[3:47] All

[3:53] right. September.

[4:16] Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Sla

[4:19] » here. >> Mr. Sonus

[4:20] » here. >> Mr. Johnson

[4:22] » here. >> Mr. Hbert

[4:23] » here. >> Mr. Warden

[4:24] » here. Communications. >> No communications.

[4:28] » Okay. We're going to go right on to open forum. Guest shall speak in an orderly

[4:31] fashion or limited remarks of five time minutes or less. The speaker shall

[4:34] deliver their comments, concerns in a civil tone without the use of profanity,

[4:37] personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior which may result in the

[4:41] offender's removal from the meeting. The speaker shall not be interrupted and

[4:44] except in a matter of urgency. Would anybody like to speak tonight?

[4:57] » Hello. I uh took the [clears throat] opportunity to watch the public hearing

[5:01] on the edus from 18th meeting and one thing that stood

[5:07] out is it seemed like a lot of people blaming this board for what was going on

[5:12] and the increase tax

[5:17] and I would just like to emphasize and I think one or two of you have said it

[5:22] that this is something that's mandated from all and I think if more people paid

[5:28] attention to who we elect as officials or representatives

[5:34] um instead of paying attention to the people that are

[5:40] um on noon every week giving out big fat pay checks from Albany that are your tax

[5:48] dollars that they're spending if they paid attention to that voting for that.

[5:53] I think that that would go a long ways and just appreciate everything you guys

[5:58] are doing as far as the edus are concerned. Um it's an easy job for you

[6:03] guys. I mean, you were you were dealt an awful hand, but you're making the best

[6:08] of it. You're listening to people and you're letting them, you know, voice

[6:12] their opinion frustration. I thank you for that. I also want to bring up um

[6:19] the condition of a lot of the buildings in in the town of Schnangle seems to be

[6:24] dwindling significantly. I know we had a point where code was lacking.

[6:32] Um, I hope that the new guy that's in there, um,

[6:39] emphasizes, you know, the existing stuff that we've,

[6:43] you know, [clears throat] that that citizens have brought up and other board

[6:46] members have brought up um, over the years. There's properties that have been

[6:51] just, you know, continuously violation, violation, violation, and nothing seems

[6:57] to be getting done about it. I I would hope that we could prioritize those

[7:01] buildings and residences that have been problem areas and get those taken care

[7:08] of as quick as possible. Thank you for your time. Appreciate

[7:12] » Thank you.

[7:17] Anyone else?

[7:22] » Okay, we're going to move on. We're going to go right to old business.

[7:26] Uh 5.1 wastewater train wastewater treatment plant updates. I we have

[7:31] nothing on here. Is there anything correct?

[7:33] » Okay. Uh 5.2.

[7:36] » I I just have a question though. Uh >> we had an email about the Wisconsin pump

[7:42] station over there. Is that a big to-do or whatever? because

[7:48] I know we talked about it at the last meeting two weeks ago and I don't know

[7:52] if anything's been done about it or everybody's communicating together to

[7:57] get something done or Alex and I met there today and we had a meeting with Le

[8:02] and Gleason. She was going to reach out and send an

[8:07] email out to everybody. I don't know if she did it yet today.

[8:10] » I didn't get today's >> We met there. We met at Apprentice Road.

[8:15] » Yeah. >> I know if there was a a timeline because

[8:19] the I guess the contractor is waiting for us to make a decision or whatever.

[8:22] So >> I think there is kind of like a time

[8:25] limit to this. >> We had Alex out there today. He's going

[8:28] to give his thoughts and recommendations and then uh we'll put it in front.

[8:35] » Okay,

[8:40] » that's it. >> Okay.

[8:41] » All right. There will be other information I'll put on the next meeting

[8:45] for wastewater updates. There's a few things that we want to get into the

[8:49] project, but it was too late. I got the information to put it on this agenda.

[8:54] She'll have it for the next one. >> All right.

[8:59] All right. Moving on. 5.2 comprehensive plan update.

[9:03] » Um, [clears throat] we have not met formally since our last uh board

[9:07] meeting. Um we will meet as a committee before we have our next meeting and then

[9:14] we also will have a get together with CIERS at the end of this month.

[9:19] Uh Chris Bodec did do a media presentation on channel 34. I didn't see

[9:27] it but I guess he did a good job. Uh text my gov was uh sent out and I

[9:35] guess it was successful. We had a pretty good response for people who want to

[9:39] take advantage of the service. >> Yeah, we have 10,000

[9:44] a little over 10,000 opted in. >> Really?

[9:48] » Out of 11,000 that were sent out. >> Wow.

[9:52] » Anybody here? >> I didn't I didn't get it.

[9:56] » I didn't get I didn't get it either. >> I

[9:58] » I Spectrum didn't go to Spectrum, right? Yeah, I think there was a couple of

[10:03] spectrum people that came in, but for anybody's phone number, just let us know

[10:07] if you want to be opted in. We >> I I only I only said I didn't get it

[10:12] because the conversation was about this going out to reach the the townwide

[10:18] people. And I'm >> It depends on where they got the

[10:22] » the phone number database from. So, anybody that does want to be opted

[10:27] in, I mean, you can do that, you know, manually via the 91896 or just let me

[10:33] know. >> But the question is, should should have

[10:37] you gotten it though? I mean >> well no I was expecting I mean that was

[10:44] the whole point of the the data and from my opinion from my point of view that's

[10:48] all I I specifically have not gone on and registered and got pre-registered

[10:53] but did it before this blast email or text went out because I wanted to see if

[10:59] I was on it if I got it. you know how many numbers they said that they were

[11:03] going to do and how effective it was going to be and you know of the 11,000

[11:09] some odd number that went out 10,000 >> 10,000 are in

[11:14] » and how many of them are town residences >> uh from the database that they got

[11:21] wherever it is they get it you know usually can buy it and sell it and all

[11:24] of that stuff it is town of Shenango residents their their phone number

[11:29] » they're tied to a billing zip code. >> Yes.

[11:32] » Within the town. That's where this >> And when they sent out comes from.

[11:37] » Yeah. When they sent out the mass notification of 11,000, I had 1300 and

[11:41] something that opted out. Everybody else so far, last time I checked, was in and

[11:47] we were at 10,100 that are getting notifications from the

[11:52] town. >> Okay.

[11:55] I didn't expect this to be absolutely perfect candidly,

[12:00] but the if we did the other service, the list

[12:05] was zero. So, we would have had to recruit raw versus at least having some

[12:11] sort of base. >> Seems pretty successful to me, those

[12:15] numbers. >> Yeah, those were good numbers. I like

[12:18] » yeah the interesting thing will be the first time we do a survey and see what

[12:21] the response rate is on those thousand >> you know I mean if it's 20% I think that

[12:29] had 130 respond or whatever it was >> yes and on that since we're here I added

[12:35] Darren Greg and Kevin to the list everybody

[12:41] I just need to know who else on the board or who else anybody wants

[12:47] the ability to be able to send out text messages. I just need to know who that's

[12:52] going to be. If it's going to be all the board members or

[12:55] » I do not want that. >> I I think what you have is is fine.

[13:00] » I don't I don't think there's a need for any more expansion.

[13:03] » I'm not removing you, Kevin. [laughter]

[13:08] » Yeah. If there's a case where one of us needs to be added because we're chairing

[13:11] something, I think we can add ourselves ad hoc, but I don't think we need to be

[13:15] on it. >> Okay. for Darren and Greg. If y'all need

[13:18] to just know how or train, you know, we'll figure that out.

[13:27] » All right. Any questions? Go ahead. >> Uh, real briefly, uh, I guess Rene is

[13:32] going to talk about this or I going to I'm going to ask her to talk about it.

[13:35] Uh we finally got a response from the DEC about the climate score grant

[13:40] yesterday and uh briefly talking to her. I think

[13:46] we're going to have to do some investigating to see if this is going to

[13:49] be worthwhile for us because it's going to be quite involved

[13:53] getting to >> Yeah, sure.

[13:57] When I I got a hold of the DEC yesterday and I asked I said what's the process

[14:02] because I was looking for whatever the OSC procurement document thing is that I

[14:06] had never heard of and what they told me is the process is basically DEEC

[14:11] approves once it goes from there then the comproller office it goes to them

[14:17] they approve and then like money gets dropped and everything else.

[14:22] So I was I was trying to figure out going through the documents required for

[14:29] the administration of it and I was talking to Dave and I'm going I know

[14:33] this much about grants but I'm looking at this

[14:38] and this is just my opinion and since I

[14:42] don't know if anybody does know please stop me from being wrong or something.

[14:46] When I look at what is the climate smart grant used for, it's for stuff that

[14:53] you're doing in doing stuff like nails and boards and stuff like that. The

[14:58] comprehensive plan is basically one big vision statement more or less

[15:04] oversimplified. So I'm trying figure out just from

[15:08] looking at what is required and what we have to do

[15:13] is that a thing that falls category of stuff. And I don't know

[15:18] enough to know if that's true, false, or indifferent. And when I was I was

[15:24] talking to Kevin, I was talking to Dave about having somebody at the town with

[15:29] either the expertise and the time to administer the involved stuff that is

[15:37] required. And from talking to Dave, just wanted to

[15:42] bring that up going, where do we fall and where should we look? I mean, I can

[15:47] talk to the comprehensive plan when we have our meeting on the 15th,

[15:51] but I'm just trying to get a basic idea of

[15:56] background or something that I might be missing.

[16:04] Well, since we just got the information yesterday, I think we need time to go

[16:09] through it and just kind of see what is in it, you know, and so

[16:12] » yeah, I mean, I was looking at the quarterly reports that are required, all

[16:17] of the uh the different metrics along the way, and these look like stuff that

[16:22] you actually do like soil stuff and HVAC stuff and minority and, you know,

[16:29] disabilities and everything else. And quite honestly, when I'm looking at

[16:34] it, I was trying to figure out how that fits in with a comprehensive plan

[16:42] thing.

[16:46] So,

[16:50] how do how do you want to handle it as a board?

[16:53] » I'd say let's wait till next meeting to find out if we can get more. maybe talk

[16:57] to other towns who have gotten these grants to

[17:01] find out if they were how they how they did how they did.

[17:04] » Yeah, that would be my first question is how other towns that have received this

[17:08] who managed that or >> Yeah.

[17:11] » So the the village of Aigo and I think the town of Ulyses both got this grant

[17:16] um in some fashion. Ulyses used it for their comprehensive plan. So, I'm fairly

[17:21] and I know when the grant application was submitted, it was it should have

[17:24] been identified that it was going to be for purposes of comprehensive planning.

[17:29] » Could you get me their >> I don't Oh, yeah. I can get you their

[17:32] contact information. I was say I don't have any of the actual application

[17:35] materials that we sent in, but I'm assuming we would have identified for

[17:38] comp plan purposes. >> Well, they were one of the towns that we

[17:41] said, well, they got it, so let's try our shot at it. So,

[17:47] » Jean, we had a brief discussion on this as a board prior um because I had some

[17:53] similar concerns and I thought that when the grant application went in on our

[18:00] behalf, it was for the comprehensive plan.

[18:03] » That >> that that was my understanding.

[18:06] » That's the way that I remember the conversation and the intent.

[18:09] » Right. And then I remember further discussion on that when we talked about

[18:14] the MWBE requirements that was part of the discussion with

[18:21] collers. >> It it was at a higher level because they

[18:27] those those um the MBE WBE requirements are goals.

[18:37] » Yes. And there's quite a few places within the process of the comprehensive

[18:43] plan process to be able to fit those those activities that meet

[18:49] those goals in and then the due diligence if you can't

[18:54] meet them to prove the due diligence was was done. So that was that was at the

[18:58] level that we talked about but not specifically what activity do I I don't

[19:02] remember a conversation about that >> but it certainly was the expectation

[19:08] that Kers knew that was part of this program if you will or the plan

[19:14] » I do I remember that because they also said that they had people they had

[19:18] consultants that could fulfill those those

[19:22] » and that's where I remember the conversation going.

[19:25] » Yeah. Collars did say that if we accept the grant, they have to know to do stuff

[19:31] on their end. >> But I agree with everything you guys are

[19:34] saying here. But the first meeting or meeting after

[19:38] that when we first had the committee meeting,

[19:40] » they were kind of surprised that we had the grant.

[19:43] » Yes. >> And we had to remind them, no, we got

[19:45] the grant. We thought that they were going to be doing work work for us or

[19:51] working towards it already. They go, oh, you got the grant. So, so David

[19:55] surprised I think I think part of the issue with the consultant is that the

[19:59] town's never even accepted the grant and so and Kier started the work before the

[20:03] grant had even been awarded >> and they were never told okay go retain

[20:08] stuff like so the problem you guys are going to run into is we keep not

[20:12] accepting the grant they're going to finish their work and none of it's going

[20:16] to be reimburseable anyway. >> Yeah. And that's when I talked to DEEC,

[20:21] I'm going, do I get uh okay, y'all approved it and they said, you know,

[20:24] pretty much it's an [snorts] if DEC approves it, then OSC is probably

[20:31] going to go, okay, that works for us. I haven't received anything from OSC, I

[20:36] don't know if that's the normal process. It did not was not able to get a hold of

[20:39] OSC to ask them that particular question. So, it's still okay. DEEC said

[20:44] yes. They're pretty confident that means OSC is going to, but they can't speak

[20:49] for OSC obviously. So, and then after that it's set up a contract thing and

[20:55] SFS and all of that. So,

[21:04] » I don't want to blur the the conversation, but in past experience

[21:08] with grants, the questions that you're asking have been presented to the town

[21:13] board by the person or the entity that has prepared the grant and summarized

[21:18] those activities and gave us the deadlines and the requirements for that.

[21:23] you could give me a thousand pages of that grant and unless I've got all the

[21:26] supporting documentation that went behind it

[21:29] » and then go through it and actually do what I need to prepare the grant to

[21:33] understand it. I don't think that that's what board needs. I think the town board

[21:37] needs from the from the from the person or the group that

[21:43] actually wrote the grant and submitted it to give us what we've got to do and

[21:48] when we've got to do it by >> agree do we did Alex

[21:51] » so so we went through this Alex we asked Alex to do this

[21:55] » and Alex said it was he would apply for it but he wasn't going to do anything

[22:00] else after that. So where do we go from here? I know what you're asking for. I'm

[22:05] not against what you're asking for, but where you I think the last meeting we

[22:08] talked about putting it on the ordinance office to try to figure out,

[22:13] » right? And we had this much to do with it. So, I'm just trying to get to the

[22:16] bottom, find out what I have to do. >> What do you want to do?

[22:20] » Wasn't Alex talking to someone at like Cornell Cooperative Extension or

[22:23] something about this or am I making that up?

[22:24] » No, there was another lady southern tier or something or there were

[22:28] deals with this with other counties. And did they get Alex something back? And I

[22:33] just don't remember seeing the email.

[22:40] » So what is the harm of accepting the grant and presenting this to Kers to say

[22:47] that we have the grant and we need

[22:52] to try to meet the goals or at least provide the supporting documentation.

[22:59] So, I know one of the items that Alex has mentioned is that there's a

[23:05] long-term committee that has to be established and that has like annual

[23:10] maybe quarterly uh reporting. >> There are reports so that are due

[23:14] quarterly that I saw. >> So, so you you'd be committing to doing

[23:18] you know those types of things. >> What's the what's the term on that

[23:23] committee? >> That I don't know.

[23:24] » Is it three years, five years? The grant is good until 2031.

[23:30] We have from like whenever we accept it to 2031 to do all of the things

[23:35] necessary for that. So I would imagine we have that far.

[23:39] » Yeah. I was just >> the committee doesn't exist. So we'd

[23:42] have to create the committee and and then establish those positions and

[23:45] terms. >> I understand that. And but how long does

[23:48] that committee exist >> post

[23:52] » for the post receiving >> for the life of our commitment to the

[23:57] grant to the to the not to the grant but to the program?

[24:02] » Okay. And the program you believe is 2031.

[24:05] » Yes. >> Okay.

[24:11] So we can talk to Kers on the 28th

[24:17] » or tomorrow. Well,

[24:21] » yeah,

[24:29] » Kevin, I I I mean, I I think the discussion goes, are we willing to put

[24:34] such a committee together and keep it intact doing quarterly reports for the

[24:39] next five years or four years, whatever, >> who who's going to be the committee?

[24:44] » Well, that's just it. I think that's how we make that suggestion because there's

[24:48] not enough employees in the town. There's definitely not. I agree.

[24:52] » It's just a take away from something else.

[24:55] » So, are we agreeing that this grant is being used just to produce a

[24:59] comprehensive plan? >> Well, I believe that's what the intent

[25:03] was when the grant was written. >> Okay.

[25:06] » That was my understanding. I'm just wondering how difficult or

[25:11] complex that would be to have a a committee

[25:17] like the way I got it. Some of the information she was reading off there is

[25:20] like a lot of these plans are for they're actually doing physical things.

[25:24] » No, I and I agree. I read that the same way

[25:28] » things. I I read the program the same way,

[25:30] » but when we applied for it, our specific intent was the comprehensive plan.

[25:37] Now, I don't know whether or not it needs to that that's why I wanted to

[25:40] have the discussion regarding the committee. Is it a committee of one? Is

[25:42] it a committee of three? A committee of five? And what do the quarterly reports

[25:46] entail? >> Looking just very briefly looking at

[25:50] some of the metrics are talking about it looks like it's going to take some time,

[25:55] but personnel, manpower, manh hours that I don't know if we have that current

[26:01] existing in the town. >> Probably not.

[26:06] Yeah,

[26:13] I mean guys, I I I think that's where the discussion needs to go is to is

[26:17] whether or not we're committed to a a committee of whomever.

[26:22] Do you want to talk to one of the other towns to see what they did?

[26:25] » I will do that. >> Bring that information back to the board

[26:28] and >> I mean, if if you're all right with

[26:31] doing it, I don't want to. >> No, I'm good.

[26:33] » Okay. Thank you, Renee. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[26:36] » Thank you. >> And you're welcome. You get me that.

[26:39] Thank you.

[26:43] » All right, we're done with that. Uh 5.3. Are you good with

[26:48] » I'm done. >> Okay. 5.3. Hometown Heroes.

[26:53] » Sorry for missing the last meeting. >> Um Okay. Hometown Heroes. This is where

[26:57] we're at. Um, ultimately

[27:02] after driving around the town, the original plan that I thought of or or

[27:06] talked to the other municipalities about of renting a scissor lift and putting

[27:11] them up ourselves and figuring that out to save money is really not possible.

[27:16] Whether we were to do this on River Road or on Front Street, ultimately

[27:21] that's just not a viable option. The pole pole setback is too much. the

[27:27] position of the pole and the sidewalk or the main road. Like, I think it would

[27:32] just be a nightmare. And once again, we're talking about limited staffing and

[27:37] how many employees do we have to take them off of one task to have them do

[27:40] another. Um,

[27:47] » what did we use to put those up, Greg?

[27:53] employees. >> Was it a bucket list?

[27:58] » Okay. >> So, so ultimately that's what I did was

[28:00] I called a handful of signed companies and said very very informally without

[28:04] the specs of this ballpark, what is it to have you come and do this? And the

[28:09] cost of a bucket truck from a signed company is roughly 200 bucks an hour. So

[28:15] that's a driver. That's someone in the bucket. and and that is the act of

[28:20] having them come in over a window of time to do this kind of work. So

[28:25] ultimately this is how I did these rough numbers for overall the program cost. So

[28:31] the cost of the banner and the bracket to put it up is passed on to the

[28:36] individual that is sponsoring the banner. So I'm a veteran of Afghanistan

[28:42] and Iraq. My family wants to do one for me. they they front that cost. What we

[28:48] would be doing if we kept it at that rate is we the town would have to put a

[28:54] budget line in essentially annually to put the banners up and take them down.

[29:02] I'm estimating that at if we do the 50 banner increments, I'm estimating that

[29:09] at roughly $5,000 to put them up and 5,000 to put them down. take them down.

[29:15] I'm sorry. And then obviously we'd have to figure out storing them. It could be

[29:18] significantly less than that or it could be significantly more. I we won't know

[29:22] until we actually list what you know this is a program we're going to do.

[29:27] We've all agreed we're going to put this up on Front Street

[29:31] and see what the turnout looks like.

[29:38] But ultimately, we're talking about, you know, we can of course raise these to be

[29:42] $300 a piece and then that would subsidize the cost of the bucket truck,

[29:49] but I don't know what our turnout would then be.

[29:53] The other thing that we're not really certain on, and this is when I I spoke

[29:57] to one of the sign companies, was the first one that I talked to, they gave me

[29:59] a ton of ton of information, and ultimately I would think that we go out

[30:02] to [clears throat] like a formal bid process and ask a handful to do a scope

[30:06] of work for us. and what the cost of these banners would be. But the first

[30:10] one I talked to, um, the gentleman that I spoke withly,

[30:15] he said, "I think I can get these for cheaper, but I need to know how many you

[30:19] need." I said, "I don't know how many I need." Um, so I don't know how we would

[30:23] get the level of interest on this formally, unless we'd be taking people's

[30:27] money and then, hey, never mind, the price went down. Um, but ultimately if

[30:33] they could get the banners for 100 bucks a piece and we're actually charging them

[30:36] 200, that would cover the cost of everything and there would be no budget

[30:41] line. But we'd have to be, I guess, willing to potentially incur

[30:46] cost if if we wanted to sponsor this program. Or

[30:51] maybe it's year one we sponsor the program.

[30:56] But I guess now that I'm thinking out loud, year two, if we're putting them up

[31:00] and down, we are going to incur that cost.

[31:08] » You don't have any indication on interest, do you?

[31:10] » No, I wouldn't even know where to begin. >> We had two two people reach out

[31:16] » specifically to Adam and then one day I was in Kevin's office when someone

[31:21] stopped in to talk about it. So, I know of two people. I guess I make three. Um,

[31:26] three, >> four.

[31:27] » We've got four so far, Jay, to answer your question. I I want to say it will

[31:33] be pretty heavy.

[31:39] » Yeah, I mean, we could do a brief survey.

[31:43] The problem is it's really easy to say yes to something and then when you have

[31:46] to come up with a check for $200, what is the actual turnout? But

[31:51] I I don't know the interest level for this.

[31:56] I think it's if it's something that the board wants to go forward with, it's

[32:00] something that we need to add into budget for next year

[32:05] because I think you have to have a budget line for it even if you're gonna

[32:09] » Exactly. >> Yeah.

[32:10] » Not to exceed >> x amount of dollars.

[32:14] » You might not use that budget line. I mean, you know, if you can some

[32:18] » Well, and that's why I say I think ultimately the board would have to be

[32:20] willing to incur the cost. And if we find a creative way to subsidize this,

[32:27] whether it be we get a better rate on the actual banners by ordering them in

[32:32] bulk from somewhere. So, for example, like just looking at the websites, on

[32:36] average, if we order over $2,000 worth of banners, we get free shipping. In

[32:43] reality, a sign company would have a way to subsidize that because they wouldn't

[32:48] just be ordering banners for us. they're ordering from a supplier or a wholesale

[32:52] house for a bunch of other companies, too. So, some of these could be a moot

[32:56] point if we put them out to bid. We just would need to know the interest level

[33:00] and are we willing to say, "Okay, let's pencil in a $10,000 budget line for year

[33:04] one and see how we can creatively do this." So, I

[33:10] guess I in reality, we don't need to make this decision today. This could be

[33:14] one of the first things we talk about when we're talking about the general

[33:16] fund. But here, the information is in front of you. I'm embarrassed how long

[33:19] it took to get it all. And once again, sorry for missing last meeting, but

[33:23] » this is what it looks like without putting the burden on Greg or Darren's

[33:29] employees. Um, and I think there's some creative math

[33:34] that can be done here. You know, I talked to the um county veteran

[33:41] representative about are there grants for this right now? He didn't know of

[33:44] any, but he said he would email me if he does.

[33:48] So, I mean, I'll continue to look for creative ways to to figure that out, but

[33:54] so I'm all for this at at the $10,000 amount, not to exceed if we if we put

[34:00] this in the budget here in another couple weeks for next year and then

[34:03] advertise this through the winter to be put up in the spring. I think it would

[34:06] be a great thing. I mean, years ago, Darren had shared with me after the last

[34:11] meeting that or two meetings ago that we did actually do this. I wasn't aware of

[34:15] it. I mean, I've been a town resident for 10 years. Um, I don't know what

[34:20] happened with all those banners. I don't know how that program died.

[34:31] » We used to do the winner. >> So, it was a variation.

[34:39] Those

[34:50] are like flags, >> names of businesses.

[34:57] [snorts]

[35:01] the cost.

[35:07] » Some of the um the last time that we got pricing for

[35:12] the veteran pole banners, we we got pricing in um

[35:20] July of 24. So that was the last time that I

[35:24] remember. So maybe there's some conversation and some dialogue and some

[35:27] supporting docs in our minutes. Who did that? Do you remember, Jean?

[35:32] » Um, well, I I know I I have it because I

[35:36] know that it was information that I forwarded on to the board at the time

[35:40] and that was um just um from victory.com is one of the the vendors that provided

[35:46] us pricing. Um but that I'm just I'm just saying that historically we can

[36:01] I'm listening, Jean. >> I'm listening.

[36:05] » No, just historically is all I'm saying is we could go back to the documentation

[36:09] and the conversation did instead of reinventing the wheel

[36:14] because we had gone and found out how many from the early

[36:19] like 2012 201

[36:24] frame when we had the signs up. how many there were and from memory it was like

[36:28] 35 to 40 signs that but they were that were on

[36:32] there so it wasn't a lot that we were talking about so we could go back and

[36:37] look at th those minutes in that time frame.

[36:40] » Yeah. I mean, if we do it on Front Street, we could make it a variation of

[36:45] » that and veterans, you know, does a does a does a business want a sign on

[36:52] Front Street as well as I mean, this could be

[36:56] dual function to get participation. I mean, I myself when I go through a

[37:01] town main street that has American flags hanging, like I notice that um I think

[37:09] it's a nice thing um to have through the summer months when I see that there are

[37:14] veterans or even businesses supporting, you know, something along the lines of

[37:18] that. Like I just I personally like the way it makes me feel. Um, I think that

[37:24] would be a nice nice thing for the town to have at worst case scenario $10,000.

[37:30] Um, but I mean that's something that we can I can dig that up or meet with

[37:34] Eugene and and get that. Um, how do you recall off the top of your head and then

[37:40] we can kill this for now. How did were they going to put those up or this

[37:43] victory company was going to come and do that?

[37:44] » No, it was just that was procurement. It was like $60 a sign or something like

[37:48] that at that time for the size and the pole mounting brackets and everything to

[37:52] get the the actual flag, but it was strictly a veteran. You supplied them

[37:57] with the name and the photo and I think there was a date or date of service or

[38:02] the branch of service that was that was associated with it. Um the issue with

[38:07] the businesses in the past that have come up, they they helped support the

[38:12] program and that's why their names were on it because they the businesses

[38:17] contributed to the to offset the town costs for but it was strictly a town

[38:23] manpower issue putting them up taking them down.

[38:26] » Yeah. And that's why the more and more I looked into this, the more and more I

[38:30] thought it was worth looking into private pay options.

[38:35] Well, I there just isn't as many employees in the town as there was in

[38:40] the past. Um, and to start up and bring different

[38:46] operations in and up. I mean, I I don't see a reason to to put it on existing

[38:51] town, you know, services. >> Yeah, 100%.

[38:55] » Yeah. We're not we're not carrying liabilities.

[38:58] » Yeah. I don't even know what the insurance cost or if the union rules

[39:00] would allow them to go up. We don't need, you know, we don't need to buy a a

[39:04] lull bucket truck and

[39:09] but I can I can give you the as far as that, but I I see this as a 2027 budget

[39:14] issue. So, and I have no I I have no objection to

[39:21] to the to the veterans portion of the flag.

[39:26] » Absolutely. I think it'd be I think it'd be a great idea and I I like the idea of

[39:30] the the business, you know, supporting it or paying, you

[39:34] know, sponsoring it, basically sponsoring maybe a section where you

[39:38] have a bunch of veteran flags up just putting money into the I mean, that's

[39:42] something we can all work out. >> Yeah.

[39:44] » But we need to put a budget line in and then go from there.

[39:49] » Okay. So for now I'll do nothing until we have that discussion and then at that

[39:53] point I could reach out to a handful of these companies and say you know

[39:57] » so one of the things that I need to municipalities cannot solicit donations.

[40:05] » Okay so we don't do that part. So if if there's a friends of organization that

[40:12] would like to spend the time to go drum up to support that and people or

[40:18] businesses give money to that organization and that organization turns

[40:22] around and donates that to the town or somebody who's not a town board member

[40:27] or town employee goes and says, "Hey, the town's starting this program up. You

[40:31] should donate to it." Um that would be okay but we cannot directly solicit

[40:36] money from anybody.

[40:41] Okay, understand

[40:47] » Luke. Yeah, thanks for the research on this. This is great.

[40:50] » And Luke, I sent you the email that had that link to that company

[40:55] just kind of as a reminder that you and I can connect later.

[41:00] » Perfect. Got it. Thank you. >> Y

[41:04] » All right. Thanks for that, Luke. Moving on. 5.4 Department head probation

[41:10] discussion. Is this something that we had a Do you

[41:15] want to do an executive session or I think that's warranted. We have a full

[41:21] board tonight. So, we tabled it last meeting.

[41:27] » So, I'll do that >> at the end.

[41:30] » At the end. >> Okay.

[41:32] Okay, we have department head job description discussion.

[41:38] Didn't have any backup material for that. I saw that there were some emails

[41:41] that came out today. >> Well, I had sent I had sent that for the

[41:45] last for last meeting for the discussion. I didn't know why that

[41:48] wasn't on the agenda. The only thing I sent really for

[41:52] tonight's discussion was the template. That was just that really wasn't for

[41:56] tonight's discussion either. It was just if the process goes forward,

[42:01] » right? >> Um, so but I don't I don't know why that

[42:07] » Did you send it to Jody or just the board member?

[42:10] » I only I I originally only sent it to the board members.

[42:14] » Okay. Then that's probably on me not forwarding it to Jody.

[42:23] » So that job description we should put on the next agenda.

[42:26] » Yeah. I can put I You want that updated evaluation form on

[42:32] there? >> I I didn't know there was an updated

[42:37] evaluation form. >> I thought that's what you sent today. I

[42:39] I didn't think it was necessarily updated. That's the one that we had

[42:42] before. >> Um there there were two correspondences

[42:46] that I that I sent today just for the conversation. One was the um

[42:53] it was the template for

[42:57] the department head job description. I resent the um

[43:07] the job description responsibilities that I had sent to the board for my

[43:12] comments for the last for the la for the last meeting. That didn't change. It was

[43:17] just resent. And then the other the other

[43:22] correspondence was what we had provided to

[43:28] um to Greg with with his department head.

[43:33] Uh when we had that conversation with with Greg, it was the job job

[43:37] description that we have provided you the that was that that's what you don't

[43:45] have to look. It wasn't about you. It was just

[43:49] what we had given you for the department head job description.

[43:54] 25 in 2022.

[43:58] No, you you did that was when we when we met um with the um department management

[44:06] plan when you pro when you developed the management plan

[44:15] » no information >> the department head

[44:20] » responsibility >> Greg this was dated back April 25

[44:25] » that's what I said in 25 It was addressed to you.

[44:33] » No. >> Um, it was your

[44:35] » No, it was it was just a plan. >> It was the management plan that was put

[44:39] together that you had to put together. >> Yes. Yeah.

[44:43] » Yeah. So, we Jean distributed to the board.

[44:45] » He just redistributed that. >> Redistributed. You You distributed to

[44:48] 2025 and then he redistributed to the board. Specifically, what we're talking

[44:53] about tonight was the town department heads

[45:01] um respons the responsibility of the town

[45:06] department. What what responsibilities go with the town department head? That's

[45:09] the conversation. There were there's two board members

[45:13] that weren't that didn't that weren't around in 2025 that didn't have a copy

[45:19] of the responsibilities for the public works department head list that we

[45:26] provided to you. They didn't have that. So I redistributed that to them and you

[45:32] got that with the um with the management plan correspondence and that back in

[45:39] April. So that

[45:43] » I didn't take that as new. >> It wasn't.

[45:46] » Yeah. I And I didn't take it that way. I just take it that it was distributed for

[45:51] Luke and I's behalf. >> Yes.

[45:55] » So you just want to the the first email that you sent today, you want that on

[46:01] for the next meeting for the department head job description discussion.

[46:07] » The department head template. >> Yes. If

[46:10] » department head template and core responsibility of all department heads.

[46:14] » Yes. >> So that's backup material for

[46:17] » right. But the the core responsibility department head list that that is that

[46:23] there's nothing different than what I had sent that to the board for just

[46:29] » Yes. But that you we were looking for more input from the board too, right?

[46:34] » Yeah. I was >> Anybody else have input? get it before

[46:37] the next meeting so we can get it on the agenda.

[46:39] » Y >> All right.

[46:42] » But I will make sure that we have at least your stuff on there. If we get

[46:47] anything else, then we will.

[46:56] All right. Anything else on 5? That was you.

[47:02] Anything else on 5.5? I have none.

[47:06] » I have nothing. >> All right. 5.6 secure vestibial.

[47:22] » All right.

[47:27] On this drawing here that's in front of you,

[47:32] this took the approach here. And you can see they did the elevation views

[47:38] specifically in the clerk's office. This seemed like a far more simple

[47:43] approach in terms of the work being done in the

[47:48] clerk's office and in the water department.

[47:52] I really like what we're doing there in the water department. Even eliminating

[47:55] that door because I think it provides far better use of that space and opening

[48:00] it up and opening that up. So it it achieves the the goal of

[48:07] getting the two windows in the vestibule.

[48:11] And one of the the differences are is that there's a door on each end of the

[48:16] hallway to leave space to go to the elevator. What's not on this drawing was

[48:22] the discussion about securing the supervisor's office.

[48:27] And the first issue that we had there was the discussion of providing a

[48:32] restroom for the for the uh town court. So we were looking into that but it did

[48:39] not have the drawing there. But to me, this vestibule layout makes more sense.

[48:45] And at least if it's a step approach, phase one, if you will, it certainly

[48:52] does secure the vestibule, which is what a discussion we've had at

[48:57] previous meetings.

[49:03] So the control into the vestibule is going from the bottom of the bottom of

[49:10] the drawing into the building. You have the green existing doors.

[49:16] You go into that vessel and that's the secure area and you don't get buzzed

[49:21] past that. That's an interesting approach. But that

[49:26] I don't think that was the intent. The intent was that once you came past the

[49:31] green doors that you were in the I guess the the lobby itself to be able to

[49:37] access the elevator for anyone needing handicap access to go to the court. Now

[49:44] again this does not secure the second floor. What this does is it secured the

[49:49] main floor down here like again as maybe a step one, but it allowed people into

[49:55] the lobby to access the clerk's window and the DPW window.

[50:03] I think that's I just think that's the biggest divergent from

[50:09] the original plan is that that vestibule area

[50:12] doesn't secure that that that area and and and that's a that's a that's an

[50:19] approach we could take and leave that whole lobby area open, but anyone

[50:25] needing handicap access to the court and I don't know what that traffic is,

[50:29] right? that they would have to be someone would have to be either at the

[50:32] clerk's office or DPW to at least be able to identify who's in the vestibule

[50:38] itself before they they granted access to the lobby.

[50:48] » The other part of this too, Gan, is that it only pulled out a cabinet section in

[50:55] the clerk's office. So, where that existing counter and cabinets are that

[51:02] you see on the drawing remains, we're just removing that one section there.

[51:06] And as you'll see on the elevation, I think the north view, it'll show that um

[51:11] that's only a half door there just to kind of keep it, if you will, private,

[51:18] right? So, if someone were to come in, if you buzz someone in, the handicap

[51:23] access would still be accessible through the main door of the clerk's office. And

[51:29] that's where that low desk counter is identified there in what is currently

[51:34] the clerk's corridor.

[51:41] And obviously extending the half wall that's at the end of the existing

[51:44] counter because he's identified some printers there.

[51:56] So access control would be the key here if we're securing the vestibule, right?

[52:02] You'd have some access control cameras and obviously video that would have to

[52:08] be visible in both the clerk and the DPW office.

[52:18] and obviously a form of communication so anyone in the vestibule could

[52:22] identify themselves.

[52:27] I think both offices should have video access to that front door anyway,

[52:36] whether it's part of this plan or even >> right

[52:38] » tomorrow, >> Jean, in doing that,

[52:44] I would recommend the elimination of the two doors in the hallway for sure, but

[52:49] again, as the second step, I am still of the opinion that the

[52:55] second floor needs to be secured. >> No, I don't I don't um I the way that I

[53:00] see this without really any any modification is

[53:05] that not not a lot of modification. The the two doors that are on the left side

[53:10] and right side of the elevator. >> Yeah.

[53:12] » I think that provides a a

[53:18] belt and suspender security for the staff.

[53:23] So I I don't have any issue with those doors being there. They they um because

[53:27] that that's employee um passage. So it gives another level of

[53:34] just somebody having to stop and actually get through a door. Um, and if

[53:39] um the new set of doors that are in red there, if that had the push button

[53:47] camera audio controls there to the clerk in the water department, that could buzz

[53:53] somebody in once they show ID, once they say why they're here, where they're

[53:56] going. That that works for me. I I I see that

[54:01] how that would secure the building and still allow passage directly to the

[54:07] elevator. That is a concern, you know, for for the second floor.

[54:16] I don't see a cost difference between bringing those two hallway doors, the

[54:23] the man doors, as opposed to, you know, a curtain wall across that lobby. I'd be

[54:29] really really surprised if this were above our budget

[54:33] all of this work.

[54:37] » So the whole no one will be able to get into the lobby just into the

[54:43] » it brings them just to the vestibule >> is the discussion we're having.

[54:46] » But not even into this lobby area new windows are right. So someone's going to

[54:50] have to buzz every single person that comes to the town into the town.

[54:55] » Yes. >> Just hire a security guard. Don't even

[54:57] do this. >> You'll never do it for less than this.

[55:03] » Who are you going to pay to buzz people in? I mean, if if people are busy doing

[55:07] their jobs because that's what they do all day long here. They going to be able

[55:11] to answer every single I mean, there's a lot of people that come in and out of

[55:13] town all day, especially on court days. >> Well, who's going to do that? I'm just

[55:19] I'm just going back to what the original plan for this was was to put the

[55:25] responsibility of buzzing that person buzzing that in for the public on on the

[55:31] clerk's office. That's that was the primary function of

[55:36] whose responsibility it was. If you're if you're adding in the water department

[55:42] as a person that that separates it out, gives a backup, I don't see a huge issue

[55:47] with that, but that it was the clerk's office that

[55:53] is responsible to have that first engagement with the public that's coming

[55:58] in. You're going to have um keyless entry just like we have all the other if

[56:02] it's an employee that's coming in, they're badging in.

[56:04] » I don't think I don't want to speak for Kevin, but I don't think his concern is

[56:07] the employees. No, I know. I'm not saying

[56:09] » you're public, right? You're >> I only have one part-time employee and I

[56:15] have to go to lunch when he's not there. Who's going to take care of it then?

[56:24] » That's the le that's the least issue from the complaints that I'm getting

[56:27] about the clerk's office. So, I'm not worried about that.

[56:31] But potentially, but potentially to Kevin's point, this could create a staff

[56:37] issue. I mean, it's possible. >> Yeah, it it is. But that's also the

[56:41] whole conversation about security and convenience,

[56:46] » right? Oh, absolutely. >> So,

[56:48] » because even regardless once they get into the lobby, if there's no one at DPW

[56:53] or the clerk's office, I can't do my transaction anyway.

[56:57] » That's a separate conversation.

[57:01] the the point of this is to secure the building.

[57:04] » There's no scenario where the doorbell system,

[57:10] » you know, I envision a a camera with a computer screen that there's not buttons

[57:15] for each thing. I want to go to the clerk's office, I press push the clerk's

[57:19] office button. They're then responsible for buzzing me in. I want to go to

[57:22] court, I push the court button. And and I can only imagine on court days, this

[57:26] would put a huge overflow on them. But then that way it's who are you? My

[57:29] name's Luke Sla. I'm here because I have a court date for a speeding ticket.

[57:34] Okay. Yep. We can buzz you in because I don't love the idea. I mean, I was there

[57:38] the day that the .edu letters went out and I watched him answer, I'm not

[57:43] joking, 30 phone calls in the hour that I was there. Um,

[57:49] I don't know what the flow of traffic is, but I I see Kevin's point and agree

[57:54] with him that I don't want any one office responsible for this.

[57:59] And it's really easy if we have multiple officers responsible for it for them to

[58:02] be like, "Well, I'm not going to answer that."

[58:04] » Well, it's also accountability. When you have everybody responsible for it,

[58:08] nobody does it. And there's no there's no accountability of who buzzed who

[58:12] when, who's getting the training. The training for a secure vestibule is

[58:16] absolutely the most important part of putting in a

[58:20] vest a vestibule. You can't just put in a vestibule and then not train the

[58:24] person who's responsible to the criteria of coming in. They check their IDs. They

[58:29] find out. They have a conversation when they know who they're doing. They know

[58:31] why they're there. That's all part of the training. You can't just buzz

[58:35] somebody in and not know why you're doing it. So,

[58:41] having four or five people doing it is a is an investment in four or five people.

[58:46] Having two departments do it is an investment in two in two departments.

[58:51] And when somebody's on vacation, that's just part of what we it's part of

[58:56] what the overall plan has to account for because you have to have people to let

[59:01] people into the building. >> So, do we hire someone for this? I I

[59:05] cannot support putting the guy here and paying for a salary, paying for

[59:09] retirement, paying for all the other stuff in prepare just forever in lie of

[59:15] the mechanical and electronic and technology to do the same thing for

[59:20] one-time purchase. >> Yeah. My problem with it is is the

[59:25] amount of time that we're taking people away from doing their actual job.

[59:30] » There's no more time taken away from them doing

[59:32] » 100% there is. I disagree with you because I watched him answer 35.

[59:35] » I understand, but let me finish my sentence first.

[59:38] » Okay. >> They have to engage the P. Somebody has

[59:40] to engage the public at some point to find out where they're going, who they

[59:44] are, what they're here for, and where they need to go to.

[59:47] » Somebody has to do that. So, there is no additional time.

