Loading...
1995-11-15 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 15,1995 7:00 P.M. MTG #62 RES#582 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS TOM FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT RALPH VANDUSEN, DEPUTY WATER SUPERINTENDENT CATHY GEOFFROY, COMPTROLLER PRESS: GF POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order... PUBLIC HEARING - QSBY CONSOLIDATED WATER DIST. - RATE INCREASE NOTICE SHOWN 7:01 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, I'd like to open the public hearing on the Queensbury Water District, Consolidated Water District and also we're going to be talking about the West Glens Falls Water District. I guess with that, I'm going to ask our staff, our management staff from the Water Department to join in at this time and we'll call on Tom Flaherty and Ralph VanDusen as they chose to do their thing. MR. TOM FLAHERTY, WATER SUPERINTENDENT-Good evening. The history, a little bit of history behind this and then we'll get into the details of the proposal that the board has asked us to put together. The Queensbury water system was established in 1963, at that time we had a well field across from Rush Pond. Walt Stamper was president of the bank at that time. MR. WALT STAMPER - I never rose that high. MR. FLAHERTY-Well, you got promoted well. We had, water was supplied from wells across from Storytown. We had a high iron content in the wells. We had, there wasn't a day that went by that we didn't have water come out of the wells that was the color of weak tea. The water rates at that time were around 50 cents or 60 cents a thousand gallons and the tax rate was $3.00 a thousand of assessed evaluation. Since then we've progressed to where we are. The theory behind the original system was that the revenue derived from the sale of water would pay for the operation and maintenance cost and the advelorum tax would pay for the capital expenses. That was the theory. In realty, that never occurred. A portion of the operation and maintenance cost was always put over onto the advelorum tax. This year at budget time, the Town Board, the Town Supervisor, the Comptroller asked the Water Department staff to look at the finances of the Water Department and see if there was a way that you could put the operation and maintenance cost strictly on the sale of water and use the advelorum tax strictly for the capital expenses. Under the current fees that we have now, your operation and maintenance costs for 1996 and I believe everybody has a handout, if you don't, we're more then willing to get them for you, is $1,675,706.00. The revenue from the sale of water is budgeted at $1,600,000.00 which means that we're making up roughly $600,000.00 out of tax revenue and that would give us a projected tax rate in 1996, if the current rate stayed the way it was of $2.05 a thousand. The metered rate as most people are familiar with is $17.00 a quarter plus a $1.20 per thousand gallons for everything over 12,000 gallons. When you take and you try to put the operation cost strictly on revenue, you're taking $600,000.00 out of your tax revenue transferring that to the water rate fees, it brings your projected tax rate down from $2.05 per thousand to a $1.45. The other side of the coin is, it raises your base rate from $17.00 per thousand to $35.00 and it raises your metered rate from a $1.20 to a $1.68. One of the theories of the board of transferring the operation and maintenance cost to the water metered rate, this will allow the customer to have some ability to influence their water bill by the amount of water they use. You know, everybody has to make that decision for themselves. We did some comparisons just to see what was going to happen and we took various locations, Lady Slipper Drive, Brookshire Trace, Meadowbrook Road, Centennial Drive, Marigold and West Mountain Road and for instance on Lady Slipper Drive a house that's assessed at a $128,600.00 and used a 157,000 gallons of water in the past year, under the old rate, their metered bill was a $198.80, their taxes were $263.63 and their total water bill was $462.43. Under the proposed new rate, their metered bill would go to $323.12, their taxes would drop to $186.49, their total bill would be $509.61 and in most cases there's a slight increase. Brookshire Trace, it's a house assessed at $289,000.00, a 182,000 gallons of usage, same scenario. Under the metered bill, the old bill was $228.00, their taxes were %595.00 and their total bill was $821.00. Under the new one, it would be $365.00 for the metered bill, $419.00 for the taxes and their bill would drop slightly, $784.00. If you go down to the next one on Meadowbrook Road, you have a house assessed for $75,000.00, you can go through the same scenario, get to the bottom line though, their old total bill including taxes and water usage was $320.00, under the new assessment it would be $386.00 and you can follow all the way down. Centennial, the assessment was $92,200.00. The old bill was $287.00 total, it goes to $315.00 under the new one. Marigold, an assessment of $129,600.00 follows $415.00 for the old one, $442.00 for the new. West Mountain Road, $103,600.00 assessment, goes from $289.00 to $298.00. The last rate increase, as a point of information, in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District was in 1988. When we originally designed the treatment plant at the public hearings that we had on the treatment plant in the original design, or the design, it was projected that for the 15 million gallon a day plant, using Queensbury only and that's not, we don't believe that's going to be the case now because we're waiting for Hudson Falls to complete their environmental assessment review and then, as I understand it that's the only thing between us and the contract. Is that right, Paul? ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK-Yes. MR. FLAHERTY-But if you went back to the scenario on a 15 million gallon a day plant, the taxes were projected to be $2.57. If the rates remain the same, they will be $2.05. If you go to the new rate schedule, they will be a $1.45. Basically, Fred, that's the information that we have here and I'll let the meeting go back to you unless you had some more questions for me. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I would just like to add maybe a couple of other thoughts. One being, obviously this is not the first introduction to shifting the water rate, or actually the operation maintenance to the water usage cost as compared to continuing on the real estate tax, that is operation and maintenance paid for out of your real estate. And it's not only this board's opinion, obviously it's been the opinion of the Audit and Control, New York State Audit and Control over the past several years and it's our opinion, if you as a family of 1,2,3,4 or 6 decide that you want to conserve on water and decrease your water usage, you ought to be entitled to do that with certainly a degree of savings on your water bill. And it just seems that the capital cost along with the debt service should certainly be a part of the tax base and again, that's what the comptroller's office has told us in the past. Why this has not been done over the past several administrations, I have no idea but I think coming from my personal feelings, it's due time, probably it's over due and I think that the chart that you see here even though, 1,2,3,4,5,6, of the 6, only 1 shows a decrease in your overall rate plus taxes. Believe me, there will be other sections of the town. We're not raising any more money, our operation and maintenance remains the same as far as the cost is concern, we're just looking at balancing it out if you will, sharing those costs. The greater the use, the greater the cost, the lesser the use, the lesser the cost and everybody pays equally as far as the assessed value is concerned. So with that, before we move into the next item here which would be the West Glens Falls District, I guess I'd like to open it up for questions from you folks, concerns, input. The board is ready to try to respond and I'm sure the Water Department staff would also. MS. MARIANN WALTON-Yes, I'm Mariann Walton. I'm concerned that someone that has a $100,000.00 house, the value of the water to them is of greater monetary value then it is to someone at $50,000.00. I currently pay $17.00 a quarter. Every quarter I have someone drop a note in the mailbox, my meter must not be working because I haven't used that much water. Two times in eleven years has my bill been over $17.00 a quarter. Now you're going to up the rate on it, I'm not even using the minimum now and as I say, my home with it's assessed value, the water is of no greater value to me then anyone else. I have never heard of being assessed at, paying on your assessed rate for water. Never in my life. When I moved here eleven years ago from New Jersey, I got my water bill and I could not believe three hundred and some dollars. When I came to pay it, my tax bill, I asked Betty Eggleston about it and she said, it will go down every year as the debt decreases. Every year it goes up, my assessment has almost doubled in eleven years so my assessment or water has also doubled. It is a very unfair way for people to pay to drink some water. My real estate taxes right now, without this increase is taking 30 percent of my income, 30 percent. No one should pay that in real estate taxes. I have a fixed income. I will get $10.00 a more in Social Security next year and we're talking about huge increases and someone has got to start looking out for the taxpayer, especially the elderly. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. NICK NICHOLSON-My name is Nicholson, Nick Nicholson. I think the increases are outrageous, to double the taxes on the water. To me, you know, the increases are just unfair, they are out of sort. I mean, you know this water thing cost us more then to run the rest of the town on our taxes now. MS. WALTON-Many times more. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, if you look at it and now you're going to double it. This is crazy, you're supposed to be, like the woman said, you're supposed to be looking out for us. I mean, and here you are fighting the City of Glens Falls, God knows how much. How much did you spend on, you know fighting, suing the Glens Falls to try to get them to take our water? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How much did we spend? MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, how much did we spend as a town? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ten, twenty? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think it was 11,000. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-$II,OOO.OO. MR. NICHOLSON-$l1,OOO.OO. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Nick, I would like to interrupt there just a minute please. As far as I'm concerned we did not sue the City of Glens Falls so they would take our water. We sued the City of Glens Falls because we thought they were doing something that environmentally could be this town at risk and that's why we sued the City of Glens Falls. MR. NICHOLSON-No, not really, Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That was the publicity that was in the paper but if you look at our reasons for what we did. MR. NICHOLSON-Bologna. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well. MR. NICHOLSON-We're suing them because we built this, we over built this plant SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Nick, listen, we're here for a public hearing. MR. NICHOLSON-Right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-On water rates. MR. NICHOLSON-And I'm trying to SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're not interested in hearing history. MR. NICHOLSON-And that's what I'm trying to stay on. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's do that then, thank you. MR. NICHOLSON-Alright, you do it to then. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I MR. NICHOLSON-Okay? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay. You're taking in Hudson Falls here, like you were saying and to me, if we're taking Hudson Falls in, they should be paying for it. The taxpayers of Queensbury shouldn't be paying agaIn. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And they are. MR. NICHOLSON-And they are but how come we're getting double increases here? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, I'm going to have to call on either Tom or Ralph to explain that because it's my opinion that there are no double increases. The money that needs to be raised MR. NICHOLSON-Well let me ask you something then Fred, not to interrupt but if you're going from $17.00 to $35.00 a quarter, is that a double increase? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's a double on usage. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, in the meantime MR. NICHOLSON-Listen to me, that's a double increase no matter if you use, if you stay at the 12,000 gallons or not. That's an increase no matter what. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I hear you, I hear you. MR. NICHOLSON-Alright? Am I wrong or right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, now wait a minute, you're got to subtract, help me Ralph. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, let's help. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You've got to subtract that offfrom your tax. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, you've got to look at the whole picture. MR. NICHOLSON-I'm going to look at it. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, DEPUTY WATER SUPERINTENDENT -Under this proposal, if you isolate it in sections, the minimum charge will MR. NICHOLSON-Double. MR. VANDUSEN-Just over double. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay, thank you. MR. VANDUSEN-The tax rate will MR. NICHOLSON-Is going to stay a little higher. MR. VANDUSEN-The tax rate will be significantly lower under this proposal then it would be if you leave the metered rate where it is. If you leave the metered rate where it is, the tax rate will go from a $1.31 to approximately $2.05 per thousand. If you raise the metered rate, the tax rate will increase from $1.31 to approximately a $1.45. MR. NICHOLSON-So, that's an increase. MR. V ANDUSEN- That would be an increase. The Town of Queensbury has borrowed $8,000,000.00, approximately, toward the expansion of the plant. The bond payments that become due in 1996 reflect a great majority of that money. MR. NICHOLSON-Is that paid off in 96? MR. VANDUSEN-It's a 20 year bond? MS. CATHY GEOFFORY-20 years. MR. VANDUSEN-It's a 20 year bond, so the first year payment, 1996 would be do. MR. NICHOLSON-I mean when we built this, is that all paid off? MR. VANDUSEN-The existing treatment plant? MR. NICHOLSON-Yea. MR. VANDUSEN-That is not paid off entirely yet. MR. NICHOLSON-When was that built? MR. VANDUSEN-Construction was completed in 1975. MR. NICHOLSON-And was that a 20 year? MR. VANDUSEN-I'm not sure. There were a couple BANs initially and then it was bonded. MR. NICHOLSON-I heard it was 20 years but you know, I mean I'm trying to find out. MR. V ANDUSEN-I don't know, it's either, I could certainly find out but it's either 20 or 25 and I can tell you that it was not, the original bond was not written in 75 because there was a BAN for at least a year or two and this will be a 20 year bond on what we've borrowed now. The balance of the construction cost, the $8,000,000.00 we borrowed, the balance of the construction cost would come from three possible sources. Out of a fund balance which definitely some will come from there. The Village of Hudson Falls will be buying in, their share will be a portion of the balance. MR. NICHOLSON-Why shouldn't they pay for their whole thing? Why should we pay twice? I mean we paid the first time this place got built. MR. VANDUSEN-Yes. MR. NICHOLSON-And now if Hudson Falls or Glens Falls or South Glens Falls wants to buy our water, we shouldn't get taxed paying more at all. We should be getting deductions. MR. VANDUSEN-What you paid for initially, last year, the year before, the last eighteen years what you paid for was a treatment plant with the capacity of three and a half million gallons a day. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, which takes care of us. MR. VANDUSEN-Well, our MR. NICHOLSON-Basically, it takes care of us. MR. VANDUSEN-Our peak day this summer was eight and half million so I'm not sure how that three and a half takes care of us but MR. NICHOLSON-Well how did we do it then? MR. VANDUSEN-We exceeded the New York State limits of what we were authorized to produce. MR. NICHOLSON-But we did it. MR. VANDUSEN-We kept doing the water because nothing broke down. If anything failed, that would have, we would have been roughly half that capacity, if anyone component broke down. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, but what I'm saying is, we did get take care of ourself as a town with this. MR. VANDUSEN-We were lucky this summer and no one went without water, that's correct. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Nick, you know again Nick, this is history, we're not at three and a half, we're heading toward fifteen MR. NICHOLSON-History is important because when they built this, they said it was going to be enough for us. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-20 years and it served 20 years. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea and now what you're asking the taxpayers, you're asking the taxpayers which is unfair, Fred, I mean, let's face it, you're asking the taxpayer to pay more then it takes to run the town and the county. My tax bill, this will make, you know they're playing with numbers up there, take my word for it, those numbers are not going to come true. They're going to be close but they ain't going to come true. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, that's your opinion. MR. NICHOLSON-Alright and you're going to hit everybody, like this lady says, people that are on fixed incomes which is wrong, always wrong, anyway but you're going to double their bill and you're going to charge them 35 bucks whether they use over the 12,000 gallons or not and you're going to throw some more, actually you're going to throw a little bit more on their taxes. Like me, up where I live when Mr. Kurosaka was on the board, I asked him, you went by me and you actually hit me for a $100.00 more then other water people were getting and I complained three years in a row about it and he said it would go down and balance out. Well it did, it took five years, I paid about a $120.00, I've got proof of it, I looked them up last night, $120.00 more then any other district for about five years and you didn't even give me the water, you come down the Corinth Road, came across Pinewood and went down the rest of the way, went up by the pole line and caught Aviation Road and went to all of the businesses, and caught the big section of town. I understand that, I got no problem with it. So, I was on my well, still am for many, many, many years but you didn't put water in for my part of town, Sherman Avenue until only four or five years ago. And now, you're doubling, double dipping here which I don't think is healthy for the town or anybody else and then when you say you're going to expand to help Hudson Falls, Glens Falls or something, here we go into craziness trying to force them, in my opinion alright so I won't get into a conflict of interest with you people, my opinion, to force them into our water district which they should have a right to do what they want to do just like we should. We're a little town, we should take care of ourself. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, Nick, Hudson Falls is ordered up, I believe it's a million gallons a day. Hudson Falls will be buying into the plant, that million dollars that it's going to cost to buy that portion of the plant to supply that gallonage to the village. So, it is a help to us by having the volume, if you will to reduce the cost to the Queensbury taxpayer and that's a fact. MR. NICHOLSON-Well it should actually lower our taxes, right? I mean that's what you're always saying when business comes in. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Well, wait, we just built another 13 million gallon plant, obviously that's got to boost the taxes, it's got to increase taxes. Without Hudson Falls buying into that 13 million, yea, your taxes could have been higher then they will be based on that million dollar buy-in. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, let me ask you this. If a business looked at it like you do Fred, if a business built a business and they say we're going to borrow a million dollars and we're never going to make money on it, we're always going to lose, they wouldn't build the building. They wouldn't have a business. The reason they do that is in the hopes often years down the road they make money. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well... MR. NICHOLSON-And Jesus, if we can't run this thing like that, then we shouldn't even have it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-But Nick, you know this is a service that we provide to the user out there, number one. Number two is, this extra 13 million gallons is what it's going to take over the next 20 years to provide for the growth in the Town of Queensbury. I mean that's the projections that we've had now for the last five years based on our engineering studies and that's what we believe will be true. We could continue on with 3 1/2 gallons, we could have had a fire in South Queensbury that we couldn't get water to. You know, those were the problems that we were facing as a board. Our obligation here is for the health and safety of our residents and that decision was made a year and half ago. MR. NICHOLSON-We've gotten water to all the fires in this town, Fred long before we had water hydrants in this town. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, okay... MR. NICHOLSON-Alright. Let's not start on something like that. Can I ask you a few questions then, seeing your sitting here. How much does it cost us to run the plant per year? MR. VANDUSEN-Just the treatment plant? MR. NICHOLSON-Yea. MR. VANDUSEN-I'm not sure I have those numbers with me. MS. GEOFFROY-Wouldn't that be the 0 and M portion? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Isn't that the 0 and M here under the current... MR. VANDUSEN-The 0 and M would be to take a gallon of water, treat it, pump it, deliver it to our customers, maintain our distribution system. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, I think that's what he's asking for. MR. V ANDUSEN- That's what you're asking for? MR. NICHOLSON-Well, to run the plant, to run the plant, how much does it cost a year... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, to run the plant and to get pure water. MR. VANDUSEN-Alright, to take a gallon of water from the Hudson River, treat it... MR. NICHOLSON-How much does it cost to run the plant and then how much is it costing us for the employment of our employees and maintaining... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, we don't have that. MR. NICHOLSON-Could I get that? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's all broken down in the budget, those are all line items in the budget. MR. VANDUSEN-Pick up a copy of the budget, it's all included in that. MR. NICHOLSON-Could I get your name so that, leave me your card and I'll be asking you for this information, thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Nick, all you've got to do is go over in the office and pick up the budget and those are line items, so you can pick that all apart in the budget, employees, transmission, distribution, the whole thing. MR. NICHOLSON-I know, yea. Now, when, it seems to me when we started this thing, you said up here Fred, that the state was going to take care of like 80 percent, something like this, right? I mean our tax, let me reword that. My tax money with the state that's in debt 5 billion dollars was going to give you grants... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-For the water plant? MR. NICHOLSON-To put me in debt some more. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no. I think he's thinking of when we tried to get... MR. NICHOLSON-You mean the town financed this thing completely? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Nick, I think you're thinking of when we tried to get the grant for West Glens Falls transmission lines and were turned down. We didn't get that grant. MR. NICHOLSON-So, the town themselves is running this whole thing. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And Nick, just for a point of history, when you said the plant that was built in 1975 had the projected life it had, but at that time it was without the unknown of the rapid growth that happened in Queensbury in the middle eighties and that was a rapid growth and a rapid expansion of the water districts in this town. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, but the thing of it is Betty, during that period we did not spend any more money for enlargement and basically the lines were putting in all at once in this town... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no that's not true. MR. NICHOLSON-All at once in this town except for the west end, West Mountain, upper ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When ever we did a new district, new lines were put in for those. MR. NICHOLSON-I realize that but let me say this, about 70 to 80 percent was done when that firm came in here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That I can't say, that would have to go back over to those guys. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, let's ask them. How much was completed? MR. FLAHERTY-I don't think that's true. MR. NICHOLSON-How much would you say was completed? MR. FLAHERTY-When the plant was built in 1975, the West Queensbury Water District was also created in 1975 which included all of Luzerne Road, all of Corinth Road.. MR. NICHOLSON-All Luzerne Road wasn't done. MR. FLAHERTY-I'm sorry, it was. MR. NICHOLSON-No, I'm sorry it wasn't. MR. FLAHERTY-I'm sorry... MR. NICHOLSON-I'm sorry, I'm living there. MR. FLAHERTY-I know where you live, it was done in the West Queensbury Water District in 1975, 1976. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, okay. MR. FLAHERTY-The side streets were done, the state streets were done, Holden Avenue, behind the fire house... MR. NICHOLSON-You went up the pole lines, you did Sherman Avenue, Aviation... MR. FLAHERTY-No, we did not do Sherman Avenue. Sherman Avenue... MR. NICHOLSON-That firm did all of that. MR. FLAHERTY-Pardon? MR. NICHOLSON-That firm that came in here did all of that. MR. FLAHERTY-No it didn't. I'm sorry, it didn't, it was done as districts. Sherman Avenue Water District was created, it was done. Sherman Avenue Water District Extension was created, it was done. ... Phillips was the firm that did the West Queensbury Water District, or what's referred to as the West Queensbury Water District did that at the time the plant was built. They did the transmission mains and they did, Howard LaRose did part of West Queensbury Water District and ... Phillips did part of it and they were all done in 1976, 75, 76. MR. NICHOLSON-And how big of an area would you say that was, all of them doing that in those two years? MR. FLAHERTY-Well, again, it was all of Luzerne Road, it was Corinth and the streets, basically the state streets in between. MR. NICHOLSON-So, they didn't do much? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, I'm not sure it's relevant, Nick. MR. FLAHERTY - I don't have the mileage right off the top of my head. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess I'd ask, what are we trying to achieve here? MR. NICHOLSON-What I'm saying is, it was mostly all done. We floated the bond, and I believe it was a 20 year bond but I mean... SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't have an answer. MR. NICHOLSON-That's why I asked tonight which would mean the bond should be paid off now. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And we're telling you no that it is not. MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, I realize that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And I don't know if it's 2 years or 3 years or 5 years. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It's got a few more years. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I believe there's 5 years left on it, Nick and I'd have to go back and check the records on that too. MR. NICHOLSON-So, we're carrying the note on that and... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's right. MR. NICHOLSON-And if that was gone, how much of a note are we going to carry, how much of a bond loan are we going to carry on this? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think it was mentioned earlier that we borrowed 8 million dollars against it at this point. MS. GEOFFROY-Yea, 8.8 million dollars and depending on how much a fund balance we use and if Hudson Falls buys in. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay, 8.8 million and we take in, what do we take in now, 1.6 million? MR. FLAHERTY-In water rates, roughly 1.6. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's operation and maintenance. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, that's what I'm trying to find out. How much does it cost us to run the place and how much of it do we have left? I mean, if we take in that much, how much does it cost us to run our plant? That's all I'm asking. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, and that's what we gave you. MR. VANDUSEN-Operation and maintenance of the Queensbury Water Department is approximately 1.6 million. We expect a debt service in capital projects will also be approximately 1.6 million for next year. So a budget of just over 3.2 million, roughly half capital, half operations. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, all I can say is, not a very good job is being done. If it costs us more for our water then it does for us to run our town and county which is what it cost now, you're letting the water thing get out of your hands. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-When you say cost more, that's, you're tax bill... MR. NICHOLSON-I'm talking about my taxes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-When you look at your tax bill, what you find there is you're paying 18... MR. NICHOLSON-I'm paying more for water then I am to run this town. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-But let me finish. Let me just finish, Nick. MR. NICHOLSON-Go ahead. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You're paying 18 cents this year, next year going to paying 20 cents on assessed thousand dollar value. If you've got a $100,000.00 house, for town tax it's going to cost you 20 bucks. Now, on the other side of the coin is of that 5 million dollar general fund town tax that we're talking about, that's what it costs us, there 3.2, we're 5 but you've got to remember that over on the other side of the sales tax revenue side there's 4 million dollars coming in. What's keeping your town tax at a level that it's at obviously is that sales tax to the tune of about 4 million dollars. Now, if we could take that sales tax, lay it over on the water department which by law we can't do then we could obviously reduce and cut that back to 20 cents on a thousand too. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, the reason they don't allow you to do it because they know that in politics, you don't do a good job. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, I'll accept that. Good night. Next. MR. NICHOLSON-But I want to tell you, it's not a good deal. UNKNOWN-There's an old fellow out here I think, Fred who wanted to question you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do you want to ask him if he's interested in coming back? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Tom went out to talk to him. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Did you answer his questions Tom, okay? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes, he's going to meet with me. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I apologize for that. Okay, whose next? MR. CULLEN O'BRIEN-Good evening, I'm Cullen O'Brien. Really there's two issues as I see it here and I just want to make sure I'm clear on that, I'm not pointing any fingers here. We have a quality issue because of the old infrastructure in the ground in West Glens Falls, the old pipes in the ground. Not the pipes that you guys have put in, I'm talking about the little bitsy pipes that have been there since the thirties. MR. FLAHERTY-West Glens Falls, there's going to be another hearing after this one. MR. O'BRIEN-Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we had. MR. FLAHERTY-No, this is Queensbury Consolidated. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When he said west, he was talking about West Queensbury Water District. MR. O'BRIEN-I'm sorry. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll get to your part of town here in just a few minutes. MS. WALTON-Where is West Glens Falls? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do you want to give us kind of a geographical map, layout of West Glens Falls? MR. FLAHERTY-West Glens Falls is a water district that was created back in the 1930's, 1935. Basically, it's that area from the city line at Western Avenue out Corinth Road to just shy of the Northway bridge, out Luzerne Road to the French Cemetery, Richardson Street, Newcomb Street, Ryan Street, Caroline Street, Fourth Street Extension, Fifth Street Extension. MS. WALTON-Why is it still called West Glens Falls? MR. FLAHERTy-It's been called that since... MS. WALTON-It's Queensbury, right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. FLAHERTY-Pardon? MS. WALTON-It is Queensbury? MR. FLAHERTy-It's part of Queensbury but it's always been known as West Glens Falls and West Glens Falls Water District. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else on the Queensbury Consolidated District? MR. DAN THOMPSON-I'm Dan Thompson, I live in Westland, okay, on Lynnfield Drive and I'd like to take this opportunity if I may and I have a copy of this letter, Fred which I would like to read to you from Margaret Burrell who happens to be my neighbor across the street and I think it relates to two issues which I think we're all concerned, at least on Lynnfield Drive. To whom it may concern, water according to the Random House College dictionary is a transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid. In that case, it's not water that's been coming into our homes for the past six weeks or so. White toilet bowls look as though they have not been flushed and I neither care to shower or bathe in what, to put it bluntly, looks like urine. Nor do I care to drink it in spite of the polite assurance that it is safe to do so. What ever is coming out of the faucets at 25 and 27 Lynnfield, I'm 25, she's 27 has been treated, right and the homeowners have been told that the yellow color is purely cosmetic. I'm also mystified by the new math that's printed in the Post Star on November 10th that states an increase in the flat rate for the Queensbury Consolidated Water District from $17.00 to $35.00 per quarter is a mere 48 percent. The method, the old man shows an increase of over 100 percent. She has a little subnote here, the enigma has been corrected in the subsequent more carefully written article on November 14th, that it is over a 100 percent. Okay, in any case I'm thoroughly disgruntled with the liquid that is flowing through our pipes now. So, I realize that several attempts have been made to correct it, all in vain. I'm not happy over the prospect of the added expense of buying bottled water until the problem is resolved. Those of us that have lived in the neighborhood for thirty years have never been plagued with this problem. I happen to be one of them. But what we want to know is basically what's happening now? Why it is happening and when it will be rectified? To conclude, as far as my neighbors and I are concerned, this is the wrong time even to contemplate increasing our water rates. Okay, so this is from Margaret. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Dan. MR. THOMPSON -You're welcome and I have here, you're going to laugh like hell, it looks like I've got chablis wine, I really don't. I have in the chablis wine bottle or carafe, none chablis wine but your water from 25 Lynnfield. Note, the neat water here from Price Chopper, Oasis Water, okay, which is pure colorless but in all honesty, this is absolutely unacceptable. Okay, I'll be just a minute more. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Go on and take your time, obviously this is very important for all of us. MR. THOMPSON-What really is bothering is, basically the question Margaret is asking and several of us are asking, this seems to be totally an inappropriate time to consider a rate increase when in fact the quality is going down hill. It would be like going into a car dealer, as I kidding on the way in and have a problem in my oil change and paid $14.00 and then the next time I went back, I got shorted a quart of oil. Oh he said, "Mr. Thompson, it's $28.00 now". I said, "get out of here, you didn't give me the $14.00 quality". Okay, so here is where we're coming from. MS. WALTON-I think everyone's is this color, not just you. UNKNOWN-I had a 5 gallon bucket, in volume it's much more darker then it is in a bottle like this. I was going to bring it over tonight and I had it in my van but I came over in my wife's car and I didn't dare put it in her car. UNKNOWN-There's nothing like a visual. UNKNOWN-I was going to ask people if they think they would like to drink, anybody on the board looking at it in this 5 gallon bucket which is a... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'd rather challenge the water department folks to that offer. I think they do .. UNKNOWN-They've got bosses too. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Could you, I'm sorry, could we just get a response to that concern because obviously it's been a concern of all of ours. I certainly received a number of calls relative to that and I have been up there and I have seen it flow out of some faucets. But I think, Tom or Ralph, do you want to address that at this point in terms of what has happened and some of the things that we're trying to do to correct it? MR. FLAHERTY-The toughest problem that we're having and the answer aren't going to be the answers that you want to hear but it's the facts at the moment. As we're changing to meet the requirements of the state's drinking water act changing the treatment of our water, changing the PH, in fact jump in Ralph if I misstep here, and the corrosion control changes the chemical balance of the water. We have some areas, we refer to West Glens Falls, there's some of the areas in Westland and Lynnfield Drive happens to be one of them or portions of Lynnfield that has the older unlined cast iron mains. The water due to the new difference in the PH and in the difference in the corrosion acidity is beginning to react with the buildup inside the main and it's beginning to come off at times like this. When was that sample taken? MR. THOMPSON-Yesterday, five o'clock. MR. FLAHERTY-I talked to several people up there and unfortunately I haven't got back to them, but this answers my question that apparently that it hasn't improved on anything that we've done. MR. THOMPSON-No and today, by the way, it's the same. MR. JOHN LORD-What I was told, I sent a sample in, I live down on West Mountain Road close to the water plant and I have a stench coming out of the shower. So, I sent a sample. I had a man, a man came up, immediately took a sample, he said it was alright but that we had an algae problem where the tanks were exposed and when they get them covered over, this will be taken care of. Now, these ... tanks or something that.. . MR. FLAHERTY-They're settling tanks, yes. What we call... But we did this sunuuer, we did have an algae problem. MRS. CAROLYN LORD-This was in September that we had that problem. MR. FLAHERTY-This year we had an algae problem. Do you want to address that, Ralph? MR. VANDUSEN-Just very quickly, during the course of this summer, especially the hot and dry ... algae that naturally occurs in the river it's easy to grow, one of the last steps in our treatment plant process is to add chlorine so in these open tanks, the algae does continue to grown. Because we were running at such high rates, exceeding our limits, we were not able to shut them down, clean them out, remove that algae. We had to allow the algae to continue grow. With the plant expansion that's going on, two things will happen. One will be covered so that no sun light will get in to encourage the algae build up in those open tanks and two, there will be enough of them so that we can shut them down during the summer time and clean it out before it becomes a problem for customers. What happens is the algae is growing and there's very little... when the water starts to cool off, late sunuuer, early fall, maybe late August through September, the algae starts to die off in numbers and that's when you see... MR. LORD-I've got another question. I took another my hot water tank and I emptied it out and a tremendous amount of sand or whatever it was came out, I don't know, because I couldn't get the stench out of the hot water and I tried to clean the tank out and I got an awful lot of what looked like sand to me. MR. VANDUSEN-It's not unusual for sediment to occur in a water tank MR. LORD-There's quite a bit. MR. VANDUSEN-It's tough to say how much quite a bit was without seeing it. I'm certainly happy to stop by and take a look the next time you do it. MR. MCDERMOTT-I have a question for Tom. What year was that put in up there in Westland? MR. FLAHERTY -Well, I came to work for the town in 1964 and it was in there then. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me please, the clerk has asked if that when you speak, you please use the microphone and your names and she would like the name of the gentleman in the back row please, for the record. MR. LORD-John Lord. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you. MR. THOMSPON-I'm Dan Thompson by the way and this is Bob McDermott. MR. BOB MCDERMOTT-I know ductile iron was around in them days and I'm wondering why it went in, in cast iron? MR. FLAHERTY-I couldn't tell you, I wasn't working for the town then. MR. MCDERMOTT -Okay, I was going to say cast iron was obsolete. MR. FLAHERTY-We started using ductile iron as far as the town goes, about 1969, 1970. MR. MCDERMOTT -And I know AC has been around since the fifties and I don't want to tell people what AC is because... MR. FLAHERTY-We all know what AC is and we're rather not. MR. MCDERMOTT-But I know ductile around for years and why they went with cast iron is ... MR. FLAHERTY-Your father worked on it, Ted, do you know why? MR. TURNER-It probably was a matter of preference. You know they stuck with the old standard. MR. MCDERMOTT-Is it lead joints? MR. TURNER -Yea, that was used in alot of facilities. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Where did we replace that again this summer. MR. VANDUSEN-Owen Avenue. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Owen Avenue. I don't know what the future plans may bring in terms of replacing some of that but evidently, it will have to be given some thought to replacing some of that old cast iron stuff. That is if the taxes stay up, we try not to. MR. THOMPSON-Fred, can I redirect just one small question on that? You were saying it's a chemical reaction in your opinion. Okay, in other words, it's conceivable that the new chemicals that have been added, may have shaken lose some debris and so on and so forth which is causing some of the cloudiness. Was that the correct answer? Am I correct, was that you were ... MR. VANDUSEN-It's very common in MR. THOMPSON-That's six weeks ago, my only point is, this is traumatic. In other words, I came back, I was at Paradox Lake for two weeks, I came back on or about September 1st and I was fine. In other words, up until September 1st, my water on Lynnfield was absolutely fine. Okay, and it seemed like in September or approximately six to eight weeks ago or so, is when it first began. In other words, the situation you see here which incidently, may I add one other point, it's erratic. That's the way it looks, that was last night around five, it's a little better today but tomorrow it will be this way again. In other words, it has been erratic it seems. In other words, the quality or the cloudiness of this yellow, urine like as Mrs. Burrell calls it, seems to be erratic. MR. VANDUSEN-Alright, two things. It is very common that inside all of water lines, that a film or sediment would occur and once or twice a year routinely, most water systems will flush out the system to remove that. What happens, there's an actual film on the inside of the pipe that is very difficult to flush out with just the flow of water. What's happening now, because the requirements of the state health code and the safe drinking water act, chlorine residual in our distribution system is higher then it used to be. In other words, by the time it gets to your home, we're seeing a little more chlorine and that chlorine is reacting with iron in the pipe, it's reacting with that film to clean it back to it's original pipe, to actually squeegee that pipe out. The chlorine is oxidizing the iron and that's what's causing the rusty water problems. Now, as far as it being intermittent, you're neighborhood is just a network of pipes, there are streets and cross streets and depending on whose drawing water on a given day would dictate what path the water would take, which street the water would take to get to your home and it's certainly possible, some of those streets it's picking iron from and some of the streets it's certainly not picking up iron from. So, that's probably why some days you see it and some days you don't. MR. THOMPSON-Okay, now. If the state regulation is going to require this higher chlorine content lets say, then ... can we expect say these peaks and valleys of yellowness to go on until the end of time unless, until all water mains are changed? MR. VANDUSEN-Two things will happen. Some water mains will be changed or improved, some times you can improve them in place and it's cheaper then replacing. And, with as part of the expansion will be feeding a little bit different combination of chemicals to try and make the water less corrosive to iron. Right now, we're required by state mandate to make the water not corrosive to lead and copper and we're very effective at that, we're having no problems meeting those standards whatsoever. But our water is corrosive toward the iron. With the expansion, we're addressing that and we're going to be changing the chemical characteristics of the water slightly to try and make it less corrosive to the iron in the pipes. MR. FLAHERTY-One of the things that's happened too, unfortunately we happen to be a victim of circumstances, we've just finished construction of the new million gallon storage tank on Gurney Lane, as part of the construction and as far as filling that tank and the work that's being done, there's been days that we've had to reverse flow or change direction of flow in the mains. It just seems like one problem is amplifying another problem right at the moment. Again this summer as was mentioned earlier, we pumped way more water then we've ever pumped through our water mains. At higher flows, naturally you scour the mains at a greater degree then you have in the past. If you have a quiet steady flow through the mains, hopefully you don't stir that up. What has happened at Lynnfield Drive, it seems that we've got it into pocket up there and from our standpoint, we've been chasing the thing back and forth for a period of weeks and we obviously haven't got it out of there. We flushed several times in that area but we haven't neither got it all out or we've got some of it out and we did something some place else in the system and put some more back in there. No one more then I would like to take care of this problem and get it out of our hair so we can go onto something else. MR. THOMPSON-By the way, I didn't mean to get this off the main topic which... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, no, no, I think you're ... MR. THOMPSON-But it is germane. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Absolutely, absolutely. MR. FLAHERTY-No, this helps us too because now the board understands that there's problems too. Sometimes when we tell them that there's problems, they still have to hear it from the public also. MR. THOMPSON-By the way, the Water Department, have been ladies and gentlemen and very nice. Everyone has been extremely gentlemanly and ladylike and so on in handling it. I have no complaint with the way it's being handled. Unfortunately, the solution hasn't come forth. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, that's nice to hear. I think too, three weeks ago maybe we had a break, I mean a major break down here on Bay and again as I've received phone calls from you folks in that area, there were calls coming in from this whole central area around AC.C. and Haviland Avenue and up through that way, obviously when things like that do occur and when he's turning valves on and turning valves off, trying to reshuffle the water around so that the construction projects can go on, as he's indicated, that's all complicating the major problem. It would be my hope that once this is scoured out by the new additional additive of chlorine, that hopefully over time at least some improvements will be made and I think it's incumbent up on you folks to keep us posted. Obviously, we don't want that type of water going through our mains and we'll do everything we can from a board's position to rectify that, certainly within limits of cost or remediating it. But I do appreciate your input and I'm sure we'll take that under advisement. MR. THOMPSON-One other point that I can't help but feel as reading this, that your figures here, getting back to the rate bit. Unfortunatley, the fortunate part is that it sort of sounds like a Newt Gingrich type of approach here, that the higher your, you know it sounds like I'm Bill Clinton and you guys are New Gingrich because the person with the $289,000.000 assessment ends up with a 4.5 percent decrease, overall now, if he or she is using the same amount of water. While on the other hand, the more ordinary person with a $75,000.00 assessment as an 11.5 percent increase. So, in another words, basically what happens here is, if you live in Bedford Close, you're more apt to have a decrease while if you live on Meadowbrook Road or in a more mundane area, you're going to expect to have to pay more. UNKNOWN-You hit it right on the head. MR. NICHOLSON-You did, you bet he did. MR. THOMPSON-Am I right? MR. NICHOLSON-Most definitely. MR. THOMPSON-Unfortunately. MR. NICHOLSON-You're dead right. MR. THOMPSON-As I say, and I think one thing that we have to keep in mind I feel when you look at this kind of thing and I'm not saying from each according to his abilities in terms of so on and so forth, some kind of a communist manifesto. But what I am saying is, those who unfortunately are less able to pay are the ones who are going to end up obviously paying perhaps more then while those who can, if you live in Bedford Close, you should be more apt to be able to pay more when reality, at the $289,000.00 assessment, you're going to be paying less. Just, in other words, all I'm making is an editorial comment. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, you're absolutely right, the lower the assessed value of the house, more likely the higher the rate will go up while you're ... MR. THOMPSON-Which is unfortunate. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And you know, if you live in a $300,000.00 obviously you've been taking the bigger share of the hit for a number of years. MS. WALTON-But your water is still no more valuable in any house. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I fully understand that. MR. NICHOLSON-It's actually wrong. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? MR. FLAHERTY-Did you have a question or something? UNKNOWN-No, I was wondering about, if maybe up in that area you could segment and chlorinate it to clear it up, up there. I think MR. FLAHERTY-Do what, sir? UNKNOWN-Segment the lines and chlorinate them, maybe from hydrant to hydrant and maybe you can get it cleared up that way. MR. FLAHERTY-That's something we can take a look at. MR. NICHOLSON-Can I just add one thing? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Could you just give this gentleman, this is his first go around. I'd like to go through everyone with a first go around and then we'll go back to the seconds. MR. AL WEST-My name is Al West and I think this gentleman hit it right square on the head and I just think that it ought to be pointed out that the general economic picture of Queensbury and this general area is not good and the average family is hurting and when you're talking about 11 1/2 percent for the lower value homes and people on fixed incomes in particular, I think you ought to pay attention. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MRS. WEST-There's many people losing their jobs in this area. MS. W AL TON-I had the Town Clerk tell me there are 600 hundred homes for sale in Queensbury when I paid my taxes. That says something. MR. WEST-It's not realistic. MS. WALTON-Can't live here, can't sell your house. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, sir. MR. WALT REYNOLDS-Walt Reynolds, Northup Drive, Queensbury-Either Ralph or Tom, how come, what kind of a formula did you use to get these figures here, that brings that Brookshire down that much lower then the other ones? Explain that, that's what the people want to know, give them an explanation. MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, when we broke down the budget into two different categories, a category that's related to capital projects and bond indebtedness. That's one category, the second category is the portion of our budget that is based on any cost related to producing a gallon of water or getting it to our customer's homes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let me make sure we all understand what he just said. Anyone have any question about what capital investment is compared to indebtedness and operation, maintenance? Do we have that straight? That's important to understand that. MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, right now, the money that's coming in under our current meter rate, the money that's coming in to pay to produce a gallon of water and get it to our customer's homes, sixty percent of that money is coming from revenue from the sale of water. In other words, we go out read your meters, we send you a quarterly bill. Forty percent of that revenue is coming from taxes. In other words, this yellow portion, the part that comes from the meter revenue is not sufficient to pay the portion of our budget for 0 and M. What we did, we came up with a rate that would create enough of the metered revenue, enough of the yellow to be able to completely fund the 0 and M without dipping into taxes what so ever. Just the revenue from the sale of water would exactly equal the cost of producing and delivering a gallon of water. We know from experience approximately how much water we're going to sell, so we took the dollars that we need to generate, roughly 1.6 million dollars, divide that by the gallons that we need to sell and came up with a base rate, a minimum charge plus a rate per thousand gallons on top of that. So that's how we came up with the meter rate portion. It didn't make any difference to us whether you as an individual live in Bedford Close or in, on Corinth Road, it just came down to how many gallons of water do you use and that would dictate what the metered water bill would be. We then took the portion of the budget that is used for the capital portion. Again, that's the bond indebtedness or any capital construction projects, we divided that by the total assessed value in the district and came up with a rate per thousand of assessed value. In this case $1.45 per thousand. Again, it different make a difference what street you live on, just total dollars divided by total assessed value and it just happens that right now, under the current billing scenario, the people that live in relatively expensive homes and use a little bit of water or businesses that are assessed relatively high and use a little bit of water, are subsidizing. Forty percent of the operation and maintenance is being subsidized by the taxes. MR. REYNOLDS-The thing is though as I see it here, they're using more water then anybody else. MR. VANDUSEN-Well, it comes down to how many dollars, again, forty percent comes from tax dollars. So, it comes down to how much money are you paying in taxes that's being subsidized versus how much water. And that example, that just happens to be one resident on that one street and that's how much water they happen to use and what their assessed value is. You know, we could go through and pick 6,000 different scenarios and point that out. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So Ralph what you're saying is, the gallons you picked on the streets were not an average of the homes on that street, it was one particular individual's use. MR. VANDUSEN-That's exactly right. MR. FLAHERTY-They're just examples. MR. VANDUSEN-We happened to pick just one house on a street and try to give it... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, it wasn't an average use in the area. MR. VANDUSEN-That's right, I can't tell you whether its higher or lower then their neighbors, it just happens to be one house. MR. REYNOLDS-So in other words, in some houses wouldn't have that drop. MR. VANDUSEN-You could, another one that I looked up when I was doing this, I looked up two houses on Ridge Street or on Ridge Road. One house, both houses were assessed approximately the same, about $80,000.00 for assessed value, one person used, I think it was 150,000 gallons of water last year and the other used 75,000 gallons of water. So, it's just, you know certainly, it comes down to how much do you water your lawn or garden as to how much water you use. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What this will do now is every time you turn that water spigot on, you're going to see dollar signs going out of there far greater then they ever have in the past. And to us, at least me personally, that's an indicator that conservation is in order and we're not going to tax the property tax for operation and maintenance to manufacture a gallon of water. I think that, again if you go back to, and help me with this Ralph or Tom, the studies that we have done on a water department, or water plant over the past several years and I'm aware of three of those studies, they have each one of them have pointed out the errors that we have been making all along the years in continuing to tax and tax and tax rather then charge for usage against the operation and maintenance in the use tax. At the state level, I don't know how many other communities that provide for municipal water follow this same pattern but I don't believe very many. This town has been out of since with what I consider to be the norm, if you will in terms of charging for water and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to bring it back into what should have been years ago and that is, what you use is what you pay for and you don't charge the taxpayer for what you use on a decreasing scale. MS. WALTON-But you're still upping it. I'm paying $68.00 a year now, I don't use a penny over and it's going to be $140.00. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But it may go down in your real estate tax in. So, you've got to look at what part is on your assessed value and see that should go down. UNKNOWN-Chances are it won't though, if you look at this Betty. MR. NICHOLSON-No, it ain't going down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, it all depends upon where you live. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, no it doesn't, it depends on the assessed value of the house. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I mean, if you've got a $50,000.00 assessed value house then obviously you're not going to show much of a decrease there. If you would call, in fact Ralph or Tom give her your number if you will, get a call and we can give you that answer based on what we're looking at here tonight. What we're looking at here tonight obviously is not set in stone either. We can do some modification of what our plan is that we're going in with. MR. REYNOLDS-I can see your point that, as far as meters go, the more water you use, the more you pay for it but this tax rate, that's, I can't quite put a finger on that how they figured that one out. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, the tax rate would have to go up anyway because of the construction of the new plant and it isn't just the new plant, don't forget we have a new water tank that has gone up, we're having size lines increased under the northway to make the system work better and Tom, you can explain better then I can, the reason for the bigger transmission line and what it's going to do to the rest of the system and why we need the storage tank and etcetera and so on. But there is more then just the plant that's happening here. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, your tax rate would go up anyway based on that 13 million dollar new plant project. MR. REYNOLD-I'll grant you that but... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-This actually is decreasing it, okay, we're... MR. REYNOLD-But it turns out that your higher assessed people are the only ones that their tax rate is dropping. I mean, the overall is dropping, the tax rate and usage. MR. VANDUSEN-But if you look at, in every scenario between the current, between the old rate and the proposed rate, the tax dollars they're paying goes down. It's just that the expensive homes are the only ones that are balancing out. In other words, the decrease in taxes will more then equal the increase in metered rate. MR. REYNOLD-Okay, I just wanted to ask that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thanks Walter. I saw a question over here, yes sir. MR. MIKE LABOWSKY-Mike Labowsky, 24 Lynnfield. My question comes, how did you come up with this arbitrary rate. Let's say you came up with this $35.00, was that something that you just said, this is a rate that we'll contend with and this is how the numbers come out? What would be wrong with looking at a different rate, let's say, you know here's an elderly lady and if they use considerably less then 12,000 gallons, let's have a special something different. Let's say, 6,000 or something like that or cut it back and then 17 versus 35. That might be a fair and equitable way to handle everybody's problem. You know if somebody is not going to use it, I can't see it... MS. WALTON-But they're not using 17, they're not going to use 35. MR. LABOWSKY-I feel, I have to feel for her. Maybe people, one and two people in a household, that would certainly make a significant change. You might be able to consider that, I don't know. MR. FLAHERTY-That's one thing that could be looked at, you can come up with a lesser base rate. Although I have to point out, if you come up with a lesser base rate, you're going to increase your metered rate. MR. LABOWSKY-Or you could come up with two rates say at threshold 6,000... threshold 12,000 is 45, you know the same reason, the same scenario. MR. FLAHERTY-That's one possibility. MR. LABOWSKY-I think you should take consideration of ... MR. NICK CAIMANO-It's also more consistent with your thought process of the user paying for he or she uses. If you put the onus on the cost per thousand, the actual usage and leave the base alone, then it's up to the individual... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think Ralph said it earlier, you take a business that as a value, assessed value of a million dollars and the business has one toilet. Now, I'm not sure that in fairness that, that person is getting much of a break and I think this kind of equalizes and kind of balances that one out. Can I ask this question, I'm not sure whether you would have the answer to it or not, what would be, like this lady is saying in terms oflow and high, I mean we arrived at 12,000 gallons, what would be a low and what would be a high? Would that be an average household usage or how did we arrive at 12,000 or has that been a number that we've used over the years? MR. FLAHERTY-That's been a number that we've used over the years, I think it was last adjusted in 88. It was 15,000 gallons at one time and instead of raising the rates, we dropped the base down to 12,000, that was the previous board's decision a way back. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It maybe something we need to take a look at. That's a good point, appreciate that. MR. FLAHERTY-You can come up with several scenarios here. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, we don't have any targets out there that we're aiming at in order to suffer more, suffer less. We're just looking at this, kind of giving it a quick brush to see how it fits and this is good input for us. Anyone else? Yes, Pliney. First go around. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Pliney Tucker. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Pliney, would you please come to the microphone so Caroline can pick you up. MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Queensbury. The buck 45, 1996 tax rate, what does that include? MR. FLAHERTY-That's your debt service, strictly debt service. MR. VANDUSEN-Plus capital costs. MR. FLAHERTY-Plus capital projects. MR. TUCKER-And that includes expansion of the water plant? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. TUCKER-How much of it? MR. FLAHERTY-The 8 million dollars that we borrowed. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-To date, we've borrowed 8 million dollars. There will be a, before the project is over with, it would appear that we'll have to go back and borrow another 3.5 or 3.6, somewhere in there. MR. TUCKER-So the tax rate will be going again? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's correct. MR. TUCKER-In 1997 or when? MS. GEOFFROy-Its projected that we're going to borrow the remainder of the money in the fall of 97. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess, it's hard to judge, it depends on how the project goes through but yea, it would be probably in the 98 tax bill. MS. GEOFFROY-I mis-spoke, we're projecting to borrow it in 97, excuse me 96, next year. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MS. GEOFFROY-So, the tax will impact in 97. MR. TUCKER-Any idea how much it's going to go? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ralph, you had that MR. FLAHERTY-I think I can answer. It was projected when we had the public hearing on the plant expansion that if you borrowed the total amount of money to build a plant expansion with Queensbury the only ones supporting that expansion, that the tax rate would go to $2.57. MR. TUCKER-That's the 13.250? MR. FLAHERTY-That was based on 13. 5. MR. TUCKER-Yea, 13.250. MR. FLAHERTY-Actually, the bids came in under that, it's closer to 11 or 12 and we paid for, a million dollars out of the fund balance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, and of course the sale to Hudson Falls is another million. MR. FLAHERTY-But the original public hearing calls for a tax rate of $2.57. MR. TUCKER-That's for the expansion of the? MR. FLAHERTY-That's for the expansion, the tank and the crossing under the northway. MR. TUCKER-Yea, and then you've still got 5 years on the old bonding. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, we're not sure ofthatPliney. I just don't have that answer. MR. TUCKER-Well, I mean we've still got old bonding. MR. FLAHERTY-Do you know what the bond term is on the old plant or not? MS. GEOFFROY-Not off the top of my head. MR. FLAHERTY-Well, if it was 20 years and we borrowed in 1975, it would be 1995, right? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think it's more, it's got some more time then that to go. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-See, I don't have that. MS. GEOFFROY-I can get those figures if you want. I can run next door and get them. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If you want to do that, that would be appreciated, thank you. Any other? I saw another hand here. Yes sir. MR. LABOWSKY-Assuming that everybody did their homework and you've got good numbers here and you know exactly what the water usage is now, is there any possibility of getting any kind of a windfall out of this thing or are you doing this conservatively? MR. VANDUSEN-When I did the calculations I can tell you that I did not use the gallons from this summer because they were abnormally high, I used gallons over the previous 3 years, the average of those 3 years. This year with the increased water consumption, our revenue exceeding our expectations by over $200,00.00, it's a nice windfall but certainly not safe... MR. LABOWSKY -Okay, I just wanted to know what happens when you start collecting these monies, what happens to this revenue that is far exceeding your operating costs? MR. FLAHERTY-One of the things that could happen is, your revenue exceeded your operations and maintenance cost, all of or some portion of that could be applied to the debt service side to reduce the debt servIce. MR. V ANDUSEN-I think it's important to point out that financially it has to stay in the water department funds in the fund balance. It can't leave, it can't go to general, it can't go anywhere else. It has to stay in the water department as a fund balance. It's our goal to maintain a fund balance of approximately a half million dollars. Anything over that would be used to lower taxes or pay for our capital projects. MR. LABOWSKY-Okay. MR. FLAHERTY-Under town law as a special benefit district, the operation of the water system has to be paid for by the district. The funds generated in the district can't not be used for any other purpose. General town funds can not be used to supplement the water district. That's different then city law. MR. TUCKER-What's our fund balance right now? MR. FLAHERTY-As soon as Cathy comes back, I'll give you the exact figures, Pliney. Maybe I've got them in the budget here. I believe it's just over a million dollars and a portion of that has been earmarked to go toward the plant debt service. MR. TUCKER-A portion of the million? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. MR. TUCKER-Now, the half million that you have to maintain is just because when you send out your water bills, the revenue doesn't MR. FLAHERTY-That's part of the reason for any unexpected emergency that you might have. MR. TUCKER-One more question, and I'll shut up forever. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that a guarantee? MR. TUCKER-Would it be possible to get the total tax rate on everything that we're going to have to be paying for when the expansion is done and what's owed on everything else? MR. FLAHERTY-I believe if I'm correct, that $2.57 is it. MR. TUCKER-That covers ... MR. FLAHERTY-That covers everything unless you go out and lay a new water main someplace or do something that isn't, that we don't know about. But that $2.57 covers the plant expansion and any existing debt that we have now. MR. TUCKER-Any expenses we have? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. MR. TUCKER-You're sure? MR. VANDUSEN-That's high because... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Hudson Falls coming in. MR. VANDUSEN-The $2.57 would be if we borrowed 13.2 million dollars. Obviously, we all know we're not going to borrow the 13.2 million. We're putting roughly a million from the fund balance... MR. TUCKER-All I wanted to know was, you know when the whole package is all together, what it's going to be per assessed thousand? MR. FLAHERTY-That, to the best of my knowledge, it covers everything, plant expansion and fund balance and it maybe something less then that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll get an answer for you on that one though, Pliney, that's a good question. MR. TUCKER-Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS-Excuse Tom, when does that take effect? MR. FLAHERTY-When is what going to take effect, Mr. Reynolds? MR. REYNOLDS-The $2.57. MR. FLAHERTy-It may never take effect. It was projected to take effect depending on how we borrowed the 13 million dollars. I would assume and I'm just making an assumption on my part that if it was going to be $2.57 and we did borrow the 13 million, which we aren't, it would take effect in 1997. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? Yes sir. Do you want to, I'm sorry, in order to get it into the record here. MR. NICHOLSON-I'd just like to say one more thing, when we play with the numbers, you're always saying, well, it's less, it's going to be less. First of all, to build this plant cost us money. It's not going to be less, it's going to cost us more no matter what. So, why say, they play with the numbers here and those numbers are not going to come out, take my word for it and they're going to charge $35.00 to all of us. So, that's double. That's double if we use any more water or not to everybody that has. I mean, there's twelve thousand homeowners in Queensbury, I think, that's another question I'd like to ask. How many homes have the water? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Six thousand. MR. FLAHERTY-Sixty-five hundred, seven thousand, somewhere in that. MR. NICHOLSON-Seven thousand out of that twelve thousand, alright, they're all going to pay $35.00 if you do it the way you're saying right now. It's going to double from $17.00 to $35.00 if they don't use a drop more water. If they use less, it's going to be that and there's taxes on their home, it's going to be a little more and for the lesser ones, it's going to be a little bit more then that. So, let's not say, play the game here. Let's really look at the numbers the way they are and not try to fool the public. I think it's much better that way. That's all I'm trying to say. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, Nick, looking at this chart and I maybe wrong, Ralph or Tom, help me out with this one but on, you're absolutely right, the cost of the base is going to double on the 12,000 but if you look at the tax, you've got to keep in mind the.. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Property tax. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Property tax reduction here, it looks to me as I go down through these including Meadowbrook, to me, the Lady Slipper piece goes from 263 to 186... MR. NICHOLSON-Boy, I want to see that after this goes into effect because mine is going to go up as near as I can figure about $14.00 more then it is right now plus... SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Taxes? MR. NICHOLSON-Taxes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It can't. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Can that be? MR. VANDUSEN-You're saying $14.00 more then it was in January of95? MR. NICHOLSON-It's going to go up that much right ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, I see what you're saying because of the construction of the new project. MR. NICHOLSON-Yea. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It could go up $14.00? MR. NICHOLSON-And now you're going to hit me besides that with double my water rate even if I don't like, I'm like this lady, very rarely do I go over 12,000 gallons but you're going to double that no matter what. So, let's tell it the way it is. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank you. Anyone else? MS. GEOFFROY-Fred, I have that information. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, thank you. MS. GEOFFROY-The bonds are taken out in March of 1976 and we make our final payment in the year 2004. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea 2004, so it's a twenty-five year bond. MS. GEOFFROY -Twenty-eight is what I counted, it will be twenty-eight years of principal payments. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MR. NICHOLSON-How much are the payments on that? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-On the old one? MR. NICHOLSON-Yea, on the old one. MS. GEOFFROy-It's broken out into different portions. MR. NICHOLSON-Per year, just roughly what the payments are. MS. GEOFFROY-About, well they vary depending on year but about $230,00.00 in principal and interest goes down every year but total debt service including principal and interest for next year is $375,00.00. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-On the old bond. MS. GEOFFROY-On the old bond. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, have we answered all of the questions and concerns relative to the Queensbury District. MS. WALTON-But you have answered them. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We have answered them. MS. W AL TON-There's no answer. The inflation is 2.6 per cent and you're raising rates over a 100 percent just on the meter water. It doesn't tally well with 2.6 percent inflation rates. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Maybe we're moving in the wrong direction here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Maybe you think we ought to knock the plant down? I just ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Maybe you want to leave it the way it's been for the last twenty-five years. I can now understand why previous boards kind of just left it the way it was. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, actually there were some small minor adjustments towards this way, you know, but it should have been done every year because there were adjustments when it was adjusted to put a little bit more over. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-But all means, I think after tonight's meeting it's going to mean that we're going to have to go back and take a second look rather then making that full jump, okay, into the 100 percent 0 and M onto the usage cost. It maybe done over a period of time and maybe lessen the blow and get through the old bond at $300,000.00 a year. So, there are some modifications here that we can take a look at and we've gained that. MR. O'BRIEN-Cullen O'Brien again. Fred, I don't necessarily think you need to do away with where you're headed possibly, just maybe put the numbers in a manner that the people who decide that their going to water the lawns 24 hours a day from the minute the snow disappears until the minute the snow comes back, that guy pays what he's done. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's what this says. MR. O'BRIEN-Well, but the numbers need to be, make that guy really understand... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Less ofa shock. MR. O'BRIEN -Yea, to the folks who aren't out there doing that kind of thing, who are not using all that amount of water. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, let's move right into the... MR. REYNOLDS-Fred, can I ask one more question. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm sorry, sure. Into the mic there if you would please? MR. REYNOLDS-One more question for Tom. I can remember back when the minimum use on water was 14,000 gallons. MR. FLAHERTy-It was 15,000. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay, it was 15,000 then we dropped to 12,000. Now, how much would it be, the difference, say you drop this to 10,000 instead of the 12,000 against the $35.00? I think that's one thing that could be looked at. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea and... MR. REYNOLDS-And that would be with your conserving of the water too. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Or maybe phase it or scale it. Maybe one price at 6 for this lady with the one user, versus something else for a typical four family. I think that's what we need to take a look at. What's the high, what's the low, what's the medium, what's the one person family, the five person family? Those are the kinds of adjustments I think that Ralph could put on his what if computer program. MR. FLAHERTY-In some areas, it's not uncommon to have a step scale. In fact, back in the early seventies, late sixties, we had a step scale that had a base rate, a rate up to so many thousand and then a higher rate after that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I think there's a lot of logic in that because I'm sure that the one person family is more and more increasing ever year. Plus the fact alot of people are installing water saving devices or showers or toilets, etcetera and so they should get the benefit of what they're doing. MR. FLAHERTY-I think this helps, I mean this generated basically what I think you wanted us to do, to get the input of the people so that we can go back now and take another look at this and see what we can do with it. This is, you asked us to come up with a scenario. We did. I don't, I'm not saying it's the only one or the right one. It's one that we came up with and it's subject to review and modification, I believe. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It gives us something to start with, Tom. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's right, we've got a basis. MR. FLAHERTy-It also shows that you shouldn't wait seven years either to look at these things. They ought to be reviewed more often. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-On someone else's watch by the way. MR. FLAHERTY-That's what every supervisor has ever said that sat there and that's why we're sitting here today. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, mam. MS. CAROLYN LORD-Carolyn Lord. Am I correct in assuming that this includes the entire Town of Queensbury? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, Tom, everything except... MR. FLAHERTy-It includes the Queensbury Consolidated Water District which is everything, we're going to deal with, West Glens Falls is a separate issue after this. MS. LORD-Do you have a map that shows where these areas are? MR. FLAHERTY-I don't have it with me, no. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're you here earlier when he tried to... MS. LORD-No, I'm sorry. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, let's run through that one more time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Are you in the water district? MR. FLAHERTY -Yes, she is, she lives on West Mountain Road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, so those would apply to you. What you're looking at will apply to you. MS. LORD-But not the entire Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because we're not, the people who aren't in the water district aren't benefitted by it and so they neither are taxed nor do they get any of the benefits. That's by state law, it's a special district. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think you said about seven thousand users, is that correct? MR. FLAHERTY-About sixty-five hundred to seven thousand users. If you could picture it in your mind, basically the Queensbury Water District goes up Route 9 to 149, it comes up Bay Road to the Town Office Building, it goes up Ridge Road to Cronin Road and it goes up County Line Road to Hicks Road, it takes in all of that area with the exception of the West Glens Falls Water District which is that small area between Den Wilhelm's or Western Avenue and the Northway. I don't know if that answers your question or not. MS. LORD-Yes it did. MR. FLAHERTY-Nothing north of 149 is in the water district. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, are there any other questions, concerns, on this one? UNKNOWN-One clarification, and that includes how many homes in that, in our district? MR. FLAHERTY-We have six thousand thirteen accounts. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's homes and businesses, right? MR. FLAHERTY-Homes and businesses, services. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay? Thank you very much. Let's move now right into the West Glens Falls piece. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - WEST GLENS F ALLS WATER DISTRICT - RATE INCREASE NOTICE SHOWN 8:30 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How do you want to march through that one? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-While they're getting that ready, I would like to tell you that Mrs. Pulver asked me to explain why she is not at this meeting tonight. She's on a family vacation that was set before this meeting was set. She's arriving in Albany late tonight and we had to set this public hearing either we had to do it on a night when Mrs. Pulver wasn't here or a night when Mr. Champagne wasn't here. So, we did it tonight. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm going hunting. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If she could have been she would have been but these plans had been set a long time ago. MR. FLAHERTY-I think we all know the saga of the West Glens Falls Water District. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm not sure they all do, you might want to take just a couple of minutes. MR. FLAHERTY-Alright. Well, I've explained previously where the West Glens Falls Water District. It was created, again, in the late thirties, 1935 as I understand people telling me by, under at WPA project. They've had contracts, they originally bought water from the City of Glens Falls under contract to the City of Glens Falls and it consists of largely cast iron, unlined water mains that are, what forty, fifty years old. Back in the 1980's we ... COUNCILMAN TURNER-Some of those on Fifth Street and Fourth Street are 45 years old. MR. FLAHERTY-Okay. Back in the 1980's we began to experience problems with quality in the West Glens Falls Water District, we were not meeting the state requirements. We could not maintain chlorine in the area or in the mains of the district. We talked to the City of Glens Falls about increasing the chlorine as it came out of their system and they could not increase it. If they increased the chlorine, then they would overdose their own residents. So, we had a quality problem. That was brought to the attention of Town Board at that time. Second problem we had was that the revenues that were generating from the West Glens Falls Water District were not meeting the cost of buying water from the City of Glens Falls. The answer to that problem was that the boards, in that area decided that we had a fund balance in the West Glens Falls Water District so therefore we would make up the deficit out of the fund balance to pay the city or pay for the purchase of water. That worked fine until we're at the point that we're now and we have run out of money in the West Glens Falls Water District fund balance. Approximately a year ago, we again had quality problems in the West Glens Falls Water District. The State Health Department put West Glens Falls Water District on a boiled water notice until such time as the situation was corrected. At the same time, they told us that we had to hire an engineer and come up with a solution to the problem. This board an interim solution decided to take the West Glens Falls Water District off the City of Glens Falls supply and connect it to the Queensbury water system supply which was able to provide the chlorinated water that we needed in that area and that was done. To compound the issue as Cullen O'Brien started to mention earlier, it's similar to the issue that you have in the Westland section of the town. The difference in the water quality, the make up of the water between the City of Glens Falls system and ours, our system is now reacting with the unlined mains in West Glens Falls and if you think you have chablis, I wish I brought the sample I had from West Glens Falls because it's about the color of the top of that picture over there, the water picture. Which leads us to the problem of what we're going to do, how are we going to pay the bills in West Glens Falls because the rates were last raised in West Glens Falls in 1976, 19 years ago. Under the current rate in, West Glens Falls by the way is on what's called a flat rate system, they pay so much per fixture and it's antiquated system that almost nobody uses any more. However, they're doing it. When we switched to Queensbury water system, we were mandated by DEC to meter West Glens Falls, that hasn't been done yet because we have to come up with, we were waiting to see if we could get a grant to try to come up with the funding to do that. Having said that, the current rate in West Glens Falls, metered rate is $.44 per thousand gallons. On your flat rate system, if you have a house with a family use which is considered your kitchen, your washing machine, you pay $10.00. If you have a bath or shower, you pay another $4.00. If you have one toilet in your house, you pay another $4.00 for a total of $18.00 and West Glens Falls is billed twice a year, May and November. So, in November you pay $18.00. In the May bill you'll get charged an additional $6.00 for a total of $23.00 for a hose use, $24.00 excuse me. Under the proposed rate changes in West Glens Falls, here again, this was based on the previous presentation with Queensbury metered rate because now West Glens Falls is getting water from the Queensbury water system and there is about ten meters in West Glens Falls. MR. VANDUSEN-Twenty-seven. MR. FLAHERTY-Twenty-seven meters in West Glens Falls, they're basically commercials. Their rate would go from $.44 to $1.68. Under this rate by the way, West Glens Falls is paying $.12 a day for water. The metered rate would go from $.44 to $1.68. Family use would go from 10 to 21. Bath and shower would, everything would just about double, it would go up a 100 percent. They have a tax rate in West Glens Falls right now of 80 cents a thousand. Under the scenario that we had previously, that would also go to $1.45 because they're getting water now from the Queensbury Consolidated Treatment Plant and this brings them into line somewhat in paying their share of that cost. Some of this is, will change, it's our hope and our intent to fully meter West Glens Falls this year, 1996. Once that becomes accomplished, this becomes obsolete and then the metered rate, whatever it is in Queensbury would apply to West Glens Falls. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-As some of you may know, the town did apply for a HUD grant last year I believe to the tune of $260,000.00. Is that about right, Ralph? Somewhere in that neighborhood and we came within fractions actually of getting that grant. Very disappointed that we didn't receive it. However, it's our opinion that again this year and I believe the applications are due some time on January. Hopefully, we'll go for another round and with a little luck, we'll be able to get the grant to do the necessary replacement of those pipes that are there and bring that up to standards because obviously, we can give them the best water in the world over there but flowing through those 1935 pipes, doesn't really do the job. So, that's an intent that hopefully we'll be able to have some success with this summer. However, if we don't, I guess we would have to go back out and bond that project again. Tom, am I correct in saying that? There's nothing in these rates certainly that's going to handle... MR. FLAHERTY-That's the board's decision. There's nothing in these, there's no money in the till and that's, that work has been mandated by the state so you tell me what you want to do. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It would appear, that we're going to have to make a move there also. But given what's in the ground now and given the current versus the proposed, I guess the board would be interested in hearing from those of you that would like to be heard. Cullen, do you want to start out? MR. O'BRIEN-Cullen O'Brien. Okay, if you don't get the money and obviously you would have to bond this and that's understandable because that's how it would be funded. Tom, what would the tax rate look like? Do you have any idea? MR. FLAHERTY-No, I don't without doing a... MR. O'BRIEN-But it would be that roughly that $300,000.00 figure? MR. FLAHERTy-It would be $300,000.00 roughly depending on what the bonding rate is and everything else. If West Glens Falls remains a separate district... MR. O'BRIEN-We would see an additional charge above that? MR. FLAHERTY-You would see an additional charge, yes. MR. O'BRIEN-Yea, above that $1.45. MR. FLAHERTY-But it would be divided among the total assessed value of the district. MR. O'BRIEN-Just within West Glens Falls? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-Right. Is it your plan, I mean that construction could start within, what two years or so at the earliest? MR. FLAHERTY-That's going to be a board decision and that's going to be dictated I guess by the reaction they get from the people in West Glens Falls. We have the people in Westland drinking chablis and the people in West Glens Falls drinking bach? Dark bach as it is but... MR. O'BRIEN-I don't want to be drinking that anymore. I don't want to be dealing with that any more. The thing is though, as you said, this is a mandated thing by the state so really the town has got to make a move regardless. MR. FLAHERTY-The state mandated that we get chlorine into that area which we have done by turning it on to Queensbury water. MR. O'BRIEN-So, now it's a quality thing? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. There were two mandates from the state. The State Health Department mandated that we get a chlorine residual in the West Glens Falls Water District which we did. You've got to understand the state. We have to deal with the State Health Department, we have to deal with the Department of EN CON. The health department told us to get chlorine over there. We had to go to the Department of ENCON to switch supplies from the City of Glens Falls to Queensbury. ENCON mandated that we meter it. So, those are the two mandates that you have. We did that. Now we have basically created a quality problem. There are some other problems in West Glens Falls too. There are some undersized mains, there is some areas that the mains four inch when they were new, I would dare to venture that they're probably an inch and half, maybe two now depending on the percolation in the mains. We have some areas where we can't get fire flows. We have some areas in the summer time along Corinth Road where if it's a hot summer and people in West Glens Falls are using sprinkler systems to any degree, where we have pressures often pounds. The state says you have to have twenty pounds. So, there's other problems there too that have to be addressed. Do you address them all at once? That's a decision that has to be made. Hopefully you could go in and do the worse ones and do a little bit each year and try to lessen the affect that way. But, again, that's a decision that we can recommend but then the board makes those decisions. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Cullen. Anyone else here to speak on the West Glens Falls? Yes, Pliney. MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker. Currently, I believe we have a law on the books that any water district joining the present water district has a buy in cost for the investment in the plant. Does this district have that buy in cost? MR. FLAHERTY-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Isn't that covered under the tax rate of $1. 45? MR. FLAHERTY-I don't believe it is. If it's treated as any other water district has been treated in the town, then there's a buy in charge for the plant. That formula was brought forth through Mr. Dusek's office and previous boards several years ago when it became apparent that there were some districts in the town who were getting water from the consolidated plant that were not sharing in the cost of the plant. In order to correct that, they were consolidated into the water district and there was a buy in charge assessed to them to do that. Correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, that's correct but you have to keep in mind that that whole buy in system and the whole structure was done with the old plant and new districts coming on line. This is the, this is an existing West Glens Falls district that was previously getting water from the City of Glens Falls and is now being changed over to Queensbury and Queensbury is also developing an entire new plant. So, I think the buy in formula and the way that's going to be structured is going to be different then what you previously used on the other things. For instance, the Quaker Road Sewer District offers a good example. When the sewer district was brand new, there was very little minimal buy in charge because the people who came in immediately obviously are picking up the whole cost along with everybody else. But as the district gets older and new ones come in and there's an equity built up in the district then you have to make obviously some logical adjustments for the use of pipes and the existing equity in the plant. So, because now all of sudden you've got a brand new plant on line, you are going to have to take another look at that formula and figure out what is a fair and reasonable charge that the people in the other district would pay. The other issue you're going to have before you and I know there's been some conversation about this as to whether or not you consolidate them into the main district and you have to look at the implications of that and whether that's going to be a fair result for both districts. So, I just wanted to point that out because it's not like, it's just not a black and white issue of using the old formulas any more because of the ... MR. FLAHERTY-Those are decisions that are made at a higher level then at my office but... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, one of the things that we have done this year, I believe it was this year, we have consolidated, how many different districts, Tom? MR. FLAHERTY-We've consolidated several times. The last consolidation, I think there was five or six districts. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Within the last year. MS. GEOFFROY-January 1 of95. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-January 1 of 95. What we did there, you know, no matter what their rates were, we were able to bring them into the consolidated district enlarging that and at the same time, there were those districts considerably lower, that their costs went up considerably in order to become part of the consolidated district. MR. FLAHERTY-I can think of two examples. Hiland Park being one example where the developer paid for all the water mains, put them in the ground and turned them over to the town, it was maintained as a separate district. They had an operation and maintenance tax rate because there wasn't any, there wasn't sufficient houses up there to pay for operation and maintenance. They had a tax rate of 35,45 cents a thousand. It was consolidated in the Queensbury Water District, their tax rate went from 45 cents a thousand to $1.31. I believe Peggy Ann Water District was a similar situation where that was created back, I believe in Fran Walter's time and they had a very low tax rate because the developer, again built the infrastructure and turned it over to the town. Once it became consolidated, they didn't have it, neither Hiland Park nor Peggy Ann Road had a contract with the Town of Queensbury to buy water, they were just charged the regular metered rate. We corrected that, brought them into the, consolidated them into the district and their tax rate went from less then a dollar up to $1.32 also. Did you have a question Pliney? MR. TUCKER-No, I was just going to say something is different, I believe Fred is talking about the developers had to buy in back when the development was approved. MR. FLAHERTY-In later years, yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, partly that but there were other districts that were stand alone districts that had been billed totally and entirely separately from the billing procedure that we have in the consolidated district. Those are the ones that I'm talking about, that enveloped in to become one large consolidated, it was Easy Street as I remember, that was one. MR. TUCKER-Easy Street had to buy in. MR. FLAHERTY-Easy Street had a buy in charge. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, and I understand that but ... MR. TUCKER-Clendon Ridge had to buy in. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-But the tax rate and the usage fee was something different then it was in the consolidated district at the time. MR. FLAHERTY-That's right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's what I'm saying and those all came together as I said in this past year. MR. FLAHERTY-Part of the philosophy has been in the past, if you had a water district, I'll pick one that's, the figures aren't going to be exactly right but I'll pick, say Easy Street. Under a water district or separate water district, you have to put the mains in or if we put the mains in, the residents of that area have to bear the cost until it's paid for or something else is done with it. In some cases like Easy Street, the tax on Easy Street was $3.00 a thousand, $3.50 a thousand. The tax in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District was a $1.32 or something. Once that $3.00 a thousand dropped down equal to the Queensbury Water District, then that was consolidated in as part of the Queensbury Water District and the Queensbury Water District got the benefit of the assessment of that area. That's one of the philosophies of the board that's been used in the past. MR. TUCKER-Queensbury Forest on Peggy Ann Road had a water rate of either 34 cents or 37 cents, the tax rate. MR. FLAHERTY-Tax rate. MR. TUCKER-Yea, it was just the way the package was put together. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. FLAHERTY-Then it got consolidated and went to $1.32. MR. TUCKER -Yea, and we pulled it in and raised it but it was just the way things were put together and I think that was the reason that the law was put together to have a buy in price on any new development and what have you. MR. FLAHERTY-I think the thing we have to keep in mind though is whether we do anything in West Glens Falls, you've got to do something with the rates in order to just pay the bills. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. FLAHERTY-You're borrowing money now to pay last year's bills. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's a given. MR. FLAHERTy-It hasn't been done in 19 years so that's. MR. TUCKER-You know the reason, Tom, they wanted to spend their surplus. MR. FLAHERTY-I don't argue with you a bit, Pliney. MR. TUCKER-I know when I was there, that's what they told me. MR. FLAHERTY-If you remember, I gave a report to the board telling you that you're going to run out of money. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-One of the problems we're facing out there obviously, to do the kind of work that we're talking about, to do right based on the assessed value of those, how many houses out there, services out there? MR. V ANDUSEN- Two hundred and fifty. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-About two hundred and fifty, the value is just not there to do the kind of costly work that we're looking at. And I guess that I'm finding that true in my experience when we're trying to sewer Bay Road that for the cost of putting that sewer line in, the assessed value is just not there and that drives the cost sky high. So, unless you do get some state grant of some sort, it becomes almost more of a burden in what that taxpayer can bear. That's my concern. MR. FLAHERTY-The difference Fred though between West Glens Falls and Bay Road is that, Bay Road is undeveloped and it's going to cost money. West Glens Falls, if the small maintenance problems had been addressed while they were small, you wouldn't have a big maintenance problem today. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else? MR. NICHOLSON-How did we inherit that West Glens Falls area from Glens Falls? Was it because it was in our town? MR. FLAHERTY-I believe so. It was before my time, Mr. Nicholson, it started in 1935. MR. NICHOLSON-Well, I'm saying Richardson Street and that was all part of ... MR. FLAHERTy-It was a separate water district as was Ridge Road Water District and there were several others, and they bought, because it was in the geographic boundary of the Town of Queensbury, it belonged to the Town of Queensbury and the contracted with the City of Glens Falls for a supply of water. MR. NICHOLSON-But we just took it over recently, right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, well... MR. FLAHERTY-No, the town maintained it over the past years as a separate water district. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Contracted with the City of Glens Falls to furnish water to that district. MR. FLAHERTy-It was a separate water district, the town provided the maintenance for it, the town did the billing for it, the town had a contract with the City of Glens Falls to buy water through a meter at the city line. There was a part time Water Superintendent, Curt Lampson was the Water Superintendent over there for years. It was a part time Water Superintendent and it was run as a small district. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think people have to remember back in 1935, that was probably the most intensely developed area of Queensbury and very close to the water lines in Glens Falls. MR. FLAHERTy-It was the same Broadacres. Broad Acres, for years and years and years, Broadacres was a district that nobody took care of until 1980. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Broadacres was developed a long time after West Glens Falls. I'm not talking about water district, I'm talking about intensity of development in the area. MR. FLAHERTY-The areas in the town that had water were on the periphia of the City of Glens Falls because it was easy for them to get water. They connected to the city lines and at that time, the city was more then willing to sell water to the people in the town. If you want to really go back in history, the city decided they didn't want to sell water to the Town of Queensbury when Queensbury Plaza opened up and Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward moved out of the city. That was there way of trying to control growth at that time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Almost worked. Yes, anyone else? Going once, going twice, gone. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:55 P.M. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 582, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver No further action was taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY