1981-06-15 RGM4.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
TCWN OF WAPPINGER
RECESSED MEETING
JUNE 15, 1981
1. Supervisor Call Meeting to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Report from Comptroller re: Acceptability of "Letters
of Credit"
4. "Letter of Credit" Carmel Heights Subdivision
5. "Letter of Credit" Lor -Mare Subdivision
6. Memo from Comptroller re: Payment to Kassow,& Parlin -
Certiorari on Imperial Apts. & Plaza
7. James Klein request to use Plastic Pipe - Report from
J. Railing as.requested
8. Recreation: Bldgs. - Castle Point & Rockingham - manner
of payment; and list of recommendations for work by
Developers in lieu of land
9. Introduce resolutions for rezoning - Rega and Montfort
10. Redevelopment of Wells #1 & #2 - w/ Lafko "Letter of Credi:"
.RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
RECONVENE FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The Recessed Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger
of June 8th, 1981, was reconvened on June 15th, 1981, at Town
Hall, Mill Street, Village of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County,
New York.
Supervisor Diehl opened the meeting at 7:04 P.M.
Present:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Frank Versace, Councilman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Others Present:
Jon Holden Adams, Attorney
A report was received from the Comptroller on "Letters of Credit"
which had been discussed at the June 8th meeting.
Memo To: Supervisor, Town Board Members
From: Henry Cuatt
Date: June 10, 1981
Re: Letter of Credit
It is my understanding from discussions with different
bankers that an irrevocable Letter of Credit is just that
irrevocable.
Once the bank issues the Letter of Credit it (the bank)
must honor payment and the bank bears the responsibility for
collection from the contractor.
Next to having cash in a Town Escrow Account, I can't
think of a better way to protect the Towns interest with a
minimum of fuss.
My recommendation for using a Letter of Credit in lieu
of a Performance Bond assumes that the suggestions put forth
in the Town Attorney's letter of May 21, 1981 will be adhered
to completely with no deviation.
The first Letter of Credit to be considered was from Carmel
Heights for road improvements and drainage improvements.
Mr. Versace asked the Attorney to explain the procedureswhich
he did,and then asked why the developer requested this in lieu
of a bond. Mr. Roberts was present and explained the main
advantage was that it was a cheaper way than the bonding, they
did not have to pay a premium for it, but -the money would be
available to the Town if it became necessary to collect it;
the time limit for this work to be completed was set for August
15, 1981.
A lengthy discussion followed on the pros and cons of accepting
Letter of Credits and*Mr. Versace saw no reason why the Board
should deviate from the present policy.
MR. JOHNSON moved that the Letter of Credit for Carmel Heights
be approved subject to a form approved by the Attorney with a
rider stating that the developer would pay reasonable expenses
should this be litigated and the Town prevails, in language
suitable to the Attorney to the Town.
Seconded by Mrs. Reilly
Roll Call Vote: 4 Ayes Mr. Versace --Nay
Mr. Versace objected due to the fact that a letter stating that
the language was approved by the two attorneys had not been
received; it was a verbal confirmation.
The second Letter of Credit request was from Lor -Mare Corporation
and Mr. Adams stated that all conditions had been met and it was
suitable to him.
MR. JOHNSON moved that the Letter of Credit for Lor -Mare Corpora-
tion be approved subject to the Attorney's requirements.
Seconded by Mrs. Reilly
Roll Call Vote: 4 Ayes Mr. Versace --Nay Y1VL-
A memo was received from the Comptroller regarding the claim
for legal fees from Kassow and Parlin, attorneys handling the
Tax Certiorari on the Imperial Apartments and Plaza, which had
been finalized. Monies had not been allocated in the 1981 Budget
and this had been referred to the Comptroller to determine if
there was money available in the contingency accounts to pay the
fee.
Memo To: Supervisor, Town Board Members
From: Henry Cuatt
Date: June 11, 1981
Re: Claim for legal fees
It has always been my contention that the Town should maintain
its integrity and pay all claims in a reasonable period of time.
However, the claim presented by Kassow and Parlin presents
two problems:
Number one: I had no knowledgeof any pending ceriorari
cases and did not budget for this particular
expense, (the action is several years old).
Number two: More important we don't have the money. We
3
are only half way thru the current budget
year and working with an extremely tight
budget. State aid will be about ten
percent less than anticipated and the
unexpended fund balance is low.
I suggest we notify Kassow and Parlin of our dilemma and
inform them of the Town's intention to honor their claim in
the 1982 budget.
Mr. Adams had spoken to Mr. Kassow and he had no objection to
this method of payment and it was possible he would be present
at the meeting.
MRS. MILLS moved that this claim be placed in the 1982 budget
and the firm of Kassow and Parlin be so notified of this action
Seconded by Mr. Johnson
`Motion Unanimously Carried
A request had been received from James Klein at the June 8th
meeting to use Polyvinyl Chloride Pressure Pipe on his
Fieldstone Farm Subdivision. This had been tabled to the
recessed meeting of tonight to further discuss the use of
this pipe. Mr. Railing had submitted a report to the Board
as had been requested and was present to speak to them on this
matter. This report, he felt, addressed all the concerns of
Mr. Lapar and gave reasons why they felt this pipe was superior
to Ductile Iron Pipe. Despite these reassurances on the use of
this pipe by Mr. Railing, the Engineer to the Town still had
reservations on changing the specs to include this pipe. Mr.
Versace did not think we knew enough about this particular pipe
to include it in the specs; it had been used before and they did
have problems. A representative from Johns Mansville arrived to
speak in favor of the use of the pipe; he gave a history of this
item and named different towns where it was used with no problem.
Mrs. Mills objected to the use of two different pipes in the
specs; it should be consistent. Mr. Versace asked if they would
guarantee the job above and beyond the normal one year mainten-
ance; Mr. Johnson thought this was a reasonable request and asked
Mr. Railing if he thought Mr. Klein would go along with this,
however, Mr. Railing could not answer until he talked it over with
Mr. Klein. Mrs. Mills did not think it fair that a representative
was present to sponsor the plastic pipe, but the same opportunity
was not given to a firm representing the Ductile Iron Pipe.
Mr. Railing wished to speak again, however, Mr. Diehl interrupted
him to say that there would be no action on this matter tonight,
but perhaps if Mr. Klein agreed to a guarantee of more than one
year, the Board might give it further consideration. As it stood
now, there would be no approval given tonight.
Mr. Versace, directing his statement to Mr. Railing, said he
knew Mr. Railing felt this pipe was superior, but the Board
had to respect Mr. Lapar's opinion on it and he was not
comfortable with it; however, it could still be considered if
they determined the pipe qualified under conditions set forth
previously.
Mr. Frank Presti, a member of the Recreation Commission was
present to discuss the matter of a specified amount of money
assumed to be included in the 1981 Recreation Budget for two
buildings they had intended to put up at the Rockingham field
and Castle Point. It was not included in that budget or in
any other place in the budget and the Commission was now looking
for funds to finance these buildings. Mrs. Schmalz, also a
member of the Recreation Commission1interrupted to inform the
Board that she had met with the Rockingham residents and they
do not want a building; they want a gate, a drinking fountain
and a trouble light and also grass. They said they would take
a petition around to the area residents. Mr. Diehl and Mr.
Johnson had heard a different story last year and felt this
should be researched just to see how many of the residents were
objecting to a building and wanted to see this money spent in
a different manner. Mr . Presti agreed this should be looked
into. He asked the Board if they had received a list of the
priority work the Commission would like done by developers of
a Conservation District and Mr. Diehl replied that they had just
received that information and were not ready to discuss it now.
Mr. Presti briefly went over the items listed which were in the
area of from $5,000 to $20,000. Mr. Diehl went back to the
building in Rockingham which he would like to see; he questioned
the trouble light since other areas had objected to it.
Mr. Diehl also questioned the idea of a gate since, from past
experience that has proved to be a problem; it has to be locked,
then those who need to have access to the area would have to have
it opened, while others prefer that it be locked---as he expressed
it"you're dammed if you do and you're dammed if you don't".
Mr. Presti said we would draw specs for doing the floor at the
"barn" which they could pay for from the recreation budget, and
also the electrical work at the Schlathaus property, and they
tbe
would plan to go to bid for this work, as well as the two build-
ings. In the meantime, the Board would make a decision on the
funding as well as the building at Rockingham, after they have
researched this with the residents.
L
The next item on the agenda was the consideration of resolutions
to set public hearings on rezoning requests from Mr. Rega and
Mr. Montfort; however, the Attorney did not have all the necess-
ary information and the matter would be tabled until the next
meeting.
Mr. Lafko arrived at 8:01 P.M. while Mr. Diehl was discussing
the contract on the Redevelopment of Wells #1 and #2 in the
Central Wappinger Water Improvement Area, which had been awarded
to Mr. Lafko and which he seemed to be having a problem with starting
the project. Mr. Lafko first asked if Mr. Lapar was an adviser in
this project after Mr. Diehl questioned him on the status of this
contract. Was he going to honor it, or did the Board have to
rebid? As he well knew, Mr. Lapar was the Engineer to the Town
and the firm of Paggi & Martin were the project inspectors. He
claimed there was interference by these engineers; he then com-
plained about the screen on Well #2 and if it had to be replaced,
there would be additional costs. Mr. Martin then interjected that
Mr. Lafko had two problems, the first being the screen, which he
felt would collapse when it was given the acid treatment ( this
was then ascertained that it would be the responsibility of the
Town to replace it). If this was the case, the work would stop,
but Mr. Lafko would be paid for the work already completed. The
first step they seemed to agree on at this point was to TV the
screen to determine its condition and Mr. Martin was concerned
about insurance coverage by the Town. A discussion then followed
on the breakdown of the contract price, now that there was a
possibility of the work ceasing if the screen was found to be
deteriorating; Mr. Lafko's price on this phase I was $2,250.00;
the total bid was for $7,500.00. Mr. Lafko then asked for two
hold harmiesses---one for the screen job, and one for the acid.
No one agreed to that. Mrs. Mills felt they should finalize
this matter one way or another ---give Mr. Lafko one week to
commencethe project, or forget it and go back to bid in the fall.
Discussion continued, but nothing was resolved, and Mr. Diehl
asked that they recess for executive session with the Engineer
and the Attorney to the Town, due to the fact that this matter
could go into litigation.
MRS. REILLY moved that the Board go into executive session.
Seconded by Mr. Johnson
Motion Unanimously Carried
The meeting recessed for executive session at 8:37 P.M.
The meeting resumed at 9:08 P.M. and all Board Members were present.
Mr. Adams then stated that the Town Board decided that they wanted
Mr. Lafko to perform the contract for the Refurbishing of Wells #1
and #2, according to the bid, in the following manner:
1. Well #1 to be done according to the bid.
2. Well #2 to be done according to the contract, however if
after pulling the pump and TVing the screen and the acid is
not applied, he would be paid the prorated sum of $1,668.00.
3. Before starting any work, and no later than June 22, 1981,
he shall submit a Letter of Credit, and if approved, the
work shall be completed within 30 working days after approval
of Letter of Credit; the Town agrees not to count the time
it takes for the Engineer to make a decision on the condition
of the screen.
Mr. Diehl asked Mr. Lafko if he would sign the contract subject
to the stated conditions and Mr. Lafko agreed subject to the
approval of the Letter of Credit.
MRS. MILLS moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson
and unanimously carried. The mng acurnd at 9:20 P.M.
aine H. Snowden, Town Clerk