TOWN BOARD MEETING
PATTERSON TOWN HALL
1142 ROUTE 311
PATTERSON, NY 12563
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
MINUTES
PRESENT: MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR
JOSEPH CAPASSO, COUNCILMAN
ERNEST KASSAY, COUNCILMAN
GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN
EDMOND O’CONNOR, DEPUTY SUPERVISOR
ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK
TIMOTHY CURTISS, TOWN COUNSEL
Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.
Supervisor Griffin called the Patterson Town Board meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with 22 in attendance.
Mrs. Nacerino stated Mr. Supervisor before we start the meeting I would like to have a moment of silence in memory of Helen Vickery a long time Patterson employee who passed away today.
Mr. Griffin stated for those of you who may not know, Helen worked in the Assessor’s Office for I would guess the last fifteen years. Unfortunately, she succumbed to some illnesses last night, we are all very saddened, and we will miss a good friend. She worked very hard for the Town and worked very hard for the office and we will all miss her.
AUDIT OF BILLS
Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the following bills chargeable to 2009:
General Fund $66,271.94, Highway Fund Item 1 – General Repairs $11,580.82, Highway Fund Item 3 – Machinery $4,858.35, Highway Fund Item 4 – Miscellaneous $1,166.45, Highway Fund - Employee Benefits $16,498.19, Waste Water Treatment Plant $181.03, Capital Fund $53,602.50, Putnam Lake Light District $1,611.00, Patterson Light District $1,603.00, Putnam Lake Refuse District #1 $28,522.02, Patterson Refuse District #2 $31,218.46, Deerwood Drainage District $15.51, Patterson Park District $1,284.81, Alpine Water District $1,372.08, Dorset Hollow Water District $786.40, Fox Run Water District $3,988.72, Trust & Agency $10,486.25, Grand Total Abstract $235,047.53.
Seconded by Mr. Kassay. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Capasso; yes, Mr. Kassay; yes, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O’Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes. Roll Call Vote: Carried.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN
TENTATIVE BUDGET
Mr. Griffin stated at the last meeting I presented a Tentative Budget to the Town Board and to the residents. It is on line. Before I open this up to any questions or comments, I had a conversation with the Antoinette Kopeck, Town Clerk regarding advertising for the Preliminary Hearing, which would take place at the October 14th meeting. One of the issues she raised was that she needed the Board to determine a schedule of salaries for the Elected Town Officials. I asked Patricia Brooks, Comptroller to put a couple of proposals together. The majority of the Town Board supports zero raises for Elected Official’s and Department Heads. I have two salary schedules here. One is for what we discussed at the last meeting, which is zero for the Town Board and the Supervisor. Zero for Elected Officials in total and Department Heads. The Supervisor and Town Board would save Town approximately $4,200.00. The zero percent for all Elected Officials and Department Heads will save the Town about $23,000.00. Before the Town Clerk can advertise, we need to agree on which salary schedule for Elected Town Officials we are going to go with. Is there any input from the Board at this time.
Mrs. Nacerino stated when do we need to make this decision.
Mrs. Kopeck, Town Clerk stated I do need to advertise at least one week prior to the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing is going to be on October 14th.
Mrs. Nacerino stated so we would have until the next meeting. Ed and I have been working in trying to come up with some proposals. We were not ready to make a decision this evening. However, we are just trying to come up with different scenarios and fee schedules and we will be able to make that decision by the 5th.
Mr. Griffin stated the 5th is generally a five-minute meeting as you all recall. We get together, the Town Clerk presents the Tentative Budget. Since the Tentative Budget has already been presented, I’m not sure we still need the meeting on the 5th. It is scheduled and has been advertised so we can have the meeting. If that is the consensus of the Board that you want to take no action on the salary schedule tonight, so be it.
Mr. O’Connor stated I think it is very generous for some people to make this proposal. There are other things that would be in line with the current status of the economy.
Mr. Griffin stated the MTA is getting 8%.
Mr. O’Connor stated the MTA went to court today to appeal the raise that was given to the transit employees of the City of New York. They say it is excessive. This is the first year for people who are on Social Security that their check will be smaller this year than last year. We have to look at other things.
Mr. Griffin stated at this point the Board’s position is to take no action.
All Town Board members agreed.
Mr. Griffin stated at this time does the public have any questions relative to the Tentative Budget that was presented at the last meeting.
Mr. Steve Mandras stated at the last meeting we asked for a break out. There were certain line items that looked to be in the old format. I looked on the web today and it looked like it was the same one from last week. Do you know if that will be broken out more.
Mr. Griffin stated what are you looking for and I can talk to the Town Comptroller about it.
Mr. Mandras stated I will email you the line items. I really wish you would do the right thing and vote on it tonight and be done with this whole raise thing. You know the direction you have to take. No one is getting raises these days.
Mr. Robert Odell stated did the Patterson Fire Department give you a budget yet.
Mr. Griffin stated one did and one didn’t.
Mr. Odell stated but the Patterson Fire Department didn’t.
Mr. Griffin stated the Patterson Fire Department did not.
Mr. Odell stated then why would you give them $12,000.00 more in the proposal for this year. If they don’t need anything. They don’t have to submit a budget, why give them a raise.
Mr. Griffin stated every year their budget has gone up by at least that much or more.
Mr. Odell stated but this year no one knows.
Mr. Griffin stated if we don’t have a budget from them by the 28th then the Board will have to adjust that line one way or the other.
Mr. Odell stated on page 10 on the proposed budget that we received at the last meeting, Item 1355.417 Update Contract Memo $2,000.00 per month for the Assessor’s Office.
Mr. Griffin stated that is paid by the State.
Mr. Odell stated what is it.
Mr. Griffin stated to keep it at one hundred percent assessment every year we have certain computer programming that has to be performed. All the sales have to be evaluated and all the data has to be reprocessed through the (inaudible) formula to come up with one hundred percent assessment. We farmed that out for the last five to eight years. It is all paid for by the State Office of Real Property Services.
Mr. Odell stated do we have anyone in the Town that is capable of doing that.
Mr. Griffin stated I assume the Assessor could probably do it if he had the time.
Mr. Odell stated he is full-time now.
Mr. Griffin stated I can ask. In the conversation in the past when I did discuss it with him, he said it was a time issue because it did involved significant amount of time for the data input, etc. We can revisit it.
Mr. John Boeheim stated my understanding of the whole debate over the Recreation Center and the air conditioning was that it was going to be put into next years budget. I understand it has been pulled out. Some other monies that were supposed to be allocated towards the Recreation Center for improvements, such as a new floor, we were going to try to find the money for next year. It’s a great facility but it does need some upgrades. The flooring in there is inadequate for basketball. We have great basketball nets, hoops and everything else that we spent money on. I coached the kids youth program there and it’s disheartening to see kids try to learn how to dribble when the ball doesn’t come back up off the floor sometimes. We all recognize that the economy is tight right now and it’s tough but my understanding was that next year there was going to be some monies available for some improvements for the Recreation Center. I was disappointed to see that some of that money was pulled out of next year’s budget.
Mr. Griffin stated on the flooring as of right now I’m not sure that we’ve even settled on a type of flooring. I know that the Recreation Director and the head of Maintenance have looked at a number of types of flooring. The number is rather large so instead of putting it in as a line item in the budget it was felt that it would be more appropriate as a Capital Expense and possibly do a borrowing to space it out over a period of time.
Mr. Boeheim stated but isn’t that what prohibited us from doing it this year. The fact that it wasn’t a line item or budgeted there were objections to capitalizing it.
Mr. Griffin stated I don’t know if there was any discussions about the flooring but that was one of the objections to the air conditioning.
Mr. Boeheim stated so what has changed in the last three or four months.
Mr. Griffin stated in my opinion nothing. I have always been a firm believer that any type of capital project that is going to be in the $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 range along with an air conditioning project that I don’t even have a real accurate number for should be done through capital and borrowing. About $50,000.00 raises the annual budget about one percent. If the $11,000.00 we spent to design the air conditioning system and the $54,000.00 worth of air conditioning to be installed wasn’t done in an acceptable way. I’ve asked for some numbers and I’ve also asked if we are hiring new engineers or are we starting from ground zero. I haven’t received any feedback on that yet. I really don’t know what number to put in the budget. If we are going to start all over again, then we are probably going to have to hire an engineer to redesign. If the $54,000.00 system was inadequate as some on the Town Board believe it was, then I don’t know what the real number is. Until I get some guidance, I don’t have a number to put in there. As far as the flooring goes, the same thing. If we are going to spend $80,000.00 on flooring and $150,000.00 on air conditioning, I think we should do it over at least a five-year period of capital borrowing so it doesn’t have a major impact in any one single year. The other possibility is to budget $25,000.00 or $30,000.00 this year, next year and the year after that. Unfortunately, it will be ten years before we have enough money to do either project.
Mr. Boeheim stated I’m trying to recall what was debated last spring and if I recall correctly the reason that it was put off until this year was so that we could put a line into the budget for it. It makes no sense to me because it seems like we are just hunting and hoping that we don’t have to have the same debate again next spring.
Mr. Griffin stated I wouldn’t disagree with your assessment in the situation. My position has been and will continue to be that it should be a capital borrowing over a period of time. As far as whether we are going to redesign the system or not, the Board hasn’t made a decision one way or another. Does another member of the Town Board wish to comment on this.
Mr. Tim Curtiss, Town Attorney stated I think that from a procedural standpoint, this is the Tentative Budget. This is the Budget that you prepared based on your best estimates. It now goes to the Town Board and collectively you will have to make as a Board some of these decisions.
Mr. Griffin stated I understand that Tim. The other thing that has to be taken into account is that this Board can’t meet as a Board other than at a specially called meeting open to the public or here this evening in this type of format.
Mr. Curtiss stated sure.
Mr. Griffin stated if we are going to move forward and have a budget in place as was agreed on by October 28, 2009 some decisions have to be made. Our next Town Board meeting theoretically is going to have to be a Public Hearing on the Preliminary Budget and that is three weeks from now. If anyone wants to come into my office to discuss this, please feel free. Does anyone have any other questions.
COUNTY WIDE ASSESSMENT PILOT PROGRAM
Mr. Griffin stated we received a letter from County Executive Bondi:
I am writing to advise you of a partnership initiative that I have recommended to Putnam County Legislature for 2010. The initiative focuses on the County’s desire to achieve a one hundred percent assessment Countywide and while doing so gain further efficiency when the assessment services are provided throughout the County.
Attached hereto please find a template of an Intermunicipal Agreement that is limited to the County taking on $65,000.00 of cost in the first year. All other terms and conditions are open for discussion with our office.
Mr. Griffin stated we are already at one hundred percent assessment. There are two Towns in Putnam County that are not. Carmel and Phillipstown are the two Towns that have not kept up their assessments from the County wide revaluation that was done in 1996. I am a little bit miffed at why the County when they are in more dire straights then the Towns are, would want to be taking on more items. If they are asking their employees for furloughs and they are not replacing employees who are being retired out of the system, I’m not sure why they want to spend $65,000.00 to get involved. My personal opinion would be to suggest to the County when all the other Towns have done what the four Towns, Southeast, Patterson, Kent and Putnam Valley have done which is to keep their assessments current. Let them go out and spend the money to get the assessments up to date. We spent $212,000.00 in 1996 and we spent time, effort and money to maintain those assessments ever since, as has the other three Towns that are at one hundred percent. I’m not sure why the County should be subsidizing the other Towns because they didn’t do what they should have been doing. That is just my opinion. If that is the Board’s consensus opinion, I will send them a letter to that effect.
Mrs. Nacerino stated absolutely I agree with you.
Mr. O’Connor stated if it’s not broke don’t fix it. Ours is not broke.
Mr. Griffin stated okay.
POST OFFICE CHANGE IN RURAL DELIVERY
Mr. Griffin stated there was a petition circulated for rural route delivery in the Hamlet area. We received a letter back from the post office telling us that their top priority of the postal service is to provide universal mail service in the most efficient manner. It goes on to say they have granted the request. Now everyone has to come up with a location for a mailbox and for that we would have to put it on the interior road of Leibell Way. Then we will have to change all our stationary, business cards and notify all our vendors and tax bills. That will all have to be redone. That goes for our Court House and the Recreation Center as well. Or, we can pay for a box at the post office. Anyone who doesn’t have a place to put a mailbox will now have to find a place or start paying for their rent-a-box. What would the Board like to do.
Mr. O’Connor stated the problem with this was that there were people who couldn’t get to the post office because it wasn’t open when they were home. They got home too late. I went to the post office and asked why they don’t have some post office open twenty-four seven. They said they weren’t equipped for that. That would have solved a lot of problems cheaply. I think for us since we are here during the hours that the post office is open we could keep it the same.
Mr. Kassay stated Antoinette, we have the biggest box available at the post office right.
Mrs. Kopeck, Town Clerk stated I really don’t know what the price is. I will find out for you tomorrow.
Mr. Kassay stated okay. On Saturday the post office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. I arrived there at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday and I opened my box. I asked the woman who was boxing up the mail why the mail wasn’t ready to be picked up at 9:00 a.m. when you open. She said we don’t finish boxing up the mail until 11:00 a.m. I said, “you mean to tell me you are open from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. but you can’t get the up to date mail in the boxes.” I stated, “why do you open up from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., just open up between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.” I thought that was odd and it is a waste of taxpayer’s money and time. I went over there for nothing. I had to go back after 11:00 a.m. to pick up the mail.
VERIZON FIOS – DISCUSSION
Mr. Griffin stated Verizon continues to work in Putnam Lake. I continue to get phone calls and I continue to make phone calls. If there is anyone from Verizon who is watching this at home, the Town of Patterson is very anxious to start negotiating a franchise agreement with you. I contacted their attorney. On several occasions, Verizon has indicated that they have little interest in starting these negotiations. In talking with other Supervisors, Verizon likes to play the game where they wire the Town and get everyone all excited and blame the Town Board for not negotiating in good faith. We are more than ready to negotiate in good faith. We would like to start immediately. When you do have a sufficient amount of Town wired up, there won’t be any gun to our head to say it was the Town Boards fault. I would like to make the public aware that we are ready to work with Verizon at any point in time. Counselor I would request that you send Mr. O’Rourke a letter stating that fact.
QUAKER MANOR LANE
Mr. Griffin stated we received a memo from the Town Planner. Petition has been received from the property owners and they are looking to have their road upgraded to the point were it could be offered for dedication. The first step in the process is surveying. Christina Rizzo and Rich were out aggressively soliciting estimates for surveying. Now the Link Land Surveyor’s was the lowest at $5,900.00. The question I have is Tim, is that something that will be billed back to the District.
Mr. Tim Curtiss stated yes it will, even though you haven’t created yet.
Mr. Griffin made a motion to hire Link Land Surveyors to do the surveying of Quaker Manor Lane for the amount not to exceed $5,900.00.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. Griffin stated discussion. Tim I didn’t hear a yes from you.
Mr. Curtiss stated yes. It is billed back but you have to get it started.
Mr. Griffin stated is there anything else we have to do get this started.
Mr. Rich Williams, Town Planner stated there are a couple of other things within that memo. There was a discussion concerning the application fees for doing the subdivision, which needs to be done in order to move this process forward, and whether the Town is considering waiving those fees.
Mr. Griffin stated there is also a resolution for Public Hearing.
Mr. Williams stated correct. That would be the third thing.
Mr. Griffin stated the labor of fees is $1,860.00. What does the Board want to do.
Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to waive the fees for $1,860.00.
Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. Griffin introduced the Resolution for Public Hearing on Construction of Street Improvement in the Town of Patterson, Quaker Manor:
R-0909-11
The following order was proposed by Supervisor Griffin, who moved its adoption to wit:
WHEREAS, a petition dated September 17, 2009 has been duly presented to the Town Board of the Town of Patterson, according to law, proposing that the said Town Board authorize and approve the improvement of that portion of Quaker Manor Lane, hereinafter described, by the construction of pavement repairs, drainage system maintenance and repairs, and other improvements as outlined in a memorandum prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. dated May 27, 2009 for the full 1,600 linear feet of Quaker Manor Lane as shown on the final subdivision plat for the Quaker Manor Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvement as stated in the said petition is $150,357.00,
NOW ON MOTION OF SUPERVISOR GRIFFIN, seconded by Councilwoman Nacerino, all members present voting therefore, it is:
ORDERED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m on October 28th, 2009 at the Patterson Town Hall 1142 Route 311, Patterson, New York, 12563 to consider said petition at which time all persons interested therein shall be heard, and it is further;
ORDERED that the Town Clerk of the Town of Patterson give notice of such hearing by publishing same in the official Town papers, by posting a copy of this order on the sign board of the Town of Patterson, as well as conspicuously in five (5) public places along the above described portion of Quaker Manor Lane not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) days before such hearing.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
CARLEON ROAD – UPDATE
Mr. Griffin stated Counselor what are you doing.
Mr. Curtiss stated we have been in touch with the New Fairfield’s Town Attorney. I sent a letter over to him with a copy of the subdivision map and an explanation of what has occurred to date and the fact that the homeowners have put the driveway in the right of way or in the paper road. A copy should be coming to the Board. He is familiar with the problem because they have paper road issues also. I also got in touch with the Attorney’s for the homeowners and gave him a heads up that this is going to be coming probably before the New Fairfield Town Board to see what they could do. He explained that what they do is replace the turn around and then they have the driveway access off the turn around. That may be the solution.
Mr. Griffin stated okay. Are there any other questions. Don’t let them down Tim.
WQIP GRANT
Mr. Griffin stated the Highway Department has worked with the Town Planner for the purposes of submitting a grant for a street sweeper for acquisition. Is this a fifty percent match.
Mr. Williams stated twenty-five for the Town.
Mr. Griffin stated this is a very expensive piece of equipment. It’s $345,000.00. This resolution is to authorize the Town Planner to move forward on the grant not to go out and buy this. If we don’t get the grant, we don’t get the sweeper.
Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution 2009 Water Quality Improvement Projects (WQIP) Program Municipal Resolution Street Sweeper Acquisition:
R-0909-12
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson, herein called the “Municipality”, after thorough consideration of the various aspects of the problem and study of available data, has hereby determined that certain work, as described in an application and attachments submitted by the Town of Patterson, herein called the “Project”, is desirable, is in the public interest, and is required in order to implement the Project; and
WHEREAS, the total cost estimated for the Project has been determined as an amount not to exceed $345,000.00, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Conservation law (“ECL”) authorizes State assistance to municipalities for water quality improvement projects by means of a contract and the Municipality deems it to be in the public interest and benefit under this law to enter into a contract therewith;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby appoints the Supervisor, Michael Griffin, or such person’s successor in office, as the representative authorized to act on behalf of the Town Board in all matters related to State assistance under ECL Article 17, 51 and 56 and any applicable federal grant provisions. The Supervisor is also authorized to make application, execute the State Assistance Contract, submit Project documentation, and otherwise act for the Municipality’s governing body in all matters related to the Project and to State assistance;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson agrees that it will fund its portion of the cost of the Project, and that funds will be available to initiate the Project’s fieldwork within twelve (12) months of written approval of its application by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that one (1) certified copy of this Resolution be prepared and sent to the Albany Office of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
CARP GATE-LEGAL OPINION
Mr. Griffin stated Counselor there has been some back and forth regarding the carp gate being a legitimate or non-legitimate general fund expense. At the last meeting, I had asked you to do some research and come up with a legal opinion as to whether the Town is a legitimate fund expense.
Mr. Curtiss stated it is pretty clear that if it is a private lake with no public access then it would be either a district or a private lake expense. If there is access for Town residents to use the lake and participate, and then the Comptroller’s opinion is it can be a Town charge. It has to be made clear that the Townwide residents have access and can actually use the lake.
Mr. Griffin stated what is the level of access.
Mr. Curtiss stated there has to be public access points that are clearly posted that are functional access points where you could launch a boat, go in for a swim, fish, or access the actual lake. It doesn’t have to be on every private beach that is there. There does have to be one or more accessible public access points that have to be posted.
Mr. Griffin stated and the Town has to maintain them and maintain the liability for them.
Mr. Curtiss stated yes. It would be on your insurance if they are going in through your public access point.
Mr. Griffin stated are you saying that the Town would have to build a beach.
Mr. Curtiss stated no you don’t have to build a beach. All you have to do is delineate the access points and have it accessible to launch a boat.
Mr. Griffin stated would it be swimming at your own risk.
Mr. Curtiss stated it would have to be unless you are going to provide lifeguards.
Mr. Griffin stated well that wasn’t part of anything I was planning on doing.
Mr. Curtiss stated and you will have to post if there is any swimming or not and or if it is just access to the lake for boating etc.
Mr. O’Connor stated to my knowledge there are three places on the lake that have signs. I’m not sure of the wording.
Mr. Griffin stated is there somewhere in the law that gives you a definition of what this thing has to look like and what level it has to function.
Mr. Curtiss stated no it just has to be accessible which is a path or an area where someone could portage a canoe or kayak to get to the lake and launch it.
Mr. Griffin stated are we providing parking and picnic tables.
Mr. Curtiss stated no. That is up to you. That is not required.
Mr. Griffin stated I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I’m just trying to understand what we really are committing ourselves to. Putting in a carp gate and then the PLCC puts the carp in the lake that is one thing.
Mr. Curtiss stated if you go to White Ponds over in Kent, it is an access point for the DEC or DEP and it is basically just a launch area. It’s an area where you can walk in with your kayak. There is no beach, no lifeguard, or signage saying no swimming it just says public access point.
Mr. Griffin stated so it would behoove me to go over to White Ponds and see what is there.
Mr. Curtiss stated that is the best reference I could give you.
Mr. Kassay stated I was led to believe that people who owned property in Putnam Lake, had deeded rights to the lake.
Mr. Curtiss stated that is true, they do.
Mr. Kassay stated where the PLCC was to provide easements and were to maintain the access for the residents to use the lake.
Mr. Curtiss stated I think that is true too.
Mr. Kassay stated if that is a possibility, then why would the Town have to expend any money to have access to the lake when it has already been deeded and the PLCC should already be maintaining the access for people to use.
Mr. Curtiss stated that is for the residents not the general public.
Mr. Griffin stated the definition of “open to the public” is a little broader than that.
Mr. Kassay stated if it is Townwide doesn’t that cause another problem because the people have deeded rights to the lake.
Mr. Curtiss stated yes, that could be a problem. That has always been the issue in the past. The people in Putnam Lake do not want the public access from the Town.
Mr. Kassay stated is the PLCC going to foot the bill to maintain the access to the lake.
Mr. Curtiss stated that’s really the PLCC’s policy. The policy in the past was that the residents did not want the lake opened up to Townwide residents. Now that could change and if they want the public money to put up the carp gate fence there has to be some public access.
Mr. O’Connor stated it is easy to mix up these words. Residents and members of the corporation who own the parklands around the lake are not the same people. The three signs have been put up by the expense of the PLCC.
Mr. Robert Lichtenberger stated I am the PLCC Vice President. I think everyone is twisted with the whole history of the lake. There are many flaws in Putnam Lake. One being all of the homeowner’s deeds. The confusion here is that they have deeded lake rights. Great, deeded lake rights to what. You guys own the lake. The PLCC does not own the lake bottom. The PLCC owns seventy percent of the property that circles the water. That is where the beaches are. Once you step off the beach and the water, the PLCC doesn’t own it, doesn’t insure it, and has nothing to do with it. The Town owns it.
Mr. Griffin stated we don’t own the water.
Mr. Lichtenberger stated nobody owns the water.
Mr. Griffin stated the State of New York owns the water.
Mr. Lichtenberg stated you own the land under the water. The deed for the dam and the lake clearly shows that the Town maintains the ownership of the lakebed and the high-water mark and the dam itself. About ten feet off the boathouse all the way across over the dam and past this building. The PLCC owns about seventy-five percent of the property around the lake. There are four or five residents who own all the way to the water and the PLCC owns no property. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I think there is an unclear conception of Putnam Lake. Certain property around the lake is owned by a private organization, which was put together, by the community or the vendor that built Putnam Lake and they did it very badly. They gave everyone deeded rights to the lake, then turned around, and gave the lake to the Town. It is quite confusing.
Mrs. Nacerino stated are the access points posted.
Mr. Lichtenberger stated yes.
Mr. Griffin stated Tim and I will be out there to check it out. For everyone’s information, we still haven’t heard back from the DEC on the design.
Ms. Dede Liftgren stated I think everyone agrees that we need carp in the lake. The issue is that these access points by definition have to be accessible. They haven’t up until last week because no one knew of them. Even if they were accessible, they are only accessible to Putnam Lake deeded right holders. When the people of Putnam Lake wanted the carp gate and wanted the help from the Town, the question of whether to open it up to the whole Town of Patterson never came up and I think that is an important issue for people who live in Putnam Lake. Do they want to everyone to have access to come in.
Mr. O’Connor stated is that statement true that these access points are limited to either people who own property in Putnam Lake.
Mr. Lichtenberger stated I think it says residential access.
Mr. O’Connor stated what does that mean.
Mr. Lichtenberger stated your definition is fair. I don’t think the PLCC has the right to tell anyone they can’t use the lake. The Town owns the lake.
Mr. Curtiss stated you should probably give the Town an easement ten or fifteen feet wide or whatever you want to do to make it clear that everyone in the Town can use that crossing. You have that right because it is your property whether the neighborhood or community wants that. We will have to make it clear that it is public access that the public has a right to cross it.
Mr. Griffin stated the fact is the Town has expended rather large sums of money on the dam and if what I’m hearing third hand through Mr. Lichtenberger from Rich, if we are talk about the dam study that was done by Stantec, we are going to be expending a huge amount of money on this.
Mr. Curtiss stated the hydrogeology in the dam is somewhat of a different issue because you are talking about the safety of the people down stream, which is everyone in the Town. It’s a public safety issue that would require Town funds because you are protecting all the residents that are down stream. Not just the lake people. When you are expending money for the carp fence, you really are just expending money for the people who access and use the lake.
Mr. Griffin stated if I understand case law, you can’t restrict it if it is publicly owned land by the Town.
Mr. Curtiss stated yes, if it is publicly owned land. The issue is, is there actually access there.
All parties continued to discuss Putnam Lake.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – LEGAL
Mr. Griffin stated I would like to defer my Executive Session Personnel until the end of the meeting.
ERNEST KASSAY
TIME OFF REQUESTS
Mr. Kassay made a motion to accept the September 2, 14, 2009 Absent Request Forms.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. Kassay made a motion to accept the September 16, 2009 Absent Request Forms.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.
Mr. Kassay stated discussion. If you notice, the “type” is incorrect on the form. It should be unpaid because it is a part-time person.
All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. Kassay made a motion to accept the September 16, 18, 2009 Absent Request Forms.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. O’Connor stated while we are on the subject, if I may just make a comment. I think that it would behoove us to figure out a mechanism whereby a simple thing like a request for vacation as in other organizations are not voted upon by the legislative body, that they are approved by immediate Supervisor and the overall Supervisor of the Town. When I worked for New York City, we didn’t wait for the Mayor to send back an approval of the City Counsel for a guy that wanted to go on vacation for a week.
Mr. Kassay stated we can work on it. If we can come up with a better idea to make this easier, I think everyone would be in favor of it.
GINNY NACERINO
COURT HOUSE MEMO
Mrs. Nacerino stated I would like to read my memo into the record to Supervisor Griffin, Deputy Supervisor O’Connor, Councilman Kassay, and Capasso with copies going to Judge King and Judge Tricinelli, Town Attorney, Town Comptroller and Town Planner:
September 18, 2009.
In speaking with Judge King a few days ago, we agreed that it would be advantageous to have the opportunity for everyone to sit down and have a round-table discussion regarding the court house project. This would avoid any miscommunications or assumptions on anyone’s part. It will also provide us the opportunity to collaborate and take a hard look at all our options, or lack thereof.
I will be requesting the Supervisor properly notice a special meeting so that together we can go through a comprehensive review. Any questions, concerns, plans, etc. will be discussed. Thank you.
Mrs. Nacerino stated I would like Mike or Antoinette to post this meeting so that we may sit down. Judge King and I discussed this at length and we think one of the best things to do is to be able to discuss this amongst ourselves at a round table discussion so we could pull any ideas or suggestions at that time. I would also like to make a few comments. This would give Judge King the ability to sit down and discuss the necessities from a judicial perspective and for us to discuss all of our options that we have been pursuing or some of the things we have been following up on. This project is anything but a poorly planned project. The Supervisor along with the Town Board, Rich Williams, the Engineers, and the Comptroller have spent a great deal of time scoping this out. Economic circumstances not people have dictated us to take a second look. Neither the Town nor the library ever anticipated this downturn of events. We are now at a crossroads and it is encumbered upon this Board to sort all alternatives and advise the taxpayers what the fiscal impact will be should we not received any aid from the State. While tempers may flare and disagreements spur one thing is certain every member of this Board has the same goal and that is to find the most cost effective and efficient solution to address our court house needs.
Mr. Griffin stated that is fine with me. I would like to make a recommendation that we do it on October 5th. It is already an advertised meeting, everyone has that already set on their schedule.
Mr. Kassay stated what date was that.
Mr. Griffin stated October 5th the meeting we normally present the Tentative Budget. It is open to the public. The Town Comptroller put together some numbers based on the borrowing. Let’s pass these out. At the last meeting, Steve Mandras asked what it would cost him. I didn’t go look up your assessment Steve but what we did is use a generic assessment of $350,000.00 and the 2009 tax rate, which is $3.20 per thousand.
Scenario 1 is bonding $2,280,000.00 over 30 years at 4%, which comes out to $132,000.00 per year at the rate increase of 2.71% or $30.50. This is without the grant.
Scenario 2 is with the grant borrowing $1,280,000.00 over 30 years at 4%, which comes out to an annual payment of $74,000.00. That impacts the budget 1.52% or $17.10 per home.
Mr. Griffin stated we have a proposal in writing for a lease that would be $24.26 per household which isn’t entirely accurate. The rate that was proposed to us was $15.50 a foot. The Town would have to supply all the engineering, architecturals, and design work for the court house to the individual who would then be willing to put up more than $150,000.00 or $25.00 per foot for any of the alterations to the building. Any other additional costs would be borne by the Town along with paying the engineer for the design work.
Mr. O’Connor stated I read that we expected the $150,000.00 back at 7%.
Mr. Griffin stated I wasn’t entirely sure on the proposal. I see Joe has it and he probably knows a lot more about leases than I do. The other thing that threw me for a loop was the comments on the third page, there are $61,000.00 in property taxes, mowing, gardens, maintenance, and insurance. He specifies that we would have 27% of the building, so I would assume we would have 27% of those costs as well. Whatever 27% of $61,000.00 is would have to be added to that total. That would take us over the $30.50 to lease. Based on those figures we will make adjustments, reissue this based on the rental proposal we received this afternoon. Renting would be no cheaper even without the grant. Does anyone have any questions.
Ms. Nancy Kalbfell stated it sounded like Ginny was suggesting a round table discussion and then it turned into a special meeting, which is a voting meeting. On October 5th is this to be discussed or voted on.
Mrs. Nacerino stated discussed at this point in time.
Mr. Griffin stated I don’t think we will be taking a vote on moving this process forward. I sent letters to all of the contractors we sent certified return receipt requested letters. Three of the four contractors have offered to hold their bids until spring.
Mrs. Kalbfell stated October 5th is for the discussion.
Mr. Griffin stated yes.
Mr. Boeheim stated Scenario 1 and 2 are us buying the building owning the court house. Scenario 3 being the rental. When you rent you off load the maintenance costs as part of your lease expense. Are there any assumptions or any costs built into these numbers for on going maintenance. You have the building costs for $2.28 million and the $1.28 million with the grant. There will be on going maintenance costs.
Mr. Griffin stated this is just debt service. This is not for the maintenance and the operation of the building.
Mr. Boeheim stated where as the rental would have the maintenance of the building built into the cost.
Mr. Kassay stated when we spoke about rental that was only going to be a temporary solution. I don’t think anyone here said we didn’t want to go ahead and build a court house. Eventually we do have to provide a court house. A rental is temporary.
Mrs. Nacerino stated the dilemma is what is most cost effective.
All parties continued to discuss the court house.
HIGHWAY THANK YOU
Mrs. Nacerino stated on September 12th Cub Scout Pack 133 enjoyed an afternoon at the Highway Department. I would like to personally thank Charlie Williams and his crew for volunteering his time to this event. We have coordinated this event in the past. This has proven to be very successful. I think the boys were in their glory hopping on the equipment and having a good time. I think the Dads had more fun. I would also like to thank Margaux Miller for volunteering her time as well and coordinating the luncheon. It was a very nice afternoon and personifies the spirit in our community.
Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to add another item on her agenda for Other Business.
Seconded by Mr. Kassay.
Mrs. Nacerino stated something that came in late in the afternoon.
Mr. Griffin stated if I’m going to vote on something, I would like to know what it is.
Mrs. Nacerino stated this was placed in my mailbox late in the afternoon yesterday and I was unaware of this. I apologize it wasn’t on my agenda.
Mr. Griffin stated I think we should add it to your agenda right now.
Mrs. Nacerino stated okay, that is fine.
Mrs. Nacerino stated I have a memo from Ray Blanar for the hiring of Jimmy Hanna.
I am writing this memo to request the hire of Jimmy Hanna as a Junior Staff member at the rate of $7.50/hour. Jimmy’s primary responsibility during the rest of this fall season will be to prepare the softball field daily for the Fall Men’s Softball League. He will also be used at the Recreation Center come the winter to aid with the various programs we will have running. I am also requesting that he be paid retroactively as of September 10th, when I poled the Board by phone to gain approval for his hire.
My main staff members who were maintaining the field have been lost for the fall to both college and high school football and have left numerous days as of late in which I have had to prepare the field. Jimmy will be a great help to the Recreation Department. Thank you very much for your time and understanding in this matter.
Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to hire Jimmy Hanna at the rate of $7.50 per hour.
Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
Mr. Griffin stated let me backtrack a minute. We just got the schedule for the meetings for the year. It is not October 5th, it’s October 1st and it is at 4:00 p.m. Please feel free to come here.
Mr. Capasso stated I won’t be here.
Mr. Griffin stated that is when the meeting is scheduled for.
Mr. O’Connor stated that meeting was scheduled anyway.
Mr. Griffin stated everyone put that on their schedule already.
Mr. Kassay stated I have a problem with October 1st. Do you think we will be done by 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Griffin stated sure.
Mr. Kassay stated what time are we starting.
Mr. Williams stated you have to be done by 6:00 p.m. because I have a Planning Board meeting that night.
Mr. Kassay stated okay I could be there if we are done by 6:00 p.m.
Mrs. Nacerino stated Joe when are you leaving to go out of Town.
Mr. Capasso stated I’ll be back on October 2nd. I will be leaving next Monday.
Mrs. Nacerino stated so that week isn’t good for you at all.
Mr. Griffin stated we are not under the gun to come up with an answer on the court house that night.
Mr. Kassay stated minutes will be taken so you can hear what we say.
Mr. Capasso stated it is okay with me.
EDMOND O’CONNOR
BIG ELM-CREATION OF DISTRICT
Mr. O’Connor introduced the following Resolution and Order Approving the Big Elm Drainage District in the Town of Patterson:
R-0909-13
The following Resolution and Order was proposed Mr. Edmond O’Connor, who moved its adoption to wit:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson is considering the establishment of the Big Elm Drainage District in the Town of Patterson, which district would service the several parcels encompassed by the lands described on the attached Schedule “A” and
WHEREAS, a certified copy of the Order of this Board calling for a hearing thereon, which order is dated the 22nd day of July, 2009, was duly and regularly published in the Putnam County Press on August 25, 2009, and certified copies thereof were duly posted in accordance with law, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing having taken place at the Patterson Town Hall, 1142 Route 311, Town of Patterson, Putnam County, New York on September 9th at 7:30 p.m. at which time all persons interested in this matter were heard, and
WHEREAS, the improvements proposed consist of providing for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management practices located outside of the highway right of way for the Big Elm Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the expense occasioned to construct the improvements for the Big Elm Subdivision has been borne by the subdivider of the property, who subsequent to their construction has relinquish control of the drainage structures to the Big Elm Subdivision Homeowners Association, and
WHEREAS, the Big Elm Subdivision Homeowners Association has dissolved and is no longer active, and the homeowners of the Big Elm subdivision have petitioned the Town to create this drainage district to provide for operation and maintenance of said drainage improvements, and
WHEREAS, the costs to the District will be assessed to the property owners participating in the district on a benefit basis using a per unit assessment with each residential home equaling one benefit unit, and
WHEREAS, that the cost of the District to a typical property has been estimated to be one-hundred and ninety-eight ($198) dollars per year to restore the stormwater basin and for the future operation and maintenance.
NOW ON MOTION OF Edmond O’Connor, seconded by Ginny Nacerino, all members present voting therefore, it is:
IT IS HEREBY FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED, by the Town Board of the Town of Patterson that notice of the hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient; that it is in the public interest to establish of the Big Elm Drainage District in the Town of Patterson; that all of the property, and property owners within said Big Elm Drainage District are benefited thereby; and that all of the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed drainage district, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Big Elm Drainage District shall encompass those parcels of property set forth on the attached Schedule “A,” and it is further;
ORDERED that the improvements have been installed and paid for by the developer, and at no cost to the benefited property owners, prior to the Town of Patterson assuming responsibility for the operation of the drainage district, and it is further;
ORDERED that the expense occasioned by the establishment of the Big Elm Drainage District shall being assessed, levied, and collected from the several lots and parcels of land within said district, as set forth on the attached Schedule A, in proportion as nearly may be to the benefit which each lot or parcel of land in said district will derive there from, and it is further;
ORDERED that the costs to the District will be assessed to the property owners participating in the district on a benefit basis using a per unit assessment with each residential home equaling one benefit unit, and it is further;
ORDERED that the cost of the District to a typical property will be one-hundred and ninety-eight ($198.00) dollars per year; and it is further;
ORDERED that there the cost for the capital improvements to restore the condition of the stormwater basin will by twelve-thousand five hundred ($12,500.00) dollars, and it is further;
ORDERED that there will be no hook-up fees for the district, and it is further;
ORDERED, that this Resolution shall be subject to permissive referendum pursuant to Article 7 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed within ten days after the adoption of this resolution to cause to be published at least once in the Putnam County Press, a newspaper designated as the official newspaper of the Town for such publication, and posted on the sign board of the Town, a notice which will consist of this resolution in its entirety including any attachments and schedules.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye: Carried.
PATTERSON FIRE DEPARTMENT PARADE
Mr. O’Connor stated the Patterson Fire Department thanked us for the support of their carnival and also noting that the parade was cancelled but has been rescheduled for Saturday, September 26th at 6:00 p.m. I hope everyone can attend.
RC ENTERPRISES REQUEST TO REZONE
Mr. Curtiss stated I wanted to make sure all the Board members saw that before they decided what they wanted to do.
Mr. O’Connor stated this is a petition to amend our zoning map to include the parcel owned by RC Enterprises.
It is our belief that amending the aforementioned zoning map will create compatibility with existing development patterns. Multi-family housing at the subject site would also add to the diversity of housing types within the Town of Patterson and will provide a source of moderately priced housing.
Mr. Robert Marvin from Marvin & Marvin stated I’m a lawyer in Pawling. I am here representing RC Enterprises. I would like to discuss the petition and the merits of it.
I brought some maps I would like to hang. I would like to give you a little history on how we came to the point of asking the Town Board to consider rezoning this property. The forty-four acre parcel that we are talking about is adjacent to the condominium complex on Bullet Hole Road, which is Fox Run. Back in the early 70’s Fox Run condominiums were apartments. They weren’t owned by the residents.
It was approved by the Planning Board in Patterson for 330 units. The design was to build it in phases. What’s in the ground now since the late 1970’s is what was Phase I. I believe it is 204 units that have been constructed for a long time. It was fully approved to go to 330 units. 128 units was going to be built on the parcel that we are talking about. In the 1980’s the owners of the apartments changed them to condominiums and sold them to the people who were residents at the time. As part of that process, they subdivided the undeveloped part to preserve that so that they could develop it later. The first map I have up is a copy of the subdivision map, which was filed with the County Clerk in Carmel. A couple of the notes on it indicate what I have discussed it already. The original approval was for 330 units and the approvals to build the balance of the units were still preserved which became parcel two, which is the forty-four acres that we are talking about now.
Mr. Williams stated I just want to clarify to the Board that what Mr. Marvin is telling you is a subject of litigation. That was their claim. The Town prevailed on that. In fact, it wasn’t exactly accurate.
Mr. Marvin stated it was approved. What happened was the zoning was changed which I was getting to. The property was up zoned to what is now R4. This 44 acre parcel is now R4, single family development four acre parcels. I was not personally involved in the litigation but my understanding of what it is about was the owner of the property claimed as part of that lawsuit that the rights that he had back in the 70’s had been preserved do to the fact that they had built certain parts of the infrastructure which would serve both phases as part of Phase 1 and therefore the rights were vested and could not be removed by the up zoning. They lost that case. I’m not here to argue that case or dispute the outcome of that case. I guess the court was right. If they weren’t they are because there are no appeals now. Because of the up zoning, they lost those approvals. The court has determined that. Over the past year or so my clients engineer Joe Zarechi, who is with me tonight. He went to the Planning Board and discussed with them the possibility of coming up with a proposal that would work to rezone this property for multi-family. That leads me to this document. 48 units on the 44 acre parcel and that is what we would hope to do if we could get the rezoning for the multi-family. That is down from what was originally approved of 128 units. The Planning Board did find that their were certain benefits to the request. They did vote against the rezoning but obviously, it does not bind this Board. I ask you to focus on some of the positives that even the Planning Board found would come out of this rezoning.
Mr. Marvin continued his discussion on the rezoning of Fox Run by using his map.
Mr. O’Connor stated you would build another one of the Fox Run buildings.
Mr. Marvin stated the exact number and size would have to be discussed with the Planning Board. Mr. Zarechi the buildings that you have here, how many units are you proposing here.
Mr. Zarechi stated four units per building (inaudible).
Mr. Marvin stated in the process of discussing this possibility with the Planning Board one of the concerns that the Building Department in Patterson had is the lack of maintenance in a lot of the Fox Run Phase I. That is privately owned. My client hasn’t owned that since 1986 and they haven’t really kept up as much as they should in there. My client as the potential developer of the undeveloped parcel contributed some money to help them bring these up to snuff. They were willing to do that to a certain extent and there has been correspondence on that. That offer remains. He is not obligated to do that.
Mr. O’Connor stated I’m a little confused. Your client has nothing to do with the existing Fox Run.
Mr. Marvin stated yes. They sold that in the 1980’s.
Mr. O’Connor stated he still has the right to drive through them.
Mr. Marvin stated yes. All those rights were preserved as part of this subdivision. He retained easements for the future development of this lot. He owned everything at once and preserved those rights including the right to the sewer treatment plant. The sewer treatment plant size can handle the entire development as it was originally proposed.
Mr. Griffin stated what are you going to do for water.
Mr. Marvin stated they would probably have to drill another well. I think that was part of the original proposal in discussing that with the Planning Board.
Mr. Griffin stated are you going to do a separate stand-alone system there.
Mr. Joe Zarechi stated when we went through this with the Planning Board we discussed all those issues. All those things were open for discussion whether it was more beneficial to the existing homeowners that we tie into their water system. We would be more than willing to upgrade any of the water systems and drill new wells. They didn’t want us to expand the District, which would need Town Board approval, and we possibly could create our own water system. That would all be predicated on going through the planning process the best way. As far as the sewage treatment plant, there are plans to upgrade the system if not already in place by the DEP. The sewer system has the capacity to handle the entire project, although there are problems with the plant there. The way the lot is configured right now its forty-five acres and even the lot that was rezoned R4 doesn’t have enough frontage to bring the driveway up.
Mr. Griffin stated how much road is up there now.
Mr. Marvin stated this lot has about 100 feet of road frontage.
Mr. Griffin stated I’m not concerned about the road frontage. The Town code has some specifications in there about single point access and length of road. A cul-de-sac is 1,600 feet, if my memory serves. You are still going to have single access point in there and how much more road are you going to add.
Mr. Zarechi stated probably 1,000 feet of road but it will be a private common driveway extension from this property line.
Mr. Williams stated no, not the case. There is no road up there it is a driveway.
Mr. Griffin stated ok.
Mr. Zarechi stated that is the way we would continue to come in.
Mr. O’Connor stated how much of the forty-four acres would be developed and what would you do with the rest.
Mr. Zarechi stated I don’t have the exact number but I believe it was around ten acres.
Mr. O’Connor stated twelve buildings.
Mr. Bruce Majors stated how will these buildings be classified. Will they be classified as condominiums or as multi-family rentals.
Mr. Marvin stated I guess that question really remains to be seen. I think my client’s idea now is to sell them as condominiums.
Mr. Majors stated as you are aware we are concerned about taxes. This will not be a fifty-five and over community.
Mr. Marvin stated there has been discussion about that.
Mr. Majors stated the tax rate for condominiums are 50% or 60% of the rate of regular single-family homes. Therefore, when you look at the value of the house and more children to the school district it will add a lot of money to us. I think part of your consideration for any consideration of approval would be how these buildings will be classified. We are taking it on the chin for the condominiums and I think that should be a consideration in your deliberations. Thank you.
Mr. Marvin stated we are not saying at this point they will be condominiums. I don’t think my client has thought that through completely. What we are asking now is for the Board to consider extending the multi-family overlay district to include this 44 acre parcel so they could build multi-family.
Mr. Griffin stated I don’t think we can state with any certainty what our decision is going to be.
Mr. Marvin stated I didn’t anticipate there would be a decision tonight.
Mr. Griffin stated there are a lot more questions that need to be asked. We appreciate you coming in. Does any other member of the public have any questions.
CONVENTION TO REFORM NEW YORK
Mr. O’Connor stated the Minority Leader of the Assembly sent out a request to anyone that is interested in reforms. Property tax cap, debt reform, initiative referendum, and recall. The people can start laws on the books and they can get rid of existing politicians if they feel they are not serving the needs. In order to do that, it would require a convention to amend the Constitution. The Minority Party is asking for three things. One is to sign on www.reformny.org to sign their petition.
Mr. Griffin stated I would be in favor of bringing this back at the next meeting and moving the resolution. I think there is an awful lot of things to be fixed in the State of New York.
Mr. O’Connor stated I would be in favor of a few of the things. I will make a resolution at the next meeting supporting the concept of having a New York State convention.
FIRE TRAINING – COUNTY AGREEMENT – UPDATE
Mr. Curtiss stated I spoke with Mrs. Baumgarner this week and we are supposed to be receiving a Municipal Services Agreement probably this week. We should have it for the next meeting.
Mr. O’Connor stated the County wants the Town to chip in for the Volunteer Fireman Training Center, since it is falling apart.
NANCY THOMPSON RUN/WALK
Mr. O’Connor stated a woman by the name of Nancy Thompson was very active in the Putnam Lake area. Her family is very active in the VFW and AMVETS. She was a wonderful woman and very young. She was an oncology nurse for many years. She died of cancer and left the children behind. Sad to say the children without their mother and with their father working, their grandfather was taking care of them. He just suddenly died Friday. This event has been planned long before he died. Nancy was a great runner, so we came up with the Thompson Run/Walk. Please, if you have the time to attend it would be most helpful to her family. It will be held October 10th in Putnam Lake. It’s a mile and half. There will be a lot for the children to do. The cost is $30.00 for an individual, any size family for $45.00 and that includes all. It will be a great day to remember a great person. It starts at 8:30 a.m. The run will start at 10:00 a.m. Any questions please call Rachel McLaughlin at 278-0502 and Terry McGardle 278-6339, or myself at 278-2179. The email address is tomracey@comcast.net. Any participation or volunteers are welcome and would be appreciated.
JOSEPH CAPASSO
NO AGENDA
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Griffin stated now that our Sheriff has less worries on his mind have we made any progress on getting permission.
Mr. Curtiss stated I spoke to Adam Levy and he is going to meet with me and the Sheriff and see if we can iron this out.
MRS. NACERINO’S ENVIRONMENTAL TIP
Don’t take an ATM receipt. ATM receipts are one of the top sources on the planet. If everyone in the United States left their receipts in the machine, it would save a roll of paper more than two billion feet long or enough to circle the equator fifteen times.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Ms. Dede Lifgren stated Tim this question is for you. Can the Town maintain and hold the liability and property it does not own.
Mr. Curtiss stated what we would have to do is if we had an easement we could maintain the liability otherwise we would have to have a rider to the policy just for that access way.
Ms. Lifgren stated you don’t have to own.
Mr. Curtiss stated no, you don’t have to officially own.
Mr. John Boeheim stated speaking for my neighbors; I would like to express our appreciation for our continued support in our endeavor in trying to get the road dedicated. Thank you very much.
Ms. Margarite Short stated we all know that our lake needs a lot of help. We all want to help it in different ways but the fact is if the lake has to be open to the whole Town, we are very glad there are four access points and they will be marked, then we feel that the people within the thirteen original maps really should be apprised of that before. That is something they should know.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
There being no further business, Mr. Griffin made a motion to go into Executive Session at 9:40 p.m.
Seconded by Mr. Kassay. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
Mr. O’Connor made a motion to close Executive Session at 10:00 p.m.
Seconded by Mr. Kassay. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
Mr. Griffin called the meeting back to order at 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Griffin made a motion that we add Acceptance of Fire Protection Contract with Patterson Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Acceptance of Fire Protection Contract with Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance of Fire Protection Contract with Patterson Fire Department No. 1, Inc.:
R-0909-14
WHEREAS, there has been duly established in the Town of Patterson a fire protection district known as the Patterson Fire Protection District No. 1, which encompasses a portion of the Town and is on file in the Town Clerk’s office; and
WHEREAS the Patterson Fire Department No. 1, Inc. has proposed to provide fire protection services to said District for the term and for the compensation set forth in the attached Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to enter into the attached Fire Protection Contract with the Patterson Fire Department No. 1, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby approves the Fire Protection Contract with the Patterson Fire Department No. 1, Inc.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute the Fire Protection Contract and any and all other documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance of Fire Protection Contract with Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.:
R-0909-15
WHEREAS, there has been duly established in the Town of Patterson a fire protection district known as the Putnam Lake Fire Protection District No. 2, which encompasses a portion of t he Town and is on file in the Town Clerk’s office; and
WHEREAS the Putnam Lake Fire Department has proposed to provide fire protection services to said District for the term and for the compensation set forth in the attached Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to enter into the attached Fire Protection Contract with the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby approves the Fire Protection Contract with the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute the Fire Protection Contract and any and all other documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Seconded by Mr. Kassay. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK