TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Town Board Special Meeting
Municipal Building
June 23, 2025
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 a roll call of members present at 5:00 pm. Attorney Harrienger was also present.
Supervisor Bartlett introduced Mike Altieri, BCA to provide the Board with information regarding easements for the sewer upgrade from NYS Rte. 3 (Sewer District #2) to NYS Rte. 12F (Sewer District #3).
Mr., Altieri explained that when designing the system to handle all the sewage generated by the new Ag Park area, they considered a few options.
One option was to send the sewage to the Arsenal Street lift station. But after reviewing the flows, downstream capacity, and existing conditions, they realized that would have required upgrading everything. From NYS Rte. 3, running through the mall parking lot, all the way down to the Industrial Park, and then crossing JCC into the main line. That entire corridor would have needed significant upgrades to handle the additional sewage.
They looked at the Industrial Park lift station (the newer lift station next to the fire hall) as an alternative. This station had much more available capacity, especially in the piping. The pumps there, although they would eventually need to be upgraded for the full build-out, are currently running under capacity giving some headroom to use.
One issue encountered was that the PLC (programmable logic controller) at that station wasn’t as resilient as they wanted. That’s a SCADA-related issue that’s being addressed right now, with the help of Aqualogics designers.
In addition, the gravity system constructed in 2002 was already sized for growth in the corridor where the town expects most of the new sewage to come from. Overall, they were looking to add capacity for almost half a million gallons per day of additional flow.
Starting from point A (Alexander Drive) to point B (near the top of Route 202, where it transitions to gravity flow), there were several route options. The Department of Transportation (DOT) was a major factor in this decision, because of utility conflicts particularly gas mains, but also fiber optics, water lines, and an existing town sewer line that eventually flows to the Arsenal Street lift station. That existing sewer line wasn’t a viable option because of long-term downstream capacity issues.
DOT provided guidance about which alignments to avoid, especially near busy intersections with traffic signals and dense utilities. As a result, they narrowed down the alignment to cross near the Baptist Church, then past a residential parcel and BOCES. Because utilities became even more congested closer to the Target entrance, they decided instead to cross near the Bellanger plaza, past the Overton’s, then cross the Phippen property, follow the dedicated town road next to Seacomm, in town right-of-way straight into the Sam’s Club alignment. Another example of an alternative alignment he considered was to run the sewer line in front of Sam’sClub, through their parking lot. But the property owner didn’t like that idea, and they asked us instead to route it behind their property. This option actually, is faster to restore after construction, and going behind the building meant it was less disruptive overall. There was concern about rock in the back, although the geotechnical consultant initially told us there wouldn’t be significant rock, so that wasn’t a major driver. The bigger issue was there is a primary electric line, so they will need to make sure they keep a safe distance as a precaution.
Routing behind the store turned out to be pretty inexpensive and direct, with good access. In winter, the property owner plows that area, allowing easier access to our utility even during bad weather. That was a big plus, compared to having the line run along the state highway, which DOT doesn’t really like. NYS DOT also requires us to go as far back on the right-of-way as possible. That means future access to that part of the line isn’t quite as convenient as, the Sam’s Club side or along the County Route.
That’s really how the alignment took shape: originally, when coming off the Target entrance, (he passed around a map for the board to view), the plan was to do a straight shot across into the Sam’s Club parcel.
More recently, in order to finalize the easement with the property owner, we’ve been asked to introduce an adjustment to the pipe alignment, to basically bring it around, closer to where he would like a cul-de-sac built.
Just to give a little more history, they also reviewed other alignments in the past. One idea was to go behind CoreLife and then out through the front of Sam’s Club as well as utilizing the Phippen property. They looked at the costs for those options, but at the time, they did not get a response from the CoreLife property owner or the Phippen property owner when they requested easements. Meanwhile, Sam’s Club got back to us pretty quickly.
So that’s how they ended up with this current alignment: it balanced cost, access, restoration, and the property owners who were willing to work with us on easements at the time.
Discussion took place comparing alternative options for the placement of the sewer lines, costs involved and the timeline involved to get the project finished as soon as possible.
Supervisor Bartlett informed the board that they had explored an alternative alignment running along the backside of the properties fronting on NYS Route 3, including the Doldo and Phippin properties. However, pursuing this alignment might have required the town to take property through eminent domain. The same would apply if they attempted to use any other portion of the Sam’s Club property, which would carry significant costs and legal challenges.
These complications have already delayed the project by approximately seven to eight months. Contractors are frustrated as they cannot move forward and complete their work without the necessary easements, further holding up contract implementation and increasing costs.
Supervisor Bartlett explained that the alignment now proposed is the simplest and most direct way to move the project forward. Additionally, it would allow the town to serve four or five additional lots for future development. He noted he feels it is part of the Town Board’s responsibility is to work cooperatively with property owners so they can develop their properties. The property owner involved in this discussion has indicated that he is willing to sign the easements as soon as tomorrow morning, provided the board adopts this resolution and agrees to the current design. He added he has reviewed and refined this design numerous times already, and it’s important to move forward. For these reasons, he encouraged the board to support the resolutions as presented.
He further noted that property was donated to the town, there is free road material available to build the road, and he has allocated COVID recovery funds toward the cost of the project. As a result, he feels the project would be mostly paid for.
There was discussion regarding potential materials that could be used to construct the road. Highway Superintendent Clement clarified that the material under consideration actually belongs to the Jefferson County Highway Department and is not owned by the town. He noted that while there is some material available in the town’s gravel pit that could be used for the road base, the town would still need to purchase stone and blacktop to complete the project.
Superintendent Clement also voiced his concerns about the overall cost associated with constructing the proposed road. He emphasized the importance of prioritizing funding for repairs to existing town roads, as well as for necessary sewer upgrades to the pump station serving Sewer District #4.
The board expressed concern about the cost to the town to construct the road and the cul-de-sac that would primarily benefit a single property owner.
Councilwoman McClusky asked for a legal opinion from Attorney Harrienger.
Attorney Harrienger stated from a strictly legal perspective she does have some concerns about the fact that this cul-de-sac appears to be necessary in order to secure the easements. Under constitutional gifting rules, you have to be very careful to ensure that any public expenditure or improvement is directly tied to a public benefit.
They looked at number of different design options. The issue was that the original design took up too much space from the property owner’s existing lots, reducing his ability to develop them. The property owner wanted to find an option that used the smallest footprint possible, to preserve as much of his development potential as possible.
The current design does that. It creates a cul-de-sac that minimizing the impact on the lots. At the same time, it provides road frontage and public access, so that the remaining lots on the stub street become buildable and can be served by town utilities.
Mr. Altieri also discussed additional delays besides the easement issues with the project. The contractor performing the work on the force main and related infrastructure has actually been delayed primarily because of the pump station issue. The bigger issue has been the difficulty obtaining the pump station control panel that meets the Department of Conservation (DEC) requirements. Until that design is finalized and approved by DEC, that remains a critical hold up item. In addition, there’s also the matter of finalizing the connection agreement with the City. While we’ve reached a technical agreement, there are still details of a revised legal agreement that need to be worked out. The easement issue would actually be the third factor that could potentially hold up the project.
He stated the contractor could work on the Route 202 and the Sam’s Club alignment while these other items were pending. But they would be operating under the understanding that work on those portions were not yet authorized because of the unresolved issues, and that proceeding further wouldn’t necessarily have advanced the schedule meaningfully until these approvals and easements were in place.
He explained they are introducing a slight kink in the alignment of the utilities to help create a larger, more usable lot at the request of the property owner. By adjusting the alignment, we reduce how much of the property is covered by the easement. From a purely technical standpoint, this isn’t the ideal alignment. It does introduce a slight reduction in efficiency because the sewer line has to travel farther and isn’t as direct. Sharp angles are generally not preferred because water and wastewater flow better along smoother curves.
The Board reviewed the given maps as they discussed alternative scenarios.
Councilman Slye asked what the benefit to the town is by installing the cad-da-sac.
Supervisor Bartlett responded that by making this adjustment, we are able to install the sewer line in a way that still meets technical requirements while preserving more of the lot for developer. This helps keep the project moving, avoids legal complications, and ultimately supports future commercial growth. He feels any change in the plans could cause significant delays to the project due to required reviews from other involved agencies.
It was emphasized that if the road isn’t built, it’s unlikely anything would ever be developed on those lots. However, it was also clarified that the road itself is a separate issue, while the sewer easement remains the most critical priority. Without that easement, it’s doubtful the project could move forward, and in that case, the town would have to look at alternative routes.
It was acknowledged that although eminent domain could be used when there is a clear public purpose, it would take significantly longer and further delay the project. While DEC typically just needs confirmation to finalize approvals, this easement has become more complicated than anticipated. It was emphasized that a timely decision is needed so the project can move forward.
In light of the discussion and concerns raised by the Board, Supervisor Bartlett stated that he will withdraw the resolution as written. His plan is to meet with the property owner tomorrow morning to discuss securing the necessary easement without requiring agreement to the road construction plan.
Matt Eves, a highway department employee, addressed the Board regarding issues with retirement contributions to New York State. He explained that the annual retirement reports for 2024 showed each employee was credited with approximately 20% less income and time worked than actually earned during the year.
Mr. Eves shared that he had personally experienced a similar issue in the past, where he received a letter from New York State warning that if he didn’t respond within two weeks, he would lose credit for a year of service. That matter was eventually resolved, but he emphasized that he wanted this current issue to be formally documented in the minutes as an ongoing concern.
He requested that the Town provide documentation showing exactly how much money is paid out and when it is transmitted to New York State so employees can verify it themselves. Additionally, he raised a question about how to calculate the interest what would have accrued on the delayed payments that never reached New York State on time.
Mr. Eves also raised a separate concern regarding union dues. He noted that employees are paying different amounts in union dues, and this has been brought to Supervisor Bartlett’s attention multiple times. The explanation from the union side is that the issue originates on the Town end. He requested documentation explaining why there are discrepancies in the union dues being deducted from each employee’s paycheck.
Supervisor Bartlett responded that the dues are based on the wages and the employee’s make different pay rates.
Mr. Eves further explained that he had contacted New York State directly regarding the retirement reporting issue. He noted that, according to the State, no retirement information had been reported for the month of November, and possibly for other pay periods as well. Employees have found it difficult to verify how much should have been contributed, given factors like overtime and variations in weekly pay. He also questioned whether contributions should be based strictly on 52 weeks or adjusted to include overtime earnings.
Mr. Eves emphasized that employees would like the Town to provide clear documentation and answers explaining how contributions are calculated and reported. He noted that, over the years, there have been recurring problems with paychecks, including inconsistent union dues deductions and occasional missed weeks. These discrepancies sometimes lead to significant differences in what employees receive, which creates budgeting challenges for them.
He explained that employees had previously discussed these concerns with Supervisor Bartlett, but this was now their last resort to coming formally to the Board to ask for resolution.
In response, Supervisor Bartlett stated that it would take some time to gather the necessary documentation. He explained that reports are prepared manually each month, and then entered into the electronic system. He offered to provide copies showing that the reports had indeed been submitted to New York State, so employees could verify what was posted. He in working on getting the reporting problem resolved.
Kevin Stevens another highway employee continued by explaining that the New York State Retirement System had informed employees that there were periods when no retirement information was recorded, and that the Town could submit an adjusted report to correct these omissions. He questioned why the State would advise submitting adjustments if, in fact, the reports had been submitted properly in the first place.
He emphasized that employees are now at the point where they feel the current process is not working, and they need these issues resolved, whether that means someone else handling payroll and reporting, or providing better oversight. The employees’ priority is simply to see the discrepancies corrected.
Regarding union dues, Mr. Stevens explained that employees have spoken directly with the union office, which advised that all the information it has on file matches what is held locally by the Town. The union’s process, as described to him, is to send the Town an invoice, either monthly or annually. The Town pays that invoice upfront and then recovers the total cost by deducting dues from employees’ paychecks.
Mr. Stevens noted that since most highway department employees earn the same base wage, the union dues deducted should be the same for the majority of the workers. However, in practice, employees have observed significant inconsistencies: sometimes different amounts are deducted from each person, and sometimes dues are missed and then “caught up” later, resulting in large differences that affect personal budgeting.
He requested that the Town provide documentation explaining:
• How union dues amounts are calculated and deducted
• Why the amounts differ among employees
• Confirmation that retirement reports are being filed consistently and accurately
Mr. Eves concluded by stating that employees are not seeking blame, but rather transparency and resolution so they can verify that all contributions and deductions are correct.
Councilwomen McClusky acknowledged the employees’ concerns and asked for their patience while the Town gathers the requested information. She emphasized the importance of giving the Town an opportunity to compile and present the relevant documentation in response to the issues raised.
She also noted that sometimes state agencies may not always communicate clearly or fully, and may say what people want to hear, which can contribute to misunderstandings. She asked employees to give the Town the benefit of the doubt while they review and verify the records.
Once the information is compiled, it can be shared with the employees for review. She suggested that Supervisor Bartlett, could provide the reporting records to help provide this documentation.
She concluded by expressing that the Town wants to ensure employees are treated fairly and transparently, but also wants to make sure the Town itself is not unfairly blamed for an issue that may ultimately stem from miscommunication or error on the part of another agency.
MOTION #91-2025
Councilman Prosser moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m., seconded by Supervisor Bartlett.
Ayes All
_____________________________
Pamela D. Desormo, Town Clerk