TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Regular Meeting
Municipal Building
February 13, 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 with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a roll call of members present at 7:00 pm. Attorney Harrienger was also present.
MOTION #27-2025
Supervisor Bartlett moved to adopt the minutes from the January 9, 2025 Regular Town Board Meeting, Councilman Prosser seconded.
Ayes All
MOTION #28-2025
Supervisor Bartlett moved to adopt the minutes from the January 30, 2025 Special Town Board Meeting, Councilman Prosser seconded.
Ayes All
BCA project updates
Mike Altiere from BCA provided updates on several projects:
NYS Rte 3 Water District No. 1 and Sewer District No. 2 Extension
Current Construction Status – Forcemain work is currently in winter shutdown. National Grid is performing the design of the gas and electric services for the lift station, electrical services have been laid out. Currently finalizing the easements and ROW associated with these services. Finishing details associated with the lift station and the gas and electric service connections. Awaiting a firm delivery date of the lift station skid.
NYS Route 12F Watermain Installation
Current Construction Status – Substantially complete, final cleanup and landscaped sign wall at Kinney’s Home Care remain to be completed. As-builts of the finished system are 95% complete.
PROJECTS IN DESIGN
Water District No. 4 Extension (Northland Estates)
Project Update – Draft plans and specifications have been submitted to NYS DOH to review.
Concurrently working on obtaining final review and approval from Town Water Operator, Town of Watertown Fire Department, NYS DOT, NYS DEC, US ACE and obtaining final easements from property owners. A phone conference was held with NYS DEC this week to discuss permitting needs.
There was extensive discussion about metering options for the development. Mr. Altiere recommended individual meters for each plot rather than master meters. He cited complications with looped systems and data accuracy as key reasons for this recommendation. He explained that master meters would require complex valve systems to determine the water flow. Moreover, these master meters would not provide as accurate readings as the individual meters, which are essential for detecting potential leaks or other issues within the system.
Councilman Prosser asked about the billing end of the project. He voiced concerns about the administrative burden this new system might place on the town.
In terms of billing logistics, Mr. Altiere suggested a system where aggregated bills are sent to the park owner for distribution to individual residents. This would simplify the billing process for the town and place the onus on the park owner to collect individual payments from the residents. He also noted that this approach had been considered in other towns, where it had proven effective due to the complexity of individually metering large community areas like trailer parks. There was also discussion about the possibility of using radio-read meters, which could be read from the town’s water tower. This would streamline the meter reading process, allowing the town to gather data from the entire community without manual on-site readings.
Sewer District 1
Project Update – NYS DEC and EFC have issued comments on the most recent engineering report submission. These comments are currently being addressed with the assistance of the manufacturer of the Taron System. After meeting with the team at Sanitaire/Xylem we are refining the piloting approach with the aim to reduce the risk and impact of the piloting operation to the existing treatment plant operation while also an updated Consent Order schedule is also being drafted based on these comments and responses. In addressing the comments from NYS DEC/EFC, the piloting program and timeline can likely be reduced based upon confidence in the technology. On December 24, 2024, the project was awarded $1,000,000 through the NYS DEC Water Quality Improvement Program. Several funding programs have opened up recently for the stormwater improvements project phase, including from FEMA and GIGP.
Revised Schedule:
Begin Piloting Program: June 2025
End Piloting Program (Tentative): November 2025
Design Start: March 2025
Design Complete: December 2025
NYS DEC Review and Approval: April 2026
Begin Construction: June 2026
Complete Construction: September 2026
Discussion took place to divert flows from Sewer 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the new station in sewer 1.
Mr. Altiere is still working on grants for the stormwater upgrades in the Lettiere Tract.
Pat Scordo and Ryan Aubertine from GYMO Engineering approached the Board with project updates.
Mr. Scordo presented the Board with an Amendment No. 1 of the Owner-Engineer Agreement. For Modifications to other terms and conditions of the Agreement for the Northeast Water District (Water 7) as follows:
Subsequent to the Engineer Owner Agreement, the Town of Watertown determined that in order to utilize EFC financing to pay for engineering fees, the Town would need to undertake a Request for Qualifications for Engineering Services to complete various water system improvement projects in accordance with EFC’s updated A/E procurement policy. After completing the RFQ process and selecting GYMO Architecture, Engineering and Land Surveying, D.P.C. to complete the engineering services, this Amendment is being issued to update the date of the agreement.
This Amendment does not result in any changes to the slope, schedule, or fee of the original Agreement.
Discussion took place, the Board agreed to the agreement. Mr. Scordo asked if Supervisor Bartlett could sign that, so they can get that to the funding agency so they can meet their criteria
Supervisor Bartlett informed he would offer a motion to amendment the agreement for his execution after the updates from Mr. Scordo.
Northeast Water District No. 7
• Design Plans 80% complete.
• Soil Borings/Rock Probes 50% complete; waiting on NYSDOT to approve plans for soil sampling within the NYS Route 126 ROW.
• Funding offer $5M grant and $3.085 M 0% loan results in EDU cost of $1,081 based on $6.3M construction costs. District was formed using an EDU cost of $911. Therefore, Water District formation and public hearing must be repeated. We are researching funding opportunities with Municipal Solutions:
CDBG, EPA, DOH, Rural Development. Residents urged to send letters to Town describing their issues with their wells/water sources.
• Estimate of probable construction cost:
-May 2023 estimate = $6.3M (100% lateral length). A 10% or
$735,000 contingency was plugged into the project cost.
-February 2025 estimate = $6.64M (100% lateral length); results in a $395,000 contingency (5%).
Mr. Scordo stated they have been trying to find a way to get things in the ground this year. The hurdle is not getting enough grant money to keep the EDU down to the original estimate. He is working on a potential solution that they come up with that might help, and allow us to submit more funding applications. One of the bigger costs for this district is the booster pump system to push the water up State Street Hill over 340’. The goal is to keep the EDU down without removing anyone from the district. He explained different possibilities.
Project could be bid with one or two of the following deduct alternates, allowing the project to be awarded prior to learning if funding was awarded (anticipated December 2025).
Deduct + $1,130,000 if laterals are installed to ROW and include/end at the meter pit. The landowner would be responsible for installing the lateral to the building and disconnect the well.
Deduct + $1,440,000 if eliminate 8″ pipe and fire pump and hydrants, and serve district with 4″ and 3″ water mains.
Requires Engineering Report re-review by EFC.
Deduct # $131,000 if don’t install laterals and curb boxes for vacant parcels.
The plan is to start easement process immediately.
MOTION #29-2025
Supervisor Bartlett offered a motion to accept the Amendment to Owner-Engineer Agreement for the Northeast Water District (Water 7). Amendment No. 1 to the contract dated 05/09/2023, Agreement being between The Town of Watertown and GYMO Engineering to reflect the new effective date of February 13, 2025. This would authorize the Supervisor to sign and execute this agreement on behalf of the Town of Watertown, seconded by Councilman Slye.
Ayes All
Mr. Aubertine discussed a funding opportunity for the Southside Water District. The grant, called the Infrastructure Grant Program for Jefferson County, is administered by Empire State Development. It targets small and moderate-scale priority infrastructure projects in Jefferson County. To be eligible, the proposed project must directly or indirectly support:
• Economic development
• Housing creation
• Contribute to placemaking
• Encourage tourism
The Lettiere Tract Water District’s project would fall under a category of projects that do not directly create at least 10 new housing units. Projects in this category can receive up to $500,000 in funding. The grant funds can be used for:
• Construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of municipal developments
• Extension or reconstruction of water infrastructure
• Acquisition of real property for the project
• Other capital uses determined by Empire State Development
The project would require a 50% match from the town. If awarded, the project must start within one year of receiving the grant.
The application process involves:
1. Submitting a proposal and budget to Jefferson County.
2. Jefferson County will review and score all projects.
3. Selected projects will be moved forward for a consolidated funding application.
Key Dates:
• Proposal Deadline: February 25
• Jefferson County Award Announcement: March 5
• CFA Application Deadline: April 1
Mr. Aubertine mentioned that there is also the EFC (Environmental Facilities Corporation) grant available, which can be applied for in May 2025. He also noted that there are other potential grants being explored.
EFC Grant Details:
• The EFC grant is still under consideration. While the exact amount is not yet confirmed, it may not be a traditional grant; it could involve a low-interest loan instead.
• The grant specifically targets municipalities looking to acquire private water systems, which aligns well with the Lettiere Tract Water District’s goals.
• 50% match is required, and there was some discussion about the opportunity it provides in comparison to the previously mentioned Infrastructure Grant Program.
Mr. Scordo clarified that while the Infrastructure Grant Program is more focused on economic development, the EFC grant seems to have a more direct alignment with the town’s water system acquisition objectives.
Discussion on Economic Development Criteria:
The Board has asked them to pursue the grant funding opportunities.
Supervisor Bartlett opened the floor for public comment. Anyone who cares to address the Board on any topic, he asked them please rise and state your name for the record.
David Soderquist, Holcomb Street reiterated his concerns about the Lettiere Tract petition process and its compliance with Article 12. He articulated specific objections to combining separate projects into one cost burden, emphasizing that it is financially convenient but legally questionable. He claims Article 12 explicitly prohibits combining disparate units, and he argued this approach unjustly forces the existing residents of the tract to subsidize the development of vacant parcels. He highlighted that existing homes would be carrying the financial weight of the new infrastructure for currently undeveloped parcels, resulting in an overall liability exceeding $1 million. He asserted that the burden of development cost should not fall on the residents who do not directly benefit.
Attorney Harrienger countered the concerns, maintaining that Article 12 was not being violated. She explained that no district currently exists which would be impacted by the petition boundaries, and the petition was an initial step in the process to potentially form a district. She further explained that as the Town Board had declined to form a water district via the Board-driven Article 12-A procedure, the preliminary step of a sufficient petition is necessary before any formal development or district creation can be contemplated under Article 12. Attorney Harrienger clarified that the statement made by the resident regarding Article 12 was not accurate. She explained that the process outlined in Article 12 generally begins with the understanding that a district does not currently exist. If a Town district did exist and the subject petition attempted to extend the boundaries of the same and/or integrate a completely separate new district into an established one, additional procedures named in Article 12 would need to be followed. Here, that is not the case.
Attorney Harrienger again clarified that the district formation process would be subjected to detailed review and approval stages, ensuring compliance with all statutory requirements. She stated that that even if a petition were found legally sufficient, the Town would need to complete the entire Article 12 process to form a district, such process involving public discussions, notice to the State Comptroller, among other Board actions.
Attorney Harrienger addressed concerns regarding the cost associated with vacant parcels within the existing Lettiere Tract. She explained that, as she understands it, vacant parcels currently exist within the tract. She raised a point: if we were to follow the logic that vacant parcels should be excluded from any district formed, then those vacant properties in Lettiere Tract would not be included. If they were included, they might face significantly higher surcharges than what is currently applied. However, Attorney Harrienger clarified that the key issue here revolves around a disagreement over whether Article 12 is being violated. She emphasized that just because a petition is circulating, and despite the possibility that it may eventually be submitted, it is still uncertain whether enough signatures will be collected to meet the necessary requirements for the process to move forward.
Mr. Soderquist emphasized that the core of his concern is whether the approach being taken is fair and reasonable. He pointed out that if vacant properties are being charged the same rate, then it could be seen as arbitrary. This is especially concerning considering that the infrastructure includes old asbestos pipes installed between 1957 and 1967, which are currently functioning but are still a significant issue. He suggested that, instead of focusing on the entire district, perhaps the plan should prioritize replacing infrastructure in areas that need it most. He specifically mentioned Birch Lane, which has had frequent issues, and proposed that this street’s infrastructure should be replaced first, prioritizing areas with the water residents in mind. He also proposed considering a $1.2 million budget for this purpose, without including the Ives Street in the plan. He questioned bonding without adding Ives Street to the project.
Attorney Harrienger clarified that while she is not a bond attorney, she has consulted with her partner, who specializes in bonding. She explained that the issue isn’t that the town wouldn’t be able to bond for the project, but rather that the bonding term would be determined by the useful life of the infrastructure being funded.
