Town Of Charlton: December 29, 2008 - Agenda Meeting Minutes

Town of Charlton

Saratoga County

Town Board Agenda Meeting

December 29, 2008

The Agenda meeting of the Town Board of Charlton, Saratoga County, New York was held at the Charlton Town Hall and called to order by Supervisor Grattidge at 7.30 pm.

Present: Councilman Gardner, Councilman Lippiello, Councilman Salisbury, Councilman Verola, Supervisor Grattidge, Town Clerk Brenda Mills, Attorney VanVranken.

Supervisor Grattidge announced that this meeting is to set the Agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Town Board on Monday, January 12, 2009.

APPROVAL OF ABSTRACT

A motion was made by Councilman Verola and seconded by Councilman Gardner to accept General Fund Claims No. 1890-1949 in the amount of $62,312.43 as set forth in the Abstract No.124, and also Claim No. 812 in the amount of $134.70 as set forth in Abstract No. 8812.

Vote: All Ayes, Zero Nays, CARRIED

Supervisor Grattidge said that he gave the Town Board members copies of 5 internal transfers that need to be made.

COMMUNICATIONS

Supervisor Grattidge stated that the Sales Tax Revenue for the month was $86,615. Year-to-date the revenue has been 12.17% above last year. Mortgage Tax was $10,501.50 for the month.

Supervisor Grattidge stated the he received a letter from the United Way which stated that there is an 800 number available that eventually will become the 211 number. It is a number for referral specialists that are trained to help residents find personalized help such as shelter, warming shelters, mental health resources and other services. The letter is filed in the Town Clerk’s office, and a flyer has been posted.

Supervisor Grattidge said that the Town has applied for a reimbursement grant for the Farmland Protection, and the first check has been received for $6,157.50.

Supervisor Grattidge said that the Attorney handling the Schmidt and Schmidt case has filed a counterclaim against the Bonding Company and Schmidt & Schmidt. A copy of the letter is on file in the Town Clerk’s office.

Supervisor Grattidge stated that Selective Insurance has notified the Town that the General Liability coverage will not cover the case filed by the former Court Clerk, however, the case will be covered under the Town’s Public Officer’s portion of the policy.

Supervisor Grattidge said that he received a letter from the New York State Department of Labor regarding violations at the Highway Garage. An inspection was done on 12/2/08 and the report found that the following needed to be corrected: new doorknob on door, No Smoking sign needed on fuel tank, drill guard needed for drill press. Superintendent Emerich will be completing and faxing the report back to the State verifying that these items have been corrected.

Supervisor Grattidge said that he has been notified by the Elevator Company that there is a code requirement requiring a dedicated phone line to be placed inside the elevator.

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS

A motion was made by Councilman Lippiello and seconded by Councilman Verola that Resolution #122 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FISCAL ADVISORS & MARKETING, INC.TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE TOWN BOARD be approved.

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved

A motion was made by Councilman Verola and seconded by Councilman Gardner that Resolution #123 – BOND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CHARLTON, SARATOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, ADOPTED DECEMBER 29, 2008, APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO PURCHASE A 2009 INTERNATIONAL 7600 6X4 TRUCK WITH HOIST, STATING THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST IS $100,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $100,000 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID TOWN TO FINANCE THIS APPROPRIATION be approved.

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved

A motion was made by Councilman Verola and seconded by Councilman Gardner that Resolution # 124 –

BOND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CHARLTON, SARATOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, ADOPTED DECEMBER 29, 2008, APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF $600,000 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, PHASE 2, FOR THE NEW TOWN HALL, STATING THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST IS $600,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $600,000 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID TOWN TO FINANCE THIS APPROPRIATION be approved.

Discussion: Councilman Gardner stated the Board has talked about this project collectively and individually and they felt they must move forward with this project and get this building done. Attorney VanVranken noted for the record that the Bond Issue is subject to a Permissive Referendum. If no petition is submitted by the public within 30 days, the Bond Issue is adopted

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved.

A motion was made by Councilman Lippiello and seconded by Councilman Verola that Resolution #125 –

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS NECESSARY TO EFFECT PAYMENT TO THE ATTORNEY AND DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF CHARLTON be approved.

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved

A motion was made by Councilman Verola and seconded by Councilman Lippiello that Resolution #126 –

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF THE $600,000 BOND RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 29, 2008 be approved.

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved

A motion was made by Councilman Verola and seconded by Councilman Gardner that Resolution # 127 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS NECESSARY TO EFFECT PAYMENT

FOR HEATING OIL FOR THE TOWN GARAGE be approved

Roll call vote: Councilman Gardner: Aye, Councilman Lippiello: Aye, Councilman Salisbury: Aye, Councilman Verola: Aye, Supervisor Grattidge: Aye Approved

DISCUSSION

Supervisor Grattidge: There was a discussion starting that past weekend regarding the Ad Valorem tax in Water District #1. The budget that was turned into the County to collect in taxes last year was $86,779, and for this year the amount was $130,000. I printed the last 5 years of budget. In 2004 the amount that was raised in taxes was $145,998. In 2005, it was $109,491, in 2007 it was $87,500. I want everyone to keep in mind that there are projects coming up next year for the purpose of putting in variable speed motors to keep the water pressure constant when the tank is shut down to be painted inside and out. The other part of the job is to also put in an emergency generator so that during a power outage they can keep water pressure consistent and not have to go on bypass from Glenville. At the time of the initial budget, we put $50,000 into the initial budget. We did receive a grant for $24000 from Senator Farley’s office. Although we don’t have final numbers yet, I have seen estimates ranging from $75,000 to $100,000 for the drive motor upgrades and putting in a generator pump. I am concerned about where we will be next year with our revenues if the costs go to the higher side of the estimates. The other issue that has come up was during the power outage. We did have a low pressure leak, and the Water Superintendent feels that this is an issue that he is going to have to address. The Superintendent would like to get the materials to keep on hand for when this becomes a problem and needs to be repaired quickly. The cost of materials would be somewhere around $25,000. At some point that project will have to be addressed. When the budget was done we had anticipated that the amount raised by taxes would be about $103,000. The amount to be raised by taxes was listed as $130,000 and that is what we adopted the budget on. The tax bills have that rate on them. I would like to ask Attorney VanVranken to discuss the 3 options that we have.

Councilman Salisbury: We did approve $130,000 in the budget but that included a flat fee, a hook-up fee and the serial bonds, bringing what we should have collected to $103,519.

Attorney VanVranken: What I have given the Board are sections of the Real Property Tax Law that apply to the situation, but let me start with the information that Alan has given me, because the statutory sections are based on clerical error or an error in essential facts. One could argue that neither happened in this case. Basically what happened here is that the budget was approved and the number that you approved may have been unintended but the amount approved is being generated on these tax bills. So on practical options would be that the bills go out as generated and the ones that are affected by the water assessment, you can notify them, you have the authority as a governing body, to explain to them what happened. My understanding is that the increases range from $15 - $40 based on the budgeted number. You can identify that has happened and it can be adjusted down the road. One could argue if you wanted to, and if you wanted me to defend the fact that there is no error here, I could defend the fact that there is no error here. It wasn’t intended, but there is no error because the budget amount is what is going out on these tax bills.

The second option is, and you look at 550 which is simply definitions that talks about what clerical error means, what error in essential fact means. You have a clerical error here arguably, if you are going to make that argument here with yourselves that there was an error at law. There are 2 processes, one is 556, which is the possibility of refunds and credits, and the other is 556B. There is no 556A. With refunds and credits what you could do is apply to the county board and say to them that these number of people wound up with an increase in the water assessment piece of their tax and what we would like you to do is to issue a credit to be applied on their 2010 taxes that would be equivalent to the amount of the overage for 2009. What are advantages? That could be done at you leisure. That could be done at the same time that you have your tax bills going out in a timely manner, and you don’t have to worry about writing checks and keeping track of all that. What is unique about that is that most of the case law that I was able to find in these sections is individual tax filers that are challenging the error. You are the governing body of the Town are actually asking the County Supervisors to help you out. So 556 gives you the option of a refund or a credit. The other option that you have is the one that would “correct” the bills is entitled “Correction of certain errors substantial in number and identical in nature”, which is exactly what you are talking about. The advantage of that is that when the County Board acts, they could approve that, you would have to send out new bills and that would have to extend you collection period to late January to late February. In terms of options, you have 3, the practical one, because I don’t think that there was an error. The credit for next year, which would allow your tax bills to go out right away and you would get your processing from the county. Or B, which means that would correct the bills and nobody sees the 49% or a combination. You can still send your explanation to the folks and then process it through the county. The problem with the correction resolution is tying it to delays because that is something that is going to delay the collection of taxes. What I don’t know is whether you have to wait and reissue all 2,000 of your bills or just the 600 that were not exactly accurate, yet again, when I say that I don’t believe what I am saying because they were accurate according to the budget that you approved.

Councilmen Gardner, Verola and Salisbury said that that is not true.

Councilman Salisbury: We are not accurate. We will be collecting $156,000. The budget states $130,000.

Councilman Gardner: What my objection is that people that were in that original water district are being burdened with bond payment that should not be part of this. That is getting rolled up into that top number and brought across the top. Not only that, you have that same number down below where the extension is, where it should be. Why should the people down in the original thing be paying for a bond that they don’t have anymore?

Attorney VanVranken: So this is the first time that this has been allocated to them?

Councilman Verola: Yes, that we are aware of.

Councilman Salisbury: It’s only because the wrong numbers were picked up on this recap sheet. The recap sheet says that Ad Valorem District Number one is $285,293. That is the amount of our appropriation. Also in that amount is the serial bond for Extension 2 for $22,326. That figure there should be $262,967.

Attorney VanVranken: So that $22,000 is the problem?

Councilman Salisbury: This $22,326 is the main problem.

Councilman Gardner: We approved the budget, we didn’t approve the summary sheet. Something went crazy with the way that those numbers were put together.

Councilman Salisbury said that the figure should be $103,000, not $130,000 because you have to back the other figures out. Last year those figures were subtracted out.

Attorney VanVranken: So $130,000 is the figure that is the increase is being figured out by.

Supervisor Grattidge said he might be able to clear this up. When they come up with the tax rate for people in Charlton District #1, their tax rate is going to be $1.25. If you live in District #2 but Extension #2, that’s the one that has the bond issue on it, the tax rate this year is $1.78. The difference is what pays for the bond issue.

Councilman Salisbury: Absolutely not. That $1.78 is the total amount of that $22,326. That is on top of what they pay. They pay the $1.25 in the district. $1.78 is for the bond issue only.

Councilman Gardner: We don’t know what goes up to the county.

Supervisor Grattidge: What goes up to the county is the certified budget, and we had $130,000 to be levied by tax.

Councilman Gardner: Well then shame on us for not looking at that.

Attorney VanVranken: Then let’s stipulate that $130,000 went up. There is a number in that document that is not in dispute is it? It says $130,000. The number is not in dispute as to what number somebody used to calculate what those 600 bills where going to have on their bills.

Councilman Verola: The problem is the way it is distributed.

Attorney VanVranken: I understand. So you got $130,000. We are thinking that the $22,000 is too high for everybody, based on how they do this calculation. So we are saying that that is where these differences become this 49% increase because of this $22,000.

Supervisor Grattidge: Because there was going to be an increase to cover what we were being charged from Glenville Advalorem. We were anticipating going up to $103,000 from where we were last year. That was our intention when we went into the budget process.

Attorney VanVranken: Well then if that is true and everybody agrees, then I am not sure that my 3 option have changed at all. I think that those are the 3 options. $130,000 went up. Maybe you didn’t mean it, maybe you didn’t look at it carefully, but $130,000 went up there, $130,000 was what was available to the public at the Public Hearing. If that’s the number that went up there, you could make the argument that it is not an error, it is simply an unintended number, not a clerical error.

Councilman Salisbury: It was a clerical error, because this is what we approved what we approved right there in the budget. That is exactly how much money we are going to be receiving in our tax bills unless we send this up the way it is, that figure right there is going to be $156,000.

Attorney VanVranken: I don’t think that you guys are agreeing with that.

Supervisor Grattidge: The reason that it is listed in different ways is that is shows those things that are different charges on different things.

