May 15, 2026

TOWN OF WATERTOWN

Rescheduled Regular Meeting

Municipal Building

May 15, 2026

 

Members Present:        Joel R. Bartlett, Supervisor

David D. Prosser, Councilman

Joanne McClusky, Councilwoman

Michael Perkins, Councilman

Robert Slye, Councilman

 

Members Absent:

 

Supervisor Bartlett opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a roll call of members present at 7:00 pm.  Attorney Harrienger was also present.

Councilman Prosser stated, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is Joel’s final Town Council meeting for the Town of Watertown. I have had the honor of sitting beside him for the past 30 years, and it has truly been a privilege to work with him.”

As a token of the Town’s appreciation and recognition for his years of dedicated service, Councilman Prosser presented Supervisor Bartlett a plaque and stated that a larger plaque would also be placed on the wall in the board room.

Mike Altieri, BCA updated the Board on town projects.

He provided an update on Water District No. 4, stating that significant progress has been made on the project. Approximately 4,000 feet of new water piping has already been installed in the upper portion of Northland Estates since construction began in March.

The first payment application, totaling approximately $900,000, has been submitted, and the Town intends to utilize the initial round of CDBG funding for reimbursement through the Office of Community Renewal.

He further advised that aeration and electrical upgrades at the water storage tank are expected to take place later this summer. Additional pipe installation updates are anticipated at the next meeting, with the goal of having service activated within the mobile home parks for residents as soon as possible. Water meters have been ordered, and hydrants and other project materials are continuing to arrive.

A question was raised regarding whether the extension area would follow the same ordinances and regulations as Water District No. 4. It was confirmed that the intent of the extension was for it to operate under the same terms and ordinances as the existing district.

Discussion also took place regarding whether the mobile home parks would be served through a single master meter or through individually metered connections. Mr. Altieri stated that the Department of Health prefers individual customer metering. He explained that individual meters provide improved monitoring capabilities, including the ability to track usage by groups of customers, identify leaks more efficiently, and simplify billing administration through upgraded meter software. He stated that utilizing a master meter approach would be less accurate and noted that individual meters would still be required for customers located outside of the mobile home parks.

Supervisor Bartlett commented that, based on past experience, relying on a single master meter within a mobile home park can create situations where park owners charge tenants excessive water rates. He expressed concern that some park owners have historically increased charges beyond actual costs and stated that the Town should avoid creating a system that could allow unfair billing practices for residents.

Mr. Altieri responded that, in most cases, local water bills would be generated directly for each tenant, with the responsibility of the park owner being limited to distributing the bills, preventing any additional markup. He noted that this would be the preferred approach if implemented.

He further explained that individual metering would provide the Town with the most accurate accounting of water usage. Due to the configuration and looping of the district, he stated that master meters would create operational complications and require extensive calculations within the clerk’s office to determine water distribution and usage. Individual meters, by contrast, would allow the Town to clearly identify each tenant’s water consumption.

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION

Water District No. 4 Extension (Northland Estates/Pine Meadows)

Construction Budget:                                                 $6,400,790.00 (Orig. 7,250,000.00)

Administrative and Technical Costs:                          $1,709,500.00

Contingency:                                                               $1,889,710.00

Total Project Cost:                                                    $10,000,000.00

Total Grant Funding (WIIA and CDBG):                  $ 6,250,000.00

 

Project Bid Results:

Contract No. 1 – Pipeline Construction                      $ 5,790,920.00 – JL Excavation

Contract No. 2 – Tank Aeration System                      $565,000.00 – Powis Contracting Inc.

Contract No. 3 – Electrical Construction                    $ 44,870.00 – Blackstone Electric

 

Projected Construction Substantial Completion Date: December 2026

Project Update – Construction is in progress, approximately 3900 LF of piping has been installed in the upper portion of Northland Estates. BCA has met with several prospective users adjacent to the district that may have interest in joining in the project.

 

Townwide Sewer (Districts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) I&I and Pipeline Improvements

This project effort will be combined with the new sewer alignment from SD No. 2 into the City of Watertown WWTP and the new sewer alignment of the Town’s sewer on the Circle K property. Lawman has mobilized to the Circle K portion of the project and is working on verifying utilities and site layout.NYS DEC is in the process of issuing separate approvals for the Circle K, I&I repairs and realigned pipeline at the WWTP respectively.

 

Project Bid Results:

Contract No. 1 – Pipeline Construction $ 376,818.00 – Lawman Heating and Cooling

 

SPECIAL NOTE ON OUTSTANDING TOWN AFRs:

For all projects funded in the Town by EFC, including WD#4 Extension and SD#1

Improvements, EFC is requiring that the Town complete and file its outstanding AFRs for the

last two years (2023 and 2024) in order to close on financing with their agency. As of April

these are complete and filed.

 

PROJECTS IN DESIGN

Sewer District No. 1

Total Project Cost:                                                      $ 2,643,000.00 (WWTF Replacement)

$ 4,491,000.00 (Stormwater Improvements)

Project Funding Awarded: NYS EFC WIIA – $ 444,500.00, NYS DEC WQIP – $ 1,000,000.00 (                                                                        (WWTF)

NYS EFC GIGP – $945,000 Grant (Stormwater)

 

Project Update – The Town has received and executed an amended Consent Order has been sent to the Town from NYS DEC. The Town continues to roll forward with the grant closings for both the WQIP and GIGP grants received. An amendment for engineering services related to the GIGP grant has been submitted to the Town Board for review. Comments have been received on the UV Design from NYS DEC and are being addressed.

 

 

We are currently finalizing the EFC intended use plan updates to be sent to EFC on this project next week. The Town may be eligible for an additional $388K in Grant Subsidy for this project. This funding is shown as proposed on the Town’s IUP update form.

 

Sewer District No. 1 Revised Schedule Per NYS DEC Amended Consent Order:

 

PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT

Sewer District 4, 5 and 6 Engineering Planning Grant Study – The EPG is in the stages of grant closure with NYS EFC. This study will examine additional upgrades that may need to be undertaken related to these districts. BCA has finalized its agreement for the work under this grant for the Town’s consideration.

 

Water Districts 3, 4 and 5 – A combination of aging infrastructure and issues on the horizon will necessitate upgrades and potential consolidation of these districts for operational efficiencies, particularly for the ground tank serving WD 5. There may be an opportunity to consolidate these districts with WD Nos. 1 and 2.

 

Stormwater WQIP Grant – As an MS4 the Town will likely be eligible to apply for a vacuum truck to assist the Highway Department in maintaining the storm water system. The application period will likely open in May.

Ralph Green, Town Electrician, commented regarding the sewer plant generator and upcoming electrical upgrades.  It was noted that he had previously met with Mike Altieri, BCA, Councilman Prosser and Angel French at the sewer plant to review the situation.

The existing generator at the facility remains operational; however, it consumes a significant amount of oil. As part of the planned electrical service upgrades, the facility’s power system is expected to be converted from 120/240-volt single-phase service to 277/483-volt three-phase service. Due to the voltage change, the current generator will no longer be compatible with the upgraded electrical system.

It was stated that the Town intends to continue monitoring the generator’s condition and address any issues if they arise. In the event of a failure, the Town has a portable generator large enough to operate the plant, which would serve as a backup power source. Mr. Green expressed confidence that the Town has appropriate contingency measures in place to maintain operations until the electrical service upgrades are completed, which are currently estimated to be approximately two years away, depending on grant timing and funding availability. He indicated that they have multiple contingency plans prepared and will continue adapting as necessary to ensure uninterrupted operation of the facility.

Supervisor Bartlett asked Mr. Altieri whether he had met with Mr. and Mrs. Gogoe concerning extending the water to his property on US Rte. 11. Mr. Altieri responded that he had met with them as well as Mr. Berthet. He explained that one of the proposed extensions, associated specifically with Mr. Berthet’s area, was requested by the Health Department in order to extend the main water line south along US Route 11 to serve an existing public system, which would bring that system under municipal regulation.

Supervisor Bartlett stated that, to his recollection, Mr. Gogoe’s property had already been included within the district boundary to allow participation in the municipal water service, but that a district modification would still be necessary given the extent of the acreage involved and the type of service requested.

Mr. Altieri agreed that the situation would require legal mechanisms and formal district modifications moving forward.

Supervisor Bartlett emphasized that this type of work would need to be addressed by future boards to ensure it is not overlooked, noting that the property owners have been long-standing residents seeking access to water service. Mr. Altieri stated that the Town is working with the ESC and the Department of Health (DOH) to advance the necessary approvals.

Ryan Aubertine, GYMO updated the Board on Northeast Water District No. 7.

 

EASEMENT SUMMARY UPDATE

Total                                   Signed

Forced Main and Water service                                  72                                            47

Force Main Only                                                           4                                              1

Water Service Only                                                     68                                            32

 

• Resident, Jon Adams, agreed to go door-to-door for acquiring signed easements.
• Waiting to hear from City Engineering Department regarding Town connections to City Water Main on Hunt Street.
• Received DOH comments, GYMO revising plans to address comments.
• Department of Ag & Markets letter has been sent out by Town Attorney, awaiting response.

Supervisor Bartlett reported receiving comments from Mr. Olney, the owner of the former Blink Bonnie Motel, which is served by an aging system consisting of a three-quarter-inch copper water line connected off a hydrant outside the City’s water district. He noted that this configuration is one of the reasons for the town’s effort to bring these properties into a formal water district once the new district is established.

