[0:08] Uh good evening folks. Uh welcome to the

[0:12] town board of the town of Red Hook Town

[0:16] Board meeting Tuesday, August 11th,

[0:19] 2026.

[0:21] Would I kindly request that you join me

[0:24] in the pledge of allegiance, please?

[0:27] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:30] United States of America and to the

[0:32] republic for which it stands, one nation

[0:35] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:38] justice for all.

[0:43] » Thank you. Good evening. And uh Suzanne,

[0:46] if you would be kind enough to head over

[0:48] to the big screen so we can show the

[0:50] folks at home what we'll be what what

[0:52] we'll be discussing tonight. Uh we're

[0:55] going to start off with uh as we always

[0:58] do for the first meeting of the month,

[0:59] the supervisor's report. That's a

[1:02] financial snapshot at any given moment.

[1:05] Uh the clerk's report as well. Tonight

[1:08] we have a public hearing on a topic that

[1:10] has been uh the matter of several uh

[1:14] agendas and meetings and that's the uh

[1:17] acquisition and disposition of water

[1:21] district surplus lots over in the Lynen

[1:24] Acres subdivision and the potential to

[1:27] acquire them with the town's community

[1:30] preservation fund uh programming.

[1:34] And uh we will have a public comment. I

[1:36] might make a slight suggestion tonight

[1:38] that we take public comment after I

[1:41] agenda item number one. Um because

[1:43] that'll be a segue right into that

[1:45] agenda item which is uh the discussion

[1:48] of potential resolution to authorize the

[1:50] sale of those surplus properties in the

[1:52] water district. Um and then we'll take

[1:55] public comment and then resolutions

[1:57] authorizing uh the sale of surplus items

[2:00] in the highway department. We're going

[2:02] to uh put one item up for auction and we

[2:05] are going to sell uh old van to uh red

[2:10] oak billing.

[2:12] We then have a resolution authorizing

[2:15] the town clerk to advertise a request

[2:17] for seal bids for the purchase of ice

[2:20] control abrasives asphalt and various

[2:23] materials. We do this each year, highway

[2:25] materials. Um we're going to discuss the

[2:28] bond resolution. You'll notice there are

[2:30] lengths in the bond resolution because

[2:32] it's not ready yet for prime time. Um

[2:36] we're going to continue some discussion

[2:38] on that aspen wall bridge. Um some good

[2:41] news related to that and decide whether

[2:43] or not we want to consider some

[2:45] alternative materials. If not, then we

[2:48] can go ahead and uh fill in and prepare

[2:51] resolution for a subsequent meeting. Um

[2:54] we have uh the annual uh auditor uh

[3:00] results and so we have our draft

[3:02] resolution to accept those audits.

[3:06] Uh number six uh we had um we had to do

[3:10] an emergency uh replacement of the roof

[3:13] in the annex here in the building and we

[3:15] had to take off the solar panels. we're

[3:18] about to put them back on and the solar

[3:20] developer uh basically said, you know,

[3:23] they're quite old, 13 years. You might

[3:25] want to consider putting half as many um

[3:28] on there and they produce the same

[3:30] amount of uh energy and you would have

[3:34] newer panels and safer um installation.

[3:37] So, we're going to take a look at that.

[3:39] Um we if you uh recall a couple years

[3:43] ago we got a grant for a drinking water

[3:46] source protection plan too. Um and so we

[3:50] developed that plan and that plan was

[3:53] finalized by the state bill help me

[3:56] remember maybe a year ago

[3:58] >> a little less than a year ago. Um we're

[4:01] now at the uh point at which uh we're

[4:04] going to take some next steps which is

[4:06] the implementation of the plan. So often

[4:08] times you hear us talk about plans and

[4:11] we're taking action related to a plan

[4:13] that was adopted either recently or

[4:16] several years ago. Um this is that

[4:18] process now where we're taking the

[4:20] second step which is implementation.

[4:23] Um we're going to continue discussion.

[4:25] We had a request for a cannabis expo um

[4:28] over at Greg Farm and so we got some

[4:31] additional information uh right away. by

[4:34] the way, um we've requested from upstate

[4:37] fines. And then uh Diana's going to talk

[4:40] to us for a moment uh near the end of

[4:43] the meeting about uh voluntary shelter

[4:46] contributions

[4:47] on dog license applications. This is a

[4:50] fairly new thing through Agon Markets as

[4:53] of last year, I believe, if I'm not

[4:55] mistaken.

[4:57] And so that's what we have uh for

[5:00] tonight's uh meeting. We've got some

[5:02] correspondence. And uh with that being

[5:06] said, apologies for being about 3 or 4

[5:08] minutes late on the public hearing. And

[5:11] Diana, would you be kind enough to uh

[5:14] read the notice for tonight's

[5:18] uh public hearing and we'll start with

[5:19] that. We'll come back for the

[5:21] supervisor's report, clerk's report.

[5:24] Notice of public hearing regarding

[5:26] disposition of town of Red Hook Water

[5:28] District number one surplus lots and

[5:30] acquisition under the town's community

[5:31] preservation fund program. Please take

[5:34] notice that a concurrent public hearings

[5:36] will be held by the town board of the

[5:38] town of Red Hook on August 11th, 2026 at

[5:41] 7:35 p.m. local time at the town hall

[5:44] 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York,

[5:47] pursuant to town law section 1981 to

[5:51] hear all interested persons regarding

[5:53] the disposition of vacant properties

[5:55] described below by the Town of Red Hook

[5:57] Water District. Number one, the parcels

[6:00] described below are owned by the town on

[6:02] behalf of the town of Red Hook water

[6:03] district number one water district and

[6:06] are proposed to be declared as surplus

[6:08] property unnecessary for the water

[6:09] district purposes. The proposed ter

[6:12] terms of sale are to be based on the

[6:14] estimated fair value of the water

[6:16] district parcels as determined by the

[6:18] town board on the basis of an appraisal

[6:20] with receipts to be credited to the

[6:21] water district. Please take further

[6:24] notice that a concurrent public hearing

[6:25] will be held at such time, date, and

[6:28] place pursuant to town's community

[6:30] preservation fund program to hear all

[6:33] interested persons regarding the

[6:34] acquisition of an interest or right in

[6:36] real property to preserve open space

[6:38] pursuant to section 247 of the general

[6:41] municipal law regarding the properties

[6:43] described below. The town proposes to

[6:46] purchase the parcels for purposes of

[6:47] preservation of open space including

[6:49] protection of wetlands. The parcels are

[6:52] collectively up collectively

[6:53] approximately 8.55 acres and are

[6:56] identified on applicable applicable tax

[6:59] maps as Aspen Mall circle

[7:02] 134889-6273-13-182357

[7:09] approximate acreage per tax map 3.2 2

[7:12] assessed value 6 $60,100

[7:15] 47 Albi Road 134889-627313186379

[7:22] 2 acres 577

[7:26] Aspen Mall Road 134889-627313188303

[7:32] 1.80 80 acres approximate $60,100

[7:37] 12 Chestnut Street 134889-627313214377

[7:44] 63 acres $34,800

[7:47] Aspen Wall Road 134889-627313156333

[7:54] 9.92

[7:56] acres $39,500.

[7:59] All interested all interested persons

[8:01] will be given an opportunity to be heard

[8:02] in person or by directing comments in

[8:04] writing to the town board, 7340 South

[8:07] Broadway, Red Hook, New York. All

[8:08] reasonable accommodations will be made

[8:10] for persons with disabilities. In such a

[8:11] case, please notify the town clerk in

[8:13] advance so that arrangements can be

[8:15] made. Please take further notice that

[8:17] copies of materials connected with this

[8:19] proposal are available for review at the

[8:21] town at the office of the town clerk at

[8:23] the Red Hook Town Hall, 74340 South

[8:26] Broadway, Red Hook, New York. By order

[8:28] of the town board of the town of Red

[8:29] Hook, dated June 24th, 2026. Diana

[8:32] Cochran, Town Clerk,

[8:34] Town of Red Hook.

[8:36] >> Thank you, Deanna. Appreciate that. Um

[8:39] many of you I think have been uh here at

[8:42] previous meetings so you know uh the

[8:45] area that we're discussing but in case

[8:47] you haven't been um we're talking about

[8:50] um the area off of Aspen Law and Albi

[8:55] Road um to help orient you. I will let

[8:58] you know that when you come in uh Park

[9:01] West over here on Lyndon, you have those

[9:04] stun done dust paths. The exit comes out

[9:08] around here and then you make your way

[9:11] to the blue trail over here if that's

[9:14] the way you want to come to uh the

[9:16] Winnick trails. Um these parcels that

[9:19] we're discussing tonight are 1 2 3 4 5.

[9:25] Um what's new since um we last met on

[9:28] this topic is we thought on this parcel

[9:31] here um that there was a right of first

[9:34] refusal that existed to the adjoining

[9:37] parcel owner. It turns out when we got

[9:40] title work back that actually that right

[9:43] did not extend to them. It was a right

[9:45] that did not run with the land. It was

[9:47] to the owners at the time and they are

[9:50] no longer the owner of that property.

[9:53] And so um there there won't be a

[9:56] conveyance um which seems to be fine

[9:58] with this adjoining land owner. They get

[10:00] a little strip here that they've been

[10:02] maintaining which they still get to

[10:04] maintain um because that did that

[10:07] easement did run with the land. So

[10:09] that's an update uh for folks um and who

[10:13] would like to uh speak uh on this topic.

[10:17] I'd like to make a motion to open the

[10:19] public hearing. Is there a second?

[10:20] >> Second. Thank you, Christina. All in

[10:23] favor? William.

[10:24] >> Hi,

[10:24] >> Jacob.

[10:25] >> Hi, myself. I

[10:27] >> I

[10:28] >> Thank you, Christina.

[10:30] >> Who would like to speak on this? Would

[10:31] anybody like to speak on this matter?

[10:33] >> Speak.

[10:38] My name is Al Treza, 77 West Curly

[10:41] Corners Road, New York.

[10:44] Um,

[10:45] Robert, the land is already in the name

[10:48] of the town. There is absolutely no

[10:50] legal justification

[10:53] for you to now offer for sale and buy it

[10:56] back. This is simply an opportunity for

[10:59] you to misuse community preservation

[11:02] funds to benefit the water district. And

[11:06] it's totally wrong. The water district

[11:08] does not own this property. The legal

[11:11] title is the name of the rental. You

[11:13] want to preserve it for open space,

[11:15] don't do anything with it. You've

[11:16] already done it.

[11:18] There's no rationale for this at all.

[11:21] And I'd like to have your attorney

[11:23] present so we can question him or her as

[11:26] to what the legal justification is. I'd

[11:29] like to have them present here with us

[11:31] tonight, not coming in by Zoom.

[11:34] So, I'd like to really know uh and like

[11:37] the public to know this is mere

[11:40] substitute to bail out the water

[11:42] district. It's wrong and you should not

[11:45] be doing this. And if the rest of you

[11:48] agree with him, you're also wrong. I'm

[11:51] looking at you, Jacob, and you, William.

[11:53] You already own the property. Do you

[11:57] really believe that it's legal or proper

[12:01] to do this? It's like you selling your

[12:03] house to yourself, will you?

[12:06] That's ridiculous. And you know that,

[12:09] and you shouldn't be doing it. Thank

[12:11] you.

[12:11] >> Steal.

[12:12] >> Thank you, Aral.

[12:14] Would anybody else like to speak on the

[12:17] topic?

[12:19] >> My name is Jeremy Cohen. I live in Lynen

[12:22] Acres. I've spoken at prior meetings

[12:24] supporting the uh the preservation of

[12:26] this space. The land is integral to the

[12:29] character of the community. Lynon Acres,

[12:31] if these were to be developed, would be

[12:32] no different than any other suburban

[12:34] strip uh subdivision.

[12:37] I understand that the gentleman has

[12:38] questions about the legality.

[12:42] I've heard at heart meetings the concept

[12:44] of a trustee and distinct

[12:47] >> on the

[12:47] >> distinct ownership. As long as uh the

[12:50] town is comfortable and um the lawyers

[12:53] are comfortable with that, I'm strongly

[12:54] in favor of preserving the space and

[12:56] urge you all to do so.

[12:58] >> Thank you, J.

[13:03] » Anybody else like to speak on this

[13:05] matter?

[13:10] » No.

[13:14] Okay. I know that we've had previous

[13:16] meetings and folks uh especially

[13:19] immediately surrounding the area have

[13:21] had an opportunity to speak up um uh

[13:24] many of them in favor of preserving the

[13:27] parcels. I did have a chance to meet

[13:29] with many of the joining land owners and

[13:31] I saw some of you out on the road there.

[13:34] Um

[13:36] and so it seems like there's quite a bit

[13:38] of support um within Lin acres to to go

[13:42] ahead and preserve these parcels. Um I

[13:45] would like to say that um this is very

[13:49] um consistent with some of the more

[13:52] recent projects we've done partnering

[13:55] with Winnie Land Trust to protect the

[13:58] lands adjoining the salail for the

[14:01] preservation of uh the wildlife. And I

[14:04] just want to read off um chapter

[14:08] community preservation

[14:10] um acceptable uses includes the

[14:13] following. A preservation of open space.

[14:16] B establishment of parks. Nature

[14:18] preserves for recreational areas. I

[14:21] think I read this at a previous meeting.

[14:23] Um C is agricultural. Uh D is scenic. E

[14:28] is preservation of freshwater and

[14:31] saltwater marshes and other wetlands. Um

[14:34] F is preservation of aquaer recharge

[14:37] areas. Um G is undeveloped beach lands

[14:41] or shoreline. Um H is wildlife refu

[14:45] refugees uh for the purpose of

[14:48] maintaining native animal species

[14:51] diversity including the protection of

[14:53] habitat essential to the recovery of

[14:55] rare threatened or endangered species.

[14:58] Um I is preservation of unique or

[15:01] threatened ecological areas. Um K is

[15:05] preservation of forested lands. L is

[15:08] preservation of public access to lands

[15:10] for public use including stream rights

[15:12] and waterways.

[15:14] Um M is historic places and N is

[15:18] undertaking any of the purposes of this

[15:21] subdivision in furtherance of the

[15:23] establishment of a green belt. And those

[15:27] are um the uses that are detailed in the

[15:29] code of community preservation.

[15:33] Um,

[15:35] I appreciate the thoughts. The the uh

[15:38] question has already been answered by

[15:40] our attorney at a previous meeting as it

[15:43] relates and in fact is referenced in the

[15:45] community preservation fund advisory

[15:48] committee uh recommendation report that

[15:52] in fact um the uh property is owned on

[15:57] behalf of the water district. We gave

[16:00] some other examples. Um the town

[16:03] acquired the street lights. Um some of

[16:06] the street lights belong to the town

[16:08] like everywhere in the park. Some of the

[16:09] street lights belong to uh the lighting

[16:13] district which is a separate entity like

[16:15] a sewer district or a water district.

[16:18] It's all owned in the name of the town

[16:21] on behalf of either the lighting

[16:23] district or the water district, sewer

[16:26] district, or in this case um on behalf

[16:29] of

[16:31] um

[16:33] >> Robert, not true. You own the property.

[16:36] You don't own it on behalf of anyone.

[16:40] There is nothing in the deed that says

[16:41] you own it on behalf of the water

[16:43] district. You own the property now.

[16:47] And I don't And you're right. You read

[16:49] what the community preservation funds

[16:51] can be used for. I'm not disagreeing

[16:52] with that. What I'm disagreeing with,

[16:54] you already own it. You already own it.

[16:58] You don't own it on behalf of the water

[17:00] district. The water district is simply a

[17:03] district created within the township.

[17:06] If they owned the property, it' be a

[17:08] different story. But it was never done

[17:09] that way.

[17:11] >> I was your attorney at the time of the

[17:12] transfer.

[17:14] >> The town owns the property.

[17:17] You cannot spend this money to buy

[17:20] property from yourself.

[17:22] You cannot use that subtrifuge. It's

[17:25] wrong.

[17:27] And I want to tell you something else.

[17:28] Is this a Is this

[17:32] Excuse me. Is this subject to permissive

[17:34] referendum with the spending of the town

[17:36] money?

[17:38] >> More do you have more comments that you

[17:40] >> I can't hear that.

[17:41] >> Do you have more comments? I want to

[17:43] know is it subject to a permissive

[17:45] referendum? Robert,

[17:46] >> public hearing is to hear what you said.

[17:49] Is it subject to a permissive

[17:51] referendum? Yes or no?

[17:55] >> You're not going to answer the question,

[17:56] Robert.

[17:57] >> Thank you, Albert.

[17:58] >> First call tomorrow is going to be to

[18:00] our attorney.

[18:01] >> Thank you, Alvin.

[18:02] >> Now, answer the question, please. Yes or

[18:05] no?

[18:05] >> Thank you. We'll make a determination if

[18:07] it's subject to permissive referendum.

[18:10] >> I can't hear you, Robert. Speak up. You

[18:11] will look at the resolution. When we get

[18:13] to the resolution, we'll discuss that.

[18:15] Do you have more comments for the public

[18:16] hearing on it?

[18:18] >> Robert, answer the question.

[18:20] >> Thank you. Anybody else?

[18:22] >> Answer the question, please.

[18:24] >> Is there anybody else who'd like to

[18:25] speak on the matter?

[18:26] >> Robert, I don't spend this money.

[18:29] >> This is the public hearing time. Thank

[18:30] you.

[18:31] >> We close it. I question for fine. Are

[18:33] there more comments from the public on

[18:36] the matter?

[18:42] All right. Um, let's uh shall we include

[18:48] in our review? We took a look at the

[18:52] secret documents one, two, and three.

[18:55] Does anybody have any questions about

[18:57] those in re-reviewing them? We have

[19:00] added to that we have a community

[19:02] preservation funds

[19:04] um advice on it. Um there was the

[19:07] question of ownership raised by one of

[19:09] the one of the members. There was the

[19:11] clarification

[19:13] um

[19:15] for the public's benefit.

[19:17] >> Before we have this conversation, should

[19:19] we close the public hearing?

[19:20] >> No, we don't have to close the public.

[19:22] No. If you'd like to make that motion,

[19:24] go ahead.

[19:25] >> I move to close the public hearing.

[19:27] Nobody else is

[19:28] >> I think we should leave it open.

[19:30] Is there is there

[19:31] >> I mean we could close it when we're done

[19:33] discussing it, but I mean

[19:35] >> is there a second on uh closing the

[19:37] public?

[19:42] » Okay,

[19:43] we'll leave it open. All right,

[19:48] for now uh so we we also received um the

[19:52] memo from the CPF advisory board. Um

[19:56] they spoke about who was in attendance.

[19:59] Um, I think they mentioned I was in

[20:00] attendance, but I really wasn't. I was

[20:02] in my office working. They did come in

[20:04] and have a question or two. Um,

[20:09] » that's not what I heard.

[20:12] You went in and convinced most of the

[20:15] people in that board to vote for this.

[20:18] >> Sorry. And I was asked a question about

[20:20] ownership. Okay. I gave my best answer

[20:22] and I went back to my office.

[20:24] >> That's not what I heard. Well, I'd be happy to have somebody come

[20:27] forward and and say otherwise. Um,

[20:32] so, uh, the question of ownership came

[20:34] up. Um, the committee confirmed with

[20:37] Chris Shaw, Esquire,

[20:40] not there when that happened. Town

[20:41] attorney that based on town's record,

[20:44] the parcels proposed for acquisition

[20:46] were formally owned by the Anandale

[20:48] Waterworks Corporation. It's a

[20:50] transportation corporation. For folks at

[20:53] home, if you don't know how it works in

[20:55] New York State, when a developer comes

[20:57] in, they need to provide their own water

[21:00] and sewer for a development, they they

[21:02] set up a transportation corporation. I'm

[21:05] sure somebody correct me if I get any

[21:06] details wrong. They have to own it for

[21:09] at least 5 years. Um, and then when they

[21:12] abandon it, it becomes an obligation of

[21:15] the municipality. So know that um that's

[21:18] something that could be coming down the

[21:20] pike with any u developments like that.

[21:25] It was transferred um uh the the assets

[21:29] were conveyed to the town for the

[21:31] benefit of it says it but I think they

[21:34] meant to say of the town water district

[21:37] number one. Michelle also explained that

[21:39] because a town water district is not a

[21:42] corporate entity, the town holds

[21:45] property on its behalf and must account

[21:48] for the proceeds of disposition to the

[21:51] water district. Just like we must

[21:54] account for

[21:56] certainly when we're creating the sewer

[21:58] district, we must account for all the

[22:00] funds related to the sewer and the

[22:03] lighting district. We must account for

[22:04] all the expenses associated with the

[22:06] lighting district and make sure that

[22:08] only those users benefit users. They're

[22:12] called special benefit assessment

[22:15] districts get charged for those uh

[22:18] expenses.

[22:20] Uh the question came up about the

[22:22] expense

[22:23] um and uh wanted to know what the

[22:26] balance is. The balance right now in the

[22:28] community preservation fund is

[22:30] approximately $3.7 million. So, this is

[22:34] going to be uh I would say 8%.

[22:38] >> Uh yeah. Well, we have it the resolution

[22:41] you'll see is for 222 for acquisition

[22:45] um plus expenses up.

[22:46] >> How did we get to those numbers?

[22:49] >> Well, you saw you saw the appraisals and

[22:51] the appraisals came out to 222.

[22:54] And so,

[22:55] >> can you show can you bring up the

[22:57] appraisals? Um, I don't have it up on

[22:59] the screen, but I did print out some

[23:01] hard copies again cuz

[23:04] maybe that would come out.

[23:08] So, we have the appraisals um

[23:13] broken up. There were two separate

[23:14] appraisals. As you know, we were

[23:16] initially looking at

[23:19] um appraising the four parcels because

[23:22] we didn't think that we were going to

[23:26] look at the fifth parcel. We're going to

[23:28] sell that to

[23:30] the joining land owner because they had

[23:32] expressed interest in exercising their

[23:34] right which is not um

[23:39] something that is

[23:43] a case.

[23:44] >> Well, what jumps out at me is that the

[23:47] one if you go to the packet um the the

[23:50] sheet that shows the wetlands.

[23:54] The

[23:54] >> wetlands. Sure.

[24:04] We have this one,

[24:07] >> right? So that so that the parcel that's

[24:10] not a wetland parcel,

[24:12] >> this one here.

[24:13] >> Yeah.

[24:13] >> Yep.

[24:14] >> So what what is the appraised value of

[24:16] that parcel?

[24:17] >> $122,000.

[24:22] And and just I I think just read the

[24:27] other the other four. What's the

[24:28] appraise value of the other four?

[24:30] >> 100,000.

[24:32] >> Sorry.

[24:32] >> 100,000. The five parcels total 222.

[24:50] doesn't seem like a lot for five parcels

[24:52] of land already subdivided. And I think

[24:55] I explained Board of Health tries to

[24:57] work with

[24:59] property owners when they have already

[25:02] subdivided parcels to,

[25:05] you know, in many cases you would you

[25:07] would know this, I'm sure, just going to

[25:09] be in your profession. In many cases,

[25:11] you have to

[25:14] do a above ground septic or something if

[25:17] you have to stay away from environmental

[25:21] constraints, but they try to work with

[25:23] property owners who have existing

[25:28] lots of record. So 222 doesn't seem like

[25:31] a lot of money to make to protect this

[25:37] region. And again,

[25:38] >> did we get one appraisal or two?

[25:40] >> We got two appraisal.

[25:43] Because we initially thought we were

[25:45] doing just the four parcels, then we had

[25:46] to get the fifth one.

[25:49] >> You want to protect it, Robert. Why

[25:50] doesn't the town board give them a licky

[25:53] land trust and conservation easement for

[25:55] nothing? And it's protected.

[26:03] » Answer your question,

[26:07] » folks. I think we've explained this. I I

[26:10] understand you may not be satisfied with

[26:12] the answer, but it's been explained by

[26:14] our attorneys and it's been explained at

[26:17] Nauseium. We have a fiduciary

[26:20] just like we do to the lighting

[26:22] district. We have to replace the lights.

[26:25] We have a fiduciary to the water

[26:27] district if we own something on their

[26:29] behalf to ensure that we are being fair

[26:34] to them as well as to the community

[26:37] preservation. Explain. Albert, I'm going

[26:40] to ask you to please

[26:42] >> Albert. I'm going to please ask you to

[26:44] not not interrupt. Okay? We're going to

[26:46] make it through here. We can just agree

[26:48] to disagree on this one. Okay? Our

[26:51] attorneys have already explained it.

[26:54] >> There are many instances when a town

[26:57] owns something on behalf of a special

[26:59] benefit assessment district.

[27:02] You know this. You you were a former

[27:04] town attorney.

[27:05] >> Okay. Couple questions. So the reason I

[27:10] was confused is because in the packet it

[27:13] it's

[27:14] emphasizing the assessed value like the

[27:17] tax.

[27:17] >> You list the parcel. You list the parcel

[27:19] number. You you list the assessed value.

[27:22] >> Interrupting her. Robert, let her

[27:24] finish.

[27:24] >> I'm answering her question, Albert.

[27:27] >> Yes. So you list the assessed value.

[27:30] Yeah.

[27:30] >> Correct. So So this was circulated a

[27:32] while ago in June.

[27:34] >> Yep.

[27:38] Where's the second assessment?

[27:41] Sorry, appraisal.

[27:42] >> Don't you have it there?

[27:44] >> These are both from

[27:47] >> Those are two separate

[27:49] >> from the same from the same company.

[27:52] >> How does that work?

[27:56] » What? I don't get it.

[27:59] We had an appraisal for the four

[28:01] parcels.

[28:03] When we realized we didn't have to offer

[28:06] the right to the adjoining land owner,

[28:09] we then asked them to also appraise the

[28:11] fifth parcel.

[28:13] >> But where's the only one appraisal?

[28:15] >> We don't get we don't get two sets of

[28:16] appraisal.

[28:17] >> Oh, that was what I asked.

[28:18] >> No, no, we don't.

[28:19] >> But yeah, we get one appraisal.

[28:22] >> Yeah, we don't we don't often get two sets of appraisals.

[28:26] I mean from other appraisers.

[28:29] >> No, I mean we we've had other issues. I

[28:32] thought um

[28:34] >> there's been other other issues that

[28:36] have come up. I thought we got two

[28:38] appraisals.

[28:40] >> No, we don't always in in a small a

[28:43] small thing like this. There's

[28:46] >> it's hard to get two appraisers these

[28:49] days. By the way, we wait months for

[28:50] that.

[28:52] I'm

[28:53] >> We don't always get to praise.

[28:56] >> Do we sometimes

[28:59] >> trying to remember? Um

[29:03] >> No, I don't I don't think so. I think we

[29:05] I don't think so.

[29:09] >> I don't I don't recall an instance where

[29:10] we've had two different appraisers. I

[29:13] mean, if you're not satisfied with the

[29:15] work, then sometimes you do get a second

[29:16] opinion.

