2011-08-08 MTG #22
TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #22
AUGUST 8, 2011 RES. 239-253
7:00 p.m.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Everybody when you go home tonight say one prayer for the Navy
Seals that passed this past weekend, Team 6.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And all other service members
1.0 PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 29, 2011
2012-2014 FIRE PROTECTIN SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AND NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town has five volunteer fire companies and three volunteer ems
companies in the town. Four of the five fire companies are on three year contracts that started
two years ago and have one more year on them. The fifth company is North Queensbury Fire
their contract expires at the end of this year. So, we only have the one fire company contract to
worry about for next year right now. All three ems contacts are up at the end of this year and we
will be working on them this fall. So, we do have one public hearing for any of the fire
companies or rescue squads we do require public hearings as part of our process and the long and
short of it for North Queensbury Fire is that they are coming off a three year contract. The
language in the proposed contract for the next three years is identical to the language in the
current contract that is going to expire at the end of this year so there is no difference in the
language in the contracts and in fact the three years the fire company proposed financially they
have proposed freezing their budget for the next three years at the 2011 level. So, the 2012, 13
and 14 total contract amount for the fire company will be same as it is for 2011, $329,500
dollars. So, three zeros and I think the Board feels really good about, we are pretty familiar with
their finances and everyone else’s finances their fire company contract total happens to be one of
the smaller amounts of the five fire companies. They happen to one of the smaller companies
but, on the $329,500 is one or the smaller amounts and we are familiar with their operation and
how they do business there and I think it is safe to say in this world this economy and the world
of the tax cap and what not that, that the other companies that we will be dealing with in the
future should not expect to be treated much better or any better than the three zero’s.
COUNICLMAN BREWER-Or any different.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, I think collectively they ought to take a nod of North Queensbury’s
Fire leadership here that is the wave of the future here and I am familiar with everybody’s
numbers and I am kind of familiar with where Queensbury’s companies stack up around the
region with other similar size fire and ems companies and I do not think anyone can argue that
we are not at least funded as well as the average in the region. Frankly, I think that we are
probably funded above average which means that if we need to march in place as North
Queensbury Fire has proposed to do for the next three years I think there is probably room for
that in the other fire companies and rescue squads as well. So, for them watching at home and
we know that they do based on our last meeting, standby this is the direction that the town is
going to be going and but I want to give credit and recognition where it is due. That we did not
go beating on North Queensbury’s door to tell them that they needed to give us three zero’s.
They came to us and they proposed the three zero’s I think the taxpayers of the Town of
Queensbury ought to be made aware of that and I think they ought to appreciate that. I am sure
that people will try to, some people will try to find a way to argue well, what does that mean
about how much they are funded. But like I said, in the era where the price of everything has
been going up lately whether there is fat in their budget or not three years of three zero’s they are
going to have a lot less room for error and wiggle room in the next three years then they did in
the last three years. I appreciate their vigilance on this. I know also that like any organization
that has a lot of members you know finding unanimous consensus can be an allusive goal and in
fact I am sure that there are probable people close to North Queensbury Fire that would argue
against where they landed with the town. But, the Town Board certainly understands and
appreciates that as well. Again, the bottom line is between what the State has done with their
one size fits all approach to telling local governments how to budget when of course as an aside
they can’t budget to save their own lives, but they are going to tell local a thousand local
governments across around the State how to run a budget. That is an editorial for another day.
Certainly in the climant that we are in that is what the taxpayers and the people that you protect
expect. Whether they understand everything that you have got to deal with as a fire company to
make it happen the bottom line is, is that they are looking at the bottom line and I am not sure if
they are overly concerned with how you get there, they just are saying enough is enough. I think
that the wisdom from the fire company is that they recognize that as well and they brought us
this budget. It is three zero’s for the next three years, $329,500. With that said I will open the
public hearing and if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this
public hearing I will call on you one at a time and when you get to the microphone just state your
name and address for the record, please. Mr. Salvador
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-I am a resident in North Queensbury. Mr. Supervisor before I make
my comments I think we are entitled to some kind of a short report from the fire company. Just,
a record of their performance, fore instance, how many service runs do they make in the area,
what type of runs are they, we have traffic accidents, we have weather related emergencies,
structural fires. I would like to hear what is the incidents of each one of these runs. We are also
involved in mutual aid with other towns. I am wondering what the incidents of that aid is?
Maybe we could take a few moments to hear from them Mr. Stec?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure. Is there any other public comment on this public hearing? Does the
fire company want to give us a brief synopsis of what you have been up to on the with the, how
you have been spending our $329,000? The boat that you bought you did have the Town
Board’s approval, I do recall that. You did get that by resolution and did you have any difficulty
in following that process?
MEMBER OF THE FIRE COMPANY-Not a bit.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I did not think it was complicated. I digress, gentlemen.
DAN DAVIES-ASSISTANT CHIEF NORTH QUEENSBURY
JOHN SHAHAY-CURRENT PRESIDENT
JOHN HODGKINS-TREASURER OF NORTH QUEENSBURY
SUPERVISOR STEC-Call volume for the year typical and what do you see in overall trends?
MR. DAN DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-Typically we run between a hundred and thirty and a
hundred and eighty calls a year it depends on that particular year. We handle typically twenty
five water emergencies during those times where the call for the boat, usually around ten motor
vehicle accidents, probably about thirty percent of it is EMS assists. We are fifty four members
when we were here three years ago we had thirty eight members so, we are pretty proud. We
have fourteen EMT’s in the department so basically we respond to any priority one ALS or BLS
call in our district with first response. We do handle, we are capable of extricationand motor
vehicle accidents, we do water rescue, ice rescue, structural fire fighting. We probably answer
about twenty alarms a year, mutual aid sometimes twenty non water emergencies mutual aid, the
remainder within our district. Guys are cross trained on all platforms. We have had for instance
this year three or four calls up on the trail head there up on Pilot Knob the nature preserve or
nature conservancy trail. So, we have to be capable of doing all things. Things this time of year
usually the call volume swells where we do twenty, thirty calls during the winter time it slows
down substantially.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Dan, the mutual aids more specific to Fort Ann or Lake George?
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-Probably we do more mutual aid to Lake George then to
Washington County, typically. But, when we need assistance they come to us to. We depend
typically on Lake George, Bay Ridge and Pilot Knob if we do ask for help. We are very
fortunate too that a lot of our people own their own businesses and day time response is very
good. A lot of mutual aid companies depend on us for that because we can get off the floor.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In the last three years though your membership has gone from thirty eight
to fifty four?
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-Thirty eight members to fifty four.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is wonderful. That bucks the State trend.
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-We have no problem with membership.
SUPERVISOR STEC-For no pay.
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-No pay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Seven hundred dollars a year if you get your points toward the retirement
program.
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF-Correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It is a wonderful bargin.
MR. JOHN SHAHAY PRESIDENT-We had to have a meeting of our by-law committee and
actually our by law stated that when our charter was signed it was fifty members we had to
increase that and make a bylaw change to allow three people that were waiting out in the wings
to become members. We are very fortunate.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You changed it to fifty three or fifty four or?
MR. SHAHAY PRESIDENT- Fifty five. Another good thing to, the average age is, in there is
on the young side too. There are still some seniors but the
SUPERVISOR STEC-By law we do not worry about that, John. But, if you need to come to my
house send Dan in or three Dan’s.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-An interesting coincidence this morning I was doing some work up
to The Fund For Lake George and I will talk about that later, not here, but they went out of the
way to tell me they went out of the way to tell me about the volunteers of North Queensbury
Fire, like you don’t enough to do, also volunteered in the effort for Fund for Lake George
cleanup. They were very thankful of your efforts there. I just wanted to share that with you
because that was the buzz in the office in the Fund For Lake George the work and the effort that
the volunteers of North Queensbury Fire gave to the clean up Lake George effort. I will thank
you to.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That reminds me I was talking with some of the folks from the Funds for
Lake George and the LGA about the Asian clams and I know that Dan, you had talked to I think
Walt Lander about this as well. One of the bigger challenges that they have as far as quick
response and a meaningful response to the current crisis on the lake with this invasive species
with the second population that was found a little further north in Boon Bay. Is that while they
went out and they done a quick survey. I will call it, of the southern end for the most part of
Lake George looking for populations of this, they have not done a complete through or as
through as they would like lake wide survey looking for these populations. Part of the challenge
in that is dive time and dives cost money. So, I put one and one together, I know that you have
got, you are part of a dive program a county wide dive program and I suggested to him and I
think you had an informal hey, next time you guys are out just keep you eyes open and let us
know. I mean knowing that you have training requirements for diving you know if there is a
way to marriage the training requirements with a real mission.. Hey, do a grid search this is what
you are looking for you know and while you are looking so the training value that comes out of
looking for these little clams for a real life we have got to save Johnnie some day that while you
are getting the training value for that you also could potentially be helping out and saving a ton
of money. Because, I am familiar with how much you know, this is costing and how much it is
costing Lake Tahoe for ignoring it eight years ago and now they have got two hundred acres
where we have only got ten acres. They are over run they will never recover Lake Tahoe they
will not recover from the Asian Clam issue. Whereas, we are in a position where we can maybe
crush it if we catch it early enough. Anyways, you are already doing a lot of stuff beyond your
initial scope, this might be something and again it is really easy for us to say sit here and
volunteer more of your time, but if you need water time, dive time you know training time in the
water you might want to formulize something. You have got to pick a stretch of lake to go
search coordinate a little bit with the Fund or the LGA and say where would you like us to go
look and rather than having you guys in the water maybe over same stretch of bottom that they
have already looked at three times, they might say gees you know if we had divers available to
us we would ask them to go up there you know killing two birds with one stone. I throw that out
there just you know it is not really relevant to tonight’s public hearing.
MR. DAVIES ASSISTANT CHIEF- I have had that conversation with both Walt and Kathy
Bozony, we talked about doing at least to start with part of our district because we can do …let
operations and it is a lot quicker than if you are swimming where you are actually being towed
by a boat and we can cover larger swaths. When we did the clean up on Saturday we kind of did
big pendulum searches and did huge three hundred foot swaths at a time and picked up a truck
load of garbage at that time. When we were training but also picking up garbage at the same so
it was a great training…we are going to do the same thing with the clams.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is great. Public Hearing is still open Mr. Salvador did you want to
come back and ask some of your follow up questions then?
MR. SALVADOR-I think we should take a real close look at this mutual aid situation. I think a
lot of it is probably necessary in fact it is a long way from the Village of Lake George all the way
up the east side of the lake to a place like Antigua in that area where the Town line is. Surely we
are a lot closer in North Queensbury than the Village of Lake George. I know the Town of Lake
George has contracts with other neighboring towns for fire services. They have formed fire
districts for this purpose maybe that is something we should come to, to cover our costs. Put this
in a category with the North Queensbury EMS services to the Pilot Knob area Mr. Stec. You
were working on that?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I wrote a letter and as we get closer to budget time I will probably write
another letter to Supervisor Hall.
MR. SALVADOR-Only one letter, Mr. Stec?
SUPERVISOR STEC-John, you know what, there is a lot of other business around here besides
your agenda.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John, I also spoke to the Attorney representing Fort Ann for the
Town and just asked him to keep in mind the letter that Dan wrote.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I foiled the financial statement for the North Queensbury Volunteer
Fire Company for the years 2009-2010 and I noticed that in the category of depreciation which I
continue to maintain is a not a valid operating expense. They have increased their depreciation
in one year from one hundred and seven thousand to one hundred and seventy thousand, one
hundred and seventy one in fact. That is a sizable amount of money for an incremental cost.
COUNCILMAN METIVIER-The boat and the truck I am sure them depreciated..
SUPERVISOR STEC-They are two major purchases.
COUNCILMAN METIVIER-more in the first few years than it does in the last years.
MR. SALVADOR-But, not as an operating expense. I can understand depreciation, but not as an
operating expense that is my point there. I would like to continue. I also foiled from the fire
company itself their tax returns for 2010. I noticed on here a couple of things I would like to
comment on. Number one, they had investment income in the year of 2009 they had a little over
twelve hundred dollars almost thirteen hundred dollars in investment income. In the year 2010
they had thirty five thousand dollars in investment income. They hit the lottery? That is a lot of
money, number one increase in one year and in any case you know if they are only getting three
percent on their money that’s a million dollars they have invested someplace, bank accounts, or
what is it? A sizeable amount of money that I think should be looked at. The other big question
I have is the IRS requires the volunteer fire company to report their revenue. They have two
categories of revenue that the fire company can report in. One of them is called contributions
and grants and the other one is called program service revenue. The tax return shows that they
have absolutely no income from what is called program service revenue. I maintain that is their
contract with this town. It is a program service. On the other hand they have put every dollar
that they get from this town into a category they call a contribution and a grant. You are not
allowed to contribute, make grants for this sort of thing. You have a contract with them for
service. I believe those numbers belong on line 9 program service revenue. I intend to take this
up with the IRS. I do not think that is correct what they are doing in reporting. That is all I have
to say, thank you. By the way their auditor that you have hired, their auditor that you have hired
is saying that you have the authority to make a contribution that is a violation of the State
constitution and your auditor ought to know that. The auditor has prepared this income tax
return, a conflict of interest I believe.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing?
Seeing none I will close the public…all right
MR. JOHN HODGKINS TREASURER-John has brought these up before I have heard them at
meetings as I thought I could straighten out a few of them. You are going up, he keeps on bring
up the depreciation factor and all that, its general accepted accounting principles, GAAP
accounting principles they use in there and I agree with him it’s a non cash item it comes out of
expense but that’s how the accounting works and puts through and this is the laws of the
accounting to work through. Obviously the depreciation factor did increase because we
purchased a truck and a boat and those are both and those are both now being depreciated for one
year you go from one hundred and seven to one hundred and seventy thousand so that make a
major difference. The other item you brought up was the investment income, well the
investment income of thirty five thousand was the sale of the equipment we did we sold our
other apparatus. We sold two trucks and replaced them with one. That was one reason we were
able to keep our budget in line here. So, the sale of those trucks was replaced and that money
was put toward the materials and into the new truck. So, that was thirty five thousand and that is
recorded as that number. As far as how they are assigning the contribution I really do not have a
comment on that, I assume that the accountants are going to do the best and as we are not the
ones that contract with the organization that put that together but I see no flaw in how they are
coming out one way or the other it comes out with the same number. But, the this is again we
are going at general accepted accounting principles and I think the Ross Rigby does a good job at
all those across the board. I do not think there has been anyone complaint on those. Those are
the items, I think that was all the items that you were looking at right there. You might question
my answers but that was where it came up, the truck came up. We have one other item we just
want to bring up and this is not about our contract this just happened to be a meeting item that
came up with some of the members and when it came up with the ems discussion. Some of the
members are concerned on the bill for service and the ems when it goes to a member of the fire
company. Their concern is a lot of our members are going out on these calls we do EMS assists
all the time or a lot of our members are trained for this tack and they go out on these calls day
and night and all of a sudden themselves or a member of their family goes out they have all a
sudden a couple weeks later get a bill for eight hundred and something dollars in the mail. That
is one thing but the next thing they are harassed for another umpteen weeks somebody saying
you are a dead beat not paying your bill. I guess what we are looking for the members are
looking for is some kind of a reaction from the Board something the Board might be able to do.
Take some consideration for all members of the volunteer community when they are in this light.
It is kind of hard to sit there and say you are getting up at two o’clock in the morning to help
somebody out when they come and help you have got to go pay a bill, you know you are getting
doubled whammed for that. It is a concern some people are kind of testy about it at this point
because it is a big bill when you come see it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-As it is for everybody else.
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-It is but they are the ones going down and doing the work it is
kind of like you do the service and then they bill you for, you double bills for it. It is just one, I
do not know if there is a way you can solve it if it is simple enough as a, if that happens the
phone call goes in and say look don’t bill these people for this or however. I am not suggesting
how it should be done we are just saying the concern out there.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It has been my experience in the twelve years as much as that might make
sense to you and I personally or to you as a private citizen or as a private business owner bottom
line is that this is not up to just the whim of the five of us and what do we think is right we have
taxpayers to answer to we have municipal law to adhere to we have got people that would be
very quick to jump down our throat and start saying that is a violation of the State Constitution
because you are giving away a gift. We get it all the time, we got it two minutes ago.
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-Well, if my understanding is the, what everyone has been told
is a soft bill situation.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And it is.
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-And again it is more of a you know it is more a slap in the face
type thing and you can understand how someone who is, we got some members that put a lot of
effort into making calls on people that need their assistance. They make calls on people that are
in this room here.
CONCILMAN MONTESI-John, let me ask you a question let’s assume that we want to finesse
that and do that, how would you make a list for the billing company because we do not do the
billing we contract with a company. How would you make a list that would be effective enough?
In other words I mean, would I say every single member of the fire company and the ems in the
Town of Queensbury all companies all five fire companies would be exempt?
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-One of our members had a actually I think it was Chief
Baertschi had an idea and instead of going that way when you go put all these, when a call has
happened and somebody has to make a report at that point, we made a call on a fireman it goes
from there, however you do it, it stops at that point. I am not suggesting how to do it and I think
it is open for discussion. I am just saying what the concern is. I hope the Board can work on it.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It could you know you have a couple of other things to consider,
did they have insurance to cover that? Well, I do not know. In other words if family had
insurance and it wasn’t going to come out of their pocket should we walk away from that, again I
do not know the answer to that. Is it firemen or is it the fireman’s family and children?
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-Those are all questions I am not, I am opening it up for
discussion I am saying what the concern is. I mean, there are some people, some insurance
people might say there is a little double indemnity here. Again that is beyond the point. I am
not suggesting, I am saying what the concern is. I hope that the workshop can sit down and the
Board can say hey, do we have some ideas or maybe reach out and find out if somebody has got
some ideas. I am not walking in here with an idea saying to do it, I am saying what the concern
is.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I was going to say it has been several years since we set this up and
while we did not think of every potential what if scenario seven or eight years ago when we did
this. I know that we discussed this one then, but I am not opposed to asking our Attorney and
that is who we are going to rely on. We are going to rely on our professional he is the one that
has the towns interest in mind and the legal expertise to give us that answer. We will ask him I
kind of think I know what he is going to say but you know the worst thing I could do is ask him
hey what is the answer here this is the thought that is out there is there a way to get there that
passes the legal muster and the smell test. We understand your point but the thing is, this isn’t
Joe’s Auto Body where we can do whatever we want, this is the taxpayer and this is the
government and we have rules and you know I mean, there is people, why is it that way?
Because that is the law, that is why.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Let just try to see if we can get there.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I will ask.
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-I am looking for a way to reach out I mean at some point you
got to be able to come up with some kind of solution because you can understand their position.
Are there any other questions we can answer?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John I can agree with you on when you talk about the contribution
the grant the program service whether it is one or the other someone raised a constitutional issue
but it doesn’t change your audited statement.
MR. HODGKINS TREASURER-I do not think anything changes at all in fact going through the
audit it was fairly complete. I think we went through the audit clean we did not have any
incidents of anything that came up any questions as we had been for a number of years that way.
So, it was pretty smooth, I understand the comment coming on depreciation but that can be said
anywhere. Depreciation is a non cash item it falls in there it doesn’t really, it doesn’t really
follow through if you look at our, if you look at someone’s budget it is hard to follow through a
budget when you through a depreciation on top of it. But, on the other hand if you think about it
a truck is wearing out or a piece of equipment is wearing out at a certain pace and maybe we
should be looking closer at it when we are time limit of financing things. I think one of the
things North Queensbury has done well for the last twenty years, long before I came there was
taking a shorter duration loans and paying for it because we all know that we have five or six
major pieces of equipment and they wear out in a twenty five year thirty year period. That
means every five years you are replacing a piece of equipment. You take out a fifteen or twenty
year loan that just seems it does not make sense, financial sense you are paying a higher rate and
then you got loans on top of loans. I think that is one thing the company has done well and they
have done well for a long time. Again, long before I came there …
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, thank you, thank you both. Ok. The public hearing is closed
(7:41PM) I will entertain a motion to approve it.
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2012 - 2014 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND
NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 239, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge
Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co.,
Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in
accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated terms for
a new three (3) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town
th
Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed Agreement on Monday, August 8, 2011
and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby
approves the Fire Protection Service Agreement between the Town and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire
Co., Inc., for the years 2012- 2014 substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such
Agreement and the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
2.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR (Limit 4 Minutes)
MR. PLINEY TUCKER-41 Division Road West Glens Falls, Queensbury Councilman Brewer have you
decided what you will be paving this year?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have not, the Highway has not given me a list yet.
MR. TUCKER-I served two terms on the Board and the Councilmen picked the roads he wanted paved in his
area not the Highway Supt.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-He is the one responsible for the roads and for as long as I have been here there
has always been a rotation in the computer of a list and they look at every road in the Town every ten years if
it needs to be paved they pave it, that is the way we have been doing it. If there are road a Councilman
suggests certainly the Highway Superintendent looks at them. I like to see what he has in mind and then I
throw my two cents in.
MR. TUCKER-Asked that the road to the park be paved from the two houses on the road …from the gate at
the park to the good road …
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I will speak to the Highway Supt. tomorrow.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned Resolution 3.9 Justice McNally what is that about
SUPERVISOR STEC-Judge McNally turned in his calendar that is required of appointed and elected
officials reporting their time.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned 3.10 Frank Antos Marriage Officer
SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Antos was the marriage officer he asked to be reappointed…
He is allowed to perform marriages in the town, term to expire on 8-8-2015.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-RE: Town Roads – Dunhams Bay Road needs repair work, the Highway Supt.
said it will be this year. It is the only one way road in Town. I have asked the Highway Supt. before he does
anything about paving that road we need to see a plan, the scope of work, the road needs more than a top
coat it needs construction. …Problem with site plan work Assembly Point Area there is a discrepancy
between what the Town Planning and Zoning people feel are names and locations of the road and what the
Highway Supt. has inventoried as town roads. Problem-Assembly Point Road and New Assembly Point
Road and Old Assembly Point Road, the Highway Supt. inventory of roads there is no such road as Old
Assembly Point Road and yet there is a road sign up there. The inventory of road includes something called
New Assembly Point Road and there is no such sign it just says Assembly Point Road. Mr. Hatin has
assigned 9ll locator numbers in accordance with the road signs you see up there, they are all wrong. Noted he
has had problems with people finding us with GPS, using the mailing address of Lake George there is no
such road. Regarding Old Assembly Point Road the Highway Supt. is paving and maintaining 250’ of road
that was previously abandoned by the Town…
MR. HAL HALLIDAY-North Queensbury Resident - Speaking as a resident of Queensbury-I do operate a
business in the Town of Queensbury, I really appreciate the openness that this Board has and viewing on TV.
I as a resident and businessman appreciate what you are doing, I think you have the patience beyond a saint to
do some of the things that you do in this room and I just wanted to say thanks. Anyone that I have called here
anyone I have e-mailed or asked a question you have always been up front with me. I have had really good
luck with your departments. I think once in a while you need to hear that you are doing a good job.
I know sometimes the only people that have time to come in here are the people that have nothing else but
complaints but I as one citizen really get tired of it. I wish there was a rule that if you come up to this table
and complain more than three times you would have to get on a Town Board, or a fire company or a zoning
or planning committee to find out what we really do, because I do not think some people have any idea what
it is like. I just wanted to say thank you I appreciate it as one person and please keep up the good work.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Hal, appreciate that.
MR. FRANK COTTONE-Genesta Lane-I live on the lake and I wanted to get information on the proposed
tax for the treatment of the lake. I am a Tea Party person and those kind of things scare me. I do not want to
give you guys anymore power to tax, don’t take it personal. I would like to come in and look at the proposal.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You can get a copy of that from the Town Clerk’s Office.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Keep in mind that this is something the Glen Lake Association asked of the
Town.
MR. CATTONE-I know but that is their ignorance, I do not think that they should be doing that.
3.0 RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON ROUTE 9 SANITARY
SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 240, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of the
proposed Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 as presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
nd
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday, August 22,
2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested
parties and citizens concerning the proposed 2012 Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to post
on the Town’s bulletin board and publish in the Town’s official newspaper a Notice of Public Hearing not
less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH QUEENSBURY –
QUEENSBURY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT
BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 241, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of the
proposed South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 as
presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
nd
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday, August 22,
2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested
parties and citizens concerning the proposed 2012 South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer
District Benefit Tax Roll, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to post
on the Town’s bulletin board and publish in the Town’s official newspaper a Notice of Public Hearing not
less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST QUEENSBURY –
SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 242, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of the
proposed West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2012 as presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
nd
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday, August 22,
2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested
parties and citizens concerning the proposed 2012 West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax
Roll, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to post
on the Town’s bulletin board and publish in the Town’s official newspaper a Notice of Public Hearing not
less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON CHARLIE VROOMAN’S
APPLICATION FOR PLACING A MOBILE HOME
OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT
RESOLUTION NO.: 243, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, the Queensbury Town Board is
authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain
circumstances, and
WHEREAS, Charlie Vrooman has filed an “Application for Placing a Mobile Home Outside of a
Mobile Home Court" to seek Town Board approval to replace his mobile home with a new, 2012 mobile
home on his property located at 44 Pinello Road in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a public hearing regarding this Application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
nd
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday, August 22,
2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Charlie
Vrooman’s Application for Placing a Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court concerning his property
situated at 44 Pinello Road in the Town of Queensbury and at that time all interested persons will be heard,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post
a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND REPAIR OF TOWN HALL ROOF
RESOLUTION NO.: 244, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize an advertisement for bids for the
purchase of materials and repairs of the Queensbury Town Hall roof in accordance with bid documents and
specifications to be prepared by Vision Engineering, LLC and to be on file with the Town’s Purchasing
Agent, and
WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the
bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements
set forth in the Town’s bidding documents,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing
Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for the purchase of materials and repair of the roof at Queensbury
Town Hall, in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all
bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next
regular or special meeting of the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARDS FOR CASE #6336 IN CONNECTION
WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 245, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which
provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $25,000, whichever is
less, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable Housing
Corporation Affordable Home Ownership Development (AHOD) and the New York State Homes and
Community Renewal HOME programs to cover eligible project costs, and
WHEREAS, a single family property Case File #6336 has been determined to be eligible for
rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and
WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications will be provided to a minimum of three (3)
qualified contractors for bid, and
WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is to be determined but will not
exceed twenty five thousand dollars and no cents ($25,000.00), and
WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified will be verified upon receipt of
bidding documents, and
WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has
verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving these grants, and
WHEREAS, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a period of five
(5) years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves a total grant award not to exceed twenty five
thousand dollars and no cents ($25,000.00) including an AHOD grant, as applicable, in the amount not to
exceed 60% of the total cost of rehabilitation for Case File #6336, Queensbury, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town of
Queensbury Senior Planner to execute the Grant Award agreements and take such other and further
action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE OF ZONE FOR
PROPERTY OWNED BY GARY AND SUSAN HIGLEY FROM MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT)
RESOLUTION NO.: 246, 2011
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Gary and
Susan Higley to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property
bearing Tax Map No.: 302.7-1-50 and located south of Quaker Road and east of
Glenwood Avenue, Queensbury from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to
Commercial Intensive (HC-INT), and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of
2011 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 by amending the official Town
Zoning Ordinance and Map to reflect such proposed rezoning, and
WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Ordinance and
Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal
Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on
nd
Monday, August 22, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742
Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested parties concerning adoption of Local
Law No.: ___ of 2011 to amend the official Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
and Map whereby property bearing Tax Map No: 302.7-1-50 owned by Gary and
Susan Higley would be rezoned from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to
Commercial Intensive (HC-INT), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to provide
10 days notice of the public hearing by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official
newspaper and posting the Notice on the Town’s bulletin board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community Development
Department to provide the Town Clerk’s Office with a list of all property owners located within 500' of the
area to be rezoned so that the Town Clerk’s Office may send the Notice of Public Hearing to those property
owners, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further directs the Community Development Department to
forward the petition to the Warren County Planning Board for its review and comment in accordance
with New York State General Municipal Law §239-M, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to send the
Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren County Planning
Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New
York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws of the State of New York.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Gary have you talked to the
neighbors? Mr. Higley-Yes I have.