He explained that Mr. Olney has reported unusually high-water bills, approximately $1,000 per month, attributed to a suspected leak that has not been repaired due to lack of access or responsibility for maintenance within the current setup.  Supervisor Bartlett also referenced similar concerns from other residents in the area, including reports of significant monthly water charges caused by ongoing leakage.

He indicated that the Town is still slightly short of the required number of petitions and requested assistance in obtaining the remaining easements, noting that approximately 33 to 34 additional signatures may still be needed to move the project forward. He emphasized that most property owners have expressed support for water main installation, but that securing lateral easements remains the primary obstacle.

Supervisor Bartlett urged expedited efforts to complete that portion of the project, stating that without it, residents will continue to face unresolved service and billing issues. He added that the small group of properties currently relying on the temporary copper line is collectively responsible for maintenance costs but lacks the means or coordination to properly locate and repair the leak. He further noted that the situation places financial strain on residents and emphasized that while he understands the urgency, the responsibility for repairing the current system ultimately rests with the users.

Supervisor Bartlett stated that the first item of business is to cancel the public hearing and withdraw the proposed resolution for the establishment of a tax increment financing (TIF) district in the TI Ag Park. He indicated that the item was being withdrawn for a number of reasons and would be left for consideration by a future board.

He explained that the proposed TIF structure would have required approval from the Jefferson County Board of Legislators, as it involves the reimbursement of property taxes generated from new development within the proposed district boundary back to the developer over a period of approximately five to ten years, with some school tax-related components.

Supervisor Bartlett noted that, in his view, there is currently insufficient support from the Jefferson County Board of Legislators to move forward with the proposal. He added that if support does develop in the future, he would encourage the Board to consider it favorably, citing potential benefits such as increased sales tax and occupancy-based tax revenue generated from development within the district.

Mike Lundy, Managing Partner of Washington Summit Associates, explained the background of the proposed zone change project to Spring Valley Drive and the rationale behind the requested zone change. He stated that the property, part of the Spink Estate, was initially considered for a multifamily housing development after the company was approached by a broker over a year ago.

He explained that after discussions with the Planning Board, it became clear that a large-scale residential or commercial development was not appropriate due to limitations in local infrastructure, which was described as inadequate and potentially unsafe for high traffic volumes. As a result, the multifamily concept was abandoned.

Mr. Lundy stated that the project direction shifted after discussions with Acadia Energy, a New York State-based solar developer, which is pursuing solar projects across Jefferson County. Given the site’s poor agricultural quality and limited traditional development potential, the proposal evolved into a solar energy project. He noted that the project could also provide discounted energy benefits to Washington Summit properties, including medical facilities and potentially a Summit Senior Village.

He added that although he believed the project could proceed through with only State-level approvals. He stated he and his business partner, Dr. Rechlin in  Washington Summit Associates have been good neighbors to the community. He chose to work locally through the community and Planning Board process rather than bypass local review. Following discussions with the Planning Board and further feedback from Town officials, the applicant decided to rescind the portion of the request affecting the south side of the property, particularly the area behind nearby residences, leaving only the north side of the property under consideration for the zone change.

Mr. Lundy addressed concerns commonly raised about solar development, including the loss of agricultural land and visual impacts. He noted that the proposal incorporates “agrivoltaics,” including the use of sheep grazing within fenced solar areas to maintain agricultural activity on the site. He stated that similar models are already in use within Jefferson County and that approximately 5,000 acres of solar are currently proposed countywide, which he characterized as a relatively small percentage (a little over 1%) of total agricultural land.

He further emphasized that the site is considered low-quality farmland, with shallow bedrock and limited agricultural viability, making it suitable for solar development.

To address aesthetic concerns, he described a landscaping and screening plan developed with Saratoga Associates of Albany. The plan includes construction of a six- to eight-foot earthen berm along the north side would be 250’ of the road, planted with native vegetation such as willow trees, designed to grow to approximately 15 feet and fully screen the solar installation from view. He stated that the solar panels would be oriented southward, away from direct visibility from the roadway, and that natural vegetation and distance from neighboring properties would further reduce visual impact.

Mr. Lundy concluded by stating that Washington Summit Associates views the project as a responsible and economically beneficial use of the property and expressed hope for approval of the proposed zone change for the northern portion of the site.

Supervisor Bartlett opened the public hearing concerning the zone change on Spring Valley Drive at 7:27 pm.

Bill Smith, Spring Valley Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed solar project, raising several concerns about its potential impacts on the surrounding community.

He asked whether the project would include battery storage facilities and noted concerns about the materials used in solar panels, stating that certain types contain plastics and chemicals that could potentially degrade over time. He expressed worry that storm damage or panel deterioration could lead to leakage, and questioned where any runoff would go given the shallow shale bedrock in the area.

Mr. Smith stated that many nearby homes rely on private wells and expressed concern that any contamination of groundwater could negatively affect property values and make homes difficult to sell. He emphasized that residents have invested in maintaining their properties and do not want to risk financial loss due to environmental impacts.

He also questioned whether alternative sites had been considered for solar development, including previously developed or infrastructure-ready areas such as land associated with a proposed sports facility. He suggested that such locations might be more appropriate than farmland within an established residential area.

Additionally, Mr. Smith expressed concern about the possibility of future expansion of the project beyond the currently proposed northern portion of the site, asking whether any limitations on expansion would be formally documented.

He also raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the proposed agrivoltaics approach, stating that maintaining vegetation under solar panels would likely require significant grazing activity and questioned its practicality. He referenced similar installations he had observed elsewhere and suggested they may not function as effectively as proposed.

Mr. Smith concluded by reiterating that the community is closely tied to the land and environment and urged the Board to consider alternative locations for the project.

Supervisor Bartlett suggested that any further development of the project would still be subject to Planning Board review and final approval, and noted that conditions could be written into that process to help address concerns raised by residents, including those expressed by Mr. Smith.

Supervisor Bartlett specifically referenced concerns about potential environmental impacts, including the possibility of leakage affecting groundwater and private wells. He stated that he has long supported extending the water district from the top of the hill down to Gotham Street Rd, noting that such an extension would help alleviate water-related concerns for affected residents, though funding has been a limiting factor.

Supervisor Bartlett added that related studies and planning efforts for water infrastructure in the area are already underway. He indicated that extending public water service to the area would significantly reduce concerns about groundwater contamination risks associated with private wells.

He further stated that the Planning Board has the authority to impose additional conditions and protections on the project and will hold its own public hearings as part of its review process. The Planning Board would then provide recommendation to the Town Council.

He concluded by clarifying that the current public hearing before the Council is specifically focused on the requested zone change, which would determine whether the use is permitted in that location, subject to compliance with Planning Board requirements and conditions.

Mr. Ferguson, Spring Valley, sought clarification regarding a reference he had seen on the site plan suggesting a possible residential development. He asked what the current plan was for residential use on the property.

Supervisor Bartlett clarified that the residential component previously shown was located across the road, and that portion has since been removed from the proposal. It was confirmed that there is no residential development planned for the north side of the road, which is now proposed exclusively for solar development.

Supervisor Bartlett added that Mr. Ferguson is one of the property owners in the area who has advocated for extending the Town water district further down the hill past Sylvester’s property. He reiterated his understanding that the north side of Spring Valley Drive is now solely intended for solar development and not residential use, which was confirmed.

Jane Sylvester, Spring Valley Drive, stated that she understood Mr. Lundy may be purchasing the property on both sides of Spring Valley Drive.

Supervisor Bartlett clarified that the original proposal did include solar development on both sides of the road, but that the applicant had since rescinded that portion of the request and modified the application to include only the north side of the road for the proposed zone change and solar project.

Mrs. Sylvester asked what would happen with the remainder of the property after the purchase. Supervisor Bartlett responded that he was not aware of the applicant’s intentions regarding any remaining land and suggested that those questions would need to be directed to the applicant.

Mrs. Sylvester expressed concern about the potential loss of scenic views and changes to the character of the area, stating that she had valued the rural appearance of the neighborhood when she moved there and was concerned about future development affecting views from her property.

Supervisor Bartlett reiterated that the Planning Board has the authority to impose conditions on any approved project and that development on the site would be subject to that review process.

Kat Hammond, Spring Valley Drive, stated that although she has lived in the area only a short time, she considers it her “happy place” and was deeply upset by the proposed project.

She acknowledged that most proposals have both advantages and disadvantages, but expressed concern that the solar development would diminish the scenic and rural character of the area. She emphasized that the land is valued not only for its appearance but also for its wildlife, agricultural qualities, and native environmental features, which she believes could be negatively impacted by development.

Ms. Hammond also raised concerns about the manufacturing and disposal of solar panels, stating that chemicals involved in production and potential degradation over time could pose environmental risks. She expressed skepticism that mitigation measures such as agrivoltaics or grazing animals would be sufficient to address those concerns.

She urged the Board to carefully consider the long-term environmental and aesthetic impacts of the project, questioning when limits would be placed on similar developments in the area.

Ms. Hammond concluded by stating that she chose to live in the community for its natural beauty and expressed concern that continued development of this type could permanently change the character of the area.

Paula Hurlbut, Brookside Drive, shared her experience with a previously approved solar installation located across from her home. She stated that she learned about the project only shortly before the public meeting at the time, through another neighbor, and felt that nearby residents were not adequately notified or consulted during the approval process.

She expressed concern about the frequency with which similar projects are approved without direct engagement with adjacent property owners.

Ms. Hurlbut stated that although pine trees were planted as a visual buffer, they were initially small and, even after growing, remain small and have not fully blocked the visibility of the solar panels, which remain visible year-round from her property.

She also raised concerns about property values and potential limitations on her ability to sell her home if additional solar developments continue in the surrounding area, stating that her property could feel “boxed in” by industrial-type development.

Ms. Hurlbut emphasized the importance of considering the impact on nearby residents when approving such projects and questioned the effectiveness of proposed screening measures, noting that in her experience, they do not fully eliminate visibility.

She concluded by urging the Board to carefully consider the lived experience of affected homeowners and the long-term community impacts of continued solar development near residential areas.

Dr. David Rechlin, Spring Valley Drive, business partner in Washington Summit lives down the hill from the Spink property. He stated that the proposal directly affects him as a long-time homeowner in the area of approximately 30 years.

He acknowledged the concerns raised by other speakers and expressed a preference for maintaining the existing character of the area, but noted that change is inevitable given that the Spink family is no longer continuing agricultural use of the property. He stated that, in his view, development of some kind is likely to occur regardless.

Dr. Rechlin expressed confidence that if the project is properly reviewed and conditioned through the Planning Board process, it could be developed in a responsible manner. He emphasized the importance of ongoing oversight to ensure compliance with applicable standards and protections.

He also referenced the proposed use of agrivoltaics, including sheep grazing within the solar installation, and described it as a positive way to maintain some agricultural function on the land.

Dr. Rechlin stated that while many residents prefer no change, he believes alternative energy development is necessary and that solar energy has a role in supporting the electrical grid. He indicated his support for the project, stating that he is willing to have the development located in his “backyard” if it is properly managed and regulated.

He concluded by expressing overall support for the proposal and thanking the Board for their service.

Greg Couch, Spring Valley Drive since 1988, expressed opposition to the proposed solar project. He described the area as a desirable residential community where many homeowners have invested significantly over the years because of its rural character, natural surroundings, and quality of life.

He credited the Town’s Planning Board over time with helping protect property values and maintain the residential nature of the area. Mr. Couch expressed concern that introducing a solar installation could negatively impact property values, citing experiences from other regions where similar developments have reportedly reduced nearby home values.

He also noted that much of the surrounding land has historically been assessed as agricultural property with relatively low tax valuation compared to residential parcels, and he urged the Town to consider the long-term implications for existing homeowners who pay higher residential taxes.

Mr. Couch concluded by urging the Town Board and Planning Board to prioritize the interests of current residents when making decisions about land use changes and stated his opposition to the project due to uncertainty about its future impacts.

Supervisor Bartlett responded by reiterating that the Planning Board would have responsibility for imposing conditions on the project, including requirements for landscaping, berms, and vegetation intended to screen the installation from public view. He emphasized that access to the site would be limited to the north side at the top of the hill, with no through access to residential areas.

He further stated that, based on the site’s topography, the project would be largely out of view from surrounding properties if properly constructed with the proposed screening measures. He noted that traffic impacts were expected to be minimal.

Joe Myers, Floral Drive, stated that he lives adjacent to an existing solar farm and shared concerns based on that experience. He expressed dissatisfaction with the visual impact of the nearby facility and noted that vegetative screening had not fully obscured the installation, as had been initially promised.

He described operational characteristics of the existing facility, stating that some solar panels are tracking systems that adjust position throughout the day, and that in his experience, some panels no longer function consistently, resulting in uneven orientations across the array. He asked whether the proposed project would use fixed panels or tracking systems.

Mr. Myers also raised concerns about battery storage, noting that he had been informed previously that no storage would be included at County Rte 60 solar facility, but he believes that Tesla battery systems were later installed there. He urged clarification on whether battery storage would be part of the current proposal and suggested that ongoing monitoring and code enforcement would be necessary to ensure compliance with project specifications.

He further commented on wildlife impacts, stating that fencing around solar installations can disrupt deer movement and other local wildlife, and questioned whether those environmental effects were being considered.  He commented on witnessing dead animals as a result of the fencing.

Mr. Myers also raised questions about the long-term structure of the project, including anticipated project lifespan, potential extensions, tax credits, and how property assessments might change over time. He noted that solar projects in other areas are commonly structured as long-term agreements, often around 25 years with possible extensions, and asked whether similar terms would apply here.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that many of the questions raised would be addressed through the Planning Board review process, including technical specifications, operational details, and compliance conditions. He indicated that the public hearing was not the final approval stage and that such matters would be examined in greater detail during subsequent review.

Supervisor Bartlett expressed regret that the existing solar installation near Mr. Myers’ property did not include more substantial berming or visual screening, acknowledging his concern about its visibility from nearby homes.

Katie Sylvester, Spring Valley Drive, stated that her property is located near the proposed project area and that she shares many of the same concerns already expressed by other neighbors. She stated that she does not support the project and is concerned about its potential visibility, even with proposed berming and screening measures.

Ms. Sylvester asked about the expected construction timeline and process, specifically whether construction activity would involve significant truck traffic, dust, or other disruptions that could affect her property and her young child who plays outdoors.

She also expressed concern about the broader decision-making process, stating that it feels to her as though the outcome has already been pre-determined by the Board prior to full community input.

Ms. Sylvester concluded by noting that a nearby neighbor Rick Reed who was unable to attend had submitted written comments for the Board to consider.

Supervisor Bartlett acknowledged receipt of additional written correspondence and indicated that it would be included in the record for review.

Jane Sylvester expressed concern about the possibility of future expansion of the proposed solar project onto the south side of Spring Valley Drive, noting that she understood the developer may own additional nearby property.

Supervisor Bartlett clarified that the current zoning change request applies only to the north side of the road and that the south side would remain unchanged unless a separate future application were submitted and approved through the appropriate process.

Mrs. Sylvester asked whether the developer would still own surrounding property and potentially pursue additional development in the future. Supervisor Bartlett responded that he could not speculate on future actions by the developer and reiterated that any additional development would require a separate request and approval process.

Mrs. Sylvester expressed concern about potential impacts on nearby residents if future expansion were to occur and stated that this was her primary concern. She then concluded her remarks.

No one else wished to speak; the public hearing concerning the proposed zone change was closed for public comment at 7:55 pm.

The floor was opened to the public for any other topic:

 

Tom Boxberger Co-Chair Planning Board addressed the Board, offering personal remarks to Supervisor Bartlett on his final meeting. He referenced their long working relationship through the Planning Board and expressed appreciation for the Supervisor’s support over the years.

Mr. Boxberger stated that the Planning Board had valued working with him and characterized the experience as a “true pleasure,” adding that he and others on the board would miss him. He concluded by thanking Supervisor Bartlett.

Raleigh Churchill, President of the Town of Watertown Ambulance, addressed the board and thanked Supervisor Bartlett for his service.

He then presented budget information for the Town of Watertown Ambulance service for the upcoming 2026 season, noting that copies of the budget sheets had been distributed to the Board. He referenced receipt of a $50,000 grant through Assemblyman Mark Walczyk’s office, which helped offset the cost of an ambulance purchase, and stated the agency is continuing to save toward another replacement vehicle expected later in the year or early next year.

Mr. Churchill then raised concerns about the increasing volume of ambulance calls being made into the City of Watertown. He reported that the service has been responding to approximately 37 calls per month in the city, which he said is placing significant strain on staffing, equipment, and the agency’s budget. He explained that reimbursement is only received for transported patients, and many of the individuals being picked up are homeless, uninsured or are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, resulting in limited cost recovery.

He stated that the current call volume outside their primary coverage area is contributing to a staffing and service capacity crisis, and warned that continued strain could eventually impact service availability not only in Watertown but also in surrounding areas.

Mr. Churchill noted that mutual aid agreements remain in place but expressed concern that assistance is not always reciprocal at the same level of frequency. He stressed that agencies are becoming overextended and urged broader coordination at the town, county, and potentially state level to address EMS coverage challenges.

He concluded by calling for collaborative discussions and possible policy changes, emphasizing the need for coordinated action to ensure emergency medical services remain sustainable and responsive to community needs. He noted that discussions regarding EMS coverage have been ongoing for years and stated that the issue has now reached a critical level where there is concern about the potential for gaps in ambulance service.

Supervisor Bartlett asked Mr. Altieri whether the upcoming meeting scheduled with the City Manager’s office on May 26^th at 1:00 p.m. could be extended. He requested that the meeting be lengthened by approximately an hour to allow inclusion of additional stakeholders, including Mr. Churchill and Mr. Prosser, in order to further discuss ongoing ambulance service concerns.

Mr. Altieri responded affirmatively and agreed to contact the City Manager’s office the following day to request extending the meeting by approximately an additional half hour to an hour.

Joe Myers began by offering remarks of appreciation regarding community growth in Watertown over the past 25 years, noting development in areas such as Arsenal Street and expressing general support for regional progress. He also mentioned interest in past and potential future development projects in the area, including sports-related facilities, and thanked the Town for considering water-related issues affecting Floral Drive over an extended period.

He then raised questions regarding the handling of official Town communications and resources following the end of a supervisor’s term in office. Mr. Myers asked how town email accounts and communications would be managed after a transition in office, suggesting that former official accounts should be deactivated or redirected to appropriate staff, such as the Town Clerk or Deputy Supervisor. He also referenced the use of distribution groups to ensure transparency and continuity of communications among board members.

Mr. Myers further expressed concern about whether all board members receive the same information and referenced a prior email discussion, stating concern that some communications may not have been broadly shared. He suggested that ensuring equal access to correspondence would improve transparency and prevent future issues.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that all official correspondence received through the Town’s systems is distributed appropriately, and that emails related to projects are generally shared with relevant board members, the Town Clerk, and involved professionals. He stated that no board member is excluded from correspondence when it pertains to official Town business.

A brief exchange followed in which Mr. Myers reiterated his concern about consistency in information sharing, given that at past meetings Supervisor Bartlett had been the only Board member with information prior to the meeting, leaving the other Board members uninformed until Supervisor Bartlett told them at the meeting and expected them to vote on such information the same night. Supervisor Bartlett disagreed and stated that official communications are routed through established channels and that board members receive project-related correspondence as required.

The discussion concluded with clarification regarding Town communication procedures and continued focus on ensuring transparency and proper handling of official records and equipment during transitions in office.

The exchange continued during public comment, with Mr. Myers asking additional questions regarding Town operations and financial allocations.

Mr. Myers noted that certain equipment or materials appeared to be stored at Supervisor Bartlett’s home and questioned how Town-owned resources and communications would be managed going forward, and whether there was a plan for the Supervisor to return the materials that belonged to the Town.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that he did not have anything at his house and Town business equipment and communications are handled through established procedures and clarified that some items referenced were personal and not Town-owned.

Mr. Myers continued to question how official communications and board operations would function following the upcoming transition in Town leadership.

Attorney Harrienger explained that, following the vacancy of the supervisor’s position, the Town Board would appoint an acting supervisor and subsequently fill any resulting vacancy, maintaining a five-member board.

Mr. Myers acknowledged the explanation and stated his intent was to better understand how governance continuity would be maintained, noting his concerns about transparency and information sharing.

Mr. Myers then raised a question regarding previously discussed American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, specifically a $100,000 allocation that had been associated with a road project. He asked whether those funds would be redirected to eligible projects following changes to the original plan to use them for a road.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that the ARPA funds had not been reallocated to other projects, explaining that the original road project had changed due to alternative arrangements and that the Town would not be using those funds for purposes outside allowable ARPA guidelines.

Supervisor Bartlett clarified that portions of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding had already been designated for other eligible projects and accounts, including street lighting improvements. He noted that the funds must be used by December 31, 2026, and stated that the Town Board has already committed portions of those funds to specific purposes.

He specifically referenced appreciation for work related to restoring street lighting along Arsenal Street and indicated that ARPA funds associated with those efforts and other designated projects would remain allocated as previously approved. He further stated that the Board did not intend to redirect those funds into highway construction projects.

Kathryn Eves addressed the Town Board regarding ongoing concerns related to her husband’s (Matt Eves) retirement account and payroll issues. She stated that the matter has remained unresolved despite repeated discussions over the past year, promised timelines, and prior assurances.

Supervisor Bartlett interrupted Mrs. Eves repeatedly and stated that personnel and labor matters should be addressed through executive session involving the Town Board, union representatives, and appropriate Town officials rather than during public comment. He stated that the matter had already been addressed multiple times.

Mrs. Eves continued her remarks, asserting that the issues involving her husband’s retirement and payroll had not actually been addressed, as the Board had failed to help her family.  She stated that these issues are indicative of broader financial and administrative concerns within Town operations. She referenced comments previously made by the Town’s financial advisor from Municipal Solutions regarding delinquent annual financial filings, the Town’s lack of funds, and concerns about financial oversight.

She further stated that prior budgets included funding intended to address payroll and retirement discrepancies but stated that corrective action had not actually been completed yet. Mrs. Eves also referenced a recent preliminary review conducted by the New York State Comptroller’s Office and stated that additional deficiencies had reportedly been identified regarding retirement reporting and payroll records.

Mrs. Eves urged the Board to exercise caution before approving additional projects or expenditures until existing financial and administrative issues are resolved. She emphasized what she described as the Board’s fiduciary responsibility to fully understand the Town’s financial condition before moving forward with new initiatives.

Supervisor Bartlett responded by again telling Mrs. Eves she shouldn’t bring the matters to the Board in open session. He referenced correspondence received from the NYS Retirement System regarding payroll deduction matters. He stated that there had been changes to systems and procedures over time and suggested that misunderstandings or administrative issues may have contributed to the current situation. Mrs. Eves further stated that she had been trying to work with the Board for over a year.

Supervisor Bartlett again interrupted Mrs. Eves to reiterate that he believed the matter should be handled through formal administrative and labor channels rather than during public comment sessions. Mrs. Eves maintained that the concerns involved broader issues of accountability and transparency affecting Town operations.

Highway Superintendent Clement stood and commented that the payroll and retirement-related issues being discussed were not isolated to a single employee. He stated that concerns involving withheld or misdirected funds had also affected other Town personnel, including the Town Clerk, Town Judge, and participants in the New York State Deferred Compensation Plan. He noted that he had personally experienced similar issues involving payroll deductions.

He further stated that coming to the Town Board meetings had been a last resort for the employees, as efforts had been made to resolve the matters privately through meetings with Town leadership without involving union representatives, but those meetings either did not occur or did not lead to a resolution. He asserted that employees had attempted multiple times to address the issues administratively but the Town Supervisor had continuously failed to show up to the meetings. He expressed frustration that public discussion had become the only remaining avenue for obtaining attention to the matter.

No one else wished to speak; the floor was closed.

Supervisor Bartlett introduced Chuck Marshall who was present to represent Stewart Shops. Mr. Marshall explained that the company has two properties under contract located at 20557 and 20591 NYS Rte. 3. He noted that the Town owns adjoining property to the left of the proposed project site and that Stewart’s had submitted a letter following appearances before the Planning Board in both March and May.

Mr. Marshall explained that advancement of the Stewart’s project would require amendments related to the Town road installation. He stated that Stewart’s is willing to install the road at its own expense, provided certain considerations are addressed, including signal coordination and obtaining a New York State Department of Transportation highway work permit, which he believed the Town had previously agreed to pursue. He indicated that he was present primarily to answer questions from the Board.

Councilwoman McClusky asked about statements in the submitted letter. Mr. Marshall explained that zoning compliance requires 150 feet of frontage on a Town road. He stated that Stewart’s does not benefit from extending the road beyond the project site, although prior Town discussions had suggested the road could extend farther east. He explained that Stewart’s proposes constructing approximately 250 feet of roadway to include the required highway department turnaround, or “hammerhead,” needed for Town road standards.

Mr. Marshall further stated that Stewart’s would pay for the road installation. He reiterated his understanding that the Town had already committed to obtaining the highway work permit, the curb cut and coordinating the traffic signal. He explained that the signal itself is owned by a separate developer and maintained under an annual maintenance agreement through the New York State Department of Transportation.

When asked whether approvals had been obtained from the City, Mr. Marshall stated that Stewart’s first began evaluating the property in 2022 and waited until the Town publicly discussed the possibility of using eminent domain for the northeastern road extension before placing the property under contract in 2025. He noted that Stewart’s then appeared before the Planning Board in March and May 2026. He stated that the sewer line has already been installed to the project site, although he believed the pump station was not yet online.

It was noted that the City would still need to issue a sewer permit. Mr. Marshall confirmed that Stewart’s would apply for all required permits except for the traffic signal coordination and highway work permit associated with the light. He stated that because the Town owns the road, the Town would need to obtain the highway work permit, after which Stewart’s would complete installation of the infrastructure.

Councilwoman McClusky asked whether Stewart’s would pay the annual cost associated with the traffic signal. Mr. Marshall responded that, as Stewart’s is the sole beneficiary of the signal, the company would be willing to cover the approximately $600 annual maintenance cost until other users benefit from it. He also stated that Stewart’s would agree to have the Town engineer inspect the road installation to ensure it met Town standards before dedication it as public infrastructure. His understanding was that the signal maintenance agreement currently belongs to the separate developer, identified as COR Development, rather than the property owner.

Mr. Marshall stated that he understood there was a history to the matter that he had not personally been involved in, but that the Town’s prior position appeared to be that responsibility for the traffic signal would rest with the Town. He explained that COR Development currently pays for the maintenance agreement with the New York State Department of Transportation for the signal. He added that Stewart’s would be willing to assume the maintenance costs until additional users benefited from the intersection improvements. Mr. Marshall also stated that the Planning Board approval was contingent upon construction of the roadway because the project required the necessary frontage.

Councilwoman McClusky responded that she had contacted officials from several municipalities, including Rutland, Champion, Alexandria Bay, Clayton, Dexter, and Black River, and each municipality indicated that Stewart’s had borne the full cost of its own developments without municipal financial participation. She stated that multiple Supervisors and Mayors had warned her that if the Town moved forward with paying for any portion of the project it would be an unconstitutional gift.

Mr. Marshall replied that those projects differed because they did not involve tying into Town-owned or municipal infrastructure. He explained that some Stewart’s projects did not require NYS DOT permits because they did not need to modify the existing highway cuts. He expressed concern that Stewart’s was being portrayed as the sole beneficiary of the project, while the Town had previously discussed extending the roadway from NYS Rte. 3 to Co. Rte. 202 (Sam’s Club area) and had even considered eminent domain for that purpose. Mr. Marshall was questioned about being the only beneficiary, as he had stated that Stewart’s was the only beneficiary to project when talking about the traffic light.  He then stated “he had not said that”.

Mr. Marshall stated that Stewart’s would construct the road and the necessary infrastructure and dedicate it to the Town, built to Town specifications. Councilwoman McClusky responded that such an arrangement would be acceptable if Stewart’s covered all associated costs. Mr. Marshall clarified that Stewart’s intended to pay for installation of the roadbed itself, but not for installation of the signal heads, because he believed the Town had previously committed to handling the signal modifications. He reiterated that Stewart’s would, however, cover ongoing signal maintenance costs.

Attorney Harrienger acknowledged his position about what he called “prior commitments” but noted previous boards could not bind future boards.

Mr. Marshall thanked the Board.

Discussion then shifted to the permitting process. Councilwoman McClusky asked Mike Altieri what the typical arrangement would be for a development of this type. He explained that it is common for a developer to be solely responsible for the installation of public infrastructure, such as water, sewer, or roadway improvements, to Town specifications, and then dedicate that infrastructure to the municipality through a formal dedication process.

Councilwoman McClusky asked whether multiple entities could participate in the NYSDOT permitting process. Mr. Altieri responded that involving multiple applicants could become cumbersome and complicate dealings with the Department of Transportation. He stated that the DOT application portal requires a single applicant to handle the entire permit process so that roadway, signal, and utility work are all addressed within one coordinated permit package.

Supervisor Bartlett clarified on behalf of the developer that Stewart’s does not own the property where the road would be constructed and therefore the Town would be pursuing the permit under its jurisdiction. He then referred to discussions regarding the eight-point draft agreement involving the Town, Thirty-One Development LLC/Mr. Simao, and Stewart’s Shops. He stated that the proposal before the Board concerned only the eight specific discussion points contained within that draft agreement.

Discussion continued regarding the required traffic study, with it being noted that traffic data would need to be collected and analyzed.

Supervisor Bartlett acknowledged that the Department of Transportation typically prefers traffic studies to be conducted during the summer months, when traffic volumes are higher and weather conditions are more representative. Supervisor Bartlett stated that he would like immediate approval from the Board to proceed with having the study completed and submitted as quickly as possible, including matters related to the curb cut application.

Councilwoman McClusky then asked about the other parcel associated with the project, identified as property belonging to the Estate of Dolly Doldo. She noted that the parcel is landlocked and questioned what would happen with that property, assuming it would be sold to Mr. Simao prior to Stewart’s involvement.

Mr. Marshall clarified that the referenced property was the house and parcel located immediately east of the Town-owned property. He explained that Mr. Simao was acting as the contract vendee and had authorized Stewart’s Shops to represent his interests before the Planning Board, which had previously been disclosed during Planning Board proceedings.

Prior to consideration of the proposed resolution, Councilwoman McClusky stated that she had drafted her own resolution regarding the matter. Supervisor Bartlett objected, stating that the Board had not received the proposal three days in advance. Councilwoman McClusky stated that she frequently did not receive resolution submitted by Supervisor Bartlett 3 days prior to the meetings.

Attorney Harrienger advised that there was no technical rule preventing a Board member from presenting a resolution at the meeting, provided the Board members were able to hear and consider it.

MOTION NO #61 -2026

Councilwoman McClusky moved.

WHEREAS, Stewart’s has made public statements indicating it is customary for Stewart’s to pay the full cost of development…

Stewart’s representative then interrupted, stating that he had not made such a statement.

Councilwoman McClusky referenced a statements attributed to Mr. Marshall in interviews with the Watertown Times, clarifying that Stewart’s had indicated it would pay for the road. Mr. Marshall reiterated that while Stewart’s had stated it would fund the road itself, there is a distinction between that commitment and a blanket statement that it is “customary” for Stewart’s to cover all development costs.

Councilwoman McClusky then reiterated that the statement in question characterized Stewart’s position as customary full payment of development costs, including infrastructure beyond the road.

Mr. Marshall than objected, to the prior quoted statements and prior public narrative, stating that he had stated that Stewart’s would pay for the road itself, but that the circumstances differed from other Stewart’s projects because this development involved Town-owned infrastructure that was not already in place. He emphasized that in other Jefferson County communities the infrastructure already existed, making the comparison not equal. He stated that describing Stewart’s assumption of all costs as “customary” would inaccurately establish a precedent for this unique situation.

Councilwoman McClusky then stated that public statements had been made indicating Stewart’s would pay for everything related to the NYS Route 3 connector road and that the Town Supervisor had explicitly stated to the public in open sessions that the Town would not pay anything for any of the project; that the Town would pay nothing for any part of it. Supervisor Bartlett said “that’s right”.

She continued

WHEREAS, the Town had been warned that paying for any portion of a private development could constitute an illegal gift under the New York State Constitution and noted that the Town’s use of funds was currently under review by the New York State Comptroller’s Office.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Watertown agrees that Stewart’s would construct and fully pay for the connector road on NYS Route 3, including a turnaround suitable for winter plowing, snow removal, and emergency vehicle access, all to the specifications of the Town Highway Superintendent. The Town further agrees provided that Stewart’s would be solely responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals, that the Town would not be responsible for any permitting deadlines or work related to obtaining approvals, and that all traffic signal costs, negotiations, contracts, and purchases would be entirely borne by Stewart’s. After completion the Town would consider accepting the road through the legal dedication process subject to review by the Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer.

Mr. Marshall interrupted and questioned whether it was appropriate for the Board to adopt such a resolution without first determining whether the other party to the proposed agreement found the terms acceptable. Attorney Harrienger responded by asking whether Stewart’s had consulted her while drafting its own proposed terms to determine whether the Town found them acceptable. Mr. Marshall replied that he had not drafted the terms and indicated that the previously submitted proposal had come from the property owner without Stewart’s involvement.

Attorney Harrienger asked Mr. Marshall to clarify, as what he was saying would indicate Stewart’s had not approved the terms presented to the Board. Mr. Marshall then retracted his statement and said that, in actuality, Stewart’s had been involved in drafting the terms. Mr. Marshall then sat down.

Councilwoman McClusky explained that at a previous meeting, the Supervisor had surprised the Board by talking about the terms for the first time. The Board had not been given the chance to read them.  After the Board had objected, the Board had been encouraged by the Supervisor to identify and write down any disagreements with the eight-point proposal submitted by Mr. Simao/Stewart’s. She stated that her proposed resolution reflected her responses and concerns regarding those discussion points and that she viewed the process as part of ongoing negotiations, as neither the Town nor the Town Attorney had been consulted about the terms at all.

Board discussion then turned to the broader question of economic impact and tax base growth associated with the proposed development.

Councilwoman McClusky stated that, based on conversations she had with other municipalities, none reported a significant increase in tax base from similar developments, with some indicating no change and others describing only minimal impact. She further suggested that the effect of developments such as Stewart’s was primarily a redistribution of existing consumer activity rather than a net increase in taxable value.

Supervisor Bartlett disagreed, stating that such a conclusion, and the input from other town supervisors and village mayors with Stewart shop in their community was incorrect. He argued that development such as a Stewart’s project does in fact expand the Town’s tax base because it increases the total assessed value of taxable property compared to vacant land. He emphasized the importance of continued development, stating that without expansion of the tax base the Town’s financial position would decline over time.

Councilwoman McClusky compared the situation to retail competition, using the example of large home improvement stores, suggesting that while businesses may shift consumer activity between competitors, overall tax base growth may remain limited. She reiterated that, in her view, and based on the conversations she had previously had with representatives of other towns and villages; similar developments often do not materially increase the town’s tax base.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that the assessment of a developed commercial property is higher than that of undeveloped land, which results in an increase in the Town’s total taxable assessed value. He used a comparison to other forms of property improvement, noting that any significant development contributes to assessed value growth.

Councilman Prosser asked whether the discussion referred to sales tax revenue or assessed property value. It was clarified that Supervisor Bartlett was referring to assessed value.

Supervisor Bartlett further explained that although the Town itself does not levy a direct property tax, it benefits from sales tax distribution, which is based in part on overall economic activity and taxable valuation within the County. He stated that a portion of sales tax revenue flows to the County and City, while development within the Town contributes to the overall tax base and economic activity that supports those distributions.

There was no second to the motion.  The motion was rejected.

Discussion took place concerning the 8-point agreement that had been submitted without Town input by Thirty One Development LLC, PJ Simao & Stewart’s:

 

1. Engineering Plan & NYSDOT Submission – The Town Engineer shall be authorized to finalize the Target Connector Roadway Preliminary Grading Plan, dated May 31, 2024, consistent with the use of the adjacent properties. The finalized plan shall be submitted to NYSDOT no later than April 30, 2026, subject to approval by Stewart’s and Thirty One Development LLC.
2. Traffic Signal Authorization – The Town shall obtain written permission from COR Development to utilize the existing traffic signal. The Town shall be solely responsible for all costs, operation, installation, and ongoing maintenance associated with the signal for the new road connection to Route 3.
3. Highway Work Permit / Infrastructure – The Town and Highway Superintendent shall obtain all required Highway Work Permits, including but not limited to drainage approvals, and shall install the curb cut at the Town’s sole cost and expense. Additionally, the Town shall extend sewer infrastructure to the east side of the new road to allow for connection to the property located east of Stewart’s.
4. Road Construction by Stewart’s – Stewart’s shall install and pay for the construction of the roadway extending in a northerly direction, with a width of 24 feet and a length not to exceed 250 feet. The Town shall be responsible for inspection of such work.
5. Land Conveyances -The Town shall receive a deed for the additional property required on the east side for road installation, and, in exchange, the Town shall convey an equivalent amount of property on the west side to Thirty-One Development LLC.
6. Timing / Intent – The intent of this agreement is to secure all necessary permits and approvals no later than July 31, 2026, to allow for timely road construction and the construction and opening of the Stewart’s store this year.
7. Payment to Town – The Town shall receive the previously agreed upon payment of $25,000 from Thirty-One Development LLC / Philip J. Simao as a condition of issuance of the building permit for Stewart’s.
8. Engineering Costs- The Town shall be responsible for any and all engineering costs associated with the design and inspection of the roadway.

 

Councilwoman McClusky disagrees with this MOU for the reasons she stated before.

Attorney Harrienger stated that she had received and reviewed recent email correspondence and had heard differing comments and questions from members of the Board regarding the proposed resolution. She advised that, as written, certain provisions of the proposed language could create issues, particularly those assigning responsibility for timelines associated with permits and approvals. She recommended removing timeline-related obligations, noting that the Town cannot control the schedules or processing timelines of external agencies, nor whether approvals will ever actually be given. She further cautioned that, as drafted, the language could be interpreted as placing responsibility on a party for matters outside its control, including permitting deadlines and agency review periods.

Attorney Harrienger stated that the intent language, particularly the requirement to secure permits and approvals by a specified date, could be problematic. She reminded the Board if they wanted to seek her detailed legal advice they could do so during an executive session.

Supervisor Bartlett stated he did not want to adjourn to executive session and stated Attorney Harrienger could speak in open session.  The rest of the Board was silent on the question of an executive session.

She added that the draft language had not been prepared by the Town Attorney, nor had any input or review been sought by the Town Attorney, and suggested revisions to avoid assigning obligations that could create legal or practical conflicts.

Attorney Harrienger further advised that the proposed resolution should be revised to remove or modify timeline-based requirements, noting that certain deadlines referenced in the draft had already passed and therefore were impossible to meet. She cautioned that assigning fixed timelines to permit applications or agency approvals can create legal exposure, since such processes are controlled by external entities outside the Town’s authority.

She further recommended that the resolution include clearer protections for the Town, including a waiver and release of liability for damages in the event of any breach or delay. She explained that, as a municipal body, the Town must be careful not to accept or impose obligations that could result in liability for circumstances beyond its control, such as funding availability or third-party permitting delays. She stated that such protections would be reasonable and appropriate in order to safeguard the Town’s interests.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that revising the resolution further at this stage, would effectively require it to sent back for to the other parties for additional drafting and review. The Attorney replied that the Town deserves protections and had not been involved in the initial drafting of the terms. She advised that if the Board was unwilling to take the time to review the document and make changes, certain adjustments could be made immediately through verbal amendment if the Board wished to proceed, while not accepting all language that had been submitted to the Town.

The Board continued its discussion of the draft resolution language, focusing on responsibilities assigned to the Town Highway Superintendent and the coordination of required permits and infrastructure work.

Councilwoman McClusky referenced Section 3 of the proposed agreement, which stated that the Highway Superintendent would be responsible for obtaining highway work permits, drainage approvals, and related coordination. Mr. Altieri expressed disagreement with assigning those duties to the Highway Superintendent, stating that such responsibilities would more appropriately fall under engineering oversight rather than the Highway Department.

He explained that the Department of Transportation permit process would likely be handled as a single coordinated application involving one primary operator, particularly given the inclusion of a traffic signal and roadway modifications. He emphasized the importance of a unified permitting approach.

Mr. Marshall addressed the board and stated he agreed with their analysis regarding the permit being handled by one entity.

Councilwoman McClusky questioned whether the project would require extension of sewer infrastructure to the eastern side of the roadway as the MOU states. Attorney Harrienger suggested removing that language.

Supervisor Bartlett asked Mr. Altieri if a sleeve would constitute infrastructure. Mr. Altieri noted that such installations would be considered part of the overall utility infrastructure, though definitions within the draft resolution were not clearly specified.

Attorney Harrienger cautioned that the lack of precise definitions in the resolution could create ambiguity. She recommended clarifying or narrowing certain provisions to avoid unintended obligations on the Town. She also noted that language requiring the Town to extend utilities or infrastructure should be carefully reviewed and, in some cases, removed or revised to prevent gifting.

Mr. Marshall, representing Stewart’s, stated that because Stewart’s would be assuming the cost of road construction, it would also assume responsibility for certain utility extensions associated with the project. Attorney Harrienger responded that, while that intent may be understood, the current wording did not clearly reflect it and could lead to misinterpretation.

Attorney Harrienger further raised concern regarding a provision she described as problematic in Section 7, stating that it could be interpreted as a conditional payment tied to governmental approvals. She advised that such language should be revised or removed to avoid any appearance of impropriety or unlawful conditional arrangements.

Joe Myers expressed frustration that concerns previously raised at the last meeting had not been fully incorporated into revisions of the proposal. He stated that it appeared the process was being rushed and that questions from prior meetings remained unresolved. He emphasized the need for more thorough review and due diligence before proceeding further. He objected that an email containing the eight-point proposal had not been printed or made available at the prior Special Meeting, stating that Board members had not been fully aware of its contents at that time.

Councilwoman McClusky further had disagreement with Section 6 of the draft, specifically regarding timing and intent provisions. She cautioned that strict deadlines contained in the proposal could expose the Town to legal risk, stating her belief that the language as written could lead to litigation. She emphasized concern over the inclusion of a specific completion deadline.

Mr. Marshall stated that he had been provided a copy of the resolution by another member of the public during the meeting. He acknowledged the attorney’s comments and agreed that the Town cannot be held responsible for actions or timelines controlled by the New York State Department of Transportation, noting that such obligations would not be enforceable against the Town.

Discussion then turned to Section 8, regarding engineering costs. Councilwoman McClusky stated that the Town should not bear engineering costs associated with the project. Mr. Marshall responded that Stewart’s position is that it would cover inspection costs, as previously stated in correspondence, but noted he understood that certain design work had already been completed prior to Stewart’s involvement.

He further stated that, in his understanding, portions of the roadway clearing had already been undertaken and that engineering oversight should have been in place prior to that work being performed.

Mr. Marshall stated that he was in agreement that Section 6 would need to be revised, specifically noting that the deadline should be removed. He stated he was not unreasonable and reiterated that he was open to adjusting the language. He also stated that, with respect to Section 8, design costs had already been incurred by the Town, while Stewart’s position was that it would cover inspection costs to ensure the roadway is built to Town standards prior to dedication.

Councilwoman McClusky asked whether Mr. Marshall was also in agreement that Section 7 should be removed. Mr. Marshall responded that he was not representing Thirty One Development LLC and therefore could not speak to that portion of the agreement.

Town Attorney Harrienger reiterated her concern that Section 7, as written, could be interpreted as an improper conditional payment tied to the issuance of a building permit. She recommended removing the language that created that implication.

MOTION #62- 2026

Supervisor Bartlett made a motion to amend Section 7 by removing the language that tied payment to issuance of the building permit. The motion was seconded by Councilman Slye.

Ayes All

Attorney Harrienger again advised that they should start back at Section 1, it should be revised to remove or modify the timeline provisions, noting that certain deadlines had already passed and that retaining them could create legal exposure for the Town. She recommended eliminating or revising any language requiring completion by a specific date, emphasizing that permitting timelines cannot be controlled by the Town and should not be contractual obligations.

MOTION #63-2026

Supervisor Bartlett made a motion to amend Section 1 by removing the language “The finalized plan shall be submitted to NYSDOT no later than April 30, 2026, subject to approval by Stewart’s and Thirty One Development LLC”. The motion was seconded by Councilman Prosser.

Ayes All

MOTION #64-2026

Councilman Prosser made a motion to remove Section 6, motion was seconded by Councilman Perkins.

 

Ayes All

Discussion then turned to Section 3 of the proposed resolution, specifically the language addressing sewer infrastructure and responsibility for extension of utilities.

Attorney Harrienger stated that, the final sentence of Section 3 improperly placed responsibility on the Town and should be revised so that the obligation to extend sewer infrastructure would rest with Stewart’s if the project required it. She noted that Mr. Marshall had previously indicated willingness to undertake certain infrastructure work on behalf of Stewart’s, she emphasized that the Town should not assume responsibility for that obligation.

The Town Engineer was asked to clarify whether a sewer sleeve connected to the main sewer line would constitute infrastructure. The Engineer confirmed that it would be considered infrastructure.

Attorney Harrienger advised that while the technical feasibility of the infrastructure was not in question, the legal structure of the obligation needed to be carefully considered. She cautioned that assigning the Town responsibility for extending infrastructure could raise constitutional or statutory concerns, and recommended that any obligation be clearly assigned to Stewart’s rather than the Town.

Supervisor Bartlett stated that, so long as the infrastructure was located within the Town right-of-way, it could be considered Town roadway infrastructure, and asked why it could not be included as such. The attorney reiterated that the issue was not physical placement but legal responsibility and funding obligation.

She advised that the language could be revised to state that Stewart’s would be responsible for extending sewer infrastructure to the east side of the roadway to accommodate future connection to adjacent property, rather than assigning that responsibility to the Town in the agreement.

Mr. Marshall stated that Stewart’s was amenable to that approach.

MOTION #65-2026

Councilman Perkins made a motion to amend Section 3 to reflect that Stewart’s, rather than the Town, would be responsible for extending the sewer infrastructure to the east side of the road. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Bartlett.

Ayes All

The Board then turned to Section 2 of the proposed resolution, which addressed traffic signal authorization and related costs.

Attorney Harrienger stated that, while she understood Mr. Marshall’s position regarding coordination and permitting, her primary concern was the unknown cost associated with the installation or modification of a traffic signal. She emphasized that the financial obligation for the signal remained unclear and represented a significant unresolved issue in the proposal.

She advised that the NYSDOT traffic signal approval process is complex and subject to external agency review, which makes precise cost determination at this stage difficult. She confirmed that coordination with NYSDOT engineering and design standards would be required. The Board asked Mr. Green whether he had any input.

Ralph Green, town electrician has extensive experience in traffic signal installation and maintenance with the City of Watertown.  He described his background working for over 31 years in traffic signal construction, maintenance, and coordination with NYSDOT. He explained that he had been involved in numerous municipal and state projects involving complex signal systems, including joint projects and coordinated designs between municipalities and the State. He stated that the City of Watertown had maintained 39 traffic signals and worked closely with NYSDOT on multimillion-dollar infrastructure projects, including signal design, installation, and approval processes. He explained the responsibility and ownership of caution lights. He estimates this traffic signal will cost the Town a minimum of $50,000. His recommendation, based on his decades of experience, is not to move forward without a clear plan and study done on this proposal.

Mr. Altieri explained that traffic signal design, planning, and engineering would be addressed as part of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) permitting process. He noted that this process includes multiple phases and that cost estimates for signal installation or modification would not be finalized until those steps are completed. He emphasized that the timing and requirements of NYSDOT review make early cost certainty difficult.

Attorney Harrienger reiterated that the Town currently had no clear understanding of its potential financial obligation regarding the traffic signal and identified it as one of the most uncertain components of the project.

Following this discussion, appreciation was expressed for Mr. Green’s technical insight and experience. Councilwoman McClusky stated that, in light of the discussion, she was not comfortable moving forward with the proposal in its current form and recommended that the matter be tabled until a properly drafted and fully agreed-upon plan could be presented for consideration.

Supervisor Bartlett stated he wanted to approve the proposed agreement at tonight’s meeting, warning by waiting another month the project might not move forward.

Attorney Harrienger stated that the Board had the right to establish clear and organized terms, but reiterated that her role was to provide legal guidance while the Board ultimately makes all decisions. She encouraged the Board to ensure it had fully considered any remaining concerns before proceeding, noting that there were additional issues within the resolution that had not yet been fully addressed.

She further advised that Section 2, particularly the traffic signal provisions, represented one of the most significant unresolved components of the agreement. She also cautioned that Section 8, relating to engineering and inspection costs, required careful interpretation, as the language could be read broadly enough to impose obligations not intended by the Board.

Supervisor Bartlett responded that the engineering and design work referenced had already been completed and submitted, and therefore should not be interpreted as creating new or additional obligations.

Attorney Harrienger acknowledged that understanding, but reiterated that from a legal drafting standpoint, the language could still be interpreted as assigning responsibility for engineering costs in a broader sense than intended. She emphasized that her concern was not the intent of the Board, but how the language could be interpreted if challenged or enforced.

Supervisor Bartlett stated that he did not believe that was the intent of the resolution. The Attorney responded that intent alone is not determinative, and that written language governs legal interpretation.

The Board then discussed Section 4 of the proposed resolution, which addressed roadway design standards, including width, length, and turnaround requirements.

Attorney Harrienger emphasized that the language needed to clearly specify roadway dimensions, stating that reference to older standards was not sufficient and that the road should be constructed to a defined Town specification. She stated that the proposal should explicitly require a proper turnaround to ensure the road could ultimately be accepted for dedication and maintained by the Town.

Mr. Marshall participated once again referencing prior experience with similar projects. He suggested that instead of locking in specific dimensional figures, the resolution should require the road to be constructed to Town Highway Department standards, including a defined length and an appropriate turnaround. He recommended removing specific width measurements and instead stated they should defer to the Highway Superintendent’s standards for final design requirements.

MOTION #66-2026

Supervisor Bartlett introduced a motion to amend Section 4 to explicitly include a turnaround requirement and to remove specific width measurements, replacing them with a requirement that the road be constructed to Town standards, including appropriate classification under Highway Department specifications, and to include a turn around that can be accommodate plows and emergency vehicles. The motion was seconded by Councilman Perkins.

Ayes All

Attorney Harrienger suggested that a proposed section 9 be considered as a provision, specifically calling for a complete waiver and release of damages in the event of breach to protect the Town’s interests.

Supervisor Bartlett noted that such a provision could be structured as a replacement for the existing Section 6. The Town Attorney then helped refine the proposed language, clarifying that the waiver and release of damages would apply to Stewart’s Shops, Thirty One Development LLC/ PJ Simao, and would state that all parties agree to a mutual waiver and release of damages in the event of a breach, in order to limit potential liability between the parties.

MOTION #67- 2026

Supervisor Bartlett offered a motion to amend the resolution by replacing Section 6 with the revised waiver and release of damages provision would apply to Stewart’s Shops, Thirty One Development LLC and PJ Simao, and would state that those parties agree to a waiver and release of damages in the event of any breach by the Town. The motion was seconded by Councilman Prosser.

Ayes All

 

Mr. Marshall was present for all of the above discussions and offered no other objections on behalf of Stewart’s.

MOTION #68 -2026

WHEREAS, the Town of Watertown has entered into an amended agreement with PJ Simao/ Thirty-One Development LLC and Stewart’s to facilitate the timely construction of a connection road off New York State Route 3, approximately 250 feet in length; and

 

WHEREAS, the attached eight-point amended agreement has been reviewed and agreed to by both the Town of Watertown and the developer, PJ Simao/Thirty-One Development LLC and Stewart’s; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Watertown hereby approves the attached Amended Agreement with PJ Simao/ Thirty-One Development LLC and Stewart’s, a copy of which is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was made by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilman Prosser, and upon a roll call vote of the Board, was duly adopted as follows:

 

Supervisor Joel Bartlett                                   yes

Councilman David W. Prosser                                    yes

Councilwoman Joanne M. McClusky             no

Councilman Michael Perkins                          yes

Councilman Robert Slye                                 yes

 

AMENEDED AGREEMENT          

 

1. Engineering Plan & NYSDOT Submission – The Town Engineer shall be authorized to finalize the Target Connector Roadway Preliminary Grading Plan, dated May 31, 2024, consistent with the use of the adjacent properties.
2. Traffic Signal Authorization – The Town shall obtain written permission from COR Development to utilize the existing traffic signal. The Town shall be solely responsible for all costs, operation, installation, and ongoing maintenance associated with the signal for the new road connection to Route 3.
3. Highway Work Permit / Infrastructure – The Town and Highway Superintendent shall obtain all required Highway Work Permits, including but not limited to drainage approvals, and shall install the curb cut at the Town’s sole cost and expense. Additionally, Stewart’s shall extend sewer infrastructure to the east side of the new road to allow for connection to the property located east of Stewart’s.
4. Road construction by Stewart’s- Stewart’s shall install and pay for the construction of the roadway extending in the northerly direction with a length not to exceed 250 feet to be construction in accordance with the town standards and to include a turn around that can accommodate plows and emergency vehicles the Town shall be responsible for the inspection of such.
5. Land Conveyances -The Town shall receive a deed for the additional property required on the east side for road installation, and, in exchange, the Town shall convey an equivalent amount of property on the west side to Thirty-One Development LLC.
6. Stewart’s, Thirty-One Development LLC and PJ Simao all agree jointly and severally to a complete waiver in release of any damages in the event of any breach by the town.
7. Payment to Town – The Town shall receive the previously agreed upon payment of $25,000 from Thirty-One Development LLC / Philip J. Simao.
8. Engineering Costs

The Town shall be responsible for any and all engineering costs associated with the design and inspection of the roadway.

 

MOTION # 69 -2026

 

WHEREAS, the Town of Watertown has entered into a Joint Construction Agreement with Michael Lundy, T.I. Ag Park, LLC; and

 

WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been reviewed and agreed to by both the Town of Watertown and Michael Lundy, T.I. Ag Park, LLC; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Watertown hereby approves the attached Agreement with Michael Lundy, T.I. Ag Park, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was made by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser.

Attorney Harrienger advised the Board to consider the comments that she sent them concerning the agreement. She recommended this be discussed in executive session, since there is threatened litigation and legal advice should be sought from legal counsel.

MOTION #70-2026

Councilman Perkins moved to adjourn to executive session for legal advice concerning possible litigation at 9:15 pm, seconded by Councilwoman McClusky.

Ayes All

MOTION #71-2026

Councilman Perkins moved to amend executive session to include the Highway Superintendent Clement and Town Engineer Mike Altieri, seconded by Councilman Prosser.

Ayes All

The meeting reconvened at 9:52 pm.

MOTION #72 -2026

Councilwoman McClusky moved to table the Joint Construction Agreement with Michael Lundy, T.I. Ag Park, LLC, seconded by Councilman Prosser.

Ayes All

The Board reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part l concerning the Proposed Local Law 2 of 2026 for the zone change on Spring Valley Drive.

 

MOTION #73-2026

Supervisor Bartlett moved to accept Full Environmental Assessment Form Part l, 2 and 3 concerning Proposed Local Law 2 of 2026, zone change on Spring Valley Drive, seconded by Councilman Prosser.

Ayes All

MOTION #74-2026

RESOLUTION 6 of 2026

NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQR (Long Form)

FOR LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2026

 

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Watertown, New York has considered the adoption of Local Law No.2 of 2026 in the Town of Watertown in connection with a zone change on Spring Valley Drive, which would change two (2) parcels (Parcel Nos.91.05-1-15 and part of 91.05-1-16.1) from Residential 2 (R-2) to Business (B); and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Watertown has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form for the purpose of assisting the Town Board in making a determination of significance in respect to the Legislation; of whether the enactment of the Legislation would have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town has reviewed the criteria for determining significance of an action that is set forth at 6 NYCRR §617.7(c); and WHEREAS, having considered the action, consisting of the adoption of the Legislation and the potential environmental impacts associated with such action, the Town Board has determined to proceed.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Watertown finds that the proposed action of adopting the legislation is subject to SEQR; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the action constitutes an unlisted action under SEQR 617.2(al); and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board is the agency with jurisdiction by law to fund, approve, or directly undertake this action, and therefore, a coordinated review of the action under SEQR is neither required nor necessary.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Watertown, New

York:

 

1. Based upon the examination and consideration of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and comparison of the proposed action and criteria set forth at 617.7, no significant impact on the environment is known by the adoption of the proposed legislation.

 

2. The Supervisor for the Town of Watertown is authorized to execute the Long Environmental Assessment Form to the effect that the Town Board is issuing a “negative declaration” under SEQR.

 

3. A complete copy of the EAF including its negative declaration shall be maintained in the Town Clerk’s office in a file that will be readily accessible to the Public. All subsequent notices regarding the undertaking of the project as set forth in this Resolution shall state that a negative declaration has been issued 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.

 

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Supervisor Bartlett, seconded by Councilman Prosser, and upon roll call vote of the Board was duly adopted as follows:

 

Supervisor Joel Bartlett                                   yes

Councilman Prosser                                        yes

Councilwoman McClusky                              yes

Councilman Perkins                                        yes

Councilman Slye                                             yes

 

MOTION #75-2026

 

RESOLUTION 7 of 2026

ENACT LOCAL LAW 2 of 2026 REGARDING

Zone Change on Spring Valley Drive

 

WHEREAS, the zoning classification of Parcel No. 91.05-1-15, located on Spring Valley Drive in the Town of Watertown, would be re-designated from Residential Two (R-2) to Business (B), as described in Chapter 107 of the Town of Watertown Zoning Law. The zoning classification change for Parcel No. 91.05-1-16.1 would be contingent upon the parcel being subdivided, with the northern portion rezoned from Residential Two (R-2) to Business (B) Zone and the southern portion will remain Residential Two (R-2);

 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the proposed legislation and has further determined that none of the Town’s currently existing Local Laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations address the same.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Watertown, New York as follows:

 

1. The forgoing recitation is incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if set for the herein.
2. The Town Board hereby enacts the Local Law for a zone change as being in the best interests of the Town of Watertown.
3. The Supervisor for the Town of Watertown, and the Town Clerk, their respective agents and employees are hereby authorized to sign all documents and take all steps necessary to enact this legislation.
4. This Legislation shall be filed with the New York State Department of State and shall become effective thereafter.
5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
6. This Resolution is contingent on the subdivision of Parcel No. 91.05-1-16.1 dissected by the Spring Valley Drive road with the southern portion remaining in the Residential-2 zone.

 

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Supervisor Bartlett, seconded by Councilman Prosser, and upon roll call vote of the Board was duly adopted as follows:

 

Supervisor Joel Bartlett                                   yes

Councilman Prosser                                        yes

Councilwoman McClusky                              no

Councilman Perkins                                        yes

Councilman Slye                                             yes

 

MOTION #76-2026

 

Supervisor Bartlett moved to pay the following abstracts as audited.

Utilities paid prior to the meeting

General Vouchers       #          83        to         86        Total    $    10,822.80

Highway Vouchers     #          76        to         76        Total    $    24,253.63

Spec. Dist. Vchrs.       #          45        to         45        Total    $     5,608.56

 

 

 

 

Vouchers approved for monthly meeting

General Vouchers       #          87        to       104        Total    $    115,800.50

Highway Vouchers     #          77        to         85        Total    $      11,106.57

Spec. Dist. Vchrs.       #          46        to         54        Total    $ 187,829.03

 

Councilmember Prosser seconded the motion.

 

Ayes All

 

Supervisor Bartlett accepted the Town Clerk’s report.

Clerk Desormo advised the Board that during the recent audit, the auditor advised that going forward every Council member, as well as the Supervisor, would be required to sign all bills. She suggested that the Council members will need to come in the day of the meeting or arrive early to the meeting to review and sign the bills in order to comply with the auditor’s requirements.

Town Clerk’s Correspondence:

Notice from Watertown Garden Center and Landscaping Company regarding its application for a liquor license. The Board was advised that the company was providing the required 30-day advance notice. It was noted that the business hosts activities such as wagon rides and Halloween rides and wished to serve alcohol during those events.

The second matter involved a water customer requesting relief on sewer charges. The Clerk explained that the customer had a sump pump system that discharged water outside through a separate hose rather than into the sewer system. While the customer was in Florida for the winter, the system reportedly flushed water continuously to prevent the cellar from flooding after a power outage, resulting in usage of 89 units and a bill exceeding $1,000. The customer requested a reduction in the sewer portion of the bill, as the water did not enter the sewer system. The Board members agreed that the Town historically does not grant such requests.

Superintendent Clement gave his updates to the Board:

 

Superintendent Clement reported that he had received a request from the Fire Department requesting assistance in reconstructing the helipad that was originally installed in 2016 using gravel and topsoil. He explained that the current surface causes erosion and that the Fire Department is seeking to reconstruct a 100 by 100-foot helipad by removing the existing dirt, installing stone, and potentially paving the area with assistance from the County or a paving contractor. He noted that the Fire Department would pay for the materials, but was requesting the Town’s assistance with hauling, excavation, and equipment operations.

Board members discussed the request, including the scope of work and associated costs for Town manpower and equipment. Board member expressed opposition to the Town providing such assistance, citing cost concerns. Following discussion, the consensus of the Board was not to proceed with the request.

Superintendent Clement then provided updates on other matters, including roadside cleanup activities, staff changes, and equipment issues. He noted that one highway employee had left for other employment and that approximately 50 bags of garbage had been collected along town and county roads during the most recent cleanup period, a decrease from previous collections.

He also reported that Terry Groff had contacted him regarding the transfer of a packer truck. Discussion followed regarding financing options and the limitations of bonding for older equipment under local finance law. The Town Attorney explained that the equipment was beyond the allowable period of usefulness for bonding, meaning it would need to be purchased using general funds rather than through a bond. It was further noted that suitable replacement equipment within bonding eligibility would need to be newer.

Superintendent Clement stated that the purchase of a packer and grader had been included in the 2026 budget, with approximately $127,000 allocated. After further discussion regarding costs, trade-ins, and funding sources the Board agreed to continue with the funding, and authorized the Highway Superintendent to move forward with purchasing both pieces of equipment.

MOTION #77-2026

 

Supervisor Bartlett moved to approve the purchase of the used Gradall and packer replacement at a cost of approximately $127,000, seconded by Councilman Perkins.

 

Ayes All

Superintendent Clement reported that he had returned to the Department of Transportation regarding Mall Road and stated that the Town could reapply to receive approximately $120,000 in CHIPS funds back upon submission of the required paperwork. He noted there had never been a formal motion for the Town to take over the Mall Road; although records from 2015 indicate the Town is shown as owning the entire road. He clarified that, in his view, the Town does not own the full roadway, despite the DOT’s records suggesting otherwise.

Discussion followed regarding the road’s legal status and ownership history. It was noted that confusion stemmed from earlier property conveyances involving Mr. Walton, many years ago, who previously owned the land in question. The Town Attorney explained that a potential deed error may have resulted in the inconsistency, and that the issue had not previously come to attention until discrepancies appeared in state records.

Superintendent Clement further explained that the DOT inventory list and mapping references were inconsistent, contributing to confusion over the extent of Town responsibility and eligibility for funding. It was also noted that updated mapping and metes-and-bounds descriptions had been prepared to correct the issue.

The Town Attorney stated that the Town could request a corrective deed from Mr. Walton to resolve the discrepancy. It was further noted that a system glitch within the DOT’s records may have contributed to the error and that a formal amendment process for the road transfer appeared to be missing or incomplete.

Supervisor Bartlett stated that efforts should be made to resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible.

The Superintendent reported that the Town had received one of the new plow trucks, and that the second truck had gone in on Wednesday to begin the build process. He noted that he had previously mentioned the possibility of Board members visiting the facility to view the construction process and reiterated that the option was still available for any members who were interested.

MOTION #78-2026

 

Supervisor Bartlett moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 pm, seconded by Councilman Perkins.

 

Ayes All

 

 

 

_________________________________

Pamela D. Desormo, Town Clerk