Skip Navigation
Welcome to Glenville
Town Links
Quick LInks

This table is used for column layout.

Town Board Minutes 12/15/04
DECEMBER 15, 2004

Present:        Supervisor Clarence W. Mosher, Councilmen Peter V. Russo, Mark A. Quinn, Robert E. Bailey and James W. Denney (Councilman Denney arrived at 7:44 pm)

Absent: None

                Supervisor Mosher called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.  Councilman Russo gave the Invocation and Joan Menhinick was asked to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance

                Supervisor Mosher asked the Town Clerk, Linda C. Neals, to call the roll. Everyone was present and accounted for except for Councilman Denney who arrived at 7:44 pm.



                The Greens Corners One Room School Museum, owned by the Town of Glenville, was opened to visitor’s afternoons July and August and by appointment for groups September to October 15th this past season.

                We were 11 volunteers to help with the various tasks this year.  We are in great need of more volunteers to act as guides.  The number of guides keeps dwindling.

                We appreciate the help from the Town Highway Dept. in keeping the grass cut, taking care of the shutters, and repair of the front steps damaged over the winter.

                One again this year the Greens Corners One Room School was listed in our New York State Senator Farley’s Guide to Historic Sites and Museums in Fulton, Montgomery, Saratoga & Schenectady Counties for the Summer 2004.  We had copies on hand for visitors at the school.  An article appeared also in the “Easy Chair” magazine summer 2004 issue describing our one-room school museum.

                The Web Site listing the Greens Corners School is still available on the internet.  It is a project of the Mohawk Valley Library Association involving 7th and 8th graders.  The Library Association has printed some brochures explaining this research about historic sites of the Mohawk Valley.  I have brought some of these brochures and have them on the table.  Help yourself!  The school is featured as part of a game called the “I Spy Game”.  The Web Site is listed on this sheet.  Click on the tour map for Scotia-Glenville to come up with a picture and location of the school.

                We had 151 visitors this year.  We had two classes of second graders from Schenectady in the spring.  Over the 29 years we have been open there has been a total of 9,214 visitors.

                We plan on reopening the school museum for July and August weekend afternoons, and September through October 15 by appointment in 2005.  Hope to see all your smiling faces next year at the school!

Adrienne Karis

                Councilman Russo – “This year’s attendance at one hundred and fifty-one is that greater than the previous year or is that pretty much…

                Ms. Karis – “It’s a little bit less.  You can’t predict how many people will come.””

                Councilman Quinn – “Is there anyway that we can aid you in publicizing it as a board or as a town?”
                Ms. Karis – “Well I appreciate the school being listed in the newsletter, that has been helpful and I don’t know of anything else you could do.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “The town website would be helpful.  Please contact my secretary and give her the information regarding Greens Corners School.”

                Ms. Karis – “Very good, I will do that.  I have had very good help from Jamie MacFarland.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Thank you very much Adrienne for all that you do for the Town.”

Town Council Reports:

                Councilman Russo – “I have a report pertaining to the fire training facility.  We are basically waiting for the other shoe to fall, which is basically NYS DOT transferring the property to the Town of Glenville.  Which would be paid for then out of the grant that we have from NYS, so it is kind of like the State getting its’ money back.

                We have enlisted Senator Farley’s office in helping us with this as far as getting the NYSDOT Board to approve it.  We have done quite a few things for them besides the survey.  We have had an environmental search that was recently completed and just did a SEQRA also through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

                As of this mornings phone call to David Smingler he suggested that we wait until after the holidays.  Our item will be number one on their agenda.”

                Councilman Quinn – “At our last meeting I promised a brief status update on our communications console.  We’ve been relying on the technical expertise of Mr. John Selustio from the Lehtech and he has prepared a wonderful technical analysis on our needs in terms of our communications console, however due to a change in leadership within that organization they are no longer allowed to prepare requests for proposals so we will have to entertain at some point a resolution to hire a consultant to do so.  I am told by the Deputy Chief there may be a local source that can do that efficiently and inexpensively.

                Another piece of good news on this is it looks like there’s some availability on the 155 megahertz range we currently operate on the 800 megahertz high range and it could result, that type switch could result from an infrastructure standpoint in a savings in the six figures in terms of our total cost.  So we will keep our fingers crossed.”

                Councilman Bailey – “Just one quick item.  Those of you in Alplaus who have been looking forward to getting sewers; a little bit of progress to report, the State Comptroller has acknowledged receipt of the application for the extension to sewer district into Alplaus and they are giving the application do consideration, which is all you can expect at this point.  Basically they are reviewing it to make sure that the cost per resident is within their guide lines and that everything is within allowed parameters as far as costs.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Item No. 5 is a public hearing on the rezoning application by Concord Development Company, LLC to rezone three parcels totaling 9.1 acres on Maple Avenue from Suburban Residential to Multi-Family Residential to allow for the construction of 52 townhouses.”

                Supervisor Mosher opened the public hearing at 7:44 pm.

                Chris Myers, President Concord Development – “We are here tonight to formally request a zone change for two parcels of land in the Maple Avenue area opposite Alplaus Road.

                Before arriving here tonight we have been in front of GECC and received their positive recommendation, we have been in front of the Town of Glenville’s Planning Commission with their positive recommendation as well for a rezone change.

                The front two parcels are currently zoned multi-family.  We are looking to rezone the back three parcels; one of them is an existing cemetery, we are looking to change the zoning of the back two parcels from suburban residential to multi-family.

                We want to make it very clear, although we are asking for a zone change we’re not asking for an increase in density.  The reason we need the zone change is more for a use then density.  If we were to build in today’s zoning we probably could build about seventy-five (75) housing units.  What we are proposing after the zone change is fifty-two (52) townhouses.  So actually there will be fewer units then what we could have with the current zoning, but we want to change the use.

                We have done a complete wetland study and full traffic study.”

                Councilman Russo – “We have gotten a number of letters and e-mails from residents on Maple Avenue and I know you have done your traffic studies but I have been in that Maple Avenue traffic between 7:30 am and 8:00 am and it is bumper to bumper.  If someone is trying to come out of that property it’s going to be very difficult.”

                Mr. Myers – “These types of comments and concerns which are real and that is why we have gone ahead before this to do a full traffic study.”

                Councilman Quinn – “You mentioned you did your traffic flow analysis, I’ll be very eager to hear about that.

                This in my opinion, this intersection of Maple Avenue and Alplaus is already at times a dysfunctional situation.  What are you going to do in terms of the entrance to this proposed project to alleviate some of that?  Have you addressed that?”

                Mr. Myers – “We looked at a number of scenarios along Maple Avenue.  There is quite a bit of frontage.”

                Councilman Quinn – “Between the traffic flow, the current zoning and what looks to be several historical landmarks I guess the fundamental question here is why this location?”

                Mr. Myers – “It is a wonderful site.  The topography…(Mr. Myers was too far away from the microphone very difficult to hear his comments)  nice natural ravines that we would like to take advantage of and quite frankly Glenville is a wonderful place to be building right now.  These houses will also be in the Niskayuna School District however that is not the market that we are going after.  This market that we are going for will be the empty nest market.

                These homes will be, they will be marketed to the empty nest market.  Right now we are thinking in the price range, base price $175,000 to $200,000.

                What we are proposing also is this interior road network that will become a private road.  We will build the road to the Town’s specifications however we won’t turn it over to the town we will retain ownership and maintain it by a newly formed homeowners association.  That association will take care of all the snow plowing, all the lawn care, etc.”

                Councilman Quinn – In you preliminary discussions of this project did you consider single family as opposed to multi-family?”

                Mr. Myers – “We considered it initially, again the market today and will be as time goes on an empty nest market.  This is the type of thing that people are looking for in that age bracket, maintenance free where you literally walk out the door and you don’t have to worry about it.”

                Councilman Quinn – “Have you received any feedback on the impact on the local school system?”

                Mr. Myers – “I don’t believe we have contacted the school system yet.  Currently the front parcels are already multi-family and when the town did the rezoning, I’m not sure what year, I’m told that the back part of the parcel should have been rezoned at that time but it was overlooked.”

                Councilman Bailey – “I also have concerns about the traffic and Mr. Quinn pretty much stated my concern.  I used to regularly travel through that intersection in Alplaus and Maple and curse the minutes that I used to have to sit there.  I can’t believe that this is going to make it better.  I have looked very briefly, I haven’t studied your traffic study but the numbers in there seem too low to be believable; I am very skeptical of that.

                The wetlands area, some of these buildings actually encroach on the wetlands.  Could you describe what you are doing there and how you are going to deal with that, recognizing that another complaint that we hear as we sit here repeatedly is drainage issues and that kind of thing.”

                Mr. Myers – “We have already done wetland delineation by our consultants.  These are all federal wetlands  (microphone did not pick up response)  

                Some areas where we are slightly on the wetlands are within our allowable disturbance area.  I will let Mike Hale from Synthesis go into it a little bit more.”

                Councilman Bailey – “Recognizing that we are dealing in that kind of topography does the planning recognize the need to deal with this certain runoff.  There are developments where I get calls all of the time about that kind of thing.”

                Mr. Myers – “A complete topo survey has been completed.  I suspect that this layout will change to some degree because of storm water issues.”

                Councilman Bailey – “You said that you are taking advantage of ravines and what, what I see is just kind of plopped down here, I don’t see where the ravines…you’re implying there’s views or something.”

                Mr. Myers – Pointed out the ravine on the map and the location of the proposed roadway.

                Mr. Myers – “Another aspect of topography is the existing Yates Cemetery and we have made provisions for access to that.  It sits up on a plateau.”

                Michael Hale, Synthesis Architects – “We have been working with Chris Myers for quite a while on this as he said.  We did meet with the GECC and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The Planning and Zoning Commission has most recently recommended or sent a recommendation on to you for the zone change.  The GECC issued their recommendation for a negative declaration as well.

                Early in the planning phase of this project we met with Dana Gilgore, Andy Coppola and Kestner Engineering to speak to them about the public water and sewer; the availability thereof.  We were assured after going through the various particulars that in fact water and sewer would be available so we took care of that issue.  It will require a pumping station or lift station from a gravity feed into a force main but it does have sufficient capacity.

                The traffic study was completed and the entrance point (shown on the map) just to the south of Alplaus Avenue was found to be the best location based on the turning movements at that intersection and the levels of service along that roadway.

                I think it is also important to note that the areas in the front, the front two parcels, are zoned multi-family currently and thus would allow the proposed use that is proposed there.  We are now only trying to extend in effect that zone for a use change rather than a density change.  Our understanding is that this in the past change of zone or the last update in the Town’s zoning we were told was apparently considered and would have been changed to multi-family and it was apparently overlooked when it was finally drafted on the maps.  Part of the reason for that is there is already a multi-family residence on one of these parcels but I guess that it was just a oversight so we are just trying to extend a zone of multi-family into a zone that is currently suburban residential and one which was planned originally to have been multi-family zone.

                The property boundaries the railroad to the west with the residential sub-division beyond that the sites to the south and north are owned by individuals that have agreed to transfer ownership in part to the applicant so the adjacent landowners are in effect on board with this proposal.  As Chris mentioned it will have a series of private roadways reducing the amount of public maintenance requirements.  Developments such as this do generate much fewer children then single family developments.

                I think that pretty much covers my end of it except saying it again, this is not a plan that would try to increase density, I think that is important to know, we are proposing up to about fifty-two (52) town homes with seventy-five percent (75%) green space which is within the, which is consistent with the proposed zoning requirements.”

                Councilman Russo – “I see on the map that it is basically a four unit clusters…

                Mr. Hale – “Correct, two, three and four.”

                Councilman Russo – “They are all going to be two (2) stories in height?”

                Mr. Hale – (showed the design of the structures on the displayed drawing)  “The type of unit to be expected, it is a two (2) story town home development of this character.”

                Councilman Russo – “The price was one hundred seventy-five to two hundred thousand ($175,000 - $200,000)…

                Mr. Hale – “Yes.  With respect to wet lands we have gone out there, I have personally gone out there with a person from the Army Corp. they verified the edge, we spoke about the various crossings, the stream channel, it is not a classified stream.  We verified the bed and bank aspects, the lengths.  We talked about the prospect, the permit and I can only say that we only spoke in verbal fashion.  We haven’t applied for it yet but (I can’t remember his name) he indicated that it would not be a terribly difficult problem to get a permit for this because it would be less than a one half acre wet land disturbance, which is permitted under the nation wide permit standards as long as you go through the proper course of action.”

                Councilman Russo – “If approved how soon would this be ready for occupancy?”

                Mr. Hale – “Perhaps Chris could answer that better than I.”

                Mr. Myers – “Our goal would be to have this approval over the winter and have construction begin this spring.”

                Councilman Quinn – “Just some clarification on one statement that you made.  You indicated that you had heard somewhere that this one section of the plot was intended at one point in time to be multi-family?  Kevin do you know anything about that, since I have been on the board I haven’t heard any discussion of that.”

                Kevin Corcoran – “Yes the town rezoned the entire town back in 2001.  Any property that was developed for multi-family on the map it was zoned accordingly.  We missed a few.  This piece was owned by a gentleman named Lynn Montorio, he brought it to our attention in 2002.  One of these two parcels that are being rezoned and I just told him that it was an oversight and we would get to it at the point that we initiated the next zoning map amendment.  I didn’t give him a time frame but this project beat us to that.”

                Councilman Quinn – “So this is the first time an action item had the infamous to bring it back to the attention.”

                Mr. Corcoran – “Yes.”

                Councilman Quinn – “The current multi-family situation, just for the record, is on a section that is zoned multi-family.  This much large area is still suburban residential, just for the record.  I just didn’t want comparisons to be made to this one building that is up front because it is currently conforming to the zoning that is present there.”

                Mr. Hale – “The building known as the Alplaus School is in the suburban residential area and it is currently five or six residential units, it is currently a multi-family use in the suburban residential zone.”

                Councilman Quinn – “Have they received any kind of zoning variance from us Kevin?  Is that prohibiting our current zoning there, that building?”

                Mr. Corcoran – “No, that would be grandfathered.”

                Mr. Hale – “My understanding was that that was part of the reason why this was considered originally for change over to a multi-family zone.  It had been used for that for so long.”

                Councilman Bailey – “At the western end of the plot near the cemetery location there’s six units that I judge to be within one hundred feet from the center of the railroad right-a-way.  Are those people going to be aware that there’s train traffic in there that could be disturbing?”

                Mr. Hale – “I would think so.”

                Councilman Bailey – “That is about twice the length of this room.”

                Mr. Hale – “Because of the homeowners association that is going to be formed, which needs approval from the Attorney General’s Office in the State of New York, all of those types of items need to be declared and be a part of the contract.  So they have to be disclosed.”

                Councilman Bailey – “You mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Myers mentioned that the roads would be owned by the homeowners association and I think that is great because we have plenty of roads to take care of, but the other think that I heard was that we are going to need a lift station to get the sewage effluent up to the gravity drain system, is that correct?”

                Mr. Hale – “Actually it just needs to initiate the pressures to get it into that force main.”

                Councilman Bailey – “Are you doing the same think there or is that going to be something that is turned over to the town for us to maintain?”

                Mr. Hale – “In our meeting we talked about ownership aspects and there was discussion about the lift station potentially being taken care of by the public works department.  There was not too much adverse reaction to that but it was conditioned on that they would approve the design of that particular lift station.  We agreed when we left the meeting as we get further into the design faze we would take more about whether or not it would be owned by public works, they would still be able to say no thanks, but they didn’t discount it either.  So there hasn’t been a final decision on that but there is a very good working relationship in that regard.”

                Attorney Mastro, Jr. – “The Department of Public Work doesn’t have that determination.  They can make a recommendation; there certainly has been no final decision because this is the only body that has the authority to accept that as I am sure you know.

                I know that other applications have come before the board and at least it has been my impression that the town wasn’t taking any more lift stations, so you may want to work that into your planning.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “We received a communication from Ralph Pidgeon this afternoon concerning the development and that was made available to the Town Council and also Harvey and Sandra Fox who could not be here this evening but they also sent some information by e-mail.”

                Mark Gregory, Principal of Transportation Concepts – “I am going to give a brief overview of the traffic; I know most of the questions that I have heard here tonight are mainly access and the number of trips.

                Maple Avenue is a commuter corridor.  On an annual basis about 10,000 vehicles a day, two way traffic.  In most of the delay that people experience in this intersection is not necessary along Maple Avenue although it slows at Alplaus Avenue.  The critical delay is on the minor street approach along Alplaus Avenue.  It is a cut through, a lot of people use it as a cut through from north to south, from east to west through intersection because the issues along Glenridge Road cause more people to tend to use this to avoid some of the delays of the two single lane underpasses.

                Hopefully that condition overtime will be mitigated when there is a project on the tip that will improve Glenridge Road as well as Maple Avenue they are both on the tip together to be done consecutively.  I believe that is in 2008.

                We did traffic counts in the morning and in the afternoon during typical commuter traffic 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm.  We have done studies in the area before the time frame when we did this was when school was back in session so we had the school traffic and the bus traffic.  We found that the peaks were pretty much similar about 7:30 am and 4:30 pm.

                We also looked at sight distance conditions because obviously we want to have safe access.  We contacted the county and that was their main concern, safe access.  We also looked at queuing along this intersection for both peak periods and try and determine where some of the delay is.  What we found was by direction in the morning from north to south you have approximately 1,000 vehicles an hour in the peak period and it reverses in the afternoon.  The most queuing we saw was along Alplaus Avenue and a queued from Maple Avenue to the east approximately twelve cars long.  The average queue was about six.  We ran a level of service and what it turned out was that Maple Avenue actually has level service A during both peak periods.  The delay obviously is along the side street, Alplaus Avenue, which ranges between level service D and F.  Level D can be considered acceptable but it is obviously on the lower range of that report card.

                In regard to trip generation we used a national standard for trip generation, the number of trips that the site generates.  We actually based this project on a fifty-five unit town house to be a little bit more conservative although the proposal is for fifty-two units we use fifty-five.  What we found was for the a.m. peak period there is about fifty-two total trips that is entering and exiting the site that can be anticipated as part of this project development.  In the afternoon that number is about thirty-eight, again both entering and exiting.

                We relayed this information to Concord Development and Chris Myers indicated to us that he would like a local study as a comparison, which is always a good idea.  It is a little more costly to do but it is a good standard to bench mark all of the trips because the national standard that we use is acceptable by DOT and a lot of agencies, however it is always good to get a local reference.  So we did that, there are two other sites that we used; the Gables at Mallard’s Pond on Carmen Road, Schenectady and Saratoga Ridge in the Town of Stillwater.  The standards are pretty much the same and what we found with that is that the trips for the p.m. peak hour which is the highest demand, with the two sites are between thirty and almost forty percent lower for those local sites than the national standard.

                We looked at three alternatives and a couple of scenarios.(stepped away from the microphone, could not hear response)

                We have eliminated all of the sight distance issues except for someone turning right out of the site and in that case (stepped away from microphone)  The best approach for this site is going to be to the south of that intersection.  It allows traffic to stage at the minor approach, where it should be allowing the commuter flow of traffic along Maple Avenue to continue without delay and then when the side streets have a gap in traffic which is created either by someone turning from Alplaus Avenue or the site into the main flow of traffic it can do so under those conditions and also by reducing the delay on the main line and also reducing the impact to sight distance farther where the road bends.

                With signalization the issue we have there is when you add a light people think your sight issues are solved and that is not necessarily true.  Especially in a commuter corridor they are use to a light being there and when they see a light indication they feel they have the right-a-way to go straight ahead no matter what is there.  In this case we feel that it would be dangerous to add a signal at this location for the left turning vehicles around that bend in traffic.  Under all conditions we feel that an un-signalized intersection to the south of Alplaus Avenue reduces to the extent possible for the site all conditions for access.”

                Councilman Russo – “You have done the study, have you brought it before DOT to see what there recommendations would be or anything of that nature?”

                Mr. Gregory – “It hasn’t gone to DOT, it doesn’t qualify under…DOT has a standard if there is less than one hundred (100) vehicles per hour per approach they are not necessarily interested.  We did talk to the County about it they were concerned about the safest access they could get there.  We would be more than willing to submit it to DOT; they may or may not comment on it.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “I think there is a warrant already at the corner of Alplaus and Maple Avenue for a traffic signal…

                Mr. Gregory – “We looked at warrants, we didn’t actually…what Clarence is referring to for anyone that is not familiar with warrants for signals, there is a series of warrants in NYS and there are also Federal warrants, there are up to eleven different warrants they involve peak hour traffic flows, traffic flows for an eight hour period, for a continuous period, for pedestrians, for accidents, for a number of different things.  We ran through the numbers that we had although we didn’t put on an automatic counter which would continuously count traffic.  It barely met the four hour warrant for one peak hour and met the one hour warrant which is one of the lower warrants for that signal, so it barely if at all meets some of the criteria for a signal at that location.  I am glad that you brought that up because it is a in our opinion it is dangerous.  If a signal is not fully warranted again especially along a commuter corridor the danger that you risk is that people are not going to obey that condition, that control because it is not fully warranted.  It is like a stop sign that is not fully warranted.  A lot of time you will see three stop signs at a three lane approach to a major intersection like in this case would not be obeyed, which a lot of times the law enforcement cannot be there to do that.  So it is a good point but in my opinion I would not feel comfortable recommending a signal at that location.  The other issue is that it is only about three hundred (300) feet to the railroad crossing again as you’re approaching on Alplaus Avenue to Maple Avenue when you are behind the railroad tracks you see a green light some inexperienced drivers may tend to step on the gas and ignore the fact that the gates are crossing in front of them.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Those are all questions that have to be answered and the railroad gates don’t mitigate against a traffic signal at that intersection, I can tell you that.  I have been involved in traffic safety for thirty-five years and we can work that.”

                Mr. Gregory – “It can be coordinated…

                Councilman Russo – “Since the state has now pushed it back to 2008 before they redo Glenridge Road that’s going to increase traffic considerably just because of the widening between the bridges.  Have you taken that into consideration also because obviously Maple Avenue will probably become heavier trafficked maybe for a longer period of time then just peak traffic times?”

                Mr. Gregory – “We have not seen any of the final design for it…

                Councilman Russo – “The state has been saying that since 1990 that Glenridge Road was going to be improved.”

                Mr. Gregory – “I was at a seminar DOT sponsored, last week and I have seen some other things along that corridor that surprise me.  Glenridge Road is a state highway and by law they can not disrupt the flow of traffic, they have to permit under construction maintain a flow of traffic.  We did not account for that only because we hadn’t seen the design for that.”

                Councilman Denney – “Do you think the traffic impact is higher, lower or roughly comparable as a result proposed use versus the current allowable use of the property?”

                Mr. Gregory – “I think Chris Myers stated the current allowable use could actually have more homes in that area.”

                Councilman Denney – “What if you were proposing fifty-two (52) single family homes, is that typically going to be a comparable level of traffic, more because maybe there’s kids in the house so there’s more trips or less?”

                Mr. Gregory – “Again it depends on the type of the level of housing, what type it is single family, detached garage things of that nature.  It is typically going to be roughly about the same maybe a little more but …

                Councilman Denney – “A little more for which use?”

                Mr. Gregory – “The single family.  We would have to look at that.  There is an variety of different references that you use based on the use but typically it is roughly about the same.  This type of development typically, empty nesters you get a different flow of traffic than you do with single family homes.  Depending on the style of homes, a higher end home may not necessarily have the same traffic as one on the lower scale.  In that case depending on what is proposed if we feel it is that much more of a difference from the national standard we would again like to take a local reference to see what the actual trips are.  They are generally pretty close to the national standard.”

                Councilman Quinn – “A concern I have is as you are sitting on Alplaus Avenue at the corner of Maple there is very limited sight distance as you look to your right.  I did some very primitive scaling with the map that I have, but it looks like the distance between these two intersections is just two hundred (200) feet.  We are going from one dysfunctional intersection to a second tee on the other side within close proximity.  My concern is are we asking for multiple accidents there without any kind of signalization and in your discussions with the county did they consider possibly a flashing caution light that we see at some intersections because I know a problem we have experienced is the county has been very resistant to put a light there for many, many years and we believe it has warranted it?”

                Mr. Gregory – “Under the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law the county actually doesn’t have the legal basis to put a traffic signal there.  In this case it would have to be initiated by the town and the town would have to own and operate and maintain the signal.  Under the Vehicle and Traffic Law the counties do not …

                Supervisor Mosher – “I disagree with you.  I worked with Latch Schmidt and he said that since Maple Avenue is under tipps and we have got to think about 2008 because 2010 is going to come, 2011 is going to come and nothing is going to happen.  Not to Maple Avenue, not to Glenridge Road we can bank on it because the state is going to push their money other places but I asked Latch Schmidt if he could put a traffic signal there and he said he could and then he qualified that he said that he could put a traffic signal there when tipps straightened that road out.  So that backed it off just that much farther.  It was my understanding that that would be the first county operated traffic signal in Schenectady County because they don’t operate any traffic signals.”

                Mr. Gregory – “I will have to check the Vehicle and Traffic Law.  As I stated, I believe that the counties don’t have the legal basis to do it.  They can put a signal there, I’m not saying you can’t put a signal there but I don’t think that under the law they can own and maintain the signal it is usually…

                Supervisor Mosher  - “It seems strange doesn’t it to you that Maple Avenue is a county road, Alplaus Avenue is a county road and the Town would put a traffic signal there and would be responsible for putting…

                Mr. Gregory – “I have to look at it, the county, if they started owning and maintaining signals they would have to have a separate department as does DOT and the town to maintain and operate in a legal basis and…

                Supervisor Mosher – “It just doesn’t seem realistic.”

                Mr. Gregory – “I guess I would concur with that.”

                Councilman Quinn – “What do you anticipate the selling price of these units to be?”

                Mr. Myers – “A base price of $175,000 to $200,000.”

                Councilman Quinn – “I guess my concern is that everybody that comes to us with this type of development says it is catering to empty nesters but if I am a family with four kids in Schenectady and I am ready to move up and I can move to the Niskayuna School District in something that might be affordable and close I am going to be considering this.  I am sure you are going to have empty nesters but my concern is after all of these statements we might end up with half to two-thirds perhaps being families with multiple children.”

                Mr. Myers – “First of all they are not large enough for families.  These units are in the 1,800 to 2,000 square foot range.  A lot of them have first floor master bedrooms with a second or third bedroom on the upper floors.  The primary reason a family will not move in is because of the homeowner’s association rules and regulations.”

                Councilman Quinn – “What percentage of your current developments fit this type of perimeter are occupied by families?”

                Mr. Myers – “The two sites that Mr. Gregory mentioned  (microphone could not pick up response)

                Supervisor Mosher opened up the floor to the residents.

                Ray Legere, Acorn Drive – “The one question that I have to ask is how is this going to improve my life?

                Mr. Myers – “I don’t have an answer for that.”

                Mr. Legere – “I am looking at my house in Woodhaven and I am looking at the traffic count, the studies, the school load, how is this going to help me?

                Mr. Myers – “I am not sure how it can help you, but I can say that as we mentioned a number of times already under the current zoning we would be allowed to build without town board influence strictly planning board influence we’re probably looking at more units with more trips coming out of that site.  So what we are proposing will have fewer trips generated versus what we would be allowed to build.”

                Mr. Legere – “So if you don’t get this proposal passed, what are your plans for the property?”

                Mr. Myers – “We would have to take another look at it and maybe follow the current zoning.”

                Mr. Legere – “What would you project that to be, number of units for example?”

                Mr. Myers – “Again we are allowed for up to about seventy-five (75) units realistically about…

                Mr. Legere – “I am sure you have a plan B and what does that plan B have at this point?”

                Mr. Myers – “Multi-family apartments in the front and single family in the back.”

                Mr. Legere – “An approximate value?”

                Mr. Myers – “I don’t know…

                Mr. Legere – “I am just looking at this proposition and I moved to Woodhaven from the City of Schenectady about eight (8) years ago because it was suburban residential.  I understand your right to put it there and again I just don’t know how it helps the residents of Glenville.  I appreciate the fact that you want to maintain your roads, it is a wonderful thing, the sewers, I don’t want to see any burden on the town.  I do want to see development, it is a good thing but these empty nesters are not what I moved into Woodhaven for.  I moved into Woodhaven for the families, I moved in for the suburban infrastructure, the wonderful Town Board.  I just don’t understand how this is helping me.  I appreciate the fact that you want to develop it but I don’t know how you are helping the town by coming in here and adding the seventy-five (75) or the fifty-five (55).”

                Mr. Myers – “We have a substantial barrier between Woodhaven and this project…

                Mr. Legere – “It is only a geographical position for me that’s all.  I go through that intersection, I appreciate the traffic count, fifteen sounds ridiculous, but I understand the numbers are the numbers, you can work the numbers.  I am not even implying that you are working the numbers but I fell asleep during your presentation nothing personal.  Again I just have to ask the question – why does the town need this?  Why do you want to do this in the town?”

                Mr. Myers – “My reason is to build up scale homes..

                Mr. Legere – “Who is to benefit from that?”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Mr. Legere, you really should be addressing the board rather than Mr. Myers.”

                Mr. Legere – “I am sorry, this is my first time at a public hearing.  I sat silent for too many times and when I heard about this it just drove me nuts.  It really did and I appreciate the building aspect of this I really do, but again it boils down to one thing, how does it help me and my family?”

                Attorney Mastro, Jr. – “A possible response to that question is that it would broaden the town tax base in theory lower your overall taxes.  The overall town expense would be spread out over more tax payers.”

                Mr. Legere – I am not sure I understand that whole theory.”

                Councilman Denney – “Larger amount of people paying into the same size pot.”

                Mr. Legere – “The density issue is also an issue for me and I am not sure why it is not a density issue.  They made a statement that it is not a density issue it seems to be more of a rezone.  I would like to know the impact on Glencliff School.  I am not sure what the town can request from the developer in terms of a study.  I would like to know what impact it is going to have on Glencliff.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “That will all have to be spelled out to Planning and Zoning and the various committees.”

                Mr. Legere – “Who has the final decision?”

                Supervisor Mosher – “The Town Board has the final decision on whether it is rezoned or not.”

                Mr. Legere – “Okay and you get recommendations from which groups?”

                Supervisor Mosher – “We get recommendations from you and we get recommendations from Planning and Zoning and Glenville Economic Conservation Commission.”

                Councilman Denney – “If I could make a suggestion.  Maybe you could drop us a note with some bulleted points about what you think the issues this raises and potentially how you might prefer to see them mitigated, keeping in mind it is a privately owned piece of property that can develop in the current zoning.  Some of the issues that you raised may very well not only address this proposal but also a future proposal as well.  I think you brought up some very good points.”

                Barbara Casey, Alplaus – “My biggest concern about the project is the impact on traffic.  I appreciate the figures that you provided tonight.  Again a lot of us who know the reality of driving through there everyday and those of us who battle to get a traffic light at Alplaus Avenue realize that additional drivers on that road would have a significant impact, especially with fifty-two (52) units, two cars per unit perhaps.  The numbers that you talk about sound like they would be realitively doable but I think it would be a big impact on traffic and on the quality of life in the town.”

                John Cuday, Pinewood Drive – “I have been there since 2000 and I picked that area and have enjoyed it tremendously because of the school district, the single family homes and the opportunity that afforded my family.  I have absolutely nothing against multi-family units, I came from a state that saw tremendous growth and I saw small towns get hit with a number of large developments.  The town board routinely accepted those with the thought of improving the tax base.  It was the impact that they did not consider at least not considered adequately.  The fire, the water, the police and the traffic concerns.  I have to drive that road every single day, with my kids it is typically more than just the morning commute and the evening commute, it is usually two more times.  You throw in one freight train and your day and your timing is gone.  You can not tell when those freight trains are going through, there is no set schedule.

                I see the units, I appreciate what they look like, and my concern is from that general perspective of that geographic area of the town.  I am coming out of Woodhaven every single day looking at that road and the queues are longer than seven cars.  I have come close to being rear ended several times sitting there trying to turn on to Alplaus Avenue and I appreciate the people living on Alplaus Avenue trying to turn onto Maple.  That traffic will back up all the way from Glenridge right underneath that overpass and you throw in one truck that is too high for the overpass, which happens frequently, that poor guy is now stuck there.  That overpass from that railroad pass is not leaving us, my concern is that there will be a major accident there.  There is going to be loss of life and I am surprised that that hasn’t happened since I have lived there.

                I won’t let my kids anywhere near that area on bicycles.  I don’t care what they say about the bike path on the side of the road there is not adequate space for the traffic that is on that road today.  That is my biggest concern with this development.  It wouldn’t matter if it was single family or multi-family the adequacy of that area, especially the location of where they are going to put the entrance onto the road, the two hundred foot mark concerns me dramatically.  There is limited sight access there and I urge you all to look at that very carefully.  The traffic study, I am not convinced adequately will cover what will occur at that intersection and I can see that intersection all the way from Glenridge Road right up to what is called the Ronald Regan Way, that whole section throughout there has several turns in it that will cause a problem if the traffic backs up.  I urge you to look very carefully at that and to go down there and sit in your cars someday and just watch the queues that occur.  They don’t always occur in morning and evening.  It is going to happen, there is going to be a child killed there or there is going to be a serious accident there if there hasn’t been already.  I just urge you to look at those very carefully.”

                Kim Pangburn, 93 Maple Avenue – “I can see the traffic everyday, every snow fall there is an accident, some one is off the ditch, from 4:30 to 6:00 to go down my hill and take a left you just can’t do it.  The traffic is backed up all the way past Alplaus and I just can’t imagine adding more traffic.”

                Councilman Denney – “Where are you relative to the entrance that they have here?”

                Ms. Pangburn – “I am before Air National Guard, up on the hill.  It’s pretty bad, the shoulders on the road, if you are a runner like my friend, he fears for his life every time he goes out and runs.  My kids they go up the back way, they can’t ride, you can’t walk, I have four children and for me with four kids I am out eight times a day so when you say the traffic, that is me going out eight times for each one, different sports.”

                Norm Mullins, 18 Mountainwood Drive – “I am an EMT in Alplaus and I can certainly attest that there are a lot of accidents on Maple Avenue.  I can also attest that right where you are going to put that turn about two hundred (200) feet that is almost blind when you come out of the corner going south because I have been out there directing traffic when we have had accidents.  You come around that corner and just up from where you are we have had accidents in the past from even the driveway that is there now.  The car is upon you and people coming out of there aren’t going to realize that until it is going to be too late.  I think they have got to take a real serious look at the traffic situation because at the other end you are coming off the hill in the circle, which is also a disaster area but that area at Alplaus doesn’t necessarily have to be in a high traffic area, in fact in the high traffic area you probably would be better off because the cars are going slower.  You get later on at night the cars are coming along there at a pretty good clip and you are not going to see the car coming until they are right on top of you, particularly on a rainy night.”

                Bob Culver, 247 Alplaus Avenue – “My address is just east of the bridge, quite a ways away from the effected intersection.  There are many days both morning and non-early morning hours when traffic backs up to my house, which I think is more than twelve car links.  On a snowy day it is all the way from Rexford to Maple Avenue.  The other point that I didn’t hear mentioned and I think it should be a concern for the town, the county, government expense, you probably are aware of the flooding we have in that intersection when it rains.  I don’t mean when we have a tornado or a hurricane come through with eight inches of rain, I mean when we have an inch of rain and that whole area in that corner floods from run off now coming from Woodhaven, the creek that comes down through there.  It isn’t the fault of the people that built Woodhaven but there isn’t adequate drainage to take that water through to the creek.  Now if they put in fifty-two (52) residences with roofs, blacktop with eliminate some of our natural resources, so I think this is something that has to be considered.  The cost might not be to the town to put a new drain through there but somebody is going to have to address that issue with more development on that corner.  Right now there is a certain amount of obstruction between the railroad tracks and Maple Avenue.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Andy Coppola and I were just talking about that the other day, Bob, because there isn’t adequate drainage from where the old schoolhouse is because that floods right across that intersection and it brings sand and the county needs to have a bigger pipe to take that water to the creek.”

                Mr. Culver – “It may not be a town’s expense but somebody in government somewhere is going to have to do something about that as this grows and as this gets worse.  When we really get a bad rain, that water coming across Maple Avenue can be a pretty scary situation.”

                Kevin Fragnoli, 43 Pinewood Drive – “First of all on the taxes issue we haven’t quite seen the relief from Glenview Point on our taxes, so I am expecting that next year.  Secondly not to beat traffic, but we have and everybody is pretty well covered almost everything except for the one issue.  The one good thing that has happened in the last six months is the closing of Habel Lane.  We use to have traffic come by the house literally 45 to 50 mph through a residential neighborhood.  It wasn’t guard people, it wasn’t neighborhood people, it was people cutting by the traffic.  They were cutting up Habel to get around the traffic jams, I don’t know when you did your study.  Whether it was done before Habel was closed or after it was closed that will affect a number of cars going by.  Anything that we do, as far as I am concerned, to increase the traffic back through my neighborhood, through an unlit, no street light, dark, 4:30 in the afternoon, my kids are playing.  Occasionally I have 40 mph traffic going by my house and if that is the alternative to get through that then anything we do to add to that as far as I am concerned is a bad idea.”

                Kristin Morris, Woodhaven Drive – “My biggest concern is because I have small children and I am concerned that with all the traffic issues that came up, I am wondering if you are going to address not only the increase of numbers of students that maybe attending Glencliff School but also the big traffic times of day are when our children are going to be on the buses in exactly that area and my concern is the safety of my children riding the bus and going to school and is this something that you have taken into consideration.  When asked I guess the answer was that they didn’t even ask the schools, they didn’t even talk to the schools.  I just want to make sure that the board is looking at that because I think that that …because it is a traffic issue but also because of the children.  The reason why I moved to this area is because it is a family friendly area and I think that that is what drives people to this town and I think that considering whether or not you are going to change the zoning I think that that is a key issue that I would like to see you address as the Town Board.”

                No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Mosher closed the public hearing at 8:55 pm.

                The following people exercised the privilege of the floor.

                Dave Gallup, 430 Sacandaga Road – Beukendaal Fire Department
                Mike McLaughlin, 1910-1911 Cambridge Manor Drive
                Richard Nebolini, Chairman Fire District No. 4 Committee

                No one else wished to speak so Supervisor Mosher closed the privilege of the floor at 9:25 pm.

                Supervisor Mosher – “I am going to ask Councilman Denney who is liaison to the Planning Department to join me down front.”

                Supervisor Mosher invited Kevin Corcoran, Town Planner, to come forward.

                Supervisor Mosher – “We heard a lot about development tonight.  Whether Mr. Myers’ project is going to move forward or not, we don’t know.  Over the past few years I have seen more and more development in the Town of Glenville than has been present in the last fifty years combined.

                The Planning Department works very hard, the Building Department works hard too, Engineering Department works hard too, but Kevin gets the brunt of everything that comes along.  I have here a plaque that was published in Business Review in September of 2004 the fastest growing municipalities ranked by 2003 total construction value for 2004 and this plaque says:


                Councilman Denney – “This is focused on the fastest growing municipalities but I think in addition for growing responsibly is a result of not only the Planning Departments efforts but the Town Board efforts and all those committees that are a part of that process.”


Moved by:       Councilman Russo
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS the Town of Glenville requested a renewal for all lines of general property casualty insurance, excluding workers’ compensation coverage; and

                WHEREAS Cool Insuring provided a premium comparison for our insurance renewals,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Glenville accepts the renewal of Cool Insuring and awards it the General Property Casualty Insurance excluding Workers’ Compensation coverage for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 pursuant to the terms of its’ December 9, 2004 renewal comparison proposal.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


                George Phillips – “We haven’t given Marvin a rate increase since 1998.  What is included in hear is a 3% increase.  We think it is a prudent increase, if the Board has a concern with that we can certainly discuss that concern.

                They have done an excellent job on our audit processes.  There’s not a rich pool of people to bid against if we want to bid, but I think if we do want to bid that is a thing to put in a work session for next year and crunch through and look at the market out there.

                As I talk to other comptrollers there’s really only two players in our market unfortunately that are very competent at doing this type of job.  With the experience that our current auditor has I think we have one of the better choices right now as far as his understanding of the accounting changes that are coming at us.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “George, could you tell us your schedule for February 28th.”

                Mr. Phillips – “On December 20th we’re going to be bringing in a part time independent contractor, a CPA, that is going to walk us through a number of our accounting structured issues.  We have already started the audit on the first part of December with Marvin’s auditors to get all of our preliminary samples done in advance of year-end close.  They have already looked at everything that we are doing, all the vendors that we have and they looked at all the vendors that they want subsequent follow-ups on and they’ve given us that information and that is being compiled and ready for them to come back and review that disbursement and payroll journals will start in the end of that process also.

                The auditors requested an April follow-up date and so has Marvin so we will have our February 28th submission in to the Comptroller’s Office and then we will have another month to basically get all of the exhibits, I put together a box about three feet thick of paper work that has to be in Marvin’s hand to sign off on every single component of that statement that goes to the Comptroller.  We should have in that line, first week of May, our financial statement at least in draft form available for you to review and peruse.  The financial statements will be in a different format this year, they will be in the State Comptroller’s AFR format, which will give you detail by each of the fund balance categories that the Comptroller tracks, so instead of having a general fund like you have had in past years, which is kind of including Town General to Town Outside and potentially highway and other scenarios all of those fund categories will have separate financial statement levels.  It will be a little bit more paper, but it will be more useable to you I think in planning for the budget.  The reason we are making this step is to basically not do the Gatsby 34 Compliance, we saw no cost benefit of doing it immediately the cost factor in implementing Gatsby 34 was getting into the ten thousand dollar ($10,000) range and some of the vendors wouldn’t even answer the phone to talk about doing it so we started looking at the numbers in terms of the impact and benefit to the Town we are deferring that type of an accounting structure change at this time.”

                Councilman Bailey – “I can’t find in the resolution when it says we are going to receive this audit or is there a delivery date somehow specified.  It seems like…

                Mr. Phillips – “The Annual Financial Report to the State Comptroller has to be in the State Comptroller’s file by February 28th unless we request an automatic extension for sixty days, so by statue we will have a February 28th AUD to the State Comptroller available, that is the source document that the audit basically works from.  Our financial statement actually, this year, will be that AUD in some respects you will have a February 28th at least draft document internal, external May 1st you will have Marvin’s version and then subsequent to any issues that may arise.

                The problem, Councilman Bailey, is trying to put a stipulation that says Marvin’s audit will be here by June 1st is, let’s take this year for example; we got our AFR done right on time March 1st and immediately five auditors descended on me.  One from HUD was the most problematic, I got through four of them fairly successfully and would have had the audit done June or July but HUD wrote a letter late August when they finally got around to responding to their view that was very, very skating.  They had five concerned findings that they had to have addressed before they would release a comment that said we might have to write a check for a million dollars to them.  I had to put together a packet of paper and then it took them another several months to look at that paper and finally say, you guys did your job in the Town of Glenville, your financial statements are cleaned to be released and then Marvin can go forward from HUD’s recommendation at that point.

                So I can’t plan for those types of contingencies and that is why it really wouldn’t be appropriate to put in the resolution it would be here on x date.”


Moved by:       Councilman Russo
Seconded by:    Councilman Denney

                WHEREAS, over the past several years, the Town of Glenville has hired C.L. Marvin and Company, P.C. to complete Audits of the Town's Financial Statements, and

                WHEREAS, this audit is conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby authorizes the Supervisor to enter into an agreement with C.L. Marvin and Company, P.C., 11 British American Boulevard, Latham, New York, 12110, to provide the audit of the Town's general purpose financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, in the form of the N.Y. State Comptrollers’ Annual update document; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees for these services will be based on the actual time spent at their standard hourly rates; and

                BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees for this service shall be Ten Thousand Ninety Dollars ($10,090.00), based on preliminary estimates by C. L. Marvin and Company, P.C., plus the additional amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($925.00) for auditing Section 8 Housing, totaling an amount not to exceed Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00), to be taken from budgeted account 01.00.1320.4500 except for One Thousand Thirty Dollars ($1,030.00) for auditing the Highway Fund-Part Town to be taken from account 04.00.5140.4000; Five Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($515.00) for auditing the Water Funds to be taken from account 50.11.8310.4500; Five Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($515.00) for auditing the Sewer Funds to be taken from account 40.09.8130.4500 and Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($925.00) for auditing the Sewer Capital Project Fund to be taken from account 40.09.8130.4500.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Bailey
Seconded by:    Councilman Russo

                WHEREAS the Town of Glenville operates a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

                WHEREAS the Town of Glenville is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to prepare and adopt a written Annual and Five-Year Plan that establishes local policies for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

                WHEREAS a public hearing is required to be held on said plan,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville will hold a public hearing on February 2, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, at which time the Town Board will hear all persons interested in the written Annual Plan for 2005 and Five-Year Plan for 2005–2009 for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk is hereby directed and authorized to publish a notice of this public hearing in the Daily Gazette on or before December 19, 2004.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Quinn
Seconded by:    Councilman Russo

                WHEREAS, the next Basic Course for Police Officers will start on January 19, 2005, and

                WHEREAS, the Town Board at its December 1, 2004 meeting did authorize the Chief of Police to conduct interviews with prospective candidates from the Schenectady County Civil Service list and to hire one candidate to be named to this position in the police department with an effective date to coincide with the start of the Basic Academy, and

                WHEREAS, the Interview Committee consisting of elected and police officials met with candidates, conducted interviews and made its recommendations, and

                WHEREAS, the Police Chief hereby concurs with the recommendations of the Interview Committee,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to hire Kelly A. Gordon of 1332 Vley Road, Scotia, with an effective date of January 19th, 2005, and

                BE IT FURTER RESOLVE, that the compensation for said officer be as set forth in the current P.B.A. Contract, and

                BE IT HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, on behalf of this Town Board, be hereby authorized and directed to notify the said officer of the aforementioned appointment.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Bailey
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has recommended the introduction of a local law to protect the public potable water supply of the town of Glenville by regulating cross connections and backflow; and

                WHEREAS, the purpose of the local law is to protect the public potable water supply from possible contamination by isolating pollutants which could backflow into the public water supply; and

                WHEREAS, in order to further comply with the requirements of the New York State Sanitary Code,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Glenville Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, a the Town of Glenville Municipal Center, to hear all persons interested in commenting on the proposed local law.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Bailey
Seconded by:    Councilman Russo

                WHEREAS, with the continuing expansion of water and sewer infrastructure in the Town of Glenville the Commissioner of Public Works hereby recommends the creation of a Maintenance Helper in the Water/Sewer Department; and

                WHEREAS, this additional position is needed to continue providing reliable operation, maintenance and repairs of the growing systems; and

                WHEREAS,        such additional personnel cost has been provided for both in the 2005 Town Budget and in revenue derived from system-wide usage charges,

                NOW, THEEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the position of Maintenance Helper (Non-Competitive class) be and hereby is created in the Public Works Department, Water and Sewer Division, effective 1/1/05 and compensation for such position shall be in accordance with the Town of Glenville/CSEA Agreement 2003-2005, and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Human Services is hereby directed to file such paperwork as is necessary with the Schenectady County Civil Service Commission to create the aforementioned position.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Bailey
Seconded by:    Councilman Russo

                WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Public Works hereby recommends that the carpets in the Town Hall Office and Common Area and the Police Office area be replaced; and

                WHEREAS, the carpets have been determined hazardous due to people tripping and falling creating a potential liability for the town; and

                WHEREAS,        Andimo Coppola, Commissioner of Public Works has obtained one proposal on state contract PC #58127 for removing, recycling, and disposing existing carpet, and replace with Mannington Urban Design Carpet Tile for both areas; and

                WHEREAS, to reduce contract labor costs moving and replacing existing furniture will be done by employees of the Department of Public Works during closing hours in an effort to not disturb daily operations of the offices;

                NOW, THEEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commissioner of Public Works is hereby authorized to accept the proposal from Invironmentalists for removal, recycle, disposal of existing carpets and then furnishing and installing Mannington Urban Design Carpet tiles in the Town Hall Office and Common area and Police Department Office area in a sum not to exceed $20,000.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Denney
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS, in order to provide for the supervision and maintenance of Indian Meadows Park and its skating rinks during the winter months, seasonal “recreation attendants” are employed,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that John Meaney, 4 Martin Lane, Charlton and Dennis Moffett, 253 VanVorst Road, Glenville, are re-hired as Recreation Attendants from 12/15/04 – 03/31/05 at the budgeted rate of $8.00/hr (no benefits)

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Denney
Seconded by:    Councilman Bailey

                WHEREAS, due to numerous, unanticipated repairs to the mechanical systems of the Senior Center (HVAC, electrical, refrigeration, alarm system), that expense line item is projected to exceed available funds by approximately $3,000-4,000; and

                WHEREAS, funds to provide for that shortfall are available in the Parks Utilities fund,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that $4,500 be transferred from 01.00.7110.42 to 01.00.7620.4000.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Russo
Seconded by:    Councilman Bailey

                BE IT RESOLVED that the Monthly Departmental Reports for November 2004, as received from the following:

                Assessor’s Department
                Building Department
                Highway Department
                Justice Department
                Police Department
                Town Clerk's Office
                Section 8 Housing Payments

be, and they hereby are accepted, approved for payment and ordered placed on file.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Russo
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the meeting held on November 10, 2004 be and they hereby are approved and accepted as entered.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None
Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Russo
Seconded by:    Councilman Bailey

                BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the meeting held on November 17, 2004 be and they hereby are approved and accepted as entered.

Ayes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           None
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None

Motion Carried


                Councilman Denney – “We had a pretty extensive work session on Monday, so I don’t think there is any need to go into too much detail.  We have had a lot of meetings on this, public hearing last week.

                I would say there are a few primary elements that I would like to cover, one is that we are proposing a two-year contract with a flat rate of $287,000 the first year.  The intention that I had put forward on Monday was that if we were going to move with a two-year contract the desire would be to have some communications go on between the Village and the Town over the up coming months and then no later than the end of June, I think was the date that we talked about and I think it is reflected in here, that we would come to a final agreement on a second year cost and if we weren’t able to do that we would refer back to a one-year and I’ve talked to our attorney today.

                That is the basic concept and I would like to go into discussion.  

                On the actual contract that is attached to the resolution I’ve got a few items that I think maybe need to be changed slightly.  Item 2B – talking about the period between the January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006 that the contract sum is going to be negotiated in good faith between the parties but then it says and shall be in the amount not to exceed the sum paid in the first year of this contract increased by the lesser of the CPI, say that is 2% hypothetically or 5% of the first year contract amounts so in that case if the CPI was two the CPI would be 2%.  That doesn’t really reflect what I would like the intent to be and I want to see what the attorney might think to move closer to my intent.  I would rather see it say something to the effect of that we will negotiate in good faith between the parties and if an agreement is not reached that it will then be CPI or 5%, because here I think it puts us in an odd position.  I can see where in June if we say “you know what, we have done our research, we have looked at what the Village is incurring in expenditures relating to all of the things including their building project, personnel that sort of thing” we may say in fairness it might be 9% increase and we are going to have somebody come to the podium and saying in the contract you don’t have to do any more than what the CPI was, what are you giving them a break for?  So what the intent really is that there be a default position of the CPI or 5% which ever is less and if we don’t come to an agreement if that change was made the next portion of that to be says “in the event the parties are unable to agree on the second year contract amount either party may give six months prior written notice of contract termination”.

                Let me walk through a couple of hypothetical – if we negotiate in good faith and agree, obviously that’s a good point, let say that we don’t agree and therefore we all know that on June 30th it’s going to be the lower of 5% or inflation that might not be appealing to one or both of the parties no later than June 30th they need to give notice and say we don’t want to continue this agreement come January 1.

                That is really what is hanging over both of our heads to make sure that we get together, work cooperatively, address the questions that I know this Town Board still has and do it in a way where both parties are protected.  If the Village says if we can’t accept a second year contract price of $287,000 plus inflation we’re gong to opt out.  It doesn’t mean that over those following months between July 1 and the end of the year we can’t talk but we are not obligated at that stage of the game.  But it only compels us to talk about the price all of these other elements in the contract some of which are new would be in place and don’t need to be negotiated further.

                The only other problem I had was Item 9, which seems to me to be a carry over from the prior agreement and unless I am misreading it for some reason, it ought to be deleted.”

                Attorney Mastro, Jr. – “I agree, it was a carry over from the five-year agreement.”

                Councilman Denney – “What I would like to amend my motion to reflect that Item 9 is deleted and that Item 2B be changed in wording to reflect what I brought up in discussion.”

                Councilman Russo – “Let’s say hypothetically you don’t agree to a price, now it is $287,000 and let’s say that the Village comes back with a $300,000 figure which is way above the 2% or the 5% increase and you don’t reach ..

                Councilman Denney – “It reverts to the contract line which is the lower of CPI or 5%.  Let’s say hypothetically it’s 3% on $287,000 that’s just under a $9,000 increase which would take it to $296,000.  The Village is proposing $300,000 we don’t come to an agreement on that it reverts to $296,000 no later than June 30th they would have to send a letter that they won’t accept that $296,000, They would have to say they are going to opt out of the two-year contract.  Either party has the ability to opt out.”

                Councilman Russo – “My problem is the $287,000.  It’s $7,000 more than what we really should be considering because just based on last year’s increase alone which was 28.6% from ’03 to ’04 this is now into around 6 or 7% increase but yet the entire Village budget was only increased by 4% and if we were to do a 4% increase that would bring it to the $280,000.

                I can’t make an amendment now, but I will definitely make an amendment if this doesn’t pass.  I would like to see it at $280,000 not $287,000.”

                Councilman Bailey –”In light of some of the things that were said here earlier, some of that I guess I anticipated and I thought a lot about this.  This is an issue that is important to an awful lot of people.

                Firefighters are probably the profession that one thinks of first when the ideals of selfless sacrifice and community service are mentioned.  Recall the firefighters from companies all over NYS joining together to run into and up the World Trade Centers.  I think that image is seared into our minds for ever.  I believe that the firefighters of Scotia and Glenville both professional and the volunteers are just as capable of that same level of commitment, sacrifice and service I really believe that.  To our volunteer firefighters in particular I think you should be praised for giving back to your community.  We need more citizens willing to help shoulder the burden of civic responsibilities.  I believe our communities are much stronger and more vibrant because of the contributions of civic volunteers such as the volunteer firefighters.

                What I find unbelievable is that we have got petty jealousies and rivalries between our fire companies that have been allowed to develop to the point that the quality of service could be compromised.  The residents of Scotia and Glenville need fire companies to support each other, to work together, to praise each others accomplishments and to help each other to improve in what ever ways they can.  We have got to end this senseless in fighting and denigration.  The only competition that should occur should be on the firematics field where it belongs.  This is not a contest with winners or losers.  It’s not a case of whoever has the biggest firehouse wins.  An issue here is the question of who will provide a level of fire and emergency medical service to Fire District No. 4 that is equal to or better than what the districts presently receive.

                So how are we going to make this decision?  My engineering oriented approach was to evaluate all of the evidence and the arguments supporting each proposal and determine who could best meet the functional requirement.  As I see it we can not reduce the level of service being provided.  Therefore it comes down to determine who can provide a level of fire and emergency medical service to Fire District No. 4 that is equal to or better than what the district residents presently receive.  So if I go through the evidence that was presented we the Board, there was a survey conducted by Behan Associates of Saratoga, the response of the survey showed a strong preference for 24-7 staffing and for the ALS emergency care at the intermediate level which is already provide by Scotia Fire Department and is not provided by Beukendaal/Thomas Corners partnership.  There were letters and e-mails that were received, I personally received ten letters strongly in favor of Scotia Fire Department and I received one strongly in favor of Beukendaal/Thomas Corners.  Several of the Scotia Fire Department letters came from private citizens who related personal experiences as the basis for their position.  Not all of them were unbiased; some of them came from people who were connected with the fire department.  The single letter urging us to award the contract to the volunteer partnership came from a member of those fire departments.

                The next bit of evidence was the recommendation from the Fire Protection District No. 4 Committee and from where I sit that was a committee of knowledgeable citizens that included both volunteer and professional fire fighters, present and former fire commissioners, paramedics, emergency services advisory personnel and district residents and after extensive research and deliberations that extended over five (5) months they made the unanimous decision to award to Scotia.

                Another issue, speed of response, whether it is a NASCAR Race or a hundred yard dash we all know that the start of the race is critical to having a chance to win.  It is the same with getting first responders to an emergency, having a team ready to go at the fire house results in arrival at the scene of the emergency faster then if the first responders have to come from home or work.  Scotia has been able to maintain a superior average response time less than 2½ minutes and that is simply a consequence of having people at the fire house, it is just a matter of physics it is not that the volunteer’s don’t try they certainly do.  Other objective evidence that has been discussed tonight at some length; the Scotia Fire Department has provided emergency services to Fire District No. 4 since 1946 so if we are going to change that another provider of emergency services would have to provide us with some objective evidence showing that they could deliver some comparable service at a lesser cost or superior service for the same cost.  Fire District No. 4 has got 828 parcels in it and this would be a significant increase in responsibility for the Beukendaal/Thomas Corners partnership.

                This Town Board did receive a letter back on October 13th 2003 from the Commissioner of District #5 and that letter promised us that the partnership would maintain the present level of service for 36% less cost that is great news however we never received any of the metrics or analysis showing how they could do that, there was no discussion or planning for us to evaluate in how they would update their membership, training or equipment to provide compatible service that is already being provided by Scotia.  We wanted to consider but we need the facts.

                Then we get to costs, where I guess we are hung up.  The residents in District #4 have always had to pay more for their emergency services protection compared to what residents of all volunteer districts have to pay.  Fire District No. 4 gets faster average speed of response and that’s reflected in the premium they pay.  The premium is simply labor cost to keep professional firefighters at the station around the clock to provide that faster response.  I know I would expect to have to pay a little more for better protection and when I need it I certainly want the best protection I can get.  Think about it if your home is on fire you’ll want the firefighters there as soon as possible and the cost really doesn’t seem to make that much difference when you really need the service.

                I know the extra cost is an issue with some residents in the district and I do agree that at some point the cost becomes prohibitive but I am also mindful that we the Board trying to do the most good for the most people.  If we award the Scotia Fire Department the contract at the cost that Scotia proposes by my calculations I think a District #4 resident with a $100,000 assessed home would pay about $100 a year more than if we were to award to the volunteers.  That is about 30 cents a day.  Based on the ratio of the letters that I received they are in favor ten to one in paying that extra amount.

                Now we’re at the majority of this Board has arbitrarily chosen to prepare a contract with a figure that’s significantly below what Scotia has proposed.  The resolution is talking about $287,000; Scotia is in the $312,000 range.  This reminds me of trying to go out and buy a car; you see a car on the lot it has a price tag of $20,000 on it so you offer the guy something less because you don’t want to pay full price.  But it the dealer had to pay $19,000 to get that car from General Motors and you offer him $15,000 you’re not going to get the car.  I think that is the situation that we are in right here; I don’t think we are making an offer that is in good faith with where we are at.

                The Mayor spoke earlier, from my prospective I am not sure what choices Scotia would have.  We are putting them in an awkward position here.  They could refuse our offer and that leaves a very limited alternative, it might force layoffs down there which would impact the quality of fire service in the Village.  They could just accept the contract and eat the cost or raise taxes and that is certainly not fair to the village residents.  I think we have to think about that.  From what I can see I’ve got a huge pile of paper here, much of it from the Village the Mayor has been very forthcoming and opened and has shared the financial situation and the background for this with us.  We had a meeting earlier this week, I know I provided the Supervisor with my estimate as to what we ought to be paying and I believe everybody else did.  I was under the impression, Mr. Supervisor, that you were going to negotiate with the Mayor.  I thought that that was going to happen before this meeting.

                For the record the price that I thought was appropriate was a price of $305,800 the first year, $319,800 the second year.  I guess I’m concerned that we are playing chicken here with Fire District No. 4, I am not sure where we are going to end up.”

                Councilman Quinn – “It has been rather disheartening, the hostility has been shown, interdepartmentally during this process.  I hope that we can heal that because the reality is public safety in the Town and in District No. 4 is bigger than all of us and our petty differences, that has got to stop.  Mutual aid needs to be something that is based on a certain formula and egos and personalities should be totally removed from that formula.

                With regard to the figures that we have finally arrived at in my opinion we used the best economic indicators we could and we also considered some of the fixed costs that are involved in this situation.  I get a little bit angry when I hear the statement well this is going to result in a 1% tax increase, the presumption is that you can’t do anything on the expense side, you can only transfer those costs to taxpayers and that offends me, it is not a complete presentation of the picture.”

                Councilman Russo – “Over the past five years there have been $136,000 increases and that is not typical for any of the other fire districts or even in the City of Schenectady percentage wise.  Anyone can come up with a figure and unfortunately today you can make figures play anyway that you want.

                If you say you need $312,000, you can’t do it unless we get $312,000 I think there has to be some budget cutting somewhere.  It’s not been apparent in the past because there have been constant increases and I think at $287,000 that’s still too high.”

                Councilman Denney – “I agree with the vast majority of what Councilman Bailey said.  A couple of things that are particularly offensive though, that needs to be responded to.

                It was stated we’re acting in an arbitrary manor and not in good faith.  I don’t think that’s a particularly fair statement given the amount of work that everybody’s done and we are entitled to have our own point of view.  I think it is a little personal and inappropriate to say that we are acting somehow arbitrary and not in good faith and I hope that you would reconsider that.

                The reason why I don’t think that my position is arbitrary and I’ll let the other councilpersons speak for themselves, we have to look at the bigger picture.  It’s not just what one person from a five member village board comes to us with.  There’s five members on that board and they haven’t had an opportunity to say what there number is yet.  To date the village is acting arbitrarily to use your definition because they haven’t formally come together and said $312,000 is our number, a person came out and said that was their number.  Not only that they arbitrarily assigned a number of sixty percent of their sunk cost when I might be able to debate the issue had I had more information and say it should be 52.59% or maybe 43.68% I don’t know, I would have to look at it in more detail.  That is a huge percentage of the expenditures that we are looking at going forward and I think we deserve to be able to look at that and consider it so that it is less arbitrary on both sides and that’s why I think that this negotiation and communication element going forward over the next six months I think will be particularly productive.

                There’s still, I think, a lot of uncertainty regarding what the actual expenses are that the Village has incurred and part of that is because of some problems that they are dealing with, which I tried to avoid getting into details Monday night and I am going to continue to avoid doing it, but I don’t like being accused of being arbitrary and acting not in good faith when I know things that I haven’t come right out and said publicly in an effort to not be particularly harsh and I am going to continue with that effort to not be particularly harsh but if there is going to be more personal attacks I’ll lay it out there…

                Councilman Bailey – “No personal attack was made nor intended and I certainly did not…

                Councilman Denney – “You did say that we were not acting in good faith…

                Councilman Bailey – “I used that word, yes, and I did not mean it as a personal attack.”

                Councilman Denney – “So, that said one reason I think I am acting in particular good faith and I have communicated this to people in the Village.  I received a call from one of the trustees last night, talked to one of the firefighters today and I will state it here publicly that my intention as part of this six month process is to repair a lot of the frayed aspects of the relationship, which frankly both parties just like with the volunteers, departments with Scotia, both parties have some fault in that, have some responsibility to repair it.  It is the same thing with the relationship between the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia.  The Town of Glenville reached out a couple of years ago, March of 2003 and asked to be involved to some extent in communications regarding the building project and yet that didn’t happen.  It is appropriated that that occur.  When it comes to things like hiring new people not to replace existing positions I think it is courteous to talk to your customer who is going to incur some of that expense to at least talk to them and let them know that this is coming down the pike, we think it is a good idea.  Do you have any thoughts or feedback for us?  That is just good customer relations and that hasn’t occurred.  On the other hand I suppose we could go down there and insert ourselves.  Historically we had a commissioner on the Board of Fire Commissioners that did that on Fire District No. 4’s behalf and yet without any consultation with the town that organization was effectively rendered useless even though it’s still in the law.  So there are a lot of things that have occurred which make it not quite so arbitrary as it appears on its face, but over the next six months if we can repair some of those aspects of the relationship which haven’t been there, get more solid numbers based on what the current Village Board is going to be adopting in their upcoming budget and we can get a picture of where their fiscal situation is here to date in this budget which even they don’t know because of some…I am content to say here publicly that there has been some unfairness involved with the first year number, that that can and probably should be reflected then how we consider the second year number.  So that’s kind of where I am coming from, yet it is somewhat arbitrary but I’m not prepared to accept given where the relationship has been in the past to just accept what it is that the Village, one person on the Village Board, is proposing based on frankly some relatively arbitrary assumptions that I would like to see more supporting information and I think we can do that and do it productively and in a timely manner and then we’ll make whatever corrective action is appropriate.  If we can’t come to terms I think this document that we are considering tonight will make it very easy for either party to just walk away and move in another direction.”

                Councilman Bailey – “You alluded to; well call it a correction factor you just spoke about, how that would be incorporated in here?”

                Councilman Denney – “I don’t think it should be incorporated into here, I am just saying that my intent would be that if it is clear after going through the next six months, the Village adopting a budget, if we decide that we want to pursue a second year and not terminate the agreement my intention would be if a shortfall was created as a result of this, that the Village Board felt strongly about, we should consider that when it comes to the negotiations that are going to happen in the year two.  Do I think that it should be formalized, no I don’t.  I think that’s frankly how we got to this point.  That is part of the trust that needs to be built back up.  Councilman Russo was involved in negotiating that last five-year agreement and I believe the Supervisor has a chart that shows some numbers that were in the contract, there was a correction factor and every year it just got wider and wider.  I am not blaming the Village entirely for that, there’s been a lot of things that were beyond their control, but that combined with some of the other issues that are there but I am not going to talk specifics about in a public meeting create this environment where I think we can’t just except $312,000 at face value.”

                Supervisor Mosher – “Every contract there are two sides.  I’ve never seen a contract yet where the one side said “take it or leave it” and we had to take it.  I want to talk about the cost.  From the year 2000 the cost rose from $175,000 to $270,000, it went up $45,000 from 2003 to 2004.  It is intended to go up $42,000 more in 2005 that is a 38.8% increase.

                Mr. Bailey, you said they don’t mind paying a little more, well I don’t mind paying a little more either but I a surely don’t like to go from $175,100 to $312,800 in six years.  There is something wrong.  I don’t care if we have retirement costs or health insurance costs, there is something wrong here.  That is too much of an increase.”

                Councilman Denney – “I had asked Attorney Mastro to make some alteration to 2B to better reflect what the intent was, which was being negotiating in good faith but not and shall be a sum not to exceed.”

                Attorney Mastro, Jr. – “As revised it would read “for the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006 the contract sum shall be negotiated in good faith between the parties and if no agreement is reached the contract amount shall be an amount not to exceed the sum paid in the first year of this contract increased by the lesser of the consumer price index or 5% of the first year contract”.

                Councilman Denney – “The second paragraph of that remains the same.”

                Attorney Mastro, Jr. – “Yes”

                Councilman Denney – “That addresses the concern that I have.  So that is my amended motion.

                Similar to how we handled the situation with the budget vote.  If Mr. Bailey and Mr. Russo would like us to vote on their motions, I think that they have both indicated that they have a problem with the $287,000, I think because of this being as important of an issue as the budget vote I’d be willing to vote on any amendments that they would want to propose first and then if either of those didn’t pass then we could vote on mine.

                I think it is important on something like this that we all get on the record what it was that we preferred and then have an opportunity on my resolution and they may say “okay I had my chance, I’ll support it” but if they don’t they might not and I think out of fairness to them so it doesn’t get mischaracterized down the road I think that might be more appropriate.”

                Councilman Russo moved the following amendments, Seconded by Councilman Denney – “I would like to amend the amount only in the contract to include what Councilman Denney wanted to change in paragraph 2B and deleting paragraph 9 and changing the amount to $280,000.

Ayes:           Councilman Russo
Noes:           Councilmen Denney, Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Mosher
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Defeated

                Councilman Bailey moved the following amendment, Seconded by Councilman Denney – “that paragraph 2A the sum be changed to $305,800 and the basis for that is that it gets us very close to the figure if you take the 2004 cost which we are paying and add the fixed cost for liability insurance, which we can’t do anything about, medical insurance, pension and disability, that’s where that number comes up”.

Ayes:           Councilman Bailey
Noes:           Councilmen Russo, Denney, Quinn and Supervisor Mosher
Absent: None
Abstention:             None

Motion Defeated

                Councilman Denney’s motion to amend was Seconded by Councilman Quinn.


Moved by:       Councilman Denney
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS the contract agreement for fire protection services to Fire Protection District No. 4 of the Town of Glenville has been prepared by the Village of Scotia and submitted to this board for approval; and

                WHEREAS this agreement is for a two (2) year period with a cost of Two Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, ($287,000) for the period between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 and for the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, the contract sum shall be negotiated in good faith between the parties and if no agreement is reached, the contract amount shall be an amount not to exceed the sum paid in the first year of this contract increased by the lesser of the Consumer Price Index or five (5%) percent of the first year contract amount; and

                WHEREAS this Town Board did call for a public hearing thereon; and

                WHEREAS in lieu of the formation of a volunteer fire district for the territorial boundaries of the protection district, it is determined that it is in the best interest of the residents of said Fire Protection District No. 4 to provide such protection services,

                NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Glenville, as representatives of the Fire Protection District No. 4, that said agreement be and it hereby is approved and the signatures of the respective Town Board Members affixed thereto.

Ayes:           Councilmen Denney, Quinn and Supervisor Mosher
Noes:           Councilmen Russo and Bailey
Absent: None
Abstentions:            None

        Motion Carried

                Motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Russo and Seconded by Councilman Denney.

                The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM.


Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk