PATTERSON RECREATION CENTER

PUBLIC HEARING

PUTNAM LAKE PARK DISTRICT

65 FRONT STREET

PATTERSON, NEW YORK 12563

FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MINUTES

PRESENT: MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR

KEVIN BURNS, COUNCILMAN

CHARLES W. COOK, DEPUTY SUPERVISOR

ROBERT MCCARTHY, COUNCILMAN

GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN

DONALD M. ROSSI, TOWN COUNSEL

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK

RICHARD WILLIAMS, TOWN PLANNER

Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.

Supervisor Griffin called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. with 150 in attendance.

PUTNAM LAKE PARK DISTRICT

Mr. Griffin stated good evening, thank you all for coming out tonight. The sole item on the agenda for tonight’s meeting is the discussion, presentation and question and answers relative to the Putnam Lake Park District.

Mr. Donald Rossi, Town Counsel read the following Legal Notice:

Mr. Griffin stated at this time we will have a brief presentation from the Town Planner and after that we will entertain questions and comments. Thank you.

Mr. Rich Williams, Town Planner stated Good Evening everyone we are here again tonight to consider the formation of the Park District in the Putnam Lake area. The specific purpose of the Public Hearing tonight is to consider properties that were originally excluded that should be added in and also properties that were included that should potentially be taken out of the proposed Park District. I am going to run through the presentation rather quickly because most of you have already seen it at the last Public Hearing with a few modifications just to recap where we are and what is going on before us.

A petition was submitted to the Town Board requesting a Park District be created for the Putnam Lake area. It was reviewed by the Town Clerk who verified the signatures on the petition. It was reviewed by the Town Assessor who verified the assessments for the properties that were included in the petition.

On January 18, 2012 the Town Board held a Public Hearing and took public comments on the petition. On January 25, 2012 the Town Board adopted a resolution acknowledging that the petition was properly signed and acknowledged as provided by law that it was in the public interest to establish the proposed district but that certain changes were needed to ensure that all the properties that were benefitted would be included in the boundaries of the proposed district.

The purpose of the Park District is to maintain the properties surrounding the lake as well as the lake, to operate the beaches and improve the lake quality, improve the park lands and to manage the ball fields. The cost that was initially provided in the petition was $.47 per thousand. Considering an average value for a single family home in the Putnam Lake area of approximately $211,000.00, the annual cost of the property donor is $99.51. The Planning Department has created a budget. It mirrors the budget that was provided by the committee to create the Park District. The annual budget for the first year would be a little over a $130,000.00 and the revenue that would be generated by the Park District would be equal to that. One of the things that I heard is that the Town is going to double tax everyone for the first year and that is not true. Because of the way District Law is and the petition that was submitted we can only do an annual tax. We can’t tax you for two years in any one given tax bill. Some of the next steps that the Town Board is going to have to take a look at are creating a budget. The charges for the Park District you will see in your first Town and County tax bill in 2013. It will be an annual charge it would not be two or three years to try to catch up. They are going to have to amend Chapter 115 Parks. The Town Board will need to create a Park Advisory Board and they will need to begin discussions with the PLCC concerning park land and how that will be transferred to the Town and or managed. The Park District as of today is likely to come operational in January 2013.

The purpose of being here tonight is to talk about some of the properties that were left out and some that were included that perhaps should be coming out. The original petition identified 13 maps in Putnam Lake that all the properties within those 13 maps were to be included in the Park District. The problem is there are more than 13 maps, there are some inserts that were missed. No fault of the committee, it was what they were given. Some of the properties that were left off were among Clement Road in the 11^th map which was predominately a map that was a subdivision of properties in Connecticut but there are a few properties in the State of New York. The Mohawk Trail area was left off of the original petition so we are looking to add that in as well. Gates Drive, there were three properties with a subdivision that was done which we feel are going to benefit and should be added into the Park District. There is a property off of Hazel Drive. It acquired one of the properties that was in the original Putnam Lake subdivision and merged it in with a much bigger open space parcel. It is mostly wetlands. There is some land that can be developed but it is mostly wetlands. It was the Planning Departments recommendation that it be taken out of the Park District, as well as the Putnam Lake Market. The original Putnam Lake subdivision maps bisected the property. The whole property was included, it’s a commercial piece of property and so it is our recommendation that it come out of the Park District.

The effect of making all those changes increases the total assessed value of the District and increases the revenue though not significantly from what would be generated by the original properties in the Park District. Are there any questions.

Mr. Griffin stated anyone who would like to make a comment or ask a question, please come up to the microphone and give your name for the record and ask your question or make your comment.

Mr. Christopher Lawlor, Utica Road stated you know that it is wrong exempting the market from that.

Mr. Williams stated taking them out of the District.

Mr. Lawlor stated yes.

Mr. Williams stated why.

Mr. Lawlor stated why shouldn’t you keep them in there.

Mr. Williams stated it was my recommendation because they are a commercial property they are not going to be using the beaches. I recognized that they may benefit by the overall quality of the lake. I did that to open it up for discussion on whether we should take it out or not.

Mr. Lawlor stated I can’t believe that you said that. I can’t believe the Board is going with that.

Mr. Williams stated if you have good reason why you think it should be in because somehow they will benefit; please provide it to the Board.

Mr. Lawlor stated I don’t get this. You guys are going south. You really are going this way Mike.

Mr. Griffin stated what, take the market out.

Mr. Lawlor stated yes.

Mr. Griffin stated it’s a commercial piece of property. There is no one living there. Does the owner live in the lake and if he does he probably has a house somewhere else that would benefit. I’m not sure why you would be so adamantly opposed to taking the market out. This is park lands benefitting the residents not necessarily the businesses.

Mr. Lawlor stated which part is benefitting.

Mr. Griffin stated the residents would benefit.

Mr. Lawlor stated by excluding them.

Mr. Griffin stated we are adding residential units and taking out commercial properties. It is a business; he is not going to use the lake to any great degree or the ball fields.

Mr. Lawlor stated then basically we should as a community not use the market. If you are not going to do that……

Ms. Joan Russell stated I signed the petition about one year ago outside Putnam Lake market and I had no idea what this was all about. I have done a lot of research. This is unconstitutional. You have no right to tax people. I am a senior citizen and I get a star program. There is no reason you should be putting this up. I am against this and I want my name taken off that list that I signed. It was a lie. It was a lie. We can fight this. They cannot do this to us. We just have to ban together. You lied to us. I was told it was to clean up the lake and I asked was it going to cost me any money and they said no. That is a lie. I can’t make these meetings and I’ve heard nothing about this. I lived here since 1969 and I am not paying it, it is unconstitutional. I will fight just like the bishops. How about that. This is wrong. It is wrong. We are going to hire a lawyer. American Policy Center, they deal with this taking over our County and things. You have no right to do this to people. Years ago I took you guys to court and I won and I’ll win again. I’m angry, I am angry. I’m handicapped and I can’t go to meetings. Why didn’t I ever get a letter that there are meetings.

Mr. Griffin stated you did get a letter.

Ms. Russell stated not I. No I did not. I want to see where I signed and it said $.47, you are lying. You are lying. Who the devil do you think you are. I am very serious. I am going to take this to quite a few people. I’m 77 years old why should I pay tax for a lake I could give a bigger dam about. As far as I’m concerned it could be drained or a mountain could go there. To tell me you are going to clean it up and it is going to cost me nothing, fine I signed it. That was lying. I cannot believe you got this passed over here. I want another vote taken. You guys are not going to get away with this. Now it’s up to $.87. Didn’t I just hear it is going to be twice as much this year. You have one heck of a nerve.

Mr. Griffin stated thank you.

Ms. Russell stated you are not finished with me. I got news for you. This is going to go higher. Just like we are fighting Obama. We will take this further.

Mr. Griffin stated once again I would ask that all the comments be addressed from the podium to the Town Board.

Mr. Ed Garrity, Fulton Drive stated as far as everyone receiving notices, Michael and the rest of the Town Board that is a bunch of bull. I am here for Mrs. Jean Daniels and she owns more homes in this Town than you have fingers on your hands. She was never notified about anything and if you are not in the Town you can’t sign a petition, you can’t go by the percentage of people who signed the dam thing. It just doesn’t work. She is in Florida right now delayed on a flight otherwise she would have been here at this meeting. You will be receiving a letter from her. The condo association got no letters from them. So you didn’t send letters. I didn’t get a letter. Good for you, well I didn’t. Let’s raise the flag for people who got a letter, I didn’t. Maybe you ran out of stamps.

Mr. Robert Odell, Lake Shore Drive stated do you intend to do a survey of the property.

Mr. Griffin stated a survey of what property.

Mr. Odell stated the property that you might take for the Park District. Are you going to use the tax maps.

Mr. Griffin stated probably just use the tax maps unless the attorney has a different opinion.

Mr. Don Rossi, Town Attorney stated the tax maps are what are required under the law. I shouldn’t say it is required, it is one of the alternatives that could be used. If there is a need to do any survey work down the line to delineate maybe where beaches are or other interior parcels that is something for the Town Board to consider. At present, no plan on survey.

Mr. Odell stated ok. The statement is the residents of Mohawk Trail are in favor of it.

Mr. Griffin stated thank you.

Ms. Georgette Fusco, Warren Drive stated I just have a comment about not adding commercial properties. I think what you said before that this is going to benefit the residents is mistaken. I think we should look at something that is going to benefit the community. The Putnam Lake Market and all the other businesses around are part our community; they are part of the life of the community. They need to be included. The other comment is I have a couple of misgivings I think that most of the discussion here has been about the park land and our focus should be on water quality. If the bottom of the lake was always the responsibility of the Town why was the lake allowed to get this way to begin with. That is in the past. How do I know that the Town will be committed to creating and maintaining the health of the lake. What happens in terms of a park land really means nothing if there is not a clean lake. That is my concern, the lake water.

Mr. Griffin stated one of the components of the budget has to do with a lake management study. That will be undertaken.

Ms. Annette Witoshynsky, Fairfield Drive stated I was lied to about the petition. I didn’t have my glasses with me and I was told that if I sign it, it was just so it would be included in the upcoming election so everyone in the vicinity could choose and there would be a referendum on the ballot and everyone would be represented. I want to see the quality of the lake improved, but not this way. Everyone should have a vote.

Mr. Lawlor stated we have been together for a long time on water quality issues, have we not Mike.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Mr. Lawlor stated me, you, Rich and the whole entire Board. Now all of a sudden you are going to make everything beautiful when we asked you for help and you did nothing for us and now all of a sudden it is going to be a Park District and you are going to make everything beautiful. I would like to hear a response to this one.

Mr. Griffin stated Chris we are going to do everything we can within the limits of the budget.

Mr. Lawlor stated we went Federal, State, Legislatures, how many trips did we take and no one did anything. Now all of a sudden it is going to be a Park District and this Board is going to make everything beautiful. Is this a false accusation or not. How many years do you think it will take you or this Board.

Mr. Griffin stated to clean up the lake.

Mr. Lawlor stated water quality, whatever you want to do. The things that we have been talking about for years.

Mr. Griffin stated I don’t have an answer for that.

Mr. Lawlor stated you have no idea, do you.

Mr. Griffin stated no, I don’t.

Mr. Lawlor stated right that is what I figured you would say. Does this Board have any idea how long we have been dealing with this problem.

Mr. Griffin stated I believe they do.

Mr. Lawlor stated I don’t believe they do. In other words your answer is nada. You are not going to say ten years, five years, fifteen years or nothing.

Mr. Griffin stated I can’t give you an answer until after the water quality study and the lake management plan is done.

Mr. Lawlor stated oh the study again, there we go, I forgot about that part. I have three studies at my house which no one did anything about. We did Federal, State, we did everything. There is no answer here is there.

Mr. Griffin stated no, it’s not a simple question Chris.

Mr. Lawlor stated no it’s a very simple question.

Mr. Griffin stated how long have you been working on the water quality issues, how much money do you think it will take, what do you see is the solution to the problem.

Mr. Lawlor stated you want me to give you an answer for that.

Mr. Griffin stated the bottom line is even Dr. Taylor doesn’t have an answer of preplanned simple in the box…….

Mr. Lawlor stated and your study is going to cost $130,000.00.

Mr. Griffin stated if you know that, I certainly can’t say it will cost that much. I don’t know what it will cost at this point. I know what we budgeted.

Mr. Lawlor stated what did you budget.

Mr. Griffin stated the first year is about $25,000.00.

Mr. Lawlor stated $25,000.00 for a study. That’s ridiculous. You know that the number is totally out of the water.

Mr. Griffin stated what do you want me to say here tonight Chris. The majority of people in Putnam Lake signed a petition. They followed a process, we are at a point where the Board had to make a decision based on what we were given in terms of a petition. It was a process followed. There is a budget submitted. We have agreed that we are going to work within that budget. The law requires that we work within that budget. We put out a budget and it says we are going to initiate a study. The first year we will invest $25,000.00 in trying to figure out what is the best way to improve the water quality. You can sit there and say it is a joke, a farce that’s fine.

Mr. Lawlor stated so if I submit my studies to you and the dollar cost that it costs, will it change this Boards mind. You’re right, you can’t because you already put it in your budget. The studies that I have cost way above that. So the Board is not going to acknowledge the studies that I have.

Mr. Griffin stated I don’t know what you have Chris. I would be happy to look at them. I’m sure Rich would be happy to look at whatever you have. You are asking me for answers…..

Mr. Lawlor stated I’m asking you for answers for false information here. $25,000.00 is not going to cut it for a study.

Mr. Griffin stated that is an opinion. It is not false information. I have given you a dollar amount that is in the budget.

Mr. Lawlor stated so above and beyond that how much is it going to cost us.

Mr. Griffin stated $.47 per thousand.

Mr. Lawlor stated above and beyond that study, what will it cost us.

Mr. Griffin stated until you start you don’t know how many steps or where it is going to take you.

Mr. Lawlor stated when it cost us $125,000.00 what do we do then.

Mr. Burns stated we are not doing a $125,000.00 study. We are going to do whatever a $25,000.00 study does to start. Next year we may do another $25,000.00 and the year after the same. No one said it is going to happen overnight.

Mr. Lawlor stated you can’t even give us an answer of what it is going to do.

Mr. Burns stated we have $25,000.00 to hire an engineer to do the study.

Mr. Lawlor stated I will bring in my studies to you.

Mr. Burns stated ok, great. Did your studies come up with a solution. Maybe we don’t have to do a study. Maybe we can use your studies.

Ms. Marsha Thompson, Lakeshore Drive stated I have one of the fabulous holding ponds right next to my house. It is such a beautiful site. I was promised that trees would be planted around it when it was put in. I don’t to this day see any trees growing because they have never been put in. There was money left over in the budget when it was done. That is number one with the Town in my opinion; they don’t follow through with their promises. I can’t say it is any one persons fault, but Putnam Lake has been ignored for a very long time. On the hearing tonight about removing properties, my question is if the commercial property is already in the map why is it important to take them out when the commercial properties generate income from the people that use the park lands. Why are these properties that he wants to take out of the maps because he said it’s no benefit, why is it no benefit when they could be going to the beach and enjoying the lake with boating and whatever.

Mr. Rossi stated I think the Board’s hearing for the first time tonight exactly what this Public Hearing was scheduled for and that is an opinion that commercial properties should be kept in. This is why the Board is having the hearing. There is no answer yes or no, I think they are hearing what everyone is saying about the commercial properties.

Ms. Thompson stated my feeling is if you are a business in Putnam Lake in the maps you generate income from the people that reside in those maps to enjoy the park lands and the lake. I don’t understand why you would want to remove them. The other pieces of property that he has mentioned here tonight, I’m not familiar with all of them, but I question why they would want to be removed because they live on the lake, it’s in the lake and the lake is an asset. I don’t care what anyone says. There are people in New York City that pay thousands of dollars every year in the summer months to rent property like most of us own to be around the lake and near a beach with their families. Seventy five percent of the people that live up here don’t even realize how beautiful it is and what an asset we have. They would rather throw garbage along the side of the road and dump on us. That is my question about the properties. I disagree with removing commercial property. I am a commercial property owner but I am not in the maps. I have tenants that live in my apartments upstairs. I have two beautiful apartments and one is 1,600 square feet with three people in it and one on the end is 1,100 square feet with one gentlemen living in it. Those people would not be allowed to use the beaches and they are walking distance to the beach. If you go Park District they will not be allowed the asset of the lake. They will not be Park District members, they will not be allowed. This is one of my concerns. There are people on East Branch Road that come to the beach on a regular basis and participate in all the PLCC functions. They will not be allowed to use the beach, except from what I understand about this budget there is no security so all the other people and homeowners are going to be paying their taxes and all the people that aren’t in the Park District will be allowed to go over there and sit there for free and do whatever they want because there is no security. There is nothing in your budget about security. Mike mentioned honor system. Every summer when I am working on a Saturday or Sunday there are car loads that come up from the Bronx or Brooklyn or wherever wanting to go to the beach or have a BBQ. Believe me it is every summer. I work seven days a week and I am in my office. They think because I am a limo service they can ask direction for free anytime they feel like it. You know where I sent them because they have to get tags to get into Putnam Lake; I send them to Squantz Pond. It’s not a joke. Who is going to stop them from going to Putnam Lake when it becomes a Park District. You can’t fence it in. We are going to call the State Police to come over and get them off the beach, this I have to see. I am going to make a few more comments that I have prepared, hopefully it will be more understanding because the last time I wasn’t prepared. I would like to get answers on a couple of things. Am I correct to understand that the Park District has not yet been created for Putnam Lake.

Mr. Rossi stated correct.

Ms. Thompson stated am I correct to state that this meeting is to move along that process.

Mr. Rossi stated correct.

Ms. Thompson stated am I correct about the information you have supplied that the percentage of the community that signed the petition came to approximately 58% after the verification which was more than 50% but not anywhere near 100%.

Mr. Rossi stated roughly 58% after a number of signatures were disallowed.

Ms. Thompson stated do you honestly in your hearts and souls think that 58% is what the majority of the community wants.

Mrs. Nacerino stated it is what we have to honor. Just like an election which might be lost by five votes.

Mr. Rossi stated I am acting as the Attorney for the Town, I don’t know if it is in anyone’s heart and soul really but the 58% is after a number of signatures were taken off. It is also not 58% as if it was an election where everyone in the District voted. It’s 58% of the owners of the assessed value who signed a petition. This Board was presented with a petition. It worked very hard with the Town Clerk’s office and the Assessor’s office to confirm that it was a legitimate petition, that it met the requirements. The Planning Department went through it painstakingly to ensure it. In August, the Town was presented with a petition that the Town Board did not circulate, the Town Board did not promote, and the Town Board has been dealing with this issue for years. Finally it has been presented with a petition. People have gotten together to do potentially what has not been able to come together for years. So, when the Board is presented with the petition that meets these legal requirements it is not a matter of their heart and soul, it is a legal obligation on their part to assess it and then to hold Public Hearings to determine what it might decide to do. The hearing of the commercial properties that is something that I know this Board is going to take into consideration before it votes finally to approve or deny it. If this District is created they will rely on a Park Advisory Board to assist on all of the issues that are being raised. Every concern that you have is going to be something that this Board is going to be considering. I don’t have a vote here. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying. They are all things that will be on a check list. The first thing that will be done after this District is created, if it is created, is going to ask for people to serve on the Park Advisory Board and try to come up with resolutions. What the Town Board will then have instead of a morphs project before them where people from the other side of Town don’t want to see the Town spending money to care for the lake, will now have a form within which they can get things done. These people are confronted with a legal obligation to consider the petition.

Ms. Thompson stated am I correct to say that you the Town Board can decide not to proceed or pass this to make a Park District for any reason or for the smallest of reasons prior to voting on it. It’s a true fact.

Mr. Rossi stated I will answer, the Town sits on a legislative capacity. They have the authority to vote for or against the District. We are not dealing with an evidentiary matter, there is no preponderance of the evidence that would require them to vote one way or the other. It is what they decide to do in their legislative capacity.

Ms. Thompson stated thank you. The facts that are out there about becoming a Park District have been clearly laid out by the Town Planner on what to expect. There are many that wish to have their names removed from the petition because it is not what they were told when they were asked to sign the petition. In other words, they were misled into thinking what is truly not fact. Isn’t this a violation of their rights not to have their names removed from that petition.

Mr. Rossi stated once the Public Hearing commences names cannot be removed from the petition. Again, the Town Board did not walk this petition around. We can’t speak to what was told to people when they were signing the petition.

Ms. Thompson stated so the Town Board cannot proceed with this if they find any reason not to do it.

Mr. Rossi stated they can decide not to vote for the District if that is what they would like to do within their discretion. In answer to the point about removing names from the petition, they cannot be removed now. The only thing I am not clear on is I believe it is once the Public Hearing starts or once the notice for the hearing is published. There is some threshold after which the names cannot be removed.

Ms. Thompson stated another legal question. If you or they find that there is clearly a numerous amount of people that want their names removed, which I do honestly believe there is, would the Town consider going Public referendum on this or a public vote instead of processing this resolution.

Mr. Rossi stated I don’t think from a legal standpoint they can do that because they have a petition that has been submitted to them and it has been determined to meet the requirements. They would have just as much of a problem from the side of the people that submitted the petition in theory if they decided to simply right their own laws.

Ms. Thompson stated but the law that they filed this petition under stated it can either be done by petition or by Public referendum. My question is that if the Town Board realizes that so many people, their constituents don’t want this now after they signed could they not change their minds and put it to Public referendum which half of them probably wouldn’t show up to vote anyway but as long as you put it out there, you tried and if it goes through and passes there is nothing else to be said. They were given the opportunity.

Mr. Rossi stated there are two responses to what you said. There is no option on the Town Board’s part to do this by petition or by Public referendum. The only option available to the Board are to react to a petition that has been submitted or they could on their own motion have sought to create the District. That is not the procedural path that was followed here. They reacted to a petition that was submitted.

Ms. Thompson stated how many of these petitions have you handled previously. What kind of experience do you have in this field.

Mr. Rossi stated I would say six petitions of this type over the years. Sewer district down in Peach Lake, a lake district in South Salem……

Ms. Thompson stated I have extensively spoken with attorney’s that have handled these things and the Town Board is fully able to change and go Public referendum.

Mr. Rossi stated then I suggest that you hire the attorney to draft up an opinion letter and submit it to the Town Board as part of the Public Hearing. That’s what one does in these situations.

Ms. Thompson stated I also heard that one of the reasons the Town Board went forward with this beside the petition was because and I heard that Ginny quoted it, that they voted on it because the PLCC was given every opportunity to sit down with the concerned citizens and the Town Board and work out their issues. I would like to know when that offer was made, I would like to see the letter that was sent to them that it was made and I would like to know why they didn’t know anything about it.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Marsha I beg to differ with you, I don’t know when I was quoted saying that and to whom I said that to.

Ms. Thompson stated ok, that’s a denial.

Mrs. Nacerino stated no, that’s a fact.

Ms. Thompson stated when the Town Planner did his work up on the cost he came up with what he did at .65 per thousand. At any time, did he ask the PLCC for a copy of their budget and their operating expenses before he did his work up.

Mr. Williams stated yes, twice.

Ms. Thompson stated I understand that he was given the volunteer’s hours and that he requested their hours only. Robert is not here he is on business, but he is the one that said they never received a request regarding their budget or operating expenses before this was done. I do not know how you can come up with .65 a thousand for everything that the PLCC has done on a yearly basis. It doesn’t cover it and do you really think one full-time employee can take care of Putnam Lake Park lands, seriously. There is nothing in the submitted budget also by the concerned citizens of Putnam Lake that changed their names after they got petitions signed about the ball field, maintenance of the ball field and will it be kept in the same pristine condition that it is in today, thanks to volunteers that really work very hard at that. It generates an income and we are very proud of Memorial Field unlike other ball fields in the Town of Patterson that had weeds growing all over them and are almost unusable. Yes, I am being a little bit critical because this is the last chance I have to do that.

Mr. Griffin stated can I ask you what ball fields you are referring to.

Ms. Thompson stated there are two other ball fields in the Town of Patterson that are really not very well maintained.

Mr. Burns stated where are they.

Mr. Griffin stated if you are talking about the ball field at the landfill it is very well maintained and the one at Patterson Veterans Memorial Park is a very nice ball field.

Ms. Thompson stated that no one can use.

Mr. Burns stated we just spent a ton of money replacing……

Ms. Thompson stated is it true the dam and the water are now and always have been the responsibility of the Town.

Mr. Griffin stated the Town owns the dam, the Town does not own the water. The bottom of the lake is the bottom of the lake.

Ms. Thompson stated weeds grow out of the bottom of the lake.

Mr. Griffin stated the water belongs to the State of New York.

Ms. Thompson stated is the care of the dam an example of how the Town is going to care for our park lands. How many letters have you gotten from me about mowing it and taking care of it.

Mr. Griffin stated and how many times have we failed to respond.

Ms. Thompson stated about two weeks later they went out and mowed it. A few of you I don’t know, the new Board members, I would be hopeful to know your names because I will make sure I won’t vote for you the next time. Putnam Lake is a very unforgiving area. I would be very careful of what you do to us there. I’ve lived there 31 years and have invested very heavily there because I like Putnam Lake. We are tremendous people and a tremendous community. I would tread very lightly on what you are going to do to us. I really don’t see the Town making the right decisions. I am very fearful that we are going to have an “Advisory Board”. The Advisory Board does not write the checks, they are only an Advisory Board. The PLCC on numerous occasions asked the Town for help in the past, it’s gone nowhere. Robert alone has worked 10 years on water quality over there. He has done all he can do. If it goes Park District, if you are going to force it on us he is done. He will not continue. I would like to know who is going to write the grants that supposedly our concerned citizens are available to us if we become a Park District. What chance do we have of getting all those wonderful grants in this economic climate. Supposedly we are going to get all kinds of grants to help Putnam Lake. I hope that is truly the case. I hope that is not a lie too. One of the most very important facts that has been past over here that you haven’t addressed, which I feel should be addressed before you pass a Park District, and that is what is going to happen with the 400 homes that have deeded rights in Connecticut. Nothing has been done, nothing has been worked on there is no supposition about what you would like to do but those people are going to get a free ride to the beaches and the lake because of deeded lake rights and because you can’t tax them in Connecticut. When there is no longer a PLCC that they have to pay a fee to, they are not going to pay it to the Town of Patterson. I would like to know what it is or what supposition that you think you are going to be able to do with all these homes in another state. That is reason enough right there not to vote on this. I think we taxpayer’s have a right to know who is going to get the free ride and why they will get the free ride. I am urging all of you, our Town Board members to please not pass this referendum. I am asking you to do more leg work, why rush into it because it can be tabled and there can be more work done on it and you can get the people to give you the right knowledge and let them make a valid decision on whether they really want it or not for the right reasons. Not because I wear a bright blue shirt that says “Save Our Lake” and promise you the moon. It isn’t going to happen and couldn’t happen in 25 years. I’m not going to be here in 25 years. That is my request, give it some thought.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Marsha just for the record, I just want to express that we have not received any requests and my colleagues can verify this, asking in writing or phone calls to the Supervisors office for anyone to remove their name from the petition. I know some people have expressed that this evening; however there are lots of people.

