REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
MAY 5, 2010
AT THE GLENVILLE MUNICIPAL CENTER
18 GLENRIDGE ROAD, GLENVILLE, NEW YORK
Supervisor Koetzle called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM; gave the Invocation and led us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Supervisor Koetzle asked the Town Clerk, Linda C. Neals, to call the roll.
Present: Supervisor Christopher A. Koetzle, Councilmen Alan Boulant, Sid Ramotar and Councilwoman Gina M. Wierzbowski
Absent: Councilman Mark Quinn (arrived at 7:40 pm)
Also present were Attorney Michael Cuevas, Director of Operations James MacFarland, Comptroller George Phillips, Superintendent/Commissioner Thomas Coppola, and Planner Kevin Corcoran.
Supervisor Koetzle announced that the Board would be entering into an executive session at the end of the meeting to discuss contract negotiations.
Town Council Reports:
Councilman Ramotar – “The Economic Development and Planning Department created a four (4) page newsletter and flyer entitled “Grow Your Business in Glenville” and what this flyer is meant to do is to highlight the amenities that Glenville has to offer businesses that are considering relocating in Glenville. They are being distributed to commercial realtors and economic development agencies in the Capital Region so they can hand them out to businesses when they inquire about Glenville.
Small Business and Economic Development Committee sponsored a business financing seminar here at Town Hall yesterday, we had the Small Business Association (SBA), Metroplex and the Schenectady County Community Business Center here to talk about how they help businesses from business financing, marketing, business plans, etc. It was a good turnout, about 25 people attended there are two functions that the Town has held on educating residents, the community and businesses on how they can help fill some of the vacant properties in Glenville.”
Supervisor Koetzle – “I want to complement you and Kevin (Planner), and Mike (Planner) and everyone who worked on this, I think it is a great piece. I even asked for some supplies for myself so I could hand them out.
I was talking to Jamie MacFarland, Director of Operations, and he said it best I think, in the area of economic development I think we are starting to hit some solid singles and moving players around the bases and I give you a lot of credit, you’ve done a good job. Thank you.”
Councilwoman Wierzbowski – “Just a reminder to the residents that on May 15th we will start the bulk pickup. You can start putting out items this week and that should be completed within one week by County Waste.”
Councilman Boulant – “This Saturday, the Annual Indian Kill Fishing Day will be held from 8:30 am to noon.”
Supervisor Koetzle – “Item number 5 on the agenda is a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Code of the Town of Glenville to add Chapter 108 “Vacant Buildings Registry.”
Supervisor Koetzle opened the public hearing at 7:36 pm.
Cathy Bern Smith, resident – “While campaigning last year we all saw buildings that were clearly vacant and dilapidated, likewise there were also buildings and residences that were occupied that were in horrible conditions. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. There is a whole other Glenville out there where people are on the edge and it’s just a matter of time before they go over the cliff. I think there is some out reach that needs to be done to assist these people. Clearly things are not going well, I don’t know if it is the economic down turn or what the issue is, again you saw what I saw.
The one thing that I would just like to bring to your attention is that I think there is a difference between vacant and unoccupied and dilapidated and falling down property and where no one is living that happens to be very well cared for. I can think of two houses in my immediate neighborhood that you would not know that they were “vacant”, the lawns are manicured, other residences in the neighborhood help care for the lawns. One piece of property that I am thinking of right now there is a plan for people to come back to retire to their parents home, the parents deceased, they’re still working and they have a few more years before they retire. They are taking care of the property, they have removed several
trees, they have seeded the lawn, again you would have no idea and I think you need to be careful in legitimately trying to address dilapidated property that’s abandoned, that’s not being occupied either residentially or commercially and property that clearly is being taken care of. Property that is clearly being taken care of I would assume people are still paying their property taxes so I don’t think you want to add another tax onto an issue that people are already struggling with in terms of property taxes.”
Michael Aragosa, resident – “This to me is a very good idea, it might be a good idea to take it even a little farther when these guys come in and they want to build a new building like Lowe’s, Walmart, K-Mart, which is now abandoned, maybe if 30 years ago we had a law on the books that said, once you leave if you don’t have somebody to take it over within a certain amount of time you have to return it to the condition it was existing before. You take the Lowe’s property and Walmart property before they were that they were farm land so if they leave, if we had a law that said let’s put it back the way it was that would be a great law. I have heard of laws like that out there so let’s think about
that.
The other thing I want to talk about is there are laws already on the books, code enforcement rules that we really should start to use a little stronger especially in and I am thinking the Freemans Bridge Road corridor, there are a lot of properties in that corridor that the property owners are just letting them go. They don’t have to do anything, we are not forcing them to do anything, let’s make them mow the lawn even if is just mow the lawn, let’s make them clean it up, straighten it up. The front of a couple of buildings are just awful; other buildings they are doing a great job on the front of some of them. Metroplex and Chamber of Commerce came up with some money and helped with some of the facades in that
corridor but you go one block down and there is this property that looks like a dump. Let’s try to use these laws that are on the books to make those guys buck up and keep their properties the way they should. It’s not just about taxes, not just about vacant property it also needs to be about properties that are being used. There is one guy that runs a business in one part of the property and it looks kind of nice but he owns two other pieces that are basically falling down. They probably should be looked at and condemned. There is another property a little farther up the road that every time I go by there is another truck parked there or a trailer parked in there.”
Michele Draves, resident – “I currently reside at 38 Country Fair Lane, I am sure to many of you that address is very familiar, I also now have a vacant home because of that. So now you as our law makers in the Town of Glenville are telling me that because my parents were killed during the ice storm of 2008 and we chose to keep that home and have been unable to sell our home, also in the Town of Glenville and are now paying property taxes on two properties that we owe you a fee because we can’t sell it and that’s wrong on so many levels. There is a house on the corner of the street where my vacant house is that mows their lawn on Memorial Day and Labor Day, we’ve complained, the neighbors have complained,
everyone has complained. The lawn gets so long that in my mini-van I can’t see to pull out of the street; how is somebody in a small car going to see; it’s a hazard but that’s okay. My vacant home with the lawn mowed and the house taken care of, cars being brought in and out so it looks like somebody is living there is wrong but if I was living there and let the lawn get three feet long that is okay. I don’t think it is right, I don’t think it is fair and I don’t think that residents of the town should be penalized because in this economy a house has been on the market for over a year and not be sold.”
Supervisor Koetzle – “Before we continue I just want to take a moment to clarify the definition of vacant building because I think that might have gotten lost. If you read the proposed law, Section 7: Vacant Building is defined as not just a vacant building, it has to meet certain criteria to be eligible. It has to be unoccupied and unsecured by other than normal means, unoccupied and unsafe as determined by the building inspector, unoccupied as a multi-housing or a building code violation, illegally occupied or unoccupied in the case of a multi-family residential commercial building for the period of in excess of 45 days or in the case of a one or two family residential building for a period of 120 days. So there are
other criteria that has to be met.”
Ralph Putrock, resident – “I am here just to confirm what I have already heard. I don’t think this is fair, if we are being taxed on this property, it is cleaned up and secured, because it is empty that’s telling me because I choose not to use it or to rent it because I don’t want to turn it into a slum village, that’s like saying that if you register your car in NYS and you don’t choose to drive it I am going to charge you for parking it on your parking lot. I’m being taxed horrendously and my buildings are all secure. I have five (5) buildings on one piece of property and they are all sided, new roofs, new windows and we’re talking this levy that you want to lay down I think
is just unfair. Residents of Glenville, we pay enough tax and I think this should be looked at a little better than just to run out and start levying up fines and adding it to tax bills and everything else that can be done.”
Supervisor Koetzle – “Again it would only apply to unoccupied and unsecured buildings.”
John Gaetani, resident – “I drive around this town a lot I don’t know how big of a problem this is. Can you tell me a number or a percentage of the buildings that are in this condition?”
Supervisor Koetzle – “There are 23 vacant commercial properties. I don’t have a number for residential.”
Mr. Gaetani – “I am not really opposed to this or for it; I am just trying to get some information because I have some concerns.
Unoccupied, what percentage of a multi-unit commercial building or a multi-unit house would you consider being unoccupied? Now a two-family with one apartment being rented is 50% unoccupied. You need to define things better. Some properties are vacated do to governmental actions like road construction where they might take part of a property and leave part of the property and the person who owns the property can’t in-habitat the place but they leave either the house or the garage or something, there is no provision for something like that in this clause. The County or the Town might say you can’t operate that business at that location anymore so the guy vacates it and the owner is stuck if the guy wasn’t
the owner who had the business.
Also there are times when there are a couple of structures on a property and one is taken down so that leaves the other one that may be vacated because it’s not useful.
What about vacant land, that eyesore vacant land across from Price Chopper that has been there for six or seven years is that going to be a part of this bill?
What about when the government takes a property like during a road construction project, they might buy the whole property but they might leave part of the structures up, are you going to tell the government they are going to have to register this property and pay the fine?
Some houses are temporally unoccupied because someone is coming back to retire in a house but they are trying to sell their own house first. What about someone that passes away and has no heirs?
I’m really not sure that this law is really needed, it sounds like it might be a money grab for the town. I don’t know how much money you are going to make; has anybody done a benefit analysis of this for the cost of enforcing this. It seems to me that it is going to cost quite a bit of money and I don’t know what the revenue is going to be to cover the extra expenses plus there are codes that are not being enforced now. It seems to me that the code enforcement or the building department may not have the staff to do this and do the other things they have to do.”
Ron Provost, resident – “I have lived here for 54 years and I have never heard so much garbage as this bill. I know the town doesn’t have any money but I think most of the people that I have talked to in the last two days will probably see you in court. I have three attorneys under retainer now so I think I can use my own.
You can’t tax people twice and that is what you are doing. You can call it vacant property if you want, I use to own half of this town at one time, I had my corporation in this town and I did away with that. You just have too many things… you are trying to grab a couple of nickels here for some reason and nobody seems to know because you wrote up such a flimsy thing.
If the Town wants to go broke we can break you and we will break you. After 54 years of living here I don’t need Glenville broke but you are doing it and I am sick and tired of hearing it every time I come back from Florida. When I got back from Florida and I hear that nine people of mine are moving to So Carolina because they don’t like Glenville it makes me a little mad. I think that is the stuff you ought to look into, why are people moving out of here because they don’t like it, not because of taxes, because of fees and everything else so I think this is what you should be looking at. Somebody had better go back to the drawing board or I will see you in court.”
Michele Draves – “After I spoke you wanted to clarify the definition of a vacant building basically telling me that I wouldn’t be taxed. Item #6 states one or two residential buildings unoccupied for a period of more than 120 days and that is my home. It has been vacant since August; we can’t sell it so now you want to charge me $100, that’s not right. This needs to be written a little better so people are not penalized for living their lives.”
Ed Rosenberg, resident – “I know that there are some problems with some vacant buildings. I understood from what I read in the press that this is supposed to be designed to bring business to Glenville; I haven’t heard one thing from anybody about how this brings business to Glenville, now you are going to charge a fee to somebody, for instance who maybe ran a nursery on Freemans Bridge Road for 40 or 50 years and can’t sell their building for 3 years and it’s not rentable to anybody else because no one else is going to put a nursery there either now you are going to charge them a fee because they haven’t been able to sell the property and now on their third realtor without any success. I don’t
see where this ties in to bring business in. You guys promised to bring business into Glenville, this isn’t doing it. All I can see is chasing business away. I’ve been in this situation where I have had vacant buildings, I had a building that sat for one year while I rehabbed it, improving the property but it set vacant for one year. I am going to get charged for redoing that house, I am going to be charge another fee, I paid my taxes the whole time, I mowed the lawn, I fixed the property up, I increased the assessed value now you are going to charge me a fee, that doesn’t make any sense.
There are plenty of other situations, whether anybody knows it or not, there are many times when somebody goes into a nursing home and that house can’t be sold, nothing can be done with it, you can’t rent it, you can’t do anything with it because of Medicare rules. That house is setting vacant, maybe the kids are mowing the lawn, they are waiting until that person passes away before they can sell it but now you are going to charge them a fee.
Lastly, I heard from a bunch of people that they threaten to sue the town, that this may actually not even be legal. I am assuming that you did your homework on that. It sounds like a money grab, twenty-three vacant buildings I would probably guess that if they are vacant or unsecured if that is the particular case, and then those particular issues could be handled through existing town ordinances with the building inspector. I know from four years of sitting on this board that we are already tight, I don’t know who is going to be going out and do these inspections, I don’t know what’s involved with notification.”
Evan Johnston, resident – “I glanced through the packet numerous times. You mentioned something about vacant land, there is nothing in there on vacant land. The only thing I find close to it is vacant building site. Could you describe how vacant land would go into the law here? You guys said that it was going to get built into this. There is plenty of vacant land housing building sites here in the town that are still setting undeveloped, un-built.
Supervisor Koetzle – “We didn’t mention anything about vacant land that was a gentleman speaking from the podium.”
Mr. Johnston – “But that’s not true because it’s the vacant land that all businesses in Glenville are leaving. There’s nothing for my generation that makes us want to stay in this area, everything is moving out.”
No one else wished to speak; Supervisor closed the public hearing at 8:00 pm.
Annual MS4 Report – James MacFarland and Tom Coppola
James MacFarland – “This is a requirement of the State in enacting this program that an annual report be delivered in a public forum. This certainly is the most convenient for us. The Phase II draft Storm Water Program Annual Report is now available. It is available here at Town Hall, in Economic Development and Planning, the library next door and it is available on line.
Comments on this report are readily accepted and are due by May 25th. This report does have to be into NYS by June 1.
Any questions contact our Economic Development and Planning Department, Mike Burns.
The brief narrative to this would be this is the public notice that has to occur. Just as an update I will make a brief overview of where we are based on Board action earlier this year, Tom Coppola, Commissioner of Public Works, is the Storm Water Management Officer. He is the person who is responsible for this program. I think we now have a staffing model in place that will deliver an effective program.
Dana Gilgore provides the extensive experience and knowledge on the technical experience and the filed work. Mike Burns from the Economic Development and Planning Department is both the initial point of contact for storm water related projects and he handles the laborious paperwork that is required and part of this program. This years annual report is nearly entirely the product of Mike Burns’ effort, and I’d like to thank him and commend him for all of the work he did on this.
The EPA has set the rules on this program. They hand the responsibility to the states, for us it is NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and they in turn kind of hand off the program to the towns. This is one of those unfunded mandates that occur.
The components are fairly simple, there are six – public education and outreach, public involvement and participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post construction stormwater management, and stormwater management for municipal operations.
We are in good compliance with the program. We do quite well at managing construction sites stormwater runoff; we believe that to be the best way to ultimately achieve clean water standards in our town. We really aren’t able to spend as much time on things that we would consider the “nice-to-dos” it should be more of the public education and public involvement aspects.
That is an overview of where we are, we are meeting the guidelines clearly, we are continuing to do what we have to do to administer the program and we really are doing a nice job on making sure our construction sites are in good compliance. I would like to conclude by asking Tom Coppola to briefly discuss where he is with it and some of the challenges that he has on the operational aspects that he is involved with.”
Tom Coppola, Superintendent/Commissioner – “I would like to thank Mike, Jamie and Dana for doing a great job. This is a learning experience for me.
Going forward just in our own municipality the operations of MS4 take on a financial view also. The unfunded mandates, as Jamie mentioned, the challenges we have at the highway garage itself just with the truck wash, we cannot wash the trucks anymore. We are working with the City of Schenectady to use their truck wash, they’re not up and running yet so we are still faced with not being able to wash our vehicles.
Storm drain and cleaning for our catch basins – we do not have the funds to purchase a new vehicle; therefore our catch basins are being neglected. This is something that is mandated but we do not have the funding for the equipment to do it.
Training for employees – I need training myself so I have been taking classes. Going forward we are going to have to appoint a MS4 control person so when we enter into a MS4 situation we have a worker on site that can handle this along with myself they have to be there for the whole job.
These are the restrictions that the highway has and the financial ability to do these jobs so going forward I would ask the Board to maybe in the MS4 budget line to start putting a little bit of money into this moving forward into the next budget. I will work with you and explain the situations that we have to have and what we need to do.
I would like to thank the guys for putting this report together and teaching me and showing me what needs to be done in this program.”
Councilman Boulant – “What are the high schools doing as far as washing their vehicles? Do they have their own bays or are they faced with the same issue?”
Mr. Coppola – “They are faced with the same issue. This could be a consolidated situation we could work with the fire departments, the schools and other municipalities. Schenectady did build a unit but they built a hand wash unit, they were expected to build a driveway unit but right now it doesn’t seem like they are going to be able to do that. So it will be a hand washing unit but the bay will be sufficient enough to handle the MS4.
We have talked with the different schools; we have talked with other municipalities.”
Privilege of the floor:
The following people exercised the privilege of the floor.
John Kelch, Rexford resident addressed the Board regarding the Rexford Water District which was formed in 1976 with the participation with Glenville. He informed the Board that for 30+ years about 500 homes in the Rexford community enjoyed very good water from the Town of Glenville. He further explained that at a meeting held in 2006 they were informed that the Rexford water district would be rolled under the Clifton Park Water Authority (CPWA) and that they were assured that they would continue to get Glenville water for some period of time. He stated that at that meeting the Rexford residents voiced their concern about getting Clifton Park Water as opposed to Rexford water.
He further stated that about three weeks ago the CPWA announced that they were finally going to terminate the agreement with Glenville. Mr. Kelch stated that he notified the other residents in Rexford to make sure they were all aware of this. He received about 30 responses asking him to put together a public meeting. He informed the Board members that that meeting was scheduled for May 6th.
Mr. Kelch stated that the relationship between Clifton Park and Glenville soured and it was used as an excuse at the 2006 meeting for moving forward with CPWA. He stated that at that time they had just gone through a situation where they had increased capacity from Glenville and his thoughts at that time was that the board was trying to secure additional water for future development in the western part of town. He stated that CPWA stated in a news letter that they were going to be buying a half a million gallons of water from the Saratoga County Water Authority. He explained to the Board that Clifton Park uses on average 3.6 million gallons a day, maximum of about 6 million a day during the summer.
He stated that the meeting scheduled for May 6th was publicized and that he invited representatives from Glenville, Clifton Park, both water authorities and a board member from each town.
Mr. Kelch expressed that the message he wants to send is the way things are set right now he believes the residents in Rexford are going to lose a valued asset; the Glenville aquifer water. He stated that the Board and the Water Authority are firmly committed in the direction that they are going to go; the only thing that can turn that around is if the majority of the 520 Rexford residents tell the Board at tomorrow night’s meeting that this is not what we want to happen. He believes that in order for this to occur they will have to be convinced of two things: the water quality is going to be significantly worse for some period of time of the year and the other one would be that the rate from Glenville has vacillated over the
last few years. Mr. Kelch stated that he has tried to convince people that there is new leadership in Glenville, a new water commissioner and as far as he is concerned this is a new day.
He closed by stating that whoever attends the meeting tomorrow night should have something in their pocket, something that could be put on the table that is concrete that the residents, not the officials, but the residents can look at and say, okay that is something firm. He stated that if there is nothing firm the residents will have a hard time standing up to their own Town Board.”
Neil Turner, resident presented pictures to the Board of a derelict building that is about 12 feet from his residence. He stated that he is extremely concerned about the rodent population and more concerned about the fact that if this caught on fire his house would take part in that.
Mr. Turner stated that he would like the Town to take action because he can’t do anything without their help.”
Supervisor Koetzle – “Have you contacted our Building Inspector about this building?”
Mr. Turner – “Yes I did.”
No one else wished to exercise the privilege of the floor
Supervisor Koetzle – “We will talk to our Building Inspector about this situation.”
Michael Aragosa, resident, suggested that the Board should talk to some of the property owners to see what they think their property is worth. He stated that sometimes he thinks the property owner thinks they own property in Hollywood with what they are asking for these properties.
Mr. Aragosa stated that it seems to him that MS4 would be a great place for all of the municipalities and all of the school districts and the County to get together and start to do some consolidation. He asked if the Town needs to have a truck all of their own, why couldn’t the County buy a truck and let everyone use it. He feels this is a good time for all to come together and think about how we can all work together.
Supervisor’s Comments:
Supervisor Koetzle shared the following information:
“We had a lot of good comments. We heard a lot of good comments about the Vacant Buildings Registry. I think some things will be cleared up just with clarification throughout our discussion at the next work session. Some things I just wanted to touch on, I think Mr. Turner the pictures you submitted are really a perfect example of what we are trying to do with this registry. We are trying to really understand what properties out there are abandoned and to make sure that there is a responsibility for those to be registered with the Town.
Mr. Aragosa talked about some properties being maybe over priced, some people speculate, some people think that someday their ship is going to come in and I think that what this registry is attempting to do is to really try and encourage them that today is the day to move on empty property in this town.
We’ve got a problem in this town, there’s no question about it, there’s too much empty space in our commercial corridors, there’s no debate there. I think everyone that talked tonight acknowledged that. What we know about empty space is it becomes a haven for rodents, it becomes invested with vagrants, it becomes shelter to criminals, it becomes a dangerous place to our children and young adults. It becomes a difficult place, as we hear from our police officers to make sure it is safe. Criminals take refuge there and it becomes very difficult and it begins to undermine the value of the properties around it. These things we know, these things that all communities know happen so what we would
like to do is to compel someone with a vacant property to register it with the town so the town is aware of it being vacant so we can apply extra attention to it if we need to, to help speed the rehabilitation or reuse of the property by encouraging a plan that is submitted to the town on how the property will be reused and to prevent anymore blight within the town or within the commercial corridor and really to enhance the appearance of our town neighborhoods and commercial districts. We are trying to minimize vandalism, we are trying to minimize crime, we are trying to minimize blight and we are trying to stop an erosion of property values.
People can call it a cash grab, they can characterize it anyway they want, the fact of the matter is it is a message that the town wants to send to our community that we are not going to be a town of empty properties. I think that was the Board’s intent and I think that’s the intent going forward.
There was a lot of talk about suing and it not being legal, there are at least two dozen communities in NYS that already have this, it has already stood the test of time, it has already been challenged. In the Capital District alone there are three communities, Albany, Cohoes and Watervliet. We have done our homework; we have looked at how it worked in other communities. Now that said are there things we can look at on the residential side that might minimize the burden to a resident going through a difficult time like a death in the family. Generally speaking it is a good idea it’s something that has worked in other communities.
We met with representatives from the Office of the State Comptroller to go over an audit that the town went through last year. We received the results of the audit but we can’t talk about it in public at this time but really there was nothing significant that they found as far as how the town conducts its business. We do have some small issues regarding safe guarding personnel and private information and we will respond to that and we will make the necessary modifications. After we have our letter of response to the Comptroller’s Office it will become a public document.
The solar panel bid is out for contractors and we will be opening the bids on May 17th.
The scanning project that we have a grant for is going well. It’s scheduled to end by the end of June and so far over 46,000 documents have been scanned into a data base, which will make future need for these documents much easier. It is a great project and I think our two employees that were hired under the grant are doing a great job.
Burnt Hills/Ballston Lake Baseball will have their Annual Opening Day on Saturday, May 8th at 2:30 pm at Indian Meadows Park. This is also the Annual Indian Kill Fishing Derby from 8:30 to noon.
I had my second monthly Saturday with the Supervisor this past weekend. I will continue doing this on the first Saturday of every month through out the course of the year.
Good news on the Unified Communications situation. I did get a response to our letter, actually a few responses, the Supervisor of Rotterdam called and asked some questions. I received a call from the County Attorney, Chris Gardner requesting a meeting, which will take place next Wednesday on the 12th, to talk about some of our concerns and to see how we can make progress on it.
The 2010 Annual Financial update document is in to the State Comptroller on time. The external auditors are scheduled to do their field work here in the town on May 15th through the 28th.
The first of two submissions of documents have been sent to the Environmental Finance Commission (EFC) to assist in setting up the Alplaus Sewer 0% loan closing date.
2011 Budget Schedule:
June – Comptroller will prepare a 6 month look at where we are and distribute that to the Department Heads so they can see where they are with their budgets.
July – Budget request letters go to Department Heads so they can build their budgets.
One of the things that Councilman Quinn has long advocated for and our Finance Committee has looked at and is recommending, tentatively, and that I will put in the budget is that we go to zero base budgeting. I think that is a significant win for us.
Department Heads will submit their budget in August, I will then have a budget submitted to you in September. There will be some public meetings through the “Truth in Budgeting Bill” that we passed in the previous year. There will be more public meetings, a public hearing when the Board will be able to alter the budget in October and then we will enact a final budget in November.
We are going to ask our Department Heads to take a look at the budget a little differently this year and I hope we have a positive outcome.
Councilwoman Wierzbowski – “Mr. Supervisor, with regard to the Vacant Building Registry the comment was made regarding the Building Department. I’ve spoken with them several times prior to this coming before the Board, they do drive around Glenville, they do check things out when a resident calls and has an issue with a property, they do go visit it and they said often times when they send out a notice of violation they receive a phone call from the particular resident and they find out about several other homes that are in violation. Unfortunately for them the process becomes bogged-down when somebody receives a citation and they end up going to court and there’s delays and adjournments and things like that and
it may seem like they are not trying to enforce the codes that the Town currently has but I get the feeling from them that they do have a very good handle on the properties in the town, especially the residential properties that are a continuing problem and they do really do try to stay on top of them. There are only two of them at this time so of course their time is limited as well. They do their best in defense of them, they do enforce the codes within the Town and they are very, very knowledgeable.”
Councilman Boulant – “I understand the concerns of some of the residents and maybe we need to look at the language on some of this stuff. Referring to Mr. Turners complaint, I would say what we are trying to do is resolve issues like this, not whether someone is mowing their lawn or not. Obviously we have to make sure the buildings look good. I think if you go up and down Freemans Bridge Road you can see the buildings that we are talking about that are part of the problem. It is not to penalize the residents, it is not a money grab; it’s a quality of life in Glenville.”
Supervisor Koetzle moved ahead with the resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 100-2010
Moved by: Councilman Boulant
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville has been considering the enactment of a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville, Chapter 255 “Vehicle and Traffic”, and
WHEREAS, this Town Board has held a Public Hearing on April 21, 2010 at 7:30PM, at which time all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard and to publicly comment on the amending of the Code of the Town of Glenville as set forth above,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville Town Board does hereby establish a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville to adopt Local Law #2 of 2010, Chapter 255 entitled: “Vehicle and Traffic” as set forth below:
Section 255-8. – Speed Limits
REPEAL:
C. A maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour is hereby repealed within the Town of Glenville on the following county highways:
Hoffman Hill Road Ext. entire length from Wolf Hollow Road to Wolf Hollow Road
ADD:
G. A maximum speed limit of 30 miles per hour is hereby established within the Town of Glenville on the following county highways:
Hoffman Hill Road Ext. entire length from Wolf Hollow Road to Wolf Hollow Road
Section 255-2. – Stop Intersections
ADD:
Intersection With/Stop Sign On Entrance(s)
Alder Lane Willow Lane East and West
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect when filed with the Secretary of the State of New York.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Supervisor Koetzle – “Small Claims Settlement Board is a board we would create. They would be authorized to settle claims made against the Town up to $500.00 and comprise such settlement claim without prior Town Board approval. As it stands right now the Town Board would have to approve any settlement that was made between the town and a complainant. This would just move the authority from the Board to a new board that will be appointed to make these settlements. It is really designed to be more efficient for the town so that we can discharge with small claims against the town in a quick and efficient matter and do so again even more consumer friendly perhaps to our residents. The Settlement Board would be
comprised of the Attorney to the Town, the Town Comptroller and the Director of Operations. The Town Board would still retain authority from time to time to describe rules to the Small Claims Settlement Board. It’s nothing new; it’s just moving the authority from the Town Board to the Small Claims Settlement Board for the sake of efficiency.”
Councilman Quinn – “I would like to bring to the audience’s attention my view on this. I completely understand the rational for this type of thing but, I like the current method we use, I trust the Town Attorney in their presentation of such claims and I believe that as Board members we have a fiduciary responsibility ourselves to do this type of thing and even though they may represent a small value and a bit of a nuisance I take that responsibility very seriously and I don’t like advocating it to this type of panel that is comprised of staff members in addition to the Town Attorney. I am going to vote no on this one.”
RESOLUTION NO. 101-2010
Moved by: Councilman Boulant
Seconded by: Councilwoman Wierzbowski
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville has been considering the enactment of a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville to establish a Small Claims Settlement Board in the Town of Glenville, and
WHEREAS, this Town Board has held a Public Hearing on April 21, 2010 at 7:30PM, at which time all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard and to publicly comment on the amending of the Code of the Town of Glenville as set forth above,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville Town Board does hereby establish a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville to adopt Local Law #3 of 2010, Chapter 63 entitled: “Small Claims Settlement Board” as set forth below:
CHAPTER 63 – SMALL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BOARD
§ 63-1. Authority to Settle
Whenever a Notice of Claim is filed against the Town of Glenville in an amount (exclusive of interest) claimed not in excess of Five Hundred and no/100 ($500.00) Dollars, the Small Claims Settlement Board of the Town of Glenville may compromise and settle such claim without prior Town Board approval. The Board shall report to the Town Board, on a monthly basis, all claims received, considered, and approved or denied.
§ 63-2. Composition of Settlement Board
The Small Claims Settlement Board of the Town of Glenville shall consist of the Attorney to the Town; the Town Comptroller, Deputy Comptroller or Director of Finance, as designated in writing by the Town Supervisor; and the Town Administrator, Director of Operations or other town department head, as designated in writing by the Town Supervisor.
§ 63-3. Authority of the Town Board
The Town Board may, by resolution, increase the amount that may be compromised and/or settled by the Small Claims Settlement Board and may, from time to time, describe the rules of procedure for the Small Claims Settlement Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect when filed with the Secretary of the State of New York.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: Councilman Quinn
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilman Quinn – “As was mentioned back in 2002 the Rotary Club of Glenville made a $5,000 donation to the Town but it was conditional upon us developing some semblance of a skateboard park and as you know that never came to fruition and the Rotary Club has asked for the money back. We get a multiplier effect in terms of both financial and in-kind contributions from Rotary in our parks and elsewhere in Town. They have been a tremendous community service club to us and a real asset to the community so we will get this back for another reason, probably to the tune of 3 to 5 fold so I am very comfortable to give the money back.”
RESOLUTION NO. 102-2010
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Boulant
WHEREAS, in 2002, the Rotary Club of Glenville made a $5,000 donation to the town of Glenville for the construction of a skateboard park, and
WHEREAS, a memo from James MacFarland, Director of Human Services, dated 10/9/2002, specifies the gift of $5,000 was made with the express condition that these funds be used for the construction of a skateboard park and the funds have been held in the Town's dedicated park fund for that purpose ever since, and
WHEREAS, since the 2002 donation, the Town has not commenced design or construction of a skateboard park, and has no present or future plans to do so, and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Rotary has requested that contribution be returned to them for their use in other community projects, and
WHEREAS, Glenville Rotary has invested in excess of $20,000 in Glenville parks in the past two years, and is planning on continuing their support of Glenville Parks for years to come,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville does hereby authorize that the Glenville Rotary contribution of $5,000 made in 2002 be returned, payable from account # 03.00.7110 (dedicated parks fund).
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 103-2010
Moved by: Councilman Boulant
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has purchased replacement police vehicles as provided for in the 2010 Police Department budget, and recommends that the replaced vehicles be declared as surplus property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chief of Police is hereby authorized to purchase two marked police vehicles at a total cost not to exceed forty-seven thousand two hundred and five dollars ($47,205.00), as per New York State Contract #PC64893 Item #2, both vehicles’ expense charged to account 02.00.3120.2000 (Equipment) as set forth in the approved 2010 budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vehicles being replaced are hereby declared surplus property after the receipt of new replacement vehicles and the transfer of necessary equipment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such surplus vehicles shall be offered for sale upon such terms and conditions as the Chief of Police may direct with all proceeds credited to account 02.00.2660.0000(Sale of Vehicles).
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Councilwoman Wierzbowski made a motion, Seconded by Councilman Ramotar to amend the following resolution to read four (4) Public Works Laborers.
Ayes: Councilman Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
RESOLUTION NO. 104-2010
Moved by: Councilwoman Wierzbowski
Seconded by: Councilman Ramotar
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the maintenance of the Public Works Department during the summer months, seasonal employees are hired,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Thomas Coppola, Commissioner of Public Works is authorized to hire four (4) Public Works Laborers (seasonal) at the budgeted rate of $8.00 per hour (no benefits) from 5/6/10– 8/31/10 as authorized within the 2010 Town Budget.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 105-2010
Moved by: Councilwoman Wierzbowski
Seconded by: Councilman Ramotar
WHEREAS, the Glenville Department of Public Works has one 1992 International Truck with sander, plow and double wing that has been authorized to be replaced;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby declares one 1992 International Truck with sander, plow & double wing VIN # 2HTTECUR4NC05372 surplus and authorizes the Commissioner of Public Works to sell for market value or best price.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
George Phillips, Comptroller – “Item #’s 21 & 22 are transfers from a budgeted account for a long term debt that serialized and locked down versus one year debt that is renewable. We lock down some debt, and since we’ve moved it there’s no budgetary impact as far as fund balance. We charge it to a different account when it’s a fixed debt instrument as opposed to a debt instrument that would mature in one year and then reissue a new debt instrument.”
