Residents press Ballston board for answers after solar‑project letter on town letterhead

During privilege of the floor on June 9, multiple residents urged the Town Board to respond publicly to a recently distributed letter—printed on apparent Town letterhead and circulated by the Ballston Republican Committee—that discussed a privately negotiated resolution related to a proposed solar project and stated the Town's Building Department was not accepting solar applications.

Dan LeClair (Vienna Court) and a written submission from M. Gentile (attached to the minutes and read into the record as a late resident letter) asked the board to clarify whether any agreement with the developer (identified in the letter as Finlo Solar Power/Garth Ellms) had been discussed or negotiated in an open public session, whether the use of Town letterhead and distribution through a partisan committee was authorized, and what legal authority former Supervisor Eric Connolly had to participate in such negotiations. The written letter also asked whether the Town had formally voted to halt solar applications and raised a question about a reported $4,000 campaign contribution from the developer to a former supervisor, asking whether any conflicts of interest had been reviewed.

Supervisor John Antoski acknowledged receipt of a late resident email and said the letter would be attached to the meeting minutes. Councilman Michael Carota responded to one point directly, saying in the meeting that "a federal court vindicated this Town Board that they did follow the correct procedures with the cell tower," addressing a separate line of criticism raised by callers about past decisions. Board members did not announce an immediate formal investigation or vote on the solar‑letter questions during the meeting.

What residents asked for (as written in the submitted letter) included: (1) whether the agreement with the solar developer was discussed and voted on in open session in compliance with the Open Meetings Law; (2) why an announcement printed on apparent Town letterhead was circulated via a partisan committee rather than the official Town website and whether the Supervisor approved that distribution; (3) what legal authority, if any, former Supervisor Eric Connolly holds to negotiate on behalf of the Town; (4) whether any conflict‑of‑interest review occurred regarding a reported $4,000 contribution from the developer to a former supervisor; and (5) whether the Building Department has legally stopped accepting solar applications or whether that statement was unauthorized.

The board did not provide detailed answers on the record at the June 9 meeting beyond committing to attach the resident letter to the minutes and Carota's statement regarding the cell tower litigation outcome. Residents asked that the board respond publicly and transparently to the listed concerns.

Next steps: The resident letter will be attached to the minutes; members of the public asked the board to provide public responses to the five specific questions; the board did not schedule follow‑up responses during the meeting.