[59:50] » Not necessarily, but but it is for a for the process. If you're putting all on

[59:57] one person or just having someone walk in and go wherever they want to go, then

[1:00:02] it's only one person. But if they go down to the if they go to the clerk's

[1:00:05] office like they do now and the clerk isn't there and they go to the code

[1:00:10] department and it's not a code issue, we're interrupting and taking away from

[1:00:14] that service time and detracting from what they have to provide for their

[1:00:18] services to cover another department. So there there it there are a lot of

[1:00:22] tangible and intangible issues about the efficiency of what a secure vestibial

[1:00:28] does but absolutely it will increase one person's time but take it away from

[1:00:33] other people's time. >> Yeah. I think my big problem is is on a

[1:00:38] court day, the clerk's office will

[1:00:43] based on the traffic of our court from the documentation that Jay and I saw

[1:00:48] when we did the audit. I'm assuming on court days, the clerk's office or the

[1:00:55] water whoever it is that's going to do that those days is going to have a very

[1:00:59] very hard time accomplishing any other task

[1:01:03] for that window of four hours or whatever it is that they have to verify

[1:01:07] everyone's ID and then does the court provide them with a list to verify yes

[1:01:12] this is the day that you're supposed to be here like the logistics of that seem

[1:01:16] overwhelming to me on another department And I and I think that those are all

[1:01:20] reasonable concerns, but they were all part of the secure vestibule plan and

[1:01:26] engineering controls that we are putting on to Keystone to develop that. That's

[1:01:31] information that they need to know from us, but they're they're getting paid to

[1:01:34] solve these questions and solve the problems of that and to give us options

[1:01:41] on what we're going to choose. you think that they might have more

[1:01:46] options coming up the longer we look at this or feedback from us?

[1:01:49] » Of course. Of course. All of these things are are, you know, coming to

[1:01:54] light. Um, and obviously obviously on court days

[1:02:00] with the signage and probably some additional signage, the idea is to

[1:02:05] direct any able bodies around to the back of the building. However, those who

[1:02:09] need to use the elevator um or desire to use the elevator are going to be buzzing

[1:02:15] in. There's no there's no question about it. How much that traffic is, I really

[1:02:18] don't know. >> I don't know either. But yes, whether

[1:02:21] it's coming to the code office, DPW, um

[1:02:25] » yeah, you're right. There's the there's the

[1:02:28] » convenience or inconvenience, if you will, of securing the vestibial, right,

[1:02:32] as opposed to just being able to come in and go to the department in which you're

[1:02:36] looking for. So absolutely, Keith, to answer your question, Dave, absolutely.

[1:02:42] That understanding how we're laying this out and how we

[1:02:48] want it to work. Yes, there's some engineering controls, electronic

[1:02:53] controls, if you will, that have to be part of this discussion. Um, we were

[1:02:59] really focused on the layout of this and what we were going to do to kind of

[1:03:03] minimize some of the impact particularly in the clerk's office without relocating

[1:03:08] walls or moving all the cabinets around. So

[1:03:13] yes, we'll pull that piece together and and and have that discussion of saying

[1:03:18] what we're trying to accomplish in terms of

[1:03:22] securing just the vestibule and then having to how does a resident

[1:03:30] get out of the vestibule, so to say, right?

[1:03:33] » You know, what department are you looking for? Who am I going to be

[1:03:35] talking to? >> I I can't get away from the original

[1:03:41] foundational issue of why we have the conversation about the secure vestibule.

[1:03:48] And that is not for any other reason except to add a

[1:03:55] significant level of security to the building to funnel all of the public

[1:04:02] into one location and keep the employees safer.

[1:04:10] That's that's what I need this project to accomplish because that's what it

[1:04:15] started from. >> And I think there was some scope creep

[1:04:19] if you will on this as well in those discussions. I mean I certainly the

[1:04:23] discussion started early on >> and that's great for the first floor and

[1:04:29] anyone coming to the main building but it accomplishes nothing for those who go

[1:04:33] up to the court they have complete access through the second floor back

[1:04:37] down into the building. Yep. So, I think adding that element into it

[1:04:45] and part of some of the other physical changes to it, the scope creeped a

[1:04:49] little bit, but you're right, the the electronic side of this is not been the

[1:04:54] options have not been presented.

[1:05:04] I'll I'll work with Alex on that and we'll get we'll get those options

[1:05:09] forwarded. Okay. Okay. Looks good. All right.

[1:05:14] Moving on. 5.7 edu letters and responses.

[1:05:20] How does the board want to handle this? These are the 29

[1:05:25] letters and responses. That's what I got on the agenda.

[1:05:30] But all of them were responded to, right, Craig?

[1:05:34] » I have not sent a response out. I have answered and given you my

[1:05:38] recommendation. >> Oh, I thought these I thought these all

[1:05:42] went out. >> No,

[1:05:43] » no, it's a board. >> I'm waiting for the board to decide

[1:05:45] » decision. >> Oh. Um, yeah. I I was under the same

[1:05:49] assumption, Greg, because they were all dated letters.

[1:05:52] » Yeah, >> I dated them as they came in to me.

[1:05:56] » Okay. Um,

[1:06:06] » I don't think I I mean I read through them. I didn't read I did not read

[1:06:09] through them with the lens of whether or not they should have gone out. I read

[1:06:13] them as if they had gone out. So, um, I didn't take notes on them or I don't

[1:06:19] have any comments. >> So, so Jane, just to help clarify.

[1:06:22] Right. So the the eventual goal here is to have the town board approve the EDU

[1:06:28] sewer debt assessment role. So we have a role that was what the public hearing

[1:06:34] was on. 29 people grieved their assessments. It's up to you folks to

[1:06:40] decide whether to grant their grievances or not and adjust their edu assignments.

[1:06:46] So for all 29 of these, you know, you guys need to tell me which ones, if any,

[1:06:53] you are not going to or excuse me, which ones you are going to approve and grant

[1:06:58] their grievance so that when so that way we can update the assessment rule and

[1:07:02] you guys can then approve the updated role.

[1:07:06] » I didn't I didn't understand that process.

[1:07:08] » No, I didn't either. I I was >> if you adjust if you adjust any of these

[1:07:11] EDUs, it affects >> I I understand but I thought to accept

[1:07:15] the the EDUs as they were presented with the public hearing information and then

[1:07:19] address these 29 afterwards. >> That if we had to.

[1:07:23] » Yeah. No, that that's why there was no action to approve the .edu assessment

[1:07:27] role at the last meeting. We just held the public hearing, took no action so

[1:07:31] that way you guys could review this information and decide whether to grant

[1:07:34] them or not. >> I'm sorry,

[1:07:35] » Greg. Out of these Hang on a second. >> Yeah, that's what I was saying. I didn't

[1:07:38] mean to interrupt you. >> No, no, but I I was under the same

[1:07:40] impression. Out of these 29, how many did you find were in error?

[1:07:45] » Do you have the Excel spreadsheet there? Uh, I'm thinking like 10.

[1:07:50] » The Excel spreadsheet is not part of this.

[1:07:52] » Yeah, >> I could go to the last meeting.

[1:07:55] » Maybe 10. >> There were 10.

