TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Regular Meeting
Municipal Building
February 12, 2026
Members Present: Joel R. Bartlett, Supervisor
David D. Prosser, Councilman
Joanne McClusky, Councilwoman
Robert Slye, Councilman
Members Absent: Michael Perkins, Councilman
Councilman Prosser 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.
MOTION #29-2026
Councilman Prosser moved to adopt the minutes from the January 8, 2026 Regular Board Meeting, Councilman Slye seconded.
Ayes All
Pat Scordo and Ryan Aubertine, GYMO updated the Board on Northeast Water District No. 7
- Town Attorney working on resending easements and maps to residents that haven’t signed their easement and will schedule Public Information session thereafter.
- Department of Ag & Markets issues still need to be resolved for six parcels in Water District:
- 8-year window to “recertify” Ag District boundaries.
- Smith property owner doesn’t want lateral restrictions (Town Attorney communicating with Smith Attorney.)
- Can parcels in Ag District be pulled out of the Water District?
EASEMENT SUMMARY UPDATE
Total Signed
Forced Main and Water service 72 41
Force Main Only 5 1
Water Service Only 68 30
Attorney Harrienger informed the Board she has been speaking with Mr. Smith’s attorney concerning the restrictive covenants to his property. At this time, Mr. Smith does not necessarily have plans to further develop the property. However, he is not comfortable placing restrictive covenants on the deed that would permanently prevent future development.
The point was raised regarding the eight-year agricultural district cycle. Unfortunately, property owners within the district are only given the opportunity to recertify or request removal during that designated review period, which occurs every eight years. Outside of that window, removal is not permitted. Her understanding is that they are currently within a new eight-year cycle. That puts the town in a difficult position because Mr. Smith is not eligible to remove the property at this time, and it’s unclear whether he would choose to do so even if he could.
Mr. Smith remains unpersuaded about placing restrictive covenants on the property. Without those restrictions, AG & Markets has indicated they will not provide approval. And without AG & Markets approval, the town will not receive Department of Health approval to proceed with the project.
She stressed that this situation is not necessarily Mr. Smith’s fault. It appears to be a particularly firm stance taken by AG & Markets. In her experience, this is a stronger position than they have taken in similar matters in the past.
The difficulty faced is that this is an established district with existing debt service, so they cannot change the district boundaries at this time.
Attorney Harrienger and Mr. Scordo have been discussing possible alternatives, and she will continue conversations with Mr. Smith’s attorney to see whether any options emerge. In the meantime, she will continue efforts to secure easements so that they are not unprepared if circumstances change.
Mr. Scordo asked Attorney Harrienger if there is any potential for the Town to reject AG & Markets’ proposal regarding the lateral restriction. He mentioned the option is referenced in their letter, indicating that the Town may object, provided it states its reasoning. The justification would need to be very strong. He asked if there is any history or precedent of a municipality successfully challenging or overturning AG & Markets on a point like this.
Attorney Harrienger responded there is technically the option of challenging or appealing AG & Markets’ determination, particularly since the Town has already issued an order in connection with this matter. However, based on discussions, it appears that the likelihood of success would be relatively low. AG & Markets has taken a firm position in their correspondence, and they do not have any known precedent of a municipality successfully overturning a determination like this under similar circumstances.
Pursuing an appeal would likely require a very strong legal and factual basis, and it could involve additional time, expense, and uncertainty, all without any guarantee of a different outcome. So, while the option may exist procedurally, they would need to carefully weigh the cost and risk against the probability of success.
Supervisor Bartlett asked whether the Town could simply disagree with Mr. Smith and adopt a resolution complying with AG & Markets’ demands.
Counsel responded that the Town does not have the authority to unilaterally impose those restrictions. AG & Markets is effectively asking the Town, to ensure that restrictive covenants are placed on Mr. Smith’s property preventing future development and limiting additional EDUs. However, only Mr. Smith can agree to place those restrictions on his deed. The Town cannot impose them on his behalf.
Supervisor Bartlett then asked whether, if the Town were willing to comply with AG & Markets’ position, Mr. Smith would have any recourse directly with AG & Markets to reverse it.
Counsel explained that, at this point, Mr. Smith is the only party who can decide whether to accept AG & Markets’ conditions. The Town cannot override his position. Additionally, the Department of Health will not issue approval without sign-off from AG & Markets. The agencies’ approvals are interconnected, without AG & Markets, there is no DOH approval, and without DOH approval, the project cannot proceed.
The Board also discussed whether that portion of the district could be removed. Counsel explained that because the district has already been formed and has debt service associated with it, Town Law Article 12-A prohibits altering the district boundaries. Once a district is established with debt attributed to it, the boundaries generally cannot be changed.
One theoretical alternative discussed was forming a new district with different boundaries. However, that approach presents significant legal and practical concerns, including whether all parcels would be deemed benefited and properly indebted, which is a core requirement of district formation.
It was clarified that even if Mr. Smith never connects to the system, he would still be responsible for the capital portion of the debt service because his parcel lies within the district boundary and has the ability to connect. Under the law, the availability of service constitutes a benefit, even if the owner chooses not to hook up. He would not pay the consumption portion, but he would remain responsible for the capital component.
Mr. Scordo noted that the project could potentially be redesigned to avoid the agricultural parcels. However, doing so would significantly increase costs. Instead of using private easements, the infrastructure would need to remain within the public right-of-way, likely requiring pavement cutting, additional drilling, and substantial restoration work. While technically feasible, it would result in higher design and construction expenses.
The Board also questioned how long the matter could continue without resolution. It was reiterated that removal from the Agricultural District is only possible during the designated eight-year review window. That window recently closed in December, and a new eight-year cycle began in January, meaning the property is effectively locked into the district for the foreseeable future.
Counsel acknowledged that AG & Markets’ position is unusually strong. In prior water district formations, they have rarely issued substantive comments, let alone imposed a requirement of this nature.
The Board discussed the possibility of formally drafting and submitting a rejection of AG & Markets’ position to test whether the agency would reconsider. However, it was emphasized that neither counsel nor the engineer has experience with a municipality successfully overturning such a determination.
Mr. Scordo noted that in one of AG & Markets’ earliest letters, the agency indicated that it was unclear where the Town was in the approval process. In that initial correspondence, they requested a 60-day pause on any activity related to installing pipeline, so they could evaluate the project and determine their position.
He explained that the first letter did not contain the substantive objections that later followed; rather, it imposed a temporary freeze while the agency reviewed the matter and prepared its subsequent response. Essentially, the directive at that time was to refrain from moving forward with construction activities for 60 days while they completed their assessment.
Attorney Harrienger advised that this is why she feels uncomfortable giving a strong opinion one way or the other at this time regarding what the correct course of action would be.
She noted that she must remain mindful of the fact that the district already exists in its current form and that debt has already been attributed to it as presently structured. Any decision must take into account those existing legal and financial obligations.
Mr. Scordo noted that Mr. Smith represents only one EDU within the AG district. In the surrounding areas, there are approximately five or six additional parcels. Most of those property owners have already signed the petitions.
The parcels in the immediate area have generally signed on. Under AG & Markets’ criteria, if a subdivision has already received Planning Board approval, it is not subject to the same restriction. Their concern is with future development that is not already approved or “in the district.”
The discussion then shifted to whether the infrastructure could be placed entirely within the Town right-of-way, with no additional laterals beyond what AG & Markets would allow.
Under AG & Markets’ position, Mr. Smith would be permitted one lateral to serve his property. Additional laterals for future development would not be permitted. Agricultural uses requiring water for farming operations would generally not be restricted, but residential expansion or additional EDUs would be.
It was clarified that if the water main were installed entirely within the Town road right-of-way, the only infrastructure affecting Mr. Smith’s property directly would be the single service lateral. The broader infrastructure would not require changes to district boundaries so long as it remains within the approved footprint.
However, even if Mr. Smith chose not to connect beyond one lateral, he would still be responsible for the capital portion of the district’s debt service because his parcel lies within the district and is deemed benefited by the availability of service.
Supervisor Bartlett asked if instead of charging an ad valorem tax the Town could impose a benefit tax on parcels that are limited to one lateral, thereby covering the debt service without allowing additional development.
Mr. Scordo pointed out that one of the reasons the Town sought to cross certain private property areas was because easements were not signed. If an easement is not granted, the Town must remain within the public right-of-way, which can increase construction and restoration costs. He noted that if Mr. Smith is unwilling to sign an easement that may suggest he does not intend to connect to the system.
Attorney Harrienger stated that fact alone does not resolve the AG & Markets issue. Regardless of whether he signs an easement or ultimately hooks up, AG & Markets would still require the lateral restriction as a condition of their approval.
She explained that because Mr. Smith’s property is already within the established district boundaries, it must legally be considered benefited by the district. The Town cannot simply run the main past the property within the right-of-way and then treat the parcel as though it were not part of the district.
Once a district is formed and debt has been attributed to it, the boundaries cannot be casually adjusted. The parcel has already been included in the district and associated with its debt service. Therefore, it is too late to remove the property or treat it differently without undertaking a formal and legally permissible restructuring, which may not be available under the circumstances.
Supervisor Bartlett asked whether the Town could adopt a formal resolution exempting Mr. Smith’s property from the district, or alternatively, remove the parcel and re-tabulate the EDU costs among the remaining users.
Counsel responded that once a district has been formally established and debt has been attributed to it, a parcel cannot simply be removed, even by resolution of the Board. Under Article 12-A of the Town Law, once the district boundaries are set and financial obligations are in place, the Town does not have the authority to unilaterally take a property out of the district.
As a result, the EDU allocation and associated debt service cannot simply be recalculated by excluding that parcel, absent a legally permissible restructuring of the district, which may not be available under these circumstances. The boundaries effectively solidify. While the Town may extend district boundaries in the future, as has been done in other instances, it does not have the authority to remove a parcel after formation and debt attribution.
She will continue discussions with Mr. Smith’s representatives. It’s possible that circumstances or positions may evolve we don’t know at this point.
Mr. Scordo also raises a valid point: if those discussions prove productive, the Town could consider formally appealing AG & Markets’ determination or seeking an alternative resolution.
However, as previously stated, there is no guarantee that AG & Markets would amend or reverse their position. While the option to challenge or request reconsideration may exist, the outcome remains uncertain.
Supervisor Bartlett stated in the interim, while those discussions continue, he intends to reach out to Assemblymen Gray and Blankenbush as well as Senator Walczyk to see whether they may be willing to provide input or assistance. Perhaps they can encourage the Department of Agriculture & Markets to review its position and reconsider the impact it is having on the project.
Mr. Scordo added that it would also be important to note that this project was awarded $5 million in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That level of federal investment reflects a clear recognition of the public need for this district and the importance of moving the project forward. The project is effectively stalled at this point. Without resolution from AG & Markets, progress cannot continue.
The goal is not to circumvent the process, but to ensure that all relevant factors are fairly evaluated and that the Health Department is not prevented from acting solely due to this unresolved issue.
It remains important to continue pursuing the signing of easements to keep the project moving forward. To that end, an informational meeting will be scheduled with the public later this month to secure the remaining unsigned easements.
There will be no action concerning proposed Lettiere Tract Water purchase at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Altieri could not attend tonight’s meeting. A progress report was given to the Board.
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 – BCA is currently working on finalizing Notices of Award and Contracts with the Supervisor and Ms. Harrienger’s office for Contract 1 and 3. Comments from DOT have been responded to and we anticipate project approval forthcoming soon. An extension request for the CDBG grant has been submitted and accepted by OCR. Construction will likely commence in May 2026.
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 and2024) in order to close on financing with their agency.
Town wide Sewer (Districts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) I & l 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 indicated that construction on this project could progress this April once all project documentation has been agreed to and executed.
Project Bid Results:
Contract No. 1 – Pipeline Construction $ 376,818.00 – Lawman Heating and Cooling
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 an amended Consent Order was sent to the Town from NYS DEC. This was to be signed, notarized and sent back to NYS DEC by January 9th. The Town continues to roll forward with the grant closings for both the WQIP and GIGP grants received.
Sewer District No. 1 Revised Schedule Per NYS DEC Amended Consent Order:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Respondent: Town of Watertown
No. R6-20190315-07A
SCHEDULE A
The above-referenced Respondent shall, on or before the dates indicated:
REQUIRED ACTION
- Submit approvable Final Basis of Design, Plans, Specifications, and a Construction Schedule for the implementation of the recommended disinfection system, wastewater treatment system, and storm water collection system improvements. The design documents shall clearly include Respondent’s preferred alternatives and include a schedule for implementation of the corrective actions, which shall become and enforceable part of this First Amended Order. The schedule shall incorporate, at a minimum, the due dates in this First Amended Order.
Due Date: On or before October 1, 2026
- Submit a written P.E. Certificate of Construction Completion for the disinfection system.
Due Date: On or before April 15, 2027
- Submit a written P.E. Certificate of Construction Completion for the wastewater treatment system and storm water collection system improvements.
Due Date: On or before December 30, 2027
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.
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, particularly for the ground tank serving WD 5.
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.
The bids for Water District 4 Extension Contract No. 2 – Tank Aeration System took place today at 2:00 pm. The one bid from Powis Contracting came in at $565,000.00.
MOTION #30-2026
Councilman Prosser offered a motion to accept and authorize the bid for the Extension of Water District #4 for Contract No. 2 – Tank Aeration System in the amount of $565,000.00, to Powis Contracting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Slye.
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
Councilman Prosser opened the public hearing on the proposed increase of $0.70 per unit in all water and sewer districts at 7:31 pm, (Water Districts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and Sewer Districts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). No one wished to speak. The public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m.
MOTION #31-2026
WHEREAS, it is necessary to increase all water and sewer rents charged to Town district users to reflect an increase in City charges for providing water and sewer service to all district users; and
WHEREAS, district fund balances have been depleted due to increased costs associated with DEC consent orders, testing, upgrades, and repairs to existing infrastructure in each district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that rates increase of $0.70 per unit is approved for all water and sewer districts (Water Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Sewer Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), effective with the March 1, 2026 billing cycle.
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
The floor was opened the floor for public comment:
Chad Green, Mike Schepis and Justin Pecori, Board members from the 1812 Youth Sports Commission addressed the Board concerning a funding request. They use their platform to support youth sports programs in the area. They appreciate the support in the past and offered to make themselves available for any questions the Board may have.
Tim Clement, Hunt Street asked about the progress of Water District #7 and when the customers in the area could get questions answered.
The Board will schedule an information meeting for the residents in that district within the next few weeks.
Joe Meyer of County Route 60 voiced his disappointment over the approval of funding for what he described as the “road to nowhere.” He also asked about the Town’s current regulations concerning snow removal on private property, particularly in relation to commercial properties located along NYS Route 3.
He noted that, as he drove in that area this evening, many sidewalks at commercial properties were not cleared, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. He asked whether there is a Town law establishing a timeline for snow removal, such as within 24 hours after a snow event, and suggested that there wasn’t one the Town should consider enacting one.
Supervisor Bartlett responded that, historically, the Town Code Officer has contacted property owners to remind them that sidewalks must be cleared within 24 hours of a snow event. He confirmed that the Code Officer will be asked to follow up and issue notifications to the businesses in the affected area.
Steven McGowan, Hunt Street expressed frustration regarding the ongoing water district project. He noted that he was not notified about prior meetings on this topic, despite being told invitations and letters would be sent.
He raised concerns about the cost of supplying water up State Street hill, questioning why the lower properties are effectively subsidizing water for those at higher elevations. He stated that, as a result of combined tax and water increases, some residents may face increases of $200 per month. He expressed the view that properties at the lower end of Hunt Street see no additional benefit from the district.
The resident asked for clarification on several points:
- Confirmation of the exact tax and water rate increases, as prior estimates appeared inconsistent.
- How the $5 million in federal funding for the project is being applied, noting that the Town is reportedly $2.7 million short.
- A breakdown of allocations for pumping stations, including backup generators, pumps, electricity, and maintenance.
- Assurance regarding how any increased land values from development (e.g., subdivisions that raise lot prices) might affect current residents, specifically whether there would be reimbursement for the costs borne by existing residents.
He emphasized the personal and community stress caused by these financial impacts, highlighting that some neighbors have expressed they are unable or unwilling to pay the increases. He requested that the Town provide written, detailed numbers to show exactly how funds are allocated and how the costs are distributed across the district.
Supervisor Bartlett stated that additional meetings regarding Water District 7 will be scheduled once the issues with AG & Markets are resolved and the project is no longer on hold. He noted that the engineer’s report already includes detailed cost estimates for test services, water usage, electrical needs, and pump station operations.
Mr. McGowan asked where he could obtain a copy of that report. It was clarified that the Town Clerk’s office maintains a copy of the engineer’s report, which includes the allocations for these items.
Discussion took place concerning operational costs for the two pumping stations, including the horsepower of the electric motors and associated expenses. It was suggested that these details could be found in the engineer’s report, which provides the breakdown of allocations and operational costs.
Supervisor Bartlett explained that Mr. McGowan’s property is located in the Town, not the City. The resident is currently receiving water from the City through a system installed and owned by the property owners in that area. All maintenance and repairs for that system are the responsibility of the property owners who receive the water service.
The City requires that any water service it provides outside of city limits must be provided to a formally established district. Since the resident’s property is now included in a district, a new district must be formed and new water lines installed to meet State standards. Certain technical and regulatory requirements must be satisfied for any property to be included in a water district.
Mr. McGowan stated that the City will not cut off his existing water service if he chooses not to connect to the new district line. He noted that he currently has a well and that the water service he receives is not contingent on connecting to the proposed lines. He stated that he has a fully functioning water system and does not want to be disconnected from it or forced to connect to the new district system. He questioned how the current rules, which require a property to receive a benefit from the district in order to be included, apply in his situation since his property already has functional water service.
Attorney Harrienger explained that every parcel within the district boundaries is legally required to be indebted to the district. This means that each property must contribute toward the overall costs of the system, including water usage, operation and maintenance (O&M), and any debt associated with construction.
The difficulty in this case, as noted, is that the property owner may not perceive a direct benefit and instead sees the inclusion as a personal detriment. However, under State law and Town policy, the benefit is defined as access to municipal infrastructure. Even if the property already has a functional water source, the availability of the district system itself constitutes a recognized benefit for purposes of inclusion and apportionment of costs.
Mr. McGowan was informed that he would be notified of the upcoming informational meeting, at which time more detailed and firm cost numbers would be available.
Tim Clement inquired why Weaver Road was not included in the district. He was informed the residents in that area did not want it.
John Adams, Rutland Hollow Road, noted that the cost numbers for the project were included in the public hearing notice from the prior month or two. He stated that he and his neighbors live at the top of the hill and emphasized that there is a dire need for the project in their area.
He highlighted water quality and quantity issues, citing problems such as leaking faucets, the need to replace furnaces, and the necessity of having water delivered due to insufficient supply. He noted that local institutions, including the church, have been impacted, with limitations on events such as baptisms because of inadequate water.
Mr. Adams reiterated that he and his neighbors are very supportive of the project and appreciate the efforts to bring municipal water to their area, emphasizing that it is a critical need for both water quality and reliable access.
Ben Shoen, Academy Street, addressed the Board regarding the Town’s proposed road project that would require taking land from the Sam’s Club property through eminent domain. He expressed concern that the project appears to benefit a private developer rather than the public.
He noted that the LLC that owns the parcels has not paid taxes on the property for at least three years. He questioned the use of taxpayer funds to improve property that is delinquent on taxes, suggesting that the Town is effectively subsidizing both the road construction and unpaid taxes, which he viewed as inappropriate. He also raised concerns about whether the property would be enriched for eventual resale.
Supervisor Bartlett asked for clarification regarding the delinquent taxes and noted that taxes are brought current by the foreclosure deadline, or the property could be lost. Mr. Shoen responded that the parcels have been under a moratorium on tax collection for several years, and the taxes remain unpaid, suggesting they have been delinquent for at least three years.
Supervisor Bartlett further asked who would ultimately benefit once the lots are sold. Mr. Shoen responded that the private owner would profit from the sale. When asked if the owner is entitled to recoup a profit, Mr. Shoen acknowledged that the owner could benefit personally from the investment, but emphasized his concern that taxpayer funds are being used to increase the value of private property.
Supervisor Bartlett noted that no direct Town funds are being used; the project costs are covered through development fees (e.g., $20,000 per lot) and federal grants. Mr. Shoen responded that federal grants are also taxpayer money and still represent public funds, so the concern remains.
Mr. Shoen concluded by reiterating his concern: he owns land in the Town of Watertown, he would not expect taxpayer-funded infrastructure to be used to increase his property value, and he questioned the justification for this project benefiting a private developer.
Supervisor Bartlett explained that the purpose of the proposed road is to provide access to lots that are currently undevelopable under Town zoning, as they do not meet code requirements for development without a town, county, or state road. By constructing a short stretch of road or driveway, the necessary infrastructure would be in place to make the remainder of the lots developable in the future.
Mr. Shoen noted that the lots are not technically undeveloped, that the owner is unwilling to bear the cost to make them developable.
Mr. Meyer added a similar argument has been made regarding road construction to facilitate development. He noted that the same reasoning was used for Route 202, putting in water and roads to make lots developable, yet in the past 10 years, only three developments occurred along that road, the apartment complex and the storage facility.
He argued that while the Town is proposing taxpayer-funded roads to develop approximately 3 additional lots, there is precedent of adjacent roads and lots that have been available for sale for years but have not been developed or added to the tax base. He questioned the justification for using taxpayer funds to build roads for development that may not materialize, particularly when previous opportunities have not resulted in development.
Supervisor Bartlett responded that, with respect to the remaining lots along County Rte. 202, the lots are not deep and do not suit most development projects. Additionally, the property owner has historically asked for prices significantly higher than the assessed value, making them less likely to sell.
Mr. Meyer added that while the lots are zoned correctly and could theoretically be purchased and developed, funding the road through taxpayer and federal funds does not guarantee new development or increased tax revenue. He emphasized that taxpayer dollars might be better used elsewhere in the Town, especially given financial constraints, and expressed concern that using funds in this way may unfairly burden the public.
No one else wished to speak; the floor was closed.
MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS
MOTION #32-2026
WHEREAS, the 1812 Youth Sports Commission A501-C-3 has submitted a request for grant funding for Fiscal Year 2026 wherein proceeds from the grant are used to underwrite promotional cost associated with the 2026 summer sports in tournament activities that bring many travelers and tourists to the area; and
WHEREAS, the town has over the past supported the organization with grant funding and support by subsidizing and underwriting promotional expenses associated with the tournament activities and whereas funds are included and adopted in the 2026 town budget for said purposes.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a grant to the 1812 Youth Sports Commission Organization in the amount of $3,000.00 is hereby authorized for the purpose stated.
A motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was made by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser and upon a roll call vote of the Board was duly adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
MOTION #33-2026
WHEREAS, it is necessary to designate a chairman for the Town of Watertown Zoning Board of Appeals. Robert Wormwood has indicated his interest in re-appointment to another term as Chairmen of the Town Zoning Board of Appeals.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; Robert Wormwood is hereby appointed as Chairmen of the Town of Watertown Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2026;
A motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser, and upon a roll call vote was adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
MOTION #34-2026
WHEREAS, Assessor Roger Tibbetts has applied for the following split to the 2025 tax roll for real property identified as:
Splits
Original
73.19-1-5.1 TNLCM Enterprises $5,559.65
Split into
73.19-1-5.1 TNLCM Enterprises $5,206.42
73.19-1-5.7 Jerry Vecchio $ 353.23
Original
83.11-1-53.43 Charles M. Waugh $ 67.47
Split into
83.11-1-53.43 Charles M. Waugh $ 52.47
83.11-1-53.42 Cjui Chan $ 14.99
BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby approves the correction of these tax bills and authorizes the Town Clerk to issue a corrected tax bill to the owner of said parcel.
A motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser, and upon a roll call vote was adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
MOTION #35-2026
WHEREAS, Randy Vaas has announced his resignation from his position as a member of the Planning Board, with a term originally set to expire on December 31, 2028; and
WHEREAS, Jean Waterbury has expressed interest in being appointed to fill the vacant Planning Board member position for the remainder of the unexpired term; and
WHEREAS, the position of Alternate Member of the Planning Board will become vacant as a result of Jean Waterbury’s appointment, and Randy Vaas has agreed to fill that Alternate position;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Jean Waterbury is hereby appointed as a member of the Planning Board for a term commencing February 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2028; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Randy Vaas is hereby appointed as an Alternate Member of the Planning Board for the remainder of the applicable term.
A motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser, and upon a roll call vote was adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
MOTION #36-2026
WHEREAS, the accounting firm of Crowley & Halloran serves as the accountant for the Town of Watertown, New York; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Watertown desires to be apprised by Crowley and Halloran, on a monthly basis, of the financial status of the Town, to include the fund balance of the Town’s general funds, the fund balance of each water and sewer district of the Town, and the projected receipts and expenses of each of the Town’s various fund accounts on a monthly, and projected annual, basis (hereinafter referred to as the Town’s “financials”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Board desires that the Town Clerk be provided by the Town’s accountants with the Town’s financials at least one week prior to each regularly scheduled Town Board meeting to allow dissemination of each financial report to the members of the Town Board well in advance of the Board’s regular meeting; it is
THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town’s accountants provide monthly •• Town financials to the Town Clerk, as described above, with the first financial report to be provided to the Town Clerk and disseminated to the Town Board no later than January 15, 2026 and the 15″ of each month thereafter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of the Town’s financials for each applicable time period be made available to the public.
The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilman Slye, and seconded by Councilwoman McClusky, and upon roll call vote of the Board was duly adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
MOTION #37-2026
Supervisor Bartlett moved to pay the following abstracts as audited.
Utilities paid prior to the meeting
General Vouchers # 14 to 16 Total $ 13,034.89
Highway Vouchers # 15 to 15 Total $ 26,599.77
Spec. Dist. Vchrs. # 9 to 9 Total $ 9,450.90
Vouchers approved for monthly meeting
General Vouchers # 17 to 38 Total $ 35,824.82
Highway Vouchers # 16 to 36 Total $ 54,313.96
Spec. Dist. Vchrs. # 10 to 24 Total $ 184,468.94
Councilmember Prosser seconded the motion.
Ayes All
Highway Superintendent Clement gave a report to the Board:
The Board was informed that former employee Mike McDonald had contacted the Highway Department about returning to his former position. Mr. McDonald is currently employed as a mechanic with Penske at a rate of $33 per hour.
It was noted that Mr. McDonald previously worked for the Town for three years and was considered a highly skilled mechanic. During his prior employment, he supplied and utilized approximately $50,000 worth of personally owned tools and diagnostic equipment, including specialized scanners and software capable of diagnosing Town vehicles and equipment. Board members discussed the potential cost savings of having an in-house mechanic capable of performing advanced diagnostics, rather than paying outside vendors approximately $200 per hour for service calls.
Superintendent Clement reported ongoing issues with a truck that has required repeated service visits without resolution and stated that when Mr. McDonald was previously employed, similar equipment issues were efficiently diagnosed and repaired in-house. It was further noted that Mr. McDonald holds a CDL and is willing to assist with snow plowing, water breaks, equipment operation, and other Public Works duties as needed.
MOTION #38-2026
WHEREAS, a position is available in the Highway Department for a Public Works employee with mechanical ability; and
WHEREAS, Mike McDonald possesses the qualifications and experience necessary to fill the position of Mechanic/Public Works Employee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby creates the full-time position of Public Works Mechanic at an hourly rate of $31.00 per hour, with full-time benefits, recognizing that the individual hired shall be responsible for all mechanical work and shall assist with snow plowing and other Public Works duties as required; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mike McDonald is hereby appointed to the position of Public Works Mechanic effective March 1, 2026, at an hourly rate of $31.00 per hour.
A motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was made by Supervisor Bartlett and seconded by Councilmember Prosser and upon a roll call vote of the Board was duly adopted as follows:
Supervisor Joel Bartlett Yes
David Prosser Yes
Joanne McClusky Yes
Michael Perkins Absent
Robert Slye Yes
The Highway Superintendent informed the Board that Jake O’Brien, the Town’s Water Operator, intends to leave his position in the spring after accepting a higher-paying job elsewhere. It was noted that Mr. O’Brien has been highly effective in managing the Town’s water systems, including oversight of meters, district operations, and compliance responsibilities.
Currently, there is only one other licensed individual on staff; however, that employee has indicated he is not interested to assume the same level of responsibility or availability, particularly outside regular working hours. The Superintendent expressed concern about coverage, particularly during emergencies and winter operations when staffing is already limited.
The Superintendent further stated that he would prefer to hire and train a replacement before Mr. O’Brien departs to ensure continuity of operations and proper training on recently purchased water system equipment. However, no firm departure date has been provided, and there is concern about hiring prematurely if circumstances change.
Board members discussed whether to begin the hiring process immediately or to wait until a more definitive departure date is confirmed. Questions were raised regarding contractual obligations related to overtime and staffing flexibility.
Further discussion was held regarding operational impacts, particularly during snow events, when staffing shortages already limit the number of plow trucks in operation while also responding to water-related emergencies.
Superintendent Clement discussed the need to plan for the anticipated vacancy in the spring. He suggested placing an advertisement seeking an individual with a Class D Water License, noting that the Town should consider having a full-time employee dedicated primarily to water operations, particularly with the addition of upcoming water districts.
Discussion was held regarding whether the position should be strictly water-related or combined with other Public Works duties such as snow plowing and highway work. It was noted that the current Water Operator is classified as a Highway employee and assists with other duties, and that any new hire would likely need to perform similar dual responsibilities unless the Board formally creates a separate full-time Water position.
Board members discussed whether to create a new position or advertise for a qualified candidate and evaluate the response before making a structural change. It was suggested that an advertisement be placed outlining the job description, required qualifications (including appropriate water licensure and CDL), and the expectation that the employee may be responsible for Public Works duties as needed.
The Superintendent indicated he has received some interest, including from a candidate currently employed elsewhere who holds a CDL, but agreed that advertising the position publicly would allow the Town to assess the available applicant pool. Compensation was discussed, including the current stipend paid for licensed water operators, and the increasing regulatory and testing requirements associated with water system operations.
The Board reached consensus to move forward with placing an advertisement and reviewing applicants prior to making a final determination regarding the structure of the position.
Additionally, the Superintendent provided updates on equipment matters, including:
- Coordination with Terry Groff regarding removal of crane for the new packer body.
- Plans to replace the fuel system, as the current system is obsolete and causing issues.
- Two weeks prior, Justin Sullivan from Viking visited the Highway Department to assist with calibrating the Town’s trucks to determine the proper amount of salt being applied per mile.
- He further reported that one of the newly ordered trucks was sent to Widrick Truck and Diesel to have the frame stretched. The adjustment was necessary because there was not sufficient frame space to properly mount the sander body. The sander body is being supplied by Tracy Road Equipment. Once the frame work is completed, the truck will return to Viking for final assembly. The estimated completion timeline is approximately one month, with anticipated delivery in March.
- The Superintendent indicated that, optimistically, both new trucks may be received around that time.
- He also reported that he is still awaiting delivery of a pickup truck ordered last January through Bob Johnson. He has been unable to obtain a clear update regarding its status. It was noted that a module had reportedly been ordered, but no firm timeline or confirmation has been provided.
MOTION #39-2026
Councilman Prosser moved to schedule a Special Meeting for Tuesday, February 26, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting is to review and possibly take action on the proposed purchase of the Lettiere Tract Water System and any other town business that comes before the Board. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Bartlett. Ayes All
Councilman Prosser accepted the Town Clerk’s Report.
Discussion took place concerning the scheduling of a date and time for an informational meeting regarding the formation of Water District No. 7.
Mr. Scordo, Attorney Harrienger, and Town Clerk Desormo will coordinate a date and will notify residents in the affected area by mail, particularly those who still have outstanding easements to sign.
Discussion took place regarding the purchase of Automated External Defibrillator (AED) units for the Municipal Building and the Highway Garage.
The Board agreed to purchase two (2) AED units, one for each location.
The Town Clerk will contact the Town Ambulance Service to arrange training for staff on proper use of the units.
MOTION #40-2026
Councilman Prosser moved to adjourn into Executive Session at 8:40 p.m. to discuss possible pending litigation and the employment history of a particular individual. The motion was seconded by Councilman Slye.
Ayes All
The Board reconvened into regular session at 9:34 p.m.
MOTION #41-2026
Councilman Prosser moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm seconded by Supervisor Bartlett.
Ayes All
_____________________________
Pamela D. Desormo, Town Clerk