Councilman Gardner: One line is for a tax levy, so its going to increase that other number. They should have been subtracted from that number, they are going to be added to it. So now you have gone from $103,000 to $156,000.

Attorney VanVranken: So that the 49%?

Councilman Gardner: Yeah.

Supervisor Grattidge: The 49% is the $86,000 and the 130. That’s the difference, because the levy.

Councilman Salisbury: $1.78 per thousand, that figure, is only about 60-100 people pay that figure, that’s why that comes out $1.78.

Attorney VanVranken: So it isn’t consistent within the 600?

Councilman Salisbury: No, this is on top of.

Attorney VanVranken: You’re saying there have to be adjustments? Does every 600 pay a part of the $22,000?

Councilman Verola: No they are not supposed to.

Attorney VanVranken: Does anybody in that 600 pay?

Supervisor Grattidge: Yes, and they will. They will have to, if those houses are listed. Those bills when they come will have that additional charge on a separate line.

Councilman Verola: Everybody else is paying that $22,000 as well.

Supervisor Grattidge: That $22,000 will not be spent on that extension.

Councilman Verola: I know that it will end up going into our fund balance, but is that the right thing to do? Is that the fair thing to do? It was anticipated, it wasn’t what we intended. I believe that it is a clerical error, I believe it’s a mistake. I believe that we didn’t catch it. What do we do? Do we credit people, doe we send them a refund check? I believe that would be a very expensive way to solve this problem?

Councilman Gardner: I feel that if we send these bills out, they are going to be line up out to the road.

Councilman Verola: I think that they are going to kill us. It’s a 49.8% increase in the water district.

Supervisor Grattidge: Give them my phone number. You’ve got my cards. Give them my phone number. I’ll talk to every single one of them.

Councilman Verola: That’s not the point.

Attorney VanVranken: What would the increase be with the correct numbers?

Supervisor Grattidge: About 20%. Because it was going to go from 86 to 103.

Attorney VanVranken: So it’s the percentage that is the P R problem, not the real dollars, cause it would be $15, $30 $40.

Councilman Verola: It will be $200 for me.

Councilman Salisbury: Its an average of $44 per person. That is the average.

Councilman Gardner: Why can’t we just have bills redone? I had school bills delayed to me in my tax paying days, because something went wrong and bills were delayed. What’s the problem?

Supervisor Grattidge: Everyone would have to be given the same 30 days.

Linda LaRue: NYS Association of Towns did recommend printing of new tax bills IF I have a letter from the Supervisor saying why it happened and hopefully the County would send a corrected warrant and if it the software consultant could download it onto my computer before midnight December 31^st. IF it can go on the computer before midnight, I can still collect taxes on January 2, because it is the taxpayers responsibility if they do not receive a tax bill to either call or come in. It would be on the computer, I could just bring it up, they could pay it. I wouldn’t have to have the physical tax bill that day.

Councilman Verola: So would the bills still go out, only they would go out late and people could call?

Linda LaRue: The bills would still have to be printed, and I would mail them out when they were ready. As soon as I could get the corrected warrant and the files for the computer before midnight. AND, Jim Savonovich of NYS said there would not need to be a grace period to extend it for the tax bills. It is the taxpayer responsibility. Carol Holley of Real Property is in favor of just leaving it as is.

Councilman Verola: What is her reason for leaving it as is?

Linda LaRue: Because of burden of the amount of work that would have to be done. It would be late. I have already received payments on line.

Councilman Verola: And if you made an adjustment, what happens to those?

Linda LaRue: They would all have to be refunded.

Councilman Verola: You would send their checks back and ask them to change the figure and new checks be sent? We would just return the check.

Linda LaRue: And it would make more sense as far as the computer because you redo it, redo the files, it was automatically sent to Wells Fargo and First American and also the computer is sent up so that in February it automatically puts the penalty on. And if I do have to do a grace period on them, that all would have to change on the computer also.

Councilman Lippiello: Is it physically feasible that if that option was chosen that if could be put on your computer by Wednesday?

Linda LaRue: Not by Wednesday.

Councilman Lippiello: But Wednesday is the last day, the 31^st.

Linda LaRue: Jay leaves at 2:00 in the afternoon.

Councilman Salisbury: What is the process run through for the warrant?

Linda LaRue: According to Carol Holley is would probably be the middle of January before the Supervisors would approve the corrected warrant. In the mean time I am going to have 45 -50 banks calling me wanting the tax bills that they have already requested.

Supervisor Grattidge: Clifton Park tried to change some tax bills after were mailed out. They tried with refund checks, and the Supervisors were involved in that and it was a disaster.

Councilman Verola: Well ours haven’t been mailed out yet, right? They are ready to go, but they’re not gone.

Councilman Lippiello: Personally, I see option B, the refund and credit for next year looks about the cleanest way of solving it.

Marv Schorr: What about the people that move or die?

Councilman Verola: That’s right.

Councilman Gardner: There is not way that we can separate our water levy from the County tax bill?

Supervisor Grattidge: They are the governing body. When you send up your certified adopted budget, they are taking the numbers off of yours and they are creating the levy. These are the lines that are on our tax bill. These are what the rates are, these are on a print out from the County.

Attorney VanVranken: Do we have the capacity to calculate the correct water assessment?

Linda LaRue: I do not.

Supervisor Grattidge: Another thing that I am concerned about is that we already had our Public Hearing and adopted resolution. Just by giving instructions, change this number, we already had the Public hearing as it was presented.

Councilman Gardner: We would have to do a resolution making the budget change.

Councilman Verola: But the number in the budget are correct, its that coversheet that is incorrect. So what are the options? What about the option with the credit for next year?

Attorney VanVranken: As I am listening to this, I have kind of gone back to my first recommendation with a modification. Let me just think out loud for a moment. Mail the bills out tomorrow except for the 600, mail them all out then. At some point in time, those 600 have to be identified. So if they are not identified then they have to be identified before any mailing happens, but if they can be identified, then I would pull them out.

Councilman Gardner: Linda, do you have the capacity to alter those tax bills?

Linda LaRue: No. To me, I can’t physically pull all of those tax bills out, because 300 tax bills go to First American electronically.

Attorney VanVranken: So that is what Carol Holley is saying, the easiest way to resolve it now is to send them out. And then deal with the correction in either scenario 2 or scenario 3, because it is a logistical nightmare. That’s the problem, basically you are concerned about this modification, and so what I am trying to think about is how do you neutralize that modification while at the same time getting these bills out to whoever they are going to go out to. I suppose you could put if on the website, or Alan talked about postcards going out.

Councilman Verola: That’s a good idea. I like the postcards.

Supervisor Grattidge: 600 postcards would cost us somewhere around $242. We could probably get something like that turned around in a week. It could be an explanation card saying that the money coming in off the extra $.20 per thousand would be in water district funds would only spent on water district money and could be used next year to lower the rate for 2010.

Councilman Gardner: With the current economic situation, they are some people out there that $100 would make a difference. Some people may not feel it at all. Some people will pay it through escrow and won’t feel it at all, and some people will come in to pay. I’d like to find someway to offer to them a way to get reimbursed or do something, after the fact or whatever. Maybe they could choose a reduction in next years tax, but how are you going to control this, I gave them this, I gave them that.

Attorney VanVranken: Yes, that’s the problem. I mean whatever your choices are. If you are going to go either the refund, credit or the re-issuance, that’s go to involve your County Supervisors. You can do that on your own because that is a legal warrant that is out there. You are going to them and saying, change it. If the County Board doesn’t meet until the 21^st of January, you are having a County tax bill sent out the 25^th of January and then collected a month later. I don’t know.

Linda LaRue: What is going to happen to the Fire Districts and your Water? You are going to be a month late in all reality, its going to be a month later before the Fire Districts get their money or you get your Water district money.

Councilman Gardner: I think that the refund after the fact is the cleanest way to go.

Supervisor Grattidge: But then you are going to be sending $30, $40 checks out, by the time you try to get your lists properly situated, and the refunds delegated, the amount of money that you are going to be spending it going to cost you.

Councilman Gardner: I know that Alan, but that is what we got ourselves into. I can’t in clear conscience take money from people that they shouldn’t be paying.

Supervisor Grattidge: It went up as the approved amount.

Councilman Verola: But it wasn’t the amount.

Supervisor Grattidge: Well, it might not be the amount that you thought that we were going to, or that we wanted to, but this is what we sent up. I started in the tentative budget in September. This line says that the amount to be raised by taxes, 130, then it goes to the next line and it says amount to be raised by flat fees, 2,000, then it says amount to be raised by the serial bond $2,000. It clearly states what these amounts are for. That money will not be spent on this extension that comes up here. That money is going to stay in water district funds.

Councilman Verola: What Alan is saying is that we could just use it for some of these big expenses coming up next year.

Councilman Salisbury: Do we have the legal authority to collect those funds?

Supervisor Grattidge: Yes we do.

Attorney VanVranken: That’s why these statutes were invented. Because you wind up, a lot of time you have these tax bills go out. Let me read this section about the process: One application in triplicate shall be filed with the county director of Real Property tax services on behalf of all owners of property affected by the clerical error, so lets stipulate for a moment that that was a clerical error, described in subdivision one of this section, such as application shall be on a form that contains such information as may be prescribed by the State Board. A: the County Director within 10 days of the receipt of the application filed pursuant to this application shall investigate the circumstances of the claimed clerical error and shall forthwith issue a written report notifying the tax levying body of its findings with respect thereto. If the tax levying body determines that the claimed clerical error has occurred and shall immediately issue an order setting forth the corrective taxes directing the officer having jurisdiction of the tax roll to collect such tax roll. An applicant and all owners of property affected by the clerical error provided the application was filed the county directly within the period when taxes may be paid without interest to the point given, pay the corrective tax as determined by the tax levying body without interest if payment is made within 8 days of the day on which the corrective tax bill was mailed. Upon issuance of the order prescribed in subdivision 3 of this section, the refund of any excess taxes paid or credit against an outstanding tax with respect to said here. That is part of it. You request that the order coming out of the County Board is going to respond to what the Town Board is requesting to do, either authorizing a refund, or the alternative, a credit against the assessment.

Linda LaRue: With the refund, that wouldn’t take place right away. You would have to wait until I have settled with the County Treasurer.

Attorney VanVranken: That’s exactly right.

Linda LaRue: And by the time that that’s all calculated, you are close to next year anyway.

Councilman Verola: Does it take that long?

Linda LaRue: Yes, I don’t settle with the County Treasurer until the 13^th of April. Then you would have to go through everyone that has pays and issue the refund, because not everybody pays.

Councilman Gardner: Is there anyway to call a special meeting of the County Supervisors? I can’t get my head around something that we didn’t intend to.

Councilman Verola: Is like Alan said, we won’t be used for anything but the water extension.

Supervisor Grattidge: You’ve got to keep somewhere between 10-15% in fund balance available in case there is a catastrophy and you need to find some money in a hurry. The budget has been running consistently, water district one was $307,000 back in 2004. This year the total for the water district is going to be $285,000. So we are running consistently around $300,000 a year for the water district. It’s a matter of time before we start using the fund balance to pay bills, you are going to be back to the taxpayers at some point to raise funds to keep the water district going. I am saying at this point, because most of the houses in the lower part of town are in range in assessments between of 125,000 to 200,00. Again if we are talking in the $30 to $40 range, what we are talking about doing is $30 - $40 per home is fairly radical stuff. Where is if we want to, we can send out a postcard talking about the fact that there is money coming from the water district that will stay in the water district funds and depending on how our construction projects go this summer, that money should be used to reduce our rates next year, to the realm where we are all comfortable, around $1.00 per thousand. We had talked about doing something with our water rates, because we haven’t changed them in 5 or 6 years, but this would be a great year to say we are not going to touch the water rates for a whole year. Again, that at least would give them the comfort to know that their water rate is not going to change this year. Glenville almost doubled our Advalorem tax this year and that is what started this increase. When I was putting together the budget, I looked at the revenue line that said our revenue received was 114, we added what we thought would be a increase to what Glenville charged us, and that is how we came up to the $130,000 budget. And like I said, unfortunately that number was there in our budget all the way through the process. All 5 of us, none of us caught it through the whole process. Next year I will certainly have summary sheets to compare to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Councilman Salisbury: The same thing almost happened last year, but I caught it.

Supervisor Grattidge: But it didn’t happen Doug.

Councilman Verola: We just need to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. I think that if we have a summary sheet with it next year, that would help us a lot. In the meantime, we have to decide what to do. To me it sounds like you would like a postcard going out to people.

Supervisor Grattidge: I know Linda would like that. I have given her my card with my phone number on it.

Linda LaRue: I just think that is would be an absolute nightmare to redo the bills.

Councilman Gardner: Well we still haven’t decided what we are going to do. I think we have to decide that now.

Councilman Verola: I think I would have to go with sending the postcards out, I know it seems unfair, but we are looking at some pretty big expenses next year, and the extra money is not going to be used for anything inappropriate, it is not going to be used to pay off the bond, it will be used to the whole water district, not just a section of it.

Supervisor Grattidge: and the increase in the Glenville Advalorem.

Councilman Gardner: So you are saying the postcard and in it describe a refund.

Councilman Verola: No, it would do that, because we do not know what next year going to bring, we may not be able to do it. I would describe to them what happened this year to the people, 49.8% water rate, and we know that there is an issue here and we are addressing it.

Councilman Gardner: I think that you have to be careful, you have to tell them that this error was made after the County tax bills were sent out. I don’t know that you should say that you are going to use this money anyways because we have other projects.

Councilman Verola: No, I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t commit to a refund in May or June, because we just don’t know.

Supervisor Grattidge: That’s right.

Councilman Gardner: An error was made, it was on our watch, the people pay their bills, we have to set up a way so they can be re-compensated for the other charges.

Supervisor Grattidge: Sending out refund checks, I think is going to be a nightmare.

(some conversation not recoverable due to tape recorder error)

Councilman Verola: That’s what you would like to see us do, as the Tax Collector? I would be easiest on your end to send the bills out the way that they are, with an explanation to the residents.

Linda LaRue: To clarify, it would be easier for everyone, not just me. For the town collecting their money, for everyone, not just for my benefit.

Attorney VanVranken: I just don’t see the practical ability to send a postcard. I don’t know how you are going to get an explanation of this on a postcard. You know me, I think that 5 pages is my speed. I think it deserves at least 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Supervisor Grattidge: Do you want to form that into a coherent resolution so Brenda can type it.

Attorney VanVranken: I think that the 5 of you understand what the resolution is. Brenda and I can talk tomorrow about it, but as I understand it, let me just summarize it: Basically the resolutions got 2 pieces. The first piece is that the Town Board will not interfere with the Tax Collector mailing out the 2009 tax bills.

That’s one. Number two: That the Town Board will develop a strategy of communications which will include whatever the Board may determine to communicate to the effected 600 +/- taxpayers in the Town of why the increase for 2009 and what the use of those funds will be. I don’t think that you need to be limited in your resolution right now. You guys can brainstorm it and decide what you want to do. But, I do think that it should be in a letter, not a postcard.

A motion was made by Councilman Lippiello and seconded by Councilman Verola that Resolution #128 - A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF INCORRECT WATER DISTRICT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ALLOCATIONS ON THE 2009 COUNTY TAX BILLS TO BE SENT TO THE CHARLTON RESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DESIGNATED WATER DISTRICTS OF SAID TOWN be approved.

Discussion:

Councilman Gardner: I want to refer back to Marv’s comments from the audience that the numbers in the budget were correct, and whatever information that was sent up in the log to the county, something went wrong. This can be seen by the people in the audience and anyone else can come across it can see it. A letter might be a nice touch but to those individuals that are in an economic hardship because job loss or whatever and are trying to make their mortgage payments, this thing could be significant to them. I caution the Board on the repercussions of not providing some means to make them whole. I know we will have lots of projects in the coming year. We knew that coming in. Things that we discussed we could have put in that budget number, but to do it now or say that is where it is going to go would be a disruption to the 600 people.

Supervisor Grattidge: Okay, Any other discussion?

Roll Call Vote: Councilman Gardner: Nay; Councilman Lippiello: Aye; Councilman Salisbury: Nay, Councilman Verola: Aye; Supervisor Grattidge: Aye. APPROVED

Meeting adjourned at 9:28pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Brenda Mills

Town Clerk