There was a debate about the true value and condition of the existing water system amid pressing questions regarding appraisal methodology and potential replacement costs. The appraisal is varied appraising the asset’s long-term value versus immediate replacement demands.
Mr. Soderquist read the following statement for the record:
I want to state for the record that the town has been informed previously that this process is improper and inconsistent with the requirements and intent of Article 12. Despite this, it has been allowed to move forward, giving Mr. Lettiere artificial hope that this long and arduous task will lead to success. I think this is unfair—to him as a property owner and to the residents of Southside Water.
We need to prioritize fixing our aging infrastructure and addressing the needs of Southside Water residents first, not extending service to vacant parcels outside our district at their expense. I support protecting Mr. Lettiere’s rights as well as the rights of Southside Water residents, but this process is doing a disservice to both. It raises serious questions about fairness, adherence to the law, and whether the town is acting in the best interests of the community.”
Penny McKenna, Hadcock Road, voiced her concern about the possibility of her property being included in the proposed Northeast water district. She described the specific logistics involved, noting that her property was located a short distance from the end of the proposed line. She mentioned it was a shorter distance than some of the potential driveway that are included in the project.
Supervisor Bartlett, acknowledged her concerns and committed to reviewing the feasibility of extending the water line to extend to the corner of her property. He recognized the unique challenges posed by Ms. McKenna’s location and committed to provide an update at a subsequent meeting.
Pat Scordo agreed to explore boring in the area and the costs associated with this potential extension, considering alternatives like modifying piping techniques to contain costs. The Board could then decide if it wanted to extend the district.
Mr. Scordo added that if residence in this area were to write personal letters as to their water quality and quantity it could help with the grants and funding opportunity.
Rick Gefell, Woodside Drive addressed the Board. Bases on the letter he received in December he perceives his water rates were going to double. He was concerned about the vacant lot he owns and the debt service being assigned to it with the new district.
To potentially address lingering concerns, Supervisor Bartlett suggested an alternative approach involving a special assessment. This would spread the cost of purchasing the system from Mr. Lettiere over 10 years, theoretically easing the upfront financial impact on residents. Such a strategy could provide a balanced financial model for district funding, sidestepping immediate, large-scale fiscal demands on residents. It was noted that further legal and financial consultation would be necessary to validate this alternative if viable. The board also discussed the possibility of modifying the proposed district boundaries to exclude the Ives Street extension entirely. This adjustment could serve to mitigate opposition by removing controversial and cost-impacting expansions that current residents felt unjustly burdened their financial obligations without tangible, immediate benefit.
Attorney Harrienger explained that, although this hasn’t been discussed in detail, he is considering two possible approaches. If the original plan isn’t feasible, there are two alternatives:
1. A second petition could be submitted with boundaries that accurately reflect the current situation.
2. Alternatively, if agreeable, the process could skip the petition procedure and proceed under Article 12-A, which would allow the process to be Board driven instead.
Mr. Lettiere offered suggestions to make improvements to the district. He was asked by the Public Service Commission to delay his water rate increase 2 months while this process is still ongoing. He noted that, according to the Water Conservation Act, meters are typically required to be replaced every ten years. The current meters are redundant to 2005, meaning they’re now at the point where replacement may be necessary. The cost for replacing the meters and their associated radios is estimated to be around $70,000. They have been working so this has not been done by him.
Mike Collello, Co Rte 65 commented that, when he considered the cost of the system and the associated improvements, such as those on Ives Street and Holcomb Street, the overall cost would be shared equally among everyone. Based on his analysis, even with the inclusion of Ives Street, the system made sense financially on an annual basis. This reasoning formed the basis for his decision to support the petition as it stands. He acknowledged the situation, though there were various opinions and some people might be concerned about the compensation for Mr. Lettiere or the deal people on Ives Street are receiving, which they view as a particularly favorable one. Mr. Collello further explained that, despite the differing opinions, he feels the reality is that those who sign on to the petition will be paying less for water by moving forward with the proposed plan. He expressed hope that the process would continue and that people would proceed with signing the petition.
No formal decisions were made during this discussion, but the board emphasized its commitment to continuing dialogue, exploring available options, and addressing residents’ concerns before advancing the petition process to the next stages.
No one else wished to speak; the floor was closed.
Supervisor Bartlett accepted the Town Clerk’s Report.
Town Clerk’s Correspondence
The Town has received notice that Taco Joy, 18958 US Route 11 had submitted an application to New York State for an alcohol license and has notified the town of their application.
MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS
MOTION #30-2025
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Board to authorize the submission of a request for proposals to Jefferson County relative to the application for grant State matching funds for tourism promotion, new housing construction and various infrastructure improvements throughout the town.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; the Town of Watertown Town Council hereby authorizes the submittal of the RFP proposal to Jefferson County for purposes of obtaining grant funding for various projects within the Town of Watertown.
Supervisor Bartlett moved the foregoing resolution, seconded by Councilman Prosser.
Ayes All
MOTION #31-2025
WHEREAS, the DPAO has submitted a request for grant funding for Fiscal Year 2025 wherein proceeds from the grant are used to underwrite promotional cost associated with the 2025 Summer Concert Series. A series of concerts that bring thousands of travelers and tourists to the area, and
WHEREAS, funds are included in the adopted 2025 Year Budget for said purposes
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; a grant for the Disabled Person’s Actions Organizations in the amount of $25,000 is hereby authorize the purposes stated.
Supervisor Bartlett moved the foregoing resolution, seconded by Councilman Perkins.
Ayes All
MOTION #32-2025
WHEREAS, Assessor Roger Tibbetts has applied for the following split to the 2025 tax roll for real property identified as:
Splits
Original
82.08-1-21 Pyramid Co. of Watertown $4,087.41
Split into
82.08-1-21 Pyramid Co. of Watertown $1,683.11
82.08-1-19 National Grid Real Estate Tax Dept. $2,404.30
Original
Original
83.12-1-12.4 Aaron Netto $ 760.56
Split into
83.12-1-12.41 Aaron Netto $ 38.96
83.12-1-12.42 Edgar Rios $ 721.60
Original
82.10-2-65 Mark O’hara $3,731.44
Split into
82.10-2-65.1 Mark O’hara $3,623.67
82.10-2-65.2 Michael Alteri $ 107.77
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:
Ayes All
MOTION #33-2025
Supervisor Bartlett moved to pay the following abstracts contingent upon a positive review of the bills being audited.
Utilities paid prior to the meeting
General Vouchers # 14 to 16 Total $ 14,375.29
Highway Vouchers # 14 to 14 Total $ 20,369.79
Spec. Dist. Vchrs. # 9 to 9 Total $ 8,204.60
Vouchers approved for monthly meeting
General Vouchers # 17 to 41 Total $ 21,893.94
Highway Vouchers # 15 to 36 Total $ 261,559.66
Spec. Dist. Vchrs. # 10 to 21 Total $ 153,940.06
Councilmember Prosser seconded the motion.
Ayes All
The meeting concluded with a brief discussion about ongoing water infrastructure issues and equipment purchases for the highway department. Superintendent Clement reported a significant water leak on Coffee Street that crews were working to locate and repair. The leak was causing the town to lose a considerable amount of water, with recent readings showing usage spiking to 12,000 units, a stark increase from the typical 3,000 to 4,000 units. Despite thorough checks, including walks along the line and hydrant inspections, the source of the leak had yet to surface. To address this, crews were scheduled to work overnight, from midnight to 8:30 a.m., when traffic would be low, to investigate the hydrants for any signs of unusual noise that might indicate the leak’s location.
There was a discussion about upcoming equipment purchases and the need to coordinate these purchases with the town’s bonding schedule. The highway superintendent was asked to provide a list of upcoming purchases and their costs, and to try to delay deliveries until after April 10, 2025, when the town’s bonds would be renewed.
Superintendent Clement informed the Board on the deteriorating condition of the existing vehicles that are being replaced.
MOTION #34-2025
Councilman Prosser moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm, seconded by Supervisor Bartlett.
Ayes All
_____________________________
Pamela D. Desormo, Town Clerk