. I don't know if there's an assumption that we're going to pass a law tonight. If there is, it's an improper assumption. This is a public hearing on a proposed piece of legislation. In the process of looking at a budget, you have to look at a potential organization to carry off that budget. You have to address alot of these, answer alot of these questions. And you know, whether you're talking a sewer district or water district, they are separate districts, each with their own tax base, each separate and have to be accounted so for it, in that way. We're well aware of that. That doesn't make it easy but I don't think it makes it impossible either. I think it's, it can be handled many different ways and it is handled different ways in different communities. What we're doing is looking at a particular law in a particular manner of doing it which has been done in other communities already. I don't think any of us intend to seriously consider this legislation without the full impact of the financials, right in front of us and I think that's got to be brought in front of the public. That's, it was my understanding early in the process that the budget had to be done on the 20th of September and I was misinformed, it's really the 30th and because this is a very difficult subject and because I'm the budget officer alone in trying to do it, I've taken the extra time to do it. And I'm going to, that will all come out and all those figures have to be considered. Nobody wants to look at this without that. MR. MONTESI - Well its, then I'm happy to hear that this type of legislation isn't something that would be passed tonight, number one and number two, that you've accepted that responsibility in terms of business approach to, somewhere before this is passed, giving us those numbers to look at. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -You bring out a point about organization and having been a Town Board member, I'll show you quickly I've, when we came into office, and this isn't very large, I realize but it's been on my computer for myself, to try and understand what we have. And basically, we have a Town Board with the Supervisor as part of the Town Board but is here every today and not positive what his job is. You have to understand the Town Board has all the authority. So, as a voting member, the Supervisor can effect policy, he's the budget officer, he's the financial officer but other than that, he's not the Chief Administrative Officer or if he is, he hasn't got very much power, the power belongs to the Town Board and responsible in communicating to him, are all these various departments. Now this, this thing I made myself and I accidently put the Town Court here, so I got one too many but all these people in affect are communicating through the Supervisor and it doesn't work. I think anybody knows in business it's pretty hard to communicate affectively with more than six or seven people. I looked at an alternate system and you can go two different ways. One is, the Town Board could give the Supervisor a whole lot of power. Not sure if I were a Town Board Member, I'd want to do that and as a citizen I'm not sure I think that's the right way to do it because then the Supervisor as an elected official has a bunch of political clout that may not be in the, may not serve the Town well. You could instead have that Supervisor just the guy that runs the meetings and you hire a superman here who would be the general administrator of the whole Town. But the problem again exists, you have all these people trying to work through that person. What I tried to structure was a system where you would form in effect a committee, a management committee that would work with the Town Board and that committee would include the Supervisor, the Attorney, the Director of Public Utilities, the Director of Community Development, that is Planning, Zoning and Codes Enforcement, the Business Manager, that is Accounting, Payroll, Personnel Matters and then all the other departments through a coordinator from one of those department heads, would just become the coordinator, discuss with all the department heads and I see that as becoming the management group that runs the Town and then all these other departments would be below that group. And that's what was intended, that's the way this started. We built, in fact this section was pretty well put together the last administration, this section we put together so far and the two left are these two. Well, this one's a pretty easy one, this one's a difficult one and that's what we're here talking about tonight. Come on Carol. MS. CAROL PULVER-I'll wait for Mr. Tucker to finish. I've watched him here for the last five minutes and I don't think he's paid any attention to all or anything that has been said. UNKNOWN-We can't hear you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think that has much to do with this MS. PULVER-Well, yes, I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Tucker, he is the Chairman for the Queensbury Water Department. UNKNOWN-Louder. MS. PULVER-I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Tucker, he is the Chairman of the Queensbury Water Department and the Fourth Ward Representative of where I live. I'd like to know, Mr. Tucker because you're a supporter of this proposed law, what information you were given and what research you did that supports your decision that forming a Department of Public Utilities would be a more efficient method of operation for the Town? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We've been working on it for year. MS. PULVER-Well, I'd like to know what SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think this MS. PULVER-Information you have. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I think this is a public hearing about this law and I don't think it's an inquisition of anyone of us in particular. MS. PUL VER- This is not that Mike. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Look, you guys are political opponents, I understand that and you can have that all you want to but not here. MS. PULVER-Listen, that is SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think this is a forum that we're talking about this particular law, we're inviting your input, we'd like your input and please put it on the table. MS. PULVER-How can Mr. Tucker vote on this law if he doesn't have the answers to the questions? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Carol, do you, I thought Ron had some good questions which I wrote down. Do you have any? MS. PULVER-Yea, well, if you'll let me finish through, yes I do. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'd like to hear them. MS. PULVER-Well, alright, I'd like to, first of all, I'd like to know why he has this opinion that it is going to be good. You've just shown us a chart. Does he have that chart? I haven't seen that second chart. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That chart has been around for quite a period of time. We've discussed it MS. PULVER -Well, all I have is the last one then. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'll gladly give you a copy. MS. PULVER-Okay, great. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Carol, we've had this discussion on this Board for better than a year. The details of it have not all been worked out and I'm not going to tell you today that we know or that I'm prepared even at budget time to fill in all the gaps. I look at an organization as something that develops. You start as we did in the Building Codes and Zoning Department and let me tell you when we started, we sure screwed up and we had to change what we were doing. But when it's all said and done, I think we gained a great deal and I think the same thing will happen here. We'll make some errors and we'll correct them and it's a process that I see that's going to go on for a long period of time. MS. PULVER-But Mike, I don't think it's necessary to make the errors if you get all, you know, all your ducks in a row before the law is proposed. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It would be nice in the world never to make an error but unfortunately most of us have at one time or another and we probably will continue. MS. PULVER-Well, I still, I feel that the questions that I have are very valid questions. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Go right ahead, ask them. MS. PULVER-Okay, the terms economy and government, greater efficiency and realized savings has been used quite a bit lately by some Board members to describe the benefits of this plan. I'd like to know where the savings will be? Now SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And like we said, we'll show you that at budget time, if they're going to be, if they're not going to be, there's not much point in doing this. MS. PULVER-But Mike, you've come right out and said there's going to be a four hundred thousand dollar savings and now you're telling me that there might not be a savings. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think I represented that there would be a four hundred thousand dollar savings with this. I think that there's a potential for that and there's a potential for more then that. MS. PULVER-Well, if we're going to play words games, potential for that or more then that, I haven't seen anything. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's correct, you'll see it with the budget. If it's there, you'll see it with the budget. If it's not there, we'll say it's not there. MS. PULVER-Alright, when can we expect to see the job descriptions and salaries to the current jobs, the jobs you're proposing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That will have to be with the budget, too. MS. PULVER-So, why are we here tonight? We don't have any SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're taking input on this particular piece oflegislation. MS. PULVER-How can we give you input if we don't have the facts? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, you've just given us one point which I thought was good. You know, where are the job descriptions and salaries and that is something that I like because that's what I'm going to be looking for, okay. I think you feel frustrated because you're not getting alot of answers. Could I just MS. PULVER-No, I don't feel frustrated by it COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You don't? MS. PUL VER-I just think we've put the cart before the horse here. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay. I'd like to say that you know, one area that I think that maybe we can save money is not buying duplicate equipment for several different departments. MS. PULVER-What do we own now that's duplicate? I mean other than COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well there's a long computerized MS. PUL VER-A couple oflawn mowers and COUNCILMAN GOETZ-No, I think it's a, there's the potential of more than that. There is a computerized list of equipment that I've seen. MS. PULVER-And we're going to see that too, when we see COUNCILMAN GOETZ-That's possible, yes. MS. PULVER-Okay, we're going to see the whole thing? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-That will be good to, I'll write that down. MS. PULVER-Yea, write that down. How many employees do you expect to layoff as a result of this consolidation? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, that will also be identified and those are decisions the Board is going to have to make. MS. PULVER-Okay, I have a question here that's somewhat related but not totally and that's as a resident of the Queensbury Water District, I'm interested in knowing when the new addition to the Water Department will be occupied? I mean it appears that this administration keeps talking publicly about saving but privately continues to waste. We've had this, this addition has been completed for almost a year. It was built with Water Department money and has been maintained, yet, we're not using it. I think that's wasteful and I would just, I'd like an answer. When are we going to occupy this building? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're talking about public utilities law and that's what the hearing is about and I gladly entertain any discussion on it that you want to give us. MS. PULVER-Alright, where do you plan this new, the new departments? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're not sure of that yet. MS. PULVER-And do you plan on keeping this public hearing open? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's up to the Board. MS. PULVER-Well, I would be in favor of keeping the public hearing open until we have all the information and then maybe having another night to come back and have some dialogue over this. And I understand, I remember Mrs. Goetz had asked that the employees get involved and there would be some input and so forth, Ijust, I would like to know from Mr. Tucker how many times he's met with the Water Department? He's Chairman of the Water Department, how many times he's met with them to get any input on how they feel about the consolidation? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I didn't have to, Nick had a meeting with them. MS. PULVER-But aren't you the chairman? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Nick had a meeting with them, he's on the committee. MS. PULVER-Aren't you the chairman, though? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What? MS. PULVER-Aren't you the chairman? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, but I didn't know anything about the committee or the meeting, dear, they didn't invite me. MS. PULVER-What about Beautification or Highway, Lighting, Planning and Zoning, have you met with them? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-On what? MS. PULVER-On this consolidation. You are the chairman of these committees. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I'm chairman of all those committees? MS. PULVER-Yes. Gee, would you like to see the list? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Hey, guys, we're here talking about a Department of Public Utilities, if you want to talk about COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, we're here playing politics, that's what we're doing. MS. PULVER-No, we're not, here it is. Mrs. Goetz said she wanted input from the employees. Here's your list, 1993, I got it from the Town Clerk's Office. You told me I could go and get it, I got it. It says Mr. Tucker is Chairman of Beautification, Elections, Highway, Lighting, Planning, Zoning and Water. Ijust think that if we're going to have input from everyone, then the chairman at least of these committees should be holding some meetings and asking the town employees how they feel about it. That's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak to us? Come on right up. MS. MICHELLE CHAMPAGNE-Would it be alright if! approached the board just so that I can read these COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifyou take a mic with you. MS. CHAMPAGNE-Okay, I'll turn around, I can project. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay, tell us your name too. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Please use the mic or we'll never pick it up on the machine. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's a formal public hearing so MS. CHAMP AGNE- That's fine. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And a name please. MS. CHAMPAGNE-My name is Michelle Champagne and from what I have seen recently, in bringing together Mr. Brandt's idea for the public utilities, he's taken the separate divisions here, combining it within one division here. Correct? You have your Coordinator of General Administration, combining all of these divisions. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That one's just a coordinator. In other words, that's a communicator to those divisions, to those departments. MS. CHAMPAGNE-Okay. So, basically what you're doing as your taking, here you are, here's your Town Board, you're taking your lateral divisions of all of your boards and all of your departments and you're bringing them in under one group. Therefore you're taking away the employee's decision making process. You're taking away the empowered employees that is currently a form of management style that I've seen in one of the, most of the larger companies. The total quality moving is something that I've studied and something that I've worked in when I did not live in Queensbury. And now as I see it, you're trying to take this away from these employees, alright and you're going to lose your upward, downward communication that you have. I guess my, I don't understand why you're not using the theory of quality improvement in the Town, instead you're totally going opposite and taking that away from these employees. Can you answer that question for me? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think empowerment of employees is a matter of, an attitude in management, it's a matter of philosophy of management. I don't think it has anything to do with the structure of the management. MS. CHAMP AGNE- Well, I think that it does because it's going to disrupt your employees first of all and second of all, without communication that you need among your employees and your Town Board, how are you going to have a cohesive working environment? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that's, one of the things were doing is structuring a system of communications that can work. Right now, when you put, however many departments there are through one person, you've structured a system that can't work. I think that once you structure a system of communications that can work if you watch or look at what's happened in the Department of Planning, Zoning and Code Enforcement, it works extremely well. MS. CHAMPAGNE-With the one general manager? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Reorganized the way we did it, it seems to be working extremely well. I think there's far better communications. I think that employee involvement is better, I think, you know there is MS. CHAMPAGNE-It just appears that you're taking alot of the decision making process away from the current employees. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think that will happen at all. MS. CHAMPAGNE-You don't? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think you'll find just the opposite. MS. CHAMP AGNE-I don't see where that could happen but thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -You're welcome. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Hi Michelle. MS. CHAMPAGNE-Hi, Mrs. Goetz. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Are you living in Queensbury now? MS. CHAMP AGNE- Yea, my permanent residence is at my parents home. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anyone else who would like to speak on this? MS. HILDAGARDE MANN-I spent alot of years on the other side of this microphone facing out, now I can get stabbed in the back by the people I said no to. Hildagarde Mann, 13 Oakwood Drive, Queensbury. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Hi Hilde. MS. MANN-I read your proposed legislation with some horror, to put it mildly. First of all and I missed the earliest part of what Ron Montesi was saying, I didn't hear what you said as far as documented evidence that the departments are not functioning properly today and fiscally responsibly. Has there been any studies other than the Water Department that was done and found to be in great shape although understaffed? Is there any documentation what so ever, that this, departments as they're functioning today, are not functioning economically feasibly? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think there's alot of evidence in my estimation. Has there been a study done by outsider's? I don't know of one, no, I don't believe so. MS. MANN-Okay, well, I have a feeling that you're view point is a little jaded at the moment, Michael. So, with all due respect, what I see you're doing here is consolidating power in the hands of an individual who is not answering to anybody but the Supervisor and or slash Town Board, but obviously could very well be the Supervisor, whose going to reappoint him two years down the road. And if you're looking for honest answers or policy decisions that would be anything but contrary or in sync with that Supervisor, it isn't going to happen. And the first grade appointment that I was here that you made, was a guy by the name of Parisi, who was going to be the Planning and Zoning Czar, whose credentials were, his father owned ajewelry store in Brooklyn and he was being fired by Washington County. Fortunately, for everybody, he didn't last very long. But this is a consolidation of power and I think a lame duck effort to intimate department heads who have worked for years for this Town, for years and dedicated employees that this Town, this community should be very proud of. And before you pass anything, that leaves a person in charge, especially somebody I assume is going to be making seventy thousand, who then needs a Supervisor earning sixty. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. But before you consolidate power in the hands of an individual, an individual who can come into this Town yesterday and you know, run people's lives that have been here for years to be reappointed every two years, I suggest you think very seriously about what you're proposing here. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MR. PETER FIRTH-My name is Peter Firth, I live on Sheraton Lane, South Queensbury. I noted that you were proposing to run this Public Utilities, proposed Public Utilities Department by committee. Which reminds me of the definition of a kennel, which is a horse designed by a committee. The, I have particular concerns with respect to the proposed law itself. I note you have a provision for a Department of Construction and Maintenance. The only construction that I'm currently aware of that the Town is undertaken is the addition to the sewer, or not the sewer but the Water Department. Without any other plans, I find it very difficult to determine the need for a division of this particular topic. We have a division regarding engineering and without significant construction, I find it very hard to justify why you need a division for engineering and I presume a full time engineer. You have a division for Fleet equipment and Maintenance which excludes the Highway Department which has the greatest number of equipment that requires maintenance in the entire Town. You have divisions for Sewer, Water and Solid Waste which provides for management and supervision of construction, operation and repair and if those division heads are going to be concerned with construction, operation and repair, I am wondering why then again, we have to have a construction and maintenance division. There seems to be alot of duplication within the proposed statue for exactly the same construction maintenance and repair. I have the same concerns that Ron Montesi voiced with respect to keeping track of what equipment is being used in special tax districts and what equipment isn't, you're going to need another division to deal with the accounting that's going to be required with respect to that. I think that what is apparent here, is that the proposed legislation is really trying to create a Department of Public Works without the Highway Department. It's my recollection that this was attempting years ago and was voted down and I suggest that if that is the intent of this legislation, that it be put to a public referendum. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Come on right up. MR. FRED CHAMPAGNE-My name is Fred Champagne, I live at Lake Sunnyside. Again, I believe that we continue to have a problem here not in so much in reporting but in terms of the Supervisor along with the Town Board in general meeting with the department heads that are now in place. It's my understanding that over the past two years, during the current administration that there has been and correct me if I'm wrong on this, anyone of you but to the maximum, we've had two possibly three department head meetings over a year and a half. That tells me that there's not an awful lot of communication that's going on today within the different departments and certainly within Town government. Now, if we were to look at the original organizational chart and you're talking Mike about having eight, seven or eight people reporting directly to an individual, it's my understanding that during the roaring, eighties, yes, there was the pyramid effect. Yes, you did have two, three, four people reporting to the Supervisor or to his superior. Mike, I got to tell you those days are gone. In today's Deming Theory, whether you look at Japan or whether you look at any country that's doing business today in competition with our country, what we're finding is the Deming Theory talks about top down support from bottom up management. And I'm here to tell you this evening that, that is precisely what you have here that exists. The thing we need to do is to meet with these people, to bring them on board, to start a communication link, to dialogue with the folks that are out there, that are already existing in today's economy that would support this kind of fiscal effort. I can't believe and I could be wrong, but I just can't believe that by adding this person, excuse me, this individual over here as Director of Public Utilities, now you just tell me that this guy over here is going to be a Coordinator of Business Management and Coordinator of General Services, to me they're in the same line which indicates to me that the salaries will be the same. Now, therein lies my problem. That again, if we were to stop, take a moment, think back through the past year and a half, perhaps we'll see some problems internally, rather then having to go externally in order to accommodate what needs to be accommodated. Secondly, I hear you say that you have identified as best we know anyway that there would be a savings in the town budget. You've also indicated to us, that there are too many subordinates reporting to you directly. Now, Mike, those are two that I hear you very clearly. Are there any other problems out there that we can identify that would lead us to believe that maybe this could work, in addition to those two? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I'm not sure what you're asking. You know, you're MR. CHAMPAGNE-I guess what I'm trying to do is, in order to identify the problem, if there is a problem, then we ought to be able to clarify and specify what the problems are. And now I hear two, I hear one fiscal and I guess I hear a second that identifies too many people reporting to the one individual. I guess what I'm asking are, in your studies or your reason for moving in this direction, what are the other problems that are there, if there are any? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If fiscal is a problem, that's enough ofa problem to make it move. As far as I'm concerned, if we can solve a fiscal problem, that's what we're here for. We don't have to look for too many more, that's enough for me. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Let me ask you this, also. We're talking about bringing in an engineer, has it been determined at this point whether this person would be a PE, a Civil Engineer, an Architectural type Engineer, Electrical Engineer? What type of individual were you looking for to accommodate this role? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Whether you establish or don't establish an Engineering Department, is totally up to the Board and when and if they establish one, is up to the Board. The qualifications that I proposed for the head here, would be to look for someone that might have a Professional Engineering Stamp, probably with Civil Engineering background but a PE is a PE. And, but that's not necessarily what you'd hire, you have to look at what's out there. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Could be a Social Scientist? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Pardon me? MR. CHAMPAGNE-It could be a Social Scientist? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, if it had enough experience and knew what they're were doing and that was what the Board thought made sense, that's what the Board could hire. But I think what we're looking for is a Professional Engineer, somebody with management experience in this field. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okay, that's all I have, thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. There's a lady in the back. MS. BONNIE GLENDENING-I'm Bonnie Glendening, I live on Ridge Road in Queensbury. Looking over this proposal, some of the things I will address will be redundant but it seems that you are looking for Superman for the Town of Queensbury. To find someone first of all with your minimum qualifications, in this day in age a bachelors degree is not going to get you very far. If you're looking for a Licensed Professional Engineer, that basically looks like a department type of thing to me. An administrative type of thing is something altogether different. You're still going to have to have department heads for every department and deal in that subsequent way because there's no one who can be every where all of the time in order to take care of all of the issues. What if there were some type of crisis in this community? Everyone would have, someone has to be accountable in every department, you can not put that burden on one person. That is not the way realism works. Even in the small business we have, you have to have people who are accountable for specific departments. And where is the salary for this person going to come because each department still needs their administration heads? What if this person has an illness, how are they going to be able to do anything? And it sounds like, just what Fred had said, was that, there are ways and there is a structure within this Town of being accountable by the departments. I don't feel that it is being used at this time. Where are these dollars going to come from? You made reference to a point of where you felt that this would be taking a burden off of you so that you could attend meetings. If this person, is that what you had said? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think I said that. MS. GLENDENING-I took notes a little bit ago and you said that it would be something so that you would not have to, you and the Board would not have to be dealing with some of the SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I said I didn't think MS. GLENDENING-Accountability for these departments. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I think that it's hard to have meaningful communications in management with a real large group of people and this is to break it up into smaller groups. MS. GLENDENING-So that it would be a one on one dialogue with the Supervisor at that point? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. MS. GLENDENING-How smaller are you going to get with this? You are looking to get this administrative person whose going to answer all of the other people. Yes, I've seen this. Alright, how does that change the structure other than divorcing you from that issue? I mean, that makes a person that is under you accountable to all of those departments, is that correct, in dividing it out differently? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -First of all, the departments are responsible to the Town Board, that's the way the law is today. MS. GLENDENING-Exactly. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay and that would still remain but the administration would go through a layer of organization of a management team. MS. GLENDENING-Isn't an interpretation by the department going to be lost by a second party? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It would be a sad mistake if that happened. That's what, you know, good administration brings out the departments and gets them talking and gets the information through. MS. GLENDENING-But you lose the dialogue if it isn't dealt with appropriately by the powers that be. The interpretation would be considerably different if it were gone through an extra individual as opposed to being involved with the committee people of the Town Board. I mean, is that not true that an interpretation then becomes a personal entity, with the person? I think that all of the departments would lose something very important and elected officials would become very different if we had another individual who was going to be the one that was accountable to all of the needs for the employees of this town. I mean, how can you take that away? We have, we in electing all of you are entrusting something very important to you and that is to deal with the people that we are essentially paying. And now you want to delete that over to someone else. Is this on a time constraint? Do you feel that, what would that person be bringing to the Town Board? Are you taking away the department's individual rights to speak to you or to be communicative with you? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know, I'm not sure how this is germane. If you're, you've made a point that you think that the department heads could potentially lose effectiveness by going through another person. I understand that point but I don't know beyond that what you're really, you know, what you're trying to get at. MS. GLENDENING-I'm trying to find out at that point, then if we are empowering you to provide us with that one person who is going to be the one that answers to the Board and from the departments, what we are losing and what the Board is going to be responsible for other than listening to this one person's opinion. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'm sorry, I do not know how to answer your question. I don't understand your question, I don't, I really don't MS. GLENDENING-Okay, as the Supervisor, when you are the chairman, when they attend their meetings, if they know they're on the committees, etcetera, they are bringing the issues back to you. Now, that is going to be taken away and put on this one particular individual whose going to now be the administrator and you are no longer going to be in any communication with any of the department heads as such. Or do you feel that the need for the department heads is going to be diminished because this person who is going to be involved is going to be doing it all? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Bonnie, I'm sorry, I, I COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, could I say something? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Go right ahead, by all means. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay, I'm really interested in what you're saying. You know, I've tried to think about it because when I thought about this whole public utility proposal, I saw it as a way of the citizens, or the employees working together better, the departments. I, I, honest to God, I've really seen this and I'm not sure, I'm going to be really blunt because I think that's what we're here for and not just to go on with alot of rhetoric. When I first got elected, I found out that the departments in some cases, not across the board, created little kingdoms and they didn't all work together for the benefit of the citizen. And if this proposal were to go through, what I would want to see is the citizens benefit by coming in and not having departments fighting each other, for turf almost. And I don't, that isn't MS. GLENDENING-But as an elected person, aren't you the ones that are supposed to make those determinations as opposed to appointing another person to take care of those issues? I mean, that is going to happen regardless of what occurs. There are clicky entities in all aspects of things. However, the thing I'm saying is, the departments that have done well and the accountability for them should be dealing directly with the Town Board because that's what we are electing you all for, is to prevent these types of things. And putting another individual in there that is now going to be a go between, alot of the individual entity is lost and you're still going to need the department heads of every one of the departments because they are so diverse. So, you're just adding another complete job as far as it looks. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-As I understand it, that possibly they're going to be some management jobs changed and this, we might have one addition, could I just finish? Like, we both like to talk, right. You know that, we may end with fewer people, this management person that we're talking about, may combine jobs that exist now but in a different way. MS. GLENDENING-But COUNCILMAN GOETZ-And to answer your question about, yea, I do think the Town Board is ultimately accountable for the whole thing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But you're getting one layer more away. MS. GLENDENING-You're getting one layer more away COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, this is what I want to think about. MS. GLENDENING-And the criteria for, in the minimum qualifications, lists nothing regrading management, personnel or any of the attributes that are really involved in any coordinating type of thing. I mean I know alot of engineers and respect them greatly but managerial is not there forte. I mean, there is something of where, decide exactly what you are going to be looking for if there is the need for this person but you can not get an engineer with a minimum four year requirement and expect them to be able to do any management or any negotiating back and forth and that these things are not the top priority is what you're criteria are. And you're also losing the ability of the department head to be able to deal with this. You say, that, you know, managing in the different fields, that is one thing but that has to be accountable and you can't cross reference these things because in order to manage people, you have to be involved with them and you have to know what they're dealing with and I think that you're adding something that is very difficult unless you're turning around and going to make the Supervisor a figure head, then cut his salary and that will pay for part of it. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-That might happen. MS. GLENDENING-But it COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Down the road. MS. GLENDENING-But that's not fair because we are electing the people to deal with the individuals and it just seems like it's adding something that we really do not need and do not have the proper criteria for it but it's something of where, you have to be able to go through and deal on these bases because of the fact that they are so diverse. And I feel that alot of it, you know, there's always some good thoughts in something but I do feel contrary to what you said Mr. Brandt, I think we have to strive to be correct and let's not make errors in it and I think that this is something that would be a very great error because this community does function exceedingly well in many departments. Yes, some need alot of changes, but many of them do function very well and I think that should be looked at. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'm not done yet, okay. MS. GLENDENING-Hit is Sue. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Go, Bonnie. One reason I'm really interested in this is because I've seen how well Jim Martin has worked out and I think that, you know, you're comment that you just made, that maybe there are some good ideas in this whole proposal, is good because I do think we have to be creative and look alot of different ways of doing things. MS. GLENDENING-Jim is good, I've known Jim for years in many respects except for the simple fact he is good at the job that he is doing. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right. MS. GLENDENING-You can not add a conglomerate of twenty other things and no one can do that and that's exactly why that SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Bonnie you're MS. GLENDENING-It would be a travesty to do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You're saying exactly what we're saying. You put twenty things under one person and no one can do that. What you're really hiring a Town Board to do is manage your government and the way it organizes that management is up to it to be effective. And that's what it should be judged on, how effective is it. In the end, when the dog warden came and respond and talked to me about his daily duties, really I didn't have very much good input to tell the dog warden what to do. Today, the guards, the crossing guards, literally work for the Supervisor. I don't think that's a good management structure. I don't, I sign their time sheets every week and have for a year and a half, and I have no idea that they were there on the job or weren't there on the job and I don't think properly MS. GLENDENING-Then why are you doing that? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Because that's the way the law is, they won't get paid if I don't and until we can MS. GLENDENING-But you have to know what you're signing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, wait a minute, now, you know, until we can reorganize it, that was the truth with the dog warden. Today, that section is reorganized, it's working extremely well and I think that's what we're talking about. How we reorganize the administration of the government and MS. GLENDENING-Exactly, I agree with you except I think that, and the burdens that any Supervisor has are extreme, however, I think that divvying this out between you all is the way it has to go in order for that to be run properly because you are the ones that are accountable to the community but through a vote, not somebody else that is hired underneath. And if you don't know what the crossing guards are doing it, turn it over to Sue or turn it over to Betty and let them do it and restructure it from that point of view. Or say, this is the thing that is wrong but don't try to hire someone, how can you hire someone in a two year period to know and do all of the things that you're trying to do plus take the job of the departments, what they have learned and done for years and expect that person to totally be able to function. That's a physical impossibility, that's why I came in and said you would need somebody in tights and a cape and it just is something of where, maybe the restructuring point has got to come from the top without trying to spend any money and create a position that is going to take and hold back the people that have done a good job for many years, you're always going to have certain things and in certain departments, that's a given. You have certain things with your kids, that's a given. But the thing is, that what the issues are, go from there, don't create, don't try to create a position for somebody to do what you can't do because they can't do it any better than you could, if it's that overwhelming. And it's got to be divided out into the right structures and maybe, as Supervisor at this point in time, talk to your Board members and make the accountable for the committees they're supposed to be on. That should be your number one priority right now, is to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think the Town Board should be setting policies, not running departments. I don't think Town Board members should be running departments. I think the Board, it sets policy and that's what it's proper function. MS. GLENDENING-That is true but one person can't do it. You just said the key word, it is departments. It is different types of things and then if you are doing things, get them into someone else's department and let them do it and be the ones, go to your committee meetings and let these people who are in charge and know what they're doing, be accountable to you because ultimately, you're the one's, that, there's where the buck stops and this is where the people are able to turn around and let the vote be, let their voice be known through a vote. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay. Whose next? MR. DICK PALMER-My name is Dick Palmer, I live in Queensbury. My God, is there tension in this room? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Not particularly. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I've been in worse situations. MR. PALMER-Everybody seems to be assuming so much, you know. We got a great town here and I'm really proud to live in this town. And I'd also like to work to try to help the town and do what ever it can do, keep our water good. Anybody know we've got good water? We've got real good water and we've got real good, we've got real good people in the highway and we have real good people in the highway because they plow our roads and they're clean. Now, how do we do the same job and save and get rid of these bumper stickers that says, Queensbury Tax Town. I think with looking at this, I know someone mentioned before that, I guess maybe it was Ron, that we have a problem of getting the departments, such as the Water Department to go over and do jobs in other places. Such as, I guess last year in 92 the Water Department worked on Hovey Pond, South Queensbury Recreation, Luzerne Road Transfer, Ridge Landfill and other job like this. How do we get those monies applied to the right areas? When this lady was up ahead of me, she's mentioned that we need people that are experts in their field and I believe that our highway people should be an expert on running on the highways, and our water people should be experts at making good clean water. I'm thinking, we've accomplished that. But also, how can, as she said, how can they do twenty jobs? An administration is one of those. I guess that of being business is, as I've been in business, I was a real good mechanic, a very good mechanic, I did real good at heating but I also found out that I perhaps needed to learn alot about administration. Just because I was a good mechanic, did not make me necessarily a good administrator. And I think that with, what I see on this proposal, if everybody would work together, if we get the highway, the water, the recreation, building and maintenance and everybody working together to share the assets that they do have and those assets are people as well machinery and equipment, I don't think why we have to assume that because we look at something like this, that there are going to be firings or just getting rid of people as I've heard have done a good job. I don't think that, I haven't read that intention in here and I most certainly think that this Board is obligated to look at every possibility to save the town money and still give out the services that we very, we very are proud to have here in this community. And I hope that everybody looks at this, not politically but is it good for the town and that's got to be the final answer. And I think that you people are all, have proven yourselves that you will give the final answer that's going to be good for the town. Thank you for listening to me. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Whose next? MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, I live in North Queensbury. I would assume that the object of the exercise here is a savings, a savings of time, time for people and time for equipment. Is that true, Mike? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think that's, that's reasonable, yea. MR. SAL V ADOR- Well, can't, that can only, be the only motivating force behind this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Time and money, yea. MR. SALVADOR-Is savings, we're going to save time of people and equipment and they equate to dollars and I just don't see how anyone can argue with an approach that is going to result in a savings of dollars. That will all be demonstrated when you put out these two budgets? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That, yea, we will put a plan together that I will bring forth then the Town Board can look at and alter any way they want to, eventually adopt, there will be public hearings on that and they'll adopt a plan with the budget and a structure, either the structure they have or a structure that they change and then we'll move forward next year in implementing it. That budget process starts for next year. MR. SALVADOR-So, we will know some delta number, the difference between what we're doing now and what we propose to do in the future and we'll be able to evaluate, do we want this for the difference in cost. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's right. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. One thing that concerns me and what I'm hearing here tonight is, the difficulty everyone thinks we're going to have with keeping track of where the costs are. That should not be difficult in this day in age. If we're going to realize savings because we can use a piece of equipment in three different departments, that's simply a question of charging time and computers can handle that without even noticing it. That goes for people as well. I live in North Queensbury and I don't get a drop of water from this town. I wouldn't expect to pay for a drop of water. Either if the Town Attorney is working on something for the water district, he should charge is time accordingly. Any department head planning, anybody doing something on behalf of the, some other department that is a special dedicated district, the time should be charged accordingly. We have here tonight three gentleman from our local volunteer fire company. We operate this town as a single taxing district, fire district and yet you make a contract with five different companies. It's a well known fact that North Queensbury carries a greater share of that load. If everyone is concerned about cost, why don't we do, why don't we divide up the taxes and the users pay according to what they get and start with the fire district? Thank you. MR. P AUL NAYLOR, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT -Hi Mikey. Can you hear me back there? UNKNOWN-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-Good. Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, Town of Queensbury for the past twelve years. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Is that for hell raiser? MR. NAYLOR-Yes, the elected position. I have to keep remembering that from time to time, it kind of tries to slip away. Now, I notice in your little pamphlet that, that says I've got to deal with whoever you guys pick. I'm not going to deal with the Town Board anymore, I'm supposed to deal with this assistant and we're going to put all the equipment where he wants to? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, absolutely not, Paul, that's not MR. NAYLOR-Good, that's what I was sure, Mike, I just wanted to hear you on the record say that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, that's MR. NAYLOR-For the record, you know, I got elected for the highways, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-A resource that you, you can work together with, if you chose to MR. NAYLOR-If I don't chose to, I don't have to, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's your, that's your business. MR. NAYLOR-My number one, my number one goal is the safety of the highways, right and that's what I live for day to day and that's what I got elected for, last time I knew, to take care of those highways and we don't get too many complaints on that. So, I'd like to stay that way. You guys would like to keep it. Your committees, I haven't seen anybody in quite a while, you're welcome anytime, you know, just call. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And like wise, you're welcome to come and see us anytime, Paul. MR. NAYLOR-I'm glad I am. I love your secretary and it's nice to talk to her anyway. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Glad to see you at a Board meeting. MR. NA YLOR- Yes, well, I like, I try to keep my nose out of your business as much as I can and that's the way I like the world to turn. But, we'll take care of the highways. If you want to send us a list of what you plan on doing. I want to be there when you can straighten water out and supposedly there's a problem there but I don't see no problem, I've been working with Tom now for a long time, the guys up at the landfill and all the rest and I think even with you being here, we've been able to help you out once or twice on projects you had going. Right Suzie? Outside of that, that's all I've got to say. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? MS. PEGGY PRIME-I'm Peggy Prime, I live on at the end of Hiland Drive in Queensbury. Sitting here, I now can see that, first of all, the information that you need to fairly judge this plan is not here. This was a very premature meeting, I would say. Without dollars and cents attached to some of these things, I think you just, there's no way to make a good judgement. The other thing that really bothers me is, it seems this is all going to be done by a vote of the Town Board. Is that correct? One vote and then a public meeting and then another vote and then you'll vote on your budget and it will be done. This major restructuring of this town is going to take place with five people, three votes to two. Now, that is not right in our SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Peggy, has that been decided already? I wasn't in on that, maybe you could fill memo MS. PRIME-I would say so or we wouldn't be here tonight, but maybe not, maybe I'll be surprised. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Oh, okay. MS. PRIME-It's speculation at this point but I would say fairly on the mark. Now, it seems to me our town should not be totally taken apart and put back together again on a plan with no information where, without towns people knowing what's going on and being able to vote on it. Now, if you're going to put this up for a referendum this fall on the November ballot, then get the stuff out next month. Let us see the figures. Let us see what it would have been with the old type budget. Let us see what it is with this and what figures you're putting down for Michael Brandt for instance, whose job then would certainly be diminished. What figures you're putting down for this, as they say, superman. I think someone could come in and do a pretty good job but there isn't any point in paying two somebodies and then let the towns people vote. This is a very, very big deal and as far as I know, there was something in the paper about it and that chart I haven't seen yet up close to figure it out and these are here today and I probably could have picked them up last week. Is that right, they were available last week, this? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yup. MS. PRIME-But I think that the town's people need to see it and they need to have figures on it and they need to vote on it and if you want to do it and the vote is favorable, then you've got it. If the vote is unfavorable, then you don't. That's my suggestion. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MR. LEWIS STONE-Lewis Stone, North Queensbury. It disturbs the lack of trust that I'm hearing tonight in our Town Board. These are five duly elected people who had been given the right, given the privilege and the dirty work to vote laws, regulations and such for our town. And I hear a great distrust of this Board. People are saying it's three to two. How does anybody know it's three to two? We have five individuals who have five heads, five brains and they're going to be looking at this issue from all sides. That is the purpose of this public hearing, to let people talk about this particular law. I mean, I'm get, people are saying, we, it could go to the whole town. Maybe it should but if it doesn't, if we had a perfect plan, it would still be five people voting, that's the way our town government is set up. You don't like it, then we have to change it. But I think we have to trust our Board. We have to come here in a public hearing and talk to everybody. Make sense about the law, don't talk the politics that I've been hearing. I mean, there's obviously, it seems to me and I hate to make conjecture although people have, I think if this Board were all republican because I think that's what we're talking about, there would be no question. There would be nobody here tonight if this law were proposed. They would say, Oh, it must be the right thing because it was proposed by a Republican Supervisor and supported by Republican Board members. I think what we need is people on the Board and I think we have them and I think we have other candidates in the wings who can do even better at that, is thinking knowledgeable people who look at every situation, study it, get all the facts and then make a decision. And that's what this public hearing is supposed to be doing to help the Board. Let's do it. MS. LYNN POTENZA-I just have a few questions. Sorry, I have a couple of questions I have for the, I'd like to address, have the Board address. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You've got to put your name on the record. MS. POTENZA-Oh, Lynn Potenza, 7 Moorwood Drive, Queensbury, New York. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MS. POTENZA-One of the questions I have is, has there been a map, plan and a report done on the presentation? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know, map, plan and report has to do with forming a district. I think, that's where the terminology comes from. MS. POTENZA-Well, I think it has to do with getting information so that a professional and an informative decision can be made. And I'm questioning why we have a public hearing on a suggestion that we have no information on. And I'd like to ask my, I'd like to ask Mr. Tucker who is Chairman of the Water Committee as what his input is, as far as the consolidation of services? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What my input is? MS. POTENZA-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We're going to be debating it. We've been looking at it and we're going to debate it. MS. POTENZA-Well, I think debate is wonderful but I want to know where you stand on this. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I'm for it. MS. POTENZA-Why are you for it? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Because we can save some money. MS. POTENZA-How do you COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Isn't that a strange thing, to be thinking about? MS. POTENZA-No, I think it's wonderful. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh, yea. MS. POTENZA-Everyone want's to save money, I want to save money. But I want to know how you feel you're going to save money when you don't have the information to show that you are going to save money? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I have the information. MS. POTENZA-Well, then share it with us, with the public. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We will just as soon as we put the budget together. MS. POTENZA-Well, what are we waiting for? We have a public hearing and we're sharing our feelings with you and I would expect you to share your feelings with us. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Lynn, you'll have lot's of input, everyone will have lots of input on this, you know, with all the information. This is something that's getting railroaded through tonight. So MS. POTENZA-Well, I guess I'm here to support Mrs. Prime's comments, that without information, it's very difficult both on the Board's part and the populace part to make an educated statement. When the Board comes to the electorate and says, we want to save money, that's like saying, we're for apple pie and motherhood. Everybody want's to save money. But I think it's unfair of you to come at this time of the year with this proposal with no information to support it. And I'm offended as SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Don't be offended. MS. POTENZA-I am, as a resident of the Town of Queensbury because I think it boils right down to another personal conflict, Mike and I, and it's my money now, it's my tax dollar that you're talking about. And I've been where you are in that capacity and I know how hard it is. But I really feel that this Board is doing the town a disservice by proposing this at this time of the year. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's budget time. It was proposed last year, the Board didn't want to deal with it at that time and I brought it back up because it's budget time. I apologize MS. POTENZA-Michael, it was proposed in 1977 and it didn't work. The electorate didn't want it. It's 1993 now. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That was a different proposal and I think that clearly this is structured differently. And you know, so MS. POTENZA-Okay, well, I hope so. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And I apologize because I was told that I had to get my budget out by the 20th by my own staff and I found out that, that was not correct and I've taken an extra ten days to do it. And you'll get your input, everybody will get their input on both the budget and on this. MS. POTENZA-But how can we get any input when we have no information? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You will have information on the 30th or before the 30th. MS. POTENZA-Well, then I guess the timing for this hearing is wrong. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's right and like I said, I was told before we set this hearing that my deadline was the 20th. When I found out it was the 30th, we left the public hearing go. We can keep it open, we're not in a hurry to shut you down. I think we let people speak. MS. POTENZA-No, I know, I know, at least I have enough respect for this Board to know that there's no way you're going, you will want to close a public hearing and I know that you've worked with all the input you could possibly get for the citizens of this town. I just feel there's pressure put on everybody now because of the election. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, it's budget time and that puts pressure on everybody, you know that. MS. POTENZA-Well, I'll tell you Mike, we were, I was with in the same capacity a few years ago and someone came, many people came before this Board asking the Board that sat at the time not to make a decision on the Water Department. And we made the decision because we thought it was for the best of the town. The decision was made, the project went forward, the building is developed, the building is there, we're paying maintenance and cost on that building and no one is sitting in that building. That building has laid empty for at least a year. Now, tell me about where my tax dollars are going? Tell me, why I have to pay money to maintain and heat a building while the other half of that building we have employees over there that are sitting elbow to elbow? I don't understand it. As the Chairman of the Water Department I would think Mr. Tucker would stand up and make some sort of a comment SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Lynn MS. POTENZA-As to why that is going on. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Lynn, I'll make a comment. MS. POTENZA-I, but Michael, I didn't ask you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I can tell you though. MS. POTENZA-Well, sure you can. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You're the Board that voted to build that building. We're the Board that asked you not to. MS. POTENZA-That's right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright. So, we're heating it because you built it. That's the answer. MS. POTENZA-Michael SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright, now MS. POTENZA-We didn't build, we didn't build the building to build a building. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, that's correct. MS. POTENZA-There was certainly, there was all types of reports on SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And there's a different philosophy. MS. POTENZA-Why we needed an expansion. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, there's a different philosophy then what you had and I think we have a right and an obligation to carry forth our policies as we see them and that's what we're doing. MS. POTENZA-Correct, correct. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And we'll be judged come Election Day on how we did it. MS. POTENZA-You're right. Okay, well, I'm glad to know that the open meeting or open policy will still be maintained and we'll get information to judge this next proposal. Thanks SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'll certainly invite your input, love it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lynn, just in aside to you that has nothing to do with the public hearing but obviously Mr. Stone did not appear, did not attend any of the Town Board meetings when we had five Republican Members on this Board because there was a great difference of opinion as he would well know had he attended those. And I don't think we've had five to zero votes very many times, right? MS. POTENZA-I agree with you Betty. MR. BOB FULLER-My name is Bob Fuller and I live in Queensbury. And if there's the discussion Mike about whether or not this should go to a referendum or the people of Queensbury should vote on whether or not they want a Department of Public Utilities, it may be wise for you to say that this is what you're going to provide our community if you're elected and the people will decide at that time, whether or not to elect you. And if they elect you, then you come with a clear mandate for a Department of Public Utilities. But I see this as more than, more than an emotionally charged political issue. I see this almost as a glimpse into what the future of Queensbury may be. I see it as an important, and we talk management, I see it as an important management technique where you have here in front of us a Board of Directors, if you will with management reporting to you. But it does bring with it some continuity in government. And Betty, you, two weeks ago on September 6th, I think that you said, that you had conflict and Nick, you said that it might be a good idea if this was voted on by the next Town Board but in fact you all come together with COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I didn't say that. What I said was, I objected to having a public hearing because that is a legal mechanism. Once you have a public hearing on a local law, the Town Board can vote that in immediately. What I wanted was a dialogue with the public MR. FULLER-You got it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-A public information meeting that had no legal standing. A public information meeting where we could get the feedback from the public, we would hopefully have more information from them, for them, excuse me and we would have this information flowing back and forth. That was my whole point. I did not want to set that legal step in place where this can now be voted on at any time until we had more information. MR. FULLER-Well, thank you for that. I think that COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just one second MR. FULLER-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just to correct the record here a little bit more too, Bob. My comment was, I asked for the public hearing to be held on November 8th because I wanted to take it out of the realm of the politics that we've had here tonight. I didn't ask for the next Board to do it, I, as Mike knows, I'd be glad to make that decision here. I wanted to try and get it away from the political arena. But that's not to be. MR. FULLER-Well, you know regardless, I think, I'm not, you know, I'm not questioning the intents of anyone. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just get the record straight. MR. FULLER-I think we're all basically, you know, we come here good people but something is, something is gone a little bit array here and it's been reduced to a personal kind of thing and it appears to me, sitting in the back that people are more concerned about jobs then they are about what's going to happen the future. And Dick Palmer said that we enjoy alot of wonderful benefits in this town and that's true and most of these benefits come, can be directly related back to the people who work for the town. And that's the Town Board, the Supervisor, that's the people in the Highway Department, the Water Department and Grounds and every place else. But the fact of the matter is that there are ways of streamlining government. There are ways of making it better. When they talked about building the railroad across this country, they had a whole bunch of Indians that we're upset about that and they wanted to stop or stand in the way of progress. It didn't happen but the fact of the matter is, as you people go through this process, the town benefits, regardless, I believe that the town benefits from this. Thank you very much for listening. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HANS HOENCK-My name is Hans Hoenck, I'm living here in Queensbury and I got a little bit exercised when the new addition to the Water Plant was mentioned here, why it isn't occupied. This is actually the issue that got me more deeply involved in the Queensbury Township affairs and through some questions and discussions with members of the Board that I had, I found out that this building was passed as a last resolution before the new Board took office. I then subsequently did go to the Water Department and I did see the new addition. I also took a look at the use of the existing building, familiarized myself as a man in the management of this other plant and I was aghast that the Township of Queensbury could spend eight hundred seventy thousand dollars on a building that I don't feel was needed in the first place. That is fiscal irresponsibility, particularly in a time when we have to look for more efficient use of taxpayer's money. And if you don't believe that here in Queensbury there are people that are concerned about their tax burden, just go back a little while in time when we listened to all these complaints through the assessment that was revised. The other part that got me highly exercised was the presentation of an engineering study proposing an expansion of our water potential and we were talking about an expansion ranging from fifteen to twenty-two million dollars. And through public participation, dialogue and you name it, I guess it finally has come down to the point where the necessary expansion will be coming in at eight point five million dollars with an estimate that this will be at least good for the next fifteen years here in the Queensbury Township. And I think that this is a very good example of public dialogue, how we can make government more efficient through public hearings like tonight. I can understand that, you know, that you should take your time developing the budgets. I went through this many, many a time and believe me, there's one lesson I learned that if you do not bear down on budgets, they will run away from you. So, I expect the Board to take a very close look at the budget and see and this is only human character, that everybody wants to have a little bit more in their own little area but it all adds up to more taxes and no improvement in efficiency, some times even worse efficiency then what we have had. So, I implore the Board to continue public dialogue and prepare, with facts, what we can come up with in this re- organization. Basically, a large part of this re-organization makes sense because we also, I have a feeling tonight listening from voices in the background, is this Town run by it's employees or the voting taxed public and that should not be the case. I am not for anybody to be losing their job as part of this re- organization. That can be found other ways to accomplish that, normal attrition sometimes will take care of it very easily, if that were to be done. But I strongly support the Board in it's intent to continue this dialogue and come up with the most feasible, most efficient use of our tax dollars here in Queensbury. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? First, still the first round. Go ahead. If people want to come back after everybody's had one chance. MR. GILBERT BOEHM-I have a procedural problem that I don't understand. I understand that September 30th is a deadline date for a budget. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -For the Supervisor's budget to be brought forth. MR. BOEHM-When is the Town's budget formally SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, then they take it from there. I don't remember the date but they have a period of time in which to look at it, public hearings are held, they can massage it any way they want to and then afterwards they eventually adopt whatever they see to adopt. MR. BOEHM-Alright, then I believe as a result of this, there are really two budgets that will have to be prepared. One, that you're preparing and then an alternate which would become effective if this done not pass. Is that true? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think I'm going to prepare both of them. I think, I've looked at the pretty hard and I think it's only wise to bring them both out. One with and one with out a Department of Public Utilities. MR. BOEHM-Okay, then we will really get to see all the facts. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I think so, yea. MR. BOEHM-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Gib, let me give you some dates. The Town Clerk has to get Mike's budget to the Board on October 5th. The public hearings have to start the Thursday after Election. We have to adopt it on or before November 20th. The public hearing can stay open if the Supervisor so chooses until November 15th but it must start the Thursday after Election, on the budget, public hearing on the budget. Did I answer your question? MR. BOEHM-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, is there anyone who wants to speak who hasn't spoken? John you asked MR. SALVADOR-Mike, just a quick question. The subject of that empty building has come up on a couple of occasions. How was that financed and whose paying for it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It was financed by water taxes, taxes in the Water District. MR. SALVADOR-And how is it paid for? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It was paid for. MR. SALVADOR-It's already paid for? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. MR. SALVADOR-And all of the money to erect that building came from the users of the water? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's right. MR. SALVADOR-Where are they tonight complaining about this building? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They're not here. UNKNOWN-Right here. UNKNOWN-Right here. UNKNOWN-Right here. MR. SAL V ADOR- That should be made clear that it's the user's taxes and not general taxes, that's my only point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, anyone else? TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Mike, we have one letter that was requested to be read. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-To the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. With regard to the proposal to create a Department of Public Works, there are some questions which are not addressed adequately in the local law. These include the proposal to set up an engineering department. Exactly what are the Town's need in this regard? Is there a need for a surveyor? Will the PE and a number of draftsman or assistants be necessary? Before setting a new department, it is a necessary to have an idea of the need, the projected costs and what staffing is required. The second question, why have an engineer being an administrator for a number of diverse departments? If we need an engineering department, why are they also doing administration? These two types of functions do not require the same types of skills. Usually governments which have an engineering department, the planning department and building and codes are aligned with it, not recreation and grounds and maintenance. Perhaps it would be important to determine which departments are most closely aligned and interact most often or to look at other municipalities who have these departments operate them and learn from the experience of others. Where is the expected cost savings? How much will an administrator, slash, engineer cost and what other jobs will be combined? Has Civil Service given their input? Have there been any studies done either in-house or through a professional firm to determine the cost, slash, benefit of this action? The Town currently has an administrator in the person of the Supervisor who should have answers to these questions. If not, perhaps we need more data. I really hate to see the Town get into another situation like what transpired with Bob Parisi. This was unfair to him and the Town and was caused because there was no real plan of what was to happen with the departments which were to be combined. And in fact, what the Town has now is not a whole lot different than before the departments were combined. Lets make some decisions at the executive level before we go making mistakes in public. Sincerely, Charles York. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anyone else? Is it the consensus to keep the public hearing open and you know COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It sounds to me as if it is. I mean I heard you talk, I heard Sue talk, I think that we have, we certainly have to answer the number problem and one more time for the record, since we have a public hearing, there's a more mundane feature of this law which also goes along with the dollars and cents and it's under 127.3, effect and it reads in part, the determination UNKNOWN-We can't hear you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The determination, can you hear me now? UNKNOWN-Yea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There is, what I said was, there are other questions to be answered by this Board which is first and foremost deliverable body. Under 127.3 under effect in this law, it reads in part, the determination of which functions will be consolidated and which shall be separately performed under each division of the Department of Public Utilities is determined in part herein but may also be determined by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by separate resolution after the legislation is placed into effect. I think since the first function of this Board is a deliverable body, we are to give that long and hard thought and leave as little to chance as possible. So, I think we should leave the public hearing open. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Betty, how about COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it should be open and I would just like to throw out to the public a little bit of research that I have done about what's happened in Town Government and I'm going to start with the Water Department. This year, they're down one mechanic, hasn't been rehired. Okay, now I want to give you some data on the Water Department. The Plant opened in 1975, it has sixty-three miles of transmission main, it pumped one point three million gallons per day as an average. In 1975 it had twenty employees. In 1993, a hundred and sixty miles of transmission lines. Not quite triple but close to it. Three million gallons per day as an average, pumps as high as seven point five million gallons per day. The employees now are twenty-six versus the twenty that was in 1975. They also do their own billing now which they did not do then. Number of accounts in 1975, two thousand and eighty-six. Number of accounts in 1993, five thousand nine hundred. Building and Grounds, this year, down a general foreman, two maintenance men have gone to laborers, we've lost two bodies. They're down two people, in other words. Highway has lost a part-time engineer, a receptionist, an operator has not been replaced and they've lost four laborers. So, I don't want you to think that Town Government necessarily keeps growing and growing and growing. MR. EVERETT VOORHIS-Betty, I'd like to throw a little in there, I was laid off also. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're right Everett, excuse me, one parts man. MR. VOORHIS-Parts Foreman. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I beg your pardon? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Parts Foreman. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Parts Foreman, I'm sorry Everett. So, I don't want you to think that Town Government just grows and grows and grows and grows and grows and maybe it was time for it to be tightened up. We talked about the Water Plant, why that building was built. Well, let me tell you why it was built. It was built as a, oh, and to get back to the Water Department and this number of gallons per day. The Water Plant as it's proposed today is proposed to have days when it can not meet the full demands of the people in the Town of Queensbury. It's also proposed that, that plant will only have enough capacity on some days with alot of water conservation. This maybe good, I just want you to know what the proposed plan is because people in the Water District have been used to using all the water they want to use. Now, why was that building built that we hear about tonight? It was built for two reasons. One, we've got employees working on top of each other. They had office equipment they had to move out of the way and pull other office equipment in to use. Now, that's kind of a waste of personnel, waste of time. It was also built because part of the Water Plant Expansion and plans to use some of the space in the old building. So, that's another reason. It was built at that time because we had the money to build it. We felt, get this part out of the way and then concentrate on the expansion of the Water Plant itself, after we find out how many communities around here want us to be the regional, what do I want to say, seller of water and that was one thing that had to be investigated before we can go forth. So, maybe that helps lay to rest some of the reasons for that Water Plant Administration being built when it was. I agree with the people, I mean, everybody wants to save money. But you've got to make sure that you have a plan that saves money. You've got to have a plan that is cost effective, it is time efficient, that flows the services of this Town and that's a plan we should be looking for. My problem is that this document that I'm looking at that came to public hearing, I call it the Christmas Box that you've got the great box, you've got the wrapping paper, you've tied it up in ribbon but you haven't put the substance inside the box. And that is what I have been going for and my question is substance because I don't feel I've got a plan there. There's nothing to show me whether or not this plan is going to work well. I haven't seen any analysis of the jobs, the costs, how effective the jobs are, the ones that we have now, all that type of thinking has not been done on this proposed legislation. I think it's time that the Town Board did some homework, got some figures involved and that we really know what this plan is going to do and how we're going to do it. What it's accomplished, what's broke, what's got to be fixed, etcetera. MR. BOEHM-Isn't that your job, part of your job? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is a plan that was proposed by the Supervisor. Had I proposed a plan, I would have had that information ready for you in time for a public hearing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Gil, you had asked a question. What, I don't understand where the question came, what is our job, the administration or the MR. BOEHM-Part of the budget process is your job, right? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But the Supervisor is the Fiscal Officer and it's his job to get all the figures together and then we start taking them apart. MR. BOEHM-But if there's something missing, part of your job is to make sure it appears? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm trying to do. Here's some of my questions I have. What are the plans in practice, not just alot of words for Fleet Equipment Maintenance Department with and without the Highway Department? Where are the plans in practice for Fleet and Equipment with or without the Highway Department? Where will the work be done? Number of personnel from where? How cost accounting will be handled? Down time for vehicles? Scheduling? Maybe some of this is more effective to have it done by private enterprise. I want to see an analysis that proves to me the plan that we finally decide on is the best plan for this Town and services rendered in cost and efficiency. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, it's kind ofa public hearing but it's still open, yea go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-The best analysis may not be proof. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Meaning? MR. SALVADOR-Betty said, I need an analysis that proves and I'm saying, an analysis may be an indication, directionally will tell you what to do. It will not, in of itself, be proof. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, that's true. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-True, only putting it into effect will be proofbut at least proof that we should try it. MR. SALVADOR-It will not in of itself be proof. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're entirely correct John and it will have to be monitored. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But proof that it makes, it's worth to try. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It could prove to negative too, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Sue, you want to keep the public hearing open? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'd like to keep the public hearing open. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, we're going to keep it open and we're going to move on to other things at this point and come back and revisit it when the budgets out in front of everybody. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN 8:30 P.M. (Five Minute Recess) Supervisor Brandt-Jim, do you want to help me on this Converse Mobile Home Park. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, we're re-visiting this issue, the public hearing is being held again as there was error made in some of the notices that went out for the required five hundred feet. That has since been corrected and we're re-opening the public hearing to give those people an opportunity who were missed, to speak on the issue. Councilman Monahan-Jim, can I ask Jim a question before we start? Jim, this is in a mobile home overlay zone, isn't it? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, so, I'll declare that public hearing open and this is on the Converse Mobile Home Park. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN - CONVERSE MOBILE HOME PARK NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this? Come on right up. MR. DAN WOOD-Good evening. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Since this is a public hearing you should give us your name. MR. WOOD-Alright, my name is Dan Wood and I live on the corner of this street where this thing is proposed. All this traffic is going to be driving right past my house. Mr. Converse bought this property probably twenty-three years ago knowing that it was designed to be subdivided into lots for mobile homes. And I believe this is approximately the third time that he's tried to put a mobile home park in there, strictly for personal gain. Not with any concern to any of the people that live in the neighborhood that's already there, only just because he wants to make the money. And it came before the Town Board at least two or three other times, it was voted down every time because everybody in the neighborhood that I spoke with myself, doesn't want it. We wouldn't mind if he wants to sell the lots off, like, you know, we all own lots and we all have a mobile home on them but he wants to pack alot of mobile homes in there and charge rent on them so he can make alot of dollars. And he's just trying to do this with no concern for anybody in the neighborhood. And there was a lady that brought a petition around and everybody in the neighborhood has signed it. We have a written petition, I believe that her husband is here tonight and he's going to probably bring it up and present it to everybody. But, because I live right on the corner of Warren Lane and April Lane which is where this is proposed, all this traffic is going to drive by my house and I've got four children ranging in age from five to thirteen and they all play right there on the corner. Just the amount of traffic alone that this would cause, you know would really create alot of hardships for everybody in the neighborhood, we could lose our children. So, I really believe it's a bad idea to let him get away with doing this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Has it been brought up three times before Paul, do you know? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know. UNKNOWN-Twice before ... MR. WOOD-I've lived in that neighborhood since I was twelve years old, that's twenty-five years now and it has been brought before, the first two times when my father was alive, he came here and he said that the neighborhood didn't want it. And now that he's deceased, I got to do it. I got to come up and I got to say that everyone I've spoke to doesn't want it and I do see some other people here from the neighborhood that I'm sure you'll be hearing from. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Thanks. Could I just ask Jim a question? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Jim, how many people were not notified, in error? MR. WOOD-We were one of them. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I believe it was a section of Warren Lane that was missed on the tax map. MR. WOOD-That's where it's going to be built. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Do you know how many, roughly? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Warren Lane is where this, discharges onto Warren Lane, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, I think it's approximately and correct me if I'm wrong, about a dozen or so on each side of the road? UNKNOWN-Twenty-three, I live off of Birch Road and we never got one. UNKNOWN-We never got it, we're the ones that are really the closest ones ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, that's correct, Warren Lane is adjoining this property. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anybody else that would like to speak on this? Come on right up and talk to us. UNKNOWN-I wrote a letter, that's what he's talking about, I went around the neighborhood ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Come on right up and talk to us. UNKNOWN-I'm scared but. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Don't be afraid at all. MS. BARB CHERRY-My name is Barb Cherry and I live off Burch Road and I don't want a trailer park in there, trailer parks lower the property value. You wouldn't want a trailer park in back of your house, would you? And there's going to be an awful lot of traffic back there and I thought the area was zoned for single family homes on one acre. I don't know for sure. If anybody can answer that question? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, that's what we asked Jim before? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, an overlay zone goes over your regular zoning. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, it's zoned for mobile homes as well. MS. CHERRY-Mobile homes on an acre, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, it's what they refer to as an overlay zone and it's a use allowed in addition to the normal uses allowed in the district. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, if these were sold for individual lots for mobile homes, which they could be, right, what would be the size of those lots? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It would have to meet the lot size requirement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-One acre? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One acre then, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, and how many acres are we talking about here? MS. CHERRY-I think he has fifteen something acres. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think it was in the neighborhood of fifteen acres. So, you would be looking at about fifteen lots. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And what was proposed if! remember right was forty-some MS. CHERRY-Forty-eight. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Forty-eight. MS. CHERRy-It would seem to me that, you know, we have zoning for a purpose COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's a little overkill. MS. CHERRY -Yea, that is really far off of your, you know, off of an acre. You know, it's not even half an acre. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. MS. CHERRY -Just, why do we bother with zoning if somebody can just go in and put forty-eight trailers on fifteen acres when it's supposed to be one acre zoning? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, and you have a petition with you? MS. CHERRY-I wrote one, I just made copies in case you guys lost it. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Would you like me to read it, Mike? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure, would you put in the record. TOWN CLERK DOUGHER-Okay, this was filed today in my office. We object to a mobile home park being located off of Warren Lane. The area around Burch Road is zoned SA one acre. We assume this applies to the property designated as a mobile home park. These trailers would be on less than one half acre, more like one quarter acre lots. This is vastly different then what it is zoned for. The neighborhood is made up of single family houses and trailers on mostly a half acre and one acre lots. Why should you have zoning if it can be ignored and changed so drastically for some? Another thing is the increase in traffic coming up Burch Road and down Warren Lane, it would be more than double with a forty-eight site mobile home park on April Lane. We already have problems with noise from motorcycles and dirt bikes with the addition offorty-eight more families living in the area, it would make even more problems and further decrease the quality of the neighborhood. With the increase of traffic and an increase of kids trying to get to Luzerne Road bus stop there maybe problems. Mobile home parks often decrease the property values, our neighborhood already has low property values and we don't want them to go down further. There are already three mobile home parks not far away, Homestead Village, North Winds, both off of Luzerne Road and Forest Park off VanDusen Road. These should be enough for anyone looking for a lot in this area. Signed, concerned citizens and I counted quickly, it looks like approximately thirty-nine. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Who else would like to speak on this? Come on up. MR. CARTER JOHNSON-My name is Carter Johnson. I've got property on Lucky Lane which is adjacent to this and I've been trying to get a, just a right -of-way to the property and Mr. Converse won't give it to me. I acquired the property twenty-five years ago doing some work putting in those roads that are there and I was stupid and I didn't realize you needed a right-of-way to get to the land. So, I'm really opposed to this too because I was hoping some day that they would develop the area so that I can get onto my property which I've been paying taxes on for twenty-five years and I can't get in, I can't even get onto my own property. And everybody laughs and says, how are you going to get there by helicopter. I tried to negotiate some way to, just to be able to get to the land so I could, I'd like to pay taxes and maybe build a house there myself. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How much land do you own? MR. JOHNSON-Three quarters of an acre, point eight five. And they just tried to raise my taxes and they decreased when I came and explained the situation. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Good. MR. JOHNSON-And I would like to see it developed with residential so I could get there myself and build a house. I currently live in an apartment, I would love to be able to build a house on that land. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Anyone else on this application? MR. MIKE LE BLANC-I'm Mike Le Blanc and I'm also from Warren Lane. He said he had fifteen acres up there and how many places can you have if he's got fifteen acres up there and he's already got nine dwellings on it. So, he's asking to put forty-eight more places on there, how EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's a separate parcel. This is separate from MR. LE BLANC-This is separate from the nine dwellings that are up there? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LE BLANC-So then he has more than fifteen acres? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Total, yea. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, the lot in question is fifteen acres, proposed for this park. MR. LE BLANC-I just don't understand it, plus it's not zoned for business and he has a business up there. You know, we have alot of truck traffic through there and what not. I mean, I can't have a business in my front yard, you know and now he's trying to get a trailer court in there and everything else and we're just a little concerned with it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Is that a pre-existing business? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's my understanding it is. He has a trucking business I believe. MR. LE BLANC-Well, his son does, yea. UNKNOWN-Construction, he's in the construction business. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-He has I think three or four trucks, a bulldozer, pay-loader, that type of thing and an equipment garage on site. MR. LE BLANC-Right, how does he get away with having that when I can't have either mechanical or you know, a trucking outfit in my yard which is only across the street from him? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My understanding is that pre-dated the zoning. So, it's a pre- existing use. That's all I can tell you, it's grandfathered so to speak. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think under that law, if it's abandoned and discontinued, then he loses that right. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-For more than a period of a year and a half, then it discontinues. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. Anyone else? Come on right up. MS. CHERRY-When you were asking about that garage and stuff they built there, he built that without a building code to start with and that came up two years ago because EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right and that's something that was MS. CHERRY-That's right in my back yard. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's all been corrected as a matter of a court action. MS. CHERRY-Yea, that's all been taken care of but he was not supposed to have a business back there. That's only supposed to be his for his personal use, for his one vehicle that he had, that's what was explained to us at the meeting. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. CHERRy-It wasn't supposed to be a whole business of trucks coming in and out of there. So EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That, I can't speak to that, I don't know. MS. CHERRY-Yea but COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's a matter of court action right now, though, you say? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, the houses, there were many structures built back in there without a building permit. MS. CHERRY-Without building permits. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And we've been trying to correct that all Summer and building permits have been issued now in every structure and they've been gone through for code compliance and I think they're about all wrapped up with that. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Were they built by Mr. Converse? MS. CHERRY-And this is somebody you want to give big variance to? You know, somebody who has already broken the codes time and time again? You want to let them run a mobile home park? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Jim, were all these violations by Mr. Converse that is in the process of being rectified? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Well, that and members of his family. Himself and members of his family, yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, Jim when these, when you get building permits but are they then on legal lots and having the proper setbacks and all those type of things? Or are we just giving building permits because they're there without worrying about that type of thing? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, the pre-existing structures is to the date, I don't know when, I know they were built prior to the zoning ordinance, in the mid eighties, I think this dates back to COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We've had zoning since about 1965,67. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yea but I don't know what, I don't know with the change in density in that area, I know it wasn't COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But has anybody researched it? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-To my knowledge it has been and those are conforming buildings. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would suggest because I, it's brought something back to my attention what somebody said here about him trying to get this park approved before that somebody go back and check the records as I've always asked your department to do when an application comes in front of us, if we have any prior history on that application, we should know about it. UNKNOWN-He has been denied. MR. WOOD-Twice and he has been denied, I've lived there for twenty-five years SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Come on right up and talk to us on the record, if you would. MS. NORMA CLEAR-We sat here and argued about this until three o'clock in the morning at the last meeting. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Help us with your name on the record. MS. CLEAR-Norma Clear and I live on Warren Lane and the trailer parks are going to be in my backyard, right in my backyard. Now, we sat here at this Board meeting twice and we argued until three o'clock in the morning over this. The last time he came here, whoever it was that ran that meetings said you EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Do you have a year when that was? Can you remember? MS. CLEAR-I don't know what year but he said you are never, never to come before this Board again for a trailer permit for that property. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Who said that? MS. CLEAR-Who ever was running the meeting at that time. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-He fell asleep, I guess. MS. CLEAR-It might be. But we might have, it was three o'clock in the morning and he said you are never to come before this Board for a trailer permit again, we have refused you twice, we do not want one there, you are not to do it again. Now, this was twice we went through this and he is not going to put a trailer park in there. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I'm glad we re-opened this MS. CLEAR-So am I. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And notified everybody, obviously, we missed some people. MS. CLEAR-I'm the one that got it re-opened. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It was alot of people, it was one whole street. MS. CLEAR-I started it all. A whole street never got no notices and you know what made us even madder? His son came down to our people next door and said to the guy's face, he's already got a permit for the trailer park, they pushed it through. Nobody got a notice. MR. WOOD-Meaning this time that the paperwork has been lost in your system somewhere and nobody even knows that he was denied this before. You need to research like Betty says, to find out that he was already tossed out of there once, his proposal. We don't want it, we've already gone through this battle already twice. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, we used to have a card catalogue by property numbers. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, we do. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-With everything that's in the vault. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, yes we do. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Jim, Jim? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I'm not sure if it was Planning Board or Town Board they were in front of before. MR. WOOD-Town Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Was it Town Board? MR. WOOD-Town Board meeting, yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Jim, whose the, this application? Whose on this application here, the son? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Tyler Converse. MR. WOOD-That's the son, that's not the father. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Alright, alright the other two times was the father, yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It doesn't matter Pliney, it's on the piece of property itself that, that goes on. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It should, it would be easy enough to find. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's not the person, it's the property. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, he has a right to apply COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, he has a right to apply. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And we have a right to listen to it and that's what this process is about. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right, certainly. MR. WOOD-Oh, we were all, I was under the impression it was the father again. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It doesn't make alot of difference though. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But it doesn't make, what we're interested in is MR. WOOD-It's the same parcel ofland. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-How this is affecting the neighbors and I think that's what this is about. MR. WOOD-Oh, we're all up in arms about it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, I think we're finding that out. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Not literally, I hope. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It should be pointed out, Mike, it should be pointed out that the action of this Board, there wasn't any opposition to this thing when it came in front of this Board before. UNKNOWN-Nobody got any letters. UNKNOWN-No one knew. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I'm just telling you there wasn't any opposition. UNKNOWN-How could you, no one knew about it. MR. WOOD-Before I came here tonight, I didn't know about your proposed public utilities department ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It says, wait MR. WOOD-Before I stepped in here tonight COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Before we get, before we get MR. WOOD-I didn't know about it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Hang on. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It says in the resolution that we were in error, that we did not notify you. So, that's why we're here. MR. WOOD-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's why we're here. We want your input and we got it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now wait a minute, this application says, this resolution says Barry Converse has made application. UNKNOWN-It is Barry Converse, he's the one ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, this resolution says Barry Converse has made application. UNKNOWN-You're right, he's the one that owns all the property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But he's not the one that's made the application. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-He was the agent for the COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Whatever it is, we still should be on the lot number anyway, all our records. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, is there any further input on this matter? Okay, then I'm going to close the public hearing and thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'll have the answers next week or whenever, when did you want to take this up again? Councilman Caimano- What answers? Executive Director, Martin-In terms of the previous application and all of that. Councilman Monahan-All the background you can get. Councilman Caimano-I don't want to take it up again. Supervisor Brandt-I don't want to take it up again. Councilman Caimano-I think it's done. Supervisor Brandt-I vote to deny it, right on the spot. Do you want to do that? Councilman Caimano-Ifyou don't introduce it, nothing will happen. Supervisor Brandt-Well, let's introduce it and make it official. Councilman Tucker-I'll introduce it. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. Oh, I can't do that, you can't do that. Councilman Monahan-You've got to do reasons and all that kind of stuff. Councilman Caimano- Y ou can't do that. Just don't introduce it. Councilman Monahan-Did you do a negative dec, SEQRA on this before? Attorney Dusek-You did before already. Councilman Monahan-Then you've got to reverse that. You've got alot of steps here, you've got to do. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-You've got public controversy, that's for sure. Councilman Monahan-You bet your life. Attorney Dusek-It might be better if the Board want's to revisit this either next week or the week after. We could prepare some resolutions for you so you actually have something to work from. Councilman Caimano-Fine. Councilman Monahan-You got to change that neg dec that you did. You did a neg dec. Councilman Caimano- Yes, you got to come back. Supervisor Brandt-Alright, we need to come back, look at the SEQRA, look at whatever we passed and I think the sense of the Board is to reverse themselves. Councilman Caimano-And I really didn't second it. Councilman Tucker-I'll withdraw it. Supervisor Brandt-Okay so, let's withdraw and we'll re-visit it after the attorney prepares resolutions for us, then we'll bring it back up but I think the sense of the Board is to deny it. Councilman Monahan-So, Mr. Converse be expending money, should he be advised that Attorney Dusek-He was notified of this public hearing tonight but Jim and I were just talking about it too, we're going to make sure he has further notice tomorrow of exactly what the proceedings are. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Councilman Tucker-Jim, you will get information on the previous application, will you not? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, I'll have that for you anyhow. Mr. Wood-Do you need us to come back on this? Councilman Caimano-No, well it's up to you, if you trust us. Mr. Wood-We just want to know if we've got to come back and tell you that again or not. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think you have, we've got good memory. Ms. Clear-Before you close, I had one more thing. This has nothing to do with this proposal but the only way I could get a hold of anybody is to come here, I guess. This is about Mr. Converse so maybe it's about the same thing. Mr. Converse's son lives up in back of me. Alright, I've tried this with everything, the State Police and everything, he has seven great big geese. Now, we've got this? These great big geese are in my yard all the time, defecating allover my property. Now, I have asked him and I have asked him to keep those geese in a fence. Now, I have called the State Police even to see what I can do about these geese. Councilman Monahan-Jim, are you listening, this is animal control. Ms. Clear-They said there is no, no law saying they can't come in your yard. Councilman Tucker-How come they're not in your oven, Norma? Ms. Clear-I don't know, I will have them there. Are you dog control here, anybody dog control here? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well, I'm the closest thing you've got to it right now. Ms. Clear-Well, I've been trying to get somebody there to them and I can't get them. Now, everybody is passing the buck and they're saying no, I don't have nothing to do with it, I don't have nothing to do with it. You call him, call him. Councilman Monahan-Geese are mean too because I can remember my grandmother's ganders, they would take you right up a tree. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-They make good watchdogs. Ms. Clear-They're not that mean but they go all over my porch, all over my sidewalks and I have State kids, they have to walk in this stuff when they go to the bus. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-What's your address again so I have a reference? Ms. Clear-It's 235 Warren Lane. You'll find that I live right in front of Mr. Converse's son. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, 235 Warren Lane. Ms. Clear-Yes. I even called the Mayor. Supervisor Brandt -We just changed the organization chart, we've got a goose warden. Ms. Clear-Put a goose warden there. But maybe there isn't one but there is a nuisance law. There is a nuisance law, I'm sure. Councilman Caimano-Jim will take care of it. Ms. Clear-I even called the Mayor, he said, go to the Health Department. Councilman Caimano- Y ou called the Mayor? Ms. Clear-Yes, he said, this would be the Health Department. We tried to get the Health Department and the Health Department never called back, I can't find them. Councilman Monahan-Well Ms. Clear the buck, there's a sign over his desk that says the buck stops here. Ms. Clear-Well, that's him, okay. Councilman Caimano-Or the goose, one or another. Ms. Clear-Well, I'll give you a buck if you get rid of those geese. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Fair enough. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, we did close that public hearing and we have a public hearing for North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Department. PUBLIC HEARING - NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY NOTICE SHOWN 9:05 P.M. MR. EDWARD CARR-My name is Edward Carr, with me tonight from the Fire Company is Mr. Waite Cowles and Fire Chief, Larry Fischer and our Fire Company Attorney, Howard Krantz. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Krantz. ATTORNEY HOWARD KRANTZ-Good evening. Very briefly, what has occurred here is that previously and I believe on April 22nd, you gave your consent essentially to the fire company going ahead with the construction of their new fire house. That was required because the contract between the Town of Queensbury and the Fire Company requires your consent under those circumstances. That's been approved and the time for anybody to challenge that has passed. What has happened in the interim is that the fire company has obtained a loan commitment from First National Bank of Glens Falls for the necessary construction loan for the fire house. Except the, unfortunately, the commitment that came through was for a loan on which the interest rate was based on a tax exempt loan. In other words, First National Bank is not going to pay income tax on the interest that they earn on this loan and therefore it's a more favorable rate then what otherwise be available. I believe the Board is entitled to know that, unless there's been a change from the Bank's position and we have not heard of that, the rate fixed for five years is 4.9875 percent. However, we were advised maybe three, two, three weeks ago, somewhere around there by the attorneys for First National Bank of Glens Falls and I see that, no, they're not here tonight, that in order to get this rate, give this rate to the fire company, a separate public hearing had to be held strictly for the purpose of giving people a chance to comment on this rate. It's a separate requirement. The reason why it didn't happen before, nobody knew about it. So, as soon as we learned about it, I contacted Paul Dusek and working with First National Bank's attorneys we set up the public hearing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Paul, do you want to comment on this? We're talking about the bank loan and the necessity for a public hearing because it's apparently eligible for a tax exempt ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Rate. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, it's kind ofa strange situation, apparently set up under the IRS code, I got a memorandum from Bartlett, Pontiffs law firm. The town does not incur any obligations under this and the resolution even says that as well in the second paragraph saying that you don't assume any obligation. But what it does is by going through this process, it does give them the advantage of having that loan and the qualifications under the IRS code. The town did the same thing with North Queen, or not North Queensbury but Central Queensbury two or three years ago which gave them that same advantage. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But you're talking about, Howard is talking about holding, we have to hold another public hearing because of this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, this is it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, this, okay, alright that's why we're holding this. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-So the sole issue is, does the fire district have the benefit of the rate less than five percent or if for some reason, if the resolution were denied they would have to pay a considerably higher interest rate. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so we'll declare the public hearing open and invite comment. Is there anyone that would like to speak to the issue? MR. JOHN SAL V ADOR-I just have one question, what are they asking you to give them? Are you pledging your full faith and credit on this loan? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I want to get the Attorney's attention on that. There's a question being asked. Is the Town pledging it's full faith and credit on this loan? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The only thing we have is MR. SALVADOR-Then what do they need you for? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's a part of the contractual obligation between us and the fire company. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-It's a provision of the Internal Revenue Code. It says that the Town Board being a contracting party through the agreement, not a contracting party with First National Bank, must hold a public hearing and pass a resolution in order for the fire company with whom the, with which the Town Board has contracting can avail themselves of this favorable rate. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Well, Mr. Salvador is asking why are you coming to us anyway and the answer is because we have a contract. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We have a contract and that's, the law requires that we have this public hearing apparently to MR. SAL V ADOR- Well, is it the contract that guarantees the loan? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, no. MR. SALVADOR-If the fire company goes bankrupt, who pays the bank? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The fire company. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's between the fire company and the bank. MR. SALVADOR-We have no exposure? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. MR. SALVADOR-No risk? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. MR. SAL V ADOR-I don't know why they're knocking on your door then. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Our exposure is limited to the extent of our contract with the fire company. MR. SALVADOR-What? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Our exposure is limited to the extent of our contract. In other words, we have a contract to pay them if they provide services. MR SALVADOR-Annual, you have an annual contract. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, it can be annual or up to five years long but that's the limitation of your exposure. MR. SALVADOR - We do make an annual contract with this fire company? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's, well, lately it's been on an annual basis but it can be as long as five years. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. GILBERT BOEHM-Will some of that reduction accrue to us through the budget, as a savings? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Do you want to comment on that? MR. CARR-It always has. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -You're saying yes. MR. CARR-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How? MR. CARR-Well, it reflects in the amount of our contract with the Town. If we're paying a lower mortgage rate, we're coming up with a lower contract COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-At this stage of the game though, that's presumptive because for all I know, you might have a shorter term which means if the actual dollars spent by us, is it going to be the same, is that MR. CARR-It's going to be close because we're proposing a fourteen year payoff. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARR-What we're doing is, it's a fifteen year loan ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Well, it is going to be a savings. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's going to be a savings, yea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It should be, it helps ATTORNEY KRANTZ-No matter how you slice it, there's a savings and I, as I understand it, I've never represented the fire company in any negotiations, they do that directly with the town but I understand one of the things that you do is look at their budget, their income expense for the prior year or years and this is going to be, look like less expense. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe just, for the purpose of helping to address and alleviate the concerns raised by John, the resolutions which is what's going to bind this Board when it adopts it, specifically says, resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does not and shall not by the adoption of this resolution create or intend to create any assumption on a part of the Town of Queensbury of any obligation or liability for the financing referred to herein, you know, for the building, other than that which may exist by virtue of the contract entered into between the Town of Queensbury and the Company dated January 5th, 1993 for fire protection services which contract is in writing and contains the full terms agreed to by the parties. The full terms being that if they provide the service, we will pay them X number of dollars. Now, you know, we may have to payout that money because we owe that but that's the limitation of our liability. MR. SALVADOR -93, you owe that for 93? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, does entering into this agreement or contract or passing this resolution, obligate the Town to enter into a contract next year with this fire company? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. MR. SALVADOR-Or can you go, it does not obligate you? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No. You have to go, there's a whole, there's an entire procedure set forth under the general municipal law and, or I'm sorry, the town law that provides for how agreements are set up with fire companies including that of a public hearing. And until you go through those procedures, you can not legally bind the town to any agreement and any entity dealing with the town is automatically put on notice of those laws, even if they're not, you know, even if they shouldn't be aware of them because they exist, they're destined to know about those. You can't lock a town into an agreement unless you follow the lawful procedures. MR. SALVADOR-Yea, I just asked why are they knocking on your door, that's all. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's, John, you know it's really MR. SALVADOR - We have no obligation, we're not pledging our credit, we don't stand behind anything, why are we ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-It perplexed me the first time I came across it as well but it is a strange little section in the IRS code that allows them to get this benefit if we take these actions because that's one of the things I wanted to make sure when we did this the first time back with Central Queensbury that the town would not in some fashion be exposed and that's why I also put in that second clause in the resolution just to make it clear, we don't want any liabilities guys and I put that in the resolution the last time and it flew for Central Queensbury. So, it's back in here for them just to protect us in that regard. MR. SALVADOR -You got an opinion from IRS in that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I have not gotten a separate opinion, I've gotten a memorandum from the Bartlett Firm on it. MR. SALVADOR-Could I ask that you get an opinion from IRS? It's their law that you're trying to conform ATTORNEY DUSEK-It may take, you know, it's up to the Board, it may take quite awhile. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Wouldn't that be more for us under Town Law, an opinion from the Comptroller, is what we would really need more than the IRS wouldn't it, about whether or not we're obligated in anyway? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Isn't that really for the bank to protect themselves? If they want an opinion, let them get it, they're going to make a mortgage here, it's a long term commitment, if they screw up, that's, they pay taxes on it. If they don't screw up, they don't pay taxes on it. So, I don't see where that gets us in the middle of it. MR. SAL V ADOR-I think there's more at stake then the differential in interest or taxes. The bank is looking for a deep pocket. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't think so. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I, that's not the case by what we're proposing MR. SALVADOR-No, okay, alright. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'll call the SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, well, we're in a public hearing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, I'm sorry. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anybody else who would like to speak on this? MR. DON KRUGER-My name is Don Kruger and I live in Queensbury and I'm just a little confused on the fire issue. In no disrespect to North, to their fire district, I know what they're trying to do there. I don't understand clearly in my mind how we're paying for this. Does the entire Town of Queensbury pay for that new fire house or is just that fire district up there? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The entire Town of Queensbury pays for all of the contracts for all of the fire departments and this department would be part of that contract and if there would be an increase in that contract to cover the debt service involved in their new building. So, you know, it's complicated answer but the truth is that all of the district pays for this as well as the other fire departments. MR. KRUGER-Alright and this fire house is all approved and we're obligated for the next twenty years? The one meeting I was at, you tentatively agreed to a hundred thousand a year in round numbers for twenty years to pay for this fire house. Is that correct? Is that what we're doing now or is it SUPERVISOR BRANDT-All we're doing is a public hearing on a mode of financing that would allow the bank to give a lower interest rate on their mortgage. MR. KRUGER-So, the fire house is a done deal, nobody has any input on that at this point? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, the people have had alot of input and there was a major modification of the plans. When this came out, it was a much more expensive building, it was a larger building. They listened to the input, they cut it way back, they pared the thing down to a much more reasonable proposal and basically, that's approved. MR. KRUGER-So, the answer to the question is that we all pay for whatever building is there, it's not just the people in Cleverdale and that area up there. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Don, I will say that with the tax base that North Queensbury Fire District has, if it were a district by itself, they would be paying one of the lowest fire taxes in this Town of Queensbury because of the assessed evaluation. We're really not paying for their contract out of the rest of Queensbury, they're taxes are helping to pay the contracts for the rest of Queensbury. MR. KRUGER-Yes, I agree with that Betty and I appreciate that. But the only thing that I heard was that we were all going to pay into the hundred thousand a year for the next twenty years and I just wonder whether it was fair that everybody in town had something to say about it or was it just that district up there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Everybody did. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Everybody had something to say about it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Everybody had a say when that came in front of the Board. MR. KRUGER-I want to clarify this, I certainly am in favor of a volunteer fire department. I used to live in a town where we had to pay a chief and it was a whole different, well, we don't need to go that far to see the difference, right. So, I'm not criticizing the fire department. Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? MR. SAL V ADOR-I have a question. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Why don't you do it on the official record because it is a public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador, North Queensbury. You said that we had hearings on this and we, we approved this. What is the form of the citizens approval of this project? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I guess your elected representatives, the Town Board does the approvals. I don't know where, you know I may be speaking out of turn there, I'm not sure where we are on the process here, I don't remember it all. ATTORNEY DUSEK-There, it's kind of a strange situation, there really is no formal procedure for approving what a fire company does. We have a contract with the fire company, the contract is for them to provide services. Really, when it gets down to it, what they do with the money, as long as they give us the service, you know that's what our primary concern is. However, our contracts have traditionally because of the close relationship between the fire companies, being volunteer and town government and it's citizens, our contracts have contained a number of clauses that allow us more, you know, to get more into their finances and the things that they do. One of the provisions that is in the contract is a provision that says if they spend more than fifty thousand dollars, they have to come to the Town Board for the Town Board's approval. You know, on a particular item and that's there because the Town Board recognized at the time the last contract was negotiated that, you know, they're, when they do these contracts, in part, the monies that they have to come up with are in part, determined by what it is that they're doing out there, in terms of buying machinery, buying buildings or whatever. And I guess that's the reality of the situation, that people, you know, know exist, that their cost and expenses obviously playa great deal in terms of what the contract price will or can be or will have to be. But there is nothing that you know, under the law that actually sets up a mechanism for the town itself to get in there and say you can or can't do it. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If they do it and the Town Board, say they undertake an obligation that's a quarter of a million dollars and their, a year and their contract with the town is only a hundred thousand. Well, that's their problem on how they figure that out because it's the Town Board's judgement as to what they contract amount will be for that particular service. MR. SALVADOR -You always want to be at liberty to determine how much you want to pay for the services you want to buy. No where should there be an obligation, whether it's debt service, whether it's fire protection, you have a year to year contract, you pay so much for certain services. They are a private SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And that's what we do, we have a year to year contract, in the past it's been a three year contract which is up for renewal this year, if I remember right. MR. SAL V ADOR- Well, the answer to the gentleman's question is, there is no obligation on the town. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And we said that. MR. SALVADOR-And they are at liberty to do what they want to do. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anyone else that would like to speak on this? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-I'd just like to add that, the only obligation of the town is to arrange for fire protection which you've done, I think, very economically throughout the whole town through your volunteer fire districts, much less expensive then full time employees and benefits and on and on and on and retirement packages, number one. Number two, you've entered into contracts with North Queensbury as the other fire districts, reviewing them on a periodic basis. Number three, you have a built in save guard into your contract that in Queensbury's case, anything more than fifty thousand dollars they have to come to you for your approval. And I might add, you could have given that approval if it was in your judgement that, that was wise without holding a public hearing. You chose to hold a public hearing which I think is good and you got input and you passed it and now the question is, what is the cheapest way of financing, that's why we're here tonight. And again, although it's a done deal, as John Salvador mentions, this all came about because of the numerous outstanding OSHA violations and other problems with the old fire house. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-And also, Mike as you pointed out, the original project I think was one point seven five, I think, wasn't it? MR. FISCHER-I remember standing up here one night, it was two point one. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It was two point one at one time and what is it now? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-One point three. MR. FISCHER-The whole done deal, everything done is one point three but the construction bid, is what, one point one? UNKNOWN-Right now, we're about a hundred thousand dollars under budget. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's alot of dedicated work to get there. UNKNOWN-And we're trying to hold ... contingency, I mean, we eliminated the sign out front to ... MR. FISCHER-... fire house without a sign ... twelve thousand dollars for a sign. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You've got to be kidding. MR. FISCHER-... some people do. UNKNOWN-We put in, we put in what have we built here. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-The North Queensbury Fire Company, seriously saw the sense of the Board, saw the sense of some of the people, that okay, you need it but keep it down as much as possible and they did that and one of the things we had to do to get that way down was to go through a very aggravating harassing procedure of changing architects, you know, to help change the costs. So, it was not an easy thing to do but they really have tried to keep the cost down as much as possible. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Is there any other input on this public hearing? Then I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:30 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCURRING FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 519,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury presently has a contract with the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Company") dated January 5, 1993, wherein the Company has agreed to provide fire protection services for a certain area of the fire protection district located within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury conducted a public hearing on the 20th day of September, 1993, and notice thereof was published in the Post Star Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation available to residents of the Queensbury community, on the 4th day of September, 1993, and WHEREAS, said public hearing gave those interested individuals a reasonable opportunity to express their views as to the issuance of a loan in the principal amount of $1.3 million dollars from the First National Bank of Glens Falls to the Company for the purpose of the Company's construction of new firehouse on real property situate at the intersection of Cleverdale Road and State Route 9L, being on the east side of State Route 9L in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and WHEREAS, after due deliberation of the testimony presented at said public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the incurring on the part of the Company of financial obligations in the principal amount of $1.3 million dollars for construction of a 12,162 square foot firehouse and administrative office building located on the east side of State Route 9L at the intersection of State Route 9L and Cleverdale Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, in accordance with the previous resolution of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does not and shall not, by the adoption of this resolution, create or intend to create, any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury, of any obligation or liability for the financing referred to herein, other than that which may exist by virtue of the contract entered into between the Town of Queensbury and the Company, dated January 5, 1993, for fire protection services, which contract is in writing and contains the full terms agreed to by the parties. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Brandt-We have a public hearing on a proposed extension of the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District. Do you want to lead us with information before we open and ask the public's input. Mike Shaw, Wastewater Superintendent-This public hearing is on the Sanitary Sewer District Extension to Queensbury Technical Park. The district extension will include the proposed Super K-Mart on the corner ofDix and Quaker Road. Supervisor Brandt-Anything else you want to put in the record before we invite public participation? Mr. Jim Connors-No, nothing. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I think you ought to put in the record whose going to pay for this. Supervisor Brandt-We can certainly put that on the record as we go in the hearing. Councilman Monahan-I mean before people comment, I think they would like to know that. Mr. Shaw-This district extension is totally the responsibility of the Zaremba Group which is the developer for Super K-Mart. Supervisor Brandt-I'll declare the public hearing open. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED EXTENSION/QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN 9:35 P.M. MR. FRED CHAMPAGNE-Fred Champagne again. My one and only question would be, when we get into the cost for providing this service, will the Town receive any income as a result of them tying into it in addition to the cost of the installation of the system? Is the Town in a position to receive any financial gain as a result to tying into this? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Can you answer that? MR. SHAW-The financial gain the Town will receive will not necessarily be in dollars but will be in the sewer mains dedicated to the Town at the time of completion. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Does that answer you? MR. CHAMPAGNE-I guess my concern is that when the original installation of the sewer line that was oversized to accommodate additional tying-ins and it would be hoped that as a result of the investment of Town dollars to accommodate this service, that the Town would be eligible for some kind of tying in cost as far as receiving those monies. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that's a good point, the infrastructure was put in that these pipes have got to go through. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Paul, do you ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, this is being done the same way as the Route 9 Sewer District was being done. The benefit, if you will, is two-fold. One is, as Mike mentioned, there is a, well, actually three-fold, there's a pipe that's being installed that will be turned over to the Town that will be available for the Town, or actually that district's use for future improvements. The second thing that's happening is, is that you'll have a greater tax base over which to share all of the 0 & M costs. The third thing that happens is at this particular project becomes consolidated immediately upon creation which means that should any improvements what so ever, ever have to be made in any part of the Queensbury Technical Sewer District, they will be on line to pay for those improvements as well. So, that's the basis in terms of the value that they add to, you know, being added. In other words, they don't cost anything, the Town anything to put them on and they're there to share in any future costs that the district may have. Plus they provide the sewer main for future use should the district, should you desire to extend the district any further. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, any other questions or comments? Come on up, it's a public hearing, so put it on the record. MR. GILBERT BOEHM-Another question and that is this extension is that being sized just for their use or is it being sized so that any other individuals in that district that will tap into that, will in fact have the available capacity to be accepted? As it was pointed out, the previous sewer that was laid in there was oversized at that time to accommodate this. Now, is this extension also being oversized to accommodate more than just the K-Mart? That's all. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Can you answer that for us? MR. JIM CONNORS-Yes. For the record, I'm Jim Connors with CT Male Associates here representing the Zaremba Group who is the developer for the K-Mart facility. The sewer main that is being installed, the capacity of that sewer will be by far in excess of the average flows that we're going to be generating from the district. Essentially, we're looking at eighty-five hundred gallons a day and we're looking at probably five hundred thousand gallons a day potential in the sewer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In all practicality Mike, what else would tie into the sewer in that location? Would the one coming down County Line Road, would that or would not or what? MR. SHAW - Well, that may not have enough capacity to take County Line Road on but this certainly has a potential of taking care of the other side of the road, Dix Avenue. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Earltown? MR. SHAW -Possibly Earltown, depending on the capacities they need, yes. Where they are hooking into the pipes, they currently hooking into an eight inch main which, they're putting in an eight inch main themselves. So, the capacity is generally going to be about the same it is now. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Answering that question requires a vision we haven't shown here before. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm getting at and I remember that original sewer was horribly expensive to put in because of the terrain that was down there. Terribly expensive and it was with the idea that future people would be sharing some of the cost of that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This Board did hire additional study of sewering County Line Road and they looked at both going into the spot you're talking about now or going down through Ciba Geigy and Rist Frost did a analysis of that and it turns out, if! remember right, it's not cost effective to bring County Line Road into this area. It's more cost effective to go down through the Ciba Geigy entrance then it is through here. Plus, this, the extra capacity that was left here, it was envisioned, would be used by that region and if you brought in County Line Road area, it would lose all of that capacity for the local region. So, I think that the conclusion was that you're better off to, for serving County Line Road to go through the old Ciba Geigy plant then you are to come into this tie in. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think what I was getting at, Mike, I was wondering where the future might lie when Paul said that this particular parcel would be liable for any future improvements in that extension of the district and that's how they would, you know, not have to buy into what we are right now. And that was my question is, what is there for the improvement to come from that's going to have to be served by sewers in the future that would run through that line because that is a, a cost equation in there and a benefit equation? MR. SHAW-That's something that can be considered but currently now, I'm not aware of any other plans sewered in that area in order to take that equation in, I'd have to have the numbers to do that. Without any plans, current plans, I don't know if ... possible bonding or COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I guess the question is, it's an interesting question. We're stuck now doing something that the people before us didn't foresee and now we're in a position to almost make amends for that. It seems to me you could make some kind of a determination for example, on Earltown, Earltown has been talked about. How about a guesstimate? How about, you know, if we put X amount of a hundred and sixty thousand square feet plants in there which are building, some kind of guesstimate about what the near future will bring. Isn't that, wouldn't that be to our benefit to do that, to play some what -if games, since we're going to build the sewer district anyway? MR. SHAW-What -if games can be played without certain input as far as what Earltown is zoned for and the possibility of getting sewer use numbers out of there or the other parcels in the area, I can't do that off the top of my head. I could possibly do that with some time, some input and some help from other departments but SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think some of that was looked at by this report ofRist Frost and I, you're welcome to pull it out and look at it. I think that there is a potential of more capacity in this system for the Earltown area and that's why they, Rist Frost concluded that it would be smarter to take care of County Line Road through a whole different line. MR. SHAW-Let me also add too that this parcel that we're talking about does border the district, the current district. So, it's almost like a natural extension of the district. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's not the problem. The problem is whether or not the Town is getting it's fair dollars back. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, that's the question. MR. CONNERS-Was there any mechanism established at the time of the sewer installation in order to assess specific tie in fees for extensions? Obviously the Town had in mind that sewer would be going in this area when they created the initial extension. And if so, what is that mechanism and should have been incorporated into agreements at the time? I mean this is ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'm don't, I'm not aware of any mechanism that was put in place at that point. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it was envisioned at the time that the type of occupancy in QEDC would use that sewer capacity. Am I correct Fred, do you remember back to then? MR. CHAMPAGNE-At the time, there was good reason to believe that QEDC might become the owner of the property we're talking about. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true. MR. CHAMPAGNE-To a flip of the switch, that went by the wayside. So, in terms of the existing system that's there now, it was my understanding, again I'd have to go back and look at the agreement and the plans in order to refresh my memory but it seems to me as if the line that's in there at the present time, would certainly accommodate that parcel that we're dealing with but we were talking at the time about industrial, manufacturing kinds of processes which meant that the system going up through to this other parcel, adjoining our's certainly there's a plan in there and at the time I don't recall specifically now without going back, whatever that dead end is, Mike, whatever the dead end is teeing off from the lateral, whatever that dead end size is, it would seem to me that you'd want to size to that. MR. SHAW-The dead end size you're talking about is completely on the other side of the system, okay and that is ten inch. Where they're coming in, is an eight inch stub on the other side of Progress Boulevard. I think I know what you're talking about. You're talking about a piece of parcel that was bordered just north of where this stub MR. CHAMPAGNE-What I'm talking about is with the, what is it the east-west Progress Boulevard, is that running east west? MR. SHAW-Yes. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okay, then isn't there a T coming off from that heading out with the water main, there's a fire hydrant right there? MR. SHAW-That's correct, heading toward the north. MR. CHAMP AGNE- That's right. Now, what size is that? MR. SHAW-They aren't coming into that point. They're coming in at the point down Dix Avenue. MR. CHAMPAGNE-What size is that? MR. SHAW-That's ten inch. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Well, then that's what we should be, it would seem to me, that's what you would want to go with. MR. SHAW-They're coming into another piece down off Dix Avenue which is eight inch. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Okay, okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-So, you're extending ... MR. SHAW-They're extending an eight inch line. Okay, see what I'm saying? MR. CHAMPAGNE-So in other words, the extension that dead ends right there, will remain there to go MR. SHAW-That's right. What you're saying I think is true, I've seen something on that in the past. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Isn't AMG coming in through that? MR. SHAW-The proposal on AMG is to come into that ten inch piece that you're talking about somewhere on there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And is there enough capacity, for everybody? MR. SHAW-There's plenty capacity for those. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The AMG is not real, is not a heavy sewer user. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Those were sized for industries that could be heavy water uses, that was going to be one of the selling points of that park. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But that gives you capacity to expand the system to other properties that, you know, for the future. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How much? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It's a matter of the capacity of the city line. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What is the status with Earltown? You keep talking Earltown, I thought that was all up in the air and they couldn't do a danm thing down there. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, you know, I don't know and I don't know that that's germane to this public hearing. So, I'd like to stay on track. This is about an extension specifically to this property, taking an eight inch line and extending it as an eight inch line into the property. Is that correct? MR. CONNORS-To service one specific user. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. MR. CONNORS-We're not extending it for future development. It is specifically for one user which is the K-Mart project. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there any other comment or input on this? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And you're paying for it? MR. CONNORS-And we are paying for everything, installation, we're paying twice the normal charges, I believe as part of the district extension agreement. MR. SHAW-You're paying for the city buy-in. MR. CONNORS-City buy-in and all fees associated with the installation and connection to the system. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And then it's all going to be turned over to the sewer district. MR. CONNORS-Everything is going to be turned over to the sewer district within Dix Avenue and Progress Boulevard which is a ... system. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other questions? Any other comment? I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:50 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-Jim would you lead us through the SEQRA? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-They submitted a short form, Part II, letter A, does the action exceed any type I threshold in 6NYCRR, Part 617.12? Answer, NO. B, will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6NYCRR, Part 617.6? Answer, NO. C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following; Cl, 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? Answer, NO. C2, Aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? Answer, NO. C3, vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitants, or threatened or endangered species? Answer, NO. C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use ofland or other natural resources? Answer, NO. C5, Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Answer, NO. C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl through C5? Answer, NO. C7, Other impacts? Answer, NO. D, is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Answer, NO. Attorney Dusek-Could I make a suggestion that on your negative declaration which is also attached where it says, reasons supporting this determination that it just simply be inserted right there that, for reasons supporting this determination the responses given to Part II of the short EAF are referred to as well as the letter by CT Male Associates PC, dated September 15th, 1993, that's also attached. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK EXTENSION NO 1 TO THE QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 520, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of adopting a resolution establishing an extension to the existing Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, to be known as the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer Extension No.1, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the rules and regulations of SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and complete such other information as may be necessary to indicate such, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF THE QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER EXTENSION NO.1 RESOLUTION NO. 521, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing an extension to the existing Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, to be known as the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer Extension No.1, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared regarding the said proposed extension to the existing Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, such extension to service an area of land in the amount of 28+\- acres, such area consisting of those parcels or lots being identified as having tax map numbers 110.00-1-2.1 and 110.00-1-22, with the boundaries of the proposed extension being more fully set forth herein and in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Town Clerk's Office in the Town of Queensbury and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report was prepared by James 1. Connors, P.E., of C.T. Male Associates, P.C., and stamped as prepared by an engineer licensed by the State of New York, and WHEREAS, said Map, Plan and Report shows the boundaries of the proposed extension to the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District and a general plan of the proposed sewer system showing proposed installation of a duplex submersible grinder pump station, 195 If of 2-inch PVC SDR 26 force main, 1,410 If of 8-inch PVC SDR 35 gravity sewer, 8 precast concrete manholes, 515 or 545 If of 6-inch PVC SDR 35 lateral pipe, and a Kor-N-Seal connection to an existing manhole, and with it also being set forth further that the sewage disposal plant is proposed to be the City of Glens Falls Sewage Disposal Plant, and that transmission mains of the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District shall also be used to transport the sewage from the said extension to the City Plant, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to establish the said proposed sewer extension pursuant to Town Law, Article 12A, and consolidate the same with the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District pursuant to Town Law, ~206A, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board has considered the establishment of said extension in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a negative declaration concerning environmental impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, that: 1. notice of said public hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. it is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer Extension No.1, as the same has been described in the map, plan and report on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and as more specifically described herein; 3. all property and property owners within said extension are benefitted thereby; 4. all property and property owners benefitted are included within the limits of said extension; 5. pursuant to ~206a of the Town Law of the State of New York, it is in the public interest to assess all expenses of the district, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established as a charge against the entire area of the district as extended and it is in the public interest to extend the district only if all expenses of the district shall be assessed against the entire district as extended, and IT IS FURTHER, RESOLVED, that: 1. The Queensbury Technical Park Sewer Extension NO.1 be and the same is hereby authorized, approved and established in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth herein and in the previously described map, plan and report, and construction of the improvement may proceed and service provided and subject to the following; a. of Health; the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department b. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; c. the execution of an agreement between the Developer and/or Owner of properties to be served by the extension and the Town, which agreement will provide that the Developer and/or Owner will pay all costs of construction of the extension, provide for the escrow of funds for such construction, provide for certain specifications of construction, and contain such other provisions as may be deemed appropriate by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury; d. a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article 7 of the Town Law of the State of New York; e. the adoption of a final Order by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury; 2. The boundaries of the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer Extension NO.1 to the existing Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District are as follows: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land situate in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, lying generally Southwesterly ofDix Avenue (County Route No. 42) and generally Westerly of Quaker Road (New York State Route No. 254) being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Southwesterly margin ofDix Avenue with the Westerly highway boundary of Quaker Road and thence from said point of beginning along said Westerly highway boundary of Quaker Road the following two (2) courses: 1) South 27 deg. 53 min. 29 sec. East 514.04 feet to a point; and 2) South 25 deg. 14 min. 04 sec. East 413.70 feet to its point of intersection with the Northwesterly margin of Highland Avenue New York State Route No. 32; thence along said Northwesterly road margin the following two (2) courses: 1) South 59 deg. 06 min. 33 sec. West 242.69 feet to a point; and 2) South 53 deg. 45 min. 30 sec. West 84.08 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Claude C. Charlebois as described in Book 729 of Deeds at Page 221 on the Northeast and lands now or formerly of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, formerly lands of the Adirondack Power and Light Corporation, as described in Book 157 of Deeds at Page 556 on the Southwest; thence North 65 deg. 13 min. 10 sec. West along the last mentioned division line 866.30 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Charlebois on the East and other lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, formerly lands of the Adirondack Power and Light Corporation, as described in Book 155 of Deeds at Page 320 on the West; thence along the last mentioned division line North 07 deg. 58 min. 00 sec. East 72.72 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Charlebois on the Northeast and lands of said Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation formerly lands of the Adirondack Power and Light Corporation as described in Book 155 of Deeds at Page 320 on the Southwest; thence North 65 deg. 13 min. 10 sec. West along the last mentioned division line 664.11 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Charlebois on the East and lands now or formerly of the Town of Queensbury as described in Book 756 of Deeds at Page 152 on the West; thence North 08 deg. 04 min. 10 sec. East along the last mentioned division line 822.41 feet to its point of intersection with the Southwesterly margin ofDix Avenue; thence along said Southwesterly margin the following three (3) courses: 1) South 64 deg. 37 min. 10 sec. East 673.53 feet to a point; thence 2) South 65 deg. 12 min. 23 sec. East 131.89 feet; and 3) South 65 deg. 37 min. 30 sec. East 59.35 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between lands of said Charlebois on the Northwest and lands now or formerly of Willston Realty Company as described in Book 400 of Deeds at Page 456 and Book 469 of Deeds at Page 504 on the Southeast; thence South 24 deg. 37 min. 20 sec. West along the last mentioned division line 200.00 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Charlebois on the Southwest and lands of said Willston Realty Company on the Northeast; thence South 65 deg. 22 min. 40 sec. East along the last mentioned division line 275.00 feet to its point of intersection with the division line between the lands of said Charlebois on the Southeast and lands of said Willston Realty Company on the Northwest; thence North 24 deg. 37 min. 20 sec. East along the last mentioned division line 200.00 feet to its point of intersection with the Southwesterly margin ofDix Avenue; thence along said Southwesterly road margin South 65 deg. 21 min. 45 sec. East 99.95 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing 27.934 +/- acres ofland. 3. The improvements shall consist of the purchase and installation of a duplex submersible grinder pump station, 195 If of 2-inch PVC SDR 26 force main, 1,410 If of 8-inch PVC SDR 35 gravity sewer, 8 precast concrete manholes, 515 or 545 If of 6-inch PVC SDR 35 lateral pipe, and a Kor-N-Seal connection to an existing manhole, as more specifically set forth in the aforedescribed Map, Plan and Report prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P. C. and the cost shall also include a payment of the appropriate charge due the City of Glens Falls at the time of the initial hook-up; 4. All proposed construction shall be installed and paid for by the developer (including the cost payable to the City at the time of initial hook -up) and shall be constructed and installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications, and under competent engineering supervision; 5. The maximum amount to be expended for said improvement will not be greater than $130,000.00, said improvement cost to be paid by the developer and at no cost to the Town of Queensbury or the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, for the proposed extension. The areas or properties a part of the extension, however, will be subject to the same cost for operation, maintenance and capital improvements as in the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District; 6. The method of apportioning costs is such that the Developer and/or Owner of the property which the extension will service, will pay the cost for engineering, installation of the sewer pipe, and necessary appurtenances and the initial capital charge payable to the City of Glens Falls for use of its sewage treatment plant. The extension will thereafter be consolidated with the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District and properties therein will be assessed taxes and/or pay user fees in the same manner and in the same amounts as similar properties are assessed or billed in the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District; 7. There will be no financing of the construction or installation cost for the proposed sewer extension and no amount shall be paid therefor by the extension, the Town of Queensbury or the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, the developer being responsible for the same, as well as the charge payable to the City at the time of the initial connection of the sewer district; 8. In accordance with Town Law, Section 206A, all expenses of the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District, including all extensions included heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended; 9. Expenses occasioned after the creation of the extension shall be assessed, levied, and/or collected from the several lots and parcels of land within the extension on the same basis as the assessments, levies, and/or collections are made in the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District and such assessments shall be made on a benefit basis and/or user charge basis; 10. The Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements and area involved is on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided the provisions of Article 7 and Article 12-A of the Town Law of the State of New York and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file, post, and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR MR. WILLIAM 1. BARBER RESOLUTION NO. 522, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury regulates mobile homes outside of mobile home parks pursuant to ~ 113 -12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mr. William 1. Barber has filed an application for a permit, in accordance with said ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to replace his old mobile home with a new mobile home at property situated on Farm-to-Market Road, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determines it to be appropriate to hold a public hearing regarding said permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on October 4th, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application by Mr. William 1. Barber for a permit to substitute a new mobile home for an existing mobile home on property situated at Farm-to-Market Road, Queensbury, New York, and at that time all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish and provide notice of said public hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, to post a copy thereof on the bulletin board of the Office of the Town Clerk, and to mail a copy thereof to the Town Planning Board, at least 10 days prior to said hearing. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Town Board held discussion regarding proposed resolution regarding approval of Christopher C. Brown as an electrical inspector and Town Board agreed to hold resolution for further information from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes. RESOLUTION CORRECTING CIVIL SERVICE TITLES RESOLUTION NO. 523, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously hired several employees and gave them Payroll Titles, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel & Civil Service has found discrepancies such that the Payroll Titles should be amended to properly reflect the accurate Roster Titles of the employees, and therefore has requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopt a resolution amending the Payroll Titles to be consistent with the necessary Roster Titles so that the correct Civil Service titles are used, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the employees' Payroll Titles, as listed below, to make them consistent with the correct Roster Titles, and authorizes that all necessary Civil service forms and documents be adjusted to reflect the changes: EMPLOYEE NAME PAYROLL TITLE ROSTER TITLE Donald Chase Sr. Clerk Account Clerk Linda Krooz Assessor's Assistant Assistant to the Assessor Victor LeFebvre Asst. Building Asst. Building & Inspector Zoning Enf. Off. EMPLOYEE NAME PAYROLL TITLE ROSTER TITLE Whitney Russell Building Insp. Asst. Building & Zoning Enf. Off. Edward Matraw Crematory Asst. Cremator Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE NEW YORK ST ATE DIVISION FOR YOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 524, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is eligible for funds from the New York State Division for Youth, and WHEREAS, Harold R. Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has prepared an application for the total amount of monies ($10,000.00) which the Town of Queensbury is eligible for in year 1994, for reimbursement of recreation funds expended for the administration, supervision, and operation of year- round recreation programs and activities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes and directs Michel R. Brandt, Supervisor, to sign the funding application for submission to the New York State Division for Youth. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NAMING HOVEY POND RESOLUTION NO. 525, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Town Park between Glenwood Avenue and Lafayette Street in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing a name for the said Park, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby designates the aforesaid Park as Hovey Pond Park, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the aforesaid official Park name shall be the official name of the said Town Park and shall be so referred to on all official documentation used within the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Councilman Caimano-Just a question, has a letter been sent to Mr. Hansen and Mrs. Gosline for all the efforts they've put forth? Supervisor Brandt -Alot of people have put alot of effort forth and I think a letter generally has been sent to almost each individual group. I'm not sure that Friends of Hovey Pond were covered but that should be and we can take care of it. I think we need to pretty soon here, do an opening, I assume we're getting close to it. And invite all these people and we ought to, as a Board, thank them because I think there's been an enormous effort and I think it's well received. I think people like the park, I think the neighbors like the park and I think it's been a pretty good success. And it really it's a success because of the community involvement. Councilman Caimano- That's a great idea. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, so we'll try and schedule that. RESOLUTION REGARDING PREPARATION OF MAP, PLAN & REPORT ON BEHALF OF QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 526, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously studied expansion proposals for the Water Treatment Plant situated in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously authorized and sent out requests for proposals for engineering services in connection with the development of a map, plan, and report, and design and construction phases of such a proposed Water Treatment Plant Expansion, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after reviewing the responses received in connection with the Requests for Proposals has decided that O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., would be the appropriate engineer for the Town to retain in connection with the services needed for expansion of the Water Treatment Plant, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, at this time, desires to proceed with the development of a map, plan, and report concerning the proposed expansion of the Water Treatment Plant, and WHEREAS, following receipt of the map, plan & report, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will then hold a public hearing and consider the same in accordance with Town Law ~202-b, and WHEREAS, an agreement has been presented at this Town Board meeting, which agreement provides for services by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., for the map, plan, and report, as well as design and construction phase services for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the preparation of a map, plan, and report in connection with the proposed expansion of the Water Treatment Plant, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the agreement between the Town of Queensbury and O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc., presented at this meeting, and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, and to take such other and further steps as may be necessary to undertake performance under the aforesaid agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notes that although the agreement provides for all engineering services for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion, the same also allows the Town to terminate the agreement upon 10 days written notice and/or at the end of any phase, and therefore, the Town Board will be able to freely determine whether to proceed or not to proceed with the expansion project following the required Town Law ~202-b hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment of the services will be made from, the Appropriate Account, a new Capital Project Fund. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Attorney Dusek - I have something on this for you. There was an addendum that I had prepared and attached to this agreement. Late this afternoon, probably around three or so, four o'clock, I got a call from O'Brien and Gere, one of their people associated with them and they had generally, they said things were looking pretty good but they had a couple of things with the addendum. Unfortunately, I got disrupted and wasn't able to continue the call with them. So, I don't know now what the changes were. So, I don't know if the Board wants to leave those modifications to me to work out or whether you would rather hold on the resolution. Councilman Caimano-Well, we could pass the resolution as is based upon what O'Brien and Gere says and we'll have to leave it up to you to come back to us and say, look, they've made substantial changes here or we can just leave it open. Councilman Monahan-I think we ought to just leave it. Supervisor Brandt-Yea and if they're not substantial changes, we can move ahead. I'd rather do that. Councilman Caimano-I don't mind moving ahead, provided we're going to put the monkey on your back though and that is that you're going to listen to them, if there's a substantial change, you'll have to tell us right away. Supervisor Brandt-And come back and revisit it. Councilman Caimano-Ijust hate to keep sitting on this thing, if we don't have to. Supervisor Brandt-I do too because it was clearly understood that the way the bid was, we had to move this thing rapidly and it's starting to bog down and I'd like to keep it moving. Councilman Monahan- I just have a few questions if I could on this contract. Councilman Caimano-I have a question too, myself but go ahead. Councilman Monahan-Page 3 of the contract where it says changes. Changes, owner agrees to pay engineer on the basis of salary cost times a multiplier of 2.6 for design personnel and 2.4 for construction division personnel, or as otherwise mutually agreed upon. I just want to say, they're going to have to prove that multiplier 2.6 to me. When they look at what they call salary cost up here and they've put in everything in salary cost but the kitchen sink and then they want to multiply it times 2.6. Attorney Dusek-This agreement doesn't provide, that's for the extras, the agreement Councilman Monahan-I know, that's what I'm talking about, extras. Attorney Dusek-Okay because Councilman Monahan-I'd hate to be paying for extras, they've got everything in salary cost, unemployment, comp., everything and then they want to take and multiply that times 2.6 and they've got practically everything in there. Attorney Dusek-Okay, if you agree to this, you're agreeing to that 2.6. Councilman Monahan-Well, I'mjust saying there's otherwise mutually agreed upon, I Councilman Caimano-No, but there's a caveat that goes before that Betty. The first part of that says, in the event that material changes in plans or scope of the work are directed. Councilman Monahan-But there's always changes. I just want to say that I mean, I'm not saying don't pass this. What I'm saying is, I want to go on the record right now, if the changes come, I want to look at otherwise mutually agreed upon because 2.6, unless they can prove that to me, is an exorbitant multiplier. Councilman Caimano-It's a pretty wide open Councilman Monahan-You bet your life it is. Councilman Caimano-Group there anyway. Councilman Monahan-And there was another couple of things. Supervisor Brandt-Wait a minute, though. If we're going to approve this contract, it's as written. Attorney Dusek-That's the problem. Councilman Monahan-I realize that but I'm just saying that Supervisor Brandt-Well, then what's the figure we should be, what are you trying to strive for? Councilman Monahan-I guess I want to see the proof of where they're coming up with 2.6. Councilman Caimano- Well, I think Councilman Tucker-Then, I guess we can't approve the contract. Councilman Caimano-I think that there's two things that mitigate that. Again, the opening sentence and the last part of the sentence which says, or as otherwise mutually agreed upon. Councilman Monahan-Yea, that's what I'm banking on too. Councilman Caimano-So, I don't think we're locked into anything. Councilman Monahan-So, I'mjust saying right now, that, you know, I'm going to question that if the time ever comes. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Attorney Dusek-The agreement provides for a flat sum to be paid for each one of the functions. Councilman Monahan-I realize that, I'm talking about change orders. Attorney Dusek-So, right but Councilman Monahan-I've been through construction stuff. Attorney Dusek-But and then the agreement also says though, if there are changes, this is what you're going to pay. Councilman Monahan-No, it says, or as mutually agreed upon. Councilman Caimano-Or otherwise mutually agreed upon, there's a caveat in there that opens it wide up. Councilman Monahan-Yea, there is and that's why I wanted to bring it to the attention right now. Councilman Tucker-But if they don't agree, they're going to charge you 2.6. Councilman Caimano-It says, mutually agreed, that's two of us. Councilman Monahan-Okay, page 1.2. Deliverables, 1 dash 2, excuse me. Task 1 Deliverables. The deliverables of Phase 1, Task 1, will be the following; map, plan and report, assistance with and attendance at public hearings. I just want to know if there's going to be a preliminary public information meeting because usually we've had preliminary public information meetings that kind of let the people know how this is going before we get right down to the final map, plan and report? And that's just a question I have. I have another question, page Supervisor Brandt-Well, wait a minute, let's address that one before we go on. Councilman Monahan-Well, I'm just bringing up the whole series of things and you guys can talk about them. 1 dash 4. Councilman Caimano- Well, why don't we just handle them as we go? Supervisor Brandt-We'd like to talk about them. Councilman Monahan-Alright. Supervisor Brandt-Let's take them one at a time and talk about them. Councilman Caimano- That's fine with me, actually. Supervisor Brandt-What's that? Councilman Caimano-Having, you know, open it up to a public information meeting. Councilman Monahan-Don't you think there should be? That's when you get some of the things that may change your map, plan and report from public comment. Attorney Dusek-Now, if you do that though, that would be an extra charge. Councilman Monahan-It's going to be another charge. Attorney Dusek-Right, under this agreement, unless they were willing to stick it in. Councilman Monahan-But I'm trying to remember during that meeting that we sat and discussed that with them, if they said they would do that. Do you remember? I've got notes but they're home. Councilman Caimano-We did talk about it but I don't remember what was said. Councilman Monahan-I thought we talked about it and was part of the thing. Supervisor Brandt-I don't understand. If you have a public hearing, you get input and then you can change what you're doing. Councilman Monahan-Yea, but they've already done the map, plan and report and then they're having the public hearing after that and then that's when you get into changes that cost you money. Where if you have a public information meeting ahead of time, you get some of the changes that you might want before you go to the final map, plan and report that they put so much money on. It's just a preliminary step that we've done sometimes. Supervisor Brandt-But I think we've been doing that for a period of time and it seems to me that you really have to move with a map, plan and report so that you have hard figures so that you're looking at something specific for people to, to get their comments on. I think we've talked about this thing for years and it looks like it's time to move it. I think we, we basically made the decisions. We said this is what we're going to do. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to go with the map, plan and report and have a public hearing on it. Councilman Monahan-l dash 4. Supervisor Brandt-Is that resolved with the, with the, Nick, you agreed? Councilman Caimano- Yea, I agree. Supervisor Brandt-Pliney? Councilman Tucker-Yup. Supervisor Brandt-Sue? Okay, that's settled. Councilman Monahan-l dash 4, my question was and I got two different feelings as I read this document and that's why I'm asking the question. Whose paying for the borings? Councilman Caimano-I don't know. Councilman Monahan-You go on later on in the document and it talks like that's part of their contract but in this part, I can't quite decide what they're saying. Supervisor Brandt-Ralph, do you remember that? Mr. Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Superintendent of Water-I don't. In the past we've done contracts where we've paid or it's been included in the engineering fees. Councilman Caimano-It says very specifically, make necessary arrangements. Mr. VanDusen-I'm under the impression that we're going to pay. They're going to make, they're going to coordinate but I think the town will pay the bill. Attorney Dusek-The way this is written, I'm just looking it over now is that you would pay for the borings. Councilman Monahan-Yea, it says we will provide on-site drilling inspections. Councilman Caimano- That's right, right. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Councilman Monahan-But later on, some other borings they're going to do, it sounds like that they're going to do or be responsible for, you know, in another phase of it. Supervisor Brandt-Where is that? Because this we're saying, we're paying for. Councilman Caimano-It looks that way. Mr. VanDusen-I think there was a listing offour and five borings that were included ... the town's paying for. Councilman Monahan-This is a total of hundred and eighty-five feet, that sounds like the town is going to pay for it, Ralph. Mr. VanDusen-I think so. Councilman Monahan-And Paul, I was glad that in your resolution, you tightened up those change orders that they have to be approved by the town before they can even start on a change order. Attorney Dusek -Well, I think that's just a good idea. Councilman Monahan-Yea, because we've run into trouble with that before and you were very specific about that and they we're not, really. And that was the extent of my comments. Councilman Caimano-I have a question on the addendum, Paul, on page 2, number 5. It talks about, in the event that termination of the agreement occurs during that time the engineer is performing one of the services, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, the engineer will be paid for that percentage of the work completed in that phase. Who determines that, them or us? Attorney Dusek-Well, initially under the agreement, they would determine it as they do even under the main agreement because they submit bills as to the percentages. If you wanted to contest that, obviously, that would be the grounds for Councilman Caimano-But the original determination is theirs? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Councilman Tucker-Yea, they tell you when they're ready for money. Councilman Monahan-They do that when they submit their bill. Councilman Caimano- Yea, I just want to make sure. Attorney Dusek-I should mention to you too, importantly, what the addendum adds in, is that you can terminate after any phase too. So, you're not forced to go on if things aren't to your satisfaction. Councilman Monahan-The only thing I saw that you made different, well, that article 5 you made a little different but it wasn't that much different. Is that what they're objecting to? Attorney Dusek-I didn't get a chance to finish the conversation with them. Councilman Monahan-Oh, so you don't know what it was. Attorney Dusek-No. Supervisor Brandt-Have you discussed this with our Water Department, for their input? Attorney Dusek-Yes, when I got the contracts in, I sent a copy over to Tom Flaherty and spoke with Tom on the phone who indicated that, he gave me a couple of concerns which I did in fact address in the addendum and then he indicated that the technical specs as far as he was concerned looked alright. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Attorney Dusek-There's one thing you do have to do is, do you have a contact person that you're going to, in paragraph 17, that you'll name? Councilman Caiman-Oh, that's right we do. Councilman Monahan-I would think it would be Tom as head of the Water Department. Councilman Caimano-At this stage of the game, it's got to be the Chairman of the Water Department, it seems to me. Councilman Monahan-You mean Tom? Councilman Caimano- Tom, yes. Councilman Monahan-Yea, Superintendent. Councilman Caimano-Superintendent, I said Chairman. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with that. Pliney? Councilman Tucker-No. Supervisor Brandt-Sue? Okay, so Tom Flaherty would be the contact person. Okay, the motion is made and seconded, any other discussion? Please vote. DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Councilman Caimano-Clearly understood that, on the record, on this record that you have to let us know if there are any meaningful changes, right? Attorney Dusek-Yes, if there are any changes what so, actually Councilman Caimano-Any changes at all. Attorney Dusek-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I have one other question just for you. Where it says, survey property description for purchase of land at tank site, don't we own enough land there on Gurney Lane Park for it to be there or do we have to go out and purchase land, actually? Supervisor Brandt-I don't know that. Councilman Monahan-Apparently at the side of the tank, there's not enough room the way they talked. Councilman Goetz-It seems to me that Tom talked about that at some point. Mr. VanDusen-Until we do some preliminary site work, we don't know exactly where the best place for the tank probably might be. It appears when you walk the site that it takes some property owned by Warren County, maybe a better tank site then the area where the Town's recreation ... until we get a little farther along, we really can't say where the best site is. Town Clerk Dougher-Could we have an account number on that resolution? Supervisor Brandt-Call it the appropriate account and get it from EJ so it's correct. Mr. VanDusen-I talked with EJ about that a while ago and it was his recommendation that we establish a new account specifically for that project so that we could track the costs throughout the project. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND RATIFYING REPORT TO STATE COMPTROLLER RESOLUTION NO. 527,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor, on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, has written a report in response to the Office of State Comptroller Report of Examination for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1991, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Town Supervisor's written response has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and ratifies the response issued to the State Comptroller and directs that a copy of this Resolution be annexed thereto and maintained a part thereof and the records kept in the Town of Queensbury and that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the State Comptroller's Office. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 528, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-3620-4400 01-3510-2001 $ 600.00 (Misc. Contractual) (Misc. Equipment) 01-3620-4100 01-3510-4400 $ 100.00 (Telephone Use) (Misc. Contractual) 01-8020-4120 01-8020-2010 $ 350.00 (Printing) (Office Equipment) 01-8020-4110 01-8020-4050 $ 300.00 (Vehicle Repair) (Books, Pubs. & Subs.) 01-8020-4110 01-8020-4010 $ 100.00 (Vehicle Repair) (Offices Supplies) 01-8020-4400 01-8020-4100 $ 750.00 (Misc. Contractual) (Telephone Use) FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-8020-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 01-8020-4080 (Advertisement) $ 300.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Brandt -C&D revenue when we applied to the State to bring C&D into our landfill, it was clearly in our discussions that all revenue from C&D would be used for closure expenses. However, I don't think we ever passed a resolution saying that and in reviewing the records, nobody can really affirm that and we'd like to straighten out the bookkeeping and make sure that it's clear, so I'll offer this resolution. RESOLUTION REGARDING C&D DISPOSAL REVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 529,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is currently receiving revenues for the disposal of C&D at the Town of Queensbury Ridge Road Landfill from persons and/or corporations or other entities which have executed contracts with the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, although it had been the plan of the Town of Queensbury to deposit the money earned from the C&D waste into the Landfill Closure Fund, it has come to the attention of the Town Board that a resolution directing such has not yet been adopted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs that any revenues received from C&D disposal for which contracts have been executed shall be deposited in the Landfill Reserve Closure Fund, and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to take such steps, including execution of necessary documents, adjustment of accounts, and transfer of funds as may be required to accomplish the purposes set forth in this resolution. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING 1993 BUDGETS RESOLUTION NO. 530, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves, authorize, and directs that the 1993 General Fund Budget be amended to increase estimated revenues as follows: GENERAL FUND REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERAL GENERAL FUND FUND REVENUE ACCOUNT NAME ESTIMATED REVENUES $ INCREASE 001-001-2660 Sale of Real Property $100,000 001-001-3001 NYS Revenue Sharing $ 62,970 001-001-1170 Cablevision Fees $ 33,837 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE INCREASE: $196,807 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that appropriations in the Contingency Account No.: 001-1990-4400 of the 1993 General Fund is hereby amended to increase appropriations in the amount of $196,807.00 and the 1993 General Fund Budget is hereby amended accordingly, with the source of funding from the above General Accounts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Landfill Fund Estimated Revenue is increased as follows, with the source of funds to be from an expense from the General Fund (Landfill Operations): LANDFILL LANDFILL REVENUE ACCOUNT REVENUES NUMBER LANDFILL REVENUE ACCOUNT ESTIMATED NAME $ INCREASE 910-910-2390-1 Queensbury General Fund - Expenses $ 77,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE INCREASE: $ 77,000 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the following transfer in the General Fund Budget is authorized: GENERAL FUND TRANSFER FROM AMOUNT GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO $ 001-1990-4400 (Contingency) 001-8160-4400 (Landfill $ 77,000 Operation) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Landfill Operation Fund is hereby amended to increase appropriations in the amount of $77,000.00 in the following two accounts and amounts indicated: LANDFILL EXPENSE ACCOUNT NUMBER LANDFILL EXPENSE ACCOUNT NAME LANDFILL APPROPRIATION $ INCREASE 910-1930-4400 Judgment & Claims $ 63,000 (Sassone Settlement) 910-8160-4640 Gravel $ 14,000 TOT AL APPROPRIATION INCREASE: $ 77,000 and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that where ever in this resolution or in the accounts, it's indicated Share of Expenses, it shall read simply Expenses and where ever it reads Joint Landfill Operation, it shall read Landfill Operation. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Shaw, Wastewater Superintendent reviewed with the Town Board the five alternative tax rolls. Town Board held discussion and the following consensus were made: Supervisor Brandt-I'd like to take alternative number two. Councilman Caimano-I'd like to take alternative number four, I want to give benefit to both. My complaint there is, if you look at it, on the variance, the plus or minus variance on alternative four, the residential owner gets a 4.9 percent increase, the commercial gets a 1.2 or 3, 1.6. Mr. Shaw-And the reason being some of those commercial users are using more water in 94 and some of those commercial users are using less water. You can take the two same properties on any given year, two years in a row, those can go up and down without any adjustments at all in the budget or, because of the water usage. Councilman Monahan-So, you didn't base this on the actual number of gallons used. Mr. Shaw-You could never base it on actual number of gallons used. You have to use on prior year water usage. Councilman Monahan-That's what I'm saying Councilman Caimano-Why do you like two? Councilman Monahan-But 93 and 94, have you used the same amount of gallons? Supervisor Brandt -Get the thing started. Mr. Shaw-No, it hasn't. Councilman Caimano-Oh, okay. I like four because it also gives benefit to the vacant land user. Councilman Monahan-See, that's why we can't do a good comparison. Mr. Shaw-The only way I can compare it, is compare it on the information I have. Now, when we bill these, they're billed on prior year water usage. In 94, they're going to be billed on prior year, 93 usage. Councilman Monahan-I know, but what I'm trying to say is Councilman Caimano-It's only three dollars a year more. Supervisor Brandt-To the resident. Councilman Monahan-We can't see the impact unless we're talking about the same gallonage uses. The only way is you can look at impact. Mr. Shaw-Well, if you use the same gallons usage, you're not going to have the same impact because that's going to affect all the points of the program. Supervisor Brandt-It's not a big factor. Councilman Monahan-Well, it is if your changing points, though. Mr. Shaw-And when you affect the total points of the program, that's going to affect the actual per point value. Councilman Monahan-But I'm interested in what the guys writing the check for every year. Supervisor Brandt-That is a complete print out and you're giving us a range Mr. Shaw-To look at it, it is a very complicated and one little issue in it will change the program very much so and unless you sit down and study each parcel, you know it has a different effect on each parcel. Councilman Monahan-Nick, why do you want number four when it Councilman Caimano-Because it gives benefit to the vacant landowner. It reduces by a quarter of a point. Councilman Tucker-But should the guy that doesn't own the land be obligated to pay for the guy that does own the land? Councilman Caimano-Good point. Councilman Monahan-But you haven't given us the vacant land as an example, that's the problem here. So, we can't really see what happens. Mr. Shaw-But what I said here, generally what you're going to see is anywhere from twenty-two to twenty- five percent savings, okay and depending on which plan you pick because if you pick this by itself, you're going to have more of a savings of percentage. If you pick the two alternatives together, you're, generally, the best way to think about this program is total points. You take total points and you divide into your total amount to be raised and that's what you come up for point. Now, if your altering your points any way, either raising more or lowering, it's going to raise or lower your per point value. Councilman Monahan-Did you total, I don't see where you total the points on these pages? Mr. Shaw-I did not ... Supervisor Brandt-He had to do it in the computer so that he could generate this for us. Councilman Monahan-I know but we need to know that too, total points. Councilman Caimano- The difference between two and four, to the residential homeowner is three dollars a year. Supervisor Brandt-Then to the largest Councilman Caimano- To the largest commercial user however, is double, almost doubled. Councilman Monahan-He's getting a wack. Mr. Shaw-Well, the largest commercial user, for your information, is somewhere around eight hundred points. Now, last year, I think off the top of my head, was eight hundred and forty points. This year, they're eight hundred and twelve points and the simple reason is, they used less water. But the largest user is in the neighborhood of eight hundred points. Supervisor Brandt-What's the consensus of the Board? What do you want to do? Councilman Caimano-Well, I had my say, I want four. Supervisor Brandt-I had mine. Councilman Goetz-Okay, alternative two, at least it reduces the water consumption end of it. Which you wanted to do, right? Supervisor Brandt-Right. Councilman Goetz-Okay and it isn't such a large wack for the large commercial user. Now, will that take care of that problem of the one person that came before us? Supervisor Brandt -Yea. Mr. Shaw-They'll pay exactly the same as a residential. Councilman Goetz-As a resident and that's, was the underlying policy when the benefit tax was established. Mr. Shaw-Any less than, if I reduce the water consumption any less than that, then they're going to be paying less than a residential. Councilman Goetz-Right. Supervisor Brandt-Alright Councilman Monahan-Alternative three looks pretty good. Supervisor Brandt-Pliney, have you got an opinion? Betty, you got an opinion? Councilman Monahan-Well, I say looking at these numbers, alternative three looks pretty good. It doesn't seem like it's hurting people so much. Councilman Caimano-Well, alternative three is Supervisor Brandt-Doesn't address the Councilman Caimano-It doesn't address the Supervisor Brandt-The main problem that brought this to a head. Councilman Caimano- The main problem. Mr. Shaw-Just for the input, the most complaints I had received was on the commercial water base, zero to two hundred and forty gallons, you got three points. Councilman Caimano-Right, it doesn't address that at all. Mr. Shaw-That's been probably the biggest complaint I had and I personally thought that maybe they had a point. I thought maybe that was, after looking at it, maybe it was a little high because there are some people out there that aren't ... Supervisor Brandt-Right, it has the least effect on everybody, it solves the biggest problem we've got in front of us. Councilman Caimano-Fine, I'll go with two. Mr. Shaw-The residents we've heard off and on for a while, occasionally at different meetings... Supervisor Brandt-Pliney, where are you? Councilman Tucker-Two. Councilman Goetz-I want two. I think, Nick's going for two. Are you going for two now? Councilman Caimano-I'll go for two, I'll go with you. Councilman Monahan-So, that means that the vacant land is going to get the wack they've had. Councilman Caimano-No, it means that they're not going to get the benefit. Supervisor Brandt-Relief. Councilman Caimano-Any more relief. Supervisor Brandt-And what you're really doing, that's pressure to force development of that land and that's what you got to do, when you've got service there. If you don't develop, it isn't fair to the people who are paying the, you know, the real fees. If you're going to get competitive, you need to build up that, you know, build in that Councilman Caimano-Well, Pliney brings up a good point. I mean, you can't just, somebody's got to pick it up, you got to pay a certain amount of money, period. Councilman Tucker-With this system, every time you give somebody a break, somebody else get's it shoved to him, period. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Betty, where are you on this? Councilman Tucker-Is that correct? Mr. Shaw-That's correct. Councilman Tucker-You've got to collect so many dollars? Mr. Shaw-That's right. Councilman Monahan-I don't really know where I am, Mike, if you want the God's honest truth. Supervisor Brandt -Sue, do you have an opinion on this? Councilman Goetz-Alternative two. Supervisor Brandt-Well, there's four of us that are willing to go with alternative two. So, I'll move that we adopt alternative two. How do we do that? Attorney Dusek-There's a resolution there prepared for you. Town Clerk Dougher-I believe Mr. Tucker has already introduced it. Councilman Monahan-What alternative is on that one? Town Clerk Dougher-He said two. Correct, Pliney? Councilman Tucker-Pardon? Town Clerk Dougher-You said two? Councilman Tucker-Yes, mam. Town Clerk Dougher-So, I need a second. Councilman Goetz-I'll second it. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, any other discussion. Please vote. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF PROPOSED BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER RD. SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 531,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, working through the Superintendent of Waste Water and the Town Attorney's Office, has developed a basis for the Benefit Tax Roll for the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Superintendent of Waste Water to file a proposed Benefit Tax Roll consistent with the formula and basis presented at this meeting, with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury on September 21, 1993 and the Town Board further notes that a subsequent resolution setting a public hearing will be adopted at the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting, for the 1994 benefit roll. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt, Mrs. Monahan NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION DURING VOTE: Councilman Monahan-A reluctant yes. Councilman Caimano-Well, it is a tough call. Supervisor Brandt-Oh yea, you bet it is. Not a pleasant duty, really. Councilman Monahan-Because I really don't believe in forcing development in some of those places you're forcing it. COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Monahan noted that Paul Naylor received a letter from Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company stating the following. This letter is to advise you and your department that the intersection of Martindale Road and Route 149 poses a real hazard for emergency vehicles, as well as regular traffic. The specific problem is the sharp change in angle and elevation of the intersection of those two thoroughfares. Furthermore, completing a left hand turn to proceed westbound on Route 149 is nearly impossible. This condition makes emergency response more difficult. Any action you are able to undertake in resolving this situation would be appreciated. Paul suggested that maybe the Town would like to have an engineer study this intersection. Jim, have you got anything you would like to add to that? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I know traditionally, the Planning Office has backed the stand of the emergency service providers and I would continue to do so, especially in this regard. I would agree, if there could be a solution to have this studied through an engineering report, I'd certainly support that because that is a dangerous angle of that road as it approaches Route 149. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, how do you want to do that? Go back, prepare a resolution and bring it back next Monday or do you want to do it right now? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I like to have a scope of services drawn up for any sort of professional services. I'll draw one of them up and present it to the Board in a draft form for your consideration. ATTORNEY MATTERS 10:30 P.M. AMBULANCE SERVICE AWARD Attorney Dusek presented to the Town Board a late afternoon draft of the Volunteer Ambulance Service Award Program. Noted, We've been desperately trying to put something together and we couldn't get it together any sooner than this afternoon and as you know, we're under time constraints. So, I thought I would take a minute to review it with you to see if this essentially meets with your approval. Although, I noticed that the resolution, even as it's written, still needs another change. The first whereas clause simply states that you want to establish a program or a proposal has been made. The second one is resolved, the Town Board hereby directs that there will be a referendum of eligible voters on the program, that's identified in this resolution and it's in accordance with general municipal law, Section ll-AA. The program would be established January 1st, 1994 if it were approved by the voters in November. The type of program would be, what they call a defined contribution program, which is the exact same type of program you have with the fire companies right now. Meaning, you make a particular contribution each year. The program would provide that for each qualified service year up to forty, you could collect on the program which is the same as with the volunteer fire. Also, the program provides that there could be a buy back of years up to five years before this program got started for the ambulance personnel which is the same as the fire company. The contribution is four hundred dollars each year which is the same as the fire companies and the buy back provisions would be the same. Investment, etecetera, trust funds, administration costs would be paid out of that, the same as the fire service awards program. The entitlement age would be sixty-two years old, that would be the age at which they could collect whatever ismin the program which is once again, the same as the other program. No one gets any credit until they've earned one year of service in the program which is basically what the law requires, that they have to be over eighteen and work a year collecting points before they can be eligible. There is pre-entitlement age death benefit that is paid in a lump sum but only if you're fully vested will that be paid out to your beneficiaries. Fully vested by the way, means that they have worked at least five years in the program and anything short of that, they don't collect the funds under the program. Councilman Monahan-What happens to it? Attorney Dusek-It's used by the Town to off set your future contributions to the program. Councilman Tucker-That's five years of active service, that doesn't include any buy back or anything? Attorney Dusek-Well, actually, that's an issue. The State Comptroller's Office is going to be coming out with regulations. Right now, in early conversations I've had with their attorneys, that's the Office of State Audit Control, they're reading that new state law to say, well, you can contribute four hundred dollars per year for each of the previous years but that can't be used for credit towards your fulfillment of the vesting. That seems to be their feeling now. Which means although they get five years buy back, they're going to have to work another five years before they can vest into the program. Councilman Monahan-Did we have to do that with the fire companies? Attorney Dusek-I don't believe so, I think the fire companies got their five years counted. Councilman Monahan-The buy back counted towards the vested. Attorney Dusek-Right. There is some differences between this legislation and the other legislation which is one of the reasons why we're going in this format. There's also a disability benefit which it works the same way basically as the firemen's disability program that they can collect should they become fully disabled. There's a few sections in this program which I want to alert you to that there is some what of a risk by passing it now, because the State Comptroller hasn't written his regulations, we're operating in the dark in terms of where we're trying to go with the program. So, it's possible, although I don't think it's likely to happen, it's a possibility that you could pass the program, go through a permissive referendum and we could find ourselves with a null and void program and have to repeat this next year. I have to tell you about it because it's a possibility. We've tried to design this fairly consistent with the state law and leave it as wide open as possible so it's susceptible to any changes that the State Comptroller may want to put into the program. Supervisor Brandt-But if that were to happen, the total cost is the cost of the referendum, preparing that referendum and putting it on the ballot. Attorney Dusek-Right and Supervisor Brandt-Which isn't very much. Attorney Dusek-Well, and your administration costs and getting it right together. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Councilman Tucker-And that's really government in action, isn't it? Councilman Caimano-Having said all that, what are the problems? Attorney Dusek-One issue was the pre-entitlement death benefit age in terms of how that will be paid. This is on page 2, where it's talking about pre-entitlement age death benefits. If you'll notice, shall be payable lump sum to a fully vested participants designated beneficiary equal to the accrued in accordance with the general municipal law. The problem with that is, is that we don't know what the Comptroller is going to come out with in terms of regulations as far as whether that would be something that's payable at the end of the year at the close out of 31st, whether it would go through to the next year and we tried to leave this as wide open as we could in terms of that issue. Also, although we believe we have the correct understanding that you have to be fully vested, that also maybe an issue in terms of how they structure that death benefit payment. The next, going down on page 2, the paragraph below, to obtain credit it says, before 1994 but after 1988, you must be a member during 1994 and provide ambulance services and must earn one year of qualifying ambulance service credit before January 1st, 1988. Now, that is not directly provided in the general municipal law, it's consistent with what we did with the fire program. The general municipal law is a little different, it just simply says, you've got to be eighteen and you've got to work a year and then you're into the program. Supervisor Brandt-But you're paralleling what has been done in this Town already? Attorney Dusek-We're trying to, hoping that it will stick once the state regulations come into effect. We think that's a reasonable, Ed Holohan and myself when I say we, we've been discussing this back and forth based on his experience because he works with these, my experience in drafting as well as reading the laws, we think that, that will hold. But that is a difference that you should be aware of. Next provision is, unless you waive participation, all volunteer ambulance workers at least eighteen years old are in the program. That's no problem, that's the way it should be, that they are all eligible. Each participant will have a non- forfeitable right after he has five years of qualifying ambulance service. That was written to match the law as closely as we could so that there wouldn't be any problems there. That's that vesting business. The next issue, on page 3, is a year of qualifying ambulance service credit shall be granted to each participant for each calendar year after 1993 during which the participant earns at least fifty points. And then there's a whole scheme here about this fifty points set up which says the Town Board may basically vary the point system. This is something that's allowed under the law, it doesn't commit you to a particular point system here but we believe that even with the Comptroller's new regulations that you should still have that ability to adjust these points in the fashion that you want to. We did put in a thirty day notice provision that you had to give notice if you were going to change the point system to the fire companies which seemed to make sense. But here again, this is not something, the law says you can structure your own point systems. When we did the volunteer fire companies, what we had was a local law and we structured it there and the State Comptroller wasn't involved, so we didn't have to worry about it. Here, what we're doing, we don't have a local law but you're still saying you're retaining the right to structure it. We're assuming that the State Comptroller's Office will not interfere in this area and will let you do that whatever way you want to. Supervisor Brandt-I'm not familiar with how that point system is structured but I guess the real question is, that's where you either give it away or you don't give it away, I would assume. So, how was it structured? What's the fairness factor and can someone explain it to us? Attorney Dusek -You're going to be allowed under this to structure it any way you want. Supervisor Brandt-So, that's left to the Town Board to do. Attorney Dusek-Right, it says the Town Board may amend the point system from time to time provided such amendments are allowable under the statutes, rules and regulations. In the event the point system is amended by the Town, a written explanation of the changes must be distributed. Supervisor Brandt-Wouldn't it be more palpable to the voters if that could be defined between now and the referendum? Because an open ended situation is going to get a negative reaction and I think what we need to do is, if it's possible, I don't know, maybe it's impossible to do it, but to give it it's best chance, that ought to be defined. Attorney Dusek-We can put a point system in here using the firemen's as a base in this resolution. Supervisor Brandt-I'd like to see something parallel to their's but I don't know that it's equatable to be parallel. Ms. Connie Goedert-Isn't there a point system that's spelled right out in the law? Attorney Dusek-In the law there is right now. Supervisor Brandt-Well, why don't we adopt that? Attorney Dusek-Well, that's what you would use under this regulation but it's open ended to some extent in terms of the maximum points that you can earn in each category. Councilman Caimano-But it ought to be closed for the public referendum. People ought to be able to see what they're doing. Attorney Dusek-The way the point system is written up under the law, it says up to a maximum of twenty- five points can be awarded for this, up to a maximum of so many points can be awarded for that and one of the things that I know is different is the points attributed towards calls. Under the firemen's, I believe they earn fifteen points. Ms. Goedert-That's been amended though. Attorney Dusek-Right, but under our local law they still earn fifteen points and under this program they can earn twenty-five points for answering calls. Councilman Tucker-Aren't there people qualified in these squads to tell us here on the Board what would be a fair number of points for an ambulance run? Attorney Dusek-I'm certain, that's what I'm saying, if you wanted to put a point system together, we could certainly attempt to put one in here in the resolution itself. Councilman Monahan-Where did the points come from on the one you proposed on September 10th? Attorney Dusek-It's a copy from the firemen's. Councilman Goetz-Connie, didn't you just say that there is something in the new law about point system? Ms. Goedert-The copy of the law that I received from Senator Bragman, the point system is spelled out as to how you can get points in the law itself. It does say that you can amend them, there's a system set up but you have the right to amend them. Councilman Goetz-Can we use that as the basis? Attorney Dusek-That's what this resolution does, it presumes that you use what's set forth in the law and then you can always turn around and amend it at a later point. Supervisor Brandt-But it presumes, can we state it that we do Attorney Dusek-Well, when I say it presumes, I mean that's what will happen. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, so that the public knows what it is they're voting on. Attorney Dusek-Absolutely. Supervisor Brandt-Alright, good. Attorney Dusek-The next item on page 3, it says, no credit shall be earned under this volunteer ambulance service award program already credited, for any service already credited to a volunteer fire fighter service award program. I think that this is a logical assumption to make but here again, you should know that this is an assumption that we're making that this is the way the program will be and we think that that's the way the statute would be read and we think the regulations would be. I also think that even if they're not read that way or if there should be other exemptions, it seems to me that the Town's right to regulate the program in this regard, you know, makes for an argument for doing it this way. Supervisor Brandt-Is there any disagreement with the services from that? Okay. Attorney Dusek-The next item talks about the four hundred dollars that will be contributed for each of the consecutive years before 1994 and that's just the five, you know up to five year earnings program which is the same as the firemen's program. The next item, it says in 1994 and this is the critical part of the resolution, it says in 1994 annual cost to local taxpayers of funding the Town of Queensbury Volunteer Ambulance Workers Service Award Program benefits payable in 1995 and assuming the maximum possible eligible volunteer ambulance workers shall become eligible for the maximum years of service that could earn is estimated to be sixty thousand dollars or six hundred dollars per volunteer ambulance worker including the cost of administration, because your administration costs comes out of what you're paying. The estimated total annual funding for the current eligible volunteer ambulance workers is estimated to be sixty thousand for the first ten years and thereafter would decrease to four hundred dollars per volunteer ambulance worker. The reason why it says six hundred dollars is not because that's what your service award is but that's what it's averaged out assuming that everybody eligible came in for the five year buy back. So, you're average comes out to six hundred and that's why after ten years, it's assuming a ten year amortization schedule and after ten years, you're award of four hundred dollars per ambulance worker would be the cost that you're paying. Councilman Tucker-Paul, seeing they've got to serve five years to get vested rights, when does the buy back happen? When they have vested rights? Attorney Dusek-The buy back can happen after the first year, they've got to earn their fifty points and then they can buy back the five years. When I say, they don't buy back, you buy it for them obviously by the contributions. Councilman Tucker-What happens if they don't get vested rights? Attorney Dusek-If they don't vest, they don't get any money. Councilman Tucker-But the Town loses Attorney Dusek-No, the money that you would, say you've got somebody that comes into the program and you make contributions but they never vest. If that happens, the Town gets to use the money to offset other payments that you might have to make into the program. Councilman Tucker-Okay, you get credit for it? Attorney Dusek-Right, it doesn't go towards administration costs, it doesn't accrue to the other members who are in the program. The other thing I should tell you, as far as the sixty thousand dollars a year, this is an assumption made that you'll have ten years to get yourself paid off on all the five year buy backs that you may have to make. Okay, and that's also assuming that everybody eligible does it. Those are two factors that we don't know but what's critical is the assumption that you do have ten years, assuming everybody did it, to get yourself straightened away and I have to tell you that, that is an assumption that is not anywhere in the law. We're assuming that it's like any other program that you'll be able to do it but here again, because we don't have the State Comptroller's regulations, we don't know. As a worse case scenario, you could have a situation where the State Comptroller comes back and says, you got to pay the full five years to the State Comptroller this year, in one year and of course that would be a phenomenal number because it wouldn't sixty thousand spread out over one year it would be whatever it takes to pay the program costs all in one year, plus what you're normal payments would be. Ed and I don't think that's very likely because of the way other programs are run and we think this is reasonable and I will say that if this did happen, it seems to me that, that would be grounds to stop the program because the taxpayer obviously wouldn't have known what the true costs would be. Councilman Monahan-Doesn't the referendum have to state the probable cost on it? Attorney Dusek-Yes, that's one of the requirements. So, that's why I'm saying to you though, based on where we're at right now, we think that this sixty thousand is a reasonable estimate. Supervisor Brandt-So, what we're doing with this is putting up for a referendum of the people? Attorney Dusek-That's correct. Supervisor Brandt-I'll move it. Councilman Caimano-Second. Attorney Dusek-There's one more change that has to be made to the resolution. Right at the very end it should just read a further resolved that says, resolved the Town Clerk working with the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to draft a proposition for placing the proposal to establish a service award program consistent with the terms and provisions of this resolution on the ballot for the November Election and also sending it to the Board of Elections for placement on the ballot. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, I'll offer it with that. Councilman Caimano- I'll still second it. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM FOR VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE WORKERS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 532, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to establish a Service Award Program for volunteer ambulance workers of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury directs that there shall be a public referendum of eligible voters within the Town of Queensbury to determine whether a Service Award Program as provided for in Article ll-AA of the New York State General Municipal Law for volunteer ambulance workers who are members of any volunteer ambulance company contracting with the Town of Queensbury to provide ambulance services to Town residents, shall be established effective January 1, 1994. The type of program shall be a defined contribution plan as defined in ~219-c of Article 11-AA of the General Municipal Law. For each qualified year of ambulance service not in excess of 40 years and including up to five consecutive years before 1994 but after 1988, a contribution of $400 shall be credited to a participating volunteer ambulance worker's Service Award Program account balance. Investment income earned on the Service Award Program trust fund assets plus interest owed on participant account less necessary administrative costs shall be annually allocated to each participant's Service Award Program account balance. The participant's Service Award Program account balance at any time shall be the participant's "Accrued Service Award" earned as of that time. Pension-like and pre-entitlement age death and disability benefits shall be provided to participants under the Program. The pension-like benefit shall be a lump-sum payment at age 62, the "entitlement age," equal to the participant's Accrued Service Award at the entitlement age. (No accrued service award shall be paid to any person until after they earn credit for one qualifying year of service after 1993 and meet all other payment entitlement requirements of Article ll-AA). The pre-entitlement age death benefit shall be a lump-sum payable to a fully vested participant's designated beneficiary equal to the participant's Accrued Service Award in accordance with General Municipal Law ~ ll-AA. A participant who is awarded benefit payments due to a total and permanent disability by a competent authority (including the Social Security Administration and the Worker's Compensation Board) approved by the Town Board, shall qualify for pre-entitlement age disability payments from the Service Award Program. The disability benefit shall be a lump-sum payment equal to the participant's Accrued Service Award in accordance with General Municipal Law ~ ll-AA. To obtain credit under the Service Award Program for service before 1994 but after 1988, a volunteer ambulance worker must be a member during 1994 of any volunteer ambulance company contracting with the Town of Queensbury to provide ambulance services to Town residents and must earn one year of qualifying ambulance service credit before January 1, 1998. Unless they waive participation, all volunteer ambulance workers at least 18 years old who are members of any volunteer ambulance company contracting with the Town of Queensbury to provide ambulance services to Town residents shall become a participant in the Service Award Program on December 31 of the calendar year after 1993, during which they first earn a year of qualifying ambulance service credit. A participant shall have a non-forfeitable right (i.e., an ambulance worker "vests") after he or she has five years of qualifying ambulance service. A year of qualifying ambulance service credit shall be granted to a participant for each calendar year after 1993 during which the participant earns at least 50 "points" for participating in the volunteer ambulance worker activities set forth by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury Volunteer Ambulance Worker Service Award Program Point System as authorized by ~219-e of Article 11-AA of the General Municipal Law. The Town Board may include within such Point System additional non- discriminatory, uniform restrictions or requirements for a volunteer ambulance worker to obtain a year of qualifying service credit. The Point System must be set forth in writing and copies of the written explanation of Point System must be distributed to eligible volunteer ambulance workers. The Town Board may amend the point system from time to time provided such amendments are allowable under all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. In the event the Point System is amended by the Town Board, a written explanation of the changes must be distributed to eligible volunteer ambulance workers within 30 days of the date such changes are adopted by the Town Board. No credit shall be earned under this Volunteer Ambulance Worker Service Award Program for service already credited to a participant under any Volunteer Firefighter Service Award Program. $400 shall be contributed to the account of any eligible participant for each consecutive calendar year of Town of Queensbury ambulance service before 1994 and after 1988 during which the ambulance worker would have earned 50 or more points under the point system had such point system been in effect then. Under the General Municipal Law, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is the Service Award Program "Sponsor" and the New York State Comptroller, unless he or she selects an administrative service agency, shall be the program "Administrator." The total 1994 annual cost to local taxpayers of funding the Town of Queensbury Volunteer Ambulance Workers Service Award Program benefits payable in 1995 and assuming the maximum possible number of eligible volunteer ambulance workers shall become eligible for the maximum years of service each could earn is estimated to be $60,000 or $600 per volunteer ambulance worker, including the cost of administration. The estimated total annual funding cost for current eligible volunteer ambulance workers is estimated to be $60,000 or $600 per volunteer ambulance worker, for the first ten years of the program, and shall thereafter decrease to $400 per volunteer ambulance worker when the cost of crediting $400 with interest accruing thereon to volunteer ambulance worker accounts for each year of qualified volunteer ambulance service credit earned for service before 1994 and after 1988 shall be fully paid. Service A ward Program pension, death and disability benefits shall commence to participants after December 31, 1994 when they and/or their beneficiaries qualify for payment. All other provisions of the Service Award Program shall be in accordance with Article ll-AA of the General Municipal Law as amended from time to time, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk working with the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to draft a proposition for placing the proposal to establish a Service Award Program consistent with the terms and provisions of this resolution on the ballot for the November Election and also sending it to the Board of Elections for placement on the ballot. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I have a quick item. A previous resolution of earlier this year we set a limit on Planning Board salaries of nine hundred dollars per year. We have a couple of people who are in danger of exceeding that. Tim Brewer certainly will, he's been paid eight hundred fifty-five through August and Corinne Tarana has been paid seven hundred fifteen through August. With the known number of meetings in a projected assumption of two meetings a month, Tim would end up at one thousand one hundred seventy and Corinne would end up at nine hundred eighty-five. The resolution did state not to exceed nine hundred dollars. Supervisor Brandt-Do you have an opinion of what to do? Councilman Goetz-Raise the ceiling. Is it because they've attended more meetings than other people? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The one thing is, Tim as Chairman at thirty-five dollars is at a higher rate then a regular member at twenty-five and his attendance, he does make most of the meetings and so does Corinne. And she is also at a higher rate as secretary at thirty dollars a meeting. Supervisor Brandt-Why don't we adjust those two rates to be the same or bring the total up to reflect their pay rate rather than the others. Will you calculate that and prepare it in a resolution for us? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We can do that and prepare it for next week. Attorney Dusek-I have three matters for Executive Session tonight. OPEN FORUM 10:50 P.M. Mr. John Salvador-Just a few quick items and comments. You talked earlier here tonight about approving a contract and what you did was, you got yourself into contract administration. Nick Caimano asked the attorney to let him know if there were ever going to be any changes so that you could act in this manner, this item you were concerned about, contract changes. That's contract administration and that's exactly why you want this utilities department, so you get out of this stuff, I think. You're supposed to approve a contract that allows somebody to take it and run with it. Somebody is going to incur an extra cost on the spot that you might not like later on. What are you going to do about? You're going to bitch and moan and your going to pay the bill because the guy that's supposed to be doing it, either doesn't know or doesn't have the tools to do it. Some time ago, we were talking about the intersection of Route 9 and Aviation Road. Where are we and how are we? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That project is on a schedule to conclude the middle of December. The first quadrant, meaning the area between Route 9 and 254, the draft alternatives are going to be completed by the end of this month and then we'll move on to the second quadrant and so on. With a public informational meeting again scheduled for the first of December and then reacting at any input then, we'll give us a conclusion about the middle of December. Mr. Salvador-Alternatives that the public might be interested in considering, is there room for that kind of input? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Alternatives will be shown with preferred alternatives recommended by the consultant again but the public will have a chance to react to those and again, suggest any others they may have. Mr. Salvador-This past week, there appeared in the Post Star an article about County wants State to remove animals and I thought it was a very good article. Victor Grant, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is going to try and do something and I think it's something we should be involved in. I think the point is well made in this article, the wild animals are the concern of the State. They passed the laws to protect them, to do everything and they should take care of them and just because they say we're not going to do that anymore, I don't think is sufficient. Why should we pick up the burden? Wild animals are not the affairs of this Town. Supervisor Brandt-Public health is. You've got rabies out there, I think we've got to be responsible and help our citizens in handling. I mean, you get your first death from it, you can't measure it and to me, the first order of business is public health. When you got an epidemic that can cross over, there aren't many epidemics that cross over from wild animals to the human species but that's one of them and it's a bad one. Mr. Salvador-The State has responsibility for public health also. Supervisor Brandt-I know they do and they walk away from them, but we can't walk away from our citizens. The State can respond if they chose to but that's the problem, they don't choose to. Mr. Salvador-Well, why don't we join this coalition and put our foot down? Supervisor Brandt-I'd be glad to help them in any way we can but I don't think we should walk away from our responsibilities in trying to force the State to meet theirs. I think we should meet them and address them and if they take them over, great, then we can pull back. Mr. Salvador-You'll never pull back once you get into this. You talk about reducing the cost of government, you talk about organizing and doing, that's where it starts. Supervisor Brandt-I know it but it doesn't start when you've got a rabies epidemic. Mr. Salvador-We don't have one, do we? Supervisor Brandt-Yea, we do. We've got Mr. Salvador-In this Town, an epidemic Mike, an epidemic? Supervisor Brandt-Well, I don't know if it's an epidemic. Do you have to wait until people die to call it one? Mr. Salvador-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Formally, that's what an epidemic is. Mr. Salvador-That's right. Supervisor Brandt-Well, let's stop it before that happens, if there's anyway of doing it. That's my stand and I'm all for keeping the cost of government down and sometime in the future, a future Board is going to be able to revisit this one and say, well we don't need it anymore because we don't have the problem. Then it's their responsibility to cut it at that point but we can't do that right now. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I will say, as a matter off act, this Board hired an individual to undertake this job with a more diverse job description at a lower rate of pay. That is a matter of fact, there are some issues to be worked out with that but that is a fact. Councilman Caimano-What's the purpose of this discussion at this stage of the game? Mr. Salvador-Here's our County for once trying to do something to get the State to do their job, why don't we join? Supervisor Brandt - Well, join them. Councilman Monahan-But in the mean time, we'll keep doing what we're doing. We had two examples of animals up in North Queensbury within the past week or ten days. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-As an administrator of this department, I honestly believe that we can provide the better service. Councilman Monahan-And we can probably do it cheaper. I mean, you know the State is going to take our tax money and do it too and probably not do it as well as we do it. Mr. Salvador-Well, we're paying three times for this. We're paying our Town, we're paying our County and we're paying our State. Dunham's Bay Road, I see Mr. Naylor's department up there doing some work. It's embarrassing when my neighbors think that I get the Town to do work on my property. Could you put a road sign or something, let people know that Paul Naylor is on a Town road? Attorney Dusek-It's out of my hands at this point. Mr. Salvador-Whose hands is it in? Councilman Caimano-Paul Naylor, call Paul Naylor. Supervisor Brandt-I don't know, whose got jurisdiction on road signs? Attorney Dusek-It's either the Town Board or the Town Highway Superintendent. Councilman Tucker-Why kind of work is he doing? Mr. Salvador-Grading, filling, putting some stone dust down. Councilman Tucker-He should have construction signs. Mr. Salvador-I'm saying, he's doing work that appears to be work on private property. I mean, who can tell that that's a Town road? Councilman Tucker-If he's doing work on the road, under the law he should have signs up. Mr. Salvador-No, street sign. Dunham Bay Road for instance. Councilman Tucker-Did we take it? Have we taken the road? Attorney Dusek-It's ours, yes. Councilman Tucker-Give him a sign. Mr. Salvador-Two, one on each intersection. Supervisor Brandt-Let's prepare a resolution for that. Mr. Salvador-A more serious subject, wastewater inspections in North Queensbury. Since the last meeting, the Town has concluded to fulfill the terms of the original contract and engage in that activity. Supervisor Brandt-The Town Board hasn't addressed it, I have with the Committee that I worked with and I have not come back and talked to the Town Board about it at all. But I think we're starting to, I'm getting a feel of where to go with it and as I do, I'll make a proposal to the Board or they can make any proposal they wish. At this point, it's still a vacuum, we haven't addressed it. Mr. Salvador-Would you say that the Park Commission is under the impression that the Town is going to do this? Mr. Gilbert Boehm-They think that, I believe. Supervisor Brandt-What do they think? Mr. Boehm-They think that they're going to be assuming the responsibility for septic inspections. Supervisor Brandt-I know that's been the discussion so far but in my mind, I'm reversing myself on that but I'm only one member and we have to discuss it with the Board and I want to discuss in context to what we learned out of this committee. And whatever the will of the Board is, there's been no discussions on this Board what so ever about this. Mr. Salvador-The Town has a contract with the Park Commission that is enforceable to do this work, right? Attorney Dusek-The current contract the Town has is to assume all obligations in connection with the wastewater which means that they have the obligation to do the inspections as well as everything else as we sit right now. Mr. Salvador-Mike, you're not sure what you want to do with regard to that contract? Supervisor Brandt-I'm not totally sure, I'mjust starting to get a feel for it. Councilman Tucker-As long as we have the contract, the Park Commission won't be doing it, will they? Attorney Dusek-Presumably, they won't be doing it but they can take action to enforce that contract against that Town or seek to take away the Town's rights under the existing contract. Councilman Tucker-But they haven't done that, have they? Supervisor Brandt-Not yet. Councilman Monahan-I understand they have been out doing inspections, though. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think in Queensbury yet. Councilman Monahan-In Queensbury. Councilman Tucker-Have they? Supervisor Brandt-Well, maybe. Councilman Monahan-So, I was told, I didn't see it happen. Mr. Salvador-This is what I'm getting at, as we talk about organizing the Town and we get concerned about cost centers and whose paying for what. As I complain about having to pay taxes for someone else's benefit, I can't sit idol and let the Town bury the cost of these inspections in the Town budget. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think that's going to happen, that would not be my proposal. I think if we're going to do it, we're going to charge for what we do and we're going to charge appropriately and not as a tax to generate a net revenue but just to cover the services, that's what I would propose. We're going to have a meeting on that whole North Queensbury sewer district, out of all of that, my feeling is that it's very likely we're going to have septic tanks up there for a long time and if we are, I mean that's my personal conclusion, then we ought to be doing a responsible job of evaluating the effectiveness of those systems. Mr. Salvador-The meeting you're referring to, is that this Friday? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Mr. Salvador-Is that supposed to be a scoping session for a supplemental EIS? Supervisor Brandt-No. Mr. Salvador-Is that clear with Clough-Harbour and the County? Supervisor Brandt -Yea, Clough, Harbor made it clear to us that it's part of a process that can be a scoping session but in itself, it is not a scoping session. In fact, we as a committee at the last meeting you missed, we discussed that and concluded that the best thing we do is keep in formal the way it is and meet as a committee to try and finish the scoping ourselves, based on the input we got. Mr. Lew Stone-Just a further matter on that date. I know unfortunately it's irrevocable at this point but Friday night does happen to be the eve of Yom Kippur and there are certain Jewish folks who won't be able to make that meeting. I understand it was set a couple of weeks ago but I can only ask that we try to think about these things in the future. Supervisor Brandt-It's tough to educate the public. Mr. Boehm-Since you have flexibility in establishing the points with respect to ambulance service, it would seem to me that you ought to take into consideration the difference in risk factors between the firemen and their exposure and the ambulance drivers and that. Councilman Caimano-How do you determine that? Mr. Boehm-Well, I don't think you ought to reward them equally the same. Councilman Caimano-How do you determine that? How do you determine the risk factor between somebody climbing a ladder into a burning building and someone dealing with a patient who might have Aids and is bleeding? Tell me that? Mr. Boehm-There's a considerable difference between those Councilman Caimano- Tell me what that factor is and I'll be glad to factor it in. I think we're trying to draw a line here that's just going to be pretty tough. You're asking us to do something that's really very, very difficult. I don't know, is there anyone here to draw lines like that? Councilman Goetz-I'm not qualified. Councilman Caimano- I'm not qualified to draw those kinds of lines and I don't know anybody here that is qualified. Councilman Goetz-In fact, I heard discussion that the ambulance people are entitled to more, higher points, then even fire but they settled to go equal with the fire. Councilman Caimano-If somebody can come up with those risk factors, we'd be glad to do that. Mr. Boehm-May I make a suggestion. You might be able to get some help from insurance companies. Supervisor Brandt-We welcome any help we can get. Councilman Caimano-Any help you can give but this Board is not qualified to make those kinds of judgements. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 533, 93 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 adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss a matter that might lead to the hiring of a person, also Attorney/Client Privilege and there's a potential for Litigation, another matter that's in an agency type of litigation format concerns an appeal and Attorney/Client advice and another matter concerns an agency action which is a type of litigation matter that also involves Attorney/Client privilege and information. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 534, 93 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 adjourns from Executive Session to enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING PAYMENT OF FINE RESOLUTION NO. 535, 93 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, after being apprised of an Administrative Tribunal Representative's decision of the Department of Health, hereby determines to pay the assessed fine in connection with that tribunal's decision and not appeal the same as is allowed under the regulations. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION DURING VOTE: Councilman Monahan-I'll vote yes because it's the expedient thing to do, not because I think the Town was at fault. Supervisor Brandt-And I'll back that too because I feel very strongly the Town was not at fault. Councilman Monahan-I want to send a message to the State not to keep doing this every other week. Supervisor Brandt-But it is the expedient thing to do. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF PETITION RESOLUTION NO. 536, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed and discussed a Notification of Failure to Abate issued by the New York State Department of Labor, Division of Safety and Health, Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau, and WHEREAS, the notification was addressed to the Town Supervisor, Steve Borgos, Fire Protection District, Town of Queensbury and the Town recognizes that the Town Supervisor is, Michel Brandt is the appropriate person to whom the petition is now addressed, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the filing of a petition objecting to the fines that have been set forth in the Notice of Failure to Abate violation and further authorizes the Town Supervisor to make out and execute such petition as he shall determine appropriate in the course of working with the Town Attorney, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is authorized to represent the Town of Queensbury, the Town Supervisor, the Fire Protection District of the Town of Queensbury in connection with the filing of a petition in this matter and execute the petition as the same maybe necessary. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK - QUEENSBURY