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED GRANT AWARDS FOR CASE #6287 IN
CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING
REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STATE HOMES
AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL HOME PROGRAM #20073216 AND NEW YORK
STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION (AHC) #7J27
RESOLUTION NO.: 247, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which
provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $25,000, whichever is
less, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State HOME Program (HOME)
to cover eligible project costs, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable Housing
Corporation (AHC) Program to cover up to 60% of eligible project costs, and
WHEREAS, a single family property Case File #6287 has been determined to be eligible for
rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and funds
were approved via Resolution 129.2011 through the Town of Queensbury Housing Rehabilitation
Program using HOME 20073216 and AHC 7J27 funds for a total of up to Twenty-five thousand dollars
and no cents ($25,000.00), and
WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3) qualified
contractors for bid, and
WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified was Twenty-four thousand two
hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($24,250.00), and
WHEREAS, additional work will be required to address structural concerns and a failed septic
system, and
WHEREAS, selected items have been deleted from the low bid to complete the work otherwise
specified plus structural items for a total of Twenty-three thousand two hundred fifty dollars and no
cents ($23,250.00), and
WHEREAS, an engineer has estimated that the costs of a replacement septic system for this
particular property could be as high as Eight thousand dollars and no cents ($8,000.00), and
WHEREAS, engineered specifications to replace the non-functioning septic system will be
provided to at least three (3) qualified contractors for bid, and
WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified will be verified upon receipt of
bidding documents, and
WHEREAS, the homeowner does not have the ability to repay a loan for required improvement
costs beyond the $25,000.00 grant amount previously approved, and
WHEREAS, the homeowner is eligible to receive a grant for greater than $25,000.00 from the
NYS HOME Program and the NYS Affordable Housing Corporation Program upon Town Board approval,
and
WHEREAS, funds are available from the NYS HOME Program and the NYS Affordable Housing
Corporation Program grant awards provided to the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town and the NYS
Affordable Housing Corporation Program for a period of five years and ten years, respectively, from the
completion of the rehabilitation, and
WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has
verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves a Grant for Case File #6287, Queensbury,
New York, in the amount not to exceed Thirty-one thousand two hundred fifty dollars and no cents
($31,250.00) using NYS HOME Program and NYS Affordable Housing Corporation Grant funds, and
authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Senior Planner to execute a
Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 8th day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION REGARDING STANDARD WORKDAY AND REPORTING FOR
HON. ROBERT P. MC NALLY
RESOLUTION NO.: 248, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 222 of 2010, the Queensbury Town Board reported days
worked to the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System for certain employees
based on the record of activities maintained and submitted to the Town Clerk, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 9 of 2011, the Town Board established the standard
workday for Town Elected and Appointed Officials at six (6) hours for the New York State and
Local Employees’ Retirement System, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board now wishes to report days worked to the New York State
and Local Employees’ Retirement System based on the record of activities maintained and
submitted by Hon. Robert P. McNally,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reports the following days worked
to the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System and authorizes and directs the
Town Clerk to take any actions necessary to effectuate such reporting:
ELECTED OFFICIAL
EMPLOYER
STANDARD RECORD OF
DAYS/MONTH
WORK DAY TIME WORKED
(BASED ON SAMPLE
TITLE NAME (Hrs./day) TERM BEG/ENDS WORKED OF
ACTIVITIES) Y/N
AVERAGE WEEKLY
HOURS
Town Justice Robert P. McNally 6 hrs. 1/1/2011-12-31-2014 Y
31.04
SS# 9970
Reg. # 40332504
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING FRANK ANTOS AS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RESOLUTION NO.: 249, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 356 of 2007, the Queensbury Town Board reappointed Frank
Antos as a Marriage Officer to perform marriage ceremonies within the Town of Queensbury in accordance
§
with New York State Domestic Relations Law 11-c and any other applicable laws, and
WHEREAS, Frank Antos’ term as such Marriage Officer recently expired and Mr. Antos has
requested reappointment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reappoint Frank Antos as a Marriage Officer in accordance
with State law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Frank Antos as a Marriage Officer
to perform marriage ceremonies within the Town of Queensbury in accordance with New York State
§
Domestic Relations Law 11-c and any other applicable laws, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Antos will not receive a salary or wage from the Town of Queensbury, but in
accordance with State law, he may accept and keep up to seventy-five dollars ($75) for each marriage at
which he officiates, paid by or on behalf of the persons married, and
BE IT FURTHER,
th
RESOLVED, that Mr. Antos’ term as Marriage Officer shall be effective from August 8, 2011
th
through August 8, 2015 unless he is removed from his appointed office by the Town Board on 10 days
written notice.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted he had spoken with Mr. Antos
and he has no problem doing gay marriages.
TH
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS - AUGUST 8, 2011
RESOLUTION NO.: 250, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant
rdth
with a run date of August 3, 2011 and a payment date of August 9, 2011,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of
rdth
August 3, 2011 and a payment date of August 9, 2011 totaling $414,832.91, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town
Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2011 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 251, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and
are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget
Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s
Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2011 Town Budget as follows:
From To
Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $
001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-8020-4711 Reimb Engineering 20,000
001-1620-1010 Wages 001-1620-4155 Contracted Temp Pers 2,000
Increase Revenue
001-0000-52680 Insurance Recovery 2396.20
Increase Appropriation
001-5132-4070 Bldg. Repairs 2396.20
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED GLEN
LAKE AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH CONTROL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 252, 2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Aquatic Vegetation of Glen Lake Survey Report prepared by Allied Biological
identified invasive species in the Lake with major concern focused on Eurasian water milfoil and Curly-
leaf Pondweed, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (the "Board") is considering forming the Glen Lake
Aquatic Plant Growth Control District (the "District") in accordance with Article 12-A of New York
Town Law for the purpose of controlling milfoil and other non-native, invasive aquatic plant species in
Glen Lake, and
WHEREAS, the Glen Lake Protective Association, on behalf of its members, requested that the
Town Board form such a District, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted Resolution No.: 411,2010 authorizing the preparation of a
Map, Plan and Report for the purpose of analyzing the formation of the District, and
WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report (the “Map, Plan and Report”) has been prepared by VISION
Engineering, LLC, concerning the proposed District, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and
is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report describes the boundaries of the proposed
District, the proposed aquatic plant control plan and method of operation, the
maximum amount proposed to be expended for the plan, and the cost of the proposed
District to the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home,
and the proposed method of financing to be employed, if any, and
WHEREAS, establishment of the proposed District has been determined to be an Unlisted Action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and a SEQRA Short Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) has been prepared for the proposed District;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. The boundaries of the proposed Water District are as set forth in the Map, Plan and
Report and as follows:
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of
Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and
described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the southerly or easterly shore of the Glen Lake
outlet at the northwesterly corner of the lands of Daniel Brown being tax map parcel 289.7-1-41;
thence running along said lands of Brown in an easterly, southeasterly and southwesterly
direction to the most northeasterly corner of tax map parcel 289.7-1-43 owned by Stephen A.
Loschiavo; thence running southeasterly along the easterly bounds of said tax map parcel 289.7-
1-43 and along a portion of the easterly bounds of 289.7-1-44 to the northwesterly corner of
parcel 289.7-1-51; thence running easterly along the northerly bounds thereof to the northeasterly
corner thereof and also on the westerly bounds of Tee Hill Road; thence running southerly along
the westerly bounds of Tee Hill Road, crossing Reardon Road and continuing to the southeast
corner of parcel 289.7-1-6; thence running in a southwesterly direction along the southerly
bounds of parcel 289.7-1-6, parcel 289.7-1-7, and a portion of parcel 289.7-1-8 to the northeast
corner of parcel 289.7-1-31; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds of said parcel
289.7-1-31 and the easterly bounds of parcel 289.7-1-10, along the easterly bounds of parcel
289.7-1-11 and the easterly bounds of parcel 289.7-1-12 to the southeasterly corner thereof;
thence running southwesterly along a portion of the southerly bounds thereof to the northeast
corner of parcel 289.11-1-39; thence running along the easterly and southerly bounds of said
parcel 289.11-1-39 to the southwesterly corner thereof in the easterly bounds of Reardon Road;
thence running southerly along the southeasterly bounds of said Reardon Road to the most
northerly corner of parcel 289.11-1-36; thence running southeasterly and southwesterly along the
outer bounds of said parcel 289.11-1-36 to the southwesterly corner thereof in the easterly bounds
of said Reardon Road Extension; thence crossing said road running northwesterly to the
southeasterly corner of parcel 289.11-1-36; thence running along the southerly bounds thereof to
the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.11-1-36 at or near the northeasterly corner of parcel
289.11-1-33; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds of parcel 289.11-1-33, parcel
289.11-1-29, parcel 289.11-1-28, parcel 289.11-1-27, parcel 289.11-1-26, parcel 289.11-1-25,
parcel 289.11-1-24 and a portion of parcel 289.11-1-23 to the northwesterly corner of parcel
289.11-1-59.311; thence running easterly along the northerly bounds of said parcel 289.11-1-
59.311 to the northeasterly corner thereof in the westerly bounds of Barber Road; thence running
southerly along Barber Road to the southeasterly corner of parcel 289.11-1-12.2; thence running
westerly along the southerly bounds thereof to the southwesterly corner thereof in the easterly
bounds of parcel 289.11-1-13; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds thereof to the
southeasterly corner thereof; thence running westerly along the southerly bounds thereof to the
northeasterly corner of parcel 289.11-1-9; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds
thereof to Barber Road; thence running westerly along Barber Road to the northwesterly end
thereof; thence southerly along the westerly end thereof to the southwesterly corner thereof;
thence running easterly along said Barber Road to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.11-1-1;
thence running easterly and southerly along the bounds of said parcel 289.11-1-1 to the
southeasterly corner thereof and the northwesterly bounds of parcel 289.15-1-42; thence running
easterly to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence running southerly or southwesterly along the
southeasterly bounds thereof to the most southerly corner thereof; thence running northerly along
the southwesterly bounds thereof a short distance to the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.14-1-
27.2; thence running southwesterly along the southeasterly bounds thereof the most southerly
corner hereof, at the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.14-1-21; thence running southeasterly and
than southwesterly along the bounds of said parcel 289.14-1-21 to the most southerly corner
thereof; thence running northwesterly along the southwesterly bounds thereof a short distance to
the southeasterly corner of parcel 289.14-1-12; thence running southwesterly along the southerly
bounds thereof a short distance to the northeasterly corner of 289.14-1-30.2 at or about the
northerly end of Fitzgerald Road; thence running southwesterly along the northwesterly bounds
of said Fitzgerald Road to the intersection of Mannis Road at the southeasterly corner of parcel of
289.18-1-12; thence running southwesterly and westerly along Mannis Road to the southeasterly
corner of parcel 289.18-1-7; thence running westerly and southwesterly along the southerly
bounds of parcel 289.18-1-7, parcel 289.18-1-6, parcel 289.18-1-4, parcel 289.18-1-1, parcel
289.17-1-49, parcel 289.17-1-48 to the most southerly corner of said parcel; thence running
southeasterly along the southeasterly bounds of parcel 289.17-1-47, parcel 289.17-1-46, parcel
289.17-1-45, parcel 289.17-1-44, parcel 289.17-1-43 to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence
running northwesterly along the southwesterly bounds thereof to the northeasterly corner of
parcel 289.17-1-42; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds thereof to the
southeasterly corner thereof; thence running northwesterly along the southerly bounds thereof to
the most easterly corner of parcel 289.17-1-41; thence running southwesterly along the
southeasterly bounds thereof to the corner of parcel 289.17-1-40; thence running southerly along
the easterly bounds thereof and along the easterly bounds of parcel 289.17-1-51 to the
southeasterly corner thereof; thence running westerly along the southerly bounds thereof a short
distance to the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.17-1-52; thence running southerly and westerly
along said parcel 289.17-1-52 and along the southerly bounds of parcel 289.17-1-53 to a point in
the northeasterly bounds of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation or National Grid; thence
running northerly, southwesterly along said lands to a point in the easterly bounds thereof at the
most southerly corner of parcel 289.17-1-1.2; thence running northerly still along the easterly
bounds of said lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and along the southwesterly bounds
of parcel 289.17-1-1.2, crossing Birdsall Road and along the southwesterly bounds of parcel
289.17-1-1.5 to a point in the westerly bounds thereof; thence leaving lands of Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation running in a northeasterly and easterly direction along the northerly bounds of
parcel 289.17-1-1.5 to the most southwesterly corner or southerly corner of parcel 289.17-1-24;
thence running northerly along the westerly bounds of said parcels 289.17-1-24, parcel 289.17-1-
23, parcel 289.17-1-22, parcel 289.17-1-20 to a point in the easterly bounds of said lands of
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; thence running northerly along the easterly bounds thereof
and the westerly bounds of parcel 289.17-1-18 and crossing the inlet to Glen Lake and continuing
along the westerly bounds parcel 289.17-1-18 to a point in the southerly bounds of Ash Drive at
the northwesterly corner of said parcel 289.17-1-18; thence running easterly along Ash Drive to
the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.17-1-18; thence running northeasterly crossing said Ash
Drive to the most southwesterly corner of parcel 289.17-1-3 and the most southerly corner of
lands of Warren County; thence running northerly along the easterly bounds of said lands of
Warren County to a point in the southerly bounds of Glen Lake Road at the northwesterly corner
of parcel 289.13-1-38; thence running easterly along the southerly bounds of Glen Lake Road to
its intersection with Birch Road; thence running southerly along the westerly or southwesterly
bounds of Birch Road to the most southwesterly corner thereof in the northerly bounds of parcel
289.13-1-31; thence running across the southerly bounds of said Birch Road to the southeasterly
corner thereof being also the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.13-1-31; thence running northerly
along the easterly bounds of Birch Road to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.13-1-24; thence
running easterly along the northerly bounds thereof to the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.13-
1-23; thence running northwesterly along the westerly bounds of said parcel 289.13-1-23 and
parcel 289.13-1-22 to a point in the southerly bounds of parcel 289.13-1-20; thence running
southwesterly along the southerly bounds thereof to the easterly bounds of said Birch Road;
thence running northerly along the easterly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner of parcel
289.13-1-18; thence running northeasterly along the northerly bounds thereof to the northeasterly
corner thereof at the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.13-1-17; thence running northerly along
the westerly bounds of said parcel 289.13-1-17 and parcel 289.13-1-16 to the northwesterly
corner thereof in the southerly bounds of parcel 289.13-1-14; thence southwesterly along the
southerly bounds thereof to the most southwesterly corner thereof; thence running northwesterly
along the westerly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.13-1-14 in the
southerly bounds of Chestnut Road; thence running easterly and northerly along said Chestnut
Road to a point in the westerly bounds of parcel 289.13-1-4 which is also in the southeasterly
bounds of Glen Lake Road; thence running northerly and northeasterly along Glen Lake Road to
the most northerly corner of parcel 289.9-1-81 in the southwesterly bounds of parcel 289.9-1-80;
thence running northwesterly along the westerly bounds thereof crossing Glen Lake Road and
along the westerly bounds of 289.9-1-80 to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence running
northeasterly along said parcel 289.9-1-80 to the northeasterly corner thereof, than crossing Glen
Lake Road to the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.9-1-71; thence running northerly and
easterly along Glen Lake Road to the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-46; thence running
southwesterly along the southeasterly bounds thereof to the most northerly corner of parcel
289.10-1-52.2; thence running easterly along the northeasterly bounds of said parcel and along
the northeasterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-52.1 and the northeasterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-
51 and the northeasterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-50 to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence
running southwesterly along the southeasterly bounds thereof to the northwest corner of parcel
289.10-1-49; thence running southeasterly along the northeasterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-49
and the northeasterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-48 to the northwest corner of parcel 289.10-1-42;
thence running northeasterly and southeasterly along the northerly and northeasterly bounds of
said parcel to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-41; thence running easterly along the
northerly bounds thereof to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence running southerly along the
easterly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-39; thence running easterly
along the northerly bounds thereof to a point in the westerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-38; thence
running northerly along the westerly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence
running northeasterly along the northerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-38 and along the northerly
bounds of parcel 289.10-1-37 and to the northeasterly corner of said parcel 289.10-1-37 in the
northwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-33; thence running northeasterly and northerly along the
bounds of said 289.10-1-36 to a point in the southerly bounds of Glen Lake Road; thence running
southeasterly along the southwesterly bounds of said Glen Lake Road to the northeasterly corner
of parcel 289.10-1-36; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds thereof and along a
portion of the easterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-35 to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-
1-33; thence running easterly along the northerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-33, parcel 289.10-1-
32, parcel 289.10-1-31, parcel 289.10-1-29, parcel 289.10-1-28, parcel 289.10-1-26 to the
northeasterly corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly bounds thereof to an
angle point in parcel 289.10-1-25; thence running southeasterly, northeasterly, easterly and
northerly along said parcel 289.10-1-25 and along parcel 289.10-1-23 to the point in the
southwesterly bounds of Jay Road; thence running southeasterly along said Jay Road to a point
therein at the intersection with Jay right of way; thence running southerly along the westerly
bounds of said Jay right of way to the southwesterly corner thereof, being a point in the
northwesterly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-20; thence running northeasterly along the southerly
bounds of said Jay right of way to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence running northerly
along the easterly bounds thereof, being the westerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-20, parcel
289.10-1-19, parcel 289.10-1-18, parcel 289.10-1-17 and a short way along parcel 289.10-1-16 to
the northwesterly corner of said parcel; thence running northeasterly along the northwesterly
bounds of parcel 289.10-1-16 to the northeasterly corner thereof in the westerly bounds of parcel
289.10-1-15; thence running northerly along the westerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-15 and the
westerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-13 to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence easterly along
the northerly bounds thereof to the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-12; thence running
northerly along the westerly bounds of said parcel 289.10-1-12 and the westerly bounds of parcel
289.10-1-10 to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence running easterly along the northerly
bounds thereof to the southwesterly corner of parcel 289.10-1-9; thence running northerly along
the westerly bounds of parcel 289.10-1-9, parcel 289.10-1-8, parcel 289.10-1-7, parcel 289.10-1-
6, parcel 289.10-1-5 to the northwesterly corner thereof in the southerly bounds of 289.6-1-17;
thence running westerly along the southerly bounds thereof to the easterly bounds of Glen Lake
Road; thence northerly along said Glen Lake Road to an angle point in said parcel 289.6-1-17;
thence running easterly and northerly and westerly along said parcel 289.6-1-17 again to Glen
Lake Road; thence running along the same in a northerly direction crossing Nacy Road to the
northwest corner of parcel 289.6-1-17; thence running easterly along the northerly bounds thereof
to the northeasterly corner thereof in the westerly bounds of Nacy Road, then crossing said Nacy
Road to the southwest corner of parcel 289.6-1-35; thence running northeasterly along Nacy Road
along the westerly or northwesterly bounds of parcel 289.6-1-35, parcel 289.6-1-34, parcel 289.6-
1-33, parcel 289.6-1-32 and a portion of parcel 289.6-1-20 to a point therein; thence crossing said
Nacy Road and running northwesterly along the southwesterly bounds of parcel 289.6-1-20 to
Glen Lake Road; thence running northeasterly along Glen Lake Road to the northeasterly corner
of parcel 289.6-1-20; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds thereof and then
crossing Nacy Road to a point in the northerly bounds of parcel 289.6-1-31; thence running
northeasterly along said Nacy Road along the northerly bounds of parcel 289.6-1-31, parcel
289.6-1-30, parcel 289.6-1-29, parcel 289.6-1-27 to the most northerly corner of said parcel;
thence running southeasterly along the northeasterly bounds of said parcel 289.6-1-27 to the
northwesterly corner of parcel 289.6-1-26; thence running northeasterly along the northerly
bounds of parcel 289.6-1-26 and parcel 289.6-1-25 to a point in the southwesterly bounds of
parcel 289.6-1-23; thence running northerly or northwesterly along said bounds of said parcel to
Nacy Road; thence running northerly along the southeasterly and easterly bounds of said Nacy
Road to the most northerly point of parcel 289.6-1-22 and the northwesterly corner of parcel
289.7-1-64; thence running southeasterly along the northerly bounds thereof to the most easterly
corner thereof in the northwesterly bounds of Dineen Road; thence running southwesterly along
the southerly bounds of said parcel 289.7-1-64 and along Dineen Road to the most southerly
corner of said parcel; thence running southerly crossing Dineen Road and along the bounds of
parcel 289.6-1-22 to a point therein for a corner; thence running northerly along said Dineen
Road to the most northerly corner of parcel 289.7-1-61; thence running southeasterly along the
northerly bounds thereof to the southwesterly or westerly corner of parcel 289.7-1-58; thence
running northerly along the westerly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner thereof in the
southerly bounds of Moon Hill Road; thence running easterly along the southerly bounds of
Moon Hill Road to the northeasterly corner of parcel 289.7-1-57; thence running southerly along
the easterly bounds thereof to the northwesterly corner of parcel 289.7-1-55; thence running
easterly, southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly and northwesterly along said parcel again to
Moon Hill Road; thence running easterly along Moon Hill Road to the northeasterly corner of
said parcel 289.7-1-55; thence running southerly along the easterly bounds thereof to the
northerly shore of the outlet of Glen Lake; thence running southerly crossing said outlet to the
point and place of beginning, containing 506.00 acres of land and water to the be the same more
or less.
EXECPTING AND RESERVING that portion of Reardon Road and Reardon Road
Extension that lies within the bounds of the above described parcel.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING that portion of Glen Lake Road that lies within the
above described parcel.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING any other roads that may lie within the above
described parcel.
2. The Town Board will operate and be the governing body for the District and intends to
appoint a District Advisory Board to provide recommendations on various matters relating to the District.
The proposed aquatic plant control plan consists of a triennial treatment program that includes annual
Lake assessment, annual water quality testing, aquatic vegetation surveys, hand harvesting and aquatic
herbicide treatment. Hand harvesting will be completed by a contractor hired by the Town and the Town
Highway Department will assist in disposal of the removed vegetation at one of the Town’s facilities.
The application of aquatic herbicide will also be completed by a contractor hired by the Town. The
Town’s contractor will be responsible for obtaining all permits required prior to the application of the
aquatic herbicide. Following the aquatic herbicide treatment, a full aquatic survey of the Lake will be
performed once sufficient time has elapsed for the herbicide to be effective. The results of this survey, in
conjunction with previous observations, will be used to determine areas of primary and secondary
concern for treatment the following year. No capital improvements are required for the proposed District.
3. The maximum estimated cost of formation of the proposed District is approximately
$18,000 including engineering, survey, legal, and miscellaneous fees. No capital improvement costs are
anticipated for the proposed District. The yearly costs associated with operation and maintenance of the
District will vary depending on the treatment method scheduled to be utilized that year. These costs,
based on a schedule of two years of hand harvesting followed by a year of aquatic pesticide application,
will be approximately $21,655 in the first year of the triennial treatment program, $18,755 the second
year and $85,905 the third year. The District costs will be amortized over the three year treatment cycle
to maintain a District fund balance and relatively equal assessments each year. The Town will contribute
15% of the total annual cost of the proposed District based on the benefit to the Town’s three lakefront
parcels, and the remaining cost will be assessed on a benefit basis to each lot. The benefit assessment
formula (BAF) has been developed on the basis of a “benefit unit.” The basic benefit unit for the
proposed District is a lakefront parcel of land and constitutes the majority of properties in the District.
The benefit units will be assessed based upon a 2:1 ratio for lakefront vs. non-lakefront lake access land.
4. No capital improvement costs are anticipated for the proposed District, so there will be
no debt service costs related to the proposed District.
5. The estimated annual cost of the District to the typical property in the District, which
typical property is a typical one family home, for operation and maintenance and other charges, will be
$130 for lakefront parcels and $65 for non-lakefront parcels. However, in the first year of the assessment
the costs of formation of the District will be added to the operation and maintenance charges. This will
add $54 to the cost for lakefront parcels and $27 for non-lakefront parcels, resulting in a total assessment
for the first year of $184 for lakefront parcels and $92 for non-lakefront parcels.
6. A detailed explanation of how the estimated costs of the District were computed is
included in the Map, Plan and Report which has been filed with the Queensbury Town Clerk and is
available for public inspection.
7. The Town Board hereby determines to conduct uncoordinated SEQRA review of the
proposed District establishment.
8. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities
nd
Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 22, 2011 to consider the Map,
Plan and Report and to hear all persons interested in the proposal and to take such other and further action
as may be required or authorized by law.
9. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly
publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public
hearing date, as required by Town Law §209-d, and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2)
Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the Public Hearing
required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the State Comptroller on or about the date
of publication.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough
NOES : Mr. Stec
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted he has received word from the Glen
Lake Association requesting that we pull this, they had additional concerns. Noted he had pulled this
resolution… However throughout the day the Board Members feel there has been enough work and effort has
gone into this over the years and we think that it is the Board belief that is it worthy of having this public
hearing as originally intended which would be two weeks from tonight on August 22, 2011. If we want a
st
district in place for 2012 it has to be formed before September 1 by law if it doesn’t happen we wait another
year. The Board asked to have it back on the agenda.
4.0 CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
5.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
-
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIERNo comments
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-
?
Mike Travis has been out on Meadowbrook Road we have got some basic bed materials put
in and we will be paving that little section of the parking lot where our walkway through
Highland South will be.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-
?
Queensbury Post –Queensbury Senior Citizens monthly news letter upcoming trip to
Montreal and one to Cooperstown – Lake George Dinner Theatre – to received news letter
call Karen Bodenweiser at 761-8224
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER-
?
Hudson Pointe trail – Recreation Dept. placed signage along the trail – very educational
Thank you to the Receation Dept. for that.
?
Questioned if the Town was responsible for the corner of Corinth Road and Media Drive
Supervisor Stec-Yes the Kiosk area it is still under construction
Councilman Brewer noted that the grass needs cutting.
Supervisor Stec-Between Chuck Rice and Mike Genier they will see to it being cut.
Councilman Brewer-people think that is the park and ride …Supervisor Stec-may have to
place flyers on those cars indicating where the park and ride is.
SUPERVISOR STEC-
?
Thank Look TV and our sponsors for televising our meetings we are the only town in
Warren County that televises our meetings
?
Town ‘s website – www.queensbury.net
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 253.2011
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED,
that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Town Board Meeting of
August 8, 2011.
th
Duly adopted this 8 day of August, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury