Supervisor Griffin called the Patterson Town Board meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with 10 in attendance.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the Supervisor’s Report as written for January 2011.

Bid Opening – Refuse, Recyclables and Bulk Garbage District No. 1-December 20, 2010

Bid Opening – Refuse Disposal via Transfer Station Garbage District No. 2 – February 17, 2011

General Fund $26,408.39, Highway Fund $63,904.50, Waste Water Treatment Plant $15,808.58, Capital Fund $96,661.85, Putnam Lake Refuse District #1 $28,522.02, Patterson Refuse District #2 $31,234.66, Deerwood Drainage District $17.33, Patterson Park District $2,409.75, Alpine Water District $938.29, Dorset Hollow Water District $847.08, Fox Run Water District $430.00, Trust & Agency $2,981.25, Grand Total Abstract $270,163.70.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mr. O’Connor stated we have eight law firms to interview. How would you like to do this.

Mr. Burns stated Monday, March 21, 2011 and Monday March 28, 2011 at 3:30 with half hour intervals.

Mr. O’Connor introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance of Bid for Contract for Refuse Disposal via Transfer Station Garbage District No. 2:

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has duly advertised for bids for the contract for refuse disposal via transfer station for Garbage District No. 2; and

WHEREAS, Kejem Properties LLC d/b/a Harlem Valley Transfer Station has submitted the lowest responsible bid proposal for the five (5) year contract for refuse disposal via transfer station for Garbage District No. 2, a copy of which is attached hereto; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to accept the bid proposal submitted by Kejem Properties LLC d/b/a Harlem Valley Transfer Station;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the five (5) year bid of Kejem Properties LLC d/b/a Harlem Valley Transfer Station for the refuse, recyclables and bulk collection contract for Garbage District No. 2; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute the Professional Services Contract for Refuse Disposal Via Transfer Station for Garbage District No. 2, which contract shall commence on April 15, 2011 and shall terminate on February 21, 2016; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Mr. Curtiss stated can I just add that because you are selecting not the lowest bid but the lowest responsible bid that you put in the record the letter attached to the resolution so they are very clear.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mr. O’Connor stated Patterson Troop 440 is proud to announce that Richard M. Dambra, 17 successfully completed an Eagle Scout Board of Review on January 4, 2011. As a member of

Troop 440 Richie worked close with church Elder Bruce Thickness to complete several beautification projects for the Patterson Community Church, erosion barriers in front of the church, additional landscaping, he built two picnic tables and completed safety work. Mr. Dambra and his team of scouts contributed over 300 man hours of effort to complete the project. In these tough economic times, it was a worthwhile project. The project could not have been completed without the continued support of the members of Troop 440 and especially Scout Master Bob Ciralli. This is Mr. Ciralli’s 12^th Eagle Scout since his appointment as the troop leader in 2005. That is outstanding in itself. Mr. Dambra is also a member of the National Honor Society in Carmel High School and is planning on studying bio-medical engineering in college in September 2011. There will be an actual ceremony on March 27, 2011.

Mr. Griffin stated this is a very impressive achievement and very few scouts make it this far and we are all very proud when we do have this type of ceremony. It is a terrific statement for the quality of the scouts and young people that are involved in it. We hope more kids will take advantage of it. These are the future leaders of our country and we are all very proud of them.

Mr. O’Connor stated there will be a Town wide clean up on April 30, 2011 with the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. We will be giving out garbage bags the week before. If anyone would like to pitch in a week or two earlier or later, just let me know.

Mr. O’Connor stated at the last meeting we mentioned that there is a Septic Maintenance Program going into effect. We are going to have to get together to decide how we are going to do it. It is required that everyone will have to have their septic inspected once every five years. This is to keep the watershed clean.

Mr. Curtiss stated do you want me to do a Proposed Local Law for Introduction on the 23^rd and then set up your Public Hearing. This is supposed to be in effect by May 1^st.

Mr. Rich Williams stated Tim just so you know, the Putnam County Stormwater Committee met again today. We went through the Local Law that we have been working on for some time now. We are finishing up the draft now and we will be coming back to all the Towns with a similar Local Law so that we have consistency throughout Putnam County on this law that has to be adopted by everyone.

Mrs. Nacerino stated in accordance with the minutes of December 22, 2010, Mr. Griffin stated we are losing two of our potential emergency responders come January 1, 2011. I am required by the alarm company to give them names of four individuals who will be available on a 24-7 basis. I am one of those people, Dave Raines is another and I need two others. I am looking for volunteers. Mr. Capasso stated I will be on the list, Mr. Burns stated that I will be on the list and Mr. Griffin stated ok. On January 12^th I sent Mr. Griffin a memo and I would like to read that into the record:

At the December 22, 2010 Town Board meeting you designated Councilman Capasso and Burns to be on the emergency call out list in that order respectively. I have been informed unofficially that my name appears at the top of the list. Since I did not volunteer nor was I designated, I would like to confirm whether my name appears on the list without my knowledge or consent. I would also like this memo to serve as notice that all designees need to be provided keys, codes, passwords for each and every building. At the present time, I, Councilman Burns and Capasso do not have keys, codes or passwords to any buildings other than the Town Hall. In the event of

an emergency one would be ill-equipped to respond. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Mrs. Nacerino stated subsequently on February 22, 2011 at 3:49 p.m. I was out of Town and received a call that there was a burglar alarm at the Recreation Center and then again on March 3, 2011 at 6:10 p.m. that there was a burglar alarm at the Court House. I am concerned about comprising the welfare and safety of anyone at any time. I have not been designated to be on as an emergency responder. Mr. Capasso and Mr. Burns have not been provided any keys or passwords so even if they were called to respond they would be ill-equipped to handle that. We need to take some affirmative action to make sure everyone is prepared should an emergency arise.

Mr. Griffin stated everyone’s code that you use at Town Hall have been programmed to every Town facility. Mrs. Nacerino was issued a locked box key which if you open a locked box you have keys to the entire facility. Subsequently we were asked by the Building Department that the Fire Marshall be the sole arbiter of who gets keys. From this point on, anyone who wants a key needs to go talk to the Building Department. They will issue the keys from here on out.

Mr. Griffin stated you can get one you just have to get it from the Building Department now because they were all turned over to the Building Department at that request. The Fire Marshall is the only one who has the authority to order locked boxes and to order additional keys.

Mr. Burns stated I don’t mind going out if I’m around and I can respond to the call. What is the most practical way to handle this.

Mr. Griffin stated frankly the most practical way to handle this was the way it was being handled leaving the Town Planner with a cell phone, leaving the Building and Maintenance Operations with a cell phone. Once we took those away, we have no ability to reach them. That was the easiest solution. It was costing us $1,500.00 a year to have three individuals who were trained, knowledgeable and know who to call, when to call and what calls to make. You need to understand the fire panels, burglar alarm panels, who the plan operators are and what time these phone calls need to be made.

Mr. O’Connor stated the reason I didn’t volunteer was that I knew full well that if I went to most of these places and smoke was coming out of a certain panel, I wouldn’t know what to do. We had people who knew all of that.

Mr. Burns stated I presume if we had a fire and a burglary security system there will be a response by emergency personal.

Mr. Burns stated so my going there is really going to be standing around watching the fire department or EMS. I don’t disagree with you. We may have been penny wise and pound foolish in taking away cell phones but let’s give it a try. If we fail miserably we will make a motion at some point and reinstate cell phones. I’m willing to give it a try.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I’m sure you are capable as was Mr. Fava of learning the procedures and following through. The fact remains we are not clear on how we are proceeding, and who is proceeding so we need to ascertain that before an emergency situation does arise. In accordance with the minutes, you and Joe and I’m sure Joe will have no problem getting acclimated to whatever has to be done. The cell phones are irrelevant to how we process and move forward here.

Mr. Burns stated the call I received, I was headed on the other side of the County to Putnam Hospital. I called Joe and got his cell phone. I called you because I thought maybe you were close and could go down. I think someone tripped the alarm at the Court House my mistake. I didn’t have a call out list.

Mrs. Nacerino stated provided with the correct information you will be prepared to respond.

Mrs. Nacerino stated a couple of years ago when the Recreation Center started implementing new programs that some of the employees themselves wanted to participate in we implemented a 25% discount. However, we received an email from the Town Comptroller saying that she came across a section of the Internal Revenue Code regarding employee discounts and it stated that any employee discount over 20% can be deemed as compensation by the IRS. Therefore, I believe the Recreation Policy on an employee discount should be changed to reflect this information.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to implement a 20% discount rather than a 25% discount for those employees wishing to partake in any program that the Town sponsors.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I have a memo from Gene Brandon regarding renting a street sweeper. We have a price quote from Empire for $6,000.00 to rent the street sweeper. If we do decide to buy the equipment we would then owe them $14,000.00. The other quote that we did receive would be $3,500.00 a week or $11,000.00 per month and that is considerably higher.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the $6,000.00 monthly rental fee for one (1) Pelican three wheel mechanical broom sweeper.

Mr. Capasso stated discussion. I was at the Highway garage today for about two and half hours. I understand the need for this because we currently rent two sweepers with drivers for Putnam Lake and it costs us $100.00 per hour. It takes about two to three weeks to do Putnam Lake. If we do purchase this it will be a big cost savings to us. I am in favor of renting it with the option to purchase it. It will improve the Town roads and it is a much faster operation than the back truck that we have now. I approve this whole heartedly. I know where it came from. Gene told me it came from Pelham and I called the previous owners and they said they were sorry they got rid of it because the new one they purchased is not as good as the one they turned in.

Mr. Burns stated how long do they usually last. It was well maintained by the Town of Pelham.

All In Favor: Aye. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mr. Capasso stated if we don’t act on this right away we may lose the machine.

Mrs. Nacerino stated the second memo I have from Gene Brandon is regarding the Grade All G3WD dated July 29, 2010. I have been told that the Town of Patterson and the Town of Philipstown have not been able to come to an agreement. It is his recommendation that we put the Grade All on the international auction website. We have been successful in selling equipment on this site in the past.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to go along with the recommendation made by Gene Brandon for the Grade All.

Mrs. Nacerino stated another memo from Gene regarding steel to rebuild the body on the Vacall (#35). To purchase a new body the cost would be $20,000.00. We have three quotes and the one they choose to go with is Albany Steel. The quotes are Allied Steel for $3,666.16; Albany Steel $2,441.10 and Arco Steel $2,788.50.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to accept Gene Brandon’s recommendation to go with Albany Steel for an amount not to exceed $2,500.00.

Mr. Capasso stated they are building a whole new body for this truck. We are doing it in house and we will be saving a lot of money.

Mr. O’Connor stated we are fortunate to have a quality crew at the Highway Department.

Mrs. Nacerino stated the next memo from Gene is regarding a compressor in the small garage. They would like to use the old compressor, which is in perfect working condition, so they can use air tools in the other garage. They received three quotes; J.P. Poulin Electrical Corp for $901.00; Stewart Electric for $800.00 and M.J. Electric for $635.00. All quotes include labor, material, inspection and filing fees with the County. It is our recommendation that we go with M.J. Electric.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the request of Gene Brandon of M.J. Electric not to exceed $635.00.

Mr. Capasso stated again, I saw the compressor just sitting there and why we bought a new one when we had a perfectly good one, that is beside the point. There is a compressor sitting there and we have a building that we could use it in so I agree that we should hook it up and use it.

Mrs. Nacerino stated another memo from Gene Brandon regarding a guide rail. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have requested a guide rail to be installed in front of their property. This past winter there was an accident. A car was heading down the hill and ran off the road and ended up in their front yard and damaged the front of their house. They will need about 75 feet of guide rail. Guide rail is on County bid, therefore, we do not need to get three prices and is part of the procurement policy. It is my recommendation that we install this guide rail. It is necessary for safety reasons. We do not have a dollar amount for this project.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we have a memo from Raymond Blanar to purchase a new computer for Christina Rizzo. They received two bids, one from Dell for $1,116.00 and Brookfield Technologies for $922.92.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Rich can’t we get this on state contract and wouldn’t that be cheaper than Brookfield Technologies.

Mr. Williams stated not necessarily. It depends on the specifications of the computer which I’m not familiar with. Dell is on the state procurement list. We can purchase directly from Dell under the state bid. I don’t know if that is the state bid price.

Mr. Williams stated yes, but it is not the one I would recommend we use. It’s not a commercial grade system in my opinion.

Mrs. Nacerino stated if you don’t mind I would like to table this and if you could do a little research and help Ray make an informed decision.

Mr. Williams stated yes, can I get a copy of that and I’ll get the specs from Ray.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve 111 basketball trophies by Crown Awards for $670.35.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve 162 Flag Football Trophies by Crown Awards for $974.10.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the re-hire of Mike Capra for the Men’s Softball League as Assistant Director at a rate of $1,600.00 for the summer and $900.00 for the fall.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Mike can you get us up to date with the discussions you had on the gym floor.

Mr. Griffin stated basically the floor that was originally installed has reached its life expectancy. It was new product at the time and there have been improvements made since. Tim you saw Ray’s memo and saw what he is proposing. Are we on solid ground procurement wise.

Mr. Griffins stated he is buying it directly from the manufacturer who is going to set up installers to put it in. Also, we will be paying the manufacturer directly.

Mr. Curtiss stated to cover the procurement policy you should probably get a couple of quotes from a couple of contractors. I spoke to Ray about this and it should be easy to do. If it is from the manufacturer I’m sure they are going to give you the best price but for your own knowledge you should get more quotes.

Mr. Griffin stated I don’t know if you could pursue two quotes if we are in over the dollar amount which requires a bid process.

Mr. Curtiss stated if it is a proprietary product you can go to the manufacturer and have it installed but for your informed decision you may want to get the cost from a general contractor. If it is in the ball park then you may have to go out to bid. I’m assuming it is the cheapest price.

Mr. Griffin stated in government we can’t assume anything. This is why we need you to wrap your brain around this.

Mr. Williams stated what I’m listening to is a public work project. You have to put them on notice, you have to have the insurance requirements set in place and other labor law requirements. It doesn’t mean it has to be a formal bid. I’m not that familiar with it but up front you need to put some of these contractors on notices. You can’t have subs from subs from subs working for a municipality like that. Department of Labor would go nuts on something like that if they every found out.

Mr. Williams stated yes, as long as it is contractual agreements that go back to the Town and they are meeting the labor law requirements.

This is why we need the Town Attorney to become hands on with this because I’m not sure where we are in the process.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I have a memo dated March 4, 2011 from the Planning Board regarding pending applications:

The Planning Board has been challenged by residents for not providing adequate notice of a pending project at its inception. Residents have expressed that by the time an application reaches a Public Hearing considerable time and effort has already gone into the design and that the project at the time of public hearing seems to be set.

The Planning Board is proposing to send out notice of a pending application at the beginning of the review process. For expense purposes, the pending application for an eleven lot subdivision off Haviland Drive would cost approximately $48.30 in postage. Staff time and materials would be incorporated in the fees received for the project review.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I think this is a great initiative. I was at a recent Planning Board meeting where a Public Hearing was held for a subdivision and the residents did feel like they were out of the loop and by the time they were informed it was late in the process and they would have appreciated having been advised that a subdivision was being planned in their neighborhood. This is certainly not cost prohibited in anyway and I think it is a good measure. I support this endeavor.

Mr. Griffin stated maybe we should make it a requirement for the applicant because later on in the agenda Joe is going to propose a 70% reduction in application fees. If we are going to commit the Town to more work and more expense maybe that isn’t necessarily something we should be considering for the Town rather than make it a condition for the applicant. $48.00 isn’t a big deal with the Town staff but there could be other projects where it could be considerably more money and more work.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I don’t think this is something we should easily overlook. I don’t think the cost factor would impact that much.

Mr. Williams stated I think it is a great thing to do. It’s better that we notify our residents early on when we have a major development proposal. In the code we have the Zoning Board set up so we collect the fees right up front. With the Planning Board we have the applicant send us certified mail to make sure it goes out. We can do that or make a code amendment to have the applicant do it. It’s not a difficult thing to do.

Mr. Williams stated yes. The applicant gets it back from the post office and turns it into us and we verify that they have all been accounted for.

Mr. Griffin stated are you going to do this for residential subdivisions or all applications.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to support this endeavor having the applicant incur any additional fees associated with sending out a mailing to those within 500 feet of a subdivision or site plans.

Mr. Griffin stated and also authorized the Town Attorney and Town Planner to prepare code (inaudible).

Mr. Burns made a motion to approve two time-off requests and one conference request as written.

Mr. Burns stated I have a memo from Nick Lamberti, Building Inspector who conducted five (5) interviews for the Codes Compliance Officer. The interviews were completed by Dave Raines, Fire Marshall and Cheryl Smith on February 23, 2011 and March 2, 2011. He has made a recommendation in terms of hiring and also ranked the remaining candidates.

Mr. Griffin stated the question is exactly that. We gave Ray Blanar the privilege of interviewing and selecting the people he is going to be working with. I don’t see a reason why we wouldn’t offer the same courtesy to a Building Inspector and a Fire Marshall that have twenty-five times the experience that the Recreation Director has.

Mr. Burns introduced the following Resolution for Appointment of Part-time Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office:

WHEREAS, the Director of Codes Enforcement has conducted interviews for the part-time position of Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office of the Town of Patterson; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has received a recommendation from the Director of Codes Enforcement to appoint Lewis Taney, III to the part-time position of Code Compliance Officer; and

WHEREAS, Lewis Taney, III meets the qualifications necessary for the position of Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office of the Town of Patterson; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Patterson, as appointing authority, wishes to appoint Lewis Taney, III to the part-time position of Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office of the Town of Patterson; and

WHEREAS, Lewis Taney, III wishes to accept the appointment to the part-time position of Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office of the Town of Patterson;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby appoints Lewis Taney, III to the part-time position of Code Compliance Officer within the Code Enforcement Office of the Town of Patterson; and

Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution per the 2011 budget at $18.50 per hour.

Mr. Burns introduced the following Resolution for Establishment of a Performance Bond for the Genovese Flex Building Site Plan:

WHEREAS, 2160 Patterson Corp. own a parcel of land at 2160 Route 22 identified as Tax Map No.35.-5-31, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of Town of Patterson has received an Application for site plan approval from the 2160 Patterson Corp. in order to construct various improvements on the lot, as shown on a set of drawings entitled Flex Building prepared by LADA, P.C., dated October 3, 2006, and last revised on December 7, 2010; and

WHEREAS, a motion was made and carried by the Patterson Planning Board at its March 3, 2011meeting recommending that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson find that the cost of a bond, sufficient to cover restoration of the site should the developer fail to complete the site improvements, be established in the amount of $1,129,738.50, with an inspection fee of $87,443.36, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to follow the recommendation made by the Patterson Planning Board;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby establishes the amount of the performance bond sufficient to cover restoration of the site should the developer fail to complete the site improvements for the Genovese Flex Building Site Plan,

pursuant to the Town Code of the Town of Patterson as $1,129,738.50, with an inspection fee of $87,443.36.00, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the bond posted for the project be subject to prior approval by the Town Attorney as to sufficiency and form.

Mr. Capasso stated discussion. I discussed the amounts with Rich Williams and the reason is there is a lot of site work and a retaining wall that has to go in. The fee is acceptable for that type of work.

Mr. Burns made a motion to authorize the Town Clerk to advertise for proposals for Alpine, Dorset Hollow, Fox Run Water District bids.

Mr. Burns stated I received an email from Cari Weizenecker to put the Maple Syrup project on the agenda. Her note is as read;

The teachers in the third grade of Matthew Paterson Elementary School would like permission to tap maple trees again this year at Patterson Park. This will be our sixth year of tapping trees in the park and teaching children about the tradition long rooted (no pun intended) in Patterson history.

Mr. Burns stated all four of my children participated in it and absolutely loved it. It is an awesome thing, not to mention the pancake breakfast.

Mr. Burns made a motion for the Town Board to allow Matthew Paterson Elementary School third grade children to access and use the Town Park for the purposes of conducting their maple syrup project.

Mr. Griffin stated they may want to consult Mr. Kozlowski to make sure they are tapping the right maple trees.

Mr. Capasso stated I received a memo from Frank Farrell for the replacement radiator for the front end loader. He received two quotes: Putnam Radiator $1,888.00 and Empire Auto Radiator $2,178.00.

Mr. Capasso made a motion to accept the quote from Putnam Radiator not to exceed $2,000.00.

Mr. Capasso stated we had some complaints from an applicant about our fees. They felt they were excessive. I think they are a little high for the territory. We did some comparisons throughout different Towns. Some are higher and some are lower. Rich Williams redid the fee schedule. There is a reduction on the site-plan fee of about 70% but we are still recovering money, we are not giving it away.

Mr. Capasso introduced the following Resolution Amendment of Schedule of Fees:

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has established a Schedule of Fees which sets forth the fees and costs which shall be tendered to the Town, or an instrumentality thereof, for the processing and administration of permits, appeals, applications, petitions and reviews as established by the Town Code of the Town of Patterson, and

WHEREAS, said Schedule of Fees may be amended from time to time by resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Patterson, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to amend by resolution those fees and costs which shall be tendered to the Town for the processing and administration of permits, appeals, applications, petitions and reviews as established by the Town Code of the Town of Patterson and set forth in the "SCHEDULE OF FEES" in order to revised the fees charged for site plan applications submitted to the Patterson Planning Board, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to amend by resolution those fees and costs which shall be tendered to the Town for the processing and administration of permits, appeals, applications, petitions and reviews as established by the Town Code of the Town of Patterson and set forth in the "SCHEDULE OF FEES" in order to revised the amount deposited with the Town in escrow for reimbursement of the Town Engineer and Town Planner (Professional Plan Review), and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (the State Environmental Quality Review Act) and 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations, the action under consideration constitutes a UNLISTED ACTION.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby finds that the proposed action will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact for the following reasons:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.7 issues a NEGATIVE Determination of Significance, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby approves the Fee Schedule of the Town of Patterson dated March 9, 2011 and attached hereto, which fee schedule establishes the fees and costs which shall be tendered to the Town, or an instrumentality thereof, for the processing and administration of permits, appeals, applications, petitions and reviews as established by the Town Code of the Town of Patterson.

Mr. Burns stated discussion. I read your memo, Ron Taylor’s memo and Rich Williams memo and I agree with you in principle, we want to encourage development especially in that big project that we are trying to get businesses to come in and finish. I do see the point Ron is raising. If we are losing money there may be other incentives to offer such as tax abatement to defray upfront costs of development. 70% sounds like a high number to reduce them. I have a hard time looking at the numbers believing they were 70% higher. I would like a little more information.

Mr. Capasso stated I spoke to three or four members of the Planning Board and they all agreed with this. Ron was the only one that opposed this. Mike, Ed and I discussed this. I called you a couple of times and you never got back to me. If we get development in it will offset the fees.

In order to get them in you need to give them some incentive. Giving them a tax abatement, I don’t know if I want to do that.

Mr. Griffin stated there are a couple of different ways to look at it. If you are talking about to offset the difference in the fees it isn’t worth the paperwork. If you get anyone of these projects in you are going to get that back ten times over in the first year in taxes. Keep in mind we also capped it at $15,000.00. When you look at Patterson Crossing the application fee of $15,000.00 the Town did take a beating on that because by the time we got through the extended process we probably lost money on that. If the project goes through we will make it up ten times over. When Joe and I were talking about this with Rich, if Patterson Crossing were only going to pay for 400,000 square foot of development, this guy was going to pay $12,000.00 for 75,000 square feet of development, seems to me there was a huge inequity in the way we were doing this. I think Joe and I talked about this and we are willing to give this a chance. We want to try some different things, see what happens and if it works out great. We all agree that we will revisit this within one year and determine how cost effective it has or hasn’t been.

Mr. Griffin stated the Union Square project right now in Carmel for Camarda is in excess of $300,000.00 for the application fee. The standard tax abatement starts out at 50% if you use a standard IDA model for the first year and works its way up to full assessment over 10 years. To me I’d rather have them pay full taxes year one and give them a little more of an incentive to come in and file the application in the first place. There is a risk involved.

Mrs. Nacerino stated the other risk involved is that we have an interested applicant that we may lose. We are trying not to make these fees so cost prohibited that people do not want to come to Patterson.

Mr. Burns stated what if we looked at last year’s fees to compare if these fees were in effect where we would be at.

Mr. Williams stated we are not covering our costs now. We are significantly under when you look at the revenue versus the expenditure lines.

Mr. Williams stated off the top of my head I’m not going to quote you numbers. I’ll be happy to get them to you. I would think there is a 60% difference between expenditures and revenue.

Mr. O’Connor stated that means if the project never actually goes to fruition and never pays taxes we take a big hit.

Mr. Capasso stated not really because it won’t go through the whole process. This is only the beginning stage.

Mr. Williams stated Ed is right. If we take an application and they don’t go through the process…..

Mr. Williams stated we will take a big hit. I never had a project not make it through.

Mrs. Nacerino stated conversely the same thing for the applicant. They put up all this money up and might not get a final approval and they already expended thousands and thousands of dollars only not to get their final approval. It works both ways.

Mr. Griffin stated keep in mind with Patterson Crossing some of the numbers we talked about, the application fee of about $15,000.00 and the total cost to get the project through the approval process which lasted five years or so was $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 in total.

Mr. Griffin stated ok so we received a $15,000.00 application fee. It’s the biggest project we ever reviewed other than the Jehovah’s in the Town of Patterson. The cost over a five year period was $15,000.00. It can’t hurt because I don’t think we are talking about huge dollars for

some of these small projects. Certainly it will be something we will look at eight months to a year from now.

Mr. Griffin stated I think the next item is probably something you might want to look at a little bit more with the escrow. Are we ready to move this resolution.

Mr. Williams stated before you move this resolution the escrow fees are also part of the fee schedule so that is all incorporated in the one resolution.

Mr. Griffin stated Rich and I spoke about this. We are lowering from the overall escrow number to $5,000.00 increments.

Mr. Williams stated generally the way it works now is that we calculate out an amount based on past experience. The applicant will put into an escrow account to pay for professional planned review of his application and the plans that he submits equal to the full amount. What we are doing is we are putting a $5,000.00 cap on that so at $5,000.00 the Planning Department needs to contact him and have that escrow account replenished.

Mr. Capasso stated if he uses the $5,000.00. So we are actually asking to put up $22,000.00 and we don’t even know if we are going to use that. It is a hardship on the applicant.

Mr. Williams stated if we return anything, we are returning a few thousand dollars at best.

Mr. Capasso stated I know, I understand but it is hard enough to get things going today the way the economy is. We have to try and help these applicants.

Mr. Williams stated I just don’t want anyone to think we are taking $22,000.00 and we are returning $12,000.00 to $15,000.00. We are not.

Mr. Capasso stated you are tying up the applicant’s money whereas if you don’t use the $5,000.00 he pays as he goes. It is a little more work for the Planning Department to keep track.

Mr. Williams stated we are keeping track, that is not the issue. The issue is the work load increases and we will now be constantly chasing money. We just had another one where we had to seek him to replenish his escrow account. His response was no.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we need that cushion because they might exhaust the escrow account and not have it to replenish.

Mr. Griffin stated you can’t just necessarily stop the project. We can’t say we are not going to review it because there are time frames involved.

Mrs. Nacerino stated is there any way we could negotiate and compromise what is fair to the applicant and fair to the Town without putting either or in the cross hairs of being risked. Maybe $5,000.00 is too little.

Mr. Curtiss stated you can make it flexible. You can give the Planner or the Planning Board the discretion to set it at a level less than the entire amount depending on what their discretion is.

Mrs. Nacerino stated maybe less than and a little bit more than. Would that work.

Mr. Williams stated even though it is not in the code, I do at times exercise a little discretion. The last one I just brought up where I asked him to replenish the account, I didn’t ask him to replenish to full amount, I asked him to replenish a portion of it. I thought it would get us to the end of the game. He wasn’t coming up with a big payment for us. I can do that from time to time but at the beginning of the process I’m not sure what I would be negotiating down. I have a good idea about what it is going to cost us through the whole process and I would be much more comfortable with the Town Board setting either a cap or maybe a percentage. Whatever we are doing cut that in half so we are actually taking 50%.

Mrs. Nacerino stated what we are trying to determine is what is equitable on both sides.

Mr. Capasso stated I think in a subdivision there is a lot more inspections but when it is a commercial building it is one particular site. It should be a no brainer.

Mr. Griffin stated it depends on the site. What was the initial escrow for Patterson Crossing.

Mr. Williams stated off the top of my head I don’t know. I know they have had to replenish three times.

Mr. Griffin stated that is an unusual project. The only thing that begins to rival that size of a project is the Jehovah Witnesses.

Mr. Burns stated we can review in six months to a year and if it goes horribly wrong we will fix it.

Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution Authorizing an Intermunicipal Agreement for the East of Hudson (EOH) Coalition:

WHEREAS, the Town of Patterson is located wholly or partially within that portion of the New York City Reservoir Watershed that lies east of the Hudson River (the “EOH Watershed”); and

WHEREAS, the Town of Patterson is a regulated MS4 community pursuant to NYS DEC SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-002 and is obligated to develop a Stormwater Management Program which addresses the program elements contained is said permit including, but limited to a stormwater retrofit program, and

WHEREAS, there has been proposed the East of Hudson Coalition, as more fully described in the Intermunicipal Agreement attached hereto, whose purpose would be to explore a coordinated approach to implementing a stormwater retrofit program for the EOH Watershed, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson finds that a coordinated approach may provide several benefits to implementing a stormwater retrofit program including the sharing of information, reduced administrative costs, and greater efficiency in meeting the phosphorus reduction goals, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson finds that a single regional stormwater entity would create a single organization for the advocacy of additional funding necessary to meet the needs of implementing a stormwater retrofit program, and

WHEREAS, participation in a single regional stormwater entity (RSE) would allow for the sharing between the municipalities of certain administrative costs including, but not limited to such legal resources which are necessary to acquire adequate funding for the programs mandated by the State and federal governments, and

This Municipal Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into the __ day of January, 2011, by and among the following towns and villages located in the New York City Watershed east of the Hudson River: Bedford, Brewster, Carmel, Cortlandt, Kent, Lewisboro, Mt. Kisco, New Castle, North Castle, North Salem, Patterson, Pound Ridge, Putnam Valley, Somers,

WHEREAS, the Members are municipalities located wholly or partially within that portion of the New York City Reservoir Watershed that lies east of the Hudson River (the “EOH Watershed”); and

WHEREAS, the Members are affected by the Watershed Improvement Strategy Requirements of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (the Heightened Requirements), by the New York City Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established for the New York City Reservoir system, by the New York City land acquisition program and other regulations and programs which may be proposed in the Watershed; and

WHEREAS, the Heightened Requirements are intended to reduce phosphorus entering the New York City reservoirs from non-point sources to levels compliant with the TMDLs established for each reservoir, and said program place an unbearable financial cost on the municipalities located in the East of Hudson New York City Reservoir Watershed, and

WHEREAS, the Members find it necessary to entreat the City, the State and the federal governments for assistance in providing funds to meet the programmatic requirements, and

WHEREAS the Members wish to foster cooperation, seek additional funding, and provide for the provision of joint services related to compliance for one or more of the requirements of the MS4 program established under state and federal law specifically and for matters related to the management of storm water; and

WHEREAS, the Members find that it is their best interest to share in any costs including, but not limited to such legal resources which are necessary to acquire adequate funding for the programs mandated by the State and federal governments, and

WHEREAS, the Members wish to protect the economic vitality and social character of the Watershed communities; and

WHEREAS, each Member municipality has the independent power to provide, perform or exercise separately all of the functions or powers set forth in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Members, desiring to address the aforementioned issues with a single intermunicipal organization do hereby enter into this Agreement to maintain an organization to effectuate these goals.

1.1 The Members hereby agree to join a cooperative organization to be known as the EOH Coalition, with its principal office at Somers Town Hall, 3335 Route 202, Somers, New York 10589.

1.2 The EOH Coalition is organized pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Article 5-G.

1.3 Prior to May 1, 2011 the EOH Coalition shall be open to membership by any County,

Town, or Village located partially or completely within the New York City Watershed that lies east of the Hudson River upon meeting the following requirements.

1.3.1 Each municipality wishing to participate in the EOH Coalition shall adopt a resolution, approved by a majority of its legislative body and approved by its

chief executive officer when necessary, acknowledging its intent to participate in the EOH Coalition. The resolution shall acknowledge the rights and obligations of membership in the EOH Coalition as set forth in this Intermunicipal Agreement, as may be amended, and shall authorize the chief executive officer to execute a copy of the Intermunicipal Agreement. A copy of the resolution shall be provided to each Member by the municipality.

1.3.2 The resolution shall also identify the municipality’s official representative to the EOH Coalition.

1.3.3 A copy of this Intermunicipal Agreement, duly executed by the chief executive officer of the municipality, shall be provided to the EOH Coalition, whereupon said municipality shall thereafter be considered a Member.

1.4 After May 1, 2011 any County, Town, or Village located partially or completely within the New York City Watershed that lies east of the Hudson River which wishes to participate as a member of the EOH Coalition shall meet the following requirements:

1.4.1 A qualified municipality wishing to join the EOH Coalition shall first submit a preliminary application for membership to the EOH Coalition.

1.4.2 The Executive Committee shall review the preliminary application for membership and make such recommendations to the EOH Coalition on any conditions or financial contributions that it may deem appropriate. Said recommendation shall be prepared and submitted to the EOH Coalition prior to its next scheduled meeting.

1.4.3 The Coalition shall consider the application of the municipality, and shall approve with or without conditions, or deny said application for membership by majority vote. In approving an application for membership, the EOH Coalition may establish such conditions, or financial contributions as it deems appropriate for said municipality to become a member.

1.4.4 Upon approval of their preliminary application for membership in the EOH Coalition, each municipality shall adopt a resolution, approved by a majority of its legislative body and by its chief executive officer when necessary, acknowledging its intent to participate in the EOH Coalition. The resolution shall acknowledge the rights and obligations of membership in the EOH Coalition as set forth in this Intermunicipal Agreement, as may be amended, and any conditions as may be set forth in the preliminary application for membership approved by the EOH Coalition. A copy of the resolution shall be provided to the EOH Coalition by the municipality.

1.4.5 The resolution shall also identify the municipality’s official representative to the EOH Coalition.

1.4.6 Three copies of this Intermunicipal Agreement with original signatures, duly executed by the chief executive officer of the municipality, shall be provided to the Chairman of the EOH Coalition.

1.4.7 The Chairman of the EOH Coalition shall endorse the Intermunicipal Agreement and shall return one copy of the Agreement to the chief elected official of the municipality.

1.5 Eligible EOH Coalition Representatives must be publicly elected officials who reside in, and also represent their respective County, Town or Village, and shall serve as the EOH Coalition Representative for that Member until such time as the Member adopts a resolution designating a new individual as their EOH Representative, or the Representative ceases serving as a publicly elected official.

b. Attendance and participation in all meetings of the Coalition and of its Working Groups, committees and subcommittees.

c. Access to all financial information concerning the operation of the Coalition.

2.1 Each municipality who shall have agreed to participate in the EOH Coalition shall be entitled to appoint one representative to the EOH Coalition. Each municipality, through its representative shall be entitled to one vote. Each Representative may designate, in writing to the EOH Coalition, an Alternate who in the absence of the Representative shall act in his stead, and who shall enjoy the same rights and privileges as the Representative.

2.2 A quorum necessary to conduct business shall consist of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the EOH Coalition. Unless otherwise specified herein, a 2/3 majority affirmative vote of a quorum of the EOH Coalition is required to approve any resolution or transact any business of the EOH Coalition.^¹

2.3 The EOH Coalition shall chose from among the Representatives a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman who shall each serve for a period of one year.

2.3.1 The Chairman, or Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman, shall preside at all meeting of the EOH Coalition, and of the Executive Committee.

2.4 The EOH Coalition shall have the authority to do the following, acting by majority vote:

2.4.1 Adopt such by-laws or rules necessary for its operation including, but not limited to, the election of officers and the establishment of appropriate sub-committees.

2.4.2. Employ appropriate personnel it deems necessary to achieve the goals of the EOH Coalition.

2.4.3 Retain professional assistance, including but not limited to attorneys, engineers and planners, to the extent it deems necessary to achieve the goals of the EOH Coalition.

2.4.4. Designate a lead municipality to act as the fiscal officer (the “Lead Municipality”).

2.4.5. Accept contributions, gifts, grants, or bequests from government agencies, individuals and organizations, interested in furthering the EOH Coalition’s goals (the “Contributor”). The EOH Coalition may receive suggestions and comments

from the Contributors; however, Contributors may not vote for representatives on the EOH Coalition or otherwise direct the actions of the EOH Coalition.

2.4.6. Maintain records, and prepare databases of its activities, and those of its Members which are consistent with the purposes of the organization.

2.4.7 Negotiate on behalf of its Members for additional funding for one or more of the programs required by the NYS DEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4's

2.4.8 Pursue such legal action as is necessary to protect the rights and interests of its Members. No legal action taken by the EOH Coalition shall be legally binding upon, or limit in any way the legal rights of the individual Members.

2.4.9 Develop strategies for cost sharing and shared compliance for one or more of the programs identified in the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4's.

2.5.1 The EOH Coalition shall meet quarterly on the 1^st Tuesday of March, June, September, and December, or more frequently as may be needed.

2.5.2 Special meeting may be called upon written notification received 5 days prior to the date of the meeting, to all the Members by any three of the Members who jointly find it in the interest of the Coalition to meet.

2.5.3 All meetings of the EOH Coalition and the Executive Committee shall be governed by the New York State Open Meetings Law.

2.6 Disputes or disagreements between Members shall be resolved by a majority vote of the EOH Coalition.

2.7 A Member may withdraw from the EOH Coalition upon 30 days written notice to the EOH Coalition of its intent to withdraw. The Member shall be responsible for its apportioned share of all expenses incurred by the EOH Coalition as of the date of withdrawal. The remaining Members shall remain responsible for the withdrawn Member’s share of fees and costs incurred after the effective date of the withdrawal. The EOH Coalition, by a three-quarter vote, may terminate a Member’s membership in the EOH Coalition, for good cause shown, upon the same terms as noted above. The member withdrawing or removed from the EOH Coalition will not be entitled to rebate of any fees contributed that remain as of the effective date of the termination.

2.7.1 “Good cause” for removal of a member from the EOH Coalition shall include a Member’s failure to pay its assessment for more than 6 months, failure to comply with the requirements of this agreement, or failure to provide information as may be necessary for the EOH to maintain compliance with any requirement of the SPDES General Permit for MS4's.

2.7.2 The credit for any reduction of phosphorus from the installation of one or more stormwater retrofit projects paid for with EOH Coalition funds, including any grants or third-party contributions provided to the EOH Coalition, shall remain with the members of the Members for the benefit of the EOH Coalition, and shall not inure to the benefit of any municipality that withdraws from the EOH Coalition, or whose membership has been terminated, as set forth above.

activities being implemented in accordance with the programs encompassed by the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s. The EOH Coalition will serve as a clearinghouse for information on the Watershed programs and assist its Members with guidance on the programs’ implementation.

2.8.2 The EOH Coalition may assist its Members in administrative compliance with the

programs implementing the MS4 General Permit. At a Member’s request and upon authorization by the EOH Coalition, the Executive Committee may intervene on behalf of the Member before any administrative agency, or any litigation pertaining to matters pursuant to the MS4 General Permit or other watershed related issues.

2.8.3 The EOH Coalition may engage in any other activities that it deems necessary to further the EOH Coalition’s goals within its authority under this Agreement and the General Municipal Law.

2.8.4 The EOH Coalition may serve as a clearinghouse for information concerning the MS4 program and stormwater management, more generally.

2.8.5 The EOH Coalition may apply for and administer grants on behalf of its members for administration and implementation of the programs related to the MS4 Program or stormwater management.

2.8.6 The EOH Coalition may facilitate the coordination of municipal stormwater programs across municipal boundaries.

3.1 There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of three representatives from Putnam County; three representatives from Westchester County.

3.1.1 Three representatives shall be elected by a majority vote of the Members from Putnam County and shall serve for a term of two years.

3.1.2 Three representatives shall be elected by a majority vote of the Members from Westchester County and shall serve for a term of two years.

3.1.3 Eligible Executive Committee members must be publicly elected officials of a Member located within the County they represent.

3.1.4 The EOH Coalition may appoint up to four additional individuals knowledgeable concerning the issues of stormwater, MS4 regulations and watershed planning. Such individuals shall be considered Ex-officio members of the Executive Committee who shall be non-voting members.

3.2.2 Coordinate the activities of the Members in compiling the information required to effectively participate in the implementation of the MOA and its components, and other issues affecting the Watershed.

3.2.3 Act as the auditing board for expenditures of the EOH Coalition. The Executive Committee shall authorize the Lead Municipality to make payments on audit of all expenditures of the EOH Coalition.

3.2.4 Coordinate activities of the EOH Coalition requiring the vote of the Members. The Executive Committee may not enter into any binding agreements, without a majority vote of the Members as provided in section 2.2.

3.2.5 Represent the EOH Coalition at public meetings and hearings. All policy positions of t he EOH Coalition require the affirmative vote of the Members as provided in section 2.2.

3.3 The Executive Committee may not incur any expense, debt or obligation in excess of its funds then currently available or in excess of funds receivable from EOH Coalition Members

4.1 The EOH Coalition shall designate a Lead Municipality who shall have custody of all funds of the Coalition.

4.2 All expenses of the EOH Coalition in excess of any grants, gifts or third-party contributions, shall be allocated among the Members in a method determined by the EOH Coalition by two-thirds majority vote, and shall be payable within 45 days of notice to the Lead Municipality.

4.2.1 Any expenses of the EOH Coalition incurred prior to the first meeting of the EOH Coalition shall be allocated between the Members as follows; 44.8267% of expenses shall be the responsibility of and paid for by the Members from Putnam County and 55.1733% shall be the responsibility of and paid for by the Members of Westchester County. Exhibit 1 provides a list of those municipalities that could participate in the EOH Coalition and the initial percent of the allocation of expenses. Where one or more of the municipalities listed in Exhibit 1 do not chose to participate in the EOH Coalition, the remaining Members in that County shall assume the percentage otherwise allocated to the non-participating municipality.

4.3 The EOH Coalition will manage the membership contributions, grants received on behalf of the Coalition and other funds of the EOH Coalition as follows:

4.3.1 Funds of the Coalition collected pursuant to this Agreement shall be deposited in a separate interest bearing account in the name of the designated Lead Municipality, and may only be used for Coalition expense. Fund shall not be co-mingled with other funds of the Lead Municipality. The authority to invest EOH Coalition funds shall be with the designated Lead Municipality who shall invest in instruments and obligations in which all Members are authorized to invest. All investments shall be collateralized. The Lead Municipality shall administer the funds on behalf of the EOH Coalition and shall make a monthly accounting to the Executive Committee, which will in turn make a quarterly accounting to the Members, of payments to, expenditures from and sums remaining the fund.

4.3.2 The Lead Municipality shall have the authority to dispense funds from the Coalition Account for all personnel expenses, all non-personnel expenses of $5,000 or less upon the review and audit of proper documentation for such expenses and all non-personnel expenses in excess of $5,000 upon the authorization of the EOH Coalition. No funds will be dispensed unless they are within the overall budget expenditure adopted by the EOH Coalition and unless the obligation was incurred in accordance with applicable procurement policies, if any.

4.3.3 The Lead Municipality shall be responsible for making required annual financial

4.3.4 The Lead Municipality, or the Executive Committee shall not be liable to any of the Members because of any payment made from the fund in accordance with the terms of this paragraph or for the commission or omission of any act, either performed or not performed in connection with the administration of the fund, other than for loss or liability for gross or willful negligence.

4.4 If a Member fails to pay its assessment in full within six months after such assessment is due, the Coalition may suspend the rights of such member until payment is made in full, including any surcharge, or take action to remove the Member pursuant to section 2.7.

4.5 Any monies remaining upon conclusion of the EOH Coalition’s activities or termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first, will be returned to the participating Members in proportion of their contributions.

4.6 The Coalition will not incur any obligations which cumulatively exceed the budget allocation for any given fiscal year. The EOH Coalition, Lead Municipality or Executive Committee shall not spend or authorize the expenditure of any funds exceeding the funds presently held by the EOH Coalition without first increasing the assessments of the EOH Coalition members or securing additional funding from grants or outside contributions.

4.7 Allocation of Grants. Any grants, gifts or contributions from non-member sources shall be allocated according method of allocation of expenses set forth in Section 4.2.1.

4.8 The Lead Municipality shall be bonded against loss for all funds held on behalf of the EOH Coalition.

5.1 This Agreement may be amended upon the written consent of a two-thirds majority of all Members, such consent to be given by their respective governing bodies in the same manner as the initial approval of this Agreement.

5.2 This Agreement may be terminated upon the written consent of a majority of the Charter Members, such consent to be given by their respective governing bodies.

5.3 The law of the State of New York shall govern the validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement.

5.4 Each Member shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Members, their officers, agents and assigns, from all liability arising as a result of its own acts and omissions regarding the activities under this Agreement.

5.5 This Agreement may be signed in counterparts by each participating municipality, all of which execution pages when taken together shall constitute the entire Agreement among the Members.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mr. Griffin stated we will put the same bids out that we put out two years ago. The Town Planner is in the process of changing some dates. I heard back from Mitsubishi and they sent me an 86 page catalog with some suggestions and recommendations. You and I will have to sit down and go over that.

Mr. Griffin made a motion to authorize the Town Clerk to advertise for bids for air conditioning and ventilation for the Patterson Recreation Center.

Mr. Griffin stated Sue Brown and Janet Ravo are putting together Relay for Life. We will have Team Patterson and would love to have everyone who is interested in helping to fight cancer to join us and join Team Patterson. Sue Brown could be contacted at the Supervisors office. Also, there will be a website. It is not up yet but will be up shortly.

Relay for Life kickoff on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at Abruzzi at 3191 Route 22, Patterson from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. please RSVP at 845-490-8812.

Mr. Capasso stated we just lost one of our former employees to cancer and I think it would be appropriate to get a team together for Melissa Brichta who lost her life to cancer at 43 years old.

Mrs. Nacerino stated you can go on the website and form a team and if you want to form a team in Missy’s memory you could do that as well.

Mr. Griffin stated the Length of Service Program is where the Town makes a contribution to a fund to encourage volunteer fireman. I will table the amendments to this. Everyone has a copy of this. We worked out all of the details with the exception that Putnam Lake Fire Department has not met yet to discuss what we need to do. The EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had grievances filed by fire fighters that were past the age of 65 but were still active and participating with their departments. They were saying they were being discriminated against because they weren’t allowed to continue to get points and accrue for their length of service awards. In an effort to settle the EEOC claim, the Town has to increase the contributions to the LOSAP. What we are doing is we asked the departments to give back two percent of their budget to help fund it. Patterson Fire Department already said they would be willing to do that without a problem. Putnam Lake is going to discuss it at their meeting on Monday and we will have an answer on Tuesday. We have to give direction to the company VFIS that runs the plan for us by April 1, 2011. I’ll bring this back on the 23^rd and hopefully we will have all the information. If any Town Board member has any questions about the amendments to the plan please let me know and I will try my best to explain them.

Mr. Griffin stated at the last meeting we discussed this a little bit. The Town Planner had reviewed the properties in the Agricultural District and made a recommendation that six properties be removed.

Mr. Griffin made a motion to formerly respond to the County and that we request that the six properties identified by the Town Planner be removed.

Mrs. Nacerino stated hopefully they will respect our request. In years past, they have not.

Mr. Griffin stated the last couple of meetings we had representatives from the PLCC and folks here have some different ideas of how they would like to see Putnam Lake managed. There was a request that we consider setting up a Town sponsored meeting where we discuss a variety of options for the lake and what could be done. Subsequently, there was a suggestion made and we might want to consider sending out a questionnaire. I’m seeking some input from the Town Board. I have no problem working together and putting an informational meeting together on options for the lake, whether it is a Park District, Lake Management District or a Water Quality Improvement District etc. Currently we have on the Town Board the Chairman of the Lake Management Committee for Senator Ball. I wanted to float the idea out there about a questionnaire to see if that had any appeal to anyone and ask the residents what they would like to see. We could tailor the meeting to the result of that questionnaire.

Mr. Capasso stated I think that is a great idea. Send it out and ask the people what they would like to see.

Mr. Griffin stated unfortunately this is rather sad but there is a way we can help. There was a local young man, a marine who was seriously injured in Afghanistan. There are a number of fund raisers being sponsored to help his family. He is in a naval hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. The military will only pay for the family for a brief time for them to stay with him. We are trying to raise money through the VFW to help the family so they can afford to stay down there and help this young man with his recovery. Right now we are looking at about a two year process. From what I understand he lost both his legs and possibly the use of his left arm. The fund raiser will be held at the VFW on March 26, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. We are asking everyone to at least contribute $20.00. There will be refreshments and if you need any information Ed Gerrity is one of the guys who will be hosting it. The number is 914-424-8613 or you can contract my office. The other thing that Dave asked for is if there is any way we can send the young man some mail. Sue has contacted the schools to get the kids to make him cards. We will put this information on line. Lance Corporal John G. Curtain, National Naval Medical Center at 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 516E, Bethesda, Maryland 20889. To send in a donation please send to; Putnam County Council of the VFW at 40 Schuylkill Court, Carmel, New York with a notation with his name. For those of us who served in combat areas this is something real close to our hearts.

Mrs. Nacerino stated this young man was in Afghanistan all of three weeks and lost both his legs. It is a very, very sad story. He is a young man. I know at Brewster High School they have been very active in trying to have fund raisers as well as well as everyone in the community. We do ask for your support. Are reservations necessary so they have a head count of how many people will attend.

Mr. Griffin stated it probably wouldn’t hurt if you want to call Ed Gerrity or Harvey Stroke the Commander.

Facebook is your friend. Social networking sites like facebook can be used for more than just looking up old school mates. Environmental advocacy organizations frequently post partitions and information about campaigns that need grassroots support. When you engage in this web based activism, the friends in your network will be encouraged to do so as well. The Sierra Clubs recent victory in the Beyond the Call Campaign, shows that on line activism is a powerful tool for environmentalist interested in making change.

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution Authorizing Supervisor to Expend Funds to Repair Wagon Lane on Emergency Basis:

WHEREAS, due to recent weather conditions, the roadway known as Wagon Lane in the Town of Patterson has become impossible for emergency vehicles to travel in order to service the homes situated on Wagon Lane; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to authorize the Supervisor to expend the necessary funds to repair Wagon Lane in order to make the roadway passable for emergency vehicles; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson Kent hereby authorizes the Supervisor to expend the necessary funds to repair Wagon Lane on an emergency basis in order to make the roadway passable for emergency vehicles to service the residents and homes located thereon; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to go into Executive Session at 9:45 p.m.

There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.

1 Editor’s Note: Between Putnam County and Westchester County there are 17 members that could comprise the EOH Coalition. A 2/3 majority vote of a quorum would require 8 members of the Coalition to approval a resolution.

Municipality	Area of Municipality in Croton watershed (Ac)	Required Annual Phosphorus Reduction (kg/yr) NYS DEC	Percent Municipal Contribution
Carmel	24,264.10	72.0	9.8528%
Kent	22,994.31	33.6	9.3373%
Patterson	20,902.25	17.2	8.4856%
Putnam Valley	2,161.40	1.0	0.8747%
Southeast	21,479.06	31.1	8.7191%
Brewster (Village)	285.92	9.2	0.1161%
Putnam County	n/a	30.9	7.4411%
Bedford	21,647.00	32.2	8.3675%
Cortlandt	3,765.00	11.6	2.2290%
Lewisboro	14,181.00	35.5	7.3393%
Mount Kisco	1,974.00	18.7	2.7959%
New Castle	9,442.00	25.1	5.0754%
North Castle	219.00	1.0	0.1716%
North Salem	14,685.00	19.1	5.3225%
Pound Ridge	6,047.00	9.5	2.4026%
Somers	20,499.00	50.0	10.4394%
Yorktown	20,883.00	54.0	11.0300%
Total	205,429.04	451.7	100%

Putnam County’s Percentage²	44.8267%
Westchester County’s Percentage²	55.1733%