Town of Franklin Board Meetings
Special Town Board Meeting
July 15, 2009 - 7:00 PM
Board members present:
Supervisor Mary Ellen Keith
Councilwoman Janet Ordway
Councilman Clifford Smalley
Councilman Walt Kretser
Board members absent:
Councilman Al Berg
Town Clerk Sandra Oliver,
Frances Oliver, Karen Smalley, Brad Merrill,
Don & Doris Hamm, Frank & Barbara Karl,
Carol Lavigne, Ed Baltzly, Derek Romeo,
Nathan Brown - Adirondack Daily Enterprise
1. CALL TO ORDER
Supervisor Keith called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Town Clerk called the roll, introduced guests and stated a quorum was present.
2. PURPOSE OF MEETING.
Supv. Keith stated the purpose of the special meeting was for the Town Board to discuss financing options for the necessary repairs of the Town Garage.
A. RECAP OF TOWN BUILDING AND REPAIR PROJECT.
• Over the past decade, a building committee met on a semi-regular basis to study necessary repairs, rehabilitation and improvements to the Town’s buildings.
• In 2005 the recommendations of the committee included rehabilitation of the Town Hall, a new structure at Kate Mountain Recreation Park and repair of the Town Garage, the repairs to the Garage were deemed a priority.
• In 2006 the Town contracted with Yellow Wood Associates to conduct a study of all Town buildings and make recommendations for environmentally friendly repair and construction alternatives so grant funding from New York State Energy Research and Development Assistance (NYSERDA).
• In 2007 representatives of the Town Board and Building Committee contacted several different engineering firms to review the infrastructure project and to develop a plan for it. Upon recommendation of the building committee, Earth Science Engineering was selected as the engineer for the project (Resolution No. 27 adopted 8/13/2007). A new architectural firm was also selected. At that time the Town Hall was removed from the project.
• In 2007-2008 the engineer and architect developed plans for the garage rehabilitation and a new structure at the Rec Park. They performed an extensive study of the proposed project.
• To coincide with those recommendations the Town applied for and received two grants: one in sum of approx. $64,000 for the purchase and installation of two (2) new furnaces and the second for nearly $27,000 for records retention in the Town Hall. The $64,000 grant is still viable.
• During summer 2008 the national economy sank into recession, and in the fall 2008 repairs to the Garage became a priority, and the construction of a new building at the Rec Park was removed from the project.
• In January 2009 the Town Board adopted a resolution to bond for $800,000 based on recommendations of the Engineer and Architect to expand and rehabilitate the Town Garage. In February a petition demanding a referendum on the bond was served, and in April 2009, the financing was disapproved by voters.
Supervisor Keith noted that the voters disapproved the method of paying for repairs. The repairs still need to be made for health and safety reasons of employees and to bring structure up to code. The Town Board has a fiduciary responsibility to repair buildings of the Town.
B. DOWNSIZED GARAGE PROJECT
Following defeat of the $800,000 bond, the Town Board requested Engineer Doug Ferris and Architect Brian Burke to downsize the Garage project, eliminating the proposed expansion of the structure and submitting an estimate for necessary repairs to bring the building up to code. At the special board meeting on June 24, 2009, Messrs. Ferris and Burke estimated the cost of necessary repairs at $531,489, or $89 per sq. ft. The engineer and architect have not charged the Town for their time and effort spent estimating costs for the downsized project. The proposed repairs include:
• East end of slab will be repaired
• New footings installed at east end
• Attic reinsulation to effect savings in heating
• Roof drainage issues resolved
• Heating improvements ($7,000 to heat building for 3 mos. this winter)
• Ventilation improved (Garage has mold growing in places - a health hazard)
• Radiant in-floor heating in service bay
• Electrical brought up to code
C. THE PROCESS.
Earth Science Engineering was named General Contractor in 2007. Once financing is obtained through the issuance of bonds, ESE will advertise for bids for subcontractors to perform various aspects of the Garage repair. All contractors will have the opportunity to bid.
• Supv. Keith indicated an interest schedule would be supplied as part of the process once the Board adopted the bond resolution.
• Coun. Kretser opined that taxes on a $90,000 property might increase $2.50 per month over 20 years.
• Supv. Keith stated any grant funding received will be applied to principal.
• Coun. Smalley said the plan was valid and cost effective and inquired when the actual work could start.
• Coun. Kretser indicated he hadn’t seen a schedule, but assuming financing was in place, the work could start this fall. He assumed that insulation, ventilation and electrical system repair would be the first priority.
• Supv. Keith noted if another petition is served on the Board demanding a permissive referendum, and if the reduced bond is again voted down, the repair work would proceed, but would be included in the 2010 budget. She reiterated that the repairs must be made and the Town Board has a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
• Coun. Ordway conjectured that if an employee is injured because of unsafe working conditions he could sue the Town. In that event the cost to the Town would be very high.
• Supv. Keith recapitulated that the Town Board, the building committee, consultants, engineers and architects had carefully considered and evaluated all aspects of the project and had investigated different avenues of approach.
• Coun. Kretser added that in 2006 and 2007 the Board and building committee had numerous conversations with a number of engineers and interviewed several different firms. Earth Science Engineering had the lowest estimates and enjoys a good reputation. If everything is delayed, the Town will have to pay more in consulting and engineering fees.
Supervisor Keith then asked for comments from those present.
Q/C:What Frank Karl said in his guest commentary in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise reflects my feelings on the subject.
Q/C:The Town Board is apparently not listening to taxpayers. That report should be shown to anyone who wants to look at it. $500,000 could build a new building. You have enough room there. Start listening to us. Next year we’ll have a reval and higher taxes. If you add the cost of garage repair to tax bills, there will be a revolt.
Q/C:The Board should investigate other, local engineers closer to home. Money is tight, and people have to work day to day. Doesn’t make sense to spend $500,000 on an old building - you’re throwing good money after bad.
Q/C:The garage needs to be repaired or replaced. Why not build new? You’ll only have more structural problems in the future.
Q/C:Well, the electrical system and insulation needs to be done on the building now. But spending half a million dollars on an old building doesn’t make sense. Build new.
Q/C:These meetings have become adversarial. You need to open meetings up.
Q/C:Yes, you need to get more opinions that are in tune with these economic times. Residents can’t afford this bond for repairs. Why not save money for a new building and get more input from outside entities? I understand the problems but we can’t afford to fix them.
Q/C:Health and safety issues at the garage should have been addressed years ago, and to spend that amount of money on consulting fees is not good. You should build a new garage, not repair the old. As soon as that bond is paid off in 20 years, the garage will have to be redone. It doesn’t make sense and it’s a big impact on taxpayers. You’ve only had one engineer - you need competitive bidding. Open meetings up and hear what taxpayers have to say. The board does not want to consider others’ ideas. This bond is too much for an old building. If the garage is worked on this winter, where will equipment be stored?
Q/C:What is the difference in price to repair the garage or build a new one? What is the difference in dollars? Why don’t you get other engineers? How many people bid on this?
A: Coun. Kretser replied that in summer 2007, the representatives of the Town Board and building committee held interviews with ESE, AES of Plattsburgh; and LaBombard. The building committee and members of the Board recommended that ESE be contracted with to oversee the entire infrastructure project. In addition to its lower cost estimates, ESE had acted as consultant to Yellow Wood and was familiar with the project. In addition, we are talking about review, research and investigation being done over several years. Note that each building committee meeting was open to the public but no one bothered to attend. Back then, 2 years ago, was the time to discuss different options, not now. Now is the time to take action. The longer the repair work is delayed, the worse the conditions in the garage become.
A: Coun. Smalley stated this past February the board received estimated cost per square foot for repair and renovation versus costs to build new. A new building would cost $150 per square foot plus costs of demolition, which were unknown. The cost to repair is $95 per square foot. At the February meeting an estimate was submitted to the board for an empty metal shell building at a cost of $500,000. The building committee held meetings over a period of 10 years and evaluated many suggestions and alternatives. The Town Board
Q/C:That was a high estimate and included electrical and water and heat. Look what they did in the Town of Brighton a couple years ago - they built a brand new garage for $600,000.
A: Coun. Kretser countered that Brighton’s garage was built in a different time. We must get our building taken care of. ESE is a good firm, and has stated the Town has a good, solid building. The repaired structure may well last beyond the duration of the 20-year bond. The garage might last another 30 years.
He resumed, stating that if the Board begins the process of searching for and interviewing new engineers, it will only delay the process. Again, now is not the time to discuss options - the time for that discussion was 2 years ago.
Coun. Kretser continued that the Board is trying to make the best of what the Town has now and to ensure that the garage will last for another 20 or more years. The proposal submitted by the engineers is sound.
A: Supv. Keith stated she attended each meeting of the building committee when Frank Karl, Bob Hammond and Janet Ordway were members. Over 10 years, the committee met sporadically and members did not always attend. However, in 2007, the committee was re-formed with Jean Baltzly, Roger Symonds, Supv. Keith, Coun. Kretser and Dave Dekkers. Meetings were well attended and held on a regular basis. It was the 2007 committee which reviewed suggestions of the first building committee. The reformed building committee recommended ESE and endorsed the entire infrastructure project, including a renovation of the Town Hall, a new building at the Rec Park and rehabilitation of the Town Garage. It was a lengthy process and each comment proffered by those in attendance has been heard and discussed previously, both in committee and during board meetings.
She continued, stating that building anew does not make financial sense. The garage property already encroaches on adjoining homeowners’ properties. The building itself is solid and if repaired will last another 25-30 years. The board and building committee have already discussed these things. You criticize the board for spending money and suggest starting over. That is a dismissal of all the work of the building committees and town boards over the past 10 years. These matters have already been investigated, discussed and determined. We represent each and every taxpayer, voter and resident in the Town. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to repair Town facilities. We have eliminated unnecessary projects. We have downsized the garage project to cover necessary repair work only. Now is the time to take action.
Supervisor Keith read the resolution to bond for $532,000 and asked for a motion for the resolution.
Motion for resolution
(M.Keith-C.Smalley m/s/p) ALL AYE
RESOLUTION NO. 29: BOND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF FRANKLIN, (FRANKLIN COUNTY), NEW YORK, ADOPTED ON July 15, 2009, AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE TOWN HIGHWAY GARAGE AT AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST OF $532,000, APPROPRIATING SAID AMOUNT THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $532,000 OF BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES AND SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN TO PAY THE COST OF THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, Section 64(3) of the Town Law of the State of New York empowers the Town Board of the Town of Franklin, Franklin County, New York (the “Town”) to manage maintain and control Town properties as the purposes of the Town may require; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town has determined that it is necessary for the Town to reconstruct, repair and renovate the Town’s Highway Garage (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Town, as a local agency pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), ECL Section 8-0101, et seq., and implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the “Regulations”), having reviewed the impact of the reconstruction, repair and renovation of the Town’s Highway Garage upon the environment, intends hereby to determine that the Project constitutes a "Type II Action" under 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(25) of the Regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board now desires to authorize the Project and the financing of the cost thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED ON JULY 15, 2009 BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF FRANKLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NEW YORK (by favorable vote of not less than two thirds of said Board), AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The reconstruction repair and renovation of the Town’s Highway Garage, together with appurtenant equipment, machinery apparatus and other improvements incidental thereto, all as required for the purpose for which such Highway Garage is to be used, at a maximum estimated cost of $532,000, including all professional costs, including legal advertising and legal services, equipment, machinery and other necessary appurtenances and all other necessary costs incidental to such work, which is estimated to be the total cost thereof, is hereby approved.
Section 2. The plan for the financing of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is by the issuance of up to $532,000 of serial bonds, or any bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the bonds of said Town, which are hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law, and the levy of a tax to pay interest on said obligations.
Section 3. The Project constitutes a "Type II Action" under 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(25) of the Regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA.
Section 4. The full faith and credit of the Town is hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such years and such debt service payments may be made in substantially level or declining amounts as may be authorized by law.
Section 5. Pursuant to Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00, inclusive, of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell the serial bonds and any bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such bonds or notes shall be of such form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Town Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. The Town Supervisor is hereby further authorized, at her sole discretion, to execute all agreements and instruments in order to effect the financing or refinancing of the specific object or purpose described in Section 1 hereof, or a portion thereof, by a bond, and/or note issue of said Town.
Section 7. The intent of this resolution is to give the Town Supervisor sufficient authority to execute those applications, agreements, instruments or to do any similar acts necessary to effect the issuance of the aforesaid bonds and/or notes without resorting to further action of this Town Board.
Section 8. The following additional matters are hereby determined and declared:
(a) Pursuant to paragraph 12(a)(1) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, the period of probable usefulness of the Project is twenty-five (25) years; and
(b) Current funds are not required by the Local Finance Law to be provided prior to the issuance of the bonds and any notes issued in anticipation thereof authorized by this resolution; and
(c) The proposed maturity of the bonds authorized by this resolution will exceed five (5) years.
(d) The Town reasonably expects to reimburse itself for expenditures made for the Project from the Town’s General Fund from the proceeds of the bonds or notes herein authorized.
(e) This resolution is a declaration of official intent to reimburse for purposes of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2.
Section 9. Such bonds shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed in the name of the Town of Franklin, Franklin County, New York, by the manual or facsimile signature of the Town Supervisor and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or impressed thereon and maybe attested to by the manual or facsimile signature of the Town Clerk.
Section 10. The Town hereby covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds and any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the sale of the Bonds, that the Town will faithfully observe and comply with all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and any proposed or final regulations issued pursuant thereto unless, in the opinion of bond counsel, such compliance is not required by the Code and regulations to maintain the exclusion from gross income of interest on said obligations for federal income tax purposes.
Section 11. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds, including determining whether to issue such bonds with a schedule of substantially level or declining annual debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the Town by the facsimile signature of its Town Supervisor, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated Official of the Town), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the Town Supervisor. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the Town not to impose and collect from registered owners of such bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in Section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by Section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the Town Treasurer shall determine.
Section 12. The law firm of Trespasz & Marquardt, LLP is hereby appointed bond counsel to the Town in relation to the issuance of the Bonds.
Section 13. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if:
(1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Town is not authorized to expend money, or
(2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of publication, or
(3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 14. This resolution shall be subject to permissive referendum and a summary hereof (attached hereto as FORM OF NOTICE I) shall be published and posted within ten (10) days of adoption by the Town Clerk as provided by Section 90 of the Town Law. This Resolution shall become effective 30 days after publication of FORM OF NOTICE I. Following such effective date, in the event that no petition for a referendum was timely submitted and filed, the Town Clerk shall cause the publishing and posting of a notice in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law together with a summary of this Bond Resolution (attached hereto as FORM OF NOTICE II).
(FORM OF NOTICE I - See Resolution Section 14)
NOTICE OF BOND RESOLUTION SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM
The resolution, a summary of which is published herewith, was adopted on July 15, 2009 and is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with Section 90 of the Town Law. SUMMARY OF BOND RESOLUTION SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM
A Resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Franklin, Franklin County, New York (the "Town") on July 15, 2009 authorizes the reconstruction, repair and renovation of the Town’s Highway Garage and the issuance of bonds and other obligations to finance the cost thereof, together with appurtenant equipment, machinery apparatus and other improvements incidental thereto, all as required for the purpose for which such Highway Garage is to be used, at a maximum estimated cost of $532,000, including all professional costs, including legal advertising and legal services, equipment, machinery and other necessary appurtenances and all other necessary costs incidental to such work (the “Project”), and to pay for such Project by the levy of a tax for the foregoing object or purpose in an amount not to exceed $532,000, which shall be levied and collected in annual installments in such years and in such amounts as may be determined by the Town Board and that in anticipation of the collection of such tax, bonds and notes of the Town are authorized to be issued at one time, or from time to time, in the principal amount not to exceed $532,000 and a tax is authorized to pay the interest on said obligations when due. Under the Local Finance Law, the Project has a period of probable usefulness of twenty-five (25) years.
(FORM OF NOTICE II - See Resolution Section 14)
NOTICE OF BOND RESOLUTION
The resolution, a summary of which is published herewith, was adopted on July 15, 2009. The validity of the obligations authorized by such resolution may be hereafter contested only if such obligations were authorized for an object or purpose for which the Town of Franklin, Franklin County, New York is not authorized to expend money or if the provisions of law which should have been complied with as of the date of publication of this notice were not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of publication of this notice, or such obligations were authorized in violation of the provisions of the constitution.
SUMMARY OF BOND RESOLUTION
A Resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Franklin, Franklin County, New York (the "Town") on July 15, 2009 authorizes the reconstruction, repair and renovation of the Town’s Highway Garage and the issuance of bonds and other obligations to finance the cost thereof, together with appurtenant equipment, machinery apparatus and other improvements incidental thereto, all as required for the purpose for which such Highway Garage is to be used, at a maximum estimated cost of $532,000, including all professional costs, including legal advertising and legal services, equipment, machinery and other necessary appurtenances and all other necessary costs incidental to such work (the “Project”), and to pay for such Project by the levy of a tax for the foregoing object or purpose in an amount not to exceed $532,000, which shall be levied and collected in annual installments in such years and in such amounts as may be determined by the Town Board and that in anticipation of the collection of such tax, bonds and notes of the Town are authorized to be issued at one time, or from time to time, in the principal amount not to exceed $532,000 and a tax is authorized to pay the interest on said obligations when due. Under the Local Finance Law, the Project has a period of probable usefulness of twenty-five (25) years. Such resolution shall be kept available for public inspection in the Town Clerk’s Office during regular business hours for twenty days following this publication.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing Resolution was put to a vote of the members of the Town Board of the Town this 15th day of July, 2009, the result of which vote was as follows:
Those voting aye:
Supervisor Mary Ellen Keith
Councilman Walt Kretser
Councilperson Janet Ordway
Councilman Cliff Smalley
Councilman Allen Berg
Those Voting nay:
3. OTHER BUSINESS
A. VIRUS PROTECTION RENEWAL. Supv. Keith reported a renewal notice, usually paid for by individuals and municipalities by credit card, had surfaced on the Town Clerk’s computer. The Town of Franklin does not pay bills online by credit card. As the virus protection software expires in one week, she requested the Board make an exception to the Pre-Pay practice recommended by the NYS Comptroller’s Office. The Board concurred and authorized immediate payment to McAfee.
4. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. Those in attendance were asked for their comments:
Q/C This was a good debate and the issues were well presented.
Q/C Councilman Kretser referenced remarks made about engineering fees. I think you can find other local engineering firms to do this work for a lot less. Did any other firm have an opportunity to submit their estimates?
A Coun. Kretser responded that Earth Science Engineering was selected as engineer of the project in August 2007 by the building committee and Town Board. The project has been under review and downsizing since that time. No other requests for bids have been advertised in this phase of the project. However, neither Engineer Doug Ferris nor Architect Brian Burke have charged the Town fees for the downsized garage project.
A: Coun. Smalley added that first financing via the bond must be obtained; after that, ESE will advertise for bids from subcontractors.
Q/C Citizens of this town in the current economic condition are under tight budget constraint. There has to be a better way to do this. Taxpayers cannot afford this project. You and the taxpayers have to come to some agreement. Can’t you get more figures from another source?
A: Coun. Smalley responded that once the financing is in place, ESE will advertise for bids on different parts of the garage repair. Local sub-contractors will have an opportunity to bid, and hopefully, bids will be submitted lower than anticipated. People should recognize that because $532,000 is what is raised, there is no reason for that amount to be spent. If contractors are hungry enough, perhaps their charges will not be so high. However, you have to have a point to start from before going to competitive bidding. We are not there yet.
A: Coun. Smalley continued, opining $2.50 to $5.00 per month on a tax bill, which is not a great deal of money to move forward with the necessary work.
A: Supv. Keith added that interest rates are now lower, and contractors are anxious for work. Anyone can bid on the work except Town Board members. The Town is on the Stimulus Funding list and receives updates all the time. Most of the stimulus funding will be found in smaller amounts in many different places, and the Town will apply for as many grants as are available.
A: Coun. Smalley commented that the Board has been proactive in attempting to reduce the burden on taxpayers. The project has been downsized and bond amount reduced. Interest rates are lower and contractors need work.
A: Coun. Kretser noted that the Town is applying for grants through NYSERDA, which because of the added insulation and improved heating proposed, would qualify the project. The Town has one active funded grant and could realize additional funds. We must start. We’ve done all the homework required.
Q/C How is the Town’s credit rating? What is the interest rate? Will the bond be callable? That interest rate of 4.5% is pretty high, especially when savings is only at 1% or less.
A: Supv. Keith replied the Town’s credit rating was excellent, as its only indebtedness is for a plow truck. As to the rate of interest, that changes day to day, and once the status of the financing is known, the interest rate will be known. She added she did not know whether the bond would be callable, but would get that information from the Town’s bond counsel.
A: Coun. Smalley stated that information would be important and that she should obtain the information from the bond counsel as soon as possible.
A: Coun. Kretser commented that first, the resolution to bond must be adopted and then the Board could proceed. It is all part of a process.
Q/C It seems like the costs for consultants and engineers are disproportional to the project.
A Supv. Keith indicated the engineer and architect had not charge the Town for revising the garage project.
Q/C That proposal estimate for a metal building from Conroy & Conroy was high but it contained heating, electric, fan, interior heat, water and an oil separator for $450,000. If you had contacted them they would have provided a lower estimate. At board meetings you don’t allow input from the public. The Board should have gotten the message when that bond was voted down 3 to 1.
Q/C Listen to us. We want lower figures. Just do the basic repairs and bring it up to code.
Q/C Why do you have to borrow $532,000? If a bid comes in under that, borrow for the lower amount. Why can’t you borrow less? What about grant money?
A: Supv. Keith responded that the proceeds of grant funding would be applied to principal. The Board will not spend more than it needs to spend.
Q/C If you borrow this money and then get enough grant funding to pay the bond off, won’t you be penalized for early prepayment? And what grant do you still have?
A: Supv. Keith responded that procedures set forth in Town Finance Law must be followed. First, a baseline must be established, which it has. The engineer and architect have determined that $532,000 is an adequate amount of money to borrow to effect repairs to the Garage. The expansion has been removed from the project. The downsized garage repair will cost at the most $532,000. Please keep in mind this includes new insulation, a new heating and ventilation system and repair of the electrical system. The Town has been awarded $64,000 to replace the furnace in the Town Hall, as well as a new furnace for the Garage. As soon as we receive additional information from the Town’s bond counsel - including prepayment options - it will be made available to the public.
There being no further business to discuss or conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:06 PM. (M.Keith-W.Kretser m/s/p) ALL AYE
Respectfully submitted, Sandra J. Oliver, Town Clerk