Ms. Thompson stated Ginny the tile in my office is worn out with people coming in begging a PLCC Board Member to fight this.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that is not the venue for them to express their concern. Their concerns is through the Town, not your office. To the best of our knowledge we have not received…..

Mr. Griffin stated I received one.

Mrs. Nacerino stated ok Mike had one, but we have received many emails expressing a positive affirmation of the Park District. Secondly, in reference to grants, no one is promising anything that grants are going to flow and be plentiful. All that was stated was that if a Park District is created there is the ability to obtain a grant. Nobody is promising the moon. As it stands now there is not that ability in place with a non-for-profit in place.

Audience member screaming from the crowd.

Mr. Griffin stated all the questions and comments are to be made from the podium after we have your name for the record.

Ms. Thompson stated so you are saying all the promises by the blue shirts, “Save Our Lake” that we were told we could get all kinds of grants for because we are a Park District is just hot air balloons.

Mrs. Nacerino stated no, that is not what I said. If a Park District is created then it increases the ability to get grant money under a Park District.

Ms. Thompson stated I as a 31 year resident in this Town heavily invested in Putnam Lake am asking you the Town Board to take your time and do this right. I am asking you to take a step back and not put through something that no one really likes. One thing was promised and another has come forth. That is what I am begging all of you to do. I am not saying don’t put a Park District in, but if you are going to do it let’s do it right and not halfway.

Thank you.

Ms. Deb Lawlor, Utica Road stated I have two things that I would like to comment on and a few questions within that as well. In a concluding statement that was made by a resident at the last Public Hearing, I believe the term democracy was used to describe what has happened here the last few months. I personally really do not agree with that description. In my opinion, true democracy would involve the choice of each person in the community and more importantly that all were aware of all the options that were available. I am speaking specifically of the option of an Aquatic District. I did my best to distribute flyers, hold public meetings regarding this choice, the attendance was poor. Many in the community were tired of the discussions. An Aquatic District could have proved to be a bridge between what many are opposed to now. An Aquatic District could have given us the same opportunity to build a cleaner, healthier lake funded by the tax dollars of residents who benefit from the lake and yet keep the continued management of the park lands by its volunteers through the PLCC. My question is, for anyone who is unable to attend this meeting or the previous January 18^th meeting is there any specific way that the Town would like to hear from members of the community before the next Town Board meeting before any decisions are made by this Town if they are not in favor of creating a Park District for Putnam Lake.

Mr. Griffin stated there are a number of ways. You can send us regular mail, email, telephone calls and I would suggest an email or regular mail would be the most effective.

Ms. Lawlor stated so preferred would be a written documentation. Is there any time frame in which it would benefit the Board to hear from residents that perhaps feel that there was misinformation or they have changed their minds or whatever it may be that perhaps maybe signed the petition. I know we are looking at a March 1^st deadline for a decision to be made by the Town Board in order for this Park District to be on the tax role for the 2013 year.

Mr. Griffin stated correct. People signed this petition six or seven months ago. We are running out of road here. If anyone wants to send something in the next few days, we will be more than happy to entertain it.

Ms. Lawlor stated my second comment is as President of the PLCC I and the Board of Directors are most concerned about this spring and summer season of 2012. We are financially concerned that with the rumor of a pending Park District people may choose not to support the PLCC this season. Many members have been loyal supporters even though they don’t use the beaches regularly. Without the support of community members it would be impossible for the PLCC to provide sand on the beaches, facilities to be used while at the beaches, garbage removal, lifeguarding staff, swim lessons, swim teams and softball leagues. If the PLCC was ready to work with the Town for the transfer of property to the Town is the Town able to run these community functions this coming summer.

Mr. Griffin stated I would have to say that is probably not likely. There will be no money for budgeting for that purpose.

Ms. Lawlor stated we are in a very precarious position. We our self as an organization are in limbo because your decision has to be thoughtfully determined and we at this point in the year normally these winter months are the months we do all our preparation. Our newsletters are being sent out to the membership and it’s very hard for us to send out letters to our members saying well we don’t know exactly what the future holds for the PLCC but we would really like you to support us. As you well know there are a lot of seniors in our community and I really feel for them in a sense that if they are going to save their $85.00 that they would send to the PLCC for their next year tax bill, I understand that but that is a lot of what we need answered. We are in a difficult position right now to run a season this year and to have it function. I don’t know what we are going to do. I would appreciate you giving me an honest answer saying that you do not think you would be able to run that. I think Rich spoke to that as well saying that the Town Board would not be able to back bill a District for two years of running.

Mr. Griffin stated correct.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Deb how many of your memberships are non-participating contributors.

Ms. Lawlor stated that is very hard to quantify that as a number. My membership person is here tonight. I don’t know if we could identify specifically how many of those people……I would say at least out of the 279 members we have in our organization at least 150 of them are people who live in the community who have for years supported our organization and still send in their dues even though they don’t regularly attend functions or visit the beaches.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that is a lot.

Ms. Lawlor stated it’s a lot of people and I don’t know what to say to those people and that is who I need to address. Thank you.

Ms. Laura Byrne stated it has been mentioned that the water, the gate and all that area is Town owned. If you do choose to create this Park District does that become the Park Districts monetary responsibility or does it remain the Towns monetary responsibility.

Mr. Griffin stated the dam will still be the Towns responsibility.

Ms. Byrne stated the carp gate will remain the Towns monetary responsibility.

Mr. Griffin stated the carp gate would not. The dam and the valve etc. would be.

Ms. Byrne stated you won’t group that into the Park District. That is not a part of one of those in and out properties.

Mr. Griffin stated no, that is not the plan at this time as far as I know.

Ms. Byrne stated but you could choose to do that at anytime.

Mr. Griffin stated Don do you have an answer on that. The Town has owned and maintained the dam and done all the reports etc. for the last 40 to 60 years and paid all the bills for it ever since.

Ms. Byrne stated I’m glad to hear it because it could be quite costly.

Mr. Griffin stated there is no question about that. The Town has spent a rather large sum of money on that dam over the last 30 to 40 years.

Ms. Byrne stated to which the 277 assessed valued taxes that our community has contributed to the Town. It is our money to that you use to fix the dam.

Mr. Griffin stated it is everyone’s money.

Ms. Byrne stated it is not a gift to us. Like the roads, it’s your responsibility.

Mr. Griffin stated keep in mind there are twice as many people on this side of Town and the assessed values over here are significantly greater.

Ms. Byrne stated I am very aware that we are just a dangling entity for you.

Mr. Griffin stated it is not what I said.

Ms. Byrne stated you just said I should keep in mind that there are twice as many people here.

Mr. Griffin stated let me finish. All I have heard tonight is a lot of people putting a lot of words in our mouths that we did not say. People are taking offense to things and reading things into it. All I said is to make a point that there are more properties on this side of Town with higher assessed values. I didn’t say that Putnam Lake was the step child or anything else.

Ms. Byrne stated ok, I didn’t say step child. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Mr. Griffin stated your dangling out there……

Ms. Byrne stated we live seven miles away. We are a lake community that is seven miles away.

Mr. Griffin stated do you know how many years Putnam Lake had the controlling majority on this Board. I have been in Town since 1978 and I think for three quarters of that time they had the block of votes. Anyway, we are getting off subject.

Ms. Byrne stated I have no idea what that is about.

Mr. Griffin stated you are saying the lake has been ignored.

Ms. Byrne stated I want to reiterate what I understand, the $.47 is for year one. My house is about mid two hundreds. So for me the first year it’s $117.00. The second year, Rich’s proposed budget is $.67 puts me at $162.00. The third year if it even went up .10 more to be .75 per thousand assessment I am up to the $187.00. The majority of people could very well be up to $200.00 added to their taxes. We already have a separate line item for lights, fire department, library, garbage and now we are going to have a fifth tax assessment that has no cap on it. Does the Advisory Board have to hold public meetings.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Ms. Byrnes stated who enforces that, the Town Board.

Mr. Griffin stated absolutely.

Ms. Byrnes stated do you know the time frame. Is that yearly, monthly, bi-monthly. Do you know how that will work.

Mr. Griffin stated all I can say is at the Maple Avenue Park they meet once a month or as needed.

Ms. Byrnes stated so it is similar to what we do now. Not many people come so it will pretty much be the Advisory Board that will call the shots and brings back the information to the Town which I think the homeowners should know.

Ms. Georgette Fusco, Warren Drive stated Putnam Lake is a real unique community being that we are part of New York State and Connecticut being that there are so many people whose lives and money and children are very passionate about our Town. There is a sense of division between us and you. I have a lot of concerns because there are too many unanswered questions. I would agree with the other people that I hope you will not make a quick decision. There is more to investigate in terms of an Aquatic District. I happen to be one of the paying people of the PLCC members that doesn’t do a thing. I just pay because I believe I need to support the PLCC and my community. We all care about the lake. The water quality is the most important thing to think about. That money needs to go towards the lake because without the lake we have nothing. I would like to go on record as saying that I would really appreciate it if you would take a little bit more time because there are too many unanswered questions. Would you be able to look more into an Aquatic District or is that up to us as community members. I don’t know that much about it. I would like to learn more about it.

Mr. Griffin stated what I can tell you is that both those alternatives were offered and overwhelming the people picked the Park District. There was an equal educational opportunity. There were three meetings held by the Park District and I believe there were three meetings by people interested in Aquatic Management District.

Ms. Fusco stated I was sent notices by the Town Board that there would be meetings about the Park District. I never received any information about an Aquatic District being discussed.

Mr. Griffin stated that wasn’t what we were asked to consider. The petition that was filed…….

Ms. Fusco stated I’m not talking about the petition that was filed.

Mr. Griffin stated this is what we are here to discuss and this is what the Public Hearing process is about. The petition that was circulated signed by more than 50% of the residents under two separate qualifiers both of which conditions were met and the Board is obligated to hold a Public Hearing process and that is in fact what we are doing.

Ms. Fusco stated I appreciate the effort and what that committee is trying to do but I am asking you to please take more time.

Ms. Marjorie Auteri stated you just said there are twice as many people in Patterson as in Putnam Lake.

Mr. Griffin stated there are twice as many people on this side of Patterson as there are in Patterson Putnam Lake area. Putnam Lake is Patterson. There are not two distinct separate communities here. It is one Town.

Ms. Auteri stated what is the percentage of households in Putnam Lake versus the Town of Patterson.

Mr. Griffin stated about two to one.

Ms. Auteri stated so it is one third of the population that lives in Putnam Lake.

Mr. Griffin stated essentially.

Ms. Auteri stated does that include the Connecticut residents in the 13 maps.

Mr. Griffin stated no. We don’t consider Connecticut in our counts.

Ms. Auteri stated with that population there, why is this meeting being held here as opposed to where the one-third of the population that has the greatest interest in this, not in the lake area so our seniors and family’s have easier access.

Mr. Griffin stated well, primarily because there is no place in Putnam Lake that is handicapped accessible and big enough to host a meeting for this purpose.

Ms. Auteri stated and we are planning on building in the Park District such a facility so a third of the population can have handicapped for meetings.

Mr. Griffin stated is the Town planning on building a facility in Putnam Lake, I would say the answer to that is no.

Ms. Auteri stated it doesn’t count over there. Why not is another subject, I won’t even get to that. The other question I have is for the lawyer, what research has been done regarding the Connecticut residents of the 13 maps.

Mr. Rossi stated there are people who have deeded rights to use the lake but their votes or properties are not being considered with connection with the creation of the District.

Ms. Auteri stated what does that mean in reality. The woman who cuts my hair asked me how this affects her. How does it affect her legally.

Mr. Rossi stated it doesn’t affect her at all.

Ms. Auteri stated they get a free pass.

Mr. Rossi stated we can’t legislate against people who live in the State of Connecticut. They have deeded lake rights. We can’t take that away from them so the bottom line is it probably has no impact on them.

Ms. Auteri stated they get a free ride.

Mr. Rossi stated I guess they get a free ride. I don’t know how else to explain it. They bought their houses so that wasn’t free. They have deeded lake rights.

Ms. Auteri stated I bought my house with deeded lake rights too with an opportunity to either join an association or not. We are changing the game mid-stream. It changes in New York but not in Connecticut or have you really researched it.

Mr. Rossi stated you are raising a lot of different issues. This community of Putnam Lake was created decades ago without supervision of a Town. The property was carved up by a developer and that is the situation.

Ms. Auteri stated I understand that, I’m talking about now. Our tax money is going to have to clean up their run-off and then they get free use of the lake.

Mr. Rossi stated isn’t that exactly what the situation is now.

Ms. Auteri stated no many of them joined.

Mr. Rossi stated perhaps they will care so much they would like to contribute in some way to the upkeep and maintenance of the District.

Ms. Auteri stated that is what I was asking. How do they contribute. Do we have a girl scout cookie sale.

Mr. Rossi stated that is an idea.

Ms. Auteri stated and what’s another one.

Mr. Rossi stated I don’t know, bake sales. I can’t really answer your question other than the District is being created to cover the New York properties.

Ms. Auteri stated have you done any research on the impact. There have to be other communities that are border communities like the Tri-Corners in Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut.

Mr. Burns stated we could sue Connecticut.

Mr. Williams stated you are not looking for an answer.

Ms. Auteri stated yes, I would like an answer.

Mr. Williams stated ok, Don correct me if I’m wrong, the people in the State of Connecticut have deeded lake rights as they do now and we would have to maintain those same rights going forward. If they want to use certain facilities that are paid for with District funds we could assess a charge for them to use those facilities.

Mr. Rossi stated that is correct.

Ms. Auteri stated someone has done their research.

Mr. Paul Santucci, Barnard Road stated I want to go on record as being against the creation of a Park District. When the petition was being circulated, I had several people come to my door and ask if I wanted to save the lake. I am for saving the lake but I am not for having my taxes increased for a legislative body to make decision as to how my community should be improved. We have an organization in place that I am a member of that takes care of the parks property around the lake. I got involved with the Putnam Lake Community so that I could make a contribution to my community. I don’t see creating a Park District as being a contribution to my community for what it is going to invariably going to cost. I don’t like the idea of my taxes going up when we all know it’s not going to fix the real problem. The real problem is the water. I am in favor of creating a Water Quality District. I would like to see two things happen. I would like to see a real consideration of a Water Quality District being created and two I would like to see that this Park District go to a vote by the community. Make it a referendum. You have the ability, we all know that.

Mr. Duane Holze, Andover Road stated I did work on the Park District petition with many other volunteers who have countless hours involved. I would like to bring us back on point tonight which is we are here about the properties that you are including or excluding from the petition. I want to give you a few facts about those properties. With regards to all the properties that are being included, I think that is common sense all those properties are within the boundaries of the District so to include them it makes sense. They do benefit the same as any other land owner or residents within Putnam Lake. The properties that are excluded that I want to make a few points about and I hope you do consider before passing that referendum. The first question is if these are included are those properties charged based on the parcel that is being included or that one parcel that is within the District or are we actually redefining the Districts lines to include the entire parcels.

Mr. Williams stated it would be the entire parcel that would be in the District.

Mr. Holze stated I did figure that but I wanted to get that as a solid point. Do these parcels currently have deeded rights that we know. If they were excluded would they still have deeded rights.

Mr. Williams stated they probably both have deeded lake rights, though I have not looked at the deeds for either property but they were part of the original Putnam Lake subdivision. A portion of them were. If a portion of the property had deeded lake rights as part of the original Putnam Lake subdivision map that would extend to the whole parcel at this point.

Mr. Rossi stated it would because of the merger of the lot.

Mr. Holze stated so we are looking at two properties that if we excluded them from the District would still have deeded rights to the Park District and that would leave us with only two properties in New York I believe that would have deeded rights but not be within the Park District. Everyone else would be in Connecticut.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Mr. Holze stated if we exclude them or include them it is fair to say we have to redraw the District lines. Right now the District lines go through the properties.

Mr. Williams stated yes, but it is a paper chase.

Mr. Holze stated I would like to give you some handouts. With regards to the property on 37 Hazel which I don’t know if you remember the map, I’d be happy to bring it up again if we need to but it’s a parcel on Hazel which is on the outskirts of Putnam Lake. There is a small parcel that was purchased by the larger parcel. The larger parcel is outside the District and the smaller one is within the District. It is owned by a development company. As you can imagine it is an access way to the property. It is the only access to that property. As of right now, anyone that wants to access the property has to go through the District, through the subdivision or the division of Hazel. Most likely that will become a subdivision. Although, I agree most of it is wetlands as Rich mentioned but there is some developed property. Since they have property through Hazel Drive and the District that is one reason they should be included. The other reason is they are land that has clear benefit just like any other piece of land within the District. The homeowner of that property has the exact same deeded rights as every other land owner and we do have over 500 parcels of land in Putnam Lake with no residents on them and those people are included in the District. This one stands for the same reason. If developed, down the road, if they could develop on any part of that whether it was wetlands or not, those subdivision homes would benefit the same as any other home on Hazel Drive. It stands to reason that they should be included because they will be accessing it through Hazel going up Empire passing the monument going through the exact same District that is their only way in. They are more a part of Putnam Lake than any other community because that is where they live and that’s their access point. I recognize we can’t make a decision based on the developing in the future but it makes sense for now that it’s the land that should be included. The fourth reason is the petition already calls for it. It is already included, the petition says that any parcel that isn’t within the boundaries should be included so I think that one should be included as well.

With regards to 64 Fairfield Drive which I think most of you know is the Putnam Lake Market. If you looked at the map that Rich had up there you will see that the vast majority of that property is actually in the District including the actual commercial building. Most of the parking lot is outside of it. Is that a fair statement. It has the same benefit if not more than any other commercial park parcel within Putnam Lake. We have 16 properties, there are 14 different owners that are commercial. I believe it is maybe 30% or 40% of those that don’t have a residential parcel to them and they are included in the District. I don’t see how the Putnam Lake market has any different benefit than any other commercial parcel that is already in the District. Honestly the name says it all. It is part of the community more than any other property within the District. It is the first place anyone goes to contact the community.

Excluding those properties does two things, it cheats the deeded owners of their rights to access Putnam Lake and it’s facility whether they are commercial or not and the community as a whole who is sharing the expenses to support the community. I ask that you reconsider your choice to exclude these properties and keep them included. The resolution looks fine and I commend everyone on the efforts they have done on it.

Mr. Tom Vaccaro, Overlin Road stated I would not like to see the Park District come in. It is an economical reason for me. I think this is the wrong time for this.

Ms. Marguerite Short, Haviland Drive stated Lori said next year that the Park District would be $.67 and that Rich had said that, I was wondering if Rich might comment on that. I don’t know of any $.67 price for next year.

Mr. Williams stated I acknowledged that the petition set a limit of $.47 per thousand and I took a look at the numbers and thought they were a little tight and I threw a number in there of .65 per thousand as something that would provide a little more funding to the District to accomplish some of the goals that the Park District Committee laid out a little quicker than I thought they could at $.47 per thousand.

Mr. Anthony Cioppa, Lake Shore Drive stated I do want to say that the PLCC has done a great job over the past many years. I did not sign the petition just because of the budget numbers and I realize that the people that have passed that position have done a great amount of work and so has the Town Board. We just have to be careful going forward dollar for dollar. I am a home inspector and they call us deal breakers. I just did a house over in Lake Carmel and I wasn’t the deal breaker. The deal breaker was the extra few hundred dollars in tax because they have a big Park District over there. I don’t want that to happen here. Something has to be done and the people have done a tremendous amount of work and I don’t want to see it go to waste. I hope we can move forward and get something done.

Mr. Nichols Lundelios, Scott Place stated I was wondering if you knew what type of grants you will be looking for and asking for if you did get approved and took over.

Mr. Griffin stated the vast majority of them would be water quality related.

Mr. Lundelios stated I know you have the $25,000.00 allotted in the budget, do you know what it will actually cost to get this survey correctly done.

Mr. Griffin stated I do not.

Mr. Lundelios stated if the survey comes back and it does cost $25,000.00 and it says it is going to cost half a million to fix the lake do you know how you are going to fit that into the budget.

Mr. Griffin stated that is where I think the grant programs are going to have to start to kick in.

Mr. Lundelios stated my question is how are you going to take over knowing that you know nothing about how to fix the lake when you know dam well there is one signature from a 77 year old woman screaming to have her name taken off of it because she was lied to that the lakes were going to be saved.

Mr. Griffin stated I’m not sure I understand the question.

Mr. Lundelios stated the question is plain and simple. You are trying to take over right now and you have no explanation on how you are going to save the lake and you have people who have signatures that want to be off this petition because they were promised it would be saved.

Mr. Griffin stated as far as the signatures on the petition go, one signature is not necessarily going to be a deal breaker. As far as cleaning up the lake goes, we understand there will be a need for water fowl management, septic maintenance and repair program which is already been instituted by the County and the Town. We all know there maybe some benefit to carp, there may be some benefit to aeration. It’s not like we are going into this with absolutely no idea. You have a 238 acre lake that is serviced by a 1,500 water shed. We need a Water Shed Management Plan to really understand what is going on and then from there what to do to fix it. The biggest problem you have with Putnam Lake is it is a broad shallow lake inherent with its own problems. That is the most difficult fix of all.

Mr. Lundelios stated it has many problems. The PLCC has been working for a long time trying to get these problems solved. It’s something that is not going to be done over night and I think you know that very well. Given that they have done so much research and so much development on actually doing it, I think you are taking a huge step back coming in not knowing what you are doing when we could have been ten years ahead.

Mr. Griffin stated basically we have shared all the same information. The PLCC has the Town’s information. I think the Town has most of the PLCC’s information. I understand that we are going to get some more from them. The characterization that we are going into this with absolutely no idea on how to fix this, I would take issue with it. That is not correct. We don’t know exactly what a Water Shed Management Plan is going to cost. We have to take it step by step.

Mr. Donald Stone, Haviland Drive stated I have been here since 1969 and it’s been a great community. The PLCC has done a wonderful job. We have 2,100 home in the map and at $100.00 a piece a year as a volunteer for fees that would generate $210,000.00. That would be plenty of money to do what we have to do on the lake. The people for the Park District want to take the time and get everyone together in the lake to volunteer their $100.00 fee for the PLCC, we can get a lot of things done and the Town Board doesn’t have to worry about it and you can do other things that are more important. $210,000.00 is a lot better than what you have to offer.

Mr. Bill Sutton, Marion Road stated I am for the Park District. If we go back and change the resolution to put back in the businesses and the things that you excluded do we now have to redo this again and meet again.

Mr. Rossi stated no.

Mr. Sutton stated the PLCC has done an excellent job. As I said at the last meeting, this is too big for them. To hear tonight that the PLCC has done three studies and according to the member that was speaking these cost $100,000.00 each. How did the PLCC pay for it.

Mr. Griffin stated actually what I think he was referring to was proposals to do the studies.

If that is not correct, someone from the PLCC correct me.

Mr. Sutton stated I want this done. The lake is getting worse. If we postpone this we will be kicking the can, as they say, down the road. It is time for action or get off the pot.

Ms. Laurie Byrnes stated I agree with him. It’s the lake and the lake is desperate for help and we all agree with that. No one is going to pay $100.00 per household to volunteer unfortunately to join for us to help the lake. Yes, the lake is too big a project for the PLCC. We are just a park land association. If the study says that the surrounding land on the lake should be left natural are you going to follow that. What if the Advisory Board wants it cut down and mowed.

Mr. Griffin stated until we have a study, I don’t know if we will have an answer to that question.

Ms. Byrnes stated what if it is advised that it should be left natural around the lake for the health of the lake.

Mr. Griffin stated I am not going to do hypotheticals with you. What if he said to drain the lake. I’m definitely not going to do that.

Ms. Byrnes stated that is a little drastic. I don’t think my question is so drastic.

Mr. Griffin stated I’m not going to sit here and debate hypotheticals.

Ms. Pat Ploeger, Lake Shore Drive stated I have lived there for 31 years. You made a true comment that the Town does not own the water, it owns the lake bottom. The State owns the water. Forming a Park District will change that how. Will the Town then own the water and have responsibility for it.

Mr. Griffin stated no, the Town will still have to work with the State on any water quality improvements up to and including harvesting, weeds, etc. All those programs require permits. Carp require permits. I believe all of those program. Weed harvesting, dredging all require permits. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a great deal to say about everything that goes on with the lake.

Ms. Ploeger stated ok, fine. D.E.C. sort of has the responsibility ownership and when the Park District is formed it will still be D.E.C. who kind of calls the shots and gives the approvals. This past spring Dede Lifgren volunteered to go out and oiled the goose eggs and we needed to get D.E.C. approval because of the wildlife impact. I understand all about that and by the way that was very effective. The issue of the Town’s responsibility (inaudible) the water has always been this strange relationship. Back in 1986 and 2001 the Town commissioned studies.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Ms. Ploeger stated more recently within the past 10 years paid for the engineering of a carp dam that was sent up to the D.E.C. for approval.

Mr. Griffin stated limited engineering, yes.

Ms. Ploeger stated yes. Who paid for that.

Mr. Griffin stated a Town charge.

Ms. Ploeger stated so the Town assumed a financial fiscal responsibility for the water of Putnam Lake even though only 3/8 of the voting population lives there.

Mr. Williams stated it was a lake grant.

Ms. Ploeger stated oh, excuse me you got a grant. You were able to get a grant even though it was a private lake. I don’t think anyone knew about that. One of the assumptions was that the only way that we can improve the lake is if the Town owns the park land around it and/or an Aquatic District paid for by taxpayer dollars because the Town can’t pay taxpayer money on the lake. It came from the Rockefellers or our state taxes.

Mr. Griffin stated it came from the state.

Mr. Garrity stated I’ve been a PLCC member since I lived here. Think about this for awhile. A lot of people will lose their homes because of this and values of the property will go down.

Mr. Lawlor stated are you abandoning the swim team.

Mr. Griffin stated we have no budget for 2012.

Ms. Joan Russell stated we are senior citizens are you going to help us. How can you tax us more.

Mr. Griffin stated I don’t think I could answer your question to your satisfaction.

Ms. Russell stated this is unconstitutional. This is wrong.

Mr. Griffin stated I understand that is your opinion. Thank you.

Ms. Russell stated I want to know if I will be getting a discount.

Mr. Griffin stated you will be paying $.47 per thousand based on your current assessment.

Ms. Russell stated I demand to see where I signed and it says $.47.

Mr. Burns stated we don’t have the petitions here tonight but you can FOIL a request at the Town Clerk’s office.

Mrs. Nacerino stated did you sign with your own free will and cognizant or did someone force you to sign.

Ms. Russell stated yes, I did because I was lied to.

There being no further business, Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All in favor. Aye. Carried.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to appoint Mr. Ed Grady to the Planning Board.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.

There being no further business, Mr. Burns made a motion to close the meeting at 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________

Antoinette Kopeck, Town Clerk