No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-20321 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Date: August 20, 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Lansing Town Hall Board Room AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Privilege of the Floor: A) Anyone wishing to address the Board. 4, Public Hearing: Town Ordinance — Resolution on Watercraft in certain shoreline areas. 5. Public Hearing: Amendment to the Town Land Use Ordinance. 6. Highway Superintendent's Report. 7. Code Officer's Report. 8, Engineer's Report. A) Information Session on proposed Town of Lansing Water District Consolidation, 9. Motion to accept AMTEK recommendation i.e.: Highway Department Salary Schedule. 10, Set Public Hearing — Randall/Harner: Keeping a Horse — September 3, 2003, 7:15 p.m. 11. Approve Audit, 12, Board Member's Report, 13, Executive Session if needed. 14. Adjournment. 322 August 20, 2003 The Lansing Town Board met in Regular Session at the Lansing Town Hall Boardroom at 7:00 p.m. with Supervisor Farkas presiding. The Supervisor called the meeting to order and had the clerk take the Roll Call. Stephen Farkas Katrina Greenly Doug McEver Meg Overstrom Francis Shattuck Bonita Boles Guy Krogh ROLL CALL Supervisor Present Councilperson Absent Councilperson Present Councilperson Present Councilperson Present Town Clerk Present Town Attorney Present The Supervisor lead all in the Pledge of Alegiance. VISITORS: Mark Carsile, Wendy Pierce, Duane Ray, Connie Wilcox, Terrance McGinness, Kelly & Eric Gavitt, Rhonda & John Glennon, Jack French, James Spencer, John Haring, Tom & Joan Ellis, Ross Benson, Geri Gay, Deborah Trumball, Dave Hatfield, Fred Miller, Melissa Fields, Gerald & Arlene Caward, Sandra Grooms, Daniel Coates, Mary Helen Cathles, Robb Cutting, Richard Andrews, Tim Hauck, Kandea Mosley, Francis Bell, Jr., Marcia Lynch, Douglas Fowler, Steven Nedrow, Barbara & Ken Pomichter, Richard Wentworth, Barbara Anger, Mary Shelley, Emily Franco, Jase, Baese, Luis Mauleon, Nate Snyder, T. Hauck, Brent Zifchock, Jeff Walters, Bev Abplanalp, Ken Cohen, Sharon Butler Bowman, Scott Walters, David & Joyce Heck, Gregory Lawrence, John Dietershagen, Frank Proto, Don & Marge Campbell, Dorothy & Mary Krizek, Nancy & Stephen Loncto, Charlie & Shelia Nedrow, Billie Boles, Denise Duve, Emily & Paul Meseck, Dan & Julie Boles, Danna Kinsey, Peter McDonald, _ Cindie Bobnick, Michelle Uhl - Stark, Dan Quest, Pamela Tanzola, Gloria Bowman, Karen Edelstein, Susan Eyster, Diane Reppert, David Schwartz, John McLean, Mike & Sandy Sweazey, Donald Worsell, Susan Reinhart, Mary Rosenkrantz, Daniel Konowalow, Martin Christopher, Danny Senecal, Eileen Kolynich, Mary Ann Caliel, Larry Beck, Paul Monkman, John Kaminsky, Viola Mullane, Roger Schnock, Dick Platt, Dave Herrick, Rich John, and approximately four other residents. A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing having been advertised, the Public Hearing on the proposed Town Ordinance regarding watercraft on Cayuga Lake was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The Supervisor stated that a comment period would be held and that anyone interested, could speak but they will be held to two (2) minutes. The following comments were made: Julie Boles: 234 Myers Road, Lansing: Mrs. Boles read the following statement: I'd like to first thank Mr. McEver for taking the time out of his day to speak with me and as well Don Campbell from the Coast Guard. I appreciate Mr. McEver's stance in that the town needs to get some sort of ordinance because if we don't the County will and they may be more restrictive. Having first found out about the potential water craft ordinance at the last Board Meeting, my thoughts have been that I didn't feel the ordinance was necessary but that we need some restrictions on the lake. First, I feel that personal watercraft (PWC) should not be singled out or discriminated against by having restrictive hours of operation. PCW owners are subject to the same laws and requirements as larger, more conventional boats (registered, titled). Why not the same rights on the lake? We have a great natural resource and I'd like to see as many people as possible enjoy it. NYS hours of operation are between sunrise and sunset. Continued, August 20, 2003 If individuals are having problems with neighboring watercraft users, they need to speak to them about their concern and not just complain to the town. If need be, further action should be taken up with the law enforcement. We have done this with both reckless boaters and PWC users near our property regarding excessive speed near our children while swimming. After discussing this, there were no problems. Let's be neighborly and discuss things person to person. I believe I live in one of the heaviest areas of PWC users. I live above UC Point (Salt Point — State land) and have no problem what so ever. I equate a PWC and a boat to a motorcycle and a car. Both needs to follow the same speed limits while the motorcycle rider must wear a helmet, the PWC rider must wear a personal floatation device. The motorcycle and car do not have different restrictions. The best time to water ski or tube, go to breakfast at one of the eateries on the lake is usually before 10:00 am. Secondly, I'm not in favor of setting further speed restrictions on the lake. I have been in and around the lake for more than 30 years and feel that the current NYS speed limits are adequate. NYS has set speed limits to 5 mph within 100' from shore, a dock, raft, float or anclaored boat. NYS law prohibits PWC from riding within 500' of marked swim areas — speed in 10 mph. There have been very few accidents on Cayuga Lake. The most recent, very unfortunate fatality that occurred more than a year ago had nothing to do with speed. The sideswiped boat by the Yacht club was do to the heavy fog /night, again not excessive speed. We need law enforcement to act on current NYS laws and I believe that they have as our lake is safer than it has ever been. If the Town does decide to pass the proposed Ordinance, who will be enforcing these rules? Mr. McEver mentioned to me that the state logs about 80 hours per week on the lake and the County Sheriff's log about 30 hours per week. Can the State enforce a local Ordinance? A Retired State Trooper told my spouse that they couldn't. This needs to be looked into further. Also, will the boundaries be clearly identified on the lake? I'm encouraging the Town to pass an ordinance similar to NYS laws for boats because I understand we need to have an ordinance for Lansing so that the County does not enforce one on us. She thanked the Board for their consideration. Peter McDonald — 7 Dug Road Lansing: Supports the proposed ordinance and feels it is setting a good standard for other municipalities. Don't restrict people but regulate instead. How will this be enforced as law enforcement is just not there. It is disingenuous for people to suggest that the problem could be worked out with a neighborly chat. Many operators of personal watercraft don't even live in the town. He said he has tried to talk with people when his children are in the water and they basically blew me off and swore at me. David Schwartz — East Shore Drive: . Has seen people interrupted by Jet Skis and likes the idea of a buffer zone but did not feel 250' was sufficient. 500' would be better. Has petitions signed by neighbors and visitors. (gave them to the Town Clerk). He also stated that 33% of their gas goes into the water. Terrance McGinnes — Ithaca• There are laws already in place for the lake that the Sheriff's Department cannot patrol. 250' and 10 mph is o.k. but it is unfair to restrict a PWC until 10:00 am. Since 1998, the noise decimal on Jet Skis is kept to 75 or lower. This is about as loud as a vacuum cleaner. The Sheriff's Department conducted a race that monitored the PWC's and the decimals never got above 72 during the race. It's not the PWC's that is the problem. The proposed Ordinance is setting a good standard. 3;?3 3a� Continued, August 20, 2003 Don Campbell — 102 Ridge Road Lansing: The distance restrictions will be impossible to enforce. Education is part of the answer. All PWC operators, next year will have a boating education course that has to be passed and proctored before a certificate will be given out. If we don't have the enforcement out there, everyone will run rapid. Three times this summer, the Coast Guard has put boats on the shore, not letting them return until the problem is solved. Felt it would be better if the Town supported the Sheriff s Department and the Park Police more in their endeavor to enforce the rules and regulations. Tim Hauck — 1890 Daisy Hollow Road Cortland, NY: Mr. Hauck stated that he is a professional personal watercraft freestylist. He stated that you must now be 31 years old to operate a Jet Ski or personal watercraft " without a license. He understands the respect for people and that there are people who abuse jet skis. A law will be in effect next year that will state that everyone, at any age will have to have an eight (8) hour course and pass it before being allowed to operate a PWC. Law should have been brought up years ago. This year alone, he has pulled in three stranded boats himself. He has gained a lot of respect for people. Against the speed that jet skis go and it should be restricted to 50 mph. Give it another year to see how the new law takes place. Also, more enforcement needs to be done. The lake is there to share with people. A reb. For Rich 5avin- Williams — He read the following from Mr. Savin - Williams: I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concern about the ever increasing noise produced by personal watercraft. When I bought my home on the lake, I was anticipating a rather peaceful existence away from the noise of highway traffic produced by trucks, cars, etc. Unfortunately, I learned that the lakeshore is a roaring highway from which there is no escape. During the summer from sun up to sun down on every day of the week but most heavily on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays people riding personal watercraft zoom back and forth, back and forth, in front of my house making an unbelievable loud and grading noise that is ear splitting. Because part of the sport involves racing others and making sharp turns, the throttle is usually set to the maximum. I cannot count the number of times that I have watched people zoom up to my home and ride in circles for minutes at a time evidentially trying to create a whirlpool. The cost, almost never ending loud noise sounds that pierce through sleeping, reading, dining, even socializing with friends. For a little while, it is manageable, but by the beginning of summer it grows unbearable to the extent that I sometimes avoid coming home. I have tried closing windows but suffocate from the heat. Over the years I've grown desperately unhappy with the unbearable and unending noise. I would greatly appreciate your help preferably by mandating the operation toward the middle of the lake toward the lakeshore. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. Bev Alaplanalp - 166 Algerine Road Lansing, NY Her background is water safety, lifeguarding, and small craft instruction. Observed that some Jet Ski operators go very, very fast close to shore in mixed -use areas where there are kayakers, canoes, and skiers on boats getting off and on. Concerned about the safety of someone going 45 mph as close as 250' to shore. Strongly recommends that the Board look at a greater distance than 500'. Applauds the Board for looking at the issue as the Town has a long, long lakefront. Diane Reppert —1102 East Shore Drive, Ithaca: Most are considerate but the noise level is obnoxious and disturbing. Wants them to go out 500'. G Continued, August 20, 2003 Barbara Anger — 1383 Taughannock B1vd.,Ithaca NY: Lives across from Myers Point. Usually during the morning the jet skis will use the shoreline as a solemn. Boats do the same thing with tubers. Boats take off quickly (usually visitors). Concerned for the safety of the people who are recreating around that area and for the wildlife in the morning. Wants to see that they are preserved. Hope the Board goes with 500'. Middle of the lake would be better for people who are recreating along the shoreline. Danny Boles — 234 Myers Road Lansing, NY: Doesn't want anyone in the middle of the lake if he is letting his kids ski. This would not be safe. Should be able to spread people out so everyone is not in the middle of the lake. Fells if you stay 100' — 200' off shore, your not bothering people. They are noisy but the train is one of the most annoying things he has ever hear and wanted to know if the town could put an ordinance against that. Karen Edelstein — 397 Salmon Creek Road, Lansiniz.NY: Need to have respect for multiple users of the lakefront. Myers Point is a very important stop over point for migratory birds that are coming from as far as the Arctic Circle. Personal watercrafts are very disruptive to the natural process that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years. Lansing needs to send a message to less experienced Jet Ski users. Supports the 500' boundary. Donald Worsell — Blakely Road — Genoa NY: Owns a 4 stroke, which is very quiet and leaves no oil on the water. He buys a license and insurance and feels if rules are going to be made they should be made for all boats, not just jet skis. Cannot tell on the flat water what 250' is. Everyone will have a different opinion of what 250' is. Ten people would have ten different answers. The twin engine 454's that will do 80 mph, with their pipes above the water (and there are lots of them). He can sit on his dock and hear them all the way across the lake. He can't hear a Jet Ski across the lake. If a person falls off a Jet Ski, it will stop and a boat will not. Everyone should be treated the same. Felt that maybe more people have been killed by big boats and not little ones. Dan Quest — 35 Armstrong Road Lansing NY: PWC's don't draw much water so they don't handle the same as regular boats. Irritable, especially to younger people. Limitation is a good one. Dave Cornelius — 11 Autumn Ridge Circle Ithaca NY: Migratory waterfowl are moving at the time the boats and watercraft — late fall, early spring. Very hard to tell the distances when in the water. Other watercrafts are as much at fault. How many towns could a boat or Jet Ski cross as you can't have road signs on the lake. New York State has rules that govern their waterways. Is the Town of Lansing prepared to provide more money to the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department to patrol more? Taxes are going up enough and we don't need special laws to govern one town. Felt the board was in error trying to do this. Dan Coates — Davis Road Lansing, NY: NYS defines anything from 0 —16' exactly what they were talking about. Mr. watercraft from 250' — 1500' out. as a runabout. Asked the Board to define McEver stated that it would be for "all" Don Campbell — Ridge Road Lansing, NY. Left copies of NYS Rules and Regulations for people who wanted them. Susan Eyster — Fiddler Green Lansing ,NY: In favor of the ordinance. 325 326 Continued, August 20, 2003 Mary Shelley — 109 Park Place, Ithaca, NY: Concerned about seeing consistent regulations through out all municipalities. Would like to see the limit more than 500'. Will not canoe when there are a lot of boats out due to safety reasons. She agrees with the 10:00 — 8:00 for some quiet time. Letter from Linda Westlake: A letter was faxed to the Supervisor today and asked to be a part of the minutes. It read as follows: To: Steve Farkas — Town of Lansing Supervisor Dear Steve, I cannot be at the town meeting tonight to discuss the proposed watercraft ordinance, but want to present my position to you so it can be made part of the record. Appended below is a related message I sent to the Tompkins County Board in March. Following are my specific comments on the Town of Lansing proposal: General 1) Personal Watercraft (PWC) are extreme polluters of the air and water and, in general, are more disruptive than other watercraft. 2) Because of their small size and maneuverability, PWC users tend to be more reckless and less aware or respectful of others and to cause more accidents. 3) I have had two very near accidents when PWC drivers tried to jump the wake of my boat at an extremely close distance (within 20 feet at full speed). 4) While many PWC are responsible, regulations are badly needed for those who are not — this is, after all the reason we have a need for any legal restrictions. 5) I support reasonable restrictions on all watercraft and, for the reasons noted above, strongly believe more restrictive regulations are justified for PWC's. Section 5 Because of the high noise level of PWC and ability /tendency to operate more recklessly, special restrictions are required for PWC. I suggest the following language be added to the proposal: *limit speed to 5 MPH within 500 feet of shore, dock, pier, raft, float — and add swimmer, angler and other watercraft. *prohibit reckless and dangerous operations such as circles, "donuts ", "figure eights ", etc. within 1,500 feet of shore, dock, pier, raft, swimmer, angler and other watercraft. Section 9 Behavior, not age, is the most critical factor in abusive use of PWC. For that reason, section 5 need to be strengthened (see above). I think paragraphs b) and d) can be eliminated from section 9. I greatly appreciate the Town's willingness and leadership in addressing this public problem. Please submit this as part of today's meeting record and contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely, Linda Westlake 271 Lansing Station Road Lansing, New York 14882 All Persons desiring to be heard, having been heard the Public Hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. 327 Continued, August 20, 2003 BOARD COMMENTS: Doug McEver: Mr. McEver explained that about a year and a half ago the Planning Department brought a bunch of ordinance in reference to the lake and said that they wanted them implemented. At that time the Board saw no reason to implement them. Most of them were personal watercraft only. In March of this year, the decision of the Personal Watercraft Committee was to setup a water zone on the lake. It was initially to set 1,000' out that a personal watercraft could not operate more than 10 mph. In addition to that, there were hints of banning personal watercraft entirely. The Tompkins County Board of Reps. could of at that time, and still can today, pass it and then the Tompkins County Board of Reps. would control the lake, not any boarding municipalities. A new committee was set up called the Southern Cayuga Lake Ordinance Committee. This consisted of Ulysses, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and the Town of Lansing. By April 1St, all ordinances will be consistent on the lake and they will be finding funds in order to provide additional hours for the Sheriff's Department on the lake. The reason they are doing this is so the County will not take over. Mr. McEver feels that if the County takes over, in five (5) years there will be no jet skis on the lake. Have to find some way of keeping the control of our lands, our municipalities and our lake to the people of who are actually on them, not to the small majority of people living on the southern end of the lake. Meg Overstrom• Thanked everyone who came tonight. As a former personal watercraft person, she felt they were looking at the wrong thing at this time. Felt we needed more control but did not feel this was the way to do it. Do not have enough man -hours to control what we have now. She disagreed with the person who said that everyone who goes to UC Point is not from Lansing. Felt it was sad that you couldn't talk to your neighbors and work things out. Agreed with Mr. Worsell regarding the big boats that make a lot of noise. The problem is not just the personal watercrafts. It's the boats and the noise. Francis Shattuck: No comments. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. McEver "There was no second to the motion therefore it was a done deal. Mr. Farkas stated that since there was no second to the motion, the proposed ordinance will not move forward. LAND USE ORDINANCE: A copy of the proposed Land Use Ordinance has been advertised as required by law, the Public Hearing was called to order at 8:01 p.m. The Supervisor opened the meeting to concerns and comments. The following residents spoke: Emily Meseck — 215 Alizerine Road Lansing ,NY: Changing her land to lakeshore designation from rural designation. She stated that she has no access or view of the lake. She asked what the justification was for changing the designation. Dan Quest — 35 Armstrong Road Lansing Happy to see that part of his property has been changed back to R1. Half of his land is R1 and half is R3. Wondered if back lot could be developed into apartments. Felt the notification distance was not enough for PDU's. It is currently anyone within 600'. 328 Continued, August 20, 2003 He felt all notices should go to all surrounding neighbors. He was concerned that it is too easy to put apartments in rural neighborhoods still. All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Farkas stated that no resolution would be offered until the comments that have been received in writing are considered. A decision will be made at the September 3`d meeting. WATER CONSOLIDATION: Dave Herrick gave an overall view and Rich John discussed the legal aspect of the proposal. The following people then spoke: Tom Ellis: Are the books clean at this point? Mr. Herrick stated that there are 8 districts and 7 extensions that still have a debt. Mr. Ellis asked if any thought had been given to waiting to 2010 when all debts would be satisfied and changing the formula at that time. Mr. John stated that there is never a "good time" to do this other than at the very beginning. Mr. Ellis felt new districts in the poorer areas may be too expensive for people to afford. He felt the districts needed to be consolidated and funds made available for capital repair and improvement on a district basis but that there will be some unhappy campers. Eileen Kolynich — 102 Armstrong Road, Lansing: Asked what percentage of the total landowners in water districts is not connected to public water. Mr. Herrick stated that he could get that information but that it would take a while. Paul Monkman — 9 Pheasant Lane, Ithaca, NY: Stated that he owns property on East Shore with 13 units. He stated that 13 units at $150.00 per dwelling unit was unaffordable as his annual water bills would go up five fold. He stated that this would significantly decrease the value of his units. Steve Loncto — 39 Hillcrest Road, Ithaca, NY: Where is the policy available? Mr. John stated that the Town Board just received it tonight and that it would be available at the Town Hall tomorrow. A water district is within 100 yards of his house and wondered if the cost of extending it in the future would be the same cost? Mr. John stated that the cost for putting the pipes in the ground would not change at all. The extension process should be cheaper as the application to Albany will no longer be required. Mr. John stated that this is a "draft" policy. James Spencer — North Triphammer Road, Lansing,NY: Just getting done with his debt payment. Stated that he has been paying $520.00 for many years and realizes that $150.00 is not a lot but was looking forward to not paying anything. He asked why this was not a budgeted item. He felt that with a 25 year capital improvement plan and with the percentages going up through out, you would have enough if it was not used, to roll over for the next year for any major problems that would be a big dollar item. He also felt that people who have empty lots and are not hooked up to it should not have to pay as he felt that we are driving the people who built this town are now being driven out. Mr. John stated that everyone that is getting the benefit of having water would be treated the same way. Jeff Walters — 83 Searles Road, Lansing NY: Stated that he does not have public water and has been on a well for 15 years that has cost him over $ 15,000.00 to maintain. He would pay $1,000.00 a month to have the water and that the one's that do have it should be glad. Dave Cornelius — Autumn Ridge Circle, Ithaca, NY: Questioned the town's portion being reduced from $1.10 to .45 cents per gallon. i. 329 Continued, August 20, 2003 He asked why the .45 cents couldn't be reduced to 0 and keep the $ 150.00 per dwelling unit. He asked what the .45 cents was going for. Mr. Herrick stated that it goes to the fixed expenses that the Town has to include in the budget for the water system administration every year. Mr. Cornelius stated that he was not in favor of it but that he accepts the explanation. Frank Proto: Asked if there will be a question and answer period on September 3, 2003. He is one of the owners of an apartment complex on Ridge Road. Is the only way to challenge this with a permissive referendum? Mr. John stated that if the Board passes the resolution on September 3`d, that would be the process. Mr. Proto suggested that one of the Board Members should explain what a permissive referendum is to the residents. Mr. Proto stated that he bought into the system back in the late 80's (10 units) and paid close to $x,000.00 to $9,000.00. He was billed ever year, on their taxes, in addition to the fee that they had to pay to buy into the system (which was over $4,000.00). They had to pay one and one half times the homeowner's fee because of the 10 units. Will there be a sliding scale on the $150.00 or will everyone be billed the same with no adjustment as before? Mr. Herrick stated that the plan at this point, is that every single family dwelling unit or it's equivalent, will pay $150.00. Mr. Proto asked if this would include all not - for - profits. Mr. Herrick stated that it would include them. Mr. Proto stated that they have never used the minimum consumption allocated to them, therefore Bolton Point and the Town of Lansing have made money on their units. Will the new formula include minimums? Mr. Herrick stated that the minimums would not change. It will be .45 cents per thousand gallons used. Mr. Proto was concerned that they have built up a positive account of unused water for about 19+ years. He wondered if he would get free water for an equivalent amount of time. Concerned that he should not have to pay any more than they have already paid. If the accounting system is just being identified as having a flaw in it because the books have not been properly administered, the monies that they have kicked in over the last 18+ years for the cost of water should make it so their account has a credit. If it doesn't have a credit and a problem comes up, the users in the district should be responsible for making the capital improvement. He hopes that the draft policy will have an opportunity for further review and that the Board reviews it again. He stated that he was not favorably disposed to the proposal at all. Roger Schnock- Dug Road Lansing ,NY: Stated that he owns a number of units and that a $ 150.00 flat fee per EDU unit is not fair. He stated that in a farmhouse, he could have one half that has four bedrooms and the other half could be an efficiency apartment. The Board needs to come up with a better formula. Fred Miller — Algerine Road Lansing ,NY: Many people cannot afford this. People that don't have water — don't want it in his area. Does not want to pay $150.00. Mr. Herrick stated that the only people in water districts would be effected. Larry Beck — Ludlowville Road Lansing .NY: Owns property in Myers and Ludlowville, which were both, paid for through grants. Felt part of the town could afford to be in a water district but that others can not. He felt that the people who got grants, got them because they couldn't afford a water district and he did not feel this was appropriate as far as he is concerned. Mrs. Overstrom asked Mr. Herrick how many districts received grants. Mr. Herrick stated that there have been a total of 4 at this point. Melissa Fields — 3015 North Triphammer Road Lansing,NY: Stated that she pays for 7 units, which cost her about $ 1,500.00 per year at the moment. She stated that $ 150.00 sounds good to her at this point but that in the year 2009, when her debt is paid off, it won't be so good. She asked to talk to someone as she is very confused. Mr. Herrick stated that he would sit down with her to discuss her problem. 330 Continued, August 20, 2003 Bev Alaplanalp — 166 Algerine Road, Lansing NY: Felt that the information that has been received is incomplete and that it needs maps. Felt that September 3`d was rushing things. Mr. John stated that section 206 of the Town Law discusses a permissive referendum. Dan Konowalow — 159 Algerine Road, Lansing NY: Recommended that the Board put the draft policy on line and that the members of the committee who did the draft be identified so questions could be directed to them individually. Rich John: Informed the residents that the draft policy is not part of the proposal before the Town Board. The policy is looking at what would happen if a neighborhood comes to the Town Board in the future, if the consolidation is put in place and they say they want to add their neighborhood to the consolidated district. How will the Town look at expanding the consolidated district. He stated that it does not have anything to do with the operation of the consolidated district as it exists now. Joan Ellis, Lansing NY: Asked what will happen on September 3`d. Mr. Farkas stated that a Public Hearing will be held and a decision will be made right after the hearing. John McLean — Ridge Road, Lansing NY: Asked how much the $ 150.00 fee would be as a total budget. Mr. Herrick stated that it would generate $ 364,000.00 per year with the current number of EDU's. Mr. McLean felt it should be a referendum and not a permissive referendum. Felt it should be put to a vote for all people in water districts. SEQR RESOLUTION: SEQR RESOLUTION At a special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Lansing held in and for the Town of Lansing at the Lansing Town Hall on 20th day of August 2003, the following members being present: Stephen Farkas, Supervisor; Douglas McEver, Councilperson; Meg Overstrom, Councilperson and Francis Shattuck, Councilperson; and the following member being absent; Katrina Greenly, Councilperson; and the following Resolution was duly made by motion of Meg Overstrom, and seconded by Francis Shattuck, and the vote was as follows: Stephen Farkas in favor; Meg Overstrom in favor; Douglas McEver in favor; and Francis Shattuck in favor, and the motion therefore passed, and the following Resolution was therefore adopted: WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board, having established the Water Districts and Water District Extensions and having entered into contracts for water supply with individual property owners in the Town of Lansing, as shown on "Schedule A" attached hereto, which Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities, consisting of water mains, pumps, pressure reducing valves, storage tanks and related facilities, provide water supplies to properties within the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board having considered a proposal to consolidate the various Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities into a single Consolidated District, wherein all property of the original 331 Continued August 20, 2003 Water, Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities would become the property of the Consolidated District, and the Consolidated District would assume and pay the indebtedness of each of the original Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities as if such indebtedness had been incurred subsequent to the consolidation, and the Consolidated District would operate and maintain the existing water supply system, finance future capital expenditures and establish and maintain a Town of Lansing Consolidated Water District Reserve Fund; and VVHEREAS, the proposed consolidation would transfer the ownership of the separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities of the Town water system to a consolidated district, but entail no capital cost, commitment to make any capital expenditure, construction, commitment to construct any facilities, or otherwise commit the Town of Lansing to undertake, fund or approve any Type II or unlisted action, or take any other action with regard to land use within the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the proposed consolidation entails continuing agency administration and management, but does not involve the creation of any new programs or re- ordering of priorities in the Town of Lansing Water system; and WHEREAS, the proposed consolidation would transfer ownership of the Town of Lansing water system facilities, but there shall be no material change in the permit conditions or the scope of permitted activities related thereto; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing, having assumed lead agency status for conducting environmental review of the proposed consolidation, and having determined that such action is a Type II action, and, as such, the proposed consolidation does not require further environmental review and after due deliberation having recommended a negative declaration of environmental impact; therefore, it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby finds that the proposed consolidation of the various Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities into a single Consolidated District complies with the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, as a Type II action, and therefore makes a negative declaration of environmental impact. — WATER CONSOLIDATION. NOTICE TO ALL TOWN OF LANSING RESIDENTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING At a special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Lansing held in and for the Town of Lansing at the Lansing Town Hall on 20th day of August 2003, the following members being present: Stephen Farkas, Supervisor; Douglas McEver, Councilperson; Meg Overstrom, Councilperson and Francis Shattuck, Councilperson; and the following member being absent; Katrina Greenly, Councilperson; and the following Resolution was duly made by motion of Meg Overstrom, and seconded by Douglas McEver, and the vote was as follows: Stephen Farkas in favor; Meg Overstrom in favor; Douglas McEver in favor; and 332_ Continued, August 20, 2003 Francis Shattuck in favor, and the motion therefore passed, and the following Resolution was therefore adopted: WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board, having established the Water Districts and Water District Extensions and having entered into contracts for water supply with individual property owners in the Town of Lansing, as shown on "Schedule A" attached hereto, which Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities, consisting of water mains, pumps, pressure reducing valves, storage tanks and related facilities, provide water supplies to properties within the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board having considered a proposal to consolidate the various Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities shown on "Schedule A" into a single consolidated district, wherein all property of the original Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities would become the property of the consolidated district and the consolidated district would assume and pay the indebtedness of each of the original Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities as if such indebtedness had been incurred subsequent to the consolidation. The Consolidated District would operate and maintain the existing water supply system; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board having determined that the consolidation of the various Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities would provide administrative efficiencies for the Town; reduce costs of administration; reduce legal and engineering expense to the Town in planning, establishing and approving separate Water Districts and Water District Extensions; reduce interest expense incurred in the financing of future improvements to the Town water supply system; reduce the risks to the residents of future repair and upgrade costs; provide a more equitable method of funding the capital costs of the Town water supply system; and allow a greater degree of land use planning in the formation and establishment of future Water Districts and Water District Extensions; and WHEREAS, the proposed consolidation of the separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities in the Town of Lansing, would be accomplished by consolidation of the then outstanding indebtedness of the several separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities with the users within the consolidated district being assessed on a benefit basis to pay for the cost of operations, maintenance and improvements related to the consolidated existing indebtedness, together with the consolidated operations and maintenance charges of the district. Pursuant to New York State Town Law Section 206- a(1)(c), included in the costs of the consolidated district shall be all expenses of establishing the consolidated district; and WHEREAS, the total indebtedness to be assumed by the consolidated district as of December 31st, 2003, totals $3,505,000.00, with the initial annual charge in the first year to pay the cost of the consolidated existing indebtedness, together with the consolidated operations and maintenance charges of the district, being $150.00 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), with a single family residence constituting a single EDU, pursuant to the existing formula used by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, identified as Schedule B — 333 Continued, August 20, 2003 Definition of Units for Purposes of Connection Charges. After the first year, the annual charge to pay the cost of the consolidated existing indebtedness, together with the consolidated operations and maintenance charges for the consolidated district shall be subject to amendment by the Lansing Town Board pursuant to the requirements of the New York State Town Law; and WHEREAS, the existing amounts currently held by the Town of Lansing for the operation and maintenance of the separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities in the Town of Lansing would be consolidated in the operation and maintenance account for the Town of Lansing Consolidated Water District; and WHEREAS, the contracts for water supply entered into by the Town of Lansing with individual property owners contain provisions for the future incorporation into a water district of the Town of Lansing, and the proposal would consolidate these contract properties into the consolidated district and the individual contracts shall cease; and WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing having entered into an Inducement Agreement with the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), dated March, 1996, as executed upon March 29, 1996 by the Town of Lansing and March 18, 1996 by NYSEG, for the provision of water supply facilities to the electric generating plant on Ridge Road, and that Inducement Agreement requires the current owner of the facility to make annual payments to retire the indebtedness of Water District 17, such that that requirement to make annual payments by the owner of the facility shall survive and shall not be merged into the consolidated district until the payments due under that Inducement Agreement are fully paid; and WHEREAS, the proposed consolidation of the separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities in the Town of Lansing would have no effect on the water supply source for the Town of Lansing, being the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission. The basic water rate charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission to its member municipalities, including the Town of Lansing, is a separate charge and is not changed as a result of the proposed consolidation; and WHEREAS, the initial Town of Lansing surcharge on the water purchased from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission shall be reduced from $1.10 to $0.45 per thousand gallons of water. The Town of Lansing water surcharge rate may be amended from time to time and is reviewed on an annual basis and could be changed after formation of a consolidated district; and WHEREAS, rights, powers and duties related to the consolidated district would be held by the Lansing Town Board and no offices of commissioners would be hereby created; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board has determined that consolidation of the separate Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities in the Town of Lansing, pursuant to New York State Town Law Section 206, would occur on December 31s' of 2003; and 334 Continued, August 20, 2003 WHEREAS, any resolution for the consolidation of Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities would be subject to permissive referendum, pursuant to the requirements of Sections 206 and 206 -a of the New York State Town Law, with the costs of any election called for thereby being a charge against the Water Districts and Water District Extensions affected in equal amounts, regardless of size, population or assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board having conducted a State Environmental Quality review, reviewing the proposal to consolidate the Town of Lansing Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities and having made a negative declaration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board having held public information sessions on July 17, 2002 and August 20, 2003 at its regular Town Board meetings, and having sent a mailing to the record owner of each of the affected properties describing the consolidation, and wishing to hold a public hearing to receive comment on the proposal; therefore, it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby schedules a public hearing to receive public input on the proposed consolidation of the Water Districts, Water District Extensions and contract facilities to be held on September 3, 2003 at 7:05 p.m. at the Lansing Town Hall. SCHEDULE A: WD No. 2 WD No. 2 Ext. 1 WD No. 2 Ext. 2 WD No. 2 Ext. 3 WD No. 3 WD No. 4 WD No. 5 WD No. 6 WD No. 6 Ext. 1 WD No. 7 WD No. 7 Ext. 1 WD No. 7 Ext. 2 WD No. 7 Ext. 3 WD No. 7 Ext. 4 WD No. 7 Ext. 5 WD No. 7 Ext. 5 -1 WD No. 7 Ext. 6 WD No. 7 Ext. 7 WD No. 7 Ext. 8 WD No. 7 Ext. 9 WD No. 7 Ext. 10 WD No. 7 Ext. 11 WD No. 7 Ext. 12 WD No. 8 WD No. 9 335 Continued, August 20, 2003 WD No. 10 WD No. 11 WD No. 12 WD No. 12 Ext. 1 WD No. 12 Ext. 2 WD No. 13 WD No. 14 WD No. 15 WD No. 16 WD No. 17 WD No. 17 Ext. 1 WD No. 17 Ext. 2 WD No, 17 Ext, 3 WD No. 17 Ext. 4 WD No, 17 Ext, 6 WD No. 17 Ext. 8 WD No. 17 Ext. 9 WD No. 17 Ext. 10 WD No. 18 WD No. 19 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 37.1 -1 -14 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 37.1 -1 -9.4 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 37.1 -1 -1.8 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 37.1 -7 -7.2 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -16.3 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 32 -1 -22.1 Lansing Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -33 Privilege of the Floor: Eric Gavitt — Bower Road Lansing NY. Mr. Gavitt gave a copy of the following letter to all Board Members and read it aloud: LANSING TOWN BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2003 Dear Lansing Town Board Members: I would like to begin by first commending the Lansing Recreation Department staff and volunteers for the outstanding recreational opportunities and programs it has provided and cgptinues to provide for our youth. Throughout the years Lansing has been well known and received recognition by surrounding communities for its athletic programs and good sportsmanship. These programs allow our youth an opportunity to develop many physical as well as social skills. The following are recent incidents which illustrate how the reputation of these programs have been jeopardized: Kaycee Nedrow and Veronica Glennon were extended a friendly invitation, through myself, Kaycee's stepfather, to play for Southern Cayuga's 14U softball team as they were short of players due to vacations and injuries. Both girls accepted the invitation 336 Continued, August 20, 2003 deciding it would be fun to play for a different team, allowing them an opportunity to meet new friends and learn different aspects of the game. Before play began on Saturday, July 19, 2003, at the Southern Cayuga vs. Lansing game the assistant coach for Lansing, Ms. Sheila Bowman, protested Veronica being able to play for Southern Cayuga as she was previously listed on the Lansing team roster. At this time the decision was made to disqualify Veronica from playing for Southern Cayuga. Kaycee, however, had not been previously listed on any team roster and was allowed to play for Southern Cayuga. During this game, Kaycee was subject to numerous catcalls and insults from the Lansing team members. While attending this game, I was also insulted and accused of being a "traitor" and "unsportsman like" by a parent of a Lansing team member for allowing Kaycee to play for a team other than Lansing. It was conveyed to Southern Cayuga's coach, Tim May, by the Lansing coach, Randy Randall, that Kaycee would not be allowed to play for Southern Cayuga in the upcoming tournament held in Lansing on July 26th & 27th. Kelly Gavitt, Kaycee's mom, was made aware of this and was also informed by John Glennon that Coach Randall had made a comment to John stating that both girls would suffer repercussions down the toad for deciding to play for a team other than Lansing. Kelly was appalled to hear of such comments and decided to contact the Recreation Director, Steve Colt, to make him aware of the situation and to seek further advisement. Steve informed Kelly that "it is a free world and Kaycee could play for whomever she chose" and indicated that there was nothing Coach Randall could do to prevent Kaycee from playing for Southern Cayuga in the upcoming tournament. Concerned there may be some unresolved issues, I decided to give Coach Randall a phone call on the evening of Friday, July 25th. Unfortunately my call was never returned. On the morning of the tournament, a 14U coaches meeting was called by Coach Randall to protest Kaycee playing for Southern Cayuga. Prior to the voting the coaches were cautioned by Coach Randall "before you vote, you should know this girl's future is in jeopardy ". The vote was held and the outcome was as follows: Lansing, Dryden and Groton voting No. Ithaca voting Yes. Trumansburg did not want to be involved in such issues therefore did not vote and Coach May was not allowed to vote. We were advised these Coaches were all made aware of Coach Randall's issues prior to the morning of the tournament with the exception of Southern Cayuga. Coach Randall advised Coach May that Kaycee would not be allowed to play for Southern Cayuga but she would be allowed to play for Lansing if she chose. Although Kaycee wasn't allowed to play with Southern Cayuga, she remained on the bench to support her teammates. During Southern Cayuga's first game vs. Trumansburg, several Lansing team members and parents, as well as Assistant Coach Bowman, sat right behind Southern Cayuga's bench and cheered loudly for the opposing team. Kaycee was a victim to undo and unnecessary embarrassment. I feel that this was a blatant show of disrespect and disregard for my daughter's feelings. This type of unsportsman like behavior should not be tolerated or permitted. Following the Lansing game on Saturday, Coach Randall, called an impromptu meeting of Lansing players and parents. During this meeting the Glennons and my family were insulted by Coach Randall, according to a Lansing player. I do not feel it is appropriate for Coach Randall, or any coach, to discuss these matters in bad context while in the presence of our youth. He singled out two families and young girls in front of their peers. This in my opinion showed lack of respect and poor judgement on his behalf. I feel it is _ very unfortunate that these coaches placed the need to win before the value of good sportsmanship. We feel that when coaches and recreation volunteers join in or silently condone such behavior, we are sending the wrong message to our youth. We as parents place great trust in the individuals placed in leadership roles to act as role models for our children. They 337 Continued, August 20, 2003 are given the great responsibility to instill and convey the values and codes of conduct acceptable in today's society. We feel as parents, we have been let down by the staff and coaches of the recreation department and they have misled our children. Although there is nothing that can be done at this point to resolve the issues we have brought to you at this time, we feel that something needs to be done so that incidents like this do not occur in the future. A solution that we endorse, would be to reinstate the Lansing Recreation Committee to oversee tournaments and other youth events in Lansing. They would be able to set standards, procedures and address various issues like the ones that developed this year in a fair and equitable manner so that children and families do not have to go through the anguish that we have recently. We appreciate your time and consideration. Mrs. Overstrom asked Mr. Gavitt whom in the past, has been a member of the committee. Mr. French stated that parents, coaches, himself, Andy LaVigne, Vicky Kilts, Sue French and various members of the community. Mr. French stated that as far as LSP, minor things were brought up to the committee , such as certain kids not wanting to play for certain coaches. Things like this were never put out to the public. Mrs. Overstrom asked Mr. French if there had ever been issues like this where it seems as though a coach has overstepped his boundary as a coach. Mr. French stated that there has not been that he has heard of. He stated that is ridicules as it is a 14- year -old girl. Mr. Farkas stated that this is not a league that is covered by the Lansing Recreation Department. People present disagreed with Mr. Farkas. Mr. Farkas stated that we provide the facilities but that it is separate from the Recreation Department. Mrs. Overstrom stated that the team is part of the Recreation Department. Mr. French stated that when he was on the Board, the team was part of the Recreation Department but was not sure how it is now. Mrs. Overstrom spoke to Steve Colt and he told her that this team was one of the ones that are part of the Lansing Recreation Summer Program. Mr. Gavitt did not think there was any way that the Lansing Recreation Department could not be tied to this tournament in some way or manner. Rhonda Glennon asked if Lansing Recreation was not involved, why were checks made payable to them for the entry fee and checks were also written out to the umpires from the Lansing Recreation? Mr. John Glennon stated that money went in and out of Lansing Recreation but Lansing Recreation says they are not responsible, as we didn't have anything to do with this tournament. Mr. Gavitt stated that he approached Coach Randall that Saturday morning after his daughter was ejected from the softball tournament at which time Mr. Randall told Mr. Gavitt that if he had a problem, he should have gone to Steve Colt. He should have not refereed him to Steve Colt if it didn't have anything to do with Lansing Recreation. Mr. Farkas will check into it. Mrs. Overstrom asked why the committee was dissolved. Mr. Gavitt did not know. Mr. Gavitt asked if there will be some sort of follow up to this matter and asked the Board how they planned on addressing the issue. Mr. Farkas stated that he would contact Katrina Greenly who is the liason person to the Recreation Department. Steve Nedrow (Kaycee's father) stated that he also spoke with Mr. Randall on Saturday and again on Sunday. There was a totally separate issue with the U12 girls on a rain out problem. Mr. Randall stated that these issues should be handled by Steve Colt in the Recreation Department and that he was not the one that was going to make a decision. A lady also demanded her money back and Mr. Randall told her to contact Steve Colt, it's administered through the Lansing Recreation Department. Mrs. Overstrom stated that, as a matter of record, this was brought to her attention and ske called Steve Colt to talk to him about it and get clarification if this was a recreaction program and if coach Randall was part of the Lansing Recreation Department and he told her that he was. He was a volunteer coach for the Department. While it is difficult to get volunteer coaches, Mrs. Overstrom did not think this is the type of behavior that they should be allowed to be doing. Mrs. Overstrom also stated that she was not very happy with Mr. Colt's response which was, the season is over, lets forget about 338 Continued, August 20, 2003 it, don't get involved. Mr. Colt did tell Mr. and Mrs. Gavitt, that because coach Randall does coach the JN softball team that the school needs to be made aware of the fact he "threatened her future with any team that he is going to be involved in ". The Gavitt's have gone forward and spoke to the school system and feel fairly comfortable that nothing like that is going to happen. She did not feel that it was correct behavior on Steve's part that the season's over with because as far as we know, coach Randall will come back and try to coach the same team. If that is the case and Steve feels that he is the appropriate person, the rules have to be the same for everyone and if Kaycee wants to play for a different team, everyone needs to be treated fairly. The Town Clerk stated that a few years ago, the status of the Recreation Commission was questioned and that Mr. Colt was told not to dissolve it but that it has been. Mr. Nedrow stated that he would support a committee such as the one in the past and would like to see it put in place. John Glennon felt that one of the problems is that you have is that the tournament director is also a coach of one of the teams and is able to decide who plays on opposing teams also. You can't have the fox watching the hen house. He stated that a coach should not also be the tournament director. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENTS REPORT: Mr. Farkas stated that notification was received from the Department of Transportation for the approval of 30mph speed limits in the following areas: East Shore area which include boundaries that begin at the westerly right -of -way line of East Shore Drive (Rt. 34) and it's intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of East Shore Circle and westerly on a straight line to a point on the center line of Waterview Circle to it's dead end, thence westerly on a straight line to a point of the southerly right -of -way line of Teeter Road and it's intersection with the westerly right -of- way of the line of Smugglers Path. (East Lake area). Autumn Ridge area has also been included in the 30 -mph speed limit. Whispering Pines: ines: Mr. French stated that he had talked to Dave Herrick who informed him that Whispering Pines Extension is in fine shape. Ordinance Officer's Report: Mr. Platt read his monthly report and stated that they are up in permits from last year by 12 and up in project costs by $ 1,482.485.00. Amend Resolution dated February 2003: NOTICE TO ALL TOWN OF LANSING RESIDENTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING At a special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Lansing held in and for the Town of Lansing at the Lansing Town Hall on 20th day of August 2003, the following members being present: Stephen Farkas, Supervisor; Douglas McEver, Councilperson; Meg Overstrom, Councilperson and Francis Shattuck, Councilperson; and the following member being absent; Katrina Greenly, Councilperson; and the following Resolution was duly made by motion of Douglas McEver, and seconded by Francis Shattuck, the vote was as follows: Stephen Farkas in favor; Meg Overstrom in favor; Douglas McEver in favor; and Francis Shattuck in favor, and the motion therefore passed, and the following Resolution was therefore adopted: 339 Continued, August 20, 2003 WHEREAS, on February 20, 2003 the Town Board passed a Resolution to match Town Highway Department job titles with County civil service titles; and WHEREAS, said Resolution created the positions of "Laborer" and "MEO" (Motor Equipment Operator); and WHEREAS, the Resolution of February 20, 2003 contained typographical errors which need to be hereby corrected; and WHEREAS, upon due deliberation by the Board, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that the February 20, 2003 Resolution described above is amended as follows: 1. All references to "Machine Equipment Operators" be and is hereby amended and changed to read "Motor Equipment Operators ", and 2. As to Town employee Mike Moseley, he was re- classified as a Laborer, and his six -month probationary period started March 3, 2003, and not as of the date of hiring as referenced in the February 20, 2003 Resolution. PUBLIC HEARING — HARNER/RANDALL: RESOLUTION At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Lansing held in and for the Town of Lansing at the Lansing Town Hall on 20th day of August, 2003, the following members being present: Stephen Farkas, Supervisor; Meg Overstrom, Councilperson; Douglas McEver, Councilperson; and Francis Shattuck, Councilperson; and the following members being absent: Katrina Greenly, Councilperson; and the following Resolution was duly made by motion of Meg Overstrom, and seconded by Douglas McEver, and the vote was as follows: Stephen Farkas — aye, Francis Shattuck — aye, Katrina Greenly — aye, and Douglas McEver - aye, and the following Resolution therefore passed: WHEREAS, the Town had referred the Special Use Permit request of Elsie Harper (George and Elsie Harper TP 37.1 -2- 24.11), to allow for the building of a stable and stabling for one horse (owned by Michelle Randall), to the Planning Board for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, after due inquiry and investigation, the Planning Board recommends issuance of said permit; and WHEREAS, the Hamer's have agreed to rent Randall stabling and pasture grounds, and neighbor Don Harper (TP 37.1 -2 -15) has agreed to provide pasturage as well if necessary; and WHEREAS, a public hearing is deemed necessary by the Town Board to allow the public and potentially affected neighbors to voice their opinions and concerns relative to the said application; and WHEREAS, and after review and discussion of the matter, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby 340 Continued, August 20, 2003 RESOLVED, that a public hearing upon the Harrier Special Use Permit request be and hereby is established and scheduled for 7:20 p.m. on September 3, 2003, at the Town Hall of the Town of Lansing, 29 Auburn Road, Lansing, New York. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A copy of the minutes of July 16th and August 6th, having been furnished to the Board Members beforehand, the Supervisor asked for a motion to make corrections or to accept the same as submitted. RESOLUTION, offered by Mrs. Overstrom and seconded by Mr. Shattuck: RESOLVED, that the minutes of July 16th and August 8th are hereby approved as submitted. Carried. AUDIT APPROVAL: RESOLUTION, offered by Mrs. Overstrom and seconded by Mr. McEver: RESOLVED, that the bookkeeper is hereby authorized and directed to pay the following bills and to make the following Budget Modification: Audited Vouchers: 699-849 Prepay Vouchers: 699-706 FUND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS General Fund Highway Fund Lansing Lighting Lansing Water Districts Budget Modification: $ 635475.19 $ 194,447.50 $ 1,257.75 $ 4,882.66 FROM TO FOR AMOUNT B1990.400 B8020.400 Planning Board Contractual Postage, NYPF Reservation Fees, Newspaper Ads, Editorial Service. 979.31 Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Doug McEver, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor BOARD MEMBER REPORTS: Doug McEver: Personal Watercraft: 341 Continued, August 20, 2003 Mr. McEver stated that the WRC will be ready in September to present their finalized document to the Cayuga Lake Recreation Committee. This document will be presented to the County Board sometime in late October. Meg Overstrom• New Fire Truck: The Fire Chiefs requested the Commissioners to approve a bid for a new fire truck. Public information meetings will be held on September 9`h (Central) and 11`h (Station 5) at 7:00 p.m. They will make their presentation to the Town Board on September 17`h, 2003. Francis Shattuck: Sewer Meeting: A meeting will be held tomorrow. Steve Farkas: Sewer: Stated that the Town of Ithaca owns a large capacity in the Ithaca area plant the still dumps into Cayuga Heights. With an agreement between the Town and City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden, capacity could be made available in the Cayuga Heights plant for the Lansing area. If this takes place, it will be pretty much a done deal. Lansing would then become a customer of Cayuga Heights. An additional $680,000.00 will be coming to Lansing as part of having to build the major interceptor line which will have to run from the Lake Watch area all the way to the Cayuga Heights plant. This will be a political issue when it goes through the Village of Lansing. There will be some options when it gets to the Village. On motion, meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.