[29:18] says the man marriage of a physician

[29:20] that you know people do.

[29:21] >> No, I I I appreciate that the that the

[29:24] lot that is buildable was appraised for

[29:27] a higher value than the other than the

[29:29] other lots. And I was confused because

[29:31] as I'm looking through the packet, which

[29:34] is what the public is seeing, we're

[29:36] looking at the assessed values and

[29:38] they're all kind of about the same. So

[29:41] that was that was confusing to me

[29:43] looking at this. Um

[29:44] >> Okay.

[29:46] And

[29:50] I think that um it's important to say

[29:54] that the reason that we're doing this is

[29:57] because the water district has been

[30:00] charging

[30:01] um

[30:03] lower rates for too long. And so this is to essentially bail out the um

[30:11] the close to 500 families that live in

[30:14] that in that district. And we've heard

[30:16] from people on multiple meetings and

[30:20] there's been support for this. So um

[30:24] I'm I'm not against it, but I think that

[30:26] it's like it needs to be clearly stated

[30:29] like what the goals are and why we're

[30:31] doing this.

[30:32] >> Sure. Well, I can't speak for others on

[30:34] the board, but I I couldn't disagree

[30:36] with you more. There's there's no

[30:39] bailout here. First of all, the dollar

[30:40] amount is not significant enough to be

[30:45] all that meaningful to the water rates

[30:48] that are necessary to uh pay for this

[30:51] capital upgrade. This is something that

[30:53] and that was the second question that I

[30:55] was going to ask actually was going to

[30:57] do this. Hang on a second. enough money

[31:00] to cover what the water district needs

[31:02] to to get back on top of its costs.

[31:07] >> Okay. So,

[31:10] if I could finish, we had the water

[31:14] board chairman come in here several

[31:17] months ago and explain that he has been

[31:21] for years saying that these are surplus

[31:24] properties. They don't need them. they

[31:26] would like to dispose of them. For

[31:29] years, he's been saying that there was

[31:31] no real reason to do it at any

[31:33] particular time. It seemed like when

[31:36] there was an upgrade that this would be

[31:38] a good time to do it. That it's that

[31:41] simple. It's not a bailout. We've heard

[31:45] very hyperbolic comments over here.

[31:48] We've heard scaring people into having

[31:50] two houses or something on properties.

[31:53] This is a This is a a suburban

[31:55] subdivision. There's nothing scary about

[31:57] two more houses where 100 already exist.

[32:01] And this is not a bailout.

[32:03] This is this district like the lighting

[32:06] district owns the lights. Even though we

[32:10] own it, the town on their behalf, it's a

[32:13] similar thing. They have made a decision

[32:15] that this would be the right time to

[32:17] dispose of these parcels. if we'll pay

[32:20] for 200

[32:22] net maybe $210,000

[32:26] of what we now know is a lower than

[32:28] expected project cost of $1.2 million or

[32:31] less. This is minuscule as it relates to

[32:36] the costs of operating um water district

[32:40] number one. So whether it's in or out,

[32:44] it's not going to make a significant

[32:45] difference. But we have an opportunity

[32:49] still as it turns out because we've

[32:52] delayed the borrowing till next week. So

[32:55] we have an opportunity to apply these

[32:58] funds as we know that they're coming

[33:00] since they've started the project

[33:02] already if we so choose to move forward.

[33:06] And I can't for the life of me

[33:09] understand why you wouldn't move

[33:10] forward, but um there you have it. There

[33:13] is no bailout. The water district and

[33:16] the water district rates will be just

[33:19] fine

[33:20] um in the ensuing years um with or

[33:24] without this. Oh, so now I'm even more

[33:27] confused though because um

[33:32] can you explain why we would spend 8% of

[33:37] our CPF funds on this land? Because what

[33:40] I heard from from every person almost

[33:44] that came up and spoke about this was

[33:46] that the people that live in this

[33:48] neighborhood,

[33:50] they don't want this land developed. So, the motivation was to say that we

[33:55] don't want this land sold. We don't

[33:57] want, you know, more density in our in our neighborhood. And we heard

[34:01] from

[34:02] >> whole bunch of people that lived in this

[34:05] um the surrounding area and and I mean

[34:08] that's what I that's what I heard. But

[34:09] it was almost confusion over what what

[34:12] the issue was, right? So the land

[34:15] >> never confusion with me. It might have

[34:17] been confusion with you. It was an

[34:19] opportunity to create a green space, a

[34:21] pocket green space.

[34:22] >> Robert, I'm a I'm an intelligent person.

[34:24] If I'm confused, other people are

[34:26] confused. So, I think that it's

[34:28] important to just say what what we're

[34:31] doing and why.

[34:34] I I I think you've reiterated, we've all

[34:37] reiterated, it's an opportunity to

[34:39] create a pocket green space in the

[34:41] middle of Lynen Acres where, you know,

[34:44] there is biodiversity and there's

[34:47] wetlands to protect and it's very

[34:49] consistent with a lot of the work that

[34:50] we've been doing.

[34:51] >> So, let me just finish because you

[34:54] mentioned 8%. And I'm not quite sure why that's significant, but um $222,000

[35:00] I think in the last 2 months that we've

[35:02] had collections, we've collected about

[35:04] $220,000

[35:05] in the CPF funds. So if it's 2 months

[35:08] worth of collections

[35:10] uh or thereabouts, seems to me like a a

[35:13] worthwhile cause. um once the CBF funds

[35:16] are used um then they can't be um the

[35:20] lands cannot be disposed of and um

[35:24] developed for residential use and that's

[35:26] what you know the folks we've heard from

[35:29] uh tonight but also in the previous

[35:32] meetings where we had more people here.

[35:34] So,

[35:35] >> um, all right. So, so to be clear, so

[35:38] the land is currently owned by

[35:42] >> the town.

[35:43] owns it on behalf of the water

[35:45] district.

[35:46] >> On behalf of the water district.

[35:47] >> Where where does it say it in the deed?

[35:51] >> It doesn't have to.

[35:52] >> Do you have children? Do you ever open a

[35:55] savings account for your kid?

[35:56] >> No. This is No, this is the This is what

[35:58] it is. If you open a savings account for

[36:01] your child, the bank is not going to let

[36:04] a minor open their own account. So you

[36:06] act as a trustee, but you have a

[36:08] fiduciary responsibility to manage that

[36:11] account on behalf of your child. This is

[36:14] the same thing.

[36:15] >> Yeah, but you're saying that it could be

[36:18] built on that could never happen unless

[36:20] this board agrees on it.

[36:22] >> Okay.

[36:23] >> The deed is in the town's name. Well,

[36:25] just to clarify, you don't

[36:29] this this board right now could put a

[36:31] conser we could talk to Santa C and DLC

[36:34] and put a conservation easement on that

[36:36] >> without buying it. I think it's a poor

[36:39] use of funds.

[36:40] >> No, that's fine. We have a fiduciary.

[36:42] Look, you may not be used to having a

[36:44] fiduciary to two separate entities, but

[36:47] we have it in this situation. We have it

[36:50] with the water district uh that we're

[36:52] about to create. We've had it with the

[36:53] sewer district that we created 2 years

[36:55] ago. We've had it with the lighting

[36:57] district which was created I don't know

[36:59] how many years ago but many years ago

[37:00] before me. We have a fiduciary to both.

[37:04] So when we purchased the street lights

[37:06] and you're going to see in the budget

[37:07] just how much money we've saved both

[37:10] town taxpayers and people in the

[37:12] lighting district because we transferred

[37:15] them all to LEDs and we own them and

[37:18] don't rent them from Central Hudson. We

[37:21] own them on behalf of the lighting

[37:22] district. We must account for those

[37:24] monies separately. They do not belong to

[37:27] us. Just because they're in our name

[37:30] doesn't mean that we don't have a

[37:31] fiduciary to uh the water district.

[37:35] Okay. I think we've batted this around

[37:38] long enough, right? We can just agree to

[37:41] disagree, right? And if you don't want

[37:44] to expend the funds to permanently

[37:46] protect, and by the way, you can't just

[37:50] go to Winni and say, "We want to put on

[37:53] this because it's going to require the

[37:55] input of the water uh uh district um in

[38:00] order to do so. And I don't think

[38:01] they're going to be very happy that they

[38:03] have an asset that has some value that

[38:06] you want to remove all the value because

[38:10] you would prefer that."

[38:11] >> Wait, what? Well, I'm going to I'm just

[38:13] I'm going to address that.

[38:16] Hank Van Parlles, who's the chair of who

[38:18] runs the water department and the water

[38:20] board, have repeatedly come to the town

[38:23] and said that these parcels since they

[38:26] discontinued the wells, they viewed them

[38:28] as an asset of the water department to

[38:31] be considered for disposition at some

[38:33] future date. They've been very clear

[38:34] about that in these meetings uh at their

[38:37] meetings that I've been present for

[38:39] because I'm the liazison and they view

[38:41] it as an asset as an opportunity and now

[38:43] they felt this was the right time to

[38:45] dispose of the asset. Now I this is the

[38:48] question I had for Al. You had said it's

[38:50] a bailout and so did you down there. If the water department if we as a town

[38:56] put them up for sale on the open market,

[38:58] would you still consider that a bailout?

[39:01] >> Absolutely not. put it on the open

[39:04] market. You're using community

[39:05] preservation funds to do my

[39:07] >> No, no. I'm talking about the issue of a

[39:09] bailout. The issue of a bailout is

[39:11] trying to save a financially struggling

[39:14] organization.

[39:14] >> Here, here's and here's my answer to

[39:16] you. You put it up for sale

[39:20] to the open market, which I think you

[39:22] should if you want to get rid of it.

[39:23] That's the proper way to do it. The

[39:25] money will go into the town's general

[39:27] fund, not into the water district fund.

[39:30] It is not owned by the water district

[39:32] and you are not a fiduciary

[39:34] responsibility. You own it. You are

[39:38] responsible for it. And in the lighting

[39:40] district, you set the rates. The problem

[39:44] here is the water department, our water

[39:47] district has been not properly managed

[39:50] on setting the rates and setting forth

[39:52] what's going to happen in the future.

[39:55] That's what's got me upset. These people

[39:58] need to pay for their district. Just

[40:01] like the lighting district pays for its

[40:03] district, the sewer district is going to

[40:05] pay for its district. Everybody pays.

[40:08] Look what happened in the village of Red

[40:09] Hook. Started out at 750 a year and now

[40:14] they've doubled

[40:15] because the sewer needs sewer district

[40:18] needs the money. And that is the reason

[40:22] I'm objecting to this. You own the

[40:24] property. Put it up for sale. put an

[40:26] internal fund, save the taxpayers some

[40:28] money, the rest of the taxpayers in the

[40:30] town, including those in the water

[40:33] district.

[40:34] >> Thank you.

[40:34] >> Now, that is why I'm objecting to this.

[40:37] >> Fair.

[40:37] enough.

[40:38] >> Thank you.

[40:39] And again, it's our

[40:42] attorney's view that's not possible to

[40:44] put it in the general fund.

[40:46] >> Okay.

[40:46] >> Um,

[40:47] >> wait. So, Bill,

[40:49] >> um,

[40:53] » so I I I think it just needs to be clear

[40:55] like what

[40:57] >> we're doing and I know you've spent a

[40:58] lot of time with the water uh board and

[41:02] we just approved recently

[41:05] um the rehab for the tank and we talked

[41:08] about that there the rates are too low

[41:10] like

[41:11] >> we raised the rates

[41:12] >> we correct

[41:15] >> I think this situation is a little

[41:17] unusual and that it's a confluence of

[41:19] two different issues. It's a confluence

[41:21] of the issue of the water department has

[41:23] an asset that it has viewed as money in

[41:26] the bank for some time and

[41:29] has made the decision that it believes

[41:32] this is a time to liquidate. But it's

[41:33] also a confluence because this is an

[41:35] environmentally sensitive area. It's

[41:38] primarily wetlands. Um, and it and I'll

[41:42] talk later about water source protection

[41:44] and about that report because the state

[41:46] department of health and DEC are very

[41:49] concerned about protecting our water and

[41:52] to the extent that you you are able to

[41:55] accomplish two things at once. That's

[41:57] why I think it's unusual. I I have to

[42:00] take the advice of our lawyers on

[42:02] whether it's legal or not because I'm

[42:03] not a lawyer. Um, and I, you know, I

[42:07] have done some research on the issue of

[42:08] being a fiduciary and and and trustees.

[42:12] Uh, there's a disagreement just because

[42:14] it says it in the D that it's the town.

[42:16] Um, my understanding is it was always

[42:18] set up that we're we act as their

[42:21] fiduciary. Um, and since I have a

[42:24] fiduciary responsibility to the water

[42:27] department and it's their asset, um, I I

[42:32] know I know Al disagrees, uh, but I I

[42:35] see this as a twofer actually. Um,

[42:38] >> I I could agree with you on the four

[42:42] properties that are potentially wetlands

[42:44] because I could, one could make the

[42:46] argument that they're not really going

[42:49] to sell on the open market because

[42:51] they're not buildable.

[42:52] And I hearing the people that spoke at prior meetings saying we don't want

[42:59] density in this area. We don't we we we

[43:02] value this open space. Like that makes

[43:06] sense to me. But the lot that is valued

[43:10] at what was it Robert? 100

[43:12] >> 120 Like

[43:16] why not sell that on the on the open

[43:18] market? Why not let a family buy that

[43:21] and and build a home there? Like I don't

[43:24] believe that it's going to devalue the

[43:25] neighborhood if you put one more house

[43:27] on the on the one buildable lot that is

[43:30] left. So that that doesn't make sense to

[43:33] me.

[43:35] >> Um I'm trying to think where that that

[43:42] » Ariel is.

[43:47] Oh, where is it written that we have a

[43:49] fiduciary?

[43:52] >> Is it written somewhere?

[43:53] >> Yeah, you can. Yes, you can look up.

[43:56] >> It's not on the D.

[43:59] >> Is it stated somewhere?

[44:01] >> You can look up special benefit

[44:03] assessment districts.

[44:04] >> Can you talk into the mic, Robert?

[44:06] >> Sorry. You can look up special benefit

[44:08] assessment districts and there's whole

[44:10] laws regarding that and our role with

[44:13] them. Well, why wasn't that presented to

[44:16] this board and to the people if

[44:20] >> Can you please explain this? The

[44:21] attorney was here to explain it, but

[44:24] let's see it in writing. Let's see the

[44:26] document that shows that.

[44:29] >> No, I agree. It's very confusing. Like I was so confused today looking at

[44:33] the packet because I'm looking at it

[44:34] going all the parcels are valued the

[44:37] same and we didn't include the

[44:39] appraisal. like I I just want to we I

[44:41] think it's very important that we tell

[44:43] the whole story completely and I and

[44:46] Bill I appreciate what you're saying

[44:47] that that um

[44:50] it's an asset to the water district that

[44:53] I mean that makes sense

[44:56] and and if that's true then

[45:00] um buying land that's unbuildable

[45:04] >> could be a a benefit to that to that uh

[45:08] to that district. But the buildable lot,

[45:11] I mean, that would sell for for more

[45:13] than

[45:15] 120 potentially. So So why are we buying

[45:18] that?

[45:18] >> Hang on. Hang on.

[45:22] You you're you're making these

[45:24] declaratory statements that are not

[45:26] helpful, Christina. That's not

[45:28] buildable. There are four lots there. We

[45:31] had our engineer again to help

[45:36] satisfy

[45:37] questions or concerns you had. We had

[45:39] our engineer look at these lots and what

[45:42] did she say

[45:44] >> that she she felt very comfortable

[45:46] saying

[45:47] >> two houses could could be constructed,

[45:49] right? She does. Okay. and she has

[45:51] experience in that. And we know that

[45:53] Department of Health likes to work with,

[45:56] you know, none of us have the crystal

[45:57] ball likes to work with each independent

[46:00] lot of records so that they can help the

[46:04] land owners understand how they can

[46:05] build a house. And sometimes it's one of

[46:07] those above ground septics that you

[46:10] raised bed septics that are expensive.

[46:12] Um, so that does devalue the parcel, but

[46:14] it doesn't necessarily mean that you

[46:16] can't build on those parcels. These are

[46:18] federal wetlands and I think we all know

[46:20] that they lack the protections that they

[46:23] did once upon a time. So again, we go

[46:27] back to where we are. Um I'd like to be

[46:31] able to get through the seeker. I think

[46:32] we've all sort of

[46:33] >> No, but I'm missing I I need to I need

[46:36] help like connecting logic because if if

[46:39] this is an asset to the water board

[46:42] >> bill like water district

[46:44] >> water district. Okay. If this is an

[46:45] asset to the water district, then we

[46:47] want to get the most out of that asset

[46:50] that we can given the feedback from the

[46:53] public, which is don't build on this

[46:56] land. Don't create more density. We

[46:58] value the open space.

[47:00] >> Well,

[47:02] that one lot

[47:04] >> I

[47:04] >> for for you have an opinion that it

[47:07] might be worth more than 122,000. I

[47:10] don't know necessarily that I would

[47:12] agree with you, but I'm not an expert

[47:14] either. Um, it has an easement on it,

[47:17] right? So, the the adjoining land owner

[47:19] can continue to use a portion of that.

[47:22] >> Yes, that that's been explained. We went

[47:24] over all of that

[47:26] >> previously.

[47:27] >> Um,

[47:28] >> and Christina, if it didn't have that

[47:29] easement, I'd be in agreement with you,

[47:31] >> but I think that's a complication that

[47:33] is

[47:34] >> guys, that's why we have a a

[47:37] >> would go to the town,

[47:38] >> right? If if the town bought it, then

[47:41] the easement would belong to the town.

[47:43] >> No.

[47:44] >> Carrie, please. No.

[47:46] >> What? What do you mean, please? You're treating me like you're treating

[47:49] Christine like it's not important what

[47:50] we're asking.

[47:52] >> It's an easement. It's an easement to

[47:54] maintain a portion of that parcel that

[47:56] does not go to the town. I explained

[47:58] earlier and I realized that you came in.

[48:00] Can you show I'm sorry. I explained

[48:03] earlier and I realized you came in late.

[48:04] I explained earlier that the easement

[48:07] the ements here the whole time and she

[48:10] doesn't understand that either. So,

[48:12] >> I don't think I missed anything.

[48:16] >> I'll see if I can get an aerial up and I

[48:18] can explain to you that there is an

[48:20] easement as I have in previous meetings

[48:22] where the adjoining land owner can

[48:26] maintain a portion of that property. I

[48:29] don't know that I would put Ariel here,

[48:33] but I can give you my best uh iterations

[48:37] over here. There's a triangle that

[48:39] exists. If you look at my cursor,

[48:42] >> Robert, I'm going to need to see like

[48:43] the language of the easement or or the

[48:46] >> title. The title report was shared. The

[48:49] title report was shared and it is the is

[48:52] not a means being title report was

[48:56] shared and it's maintained. I can show

[48:58] you on parcel access. This adjoining

[49:01] land owner is maintaining a triangle

[49:04] here that runs with the land. The right

[49:06] of first refusal, as I explained

[49:08] earlier, the title company reported does

[49:11] not exist.

[49:12] >> So, hold on. Let's let's just zoom out

[49:14] for a second. So, what are we trying to

[49:16] accomplish tonight?

[49:17] >> Tonight, we're going to entertain a

[49:19] resolution

[49:20] to uh dispose of and to acquire these

[49:24] parcels. We're now on month, I don't

[49:26] know what, um with this. And if we'd

[49:29] like to apply it towards the principal,

[49:32] we can figure out now that we've

[49:33] delayed. We're we're we're essentially

[49:35] we're having a closing on these on these

[49:37] parcels.

[49:39] >> Not tonight. We are entertaining the

[49:41] approval, but we need to get through a

[49:43] couple of steps.

[49:43] >> No, I I like I need to understand. So,

[49:46] um

[49:48] what are the next steps after this?

[49:51] It's going to come back before us or are

[49:53] we making a decision tonight whether

[49:55] we're going to buy?

[49:56] >> We need to get We need to just finish.

[49:59] Any questions on the seeker? Any

[50:02] questions about the workforce?

[50:04] >> These are things.

[50:05] >> Christina, did you read the resolution?

[50:07] >> I did. But you know what? I think that a

[50:09] lot of people are confused. And so what

[50:13] would be helpful is for us to summarize

[50:15] like just in plain language what we're

[50:16] doing.

[50:17] >> The parcels are surplus.

[50:19] >> We're looking to acquire them under the

[50:20] CPF to preserve them as open space.

[50:23] >> Yep. I think that's it. Is there is there more? Is there more?

[50:27] Well, yeah, because like if this is so

[50:30] my question was I mean this is a

[50:33] reasonable question like if we're buying

[50:35] these parcels, this is our real estate

[50:37] closing on these our our decision

[50:40] tonight is the last part of acquiring

[50:43] these parcels and we don't even have the language of the easement like

[50:49] >> you've been shared the title report.

[50:51] >> Yeah,

[50:52] >> that has all of them.

[50:55] >> Where is it? You've been hold

[50:59] >> you've been shared you've been shared

[51:01] the title workbook which which describes

[51:04] that if you look in the appraisal uh you

[51:06] can also see the mode area that has an

[51:09] area it's a it's about the line that I

[51:12] described

[51:13] >> well maybe it'll be helpful to

[51:14] understand what the basis of the

[51:15] easement is

[51:18] >> Kenny Kenny knows this cuz he used to

[51:19] drive

[51:21] it to the property

[51:23] >> you don't buy a property without looking

[51:25] at the language anguage of the land. I'm

[51:28] going to give you the plain language of

[51:29] the easement. Is that adjoining

[51:31] >> Can you speak up?

[51:32] >> The adjoining landowner has the right to

[51:35] continue to maintain this triangle here.

[51:38] You can even put up fencing.

[51:39] >> We can't you moving your mouse on the on

[51:42] the page is not like we're going to

[51:44] close on this land like like

[51:49] >> Okay.

[51:51] >> Germany, is this more you would like to contribute, please?

[51:55] >> Yeah. Yes, I do. I would like to um

[51:57] because I understand Christina's

[51:58] question and I think um

[52:00] >> could you talk into the mic?

[52:02] >> Sure.

[52:02] >> Thanks.

[52:03] >> I understand Christina's question. I

[52:05] also understand that there's a fair bit

[52:06] of ranker both within the town as well

[52:08] as within the board about other issues

[52:10] that have made it perhaps more difficult

[52:11] for everybody to communicate clearly and

[52:14] to believe that everybody is coming from

[52:15] the best of intentions. I think that

[52:18] everybody in this room loves this town.

[52:21] everybody including Robert, including

[52:23] William, including Ken, including Jacob,

[52:25] including Christina. Christina, I

[52:27] understand your question to be if

[52:29] there's a potential buildable lot, why

[52:32] sell to the community preservation fund

[52:34] if the if the land is owned in trust for

[52:38] the water district?

[52:40] What I would like to say is that I

[52:43] assume the appraisal has taken into

[52:45] account the conser excuse me the

[52:47] easement as well as all other relevant

[52:49] considerations within uh the context of

[52:51] the land and determining the appraised

[52:53] value of that land.

[52:55] As such, if you're looking to maximize

[52:58] the proceeds from the perspective of the

[53:00] water district as you're acting as

[53:02] trustee for it, I think it's perfectly

[53:04] appropriate then to rely on that

[53:06] appraisal. And the concern, the question

[53:09] that you were raising, I think is

[53:11] answered by that. And I understand the

[53:14] reason why you might have been

[53:15] frustrated by the response of some of

[53:17] the members of the board there, but I

[53:19] think that everybody is working towards

[53:20] the same thing there. And I think that's

[53:23] the how you square those two circles in

[53:26] conjunction with what Bill was saying in

[53:28] terms of being able to effectively kill

[53:30] two birds with one stone, which is

[53:32] maximizing proceeds for the water

[53:34] district as well as maintaining um and

[53:37] preserving land for the uh in

[53:39] furtherance of the purpose of the fund.

[53:43] >> Thank you, Jeremy. Okay. Uh folks, I

[53:46] want to get to the secret part of it.

[53:48] We've had um the only new additions has

[53:51] really been um the update as it relates

[53:54] to the ROFR

[53:57] um and um the CPF advisory. Uh we

[54:01] reviewed in previous meetings part one

[54:04] um we did a review of part two as well.

[54:07] Were there any questions um that you

[54:09] had? I didn't hear any. Um obviously the

[54:13] impacts are no or small. is not a

[54:16] development proposal.

[54:19] This a simple form.

[54:21] >> I was going to ask on the part three.

[54:23] I'm not looking for that yet. It's

[54:25] marked as the potential largest

[54:27] significant adverse impact.

[54:29] >> Yeah, that was the wrong boxes checked.

[54:32] I think we corrected that on our

[54:33] previous thing, but we should make sure

[54:35] that this one is corrected.

[54:48] Yeah, it's the wrong box, I think. Yeah,

[54:50] >> I get the person next door.

[55:08] » Yeah. So, we corrected on the last one.

[55:10] Let's make sure this looks like

[55:12] didn't have that 76.

[55:16] It's not correction number.

[55:20] » The other thing that's not correct is

[55:23] this application.

[55:27] It says all the parcels are federal,

[55:30] >> right? And that was the other uh and it

[55:32] was that since we increased the the

[55:35] application to be a fifth parcel.

[55:39] Um

[55:40] it says federal wetlands run through

[55:42] each parcel. We should clarify that to

[55:45] say um run through

[55:48] uh the four parcels.

[55:52] Maybe you could bring your mic closer to

[55:54] your mouth

[55:55] >> because I know you're just talking to

[55:56] each other, but we'd like to hear. I'm

[55:59] sorry. It's really hard to hear you out.

[56:01] >> Sorry.

[56:03] >> Just make sure the application

[56:06] uh clearly states that now that there's

[56:08] a fifth parcel, the federal wetlands run

[56:11] through four of the parcels as mapped.

[56:16] It says C maps provided. Um, description

[56:20] of property, former well site. The town

[56:22] wishes to purchase the parcels for water

[56:24] resource protection. No current or

[56:27] future plans.

[56:30] Uh, it would be entrusted if this were

[56:33] to be voted upon tonight and then closed

[56:36] on by CPF funds and could not be sold

[56:39] for development in the future. And there

[56:42] will be a pocket green space in the

[56:44] middle of London acres.

[56:47] Um so for part three of the description

[56:50] wait let's just see if we get through

[56:52] part three please Christine if you have

[56:54] questions related to that

[56:56] >> um for each of the 11 impact assessment

[56:59] >> maybe if you put the microphone closer

[57:01] to your mouth

[57:02] >> you having a hard time hearing me

[57:04] >> I am

[57:05] >> okay

[57:10] » for each of the 11 and I'll get to that

[57:12] so you can read it while I

[57:27] There we go. In case you can't hear me,

[57:29] this is what I'm reading from. For each

[57:31] of the 11 impact assessment questions in

[57:33] part two, all answers were no impacts.

[57:35] The action is the addition of five

[57:37] undeveloped parcels of land forming a

[57:40] collection of parcels that as a group

[57:41] are contiguous with Red Hooks Recreation

[57:44] Park West and the Winnie Land Trust Inc.

[57:47] So Sale Trails Preserve. No development

[57:50] is proposed on the parcel. Since the

[57:52] parcels but lands used for passive

[57:54] recreation activities like trail walking

[57:56] and bicycling, connections with existing

[57:59] trails may occur in the future. The

[58:02] parcels contain extensive wetland and

[58:04] flood plane areas. According to

[58:06] Hudsonia, which surveyed the adjoining

[58:08] Winnick lands, the area's wetlands

[58:10] generally are important for amphibian

[58:13] breeding and support several bird and

[58:15] reptile species of greatest conservation

[58:18] need. No trail development activities

[58:20] will occur without further environmental

[58:22] assessment and if needed, obtaining

[58:24] permits from appropriate state and

[58:26] federal agencies. According to uh state

[58:29] parks and wreck and historic

[58:32] preservation Chris database, no

[58:34] prehistoric or historic cultural

[58:36] resources are associated with the five

[58:39] parcels nor with any of the lands that

[58:41] adjoin the parcels. Web mapping

[58:44] databases of the New York State

[58:45] Department of Environmental Conservation

[58:48] were query to determine if any state

[58:50] records exist related to the five

[58:52] parcels, including the Hudson Valley

[58:55] Natural Resource Mapper and the DEC info

[58:58] Locator. None were identified. The

[59:00] parcels have significance to water

[59:02] quality because two tributaries of the

[59:05] sockill flow through four of the five

[59:07] parcels.

[59:09] The salt kill is a source of drinking

[59:10] water to approximately 2,800 persons

[59:13] downstream. Prime farmland soils exist

[59:16] in some areas. Riparian buffers follow

[59:19] the outlines of the two tributaries and

[59:22] contiguous habitats exist linking the

[59:24] parcels with the town parkland and the

[59:27] Winnick land trust preserve parcels.

[59:30] Finally, no adverse impacts on the water

[59:33] district are expected because the

[59:34] parcels are no longer used for the

[59:36] district's wells and may not be a

[59:38] suitable location for new wells under

[59:40] current regulations.

[59:44] And um the box is checked for if you

[59:49] have determined based on the information

[59:51] and analysis above and any supporting

[59:54] documentation that the proposed action

[59:56] will not result in any significant

[59:58] adverse environmental impacts. The

[1:00:01] mapper is included as part three

[1:00:05] for the ND deck. Any questions about the

[1:00:07] narrative there? I think that clarifies

[1:00:10] some of the questions about four out of

[1:00:12] five parcels.

[1:00:13] >> Yep.

[1:00:13] >> Okay. Yeah, I'm just saying that the

[1:00:15] application that we submitted.

[1:00:17] >> Can you talk into your mic? I It's just

[1:00:18] I'm having the hardest time hearing the

[1:00:20] people.

[1:00:21] >> Okay.

[1:00:22] >> No, I'm talking about Bill. I don't know

[1:00:23] what you just said.

[1:00:24] >> I don't know if the volume is low. Bill,

[1:00:26] if you want to grab that.

[1:00:28] >> If you just move them closer to

[1:00:30] yourselves.

[1:00:32] >> Okay.

[1:00:33] Uh what I said is in the application for

[1:00:37] the CPF

[1:00:39] it states incorrectly that wetlands run

[1:00:42] through all five parcels and I said we

[1:00:44] have to correct that.

[1:00:46] Okay. So we'll clarify federal redlands

[1:00:49] as it's described in the seeker run

[1:00:52] through the four parcels as mapped

[1:00:55] now that we are looking at five parcels.

[1:01:00] Okay, that that changes made as well.

[1:01:06] Uh we have reviewed the CPF advisory

[1:01:11] committee's recommendation.

[1:01:14] Um

[1:01:18] the majority spoke in favor of the

[1:01:21] purchase.

[1:01:24] I think I've read um the long list of

[1:01:27] acceptable uses of the funds. many of

[1:01:30] the categories are relevant um and

[1:01:33] explain why we've used CPF funds for

[1:01:36] adjoining Winnick land trust lands. I

[1:01:38] think Kenny we use some CPF funds to

[1:01:42] acquire

[1:01:44] >> um

[1:01:46] prop properties owned by by your uncle

[1:01:48] there and the Wy land trust for state

[1:01:52] water preservation on the south co

[1:01:54] there.

[1:01:56] Um

[1:01:58] all right. Is there anything? We still

[1:02:01] have a public hearing open.

[1:02:04] Um

[1:02:08] » close it stands.

[1:02:09] >> It stands. All right. Do you want to

[1:02:10] deal with um a vote on the neck deck?

[1:02:14] Shall we?

[1:02:18] » I don't think we have a resolution. We

[1:02:20] do. Well, the neg itself is is a is a

[1:02:23] resolution. Yeah.

[1:02:26] So I I have a question.

[1:02:28] >> Sure.

[1:02:29] >> So I'm reading from the meeting uh the

[1:02:31] CPF meeting.

[1:02:33] >> Yeah.

[1:02:34] >> And it states

[1:02:36] that

[1:02:37] parcels proposed for half years old.

[1:02:40] >> Hey Kenny, can you bring your mic

[1:02:41] closer?

[1:02:44] >> Parcel. This is

[1:02:53] Anyway,

[1:03:03] uh were formerly owned by Anendelle

[1:03:06] Waterworks Corporation, a transportation

[1:03:08] corporation, and were conveyed to the

[1:03:10] town for the benefit if I think that's a

[1:03:14] typo, of the water district. So, how

[1:03:18] were they conveyed?

[1:03:20] I mean, how do you convey it from the

[1:03:22] Anenddale Water Works Corporation to the

[1:03:25] town water district? And now, uh, the

[1:03:29] town holds them on behalf of the water

[1:03:32] district. So, all I'm asking for is

[1:03:34] where I would like to see the document

[1:03:37] that shows these, how they were

[1:03:40] conveyed, and and

[1:03:41] >> I I think that those documents exist in

[1:03:44] the clerk's office. I think in 1903 or

[1:03:47] so. Uh

[1:03:49] going off of recollection.

[1:03:51] >> So I just want to see the legal document

[1:03:54] and I think that should have been

[1:03:57] you know brought up months ago so we

[1:04:00] could see the connection between the

[1:04:01] town and the water district.

[1:04:06] » Okay. I I I think it's been explained. I

[1:04:09] know it's been explained and I see it in

[1:04:11] writing where where it's in the document

[1:04:14] of the you know you said it's somewhere

[1:04:16] in the town and it says

[1:04:19] Chris said it so why can't we

[1:04:22] >> I think we've talked about it for months

[1:04:23] Kenny if you if you wanted to see that

[1:04:25] document I think it's appropriate that

[1:04:28] maybe you had asked for it months ago

[1:04:30] we've explained that it it is owned by

[1:04:32] the town right it's not in dispute on

[1:04:34] behalf of the water district I feel like

[1:04:37] we're just wasting a lot time. What is

[1:04:40] the So, I I'll tell you this. I'm I'm in support of the neg.

[1:04:46] >> Okay.

[1:04:46] >> Um

[1:04:47] >> so, let's see if we can get that

[1:04:48] accomplished.

[1:04:49] >> All right. But but what is what is the um timeline here? What what

[1:04:54] >> the time is if we'd like to if we'd like

[1:04:56] to apply it to the rehab project, we

[1:04:58] should vote on

[1:04:59] >> Exactly. So, this is part This is this

[1:05:02] money is needed for the rehab project,

[1:05:04] which is why I said it's a

[1:05:06] >> if we It is not a bailout. I mean,

[1:05:08] that's really

[1:05:09] >> It's not neat. It just lowers the debt

[1:05:11] for everybody else.

[1:05:12] >> It's not It's really not appropriate. I

[1:05:14] mean, you know, get your sensational

[1:05:17] headline that you want to get your, you

[1:05:19] know, if that's what you'd like. Can you

[1:05:20] answer

[1:05:20] >> I'd like to continue to move I'd like to

[1:05:23] continue to move forward with the work

[1:05:25] of the town, please. Well, I I'm I

[1:05:27] >> You can vote. You can vote no project.

[1:05:30] If you if you

[1:05:30] >> I will tell you that I'm I am likely in

[1:05:33] support of the purchase if we have all

[1:05:37] of the information and if I can

[1:05:39] understand all of all the information,

[1:05:43] which I currently don't.

[1:05:44] >> Okay.

[1:05:44] >> So, I I can't I I will support the NED

[1:05:46] deck, but I can't vote on this tonight

[1:05:48] because um I I don't have information on

[1:05:52] the on the easement. I mean, Kenny made

[1:05:54] a good point. You you've been sent the

[1:05:56] information on the easement.

[1:05:58] >> Well, I mean, we're not

[1:06:00] >> The public doesn't know. Why isn't it

[1:06:02] not in the title? The title report is an

[1:06:06] extensive title.

[1:06:07] >> We're sitting here. Then then let's go

[1:06:09] through it.

[1:06:10] >> We're not going to go through a 60 some

[1:06:12] odd page.

[1:06:13] >> Sorry.

[1:06:15] >> We're not going to It's a title. It's a

[1:06:16] full title report. Um the language of

[1:06:19] the easement is within that large

[1:06:21] document.

[1:06:22] Um, we've explained it to you. We've

[1:06:25] done this in previous meetings. We

[1:06:27] showed you exactly where the easement

[1:06:28] was. We showed you the aerial. I feel

[1:06:31] like we're just reiterating the same

[1:06:33] thing.

[1:06:33] >> No, I mean, we tal I I we did talk about

[1:06:36] the easement, but I haven't seen any

[1:06:38] language.

[1:06:41] >> Yes, you were sent the title report

[1:06:42] which includes the language of the

[1:06:44] easement.

[1:06:45] >> Let's just look at it.

[1:06:48] >> What What would it change for? What

[1:06:49] would it change for? Yeah.

[1:06:52] Well, I'd like to see like I don't I

[1:06:54] besides Robert moving his mouse on the

[1:06:56] screen, I don't know where the actual

[1:06:58] Eastman is. I mean, Kenny said he knows

[1:07:01] from living in in the area that there

[1:07:04] used to be a driveway there. We talked

[1:07:05] about that at a few meetings, but like I

[1:07:08] would like to see the boundaries of the property and understand

[1:07:14] how much of it is an easement and and

[1:07:17] how much of it is buildable because it I

[1:07:19] mean it affects the value of of the land

[1:07:21] just like we're looking at like a

[1:07:23] wetlands map. If we're just talking that

[1:07:25] okay, there's wetlands and we don't know

[1:07:27] where the wetlands are. We didn't I mean

[1:07:32] the whole thing is very loose to me. We

[1:07:34] didn't get the wetlands flagged. We

[1:07:36] don't have two appraisals. And can

[1:07:38] anybody back me up that we just talked

[1:07:40] about another property that we were

[1:07:43] getting two appraisals for?

[1:07:45] >> Bill,

[1:07:47] >> Jacob, Ken, I mean, did we not talk

[1:07:50] about this recently?

[1:07:52] >> I'm not sure.

[1:07:53] >> Yeah. I don't I don't know what you're

[1:07:54] talking about.

[1:07:54] >> I really don't know what you're talking

[1:07:55] about.

[1:07:56] >> Like, do you like what do you know what

[1:07:58] it is? Are you just like do you have

[1:08:01] something in mind that you're trying to

[1:08:02] like

[1:08:03] >> talk about but you're not talking about?

[1:08:05] >> Uh yes. I mean there I I can't I can't

[1:08:09] say things that we talked about in

[1:08:10] executive session but there were there

[1:08:12] were other properties that we talked

[1:08:14] about getting two appraisals for.

[1:08:16] >> Okay. Um

[1:08:17] >> I mean am I crazy?

[1:08:19] >> I I just think you're mistaken. I don't

[1:08:21] think you're crazy. Um here's here's the

[1:08:23] aerial. Okay. The easement language in

[1:08:27] plain terms allows them to continue to

[1:08:29] mow and maintain the area that they

[1:08:32] >> That's partial access. That's not That's

[1:08:34] not easement language.

[1:08:36] >> That is the language in making dis.

[1:08:39] >> You could actually see it on paral see

[1:08:41] it on parcel access

[1:08:42] >> part that's green.

[1:08:45] >> Come on. You would never

[1:08:49] >> I guess I don't understand what

[1:08:51] >> this is. This is the way it was written.

[1:08:52] We would not write it this way. This is

[1:08:55] the way it was written years ago. It was

[1:08:57] written between the developer and the

[1:08:59] adjoining land owner. We would maybe

[1:09:01] have meets and bounds, but that's not

[1:09:03] the way it was written. Okay? And so,

[1:09:06] >> truthfully, I am not trying to be

[1:09:08] difficult. I I do not think that we have

[1:09:12] you would never

[1:09:13] >> you would never sign all the closing

[1:09:15] papers for this property if you don't

[1:09:18] have this information in front of you. I

[1:09:20] have I have the information

[1:09:22] >> to say that you sent an email and it was

[1:09:24] circulated.

[1:09:26] >> No, like you gota you gota

[1:09:30] >> Okay, we

[1:09:31] >> it's unclear.

[1:09:32] >> Let's let's see what steps we can make.

[1:09:34] You you you've said you uh

[1:09:36] >> seeker So we have a NEG deck um

[1:09:40] proposal as drafted as modified with the

[1:09:45] uh the change there. Um, who would like

[1:09:48] to make a motion to

[1:09:51] uh approve a negation?

[1:09:53] >> I will make a motion to approve the ND

[1:09:55] deck on the speaker.

[1:09:56] >> Okay. Who would like to second?

[1:09:58] >> I'll second.

[1:09:59] >> Thank you. Is there further discussion

[1:10:02] on the negative?

[1:10:03] >> Okay. All in favor? Kenny.

[1:10:06] >> Hi,

[1:10:07] >> William.

[1:10:08] >> Hi,

[1:10:08] >> myself. I Jacob.

[1:10:10] >> Hi.

[1:10:11] >> Christina.

[1:10:12] >> Hi.

[1:10:12] >> Okay. So, we've got an egg deck, got a

[1:10:15] referral,

[1:10:17] we've discussed

[1:10:21] a couple of things that not everybody is

[1:10:24] happy with the explanation.

[1:10:26] Um,

[1:10:28] that's the way the world works. Not

[1:10:31] everybody is happy with explanations.

[1:10:33] We've, I think, spent a lot of time on

[1:10:35] this.

[1:10:36] >> We've spent many months on this issue.

[1:10:39] We've discussed these parcels

[1:10:41] adnauseium. We've discussed the purpose

[1:10:44] of these parcels that it was a two birds with one stone type of a

[1:10:50] situation and here we are. Um and if

[1:10:55] you're in favor of the project, it would

[1:10:58] be nice to know so that we can go ahead

[1:11:00] and entertain

[1:11:02] um

[1:11:04] uh a resolution which we have drafted.

[1:11:08] It's now 8:45. We have a lot of business

[1:11:11] in front of the board. Um,

[1:11:15] >> can't do that till we close the public

[1:11:17] hearing.

[1:11:17] >> Yes, sir. Would you like to make that

[1:11:19] motion?

[1:11:19] >> I'll just continue the motion they made

[1:11:21] previously to close the public.

[1:11:23] >> I'll second your motion.

[1:11:24] >> Thank you.

[1:11:26] >> Um,

[1:11:27] further discussion about that? All in

[1:11:30] favor? Kenny.

[1:11:32] >> I.

[1:11:32] >> William.

[1:11:33] >> I.

[1:11:33] >> Myself. I. Jacob.

[1:11:35] >> Hi,

[1:11:36] >> Christina.

[1:11:36] >> Hi.

[1:11:39] All right. So, the resolution

[1:11:43] is for the town's potential acquisition.

[1:11:47] It's authorizing the disposition of the

[1:11:50] water district number one surplus lots

[1:11:53] and acquisition. So, it's a twofer in

[1:11:56] the resolution

[1:11:58] under the town's community preservation

[1:12:00] program. I'm going to read the

[1:12:01] resolution. Whereas the town of Red Hook

[1:12:04] on behalf of the town of the water

[1:12:05] district owns parcels located in Red

[1:12:08] Hook identified on applicable tax maps

[1:12:12] that been read to you before

[1:12:14] collectively totaling approximately 8

[1:12:16] and 12 acres. Whereas the surplus water

[1:12:19] district parcels are vacant parcels

[1:12:21] formerly the site of water source wells

[1:12:24] which the water district's water board

[1:12:26] has determined are unneeded for purpose

[1:12:28] of the water district. Whereas the

[1:12:30] proposed terms of sale are based upon

[1:12:33] the estimated fair value of the surplus

[1:12:36] water district parcels and the estimated

[1:12:38] fair value is 222,000.

[1:12:41] The public hearing was duly held by the

[1:12:43] town board on the 11th day of August at

[1:12:45] 7:35. a town hall in accordance with

[1:12:49] town law and discussion on the matter

[1:12:51] having been had and all persons desiring

[1:12:53] to be heard having been heard including

[1:12:56] those in favor of and those in

[1:12:58] opposition regarding the disposition.

[1:13:00] Whereas pursuant to chapter 57 of the

[1:13:03] town code, the town board has

[1:13:05] established a community preservation

[1:13:07] fund

[1:13:09] and uh the project plan and the board

[1:13:12] has referred the application to the

[1:13:14] advisory committee duly appointed by the

[1:13:17] board for review of such application and

[1:13:20] rating according to the program criteria

[1:13:22] established under the plan. taking into

[1:13:24] account the importance of the resource

[1:13:27] and the anticipated availability of

[1:13:29] funding by others and availability of

[1:13:31] funding under the town's community

[1:13:33] preservation fund program. Whereas the

[1:13:36] town has recognized in its plan adopted

[1:13:39] pursuant to chapter 57 that the open

[1:13:42] space is vital to the future social,

[1:13:44] economic and environmental health of the

[1:13:47] town. And whereas pursuant to the town

[1:13:49] CPF program, the town is proposing to

[1:13:52] purchase the surplus water district

[1:13:54] parcels for the purpose of preserving

[1:13:56] open space including wetland areas. And

[1:14:00] whereas the surplus water district

[1:14:02] parcels were identified in the CPF plan

[1:14:05] as a high priority for preservation

[1:14:07] based on ecologically significant areas

[1:14:10] and significant biodiversity areas.

[1:14:13] Whereas in concurrent public hearing was

[1:14:15] duly held by the town board on the 11th

[1:14:18] day of August 2026 at 7:35 prevailing

[1:14:22] time at the town hall in the town in

[1:14:25] accordance with section 575 of the town

[1:14:28] vote and section 247 of the GML and

[1:14:32] discussion on the matter having been had

[1:14:34] and all persons desiring to be heard

[1:14:37] having been heard including those in

[1:14:39] favor of and those in opposition

[1:14:41] regarding the acquisition of an interest

[1:14:43] or right in real property to preserve

[1:14:46] open space with respect to the surplus

[1:14:49] water district parcels, including use of

[1:14:52] monies from the CPF fund. And whereas

[1:14:54] the community preservation funding

[1:14:56] advisory committee has reviewed the

[1:14:58] proposed acquisition of the surplus

[1:15:01] parcels based on the priority ranking

[1:15:04] set forth in the CPF plan and provided

[1:15:07] its findings dated July 22nd.

[1:15:10] sufficient monies are available in the

[1:15:12] fund. Whereas on May 27th, the town

[1:15:15] board adopted a negative declaration

[1:15:17] under secret determining that the

[1:15:19] proposed disposition of the surplus

[1:15:21] parcels and the acquisition from the

[1:15:23] community preservation fund will not

[1:15:25] have a significant adverse effect. Um

[1:15:29] therefore be resolved. the town board

[1:15:32] uh by the favorable vote of not less

[1:15:34] than the majority finds that the surplus

[1:15:37] water district parcels are unneeded for

[1:15:39] the purposes of the water district and

[1:15:41] that the disposition of the surplus

[1:15:43] water district parcels on the proposed

[1:15:45] terms of sale is in the best interest of

[1:15:48] the town. The town board finds that the

[1:15:51] acquisition of the water district

[1:15:52] parcels is consistent with the town's

[1:15:55] community preservation fund project plan

[1:15:57] and will preserve open space including

[1:15:59] wetland areas on the water district

[1:16:01] parcels and that acquisition is the best

[1:16:04] alternative for the protection of

[1:16:05] community character of all the

[1:16:07] reasonable alternatives available to the

[1:16:10] town. The town board approves the

[1:16:12] disposition of the surplus water

[1:16:14] district parcels for purchase of price

[1:16:17] of 222,000

[1:16:19] and the expenditure of community

[1:16:21] preservation fund monies in an amount

[1:16:23] not to exceed $240,000

[1:16:26] for the acquisition of water district

[1:16:28] parcels and related costs.

[1:16:32] the supervisor or in his absence, the

[1:16:34] deputy is hereby authorized and directed

[1:16:37] to execute such deeds and conveyance

[1:16:39] instruments as are consistent with this

[1:16:42] resolution. Officers, employees, and

[1:16:45] agents of the town are hereby authorized

[1:16:47] and directed for in the name and behalf

[1:16:49] of the town to do all acts and things as

[1:16:52] may be necessary or in the opinion of

[1:16:54] the officer, employee or agent acting

[1:16:57] desirable and proper to affect purposes

[1:17:00] of the forebe resolution.

[1:17:04] So that's the resolution.

[1:17:08] We have spent many meetings on this. I

[1:17:11] realize that not everybody is

[1:17:17] completely satisfied on some of the

[1:17:19] answers. That is the way it goes

[1:17:23] sometimes.

[1:17:27] I think it's important to uh protect

[1:17:29] these parcels for that green space for

[1:17:32] the area. There's nothing we've done in

[1:17:35] the town of Red Hope that's been a

[1:17:37] leader in protecting green space for our

[1:17:40] community. It is the economic driver of

[1:17:43] this town. The people move here and

[1:17:46] invest here because of the quality of

[1:17:48] life. We have an opportunity to once

[1:17:50] again to enhance the quality of life in

[1:17:54] this particular neighborhood and we find

[1:17:56] ourselves doing it in each and every

[1:17:58] neighborhood uh throughout the town. And

[1:18:01] so, um, I'm, uh, ready to entertain this

[1:18:06] resolution, and I know that not

[1:18:10] everybody may be at this time. Um,

[1:18:16] thoughts? You do have a resolution. What

[1:18:18] number would it be, Deanna?

[1:18:20] >> 40.

[1:18:22] >> I just find it frustrating. I think that

[1:18:25] it like things could be a lot easier if

[1:18:28] we were just kind of working together

[1:18:31] and um like I earn like I want to

[1:18:35] support this but I I feel like I'm

[1:18:38] hitting a roadblock when I ask questions

[1:18:40] about it and as somebody who's elected

[1:18:44] to represent people I imagine like if I

[1:18:47] have questions about it other people

[1:18:49] have questions about it right like it's

[1:18:51] >> well I I hope you see that I I can't

[1:18:54] speak for any other board members. I

[1:18:56] think we've tried to answer your

[1:18:58] questions, Christina. I mean, you you may have questions well beyond the

[1:19:03] time of acquisition of these parcels,

[1:19:05] but at some point we do have to

[1:19:08] >> feel like you answered my question.

[1:19:10] >> I appreciate that. I did say

[1:19:13] >> not everybody may feel their questions

[1:19:15] have been answered to the degree. I

[1:19:17] would suggest, however, if you have

[1:19:20] additional questions that you want,

[1:19:24] please give us give me some more time.

[1:19:27] If you had a question about a form that

[1:19:29] was actually in there or a memo that was

[1:19:31] actually in in the document where it

[1:19:33] was, give us time, not at the meeting to

[1:19:36] say, "Oh, can you can you go get this or

[1:19:38] go get that?" We've been talking about

[1:19:39] this for months. So if you have

[1:19:41] questions, I would encourage you to

[1:19:43] maybe develop that list of questions a

[1:19:45] little sooner so that I mean we are on

[1:19:47] probably 10 months of this. I don't

[1:19:50] know. I'm I'm just putting it out there.

[1:19:52] Something like 10 months for for the

[1:19:54] acquisition of these parcels. So I think

[1:19:57] that if there's if you give the list of

[1:20:00] questions, we'll do we'll do the best

[1:20:01] that we can. But recognize our job is to

[1:20:04] advance the interests of the township.

[1:20:06] It isn't necessarily to answer all the

[1:20:09] questions that you have. though we are

[1:20:10] trying to do that.

[1:20:11] >> Oh, I I wholeheartedly disagree when

[1:20:14] there's when there's questions.

[1:20:17] >> I I hope you see that we're trying to

[1:20:20] >> I hope you see we're trying to get you

[1:20:22] the answers to the questions that you

[1:20:23] have, but we don't know what questions

[1:20:25] are going to come up. And at some point,

[1:20:27] we do have to take action. in in in the

[1:20:30] 10 years that I was on the planning

[1:20:31] board, when there was a question, you

[1:20:34] can't think of everything about every

[1:20:36] project all the time, but when there was

[1:20:37] a question and somebody on the board

[1:20:39] would say, "Oh, what like what was that

[1:20:41] thing about the thing?" We would pull it

[1:20:43] up. We would pull it out of the file and

[1:20:45] be like, "Oh, I here's the answer."

[1:20:47] >> I I I think I

[1:20:49] >> No, you haven't given the answers. And

[1:20:51] like that's frustrating to me

[1:20:53] >> because I I think that I'm asking very

[1:20:55] basic questions.

[1:20:56] >> Yeah. Well, I I did my best to try to

[1:20:59] answer those questions, but if if I can

[1:21:02] after tonight as well, I'd be happy to resend you things. I reprinted things

[1:21:07] out for you. I mean, I can't at some

[1:21:09] point I I work for everybody. So, I I

[1:21:12] need to I need to continue to advance

[1:21:15] the progress in this community. So, I

[1:21:17] think 10 months, lots of questions, a

[1:21:20] lot of repetition, some of the comments

[1:21:22] that people have made.

[1:21:24] I I'm ready. I'm ready to take action on

[1:21:27] this. I don't know how others feel.

[1:21:30] >> Is that a motion?

[1:21:32] >> Sounds like a motion. Uh I'd like to

[1:21:36] move resolution number 40, please, as uh

[1:21:41] both described and um

[1:21:46] and shown

[1:21:47] >> the layout zone for the water department

[1:21:50] and water district. I will second that.

[1:21:53] Okay. on their bad.

[1:21:56] >> I hesitate to say further discussion,

[1:21:58] but I'm going to say further discussion.

[1:22:03] » Okay. If not, all in favor? Kenny?

[1:22:10] >> Nay.

[1:22:10] >> All right. William,

[1:22:12] >> hi.

[1:22:13] >> Myself,

[1:22:14] >> I. Jacob,

[1:22:15] >> hi.

[1:22:15] >> Christina,

[1:22:16] >> nay.

[1:22:17] >> Okay. Uh, the resolution passes. Thank

[1:22:22] you very much. Thank you all

[1:22:23] >> talking to the mic.

[1:22:24] >> Thank you all who attended

[1:22:27] um not only tonight's public hearing but

[1:22:30] all the previous meetings um as you see

[1:22:34] uh democracy has both people in favor of

[1:22:38] and against uh certain matters. I I will

[1:22:41] remind everybody the most contentious

[1:22:44] thing still to this date that occurred

[1:22:46] in the town of Red Hook as documented

[1:22:49] was the CPF was also now 20 years later

[1:22:54] probably the most transformative. Um it

[1:22:57] was put to public referendum as required

[1:22:59] by law and passed by I think it was 33

[1:23:03] votes. um timing being uh what it was

[1:23:07] with the real estate uh crash of 2007,

[1:23:11] without CPF, we would not have uh the

[1:23:14] ability to protect um much of the

[1:23:17] farmland, certainly on West Curly

[1:23:19] Corner, as we heard from uh Mr. Treza

[1:23:22] tonight. We were fortunate enough to be

[1:23:24] able to partner with him um protecting

[1:23:27] uh that farm and adjoining familyowned

[1:23:31] farms. Um Mr.

[1:23:33] rally as well. Um, many farmer

[1:23:38] >> I I'm explaining

[1:23:39] >> I'm driving to the city at 3:00 a.m.

[1:23:41] tomorrow. So,

[1:23:42] >> I I agree with you. I'd like I'd like

[1:23:44] our meetings to to run as well.

[1:23:46] >> We're done with this as well.

[1:23:47] >> Let's go. Let's move on, please.

[1:23:49] >> Okay.

[1:23:50] >> Thank you.

[1:23:51] >> Uh, with that said, um, our next item on

[1:23:55] the agenda, oh, we're going to take some

[1:23:56] public comments.

[1:23:59] Who would like to make some general

[1:24:01] public comments tonight? And thank you

[1:24:03] all for coming. Um Roxan, if you would

[1:24:06] be kind enough to.

[1:24:09] >> Roxan Fishiser, Barry Town.

[1:24:12] >> Thank you.

[1:24:12] >> I am informing the board and the public

[1:24:15] that I have received formal confirmation

[1:24:18] from the office of the New York State

[1:24:21] Controller acknowledging receipt of my

[1:24:24] fourth supplemental complaint. This

[1:24:27] formal submission to Chief Auditor James

[1:24:30] Letainer's team documents a persistent

[1:24:34] pattern of fiscal impropriy,

[1:24:37] statutory non-compliance,

[1:24:40] and compounding municipal waste. In his

[1:24:44] July 17th coverage with Daily Catch,

[1:24:47] Supervisor McKeen admitted his intent to

[1:24:50] divert open space revenue, stating

[1:24:54] verbatim, "When we conclude the final

[1:24:57] two elements of the Cookingham project,

[1:24:59] we will have not because that we

[1:25:01] intended to, we will have made enough

[1:25:05] already on Cookingham so much so much

[1:25:08] money on that project. we will have paid

[1:25:11] for not only these legal fees but any

[1:25:14] ensuing legal fees. To be clear, under

[1:25:18] New York State town law section 64H,

[1:25:23] CPF funds are restricted solely for open

[1:25:27] space preservation, not a slush fund for

[1:25:31] general litigation and court defeats.

[1:25:34] Furthermore, on June 25th, Justice Rosa

[1:25:38] handed this town its second major court

[1:25:41] defeat, striking down local laws B and C

[1:25:45] for continuous seeker non-compliance.

[1:25:49] In spite of multiple multiple lawsuits,

[1:25:53] our foils to the town have not yielded

[1:25:57] any invoices for 2026,

[1:26:01] which must mean that there are

[1:26:04] skyrocketing costs from our legal

[1:26:08] partners for multiple lawsuits. Finally,

[1:26:11] the board continues to ignore

[1:26:13] insurmountable realities. restrictive

[1:26:16] deed covenants barring public parks and

[1:26:20] an open active CSX rail line bordering

[1:26:24] the access route. No amount of money can

[1:26:28] offset the catastrophic safety liability

[1:26:32] of routing public park traffic alongside

[1:26:35] active train tracks. Council member

[1:26:38] Duchon was entirely correct when she

[1:26:41] noted on the record the total lack of

[1:26:44] basic planning behind this project. The

[1:26:47] current 32 block is squandering public

[1:26:50] money on an unviable project. But 32

[1:26:56] majorities are not set in stone. Tonight

[1:26:59] I appeal to Hamilton Tester. You have

[1:27:02] seen the court rulings, the mounting

[1:27:05] legal bills. You know the severe

[1:27:07] liability risks of the site. Continuing

[1:27:11] down this path exposes our town to

[1:27:14] continuous financial and legal jeopardy.

[1:27:18] Step forward,

[1:27:20] re-examine the facts, and vote to resend

[1:27:23] your previous authorization for these

[1:27:26] eminent domain proceedings. Restore

[1:27:29] fiscal integrity to Red Hook.

[1:27:32] >> Thank you, Roxan. Would anybody else

[1:27:34] like to make some public comments?

[1:27:42] » Lisa Polo Alresent West Corner Road.

[1:27:45] Lisa Polo was unable to stay. She had

[1:27:47] other meetings tonight. She asked me to

[1:27:49] read this on her behalf. At the July

[1:27:52] 14th board meeting, many of us witnessed

[1:27:55] unprofessional behavior by council

[1:27:57] member Jacob Testa directed at council

[1:27:59] member Christina Duchon. That behavior

[1:28:02] was also the subject of a fair number of

[1:28:04] social media comments. Councilman

[1:28:08] council member Tester repeatedly

[1:28:10] interrupted her spoke in harsh and

[1:28:12] raised tone and turned his back on her

[1:28:14] while she was speaking.

[1:28:17] When council member Duchon requested to

[1:28:20] serve as a point person for

[1:28:22] communications regarding a recently

[1:28:24] filed lawsuit, council member Tester

[1:28:26] accused her of being biased in favor of

[1:28:28] the Poke Club. accusing a fellow board

[1:28:32] member of bias simply because she

[1:28:33] unapologetically

[1:28:35] listens to her constituents and is a

[1:28:38] blatant double standard.

[1:28:40] Uh by that same logic, council member

[1:28:44] Tester's consistent voting record

[1:28:46] against the vote club demonstrates his

[1:28:48] own undeniable pre-existing bias. What

[1:28:51] council member Tester characterized as

[1:28:53] bias is in fact the desire of most of

[1:28:56] the community and we applaud council

[1:28:59] member Ducharm's comm commitment to

[1:29:01] speaking on behalf of the constituents.

[1:29:04] We have witnessed similar behavior by

[1:29:06] the supervisor. You will recall his

[1:29:08] condescending tone to a very capable and

[1:29:10] highly regarded highway superintendent

[1:29:12] as he disputed her wellressearched

[1:29:15] vehicle recommendations and lectured her

[1:29:18] on following procedure

[1:29:20] procurement procedures. How ironic. At

[1:29:23] the same time behind the scenes he was

[1:29:25] engaged in multiple law firms. He was

[1:29:28] engaging multiple law firms without

[1:29:30] following proper approval procedures.

[1:29:32] and many of us recall his dismissive and

[1:29:35] exclusionary treatment by the former

[1:29:37] town clerk and deputy town clerk. One

[1:29:40] might notice a common theme among the

[1:29:42] targets of such behavior.

[1:29:44] Councilman Tester, that is not the

[1:29:46] behavior you should want to emulate.

[1:29:49] Not only is it disrespectful and

[1:29:52] unprofessional, but is certainly

[1:29:54] unbecoming of an associate dean of civil

[1:29:56] rights. Disagreement is a natural and

[1:30:00] healthy part of local governance, but

[1:30:02] berating a colleague, cutting off

[1:30:05] debate, and using hostile behavior is

[1:30:08] completely unbecoming of an elected

[1:30:10] official representing this town. The

[1:30:13] residents of this town deserve a town

[1:30:15] board that treats each other with

[1:30:17] dignity and basic courtesy. The conduct

[1:30:20] we witness sets a dangerous precedent

[1:30:22] for how business is conducted in this

[1:30:24] hall. Respectfully submitted, Lisa

[1:30:26] Polar. Thank you.

[1:30:30] >> Well, would you like to make some

[1:30:31] remarks?

[1:30:32] >> Absolutely.

[1:30:34] >> Wait a minute. I got one more. Go ahead.

[1:30:36] I'll ask my own question here.

[1:30:43] » Folks, if we could, we'd like to keep it

[1:30:45] to 15 minutes as as we

[1:30:48] >> paid time.

[1:30:49] >> Thank you,

[1:30:50] >> Mr. Tesla, Mr. Hamill.

[1:30:54] Without town water approval, you have

[1:30:56] been parties along with the dictator

[1:31:01] to the illegal squandering of local

[1:31:03] taxpayers money to the sum of $300,000.

[1:31:09] Shame. Shame.

[1:31:13] How much more has been spent by the

[1:31:15] dictator

[1:31:16] without global approval?

[1:31:21] Shame. Shame.

[1:31:23] I believe this money could have been

[1:31:25] better spent by the residents for their

[1:31:27] personal needs. The board of elections

[1:31:30] has a total count of $862

[1:31:36] voters in the town of Red Oak.

[1:31:39] This $300,000

[1:31:41] expense paid for by taxpaying voting

[1:31:44] residents, people you'll be talking to

[1:31:47] in the next year

[1:31:50] if you want to run back run again.

[1:31:53] may be allocated as follows. Registered

[1:31:57] Democrats 144,510

[1:32:01] 48.17%.

[1:32:05] Registered Republicans 59,280

[1:32:09] 19.76%.

[1:32:12] Other enrollments

[1:32:15] $96,210.327%.

[1:32:22] Residents deserve open government honest

[1:32:25] representation.

[1:32:30] Majority rule, not the past practice of

[1:32:34] hidden inexecutive session perpetuated

[1:32:37] by the dictator.

[1:32:40] afraid to let the consultants hear

[1:32:44] discussion and compromise and the truth.

[1:32:47] Mr. Dictator,

[1:32:49] shame, shame, shame all of you.

[1:32:53] >> Thank you.

[1:32:58] » Sorry. Thank you.

[1:32:59] >> Anybody else like to make some comments?

[1:33:01] >> I'd like to make a comment on my own

[1:33:02] behalf.

[1:33:05] For the last year, Robert, you and Bill

[1:33:07] and uh Jacob have indicated that it is

[1:33:10] your position that the the majority of

[1:33:14] the town is in favor of your eminent

[1:33:15] domain proceeding. At the last meeting,

[1:33:18] Christina made a motion to hold a public

[1:33:21] referendum. Well, and you all voted no,

[1:33:25] the three of you. I don't understand it.

[1:33:28] If you believe that the resid residents

[1:33:31] of this town are in your behind you in

[1:33:33] this matter on eminent domain, why not

[1:33:35] hold a public resolution? Show us that

[1:33:38] you're right.

[1:33:39] Show us that you're correct. Quite

[1:33:42] frankly, I don't agree with you because

[1:33:43] I think no matter what your station in

[1:33:45] life is, what your political persuasion

[1:33:48] may be, whatever your personal feelings

[1:33:51] may be, people really resent a

[1:33:55] government taking and stripping people

[1:33:57] of their property rights. But I'd like

[1:34:00] you to reconsider your thoughts. Not

[1:34:02] this meeting. Christina, I'd ask next

[1:34:03] meeting to make the motion again. Let's

[1:34:06] see if you guys can reconsider and show

[1:34:08] us that you really believe that the

[1:34:10] public is behind you. And as far as the

[1:34:12] cost is, it's nominal. You've already

[1:34:14] spent $300,000 fooling around with

[1:34:17] lawsuits and now you got four of them,

[1:34:19] five of them pending right now. So a few

[1:34:22] thousand to hold a public referendum is

[1:34:25] peanuts in this matter. Show us you're

[1:34:27] right. Show us you're correct. Robert,

[1:34:30] Bill, Jacob, that the town is behind

[1:34:32] you. Vote for a resol. vote for the

[1:34:34] permissive referendum and let's find

[1:34:36] out. Thank you.

[1:34:37] >> Thank you. Okay, we'll take one more.

[1:34:40] Thank you, Carrie.

[1:34:42] >> Carrie Kitner, Barrytown, New York. Um,

[1:34:45] actually, um, uh, Al

[1:34:49] covered what I wanted to say. I had

[1:34:51] heard that there was a motion for a

[1:34:53] referendum. And actually, I hate to

[1:34:57] point at you, Jacob, after you've been

[1:35:00] uh kind of pointed at already, but uh I

[1:35:03] know that you and I share being

[1:35:05] democratic socialists. And um I think

[1:35:09] your reason for wanting the vote club is

[1:35:13] because you think it should belong to

[1:35:15] everyone.

[1:35:16] Um but that's just socialism. That's not

[1:35:21] democratic socialism, which is really

[1:35:23] different.

[1:35:24] Socialism is when a powerful government

[1:35:27] takes things from the people and decides

[1:35:30] for them how it should work. Democratic

[1:35:33] socialism is allowing a democracy

[1:35:37] to decide and that is the people. So you

[1:35:42] can't be for democratic socialism and

[1:35:45] vote against a resolution that is

[1:35:47] dividing this town in a way that is

[1:35:51] breaking my heart. We started with the

[1:35:54] pledge of allegiance and when I was

[1:35:56] thinking about socialism I was like oh

[1:35:58] yeah a lot of people think of socialism

[1:36:00] because we grew up with the USSR but

[1:36:03] that was never socialism. That was

[1:36:05] communism and oligarchy and powerful

[1:36:08] government. um real socialism is

[1:36:12] actually for the people. And then when

[1:36:15] we were talking about the United States

[1:36:17] of America, I think about how that's not

[1:36:20] really true anymore in so many ways. And

[1:36:22] we're not the United States anymore.

[1:36:25] We're like the divided states. And I

[1:36:27] feel like it's happening here in our

[1:36:30] town. And it's really distressing.

[1:36:33] And so as a democratic socialist and

[1:36:37] that means that I'm for social security

[1:36:40] and public schools but I am not

[1:36:43] fortaking

[1:36:44] from a collective which this I mean you

[1:36:47] know this group this boat club number

[1:36:49] one I'm for social clubs this is a

[1:36:53] social club and I think people should be

[1:36:56] allowed to have clubs and they are

[1:36:58] they're a little community of a hundred

[1:37:03] families. So that's hundreds of people

[1:37:05] sharing two acres of land and you want

[1:37:08] to take it for everyone like it it's a

[1:37:10] limited resource you know like

[1:37:12] healthcare that's a big resource and

[1:37:16] schools it's like for everyone this is

[1:37:19] not for everyone this is this is for

[1:37:21] like people who have motorboats so

[1:37:24] anyway just want to say as a democratic

[1:37:27] socialist to another democratic

[1:37:28] socialist

[1:37:30] please let's have a referendum let it be

[1:37:32] a democracy proceed.

[1:37:34] >> Thank you.

[1:37:39] » We're going to get on with the agenda. I

[1:37:40] just want to remind you all just the

[1:37:42] rules of decorum for our meetings are

[1:37:45] such please do not target your comments

[1:37:48] to any individual board member. The

[1:37:51] comments are for the board as a whole.

[1:37:55] Um and we ask that you not

[1:37:58] >> I'm sorry. I didn't know that.

[1:38:01] >> Yeah.

[1:38:02] >> Sorry. But it's okay.

[1:38:04] >> I think that there have been things that

[1:38:05] have been misrepresented tonight. I

[1:38:06] don't feel like fighting it, but thank

[1:38:07] you for your comments.

[1:38:09] >> Okay, let us move on, shall we?

[1:38:15] >> In furtherance

[1:38:17] to the supervisor's report, let's go

[1:38:19] back. Um, we heard we heard some

[1:38:21] comments. Well, folks folks are gone.

[1:38:24] Um,

[1:38:26] already working on next year's budget.

[1:38:28] very happy to talk about uh the finances

[1:38:32] of the town of Red Hook and

[1:38:36] how taxes are lower than they were a

[1:38:38] decade ago and we've got 90 plus

[1:38:41] projects completed. Um the

[1:38:46] snapshot is for the period ending July

[1:38:51] 31st.

[1:38:53] I will put my signature on this when you

[1:38:56] make a motion to accept. Uh we started

[1:38:58] the month with an opening balance of

[1:39:00] 11.5 million at receipts of 856,000

[1:39:06] dispersements of 88,000.

[1:39:08] We have a balance of 11,597,000

[1:39:14] and change. you have as part of your

[1:39:17] packet some uh budget adjustments

[1:39:20] prepared by an Conway.

[1:39:23] Um

[1:39:25] any questions you have on that, please

[1:39:27] let me know. Um and

[1:39:32] you have your variance report as you do

[1:39:34] each and every month showing where we

[1:39:37] stand versus budget for each one of the

[1:39:40] accounts.

[1:39:41] Any

[1:39:43] questions? Board members 913

[1:39:47] at night.

[1:39:51] » If not, who would like to make a motion

[1:39:53] to accept the supervisor's report?

[1:39:56] >> Kenny.

[1:39:59] >> Sure.

[1:40:00] >> Okay.

[1:40:01] >> Second.

[1:40:04] » Jacob. A second.

[1:40:06] >> Um, all in favor? William.

[1:40:09] >> Christina. Five.

[1:40:11] >> Five. Um, Diana, could I impose upon you

[1:40:14] to do the clerk's report? Then we'll

[1:40:16] move to agenda items.

[1:40:17] >> Town clerk's report for the period July

[1:40:19] 1st through July 31st, 2026. Amount paid

[1:40:23] to the town of Red Hook, $7,670.60.

[1:40:27] Amount paid to New York State

[1:40:29] Agriculture and Markets for the Spay

[1:40:30] Neuter Program, $39. Amount paid to New

[1:40:33] York State Department of Health for

[1:40:34] marriage licenses, $45. Amount paid to

[1:40:37] New York State Environmental

[1:40:38] Conservation for hunting and fishing

[1:40:40] license $198.40.

[1:40:43] Total state, county, and local revenue

[1:40:45] $7,953.

[1:40:49] And I hereby certify that vouchers

[1:40:52] number 35127 to 35222

[1:40:55] processed in the month of July 2026 or

[1:40:58] an accurate reporting of the abstracts

[1:40:59] approved for payment by the town board.

[1:41:04] » Okay.

[1:41:05] Motion to accept the court report.

[1:41:08] >> Second

[1:41:09] bill got in there before Christina. All

[1:41:12] in favor Christina.

[1:41:14] >> I

[1:41:16] myself I Jacob.

[1:41:19] >> Okay, let's go.

[1:41:27] » We're going to skip around. We're going

[1:41:28] to skip around since we don't have our

[1:41:31] highway super um with us tonight. Um,

[1:41:36] we do have

[1:41:42] We're going to go to water first.

[1:41:44] >> Sorry, David. I'm going to go to water

[1:41:46] first. They they got here oily. Um,

[1:41:51] >> so uh item number seven, drinking water

[1:41:55] source protection plan two, next steps.

[1:41:59] Um, I think I sort of described a little

[1:42:02] bit of where we are. Who wants to talk

[1:42:05] first?

[1:42:07] >> Maybe it's appropriate that I do since I

[1:42:10] was the designated town board member.

[1:42:13] >> Okay, I'm going to step away for one

[1:42:15] minute.

[1:42:16] >> All right, I'll keep talking.

[1:42:18] >> You keep talking. Thank you. Okay. So,

[1:42:20] the New York State Department of Health

[1:42:22] and Department of Environmental

[1:42:24] Conservation have a program called uh

[1:42:27] water source protection. And what it is they like to work with municipalities

[1:42:33] um to find ways to protect our water

[1:42:36] sources. And

[1:42:39] you work with them to come up with a

[1:42:41] plan that the primary focus is to look

[1:42:44] for the things that are your contaminant

[1:42:46] potential contaminants of water.

[1:42:49] And um

[1:42:52] we've been at this for a while. We

[1:42:54] finally have a finalized report. right

[1:42:55] now at this maybe 3 years um to give a

[1:42:59] finalized report and and the the benefit

[1:43:02] of this finalized report is now the town

[1:43:04] of Red Oak has access to certain uh

[1:43:08] state assets. um not just grants but um

[1:43:13] they have staff that help do certain

[1:43:16] things and um they make certain um

[1:43:21] certain things available to the

[1:43:22] municipalities that have this this plan

[1:43:25] and I don't want to get too much because

[1:43:27] the plans are really long. Um, but I

[1:43:29] think what's important is in the plan

[1:43:32] and it goes to what we just voted on

[1:43:35] regarding the CPF fund acquisition of

[1:43:38] those parcels,

[1:43:40] there's a in the plan, it's made of part

[1:43:42] of the public document, there's a series

[1:43:44] of maps and there's a map that has a

[1:43:47] list of parcels that the state has

[1:43:49] determined would be ideal for the town

[1:43:52] to acquire to protect the water for the

[1:43:56] town. And most of those parcels sort of

[1:43:59] reside along the Sill Creek, which is a

[1:44:01] major water source for the town. And

[1:44:05] they didn't know at the time that they

[1:44:07] finalize this cuz it has to go to State

[1:44:09] Department, state, everybody else. We

[1:44:11] had just uh uh done the acquisition or

[1:44:13] the easement on the uh Camp Rising Sun.

[1:44:17] And um they were very pleased to hear

[1:44:20] when we had the final meeting to to I

[1:44:23] guess adopt this this plan. They were

[1:44:26] unaware that a mile and a half of the

[1:44:28] sockill and that was one of their big

[1:44:29] parcels had been protected. Uh there's

[1:44:33] another one next to it and a few others

[1:44:34] on the other side that go more

[1:44:36] downstream I believe. And then there's a

[1:44:38] list of other other properties. So,

[1:44:40] they're very very much um supportive of

[1:44:44] any action that we take to help protect

[1:44:46] our water source. The other big one is

[1:44:50] potential sources of contamination,

[1:44:52] whether they be oil depots, uh salt

[1:44:55] sheds, whatever they are. So, they have

[1:44:57] another map that has all of those

[1:44:59] throughout the town, um and the

[1:45:02] villages. And so, the now that we have

[1:45:06] the report done, it's been approved. Um

[1:45:10] the next step is really the next steps

[1:45:12] are to implement the plan and some of

[1:45:16] the implementation we already did by the

[1:45:19] camp rising sun uh easement acquisition

[1:45:21] with was

[1:45:22] >> we haven't closed yet

[1:45:23] >> we haven't closed but that's I mean that

[1:45:25] was really they were very uh surprised

[1:45:28] by that they didn't know that that had

[1:45:29] happened uh because it's one of the

[1:45:31] biggest parcels they said that we need

[1:45:33] to protect. Um but there are many others

[1:45:35] and then there's issues related to how

[1:45:38] we deal with our salt for the water uh

[1:45:41] you know brining the roads a variety of

[1:45:43] things and so the next steps for this

[1:45:47] process if you will is to the implement

[1:45:50] the things that are um that are on the

[1:45:54] plan and I'll just go real quick there

[1:45:55] are five goals one is to foster inter uh

[1:45:58] community discussion and promote

[1:46:00] collaborative partnerships among the

[1:46:01] communities water systems and water

[1:46:03] users users uh promote equitable,

[1:46:06] sustainable, and climate resistant

[1:46:08] development in Red Hook that preserves

[1:46:10] the area's unique aggregant history and

[1:46:12] character. Evaluate pres uh evaluate

[1:46:16] present and future land use to minimize

[1:46:18] threats to existing and prospective

[1:46:20] drinking water sources through proactive

[1:46:22] zoning and other measures. Engage and

[1:46:25] educate communities, water systems, and

[1:46:26] water users about drinking water sources

[1:46:28] and source protection. And lastly,

[1:46:31] pursue funding opportunities to increase

[1:46:33] water supply and treatment reliability,

[1:46:35] including s uh source water and

[1:46:38] conservation easement acquisition. Um,

[1:46:41] and so they were unaware that we're in

[1:46:44] the getting in the late stages of our

[1:46:46] community uh the comp plan. And so that

[1:46:50] is that falls into one of these goals.

[1:46:53] So we in many ways have have been

[1:46:56] without even having this plan doing many

[1:46:59] of the things that the state is very

[1:47:00] supportive of. The the bonus here is

[1:47:03] they can help us uh with certain

[1:47:05] resources, certain assets potential uh

[1:47:09] makes us more competitive for certain

[1:47:10] kind of grants and um and this will be

[1:47:14] the roadmap for you know the foreseeable

[1:47:16] future on how the town uh goes about

[1:47:20] trying to preserve what is really

[1:47:22] outstanding quality water. Whether it's

[1:47:25] in our water district from our wells or

[1:47:27] even all of us who have our own wells.

[1:47:30] Uh we have really excellent water. We

[1:47:32] have a really excellent group of

[1:47:34] aquafers. They often come go down

[1:47:35] towards the river. And the sewer is

[1:47:38] another one of those. Uh I know it's

[1:47:40] counterintuitive for people to think of

[1:47:42] a sewer as protecting your water, but it

[1:47:44] really is one of the best ways to keep

[1:47:46] your water safe. And as they discovered

[1:47:49] in the village as they started putting

[1:47:50] in their sept their their sewer system

[1:47:53] there were um septic systems private

[1:47:56] ones that were on the verge of

[1:47:57] catastrophic failure which would have

[1:47:59] polluted our water. So in many ways

[1:48:02] we've been way ahead of the curve and

[1:48:04] now this is just a validation of that

[1:48:06] and more support and more help for the

[1:48:09] town in the future. That's it.

[1:48:12] Okay. Um,

[1:48:23] » public comment.

[1:48:25] >> Did you want Well, you're you're a part

[1:48:27] of this. You're a part of this effort.

[1:48:29] >> I was on the committee with Bill and um

[1:48:32] it was a it was a very interesting

[1:48:33] process. The uh people from the DC were

[1:48:35] very capable. um really knew their stuff

[1:48:38] and um it's one of the important uh

[1:48:42] >> you could speak up a little bit.

[1:48:44] >> One of the important um effects of

[1:48:46] accepting this plan and implementing it

[1:48:48] is that we we have basically have

[1:48:50] consultants that aren't going to cost us

[1:48:52] anything.

[1:48:52] >> Right.

[1:48:53] And who know who and don't have

[1:48:55] to be brought up to speed because they

[1:48:56] know what's already going on. So, uh I

[1:48:59] think that in itself makes the the whole

[1:49:01] process really valuable. But um it was interesting because while we were

[1:49:05] doing it, we kept while we were in the

[1:49:08] process of evaluating what the water was

[1:49:10] and what needed to be preserved and

[1:49:11] stuff. We were also in the process of

[1:49:13] doing it.

[1:49:13] >> Right.

[1:49:14] Which I think was um uh uh we

[1:49:17] were kind of a step ahead of them the

[1:49:18] whole time, which is unusual for most

[1:49:20] towns, I think.

[1:49:21] >> Right.

[1:49:23] >> And it's surprised that

[1:49:26] just a few.

[1:49:28] Excuse me. I'll go to the mic. Uh, I

[1:49:31] think it's a wonderful plan. It's very

[1:49:33] comprehensive. It's so comprehensive it really is hard to kind of really get

[1:49:38] in there to the nitty-gritty. And in any

[1:49:41] plan as comprehensive as that, I do

[1:49:43] think there are some odds and ends that

[1:49:45] I could really argue with in and there's

[1:49:48] a few inconsistencies in there. Nothing

[1:49:51] that that I think is a particular

[1:49:52] concern. I'll give you one one example

[1:49:54] for uh one part of the document talks

[1:49:57] about uh uh um land that should be

[1:50:01] acquired because it's along a major

[1:50:03] tributary and then other times they just

[1:50:05] talk about land to be acquired along a

[1:50:07] tributary and I think there needs to be

[1:50:09] some clarification as to whether or not

[1:50:12] you're going to look at lands on every

[1:50:14] single creek uh and stream uh in the

[1:50:17] sock watershed or the defined major

[1:50:20] tributaries along the sockill

[1:50:22] uh I don't think I I will uh say that

[1:50:26] the

[1:50:28] part that we're involvement with the

[1:50:30] sawill is really to advocate for the

[1:50:33] watershed uh and not any individual

[1:50:36] properties within that. Uh we're looking

[1:50:39] at the whole entire watershed and the

[1:50:42] need the continu I can't stress enough

[1:50:44] the continued need for information and

[1:50:48] data to base things on. Uh and as we

[1:50:51] stand here now, the data collection

[1:50:53] process uh you know because of the

[1:50:55] relationship we've had with Bard is in

[1:50:58] the future is not necessarily going to

[1:51:00] be uh there for us uh that we implore

[1:51:04] the town to keep an open mind and in

[1:51:06] terms of what it's really going to mean

[1:51:08] to continue to collect reliable data

[1:51:11] throughout the whole wershed and it is

[1:51:14] going to take some uh financial

[1:51:15] resources and I was pleased to see that

[1:51:18] though there are financial resources is

[1:51:20] in the plan. Uh I think we might need a

[1:51:22] little bit more than that, but but

[1:51:24] everybody's going going to say the same

[1:51:26] thing.

[1:51:27] >> Yeah. Uh I you know, as an individual

[1:51:32] watershed community for a minute, it but

[1:51:34] just as a regular community member, you

[1:51:36] know, I do have a general concern about,

[1:51:39] you know, how do you go about uh

[1:51:41] acquiring property? What is the process

[1:51:44] for that? uh you know we we we had a lot

[1:51:46] of discussion tonight about acquiring

[1:51:49] property. What does acquiring mean and

[1:51:51] where does it go and what is the process

[1:51:53] and who's involved in that process. I

[1:51:55] think particularly today uh that's going

[1:51:58] to be a real key uh if this is going to

[1:52:00] be successful and folks are really going

[1:52:02] to be on board with it. I do need to

[1:52:04] think it has to be in a very very above

[1:52:06] board process. Uh and and the broader uh

[1:52:09] constituency you can get involved in

[1:52:11] that the the better it's going to be all

[1:52:13] around. But I think it's really a

[1:52:14] wonderful report. Implementation of it

[1:52:17] is going to be huge. Uh and you know

[1:52:20] we're here with the SA wershed community

[1:52:22] to say we're we're here to support that.

[1:52:25] Okay. Thank you. If

[1:52:27] >> I can just add one quick thing. Um just

[1:52:32] something for all of us to keep in mind

[1:52:34] going forward. Uh the accumulated data

[1:52:37] we have on the water temperature in the

[1:52:39] sal indicates that it is now half a

[1:52:42] degree warmer than it was 10 years ago.

[1:52:45] Okay.

[1:52:45] >> This is a direct result of climate

[1:52:47] change and uh it has serious

[1:52:50] implications for

[1:52:52] the future in terms of what we put into

[1:52:54] the water and uh what we get out of it.

[1:52:57] and uh things like requiring the water

[1:53:00] district parcels uh to uh for for

[1:53:03] wetland protection become increasingly

[1:53:04] important as we go forward.

[1:53:08] » Great. Thank you. Um

[1:53:12] I I would just add you talked about

[1:53:14] acquisition. One of the nice things

[1:53:16] about this is this is really a small

[1:53:19] subset of the community preservation

[1:53:21] plan. There's something in the

[1:53:23] neighborhood of,300 parcels in that

[1:53:25] plan. all are eligible for acquisition

[1:53:27] and it talks about all the different

[1:53:29] >> but if I'm one of the parcels that

[1:53:30] that's being called out to be acquired

[1:53:33] uh you know uh what's going to happen

[1:53:35] when you knock on the door and say we

[1:53:37] want to acquire your property

[1:53:38] >> Sure. Sure.

[1:53:39] >> When is that going to happen?

[1:53:41] >> Yeah.

[1:53:42] So I mean

[1:53:43] >> and what does it mean to acquire

[1:53:45] property?

[1:53:46] >> Well, exactly. Um, so there are a bundle

[1:53:49] of property rights and often times

[1:53:51] you're you're looking at in these cases

[1:53:54] easements, conservation easements to

[1:53:56] protect the uh resource. Um, for

[1:54:00] example, uh, Bill referenced Camp Rising

[1:54:02] Sun, which hopefully we'll be closing on

[1:54:04] in the next couple of months. Um, that's

[1:54:07] a state water quality improvement uh,

[1:54:10] program grant funding. Winnipeg Land

[1:54:12] Trust are partnered with that. That's

[1:54:14] number 15 here. Um, and so you can see

[1:54:18] just the length of the soft field right

[1:54:21] here and just how how protective it is.

[1:54:25] And by the way, since we're talking

[1:54:26] about camper rising sun, if you haven't

[1:54:28] been to the pool, go to the pool and

[1:54:30] walk the grassy trails. They're

[1:54:31] available. They've opened them up early

[1:54:33] for the public to see and enjoy. Um, but

[1:54:37] like here's a here's a parcel that has

[1:54:39] recently sold within the last couple of

[1:54:41] years. And so what we might do as an

[1:54:43] outreach and just say, "Hey, look, there

[1:54:44] are these volunteer voluntary programs

[1:54:48] um available. This this one actually

[1:54:50] has, you know, really good agricultural

[1:54:53] resources and has been a farm for um

[1:54:56] generations. Um so, yeah, there was a a

[1:55:01] very extensive process to reduce the

[1:55:04] targeted, if you will, um parcels if

[1:55:07] you're trying to maximize protection

[1:55:10] along the salt kill. And as you can see,

[1:55:13] um, it's really very efficient to

[1:55:16] >> and it's tributaries. I think that's key. What what constitutes it

[1:55:20] again again part of the document talks

[1:55:22] about major tributaries and then names

[1:55:24] them and then some of the parcels are

[1:55:26] not along those tributaries. They're

[1:55:29] along unnamed tributaries. Sure. Sure.

[1:55:31] >> We've identified at least 11

[1:55:33] tributaries.

[1:55:34] >> Fortunately, we have partners in Winni

[1:55:36] Land Trust and Scenic, you know, with

[1:55:38] these, you know, Duchess Land Conser. We

[1:55:40] have partners uh who share the same

[1:55:43] >> Yeah. I mean they share the same goals

[1:55:45] and agenda um and have helped us you

[1:55:49] know lot that that 15 is is huge. Um and

[1:55:53] so you know the hope is that over time

[1:55:57] that some of these other parcels that

[1:56:00] the owners of those parcels

[1:56:02] uh might we might be able to sell the

[1:56:05] purchase easements rights or other

[1:56:07] things so that the

[1:56:08] >> just be careful with the with the

[1:56:10] concept of acquiring property.

[1:56:12] >> Yeah. Well, there's the physical

[1:56:14] property and then there's the easement,

[1:56:15] right?

[1:56:17] >> An important distinction.

[1:56:18] >> Yeah.

[1:56:19] >> The uh stream along through the rising

[1:56:21] sun is just beautiful

[1:56:23] >> through the

[1:56:24] >> rising sun. I mean, if you get a chance

[1:56:26] to go look at it, it's it's just

[1:56:29] >> it's what it should be. You know,

[1:56:31] >> this this section here I know very well.

[1:56:36] >> This is part of our farm

[1:56:38] >> and that's under and that's underneath.

[1:56:41] We've left it available to become a

[1:56:43] trail in the future of passing trip that

[1:56:47] section. So that's also covered.

[1:56:49] >> And I didn't see a definition in there.

[1:56:51] Uh however, and this may be a common

[1:56:54] legal term, cultivated land. What is

[1:56:58] meant by cultivated land? Right.

[1:57:01] Well, well,

[1:57:05] >> I know what a dictionary definition is,

[1:57:07] but there might be a legal definition

[1:57:09] because if you you look at the legal

[1:57:11] definition, it means I mean not the the literary definition. I mean any land

[1:57:17] that's been used

[1:57:21] for farming, right?

[1:57:22] >> But there's a lot more properties in our

[1:57:24] town

[1:57:26] that are not included to be acquired

[1:57:28] that would fall under that. There's also

[1:57:29] a lot of land that was at one time used

[1:57:31] for farming is still considered

[1:57:34] agricultural by the county um but is not

[1:57:37] currently being farmed.

[1:57:38] >> Okay.

[1:57:39] >> So, um then just

[1:57:41] >> what's the process going forward with

[1:57:43] CDC on this? I mean, do we have like a

[1:57:45] schedule of meetings of some sort? just

[1:57:47] do.

[1:57:47] >> Well, we try to work with Michael um at

[1:57:50] Department of Health to schedule some

[1:57:52] like I think

[1:57:54] >> regular meetings but we're going to

[1:57:55] have a we're going to schedule I guess a

[1:57:57] kickoff or an implementation meeting

[1:58:00] >> to kind of go over the things that were

[1:58:03] done that they were unaware of as the

[1:58:05] plan was being finalized and then

[1:58:08] perhaps prioritize

[1:58:11] what we think are the things that are,

[1:58:14] you know, achievable. uh short-term,

[1:58:16] medium-term, long-term, and I don't even

[1:58:18] know what long-term means in this

[1:58:20] context cuz I I'm certain it's a

[1:58:23] multi-year process, many multi-year

[1:58:26] process, but the idea is to set things

[1:58:28] in motion in a way so that, you know,

[1:58:32] future leaders can pick up where we left

[1:58:34] off and continue that process uh without

[1:58:38] too much interruption. Well, we we were

[1:58:40] uh we wanted to have a uh to sponsor a

[1:58:43] community meeting to present the report.

[1:58:46] >> Oh.

[1:58:47] >> Uh and bring in Michael

[1:58:51] thought about that, but I think that's a

[1:58:52] good idea.

[1:58:53] >> Yeah. So, uh uh have water community

[1:58:56] sponsor that. One suggestion is that to

[1:58:59] the extent that we've been having

[1:59:00] community meetings regarding the comp

[1:59:02] plan and this really in many ways is a

[1:59:05] subset of that. Yeah.

[1:59:06] >> Uh or help will help inform the comp

[1:59:08] plan. Maybe that's an opportunity we can

[1:59:11] speak to Julia Solomon um at the next

[1:59:14] >> Well, they've reached out the comp plan

[1:59:15] has already reached out.

[1:59:16] >> They have. Yeah.

[1:59:17] >> Okay, great. and then maybe that's an

[1:59:19] opportunity to present this and um and

[1:59:23] talk about it and where we are

[1:59:26] is it really is a a comp plan.

[1:59:31] >> Yeah. I mean when we we held a a kitchen

[1:59:34] table conversation we had some meetings.

[1:59:36] >> Okay.

[1:59:38] >> That was very much.

[1:59:41] >> Thank you.

[1:59:42] >> So has there been uh testing of the

[1:59:45] water along the sill?

[1:59:47] >> Yes.

[1:59:50] Where where are the results? Well, we we

[1:59:54] are not in here.

[1:59:55] >> No, no, no. There if you'd like to see

[1:59:58] the um the the long decades long series

[2:00:02] of water testing results, you can go to

[2:00:05] the Salt Hill Waterershed Community

[2:00:06] website.

[2:00:08] >> Well, we pres we presented the we we we

[2:00:10] have been doing testing for how many

[2:00:12] years now?

[2:00:14] and mo mostly through BART and the the

[2:00:16] data. Okay. The the the the testing that

[2:00:20] we did in 2025, we presented a report to

[2:00:23] the town uh and that was made public in

[2:00:27] July of 2025. It was I believe post and

[2:00:31] I believe it's on the town website also.

[2:00:33] In addition to that, we submitted a

[2:00:35] summary executive report in October of

[2:00:38] 2025. Okay. That's much that really

[2:00:42] focuses in and I would encourage every

[2:00:44] board admit I'm surpris I'm disappointed

[2:00:46] the board hasn't read that about you got

[2:00:48] nothing else FROM COVER TO COVER. OKAY.

[2:00:51] But I think you know Ken the data is

[2:00:53] there. The the concern I was talking

[2:00:55] about at the microphone though is, you

[2:00:57] know, are we going to be able to

[2:00:59] continue collecting the data and having

[2:01:01] the data analyzed, especially since the

[2:01:04] support we've gotten in the past from

[2:01:06] BARD may not be there as much as it has

[2:01:10] in the past.

[2:01:11] >> And how many locations on the

[2:01:13] >> well like a dozen?

[2:01:15] >> Well, not on the no on sulus 15. And in

[2:01:19] addition to that, for the first time

[2:01:21] last year, we included two sites on the

[2:01:24] Stony Hill. Uh because that is part of

[2:01:28] the town. Uh so we we expanded it last

[2:01:31] year. But the historical data goes back,

[2:01:33] you know, decades to tell you the truth.

[2:01:36] >> And in addition to that, excuse Bard

[2:01:38] published a released a database where

[2:01:42] any citizen can go in and and access

[2:01:45] that data.

[2:01:46] >> Yeah. Online.

[2:01:47] >> Online. Yeah. and that that you can

[2:01:48] access that there's a portal for that on

[2:01:50] our website.

[2:01:52] >> But u the the the long series of data

[2:01:56] that goes back for more than 20 years uh

[2:01:58] is why we know that the average

[2:02:01] temperature on the on the

[2:02:04] >> and that has you know serious

[2:02:05] implications for flooding and um

[2:02:09] wetlands and drinking water

[2:02:12] and just all sorts of bad stuff.

[2:02:15] >> Well, thank you. And the data the data

[2:02:18] collection has not only been through

[2:02:19] with BR students but it's been community

[2:02:22] volunteers also including how a lot of

[2:02:24] the high school students have gotten

[2:02:25] involved.

[2:02:28] >> Great.

[2:02:29] >> Thank you so much.

[2:02:30] >> Great.

[2:02:31] >> Okay.

[2:02:32] >> Can we start spending the money?

[2:02:36] >> We'll hear more about implementation.

[2:02:38] >> Okay.

[2:02:39] >> Well, we would love to be part of that

[2:02:40] processing too. Absolutely. Terrific.

[2:02:43] >> Thank you.

[2:02:43] >> Okay.

[2:02:44] >> All right you guys. Thank you so much.

[2:02:46] Thanks. Have a good night.

[2:02:50] » We're sorry.

[2:02:52] >> We jumped your line.

[2:02:54] >> Whatever it is.

[2:03:00] » Um

[2:03:01] I I did in rushing to get ready. I think

[2:03:06] I printed out a copy of your latest

[2:03:09] edition. I think it came today

[2:03:14] somewhere. Anyway, come talk to us.

[2:03:16] >> Sure. Um, I also just want to be

[2:03:18] respectful of the time.

[2:03:19] >> Yeah.

[2:03:23] >> Um,

[2:03:24] >> thank you.

[2:03:25] >> So, I'll always I'll have this little

[2:03:28] spiel, you know,

[2:03:30] for a while.

[2:03:32] Red Hook Housing Committee, we're about

[2:03:34] 5 years old. Um, we've spent those five

[2:03:39] years, you know, researching solutions

[2:03:42] to both create and preserve affordable

[2:03:45] housing in the town. Um,

[2:03:50] that that time has been spent both a

[2:03:53] little bit of research, a little bit of

[2:03:55] self-coralysis.

[2:03:57] We're doing our best. hopefully in a new

[2:04:00] era now in which we are trying to pivot

[2:04:03] toward storytelling for you all. Um, and

[2:04:09] the proposal that you received in the

[2:04:10] packet prior to tonight's meeting uh is

[2:04:13] the second of that sprint or marathon.

[2:04:16] I'm not exactly sure what the metaphor

[2:04:18] is. Um, and it refers to a good cause

[2:04:21] fiction. Uh there is a New York state

[2:04:23] good cause eviction law um that

[2:04:27] puts some parameters on uh reasons for

[2:04:30] eviction among fair market value ren

[2:04:34] fair market value renters. Um this is

[2:04:38] does not apply to subsidized or

[2:04:41] otherwise affordable housing you know

[2:04:43] formally affordable housing. It does not

[2:04:45] apply to super high-end luxury housing.

[2:04:48] There is actually a cap on fair market

[2:04:50] value. Um and the state law was written

[2:04:53] in a way that uh communities like ours

[2:04:57] have to opt into it. Um while the state

[2:05:00] law has a lot of parameters already

[2:05:02] built into it, it actually extends more

[2:05:05] selection of parameters to the

[2:05:06] communities that do optin um such as the

[2:05:10] that fair market value cap um as high as

[2:05:14] 345% fair market value. It allows opt

[2:05:17] optin communities to determine um the scope of of of a landlord's real

[2:05:24] estate portfolio. Um how big or small it

[2:05:27] can be. So there are uh so the housing

[2:05:32] committee is suggesting or recommending

[2:05:35] that we are one of those optin

[2:05:37] communities and the parameters that are

[2:05:39] available to us you are included in our

[2:05:42] proposal. the highest fair market cap of

[2:05:45] 345%.

[2:05:47] Um to protect the widest swath of

[2:05:50] renters. Um even those who are maybe

[2:05:54] nominally in the luxury market they they

[2:05:56] deserve protection too. Um the proposal

[2:06:00] also defines uh the size of the

[2:06:04] portfolio and it's we have defined it as

[2:06:07] rather small um as of because it there

[2:06:11] is some uh

[2:06:15] fields experience that suggests that the smaller the portfolio the the

[2:06:22] less likely a person can establish

[2:06:25] multiple LLC's by which they

[2:06:28] through, you know, through which they

[2:06:29] can sort of surreptitiously

[2:06:32] own multiple properties

[2:06:33] >> and and avoid the application of the

[2:06:35] good cause of law to their portfolio.

[2:06:37] >> Yes.

[2:06:37] >> Yeah.

[2:06:38] >> Um

[2:06:38] >> it's not limiting the amount of property

[2:06:39] somebody can own, it's whether this law

[2:06:40] applies to what they own.

[2:06:42] >> Uh and as you'll see, the you know, the

[2:06:46] more times I stand up at this

[2:06:47] microphone, the more out of my depth I

[2:06:49] will become because you can only become

[2:06:52] so fluent in affordable housing

[2:06:54] strategies over a short period of time.

[2:06:56] Um, so thank you for having my back

[2:06:59] there, Jacob. Um, and you happy to

[2:07:03] field, you know, whatever questions you

[2:07:05] have about it, you know, within my

[2:07:07] abilities. Um, but I think that, you

[2:07:09] know, this proposal is, you know, has

[2:07:12] the the depth and detail, you know, that

[2:07:14] the previous one did. um I think is a

[2:07:17] nice nice counterpoint to the home share

[2:07:19] proposal you know because uh whereas

[2:07:22] homeshare is you know refers to the

[2:07:24] development

[2:07:26] of affordable housing opportunities it's

[2:07:28] really just you know maximizing the

[2:07:30] opportunities that were already our

[2:07:32] midst is about preserving you know the housing of folks who are already

[2:07:37] here um so one is about development the

[2:07:41] one is the other is about stabilization

[2:07:43] however I did actually want to take a a

[2:07:45] little bit of a detour um from this

[2:07:48] because uh as Jacob mentioned to you in

[2:07:50] an email this evening, we've just

[2:07:52] roughed out another proposal. And of the

[2:07:57] three, you know, that are now before

[2:08:00] you, this third proposal is actually

[2:08:02] more timesensitive than the other two.

[2:08:04] Um good cause eviction, you know, can happen at any time. Home share could

[2:08:10] happen at any time. Ideally, it happens

[2:08:12] at the pace of our conscience. Um,

[2:08:14] however, this third proposal, you know,

[2:08:17] is is time-sensitive because it has to

[2:08:20] do with emergency housing in wintertime.

[2:08:23] Um,

[2:08:25] emergency housing experiences of of

[2:08:28] homelessness, it's not exactly something

[2:08:30] that we had wanted to take on over the

[2:08:33] course of this committee's 5 years. Um,

[2:08:36] it is a gnarly systemic problem. You

[2:08:40] know, when you think about people who

[2:08:41] are experiencing homelessness, you often

[2:08:44] need to think about wraparound services.

[2:08:46] It was just bigger than the committee

[2:08:49] thought itself capable of grasping. It

[2:08:51] didn't really feel like it was in our

[2:08:52] within our remit. Um, but over these

[2:08:56] years, we have been visited by residents

[2:08:58] like Charlie Rubin. Um, we have been,

[2:09:02] you know, we have heard about the

[2:09:04] efforts of Red Hook together. Um, and

[2:09:06] we've also had members who have joined

[2:09:08] the committee, you know, with an eye to

[2:09:12] the both visible and invisibly unhoused

[2:09:15] populations of Red Hook. And so, um, you

[2:09:19] know, we felt compelled to to, uh,

[2:09:22] participate in this dialogue, you know,

[2:09:24] however much it doesn't necessarily feel

[2:09:26] like it's in our wheelhouse. And so the

[2:09:28] proposal that is not in your packet but

[2:09:30] you know just circulated by email this

[2:09:32] evening actually you know tries to touch

[2:09:35] at that um it is just in full

[2:09:39] transparency

[2:09:41] um whereas the first two proposals are

[2:09:43] lowhanging fruit you know we have a

[2:09:45] state law we have a olster county

[2:09:47] precedent you know for both you good

[2:09:50] cause eviction and home share

[2:09:51] respectively what we are proposing here

[2:09:56] it's a

[2:09:58] You know, you see things happening in

[2:10:00] Burlington, Vermont. You see things

[2:10:03] happening, you know, in Kingston. You

[2:10:05] see, you know, cosmopolitan communities

[2:10:07] that have our climate. And so um but

[2:10:11] this is you know I think that because

[2:10:14] the precedents are fewer because our

[2:10:16] climate is more extreme than like places

[2:10:19] like California that are thinking about

[2:10:22] you know emergency housing and housing

[2:10:24] stabilization

[2:10:26] you know in nicer weather. Um we don't

[2:10:29] have too much to build upon

[2:10:31] incrementally. So, like I said, in the

[2:10:34] spirit of transparency, I feel like this

[2:10:36] proposal that was just emailed to you

[2:10:38] maybe the least resolved of the three.

[2:10:42] Um,

[2:10:44] you also I think also it was least

[2:10:46] resolved because we were avoiding it for

[2:10:49] a lot of our history. Um, but it is it

[2:10:52] does feel like the most urgent. You

[2:10:54] know, we we did have a warming center

[2:10:56] two winters ago. the warming center, you

[2:10:59] know, did not materialize last winter.

[2:11:02] Our one of our members, Cat Viega, you

[2:11:04] know, has talked repeatedly about

[2:11:07] knowing two people who have died of

[2:11:08] exposure. Um, and so, uh, you know, it

[2:11:13] just felt

[2:11:16] moral like the morally responsible thing

[2:11:18] to do is to is was to share this

[2:11:21] storytelling with you, you know, however

[2:11:24] uncrystallized it is. Um, so you know,

[2:11:29] if you have to, you know, I know you

[2:11:31] have very full plates, but if you had

[2:11:33] the pri, you know, if you could

[2:11:34] prioritize one of these three proposals

[2:11:36] for brainstorming and outreach, um, it

[2:11:39] would be this one. Um, we at your

[2:11:42] disposal to you continue workshopping

[2:11:44] ideas and making connections. Um, and I

[2:11:49] will say that, you know, the word

[2:11:52] continuum is coming up a lot in in the

[2:11:54] housing committee's conversations. You

[2:11:56] know, a continuum of housing

[2:11:58] preservation to housing development, a

[2:12:00] continuum of a person who needs

[2:12:02] emergency housing to the person who

[2:12:06] maybe, you know, one medical bill away

[2:12:09] from being housing insecure to folks

[2:12:11] like me who just, you know, are always

[2:12:13] nervous about paying the mortgage. um

[2:12:16] you know there's it's just a continuum

[2:12:18] of of security and insecurity. So you

[2:12:21] know this third proposal you know

[2:12:25] dovetales into that continuum. Um but

[2:12:28] because it is at the most urgent end of

[2:12:30] the continuum it does seem like it

[2:12:32] should be the most urgent one for us to brainstorm about.

[2:12:38] » Thank you. Um

[2:12:39] >> thank you.

[2:12:40] >> I have a question.

[2:12:41] >> Yeah, of course.

[2:12:43] Um

[2:12:45] when the state passed the law,

[2:12:48] >> what are you on? Good. good cause.

[2:12:51] >> Yeah. Sorry. Lot of

[2:12:52] >> Did they did they do what they did with

[2:12:53] cannabis which says if you opt in, you

[2:12:55] can never opt out.

[2:12:57] >> And I asked that because um

[2:13:01] you know when I and I very much

[2:13:04] appreciate getting the list of all the optins in in the area. It's very

[2:13:08] helpful. But what I noticed was most of

[2:13:11] them were either cities or much larger

[2:13:13] communities than ours. I'm not saying

[2:13:15] we're not a large community. We're in

[2:13:16] that sort of weird sweet spot. Um,

[2:13:20] and

[2:13:22] you know, I I want to make sure that we

[2:13:25] don't commit to something. and when the

[2:13:28] cannabis thing happened, you know,

[2:13:29] notwithstanding the fact it's still a

[2:13:31] federal crime, which was my main reason

[2:13:33] for voting against it. But the other

[2:13:35] reason was the state had not um they

[2:13:39] were very far from completing their

[2:13:41] regulations and implementing a program.

[2:13:44] And I had uh serious reservations which

[2:13:47] were proven over time that it took them

[2:13:50] a long time to figure out how to get to

[2:13:52] where they wanted to really be. And I

[2:13:54] wasn't happy

[2:13:56] proving something that you're stuck with

[2:13:58] forever

[2:14:00] when you don't. It's like driving blind

[2:14:02] really. And so I want to make sure I

[2:14:05] mean I I think this is very important

[2:14:07] and I also think it's a part of our comp

[2:14:08] plan, you know, I mean this is this is

[2:14:10] long-term stuff, but I want to make sure

[2:14:13] that that what we're being asked to do

[2:14:16] is not something that we can't undo.

[2:14:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. An escape hatch, right?

[2:14:21] Sometimes we, you know, act with

[2:14:26] the best interests, good faith, as much

[2:14:28] information as we have and then s, you

[2:14:29] know, the uh what what what does

[2:14:32] Ramshield called? What did he call it?

[2:14:34] The unknown knowns or the known whatever

[2:14:38] one of those. Um, so yes, I mean, you're absolutely right that there are

[2:14:43] unknown unknowns. Um, and

[2:14:45] >> why are we borrowing something that we

[2:14:48] don't know everything about? Can I may I

[2:14:50] make you the promise of um reading the

[2:14:53] state law and then

[2:14:54] >> that would be great responding to Jacob.

[2:14:56] >> Yeah, I mean it should it should be in

[2:14:58] there somewhere.

[2:14:59] >> Um

[2:15:00] >> but it would just be helpful to know

[2:15:03] >> what we're committing ourselves to.

[2:15:05] >> Yeah.

[2:15:06] >> Um

[2:15:06] >> most of our proposals, you know, have

[2:15:08] come with some kind of re uh you know

[2:15:12] retrospective review at the end of a

[2:15:14] period like two years. are not I can't

[2:15:16] remember if that text is in the good

[2:15:18] cause eviction proposal per se. Um but

[2:15:22] either you

[2:15:26] well we'll have to see what the state

[2:15:27] law says right because if there is no

[2:15:29] opt out in the state law but we codify

[2:15:33] an opt out then once your council sends

[2:15:37] it to the state there's going to be a

[2:15:38] little disconnect that you know that

[2:15:40] makes

[2:15:41] >> that makes authorization a little funky.

[2:15:43] So, so let's start with this reading the

[2:15:45] state law and we'll take it from there.

[2:15:47] >> I think the risks here are different

[2:15:48] from cannabis sale or consumption sites

[2:15:51] as far as like whether you undo like

[2:15:54] protections for renters versus

[2:15:58] >> but there are economic consequences uh

[2:16:00] for this. Um and you know the other

[2:16:04] thing that I saw was you know

[2:16:09] the issue of agriculture and far and

[2:16:12] housing for people who work in farms and

[2:16:14] Kenny can speak to this but you know I

[2:16:17] didn't I tried to delve into what was

[2:16:20] provided previously

[2:16:22] and I didn't see anything that

[2:16:26] I'm not saying there should be a car but

[2:16:28] there should be some acknowledgement

[2:16:30] that it's a different kind of

[2:16:32] population. Um, and like my wife's

[2:16:35] family are farmers in Oregon and they

[2:16:39] provide housing for families who work,

[2:16:43] you know, they're not seasonal workers.

[2:16:44] They're they work full-time on the farm

[2:16:46] and they have for generations actually.

[2:16:49] And so I I want to I there it's a it's a

[2:16:53] piece of a conversation that I don't I'm

[2:16:55] not sure has been had or raised. to

[2:16:58] those seasonal workers or even year

[2:17:00] round workers. Are they saw market value

[2:17:03] renters?

[2:17:03] >> I saw the thing about seasonal but I

[2:17:05] didn't see anything about year round and

[2:17:06] we are

[2:17:08] >> we should continue to be an agricultural

[2:17:10] town. So there there just some things,

[2:17:13] you know, that kind of when I saw it, um

[2:17:16] I there were questions that came up and I think your timing is actually kind

[2:17:20] of excellent cuz we are on the sort of

[2:17:23] backside of getting a draft of a comp

[2:17:25] plan hopefully end of the you know end

[2:17:28] of the year and I think these are since

[2:17:31] we only do one every 30 years this this

[2:17:34] would be a great opportunity and since

[2:17:36] zoning housing all these are sort of

[2:17:38] really comp plan issues. Yeah.

[2:17:41] >> Um I think it would be great to get

[2:17:44] that. Yeah. Get it in there.

[2:17:46] >> The existing the existing state carveout

[2:17:48] that you know a a semantics person

[2:17:52] expert might say is that um you know one

[2:17:55] of the exemptions to this regulation

[2:17:59] are are people who live on site or

[2:18:02] landlords who live on site as long as

[2:18:04] you know there are 10 units of housing

[2:18:07] on site or less. Could that apply to a

[2:18:09] family farm? Yeah, potentially. But, you

[2:18:12] know, should there be, you know,

[2:18:14] agricultural language in the state law?

[2:18:17] Yeah, that's it is it's a state law and

[2:18:20] the state comprises both urban and rural

[2:18:22] areas. Okay.

[2:18:23] >> You make a good point.

[2:18:24] >> My my question relates to efficacy. So,

[2:18:28] you have a law that's designed to help

[2:18:30] protect the more affordable, we'll call

[2:18:33] them, units in your community,

[2:18:36] of which most of them are in the village

[2:18:39] versus the town.

[2:18:40] >> Yeah.

[2:18:41] >> And so, I I wonder, have you all

[2:18:43] discussed this with the village and, you

[2:18:45] know, what their thoughts on on it might

[2:18:48] be? Um,

[2:18:49] >> where the village is.

[2:18:50] >> Yeah. Where the where the village is.

[2:18:53] Yeah.

[2:18:53] >> Karen and Emily are, you know, are kind

[2:18:55] of clued in, you know. Okay. Compton's

[2:18:57] family

[2:18:59] yard sale day to tell her what's going

[2:19:01] on. Um, I bring it up for a couple

[2:19:04] reasons. One one of the things that I

[2:19:07] discovered when I was on the county's

[2:19:08] housing task force in 2021 or whatever

[2:19:12] that was was that we had in the

[2:19:14] township, we did not have one

[2:19:17] multifamily of 20 units or more in our

[2:19:21] community anywhere, which is a decision

[2:19:24] the community. I'm not saying we have.

[2:19:26] I'm just saying that that was news to

[2:19:28] me. Um, and so when we look at, for

[2:19:31] example, a portfolio that's about to

[2:19:33] change hands in the village of Red Hook

[2:19:35] with 73 units, I think it is something

[2:19:39] like that. Um, I'm going to just take a

[2:19:41] guess and say they probably include many

[2:19:44] of our more affordable units. I just

[2:19:47] wonder if that's um, you know, that's

[2:19:50] important for us to to take a look at

[2:19:53] that.

[2:19:53] >> Yeah. and and how that may have impact

[2:19:56] or may not impact the uh

[2:19:58] >> yeah the proposal advocates for

[2:20:00] simultaneous adoption across

[2:20:02] jurisdictions. Um but I but there is uh

[2:20:07] you know baggage that comes with this

[2:20:09] regulation. You this the potential

[2:20:11] economic consequences that Bill was

[2:20:14] hinting at. I believe specifically

[2:20:16] you're thinking that you know there is concern that this kind of

[2:20:21] regulation in a world of regulation is

[2:20:24] going to be the is going to be the straw

[2:20:26] you know by which some

[2:20:28] >> real estate holders do not want to build

[2:20:31] or keep their portfolios here.

[2:20:34] Um,

[2:20:35] >> yeah. Well, there's a long history of rent

[2:20:38] regulations in communities and really

[2:20:40] when you look throughout the nation,

[2:20:43] >> um, this is new.

[2:20:45] >> Um, but most of rent control went away.

[2:20:49] In fact, I think Boston and New York

[2:20:51] City still has it. Boston, I think, is

[2:20:54] the last pull out.

[2:20:56] >> I think it's

[2:20:56] >> because there's that that sort of push

[2:20:58] and pull about the small landlord and

[2:21:00] will they have enough money to maintain

[2:21:02] the property and have a a decent return.

[2:21:05] >> This is a nuance that we didn't discuss

[2:21:07] in the committee, but you bring up an

[2:21:09] interesting point about

[2:21:11] >> um if we cannot have simultaneous

[2:21:14] adoption, then does it actually create

[2:21:17] the jurisdictional confusion that we all

[2:21:19] complain about, right? We don't know

[2:21:21] where the

[2:21:22] >> where town and village or hamlet, you

[2:21:25] know, and gets

[2:21:27] >> and and it's not intentionally

[2:21:29] obuscatory, but but it it you know,

[2:21:31] makes people confused and we don't want citizens confused.

[2:21:34] >> Yeah.

[2:21:36] >> Um and as far as emergency housing,

[2:21:40] so I think you and I have discussed

[2:21:42] Hudson River housing has grant funds all

[2:21:46] ready to go. We have, you know, the

[2:21:49] advice of council is do not put it on

[2:21:51] municipal land. Um, we're not in a

[2:21:54] position to really supervise. We've

[2:21:57] discussed that at least

[2:21:59] from from what folks know there there

[2:22:02] may be some mental health issues with a

[2:22:04] couple of folks we're worried about and that's our primary concerns. We're

[2:22:08] worried about them. Um

[2:22:12] and I did notice um that there was yet

[2:22:15] another pilot program coming from the

[2:22:17] state. We talked about K through K2

[2:22:21] um mental health uh assistance

[2:22:24] um I think just announced this week um

[2:22:27] pilot program Duchess County

[2:22:31] Duchess maybe it's Duchess. So maybe

[2:22:34] let's look into that as well. See if

[2:22:37] that might be an opportunity. But again,

[2:22:40] I go back to it's the where because the

[2:22:44] money's already lined up, the people who

[2:22:46] have experience in setting up these

[2:22:48] shelters. In fact, Hudson River Housing

[2:22:51] set up that one that you referenced a

[2:22:52] couple of years ago.

[2:22:54] It's the where and who's willing to have

[2:22:56] that. Yes.

[2:22:57] >> In their in their neck of the woods. You

[2:22:59] heard comments tonight from people who

[2:23:02] weren't boat club members, but they live

[2:23:04] in Barry Town. And so we see whenever we

[2:23:07] try to do any project, there is a please

[2:23:10] not in my backyard kind of a a sentiment

[2:23:14] that that comes from it. So it's a real

[2:23:17] challenge in this situation.

[2:23:18] >> It's the stickiest wicked.

[2:23:20] >> We need to we need to to find something

[2:23:22] that works in this situation because

[2:23:24] everybody deserves to have a roof. I'

[2:23:26] I've been as a child housing insecure. I

[2:23:29] know what that feeling's like and and

[2:23:31] it's not good.

[2:23:32] >> Um

[2:23:33] >> some of it's messaging too. I mean I've

[2:23:36] heard a lot of conflation even on the

[2:23:38] Cookingham project about these ideas

[2:23:40] that you know a housing project's going

[2:23:42] in, you know, and you live across the

[2:23:44] street. Um, you know, I think some of

[2:23:48] it's about properly messaging

[2:23:51] what it is we're doing so that people

[2:23:54] understand

[2:23:55] what it is as opposed to these, you

[2:23:58] know, very scary ideas about about that.

[2:24:02] >> Sure. You know, and

[2:24:03] >> and definitions, you know, and the

[2:24:05] optics of this, you know, are another

[2:24:07] dimension of, you know, another

[2:24:08] challenging dimension. even the the

[2:24:11] transitional housing fund, you know,

[2:24:13] which doesn't necessarily touch upon,

[2:24:16] you know, folks who may be suffering

[2:24:18] from mental health issues. It may just

[2:24:20] be, you know, that family that's, you

[2:24:23] know, that one medical bill away from

[2:24:25] insecure, but they want to keep their

[2:24:26] kid in the school district, right?

[2:24:28] >> Um, I mean, even that can be

[2:24:30] misconstrued, right, as as a handout.

[2:24:32] >> Yeah. So you you know like I you know

[2:24:35] there many reasons why this third

[2:24:37] proposal of ours is least resolved.

[2:24:40] >> Yeah.

[2:24:40] >> Um it's it's it's also just a really

[2:24:43] it's really tough.

[2:24:45] >> Um

[2:24:46] but you know I think I I appreciate that

[2:24:49] we're making a good faith effort you

[2:24:51] know to think about you know even if we

[2:24:54] >> even if we can't find that silver

[2:24:56] bullet.

[2:24:57] >> Well I mean you guys are boots on the

[2:24:59] ground. I know cat, you know, is is

[2:25:02] around the village and elsewhere. I

[2:25:04] mean, and other members. It's really

[2:25:07] about identifying where where can we do

[2:25:10] this? Um, and and you know, maybe these

[2:25:13] mobile units are great. I mean, they

[2:25:15] sound like, you know, a potential

[2:25:17] solution. The problem is the support

[2:25:19] services we all talk about. Can we find

[2:25:23] them more than just shelter? Because

[2:25:26] it's it it's better. You know this, you

[2:25:28] don't need me to tell you this, but it's

[2:25:30] better if we can provide a housing

[2:25:32] accommodation near where services can be

[2:25:35] provided so that all of their well-being

[2:25:37] can be improved and they can be the

[2:25:40] member of society that

[2:25:41] >> there is talk of of family services.

[2:25:43] >> Yes. Yeah.

[2:25:44] >> Make putting a base down here

[2:25:47] >> which would be great because we know

[2:25:48] that some you sometimes access to

[2:25:50] services

[2:25:51] >> isn't necessarily about geography or

[2:25:52] transportation. It's just

[2:25:54] >> personal resistance,

[2:25:56] >> right? either to, you know, crossing the

[2:25:59] threshold into that office or getting on

[2:26:01] the bus to get to that office.

[2:26:04] >> Um,

[2:26:05] >> yeah, it's, you

[2:26:08] tough nuances here. Um, I I don't, you

[2:26:12] know, afraid I'm a little afraid to say

[2:26:14] this on the p, you know, for public

[2:26:15] record, but, you know, I am afraid that,

[2:26:17] you know, we might not find the site,

[2:26:19] you know, that weaves this all together

[2:26:21] >> in time for the winter.

[2:26:23] >> Yeah. Um, but at least we're on we're at

[2:26:25] least we're on the record for for

[2:26:28] starting, you know, the hard work of of trying.

[2:26:33] >> Yeah. It might need to knock on doors.

[2:26:35] >> Yeah.

[2:26:36] >> Might have to come down to

[2:26:39] >> um in the meantime, I will look into opt

[2:26:42] out and and any kind of farming language

[2:26:44] in state law and I'll I'll I'll email

[2:26:46] you.

[2:26:47] >> That'd be great.

[2:26:48] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:26:49] >> Thank you, Barbara.

[2:26:50] >> Thank you for for Karen. Of course.

[2:26:53] >> Thank you. Have a good night.

[2:26:56] >> Okay.

[2:27:01] We are

[2:27:03] number two. It's 10:00 and we're number

[2:27:06] two.

[2:27:09] >> The clock on the watch. I mean the hands

[2:27:12] on the watch. Uh we've got we're back to

[2:27:16] surplus.

[2:27:19] I didn't want to say this, but we also

[2:27:21] wanted a truck, but we own it on behalf

[2:27:23] of the highway budget DV fund. Um,

[2:27:28] so we've got two resolutions, right? One

[2:27:32] is for the van,

[2:27:33] >> one is for the van

[2:27:36] and one is for the dump truck. So, um,

[2:27:40] 41

[2:27:43] >> 41 would be the 2005 Chevrolet surplus.

[2:27:47] You know, the rec department looked at

[2:27:49] it and they were like

[2:27:54] maybe the village DPW Jake is handy. Um

[2:28:00] $1,500 as they know going anywhere in

[2:28:04] the same garage.

[2:28:06] >> Yeah.

[2:28:07] Somebody approached me from the

[2:28:08] wreck department saying that they were

[2:28:11] using their own vehicle or something.

[2:28:13] >> Yeah. So, remember we talked about those

[2:28:16] pickup trucks? Remember we approved

[2:28:19] pickup trucks earlier in the year?

[2:28:21] >> Uh, yep.

[2:28:22] >> So, there's going to be a surplus pickup

[2:28:24] truck.

[2:28:25] >> Okay.

[2:28:25] >> I think they might be interested in that

[2:28:27] >> versus this van.

[2:28:29] >> How does that get transferred?

[2:28:31] >> Well, when she she asked for that one to

[2:28:33] be put up as surplus then we

[2:28:36] >> Okay.

[2:28:37] And the value gets created for

[2:28:39] that one.

[2:28:41] So in this case we've got 41 resolution

[2:28:44] declaring the 2005 Chevy van surplus and

[2:28:47] authorizing its transfer of the village

[2:28:48] of Brea. Um they've inspected it. Um the

[2:28:53] value has determined it's

[2:28:56] recurring thing. The town board has

[2:28:58] determined that the van is no longer

[2:29:00] needed for town purposes. Well, we've

[2:29:02] determined based upon the input of our

[2:29:04] highway superintendent. I believe we

[2:29:06] went under the van to check it. Um, and

[2:29:09] then it's transferred to the village of

[2:29:10] Breto for the purchase price set forth

[2:29:12] there and is in the best interest of the

[2:29:14] town. Now, therefore, be resolved. The

[2:29:17] town board of the town of Redo as

[2:29:19] follows declares the following vehicle

[2:29:22] surplus property and let's fill in the

[2:29:25] amount of $1,500. The town board hereby

[2:29:28] authorizes the transfer and sale of the

[2:29:30] people to the village of Red for the

[2:29:32] purchase price of stated 1500 in asis

[2:29:37] whereas condition no give backs village

[2:29:39] of without any representation or

[2:29:42] warranty by the town supposedly on to

[2:29:44] the highway department.

[2:29:45] >> So move second.

[2:29:48] >> Any further discussion?

[2:29:51] 1500 minutes on this one. All in favor?

[2:29:54] K. I

[2:29:55] >> hi

[2:29:56] >> myself. I Jacob and Christina.

[2:29:59] >> Hi.

[2:29:59] >> Thank you very much. Uh resolution 42

[2:30:03] surplus items were now at the 2002

[2:30:06] international dump truck.

[2:30:09] Um highway superintendent has

[2:30:12] recommended that the disposition of the

[2:30:14] surplus equipment described here in in

[2:30:16] the manner set forth town board of the

[2:30:18] town of Red Hook as follows. declares

[2:30:20] the following items as surplus

[2:30:22] equipment.

[2:30:24] Purchasing agent is authorized to engage

[2:30:27] a reputable I can't even speak.

[2:30:33] Online auction agent uh approved by the

[2:30:36] purchasing officer. Actually, it's the

[2:30:38] highway superintendent. Let's make that

[2:30:40] change. Purchasing officer throughout

[2:30:43] this second one.

[2:30:51] It shall be available for inspection of

[2:30:53] the town highway department. It's

[2:30:54] resolution number 42. Who still is the

[2:30:58] less on the

[2:30:59] >> So moved.

[2:31:00] >> Thank you, gentlemen.

[2:31:02] >> Who would like to second this one?

[2:31:04] >> Second.

[2:31:06] >> Further discussion?

[2:31:09] If not, all in favor? Kenny.

[2:31:12] >> I.

[2:31:12] >> Myself. I

[2:31:15] >> Jacob. Hi. All right, that's 42.

[2:31:19] Okay, we have uh 40 through3.

[2:31:28] We don't want to be abrasive, but we do

[2:31:31] go out to for a bracelet. So, it's

[2:31:34] authorizing the town to advertise or

[2:31:36] request for sealed bids. We go out the

[2:31:38] bids trying to get the best pricing each

[2:31:40] year for the materials and sometimes for

[2:31:43] the labor associated with highway

[2:31:46] projects.

[2:31:47] Um

[2:31:51] those are the ice control abrasives, a

[2:31:53] request for seal bids for hot mix

[2:31:56] asphalt and a request for proposals for

[2:31:58] various materials for 2027.

[2:32:01] These materials are listed here in the

[2:32:03] memo. Do we quantities or like how does

[2:32:08] that get filled in?

[2:32:09] >> Well, it's so here's the here's the

[2:32:12] document itself

[2:32:14] and so um she will go out to bid and

[2:32:18] they will prepare

[2:32:22] » based upon a tonnage so each

[2:32:28] page.

[2:32:30] So, usually whenever we do this, we'll

[2:32:31] get the results back and it'll show like

[2:32:34] price and unit and all that.

[2:32:36] >> So, it's based upon the time. You see

[2:32:38] how it's

[2:32:38] >> Yep.

[2:32:39] >> Okay.

[2:32:39] >> Got it.

[2:32:40] >> And it says 1,700 tons hot mix asphalt

[2:32:44] concrete for example.

[2:32:47] And it's one of those picked up.

[2:32:53] Okay. Uh

[2:32:57] 43.

[2:32:59] Yes.

[2:33:05] » May we

[2:33:08] would like to move 43.

[2:33:10] >> So moved.

[2:33:11] >> Second.

[2:33:12] >> Thank you both. Um further discussion.

[2:33:17] If not, there's a return date in there

[2:33:19] somewhere.

[2:33:21] Right.

[2:33:27] All in favor of Kenny I.

[2:33:30] >> William I.

[2:33:33] >> Jacob.

[2:33:33] >> Hi

[2:33:34] >> Christina.

[2:33:34] >> Hi.

[2:33:35] >> Thank you.

[2:33:36] >> All right. Uh we jumped around a bunch

[2:33:39] tonight.

[2:33:42] Audits. So we get

[2:33:48] our auditor

[2:33:50] comes and audits various departments and

[2:33:53] offices.

[2:34:05] honor those letters.

[2:34:08] Um reviewed uh the justice courts, the

[2:34:12] office of town clerk, office of tax

[2:34:15] collector and the management letter.

[2:34:20] General fund reviewed the consolidated

[2:34:22] checking account for consiliation each

[2:34:24] month for completeness and accuracy

[2:34:28] in assessing the cash dispersements.

[2:34:30] Three vouchers per month. So they they

[2:34:32] do all these spot checking

[2:34:35] um cash receipts

[2:34:38] clear audit trail all checks received by

[2:34:41] the bookkeeper who deposited three

[2:34:43] business days office of state controller

[2:34:46] local government management guide states

[2:34:48] the employee responsible for collecting

[2:34:50] cash prepar

[2:34:53] should not be um we have just one

[2:34:56] bookkeeper

[2:34:58] um so there's not the possibility of um

[2:35:02] by procating those duties.

[2:35:06] Um justice courts uh audit

[2:35:11] and what they do. This is what they do

[2:35:13] for the spot audits the findings. Um

[2:35:18] and we will have merch courts for next

[2:35:20] year when it happens.

[2:35:23] Town clerk, same thing findings.

[2:35:28] It's very positive uh management uh

[2:35:31] letter, tax letter, collector

[2:35:35] um

[2:35:37] 2026 tax receipts and dispersements

[2:35:40] reconciled completely.

[2:35:43] All daily receipts evaluated positive

[2:35:45] and timely manner.

[2:35:49] for their segregation of duties.

[2:35:52] >> They're a clean office.

[2:35:54] >> Clean office. And there they are. You

[2:35:57] are all welcome to look at them website.

[2:36:02] They will be posted upon approval.

[2:36:07] So, uh,

[2:36:10] >> is that correct on the, um, page

[2:36:14] I think it's page five.

[2:36:17] >> That one is that does that, is that 2026

[2:36:20] or 2025.

[2:36:22] >> Uh, find

[2:36:24] collection period should say 2025. There

[2:36:27] was one other type of

[2:36:28] >> used my collection this year 26.

[2:36:32] >> Oh, she used this one. Oh, right, right, cuz your season is January

[2:36:35] through March. So it is it is correct

[2:36:37] Christina.

[2:36:38] >> Okay.

[2:36:38] >> The 2020. What is not correct however is

[2:36:42] uh did we get the correct man? There was

[2:36:45] a typo in there. I think she

[2:36:47] accidentally had in the initial draft

[2:36:49] the management letter

[2:36:52] tree bosser and right. Did she collect

[2:36:56] that? Correct that.

[2:36:59] I think Alex posted uh yeah good. Okay.

[2:37:04] Um,

[2:37:05] >> page two.

[2:37:07] >> Sorry.

[2:37:07] >> On page two, it still says street.

[2:37:09] >> Oh, it still says page page.

[2:37:11] >> Yeah,

[2:37:13] it's like the second one right after the

[2:37:14] resolution.

[2:37:20] » He's still the judge. He's just not our

[2:37:21] judge.

[2:37:23] >> I guess yours is right. The one that I

[2:37:24] had from what was in the mail is wrong.

[2:37:26] So, whatever that update is is

[2:37:28] >> Yes. So, the correction was made and

[2:37:29] that's a matter of Yeah.

[2:37:36] Okay. Uh, where where are we? Did we

[2:37:39] vote on that?

[2:37:40] >> Resolution 44.

[2:37:45] » 44.

[2:37:46] >> No, you didn't vote on it.

[2:37:47] >> We didn't vote on it.

[2:37:50] >> Okay.

[2:37:51] >> This this would be 44.

[2:37:52] >> Yeah.

[2:37:53] Motion to

[2:37:56] accept the audit reports for the year

[2:37:58] ended December 31, 2025 and for text

[2:38:03] misspelled collection if we can make

[2:38:05] that.

[2:38:08] We're trying to be bilingual

[2:38:11] period uh tax collection period

[2:38:16] 2026.

[2:38:20] » Who moved it?

[2:38:22] Nobody move it.

[2:38:25] >> Okay, I think Christina got here. Uh,

[2:38:28] bill.

[2:38:30] >> Further discussion? If not,

[2:38:31] congratulations to all the departments

[2:38:35] on a successful audit. Um, all in favor?

[2:38:38] Kenny.

[2:38:39] >> Hi,

[2:38:39] >> William.

[2:38:40] >> Hi, myself.

[2:38:41] >> I hi Christina.

[2:38:42] >> Hi.

[2:38:43] >> Thank you.

[2:38:44] >> All right. Uh, I think I mentioned uh

[2:38:48] the beginning of the meeting the solar.

[2:38:50] So, we had an emergency roof

[2:38:52] replacement.

[2:38:54] Um, call the solar installer. Please

[2:38:57] book back the solar panels so we can get

[2:38:59] our free electricity from the panels

[2:39:02] that

[2:39:03] we were placed. And a lot of that was

[2:39:05] grant funded years ago. Um

[2:39:12] and he pointed out something and if

[2:39:14] you've been following for the last 20

[2:39:16] years what's been happening in um a lot

[2:39:20] of clean energy industries but

[2:39:23] especially in solar the cost of the

[2:39:25] panels have declined. The efficacy and u

[2:39:32] resiliency of the panels have only

[2:39:34] increased. is they're 13y old panels and

[2:39:38] literally for $200

[2:39:41] difference.

[2:39:42] Um they can put on new panels half the

[2:39:46] amount, 43 panels versus 22,

[2:39:50] half the amount and give us a lot more

[2:39:54] roof. So if we want to expand and get

[2:39:56] more

[2:39:58] free electricity um a new warranty as

[2:40:01] well

[2:40:02] >> and the new warranty and newer panels

[2:40:04] the degra deg degradation

[2:40:07] folks at home probably doing more

[2:40:10] exciting things than I am but studying

[2:40:12] things like how do solar panels degrade

[2:40:15] typically it's about half a percent per

[2:40:17] atom so you would start out at no panel

[2:40:22] is 100% but you would decline by half a

[2:40:24] percent a year. So a 13y old panel,

[2:40:27] you're already starting at you know

[2:40:29] somewhat of a deficit. It's a it's a

[2:40:32] great it's a great south facing and in

[2:40:34] this subsequent email he points out it's

[2:40:36] a great south facing

[2:40:38] um roof. So you know good good thing to

[2:40:43] consider taking.

[2:40:43] >> Can you just explain what like what um

[2:40:47] the diagram that we're looking at? So

[2:40:49] >> sure the uh

[2:40:51] >> let's go to the video tape.

[2:40:58] What number are we on?

[2:41:01] >> Thank you Jes.

[2:41:08] » Okay.

[2:41:09] >> So So

[2:41:10] just briefly what are we what are we

[2:41:12] looking at? Okay. Like so yellow is is

[2:41:17] um

[2:41:17] >> this is town hall yellow.

[2:41:19] >> We're in L shape.

[2:41:21] >> Okay. These are the panels that were not

[2:41:23] affected. We had to replace this roof.

[2:41:27] >> So what what um

[2:41:29] >> we have 43 panels.

[2:41:32] >> What's the yellow represent on the roof?

[2:41:33] Is there like

[2:41:34] >> It's just the roof.

[2:41:34] >> That's the roof.

[2:41:35] >> It's just the roof. It doesn't mean like

[2:41:37] >> No. like any like effective area like

[2:41:40] obviously the southern

[2:41:42] >> um part of the roof is the better part

[2:41:44] of the roof.

[2:41:45] >> Yellow is better than yellow is better

[2:41:48] than orange or is that not true?

[2:41:50] >> Yellow is better than brown.

[2:41:53] >> Well, only because it's north.

[2:41:58] » And how how are we deciding how far over

[2:42:01] to to put them towards that valley?

[2:42:06] Uh I wasn't planning on uh deciding

[2:42:09] that. I was going to leave that to uh

[2:42:12] the installers who are engineers to

[2:42:15] figure that out. But I mean if you have

[2:42:17] some thoughts on that um you can weigh

[2:42:19] that. Um I think that's 22 panels there.

[2:42:22] We had 43 panels on this whole roof.

[2:42:26] >> Um and and we would now have more.

[2:42:29] Right.

[2:42:30] >> I mean, it just it to me if if we're

[2:42:32] going to put them on the southern on the

[2:42:33] southern face of that roof, that would

[2:42:35] it would make sense to to max that out

[2:42:39] >> other more than other other slopes of

[2:42:41] the roof? Like could we fit another row

[2:42:43] on the bottom or like

[2:42:45] >> we looked at that? And then the other

[2:42:46] thing is um have they reviewed? There's

[2:42:50] something in a code about needing to um

[2:42:54] have

[2:42:56] fire department access across a roof.

[2:42:59] >> Yes. So, this is a safer

[2:43:02] um Yes. This I think Dizzy Coverin has

[2:43:05] communications with us. Um this is a

[2:43:10] there's new codes now on these and there

[2:43:13] are new safety features that go with

[2:43:16] this. Um, and there's also an inverter

[2:43:19] that's going to be replaced. Let me see

[2:43:20] if we can get to his communication on

[2:43:22] that.

[2:43:23] >> But it says it's 2025 building code

[2:43:25] compliant. Has the rapid shutdown. I

[2:43:27] think that was one thing that was

[2:43:28] described in the

[2:43:29] >> right was the shutdown. Mhm.

[2:43:32] Module grounding modules have increased

[2:43:34] inside power density. Module level power

[2:43:37] electronics are now required on roof

[2:43:40] systems for rapid shutdown and safety.

[2:43:42] We did not have that because that was

[2:43:44] not required back in 20 12 I believe was

[2:43:48] this system. Maybe 2013.

[2:43:52] >> Good thing to have

[2:43:55] >> um new 25-y year warranties and their

[2:43:57] increased power density would open up

[2:43:59] more room for system expansion. Um we

[2:44:03] will reuse almost all of the existing AC

[2:44:06] wiring and utility interconnection that

[2:44:08] is already in place inside the building.

[2:44:11] So just to be clear, this is this would

[2:44:13] give us the same amount of output but

[2:44:16] with half the amount of panels. If we

[2:44:18] wanted at a later date to expand, we

[2:44:21] it's very easy and modular to to throw

[2:44:23] more up. Now we can take a look at what

[2:44:26] our needs are to do that. Um, but

[2:44:31] the question was before we go ahead and

[2:44:33] pay for 2 or 3 days of having 43 panels

[2:44:36] that are, you know, half or a little

[2:44:39] better than half efficient, do we want

[2:44:42] to do something that seems to be a

[2:44:44] no-brainer?

[2:44:46] >> How much do we give back to the to the

[2:44:48] grid on the

[2:44:49] >> Oh, you're not going to ask me to set

[2:44:51] like that off the top of my head. How

[2:44:53] much?

[2:44:53] >> No, but you're the solar you're the

[2:44:55] solar guy. Are you supposed to know

[2:44:57] these things?

[2:44:58] >> All I know is what I was told. I'm not

[2:45:02] an engineer. And I was told that in the

[2:45:04] town of Hera that we have

[2:45:09] so much solar

[2:45:11] that during the best days, sunny days in

[2:45:14] the middle of the summer that there's a

[2:45:17] possibility we're producing townwide

[2:45:20] more electricity than we are using

[2:45:23] because of the solar. Okay.

[2:45:26] Um but on each you know system don't

[2:45:30] forget we have a whole bunch that we've

[2:45:31] gotten much of which was with grant

[2:45:35] funding. Town hall highway garage

[2:45:39] uh firehouse I remember being a part of

[2:45:41] that uh project 2009 I think we got the

[2:45:44] grant to that one. Um then the the the

[2:45:47] big community solar one then obviously

[2:45:50] the cooking solar one now. Um,

[2:45:54] so

[2:45:57] what what do we think before we tell

[2:45:59] them to put the old ones back on that we

[2:46:02] want these on? Kenny, your thought?

[2:46:06] >> No thoughts.

[2:46:07] >> No thought.

[2:46:08] >> It's not expensive.

[2:46:09] >> New or old for the same amount of money?

[2:46:12] >> New?

[2:46:13] >> No.

[2:46:14] >> What happens to the old ones?

[2:46:16] >> That's I asked that question. Do they

[2:46:18] have value? And guess what it comes down

[2:46:20] to? Not really because it costs. This is

[2:46:25] the hard cost, soft costs, right? So the

[2:46:29] hard costs have declined dramatically. I

[2:46:31] mean, the cost of the solar I don't even

[2:46:32] want to tell you what we paid for these

[2:46:36] systems 20 years ago because it's

[2:46:38] embarrassing. I mean, it's like 10% or

[2:46:40] less now for the actual panels. But do

[2:46:43] they are there recyclable materials like with spark plugs for

[2:46:47] >> they can be used but you have to weigh

[2:46:50] the just like we are we like and

[2:46:52] certainly with the roof we're never

[2:46:53] going to take up the value of the space

[2:46:55] now. He says there's very little value

[2:46:58] to them. But we can

[2:47:01] ask to see if we can

[2:47:02] >> I'm just I'm just I was thinking about

[2:47:03] it in the context of the like the fridge

[2:47:06] the you know the freon cuz

[2:47:09] >> the dollar spark plug spark plugs for

[2:47:13] airplane engines have platinum in them.

[2:47:15] Um and catalytic converters have gold in

[2:47:18] them. And there are companies and

[2:47:21] businesses whose job is to harvest these

[2:47:23] precious metals. And I believe that

[2:47:25] there I think it's silver where it used

[2:47:28] to be used. Uh it's a highly industrial

[2:47:31] metal silver might have been used in

[2:47:33] solar panels at some point. I don't know

[2:47:34] if they still are.

[2:47:35] >> So when they're not being if you can't

[2:47:37] use them anymore, how do you

[2:47:39] >> get rid of them?

[2:47:40] >> Yeah,

[2:47:41] >> they'll they'll get rid of them. You

[2:47:42] actually have to pay to have you know

[2:47:45] there's with these bigger projects

[2:47:47] there's a decommissioning cost and so

[2:47:49] that has to be put in a proposal that

[2:47:51] Christina knows what it cost.

[2:47:54] for time and you maybe also have a

[2:47:56] planning board that you have to have a

[2:47:58] decommissioning plan to take them down

[2:48:00] and to uh appropriately recycle them

[2:48:04] >> or whatever use them but you know

[2:48:06] totally of very little value because

[2:48:08] they are

[2:48:10] the

[2:48:11] not necessarily worthy of the

[2:48:13] installation. Does that mean somebody

[2:48:15] wouldn't want to be interested in it?

[2:48:19] There's going to be a lot that expire in the coming decade or so.

[2:48:24] >> You know, I think they are recycling

[2:48:26] panels now.

[2:48:27] >> We should we should question for Jeff.

[2:48:29] >> Sure.

[2:48:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[2:48:33] >> Okay. Uh,

[2:48:35] >> are we voting on this or is this

[2:48:37] >> I I think we should because this was an

[2:48:39] emergency and we've taken this off and

[2:48:42] they've been off and so it's costing us

[2:48:44] more money each and every day not having

[2:48:47] those panels on there. So, uh,

[2:48:52] who would like to to

[2:48:57] » Okay, next one. um to approve the

[2:49:01] proposal as described in replacing the

[2:49:04] panels on the roof that had to be

[2:49:08] taken off because of the

[2:49:13] Okay. Uh we have a motion. We have a

[2:49:15] second.

[2:49:16] >> Second.

[2:49:17] >> Thank you, Jacob. Further discussion.

[2:49:19] All in favor? Christina? I

[2:49:21] >> Jacob. Marcel. I William.

[2:49:24] >> Kenny. Hi.

[2:49:25] >> Thank you very much. Right. Uh uh

[2:49:29] >> you skipped the um the bridge.

[2:49:33] >> Yeah. Can we can we come back to that

[2:49:37] since there's nobody there's nobody here

[2:49:39] waiting on us. Would would you mind if

[2:49:42] we come back to that? I'd like to just

[2:49:44] tackle

[2:49:46] >> cannabis expo.

[2:49:47] >> Yeah. So we got we got some more

[2:49:49] communication on cannabis.

[2:49:54] Uh it doesn't

[2:49:57] sound like a

[2:49:59] big thing that they're shooting for.

[2:50:01] They want to fit within the

[2:50:05] footprint. Now, we did refer to our

[2:50:08] building in Zo. We'd have to to make

[2:50:11] sure that it's allowed. I think, you

[2:50:13] know, well, I know I expressed I have no

[2:50:16] reservation about something like that

[2:50:19] happening. um the state

[2:50:24] um

[2:50:26] I think has some guidance when it comes

[2:50:28] to the cannabis expos and some rules and

[2:50:31] regulations associated with that. So

[2:50:34] unfortunately we haven't heard back from

[2:50:37] uh our CEO on that. I think he's waiting

[2:50:40] for some legal guidance on that.

[2:50:45] I think it's quite possible we might be

[2:50:48] in a position where we

[2:50:52] >> can't.

[2:50:53] >> No. Well, I wasn't suggesting that that

[2:50:56] we might have to have a special meeting.

[2:50:58] And I bring that up because typically

[2:51:00] the second meeting in August because

[2:51:02] it's fairly we don't have a meeting

[2:51:04] because many of the public are with the

[2:51:07] fair or at the fair.

[2:51:08] >> Oh, that's right.

[2:51:09] >> Otherwise engaged. Um, so I would

[2:51:12] propose we we do what we did in July,

[2:51:14] which is we go ahead and cancel that

[2:51:17] August 20some meeting and leave

[2:51:20] ourselves available to have a special

[2:51:21] meeting so we could tackle this or we do

[2:51:24] have one or two other matters under

[2:51:26] negotiation now and if there's a

[2:51:28] movement there

[2:51:29] >> 26

[2:51:31] would it make sense for us to approve

[2:51:33] this with a condition

[2:51:36] >> or like what are we reviewing? Well, we

[2:51:39] need to

[2:51:40] >> Well, we need to know if it's allowable.

[2:51:43] We haven't heard from our CEO whether or

[2:51:45] not this is allowed. Um I certainly

[2:51:49] would be happy that I have expressed in

[2:51:51] previous meetings that I no problem uh

[2:51:54] with this type of an event

[2:51:56] >> because it seems to me like we were last

[2:51:59] time when we were talking about this, we

[2:52:00] were asking a question like why is this

[2:52:02] before us? And it's because um Office of

[2:52:06] Cannabis Management requires that the

[2:52:08] town board take an action.

[2:52:10] >> Yeah.

[2:52:10] >> But if if we were to approve this

[2:52:15] contingent on

[2:52:18] >> the zoning review,

[2:52:20] >> I understand and I want to say this

[2:52:22] respectfully, but I mean this is this is

[2:52:24] where I sometimes get confused is

[2:52:26] sometimes you won't vote on something

[2:52:28] because you don't have the last little

[2:52:29] detail signed off on. That's a great

[2:52:32] trait for an architect. And then there

[2:52:34] are times where what

[2:52:35] >> we are generalists.

[2:52:37] >> Right. Right. But and then there are

[2:52:39] other times like we don't even get from

[2:52:41] our CEO whether it's legal or allowed

[2:52:44] and you're okay voting on it. Um I'm

[2:52:46] just saying

[2:52:48] I think we need to make sure that we're

[2:52:50] voting on something that is allowed

[2:52:52] under our code or under New York State.

[2:52:55] And so we were supposed to like all

[2:52:57] these referrals were supposed to go to

[2:52:59] him and come back to us. I'm happy to go

[2:53:02] on record and say provided.

[2:53:04] >> Did he I'm sorry to interrupt. Did he

[2:53:06] get all the information? Remember we had

[2:53:07] asked for that additional information?

[2:53:09] >> He did.

[2:53:10] >> And and and uh before we even had a

[2:53:13] chance to ask upstate Pines, they sent

[2:53:16] it like in uh 48 hours or something like

[2:53:19] that. He had to watch the meeting or

[2:53:22] something like that. He was thankful

[2:53:23] that we were um gener sounded generally

[2:53:27] supportive. Um

[2:53:30] >> I guess my point the reason that I would

[2:53:33] suggest that is because

[2:53:37] we're not generally

[2:53:40] um involved in zoning decisions, right?

[2:53:43] So like what

[2:53:46] why is OCM referring it to the town

[2:53:49] board to say that we are

[2:53:53] generally supportive

[2:53:54] >> requirement by the law. It's in their

[2:53:56] law,

[2:53:57] >> right?

[2:53:57] >> You know, I think because this is not a

[2:54:00] dispensary. This is like an expo,

[2:54:02] >> right?

[2:54:02] >> So, think about what an expo is. Um,

[2:54:06] sometimes it's

[2:54:08] a little fun, right? We heard about a

[2:54:11] car show that happened on that two acre

[2:54:13] property that is so tiny. And you know,

[2:54:17] some of us went this spring down to

[2:54:20] Jacob Javitz where there was another car

[2:54:22] show at Expo and that was hundreds of

[2:54:25] thousands of people. So I think the idea

[2:54:28] is that we're supposed to gather

[2:54:29] information as EU supposed to take a

[2:54:31] look at the state law. We're supposed to

[2:54:33] look at our own local code and make sure

[2:54:35] it conforms. I'm perfectly comfortable

[2:54:37] with this. I'm perfectly comfortable.

[2:54:40] We've done this maybe not while you've

[2:54:43] been on the board. Um, but we certainly

[2:54:45] have on shorter order called special

[2:54:47] meetings for either grant purposes or

[2:54:49] purposes to accommodate this. Um, and

[2:54:52] I'm happy to make myself available to uh

[2:54:56] to call a special meeting to approve it,

[2:54:58] but I I I want somebody to tell me that

[2:55:01] it's a while before we do that. And only

[2:55:04] the CEO can make those determinations. I

[2:55:06] don't want to stand in the shoes of the

[2:55:08] CEO.

[2:55:09] >> Understood. But my my only point is just

[2:55:11] saying that like because we the the CEO

[2:55:14] is day in day out determining whether

[2:55:17] things are allowed or not. And so if if we were to say like we're we are

[2:55:23] comfortable with this as long as it

[2:55:25] conforms with our zoning, I I would be

[2:55:28] comfortable saying that because I think

[2:55:29] that's the that's the the intent of us

[2:55:33] weighing in on it.

[2:55:34] >> I think it serves a purpose. Yeah, I was

[2:55:36] say sort of like sort of saying we're

[2:55:38] waiting to hear that back if we get that

[2:55:40] information that says yeah, good to go.

[2:55:43] >> Yeah.

[2:55:44] >> Like why have a separate meeting for

[2:55:46] >> to approve it if we feel like if the

[2:55:48] answer is yes,

[2:55:48] >> right? Like if if it if

[2:55:50] >> you're okay on the hypothetical,

[2:55:52] >> well, I think if the answer is no, then

[2:55:53] we don't. I guess the question is

[2:55:57] are we if say and I'm generally flexible

[2:56:01] about those kinds of things but are we

[2:56:03] sending something to the state saying

[2:56:05] contingent on this and they get it and

[2:56:07] they go oh

[2:56:08] >> this is I think we wait to sign off on

[2:56:10] the form until we hear from

[2:56:11] >> I see but could we could we pass it

[2:56:14] tonight saying it is it is up to the CEO

[2:56:17] to make sure that that the zoning

[2:56:19] conforms we're okay with it if he signs

[2:56:22] off on it and then it goes to the

[2:56:24] We delegate Robert's work with the CEO

[2:56:26] to

[2:56:26] >> sure

[2:56:26] >> get that answer and then sign off on it

[2:56:29] if the answer is yes.

[2:56:31] >> The fair starts on the 23rd, right?

[2:56:33] >> 25th.

[2:56:34] >> Oh, the 25th.

[2:56:37] Okay.

[2:56:39] >> Yeah.

[2:56:40] >> I was just trying to think about it in

[2:56:41] terms like if we had run in here in the

[2:56:43] morning and

[2:56:44] >> Oh,

[2:56:44] >> you only need three of us to do it. So,

[2:56:47] I'm not going anywhere else. I'll be

[2:56:48] available.

[2:56:50] Did they get uh this temporary extension

[2:56:53] of their license dispensary that that

[2:56:55] that's an approval thing from the state?

[2:57:00] >> It says here they

[2:57:02] the rented space that uh there's a

[2:57:05] temporary extension of our licensed

[2:57:07] retail dispensary.

[2:57:10] >> Do we have to get approval or is that

[2:57:12] something

[2:57:13] >> that's coming from the state? I would

[2:57:14] think.

[2:57:14] >> Right. But you see where I'm saying that

[2:57:19] >> Upstate Pines is going to be selling

[2:57:21] cannabis. They're going to be the only

[2:57:22] ones out of these.

[2:57:23] >> That's right. They're the only ones

[2:57:24] selling it,

[2:57:25] >> right? But they're saying uh the rented

[2:57:27] space will operate as a temporary

[2:57:29] extension of our license.

[2:57:31] >> Okay. I Yeah, I read that. I think what

[2:57:33] they're saying

[2:57:33] >> to get approval from the state to get a

[2:57:35] temporary extension.

[2:57:36] >> Uh I think what if we approved if we

[2:57:40] approved it, I think that's what the

[2:57:42] state's waiting for.

[2:57:43] >> Hang on. Hang on. Just to be clear, but

[2:57:46] just to be clear because I I want to

[2:57:48] make sure that we're not giving the

[2:57:49] wrong person. We don't approve it.

[2:57:52] >> No, I know

[2:57:53] >> the state regulates.

[2:57:56] >> The state approves it,

[2:57:57] >> but but the form is asking us to

[2:57:59] approve.

[2:58:00] >> Exactly.

[2:58:00] >> For the state to consider.

[2:58:01] >> Exactly.

[2:58:02] >> Yeah. Okay. And and I think the what

[2:58:04] they was what in this additional

[2:58:06] information that they provided us are

[2:58:08] saying is that they're going to be the

[2:58:12] only actual seller

[2:58:15] >> of cannabis. It's just that not it's not

[2:58:17] across the street. It's going to be at

[2:58:19] the farm. Well, I'm just wondering is it

[2:58:21] legal for them to

[2:58:23] >> that's up to

[2:58:23] >> sell after the sprinted I think that's

[2:58:26] up to the state and so when they make

[2:58:29] their approval they're that's what

[2:58:31] they're part of what they're approved

[2:58:32] >> that's why I feel uncomfortable voting

[2:58:34] on it right you know until we get

[2:58:37] >> all the facts

[2:58:38] >> yeah I think that this showcase event

[2:58:40] application is meant to account for

[2:58:42] those showcases happening at places that

[2:58:44] are different from right

[2:58:45] >> the typical location that they're doing

[2:58:47] their business at

[2:58:49] >> is There is there a compromise here

[2:58:51] where maybe we as a board can convey

[2:58:54] just for their planning purposes but

[2:58:56] provided

[2:58:58] without voting on it but letting letting

[2:59:01] them know that our inclination is to

[2:59:03] support this effort if we get

[2:59:06] >> yes

[2:59:07] >> you want more information we need

[2:59:10] >> okay

[2:59:11] >> we shouldn't do anything

[2:59:12] >> so I think it's it's not it's not a vote

[2:59:14] to send for

[2:59:16] >> what's that a balloon Okay. Okay. So,

[2:59:20] um, would would I then ask you for

[2:59:23] permission to communicate with Upstate

[2:59:26] Pines to say that while there's still

[2:59:28] the outstanding

[2:59:30] question and um, legality um that, you

[2:59:35] know, as a board we we did not see a

[2:59:37] problem with it and for planning

[2:59:39] purposes, provided we get the

[2:59:42] information,

[2:59:43] we intend to convene a meeting, a

[2:59:46] special meeting, even if for a few

[2:59:48] minutes to approve the form when

[2:59:52] compromise.

[2:59:53] >> You don't like it? I

[2:59:54] >> I don't like it cuz I just I It's a

[2:59:56] matter of principle to me. I mean, like,

[2:59:58] we're not in the business of of of

[3:00:01] doing the zoning review. So, I look at

[3:00:03] it.

[3:00:03] >> That's why I don't want to vote on it. I don't want to vote on something that

[3:00:07] >> right,

[3:00:08] >> you know, somebody hasn't told me.

[3:00:09] >> So, the language would be something like

[3:00:11] we appoint Robert.

[3:00:14] >> Doesn't have to be language. It's just

[3:00:15] you're authorizing me to communicate

[3:00:17] with them that as a board we have no

[3:00:19] problem conceptually with doing it and

[3:00:21] what they've described sounds great

[3:00:23] >> but we need to hear back from the ZU

[3:00:25] >> but they need to conform with our zoning

[3:00:27] law

[3:00:30] and

[3:00:30] >> if it does we will convene a special

[3:00:33] meeting.

[3:00:33] >> Well, not only zoning law but state law.

[3:00:38] >> But we're not um we're not weighing in

[3:00:41] on the state law. We should weigh in on

[3:00:42] our zoning law. That's town law, but

[3:00:45] then it's going to go to the state.

[3:00:47] >> Okay. Well,

[3:00:49] >> somebody in our municipality needs to be

[3:00:52] up on and and actually Brandon offered

[3:00:54] to take a look into that as well, you

[3:00:56] know, the state law to make sure that

[3:00:58] we're

[3:00:59] um

[3:01:03] you know, being cognizant of that.

[3:01:06] >> And the whole idea of this discussion is

[3:01:08] we all think about one thing, liability.

[3:01:12] So

[3:01:13] >> yeah,

[3:01:13] >> it's just like what was happening at

[3:01:15] Hard Means with the

[3:01:17] >> right

[3:01:18] >> uh you know with the

[3:01:19] >> the festival and the alcohol. It's it's

[3:01:23] you know there's liability on our part

[3:01:26] you know

[3:01:28] >> in some ways.

[3:01:29] >> Well yeah you you you were around uh the

[3:01:33] gathering in the body.

[3:01:35] >> Yeah. Well that

[3:01:36] >> right where somebody died.

[3:01:38] >> No that was big. Yeah,

[3:01:40] >> but Robert, I think, you know, your

[3:01:41] point is interesting to me. I don't I

[3:01:43] didn't actually think about it that way,

[3:01:44] but is the authority having jurisdiction

[3:01:47] for OCM, the town or the state?

[3:01:52] >> No, we have we don't have authority. No,

[3:01:56] I just pointed out that it's not our

[3:01:57] decision. Um, we just we just need to do

[3:02:02] our due diligence, which is to have our

[3:02:04] CEO says, "Yes, it's okay that they do

[3:02:07] that." And yes, what they're proposing

[3:02:09] conforms.

[3:02:11] >> Mhm.

[3:02:11] >> See, what we're not anticipating is that

[3:02:13] they Brandon comes back and says, "Well,

[3:02:16] they can do it, but they have to do A,

[3:02:18] B, C, and D, and this part of it they

[3:02:21] can't do or whatever." And we're like,

[3:02:23] "Okay, well, wait, now what do we do?"

[3:02:26] And so that's why I'm saying I think we

[3:02:27] should convey our sentiment if we

[3:02:30] haven't already. And then, you know, I

[3:02:32] did ask Brendan about it today because I

[3:02:35] reminded him that it was on the agenda

[3:02:36] and he said he was still waiting to hear

[3:02:38] back on certain matters, you know, the

[3:02:41] legal I think legal stuff cuz this is

[3:02:44] all new to us. I mean, could be could be

[3:02:46] really one of the worst rollouts in

[3:02:49] state history um was cannabis and here

[3:02:52] we are trying to figure it out. I mean,

[3:02:55] I guess I guess that the the form,

[3:02:57] right, is saying what it's asking for

[3:02:59] us, right, is that the individual

[3:03:00] authorized to approve events on behalf

[3:03:02] of the belon municipality approving of

[3:03:04] the events taking place in the location

[3:03:06] and the dates and times, right? I think

[3:03:08] that the discussion we had tonight is if

[3:03:10] we hear back from Brandon that yeah,

[3:03:12] there's not an issue with this under our

[3:03:14] zoning, we're all like, yeah, go ahead.

[3:03:18] We approve it. No problem. I don't say

[3:03:20] we need to call another meeting. I think

[3:03:21] we can authorize you as the person to

[3:03:24] sign off on this if that's the answer we

[3:03:26] get.

[3:03:26] >> If we get a different answer, I think

[3:03:28] then maybe it's prudent to call the

[3:03:29] meeting and have that discussion, but I

[3:03:31] don't see the need to call the meeting

[3:03:33] just to say, "Yeah, the thing we all

[3:03:35] agree on."

[3:03:36] >> But I would call a meeting if Brandon

[3:03:37] comes back and says he has there's a

[3:03:39] different is anything other if there's a

[3:03:40] qualification where the answer's no.

[3:03:42] That's fair.

[3:03:44] I

[3:03:44] >> think we can live with that plan to hold

[3:03:46] the time that I can live with that.

[3:03:49] Yeah.

[3:03:52] I think McKenna brings up a good point

[3:03:54] which is the liability. Well, you all

[3:03:57] agreed you didn't ask to see is there

[3:04:00] first aid is there, you know, whatever.

[3:04:02] Is there the normal things that you

[3:04:04] would have at an expo?

[3:04:07] And this is Brandon's job is to

[3:04:09] >> yeah,

[3:04:10] >> you know, is this allowed by the site

[3:04:11] plan? You know, all of those things.

[3:04:14] It's a one time

[3:04:17] maybe some decent insurance.

[3:04:22] The state's going to the state's going

[3:04:23] to review the application as well,

[3:04:25] right? We're just saying yes, you can

[3:04:27] have an event. I don't think we need to

[3:04:28] over complicate it.

[3:04:32] >> I'll make that motion.

[3:04:36] to authorize Robert

[3:04:38] >> to authorize Robert to

[3:04:44] » um

[3:04:47] » approve the

[3:04:47] >> to approve the to approve um pending

[3:04:52] zoning review.

[3:04:54] >> Um

[3:04:59] wait, can we just backtrack a little

[3:05:02] bit? So the motion is to authorize the

[3:05:05] town supervisor if I may um not name the

[3:05:09] town supervisor to

[3:05:12] um submit the form

[3:05:15] to OCM

[3:05:18] under the condition that

[3:05:21] the um

[3:05:24] >> zoning officer

[3:05:27] approves of the event as described.

[3:05:31] Beautiful.

[3:05:33] That's my motion.

[3:05:34] >> All right,

[3:05:35] >> I'll second that.

[3:05:36] >> All right, further discussion.

[3:05:40] >> All in favor? Okay.

[3:05:42] >> I

[3:05:47] right. Um

[3:05:52] » Deanna.

[3:05:53] >> Oh, yes.

[3:05:57] It's it's near it's near heresy that we

[3:06:00] left the pets to the la to the near

[3:06:02] last.

[3:06:03] >> We'll get to the bridge again.

[3:06:06] >> We'll cross that bridge.

[3:06:07] >> All right.

[3:06:10] » So, just a very quick explanation. This

[3:06:13] is new. This is

[3:06:17] >> the law was passed like last year, but

[3:06:20] um

[3:06:22] >> we I already updated my system, but um

[3:06:26] on renewal, dog renewal license, um we

[3:06:30] have to add an option for people to

[3:06:33] contribute to a shelter of our choice,

[3:06:37] >> um whatever we choose. And then annually

[3:06:41] it'll show up on my report but annually

[3:06:44] um it'll show up on my report as people

[3:06:46] contribute monthly but annually we will

[3:06:49] pay the shelter whatever has been

[3:06:51] collected right

[3:06:52] >> is the is the amount uh like a fixed

[3:06:55] amount

[3:06:56] >> they have a choice

[3:06:56] >> you have a choice whatever you want when

[3:06:59] you go to a restaurant and they say

[3:07:00] would you like to contribute to the

[3:07:02] hungry and then you pick a whatever 10.

[3:07:06] >> Yeah. But does the state set those

[3:07:08] amounts? Okay.

[3:07:10] >> That's up to I mean I I was just going

[3:07:12] to do five 10 and then a blank to put

[3:07:15] what Yeah.

[3:07:17] >> Um you know or whatever if you think it

[3:07:20] should be less. But I feel like people

[3:07:22] if they're going to do it if they're

[3:07:23] going to do it

[3:07:24] >> but we do have to name a shelter

[3:07:26] >> um they can't they can't do a write in.

[3:07:29] >> So um

[3:07:31] >> so okay

[3:07:35] » no that's so The ask is yeah the ask is

[3:07:40] for you to to come up with a

[3:07:42] recommendation in talking with uh maybe

[3:07:45] Patricia and maybe

[3:07:48] you know take a look at I know the ASPCA

[3:07:51] is going through the transition

[3:07:54] a lot of dogs.

[3:07:55] >> What's that?

[3:07:56] >> Olster SPCA takes a lot of dogs.

[3:07:58] >> I know. Yeah, that's that was my

[3:08:01] thought.

[3:08:01] >> Um, so maybe come up with a

[3:08:03] recommendation of a couple of places we

[3:08:05] might consider because we do have to

[3:08:07] identify the shelter,

[3:08:09] >> right?

[3:08:09] >> Like not for profits that you I I just

[3:08:12] don't know any off the top of my head. I

[3:08:15] didn't really

[3:08:17] >> She would probably know.

[3:08:18] >> Yeah. So maybe if you could have a

[3:08:19] conversation with her.

[3:08:21] >> Did you phone me her number?

[3:08:23] >> I did.

[3:08:24] >> It's on the website. I can do it's on

[3:08:26] the website but I can also

[3:08:27] >> but the question I have is on the form

[3:08:31] is it going to be fixed let's say we

[3:08:32] come up can come

[3:08:34] >> it's going to be fixed

[3:08:35] >> it's just going to be one

[3:08:36] >> there's only one choice

[3:08:37] >> they can't do it right in it's just that

[3:08:39] and it's going to say it on the license

[3:08:43] on the renewal there's a spot where I'm

[3:08:46] going to be having that printed in the

[3:08:48] you know

[3:08:50] >> donation optional donation to

[3:08:52] >> such and such and the the resolution

[3:08:54] shows that too. And then it'll be like 5

[3:08:58] 10 or other.

[3:09:01] It's just an option. Like I I don't know

[3:09:03] why they're doing it, but we have to um

[3:09:09] follow.

[3:09:09] >> But the shelter doesn't have to be in

[3:09:11] Duchess County.

[3:09:12] >> No. No, it doesn't. I mean, it it

[3:09:14] doesn't have to be. It's it's local.

[3:09:17] Some people are doing Duchess County

[3:09:18] SPCA like south of here, but others I

[3:09:22] think have done like like Hudson Valley

[3:09:24] Rescue like I don't remember the names,

[3:09:26] but like Hudson Valley.

[3:09:27] >> There's a few choices. I'll find

[3:09:30] >> the local like Yeah. shelters.

[3:09:34] >> Okay.

[3:09:34] >> But it does not be in the county.

[3:09:37] >> All right.

[3:09:38] >> Just local.

[3:09:40] >> Okay.

[3:09:41] >> Um

[3:09:42] >> so that would be Thank you. Resolution.

[3:09:44] Yeah, there are a couple of blanks in

[3:09:46] that. Okay, if you want to take a look

[3:09:47] at them, maybe come back to us in

[3:09:49] >> September. So, yeah, we're not having a

[3:09:52] meeting.

[3:09:52] >> Well,

[3:09:53] >> in September,

[3:09:54] >> let's we'll handle that after the

[3:09:56] bridge.

[3:09:57] >> You know what? We already sent out our

[3:09:59] renewals for this past month. So,

[3:10:02] >> yeah,

[3:10:02] >> if they go out in September, as long as

[3:10:04] we're working on this, we're we're in

[3:10:06] compliant. you know, we're not I mean, I

[3:10:08] already have it updated on my system, so

[3:10:12] it already has a a blank there. So, you

[3:10:16] know, I'll just finish it off once we

[3:10:18] decide once you decide what shelter one,

[3:10:23] you know, decide.

[3:10:25] >> Okay.

[3:10:25] >> To donate to.

[3:10:27] >> Do you know if we have the ability to

[3:10:28] change that option at some point after

[3:10:30] we set it or is it something that the

[3:10:33] question before?

[3:10:35] >> I think so. I think you can designate a

[3:10:37] will. It's just you have to have

[3:10:38] identified,

[3:10:39] >> right? Maybe like after a year.

[3:10:41] >> Yeah.

[3:10:42] >> The concept is

[3:10:43] >> we're going to want to change if we make

[3:10:45] a decision. It's more just a question

[3:10:46] of, you know,

[3:10:48] >> Yeah. Maybe you decide to change it at a

[3:10:49] different time.

[3:10:50] >> Yeah. The concept is that before

[3:10:52] somebody

[3:10:54] donates, they need to know who they're

[3:10:56] donating. That's

[3:10:59] >> okay.

[3:10:59] >> Yes. So, September.

[3:11:01] >> Okay. Good.

[3:11:02] >> September for the pets.

[3:11:03] >> Well, I'll probably get two before that.

[3:11:05] Yeah, that's fine. But for like the

[3:11:06] resolution to choose because then my

[3:11:08] renewals will go out September or we can

[3:11:11] do it for October.

[3:11:13] >> Resolution number.

[3:11:15] >> Well, we're not going to do it tonight.

[3:11:17] >> Oh, we're not doing this.

[3:11:18] >> No, cuz you got you got to come with a

[3:11:20] recommendation. We got to fill in the

[3:11:22] >> blank.

[3:11:25] >> No, the whole thing.

[3:11:27] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know. I know.

[3:11:28] >> I'm sorry about the bridge. I'm moving

[3:11:30] on.

[3:11:30] >> Yeah.

[3:11:33] You're tired.

[3:11:35] So, we're not we're not going to take

[3:11:37] action on the bond resolution cuz

[3:11:38] there's no numbers in the bond

[3:11:40] resolution. The reason there's no number

[3:11:42] is because we still have to resolve that

[3:11:44] one question which is are we going to um

[3:11:48] maybe change any of the materials and

[3:11:51] subsequently to the discussion

[3:11:55] um that we had on this I've been in

[3:11:57] touch with do

[3:12:00] and so I'm pleased to report it to you

[3:12:03] all but I'm going to report it to the public that we are going to get uh

[3:12:08] another allocation of 5 $17,000

[3:12:11] towards this bridge project.

[3:12:15] So, we will be in a better position

[3:12:19] to entertain.

[3:12:23] >> We're going out to bid again in

[3:12:24] September, right? We decided that at a

[3:12:26] previous meeting,

[3:12:28] >> we were advised to do so by those

[3:12:30] engineers, HVEA. They sent us some

[3:12:34] alternatives which

[3:12:37] >> um

[3:12:38] >> like value engineering alternatives.

[3:12:40] >> Well, you saw the stamp concrete stuff

[3:12:42] and all that stuff.

[3:12:44] >> Um

[3:12:45] >> so, you know, I don't know how others

[3:12:47] felt. I wasn't all excited about that

[3:12:49] block. I mean, I think I would prefer

[3:12:51] actually just continuing the the uh

[3:12:56] open part of the bridge before that. Um,

[3:13:01] >> guard rail is not so attractive.

[3:13:04] >> So, I uh

[3:13:07] wonder now that we have $57,000

[3:13:11] and more if we want to keep the specs

[3:13:14] the way they are, if we want to make

[3:13:15] some value engineering changes. So, what are your what are your thoughts?

[3:13:22] >> Um,

[3:13:23] >> I mean knowing that we need to decide by

[3:13:25] September

[3:13:25] >> by September, right?

[3:13:27] >> By the first September meeting. the

[3:13:29] timing, right?

[3:13:33] >> Well, you got time to design something.

[3:13:35] >> Well, no. I mean, I looked I looked at

[3:13:37] >> Well, we've been talking about this for

[3:13:38] a few months again, so I want to I want

[3:13:40] to remind everybody that, right?

[3:13:41] >> Valid.

[3:13:42] >> I mean,

[3:13:45] >> if there's no difference between making

[3:13:46] a decision now and making a decision in

[3:13:49] September, then I would say let's make

[3:13:51] the decision in September. If it's I

[3:13:53] mean, I looked at it. It's an important bridge. It's like it's

[3:13:59] going to be very sensitive to to

[3:14:02] >> Yeah, we have public info sessions with

[3:14:05] our neighbors.

[3:14:06] >> Believe it,

[3:14:06] >> right? All that stuff. Um

[3:14:11] >> I think it should be nice.

[3:14:13] I agree. I mean,

[3:14:15] >> that's what the neighbors have asked.

[3:14:17] Now,

[3:14:17] >> now you know this is the considerations

[3:14:21] the the the joy of being in these

[3:14:23] positions and we heard about you know

[3:14:27] groups of taxpayers, groups of

[3:14:29] residents, these paying for those and so

[3:14:32] on and so forth. And so the argument on

[3:14:34] the other hand, again I'm not siding one

[3:14:36] way or the other, is hey this is a small

[3:14:39] bridge used by just a portion of people

[3:14:41] in London acres primarily and why should

[3:14:44] the whole town pay for a stone facade,

[3:14:48] right? That's the other argument I've

[3:14:49] heard.

[3:14:50] >> It's a through. It's a through road

[3:14:52] though. It's not like a dead end street.

[3:14:54] And

[3:14:55] >> there's a couple ways to go around.

[3:14:57] Look, I I side I side with with

[3:15:00] >> Kenny on this one. Yeah, of course. by

[3:15:02] side with, you know, we did a lot of

[3:15:04] work getting input from the public and

[3:15:06] the community.

[3:15:07] >> And um to the extent we can afford to

[3:15:11] honor that, we should. And with another

[3:15:13] half million dollars, I'm not so sure

[3:15:16] that that's going to be a problem. I

[3:15:18] mean, I you know, um

[3:15:21] >> from your mouth,

[3:15:22] >> too. I No, I mean, listen, you we put it

[3:15:24] out for bid. The bid we got before was

[3:15:28] acceptable. It's just I mean in

[3:15:30] moneywise but not it didn't meet certain

[3:15:33] >> but we only got one

[3:15:34] >> and we only got one but I I I guess my

[3:15:37] point is

[3:15:37] >> well I hope we get good bids.

[3:15:39] >> Yeah. I mean I want more bids but I I I don't have a high concern

[3:15:45] >> especially now that we have more money.

[3:15:47] Uh

[3:15:48] >> I don't know. I don't

[3:15:49] >> you know the cheapest day to build

[3:15:52] anything yesterday. It

[3:15:53] >> was yesterday. Yeah. But we're not

[3:15:54] asking for a we're not ask for a

[3:15:56] goldplated bridge right you know. Yeah.

[3:15:59] >> Is there anything preventing us from uh

[3:16:01] putting the alternative into the RFP the

[3:16:04] >> putting putting an alternative

[3:16:06] >> the stamp concrete as alternative to or

[3:16:09] something like that?

[3:16:10] >> I wouldn't I think it's going to be bad.

[3:16:12] I mean

[3:16:13] >> yes there's a downside

[3:16:14] >> which is tot

[3:16:16] has to approve any changes that we made.

[3:16:19] What about a design like, you know, not

[3:16:21] stamped concrete, but you know, a nice

[3:16:24] finished concrete with a nice slate cap

[3:16:27] on top

[3:16:28] >> instead of the whole thing being stone.

[3:16:30] At least it's not this guard rail, but

[3:16:33] it's a, you know, you know, like 2 in.

[3:16:37] >> I do the same thing. Yeah. So my opinion

[3:16:41] is is my opinion is that the the design

[3:16:46] like I was looking at it not from a

[3:16:48] perspective of like critiquing the

[3:16:49] design because I believe that that has

[3:16:51] already gone through its process and

[3:16:53] that's very important but like are there

[3:16:56] any other aspects like are the culvert

[3:16:58] sized right? Are the are the footings

[3:17:00] like is it is it overengineered in a way

[3:17:02] that we could pull back on any on

[3:17:04] anything that wouldn't affect the design

[3:17:06] intent. It would take more time to go

[3:17:10] through that and a lot of times it costs

[3:17:12] more in in engineering fees to make the

[3:17:14] revisions than you're gonna get in

[3:17:16] savings. So,

[3:17:18] >> you're going to push it a whole another

[3:17:19] year.

[3:17:20] >> I mean, when we when we received that 6

[3:17:22] ines of rain a week or so ago, what did

[3:17:24] it look like there?

[3:17:26] >> Funny you should mention it because your

[3:17:27] town supervisor drives around town and documents all the flying and it was

[3:17:35] such a hyper local event, you know. I'm

[3:17:37] sure you read that Kinder Hook broke

[3:17:39] records with 11 in and whatever. I

[3:17:42] believe had more than whatever.

[3:17:43] >> So, what did you drive by that bridge?

[3:17:45] >> I have pictures of the bridge.

[3:17:46] >> Oh,

[3:17:47] >> I have pictures of the bridge. That

[3:17:49] bridge. I have pictures of Stony Brook.

[3:17:51] I have pictures of Sound.

[3:17:54] >> Okay.

[3:17:54] I have all that because that's

[3:17:57] >> what that particular

[3:17:59] >> and interestingly enough the bridge that

[3:18:02] we were placed on Stonybrook was having

[3:18:05] a hard time keeping up and we had

[3:18:08] widened it.

[3:18:09] >> Remember that bridge

[3:18:12] widen it

[3:18:12] >> the Stony Brook Bridge

[3:18:13] >> Stony Brook

[3:18:16] took feels like it took forever.

[3:18:17] >> The old Peter hanging out there right by

[3:18:19] the Stony Brook and Sang St.

[3:18:22] S. Oh,

[3:18:25] >> I basically had to read the the the

[3:18:28] supports.

[3:18:29] >> Um, that was a having a hard time

[3:18:31] keeping up the amount of water that cuz,

[3:18:35] right, the Stony Creek comes from the

[3:18:38] north.

[3:18:38] >> Right. Right. Right.

[3:18:39] >> And there was all that water from the

[3:18:40] north, German town, right? And our

[3:18:43] boater had lakefront property. Couldn't

[3:18:46] get out. She needed somebody to pick her

[3:18:47] up. Um,

[3:18:51] >> the salt kill bridge. And that one was

[3:18:53] keeping up for the moment.

[3:18:55] >> The one in

[3:18:56] >> Yes. But but you have to remember, you

[3:18:59] know, you know, soils and hydro soils

[3:19:02] and water, you know, as as good as

[3:19:04] anybody. Um, we had tremendous amounts

[3:19:07] of rain. Not nearly what Tiboly had, not

[3:19:09] nearly what Germans had, not nearly what

[3:19:12] Kinderhook, but what we did have was

[3:19:14] dryness previous to that. So, it was

[3:19:17] able to absorb a fair amount, right?

[3:19:19] >> So, it really wasn't a good indication.

[3:19:22] Let's see in April if we get one of

[3:19:23] those rains what that's like.

[3:19:25] >> What it look like when Harvard kind of

[3:19:27] Irene hit.

[3:19:28] >> Yes.

[3:19:29] >> Cuz that dumped like 14 in.

[3:19:31] >> Well, it was it was Irene and late and

[3:19:33] that was why we had the devastation.

[3:19:36] >> Sandy.

[3:19:38] >> Well, Sandy was south. I'm talking

[3:19:42] >> Danny came up the Hudson though, didn't

[3:19:43] >> Yeah, but Irene put dump my water then.

[3:19:45] >> Oh, he did.

[3:19:46] >> Yeah.

[3:19:48] Sandy. What what was your what was your bottom line though?

[3:19:53] >> That way it held up. You said

[3:19:55] >> that it held up but I think it it held

[3:19:57] up

[3:19:59] because remember the sawill comes from a

[3:20:01] very different place than where the

[3:20:02] stony comes from. So that hyper local

[3:20:06] event

[3:20:07] >> was a huge difference between well you

[3:20:10] saw the damage photos in Germantown

[3:20:13] right?

[3:20:17] So, um,

[3:20:19] >> so don't think

[3:20:21] >> if I understand where we are, consensus

[3:20:24] is we're going to continue with the

[3:20:27] specs the way they are unless somebody

[3:20:29] has a better idea that they want to

[3:20:30] propose at the September meeting. Better

[3:20:33] get me that idea quickly because it'll

[3:20:35] need to be reviewed by DOT. And let me

[3:20:38] tell you, you're talking realistic. It's

[3:20:40] not realistic. It's not realistic. We

[3:20:41] should just approve it.

[3:20:42] >> We should just send it back out.

[3:20:43] >> Okay. So, we're going to let HVA know.

[3:20:46] We're going to go out back to bid, same

[3:20:49] specs, fingers crossed, hopefully more

[3:20:52] contractors. Look, if we have to just

[3:20:55] continue to reject bids till we get a

[3:20:57] reasonable quote, then that's what we'll

[3:20:59] have to do.

[3:21:03] » Is that a motion?

[3:21:05] uh uh a motion to direct the supervisor

[3:21:09] to communicate to HVA that we are not

[3:21:12] going to change the specs and that we

[3:21:15] are prepared to go out for rebid at our

[3:21:19] September

[3:21:20] 18th.

[3:21:23] » Did you make that motion?

[3:21:25] >> Uh well I can't have a motion that

[3:21:28] directs me. So moved.

[3:21:29] >> What would you think?

[3:21:30] >> Second.

[3:21:31] >> Thank you.

[3:21:32] >> Further discussion not all in favor?

[3:21:34] Kenny.

[3:21:34] >> Hi,

[3:21:34] >> William.

[3:21:35] >> Hi.

[3:21:36] Christina.

[3:21:38] >> Hi.

[3:21:38] >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, I think we have

[3:21:41] correspondence on her, but we got

[3:21:44] that was the housing committee stuff.

[3:21:46] >> That was the housing stuff. We went

[3:21:47] through that.

[3:21:48] >> Did you have um before we go,

[3:21:52] >> don't forget to address the record on

[3:21:55] there.

[3:21:55] >> So, I don't have historic re on the

[3:21:58] agenda, but I sent that to you. Um,

[3:22:04] I work on budget stuff year round and

[3:22:06] I'm preparing the tenative budget

[3:22:13] worksheets with the bookkeeper for the

[3:22:17] departments. We'll be meeting with the

[3:22:18] departments looking over all that stuff.

[3:22:21] I need to do all of that in context of

[3:22:23] any and everything that we might

[3:22:26] consider having in the budget so we

[3:22:28] understand what's available to us.

[3:22:30] Historic Red Hook has asked for um some

[3:22:33] funding support and it seems to me in

[3:22:35] year 250.

[3:22:37] It's surprising that this is the first

[3:22:39] year that they've done that

[3:22:43] and they're a real asset to the

[3:22:44] community, the Elmanorf

[3:22:47] um

[3:22:49] and so on and so forth, describing their

[3:22:52] programs, their history series, their

[3:22:54] speakers and whatever. Um, for folks at

[3:22:57] home, a reminder, we provide the funding

[3:22:59] for the community center. We provide

[3:23:01] funding for other entities, senior

[3:23:04] services,

[3:23:06] Red Hook response,

[3:23:08] >> and it's just like 10 grand that they're

[3:23:10] looking for between 10 and 13,000. So,

[3:23:13] if you would review that and let's come

[3:23:15] back to this because I would like to if you are supportive, I would like to

[3:23:20] create a budget line for this um because

[3:23:23] I think it's such an important

[3:23:25] institution

[3:23:27] um in our community

[3:23:29] >> and the budget is

[3:23:32] in September, right?

[3:23:35] >> Well, there's a whole series of

[3:23:36] deadlines, but I prepare the tenant of

[3:23:39] each and every year for your

[3:23:40] consideration and budget workshop and

[3:23:43] then we do move to preliminary that's

[3:23:45] the public you'll get all that schedule

[3:23:48] once you get your packet your booklet um

[3:23:51] all will be laid out for you for the

[3:23:53] timeline but it's good for me to know

[3:23:56] which brings me to the next point which

[3:23:58] is the camp rising sun pool is going

[3:24:02] really well people are finally like

[3:24:05] knowing about it coming and do you know

[3:24:07] there's no Canadian smoke there's no

[3:24:10] terrible storms MS although we could

[3:24:12] probably have had better weather. Um so

[3:24:15] it's people love it. Um they're starting

[3:24:18] John and his reporter I think noted

[3:24:20] they're starting to use the trails as

[3:24:22] well. It's it's been working out quite

[3:24:24] well. So um I did uh ask Jill if it's an

[3:24:28] option. Jill from uh the foundation if

[3:24:31] it's an option for next year and she

[3:24:33] said yes we'll always keep you in mind.

[3:24:35] So that was kind of a non-committal but

[3:24:38] um

[3:24:38] >> it's not right for fiesta. No, it's not

[3:24:41] that's not right. A first refusal, but

[3:24:44] um so uh

[3:24:47] you know, give me some guidance on that

[3:24:49] if you would please because you know I

[3:24:51] would put the budget line in for that if

[3:24:54] that's something you consider and then

[3:24:56] if it didn't materialize, it did

[3:24:57] materialize and the money would go uh in

[3:25:00] a budget adjustment towards something

[3:25:02] else. I'm sure. Um

[3:25:06] I think that's all I've got for now

[3:25:09] before we leave. I'm standing up.

[3:25:11] >> Stand up before we leave. It's not even

[3:25:13] 11:00.

[3:25:14] >> Before we leave, um we do need to make a

[3:25:17] motion, make ourselves available should

[3:25:19] we need a special meeting, but a motion

[3:25:21] to cancel the uh scheduled meeting for

[3:25:25] August 26th. Did we get that right?

[3:25:28] >> Yes.

[3:25:29] >> Did I get that wrong?

[3:25:30] >> No, that's the correct date.

[3:25:31] >> It's 26th. Y

[3:25:32] >> Wednesday, August 26th.

[3:25:34] >> Okay. Right.

[3:25:36] It was on the 25th. I probably would

[3:25:38] meet miss that meeting wasn't me.

[3:25:44] » Okay.

[3:25:46] >> Who's moving it?

[3:25:48] >> Well, we're talking.

[3:25:52] » Thank you.

[3:25:52] >> Cuz we've done these.

[3:25:53] >> Thanks, Jacob.

[3:25:55] >> All in favor?

[3:25:58] >> Discussion. All in favor?

[3:25:59] >> Yes.

[3:26:01] I I I

[3:26:05] have a motion.

[3:26:06] >> Have a good night.

[3:26:07] >> Good night.

[3:26:08] >> Motion to adjourn.

[3:26:10] >> Motion to Before we make a motion to

[3:26:12] adjourn.

[3:26:14] >> Uh good night all. Stay healthy. Enjoy

[3:26:17] uh what's left of summer. We'll see you

[3:26:20] back here on September 8th, if not

[3:26:23] sooner. Um,

[3:26:26] with that being said, uh, this future

[3:26:30] grandpa wishes you all good evening and

[3:26:33] a motion to close the meeting.

[3:26:35] >> Second,

[3:26:41] we're on the same page on that. Good

[3:26:42] night all.

8-11-2026 Red Hook Town Board Meeting

Transcript