RESOLUTION NO. 106-2010
Moved by: Councilman Boulant
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, there are accounts as described and funded in the 2010 Adopted Budget that will exceed budget appropriations or missed revenue in 2010,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby authorizes the following budgetary transfers:
AMOUNT FROM TO
1. $ 15.00 0 1.00.1410.4500 Fees for services 01.00.1410.4622 Conferences
2. $ 3.00 0 1.00.5010.2000 Equipment 01.00.5010.4100 Supplies
3. $ 20.00 0 1.00.8160.4000 Contracted Service 01.00.8090.4100 Supplies
4. $ 766.00 0 2.00.1620.4109 Renovations 02.00.4010.4500 Fees for Services
5. $4,340.00 04.00.5142.1000 Payroll 04.00.5142.1011 Clothing Allowance
6. $ 600.00 04.00.5130.1000 Payroll 04.00.5130.1002 Straight OT
7. $ 600.00 04.00.5130.4123 Cutting Edges 04.00.5130.4125 Plow & wing shoes
8. $ 40.00 04.00.5110.4200 Utilities 04.00.5110.4622 Conferences
9. $1,479.00 Fund balance 15.00.3410.4000 Contract
10. $ 93.00 40.01.8130.2000 Equipment 40.01.9040.8000 Workers Comp.
11. $ 93.00 40.02.8130.2000 Equipment 40.02.9040.8000 Workers Comp.
12. $ 93.00 40.06.8130.2000 Equipment 40.06.9040.8000 Workers Comp.
13. $ 93.00 40.09.8130.2000 Equipment 40.09.9040.8000 Workers Comp.
14. $ 500.00 50.11.8310.2000 Equipment 50.11.8310.1006 Longevity
15. $ 500.00 50.11.8310.2000 Equipment 50.11.8330.1006 Longevity
16. $ 500.00 50.11.8310.2000 Equipment 50.11.8340.1006 Longevity
17. $ 100.00 40.01.8130.2000 Equipment 40.01.8130.1006 Longevity
18. $ 100.00 40.02.8130.2000 Equipment 40.02.8130.1006 Longevity
19. $ 100.00 40.06.8130.2000 Equipment 40.06.8130.1006 Longevity
20. $ 200.00 40.09.8130.2000 Equipment 40.09.8130.1006 Longevity
21. $76,851.00 01.00.9730.6000 Ban Principal/water 01.00.9710.6000 Bond/ /Sr. Center
22. $20,771.00 01.00.9730.7000 Ban/water/interest 01.00.9710.7000 Bond Interest
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilman Quinn – “Originally we considered an outright ban by law which would require a change in the Town Code and it was going to be more extensive. It was going to include Sanders Preserve and some of the rest of our public properties.
The other stream that I offered that was a suggestion from the Park Planning Committee is that we just limit this to enclosures, ball fields and playgrounds that are a little bit more kid centric so to speak. This does represent a viable compromise between those two extremes, I still have some concerns about maybe somebody needing more enforcement if there is an issue as a result of this type of a thing given at this point its good signage, it promotes health, I can live with this.”
Councilwoman Wierzbowski – “Just to point out that the Capital District Tobacco-Free Coalition will sponsor the costs of the signs.
RESOLUTION NO. 107-2010
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Boulant
WHEREAS, the Capital District Tobacco-Free Coalition has requested that the Town of Glenville consider restrictions to tobacco use in its park system, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville wishes to promote healthy lifestyles and create the best possible environment for all visitors to its parks,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville hereby prohibits smoking within the confines of Maalwyck Park and Indian Meadows Park, smoking being defined as “Inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any form of lighted object or device containing tobacco,” and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Human Services is hereby directed and authorized to erect signage that informs the public of this policy as soon as is possible.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 108-2010
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Boulant
BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the regular meeting held on April 21, 2010, are hereby approved and accepted as entered.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
New Business:
Supervisor Koetzle – “Just a reminder during June, July and August the Town Board meetings will only be held on the 3rd Wednesday of each month. The work sessions will continue to be held on the 2nd Wednesday of each month.”
RESOLUTION NO. 109-2010
Moved by: Councilman Boulant
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby adjourns into Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations.
Ayes: Councilmen Boulant, Quinn, Ramotar, Councilwoman Wierzbowski and Supervisor Koetzle
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Supervisor Koetzle adjourned this portion of the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and entered into Executive Session.
Time being 9:30 p.m.; Supervisor Koetzle reconvened the meeting and announced that no action was taken during the Executive Session.
Supervisor Koetzle asked for a motion to adjourn; motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Boulant; Seconded by Councilman Quinn, everyone being in favor the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 PM.
ATTEST:
______________________________
Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk
| 
