[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.