[1:07:57] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:07:58] » So, I was under the impression that because I would have accepted those

[1:08:02] recommendations from you to make those adjustments, any of the ones that were

[1:08:06] in error. So maybe at the next meeting if if you guys are saying that you will

[1:08:13] probably agree with Greg's recommendations, grant 10 of the

[1:08:17] grievances, deny the other 19 of them. We can I can put a resolution together

[1:08:22] for the next meeting. We can include Greg's Excel spreadsheet. We can include

[1:08:26] all 29 of these things that Greg has there right now. Just to be clear, the

[1:08:30] ones that I did read through that I know that you made corrections to,

[1:08:35] » they were an error, not necessarily an exemption grant. I just want to be

[1:08:40] really clear on that >> that it was a miscalculation

[1:08:44] on the footage. >> And they were they were granted

[1:08:47] obviously a slight um adjustment. And then the other suggestions that we made

[1:08:53] to some of the guys that had the homeowners that had vacant parcels that

[1:08:57] if they combined them they would pick up like a 75. They would go to the maximum

[1:09:02] 1.25. I'm in favor of that. But there in in regard to any exemptions that this

[1:09:08] board would make for a property owner, I didn't I I I didn't see any of those

[1:09:14] that met the grounds of a correction. >> There was no exemptions. There was just

[1:09:19] adjustments. corrections. >> Correct.

[1:09:21] » Right. Okay. >> So, for the next meeting, I'll put a

[1:09:25] resolution together. We'll have as the backup Greg's spreadsheet that just kind

[1:09:29] of summarizes it all. the 29 attachments that are here right now, the sewer debt

[1:09:36] assessment role, and I'll talk with Katherine about we can't actually get

[1:09:41] the role itself updated because it's all currently locked behind the county

[1:09:44] system. But between that role, which we'll have and the current the changes,

[1:09:49] corrections to it, those two together will be what we end up having as

[1:09:53] attachments for links because it's too big uh for the next board meeting. But I

[1:09:57] just needed direction from you guys like do you want to grant these, deny them?

[1:10:02] So I I think I've got that right now. >> The second one on the list, do we have

[1:10:08] any exposure with that one in particular given there's so much documentation?

[1:10:14] » Uh so that one I think there actually isn't

[1:10:20] there's not a signed agreement and I looked at the minutes from 1998. There

[1:10:26] was never a board approval. >> Okay.

[1:10:30] » So, >> and this one wasn't grieved last year.

[1:10:34] » No. >> So, even for corrections,

[1:10:38] calculations that were made in error requires the board vote to fix the

[1:10:44] corrections. >> So, because these these these aren't

[1:10:47] these aren't exemptions, >> correct? Yeah. This this is it's just

[1:10:51] like um the real property assessment role.

[1:10:55] » Okay. So it's basically the whole role including these 10 adjustments.

[1:10:59] » Yes. So you guys you guys are going to approve that the whole role with these

[1:11:03] » these 10 adjustments. Okay. >> I just wanted to be clear that we

[1:11:06] weren't making a separate resolution just for 10 adjustments.

[1:11:09] » No. >> Okay.

[1:11:10] » Why why can't approve why can't that corrections be

[1:11:16] made to the role and then we approve that role?

[1:11:19] » That's the idea. >> That's the idea. It's just that we don't

[1:11:22] have because of the time of the year it is. We can't make the changes to the

[1:11:26] role ourselves. We have to get the county to do it. And we want to go to

[1:11:30] the county and say, "The board has now approved this role with these changes to

[1:11:35] it. Please actually implement these changes."

[1:11:42] » I I just don't want to misunderstand what my ch my what my charge is for the

[1:11:46] next meeting. Yes. >> So, Greg, are you going to reissue these

[1:11:51] letters all with a different date because they haven't been sent? You're

[1:11:55] not going to send out an August 10th letter on a response?

[1:11:59] » I could easily change the date. >> Once once we decide this is what we're

[1:12:04] going to go with, I can change the dates and and send them out. Yes.

[1:12:07] » I think no. For for the agenda next for the next meeting, I would I would I

[1:12:13] would like you to change the date on the letters.

[1:12:15] » Sure. And then if your recommendation to the

[1:12:20] town board is to make a correction or to not adjust the the role number, then

[1:12:27] that will be what the letter says. And I and I will look at those 29 letters from

[1:12:33] that viewpoint. Okay. Okay.

[1:12:39] Just I mean my letters state if there needed to be a correction, it showed the

[1:12:44] correction. >> Yep.

[1:12:46] I wouldn't expect anything other than a date change.

[1:12:52] » Okay. So, my only concern is going to be if you change the edus,

[1:12:57] your number is going to change the amount you're going to charge per EDU

[1:13:00] unless you want to use fund balance. So, I think Kevin, that's that's a valid

[1:13:07] question and concern to raise to the board. That is a budget time issue. Um

[1:13:14] it and I'm not trying to I mean if you guys want to talk about it but when you

[1:13:17] guys are doing your budget part of that is going to be what is the actual EDU

[1:13:22] value that's going to get charged to everybody and this this will affect that

[1:13:26] and that's the question you guys will talk about

[1:13:28] » but but I'm understanding Kevin's comment to be this issue the number that

[1:13:34] we associated everybody's the entire town edus we already sent them a letter

[1:13:41] and they didn't grie they didn't grieve it they didn't complain about it. Now we

[1:13:45] adjust these everybody's changes filed. >> So the the edus remember are you know

[1:13:51] 1.25 or one or whatever the number actually is.

[1:13:56] » That is the only thing that people can grieve. People can't grieve the dollar

[1:14:00] value that you end up actually charging to people because we have to because

[1:14:06] it's all based on the debt. The debt is owed. We have to pay it. We were

[1:14:10] assessing the .edus and of course the dollar value will change as edus go up

[1:14:14] and down. to Kevin's point is I and because I think we've talked about it or

[1:14:18] it was mentioned before the number value the dollar value that was put into the

[1:14:24] notice although I think it was clear that this is like this is a you know

[1:14:28] potential which means it could change if you want to I'll say honor that dollar

[1:14:35] value and we adjust EDUs so we're losing some EDUs that number is going to tick

[1:14:42] up slightly unless the board uses is available.

[1:14:45] » I'm I'm in support of using a couple of thousand dollars from fund balance

[1:14:50] » and it's not it's not general fund balance. It's it's the SS fund balance

[1:14:55] which is the sewer bond fund balance. I I would suggest doing

[1:15:00] » and there's 163,000 in there which was the money that was collected over six

[1:15:04] years >> for the ban interest that was

[1:15:06] » but I'm saying in in terms of >> money for this

[1:15:09] » yeah I understand but even if even if we eliminated all 10 right on 1.25 25. What

[1:15:16] do we We're talking about what? $2,600. I guess that's what I'm saying. He's got

[1:15:20] 10 that he adjusted. So instead of going back and and getting everyone fired up

[1:15:27] again because they went from whatever it is 26410 to 265 and a nickel.

[1:15:34] Let's just use the 2500 from fund balance and keep it where it was

[1:15:38] presented.

[1:15:42] » It's going to be I don't have any problem with that. As long as I as long

[1:15:45] as you you can tell us what that >> dollar

[1:15:48] » dollar amount is that we're actually talking about.

[1:15:50] » Yeah. And Greg, I'm just doing a quick estimate based off of the 10 that were

[1:15:54] adjusted. That's all. >> And and those numbers you will have very

[1:15:57] easily because once you approve the final edu assessment role, there's the

[1:16:01] EDUs. We do the math. Here's the new number.

[1:16:05] » Okay. >> But but this scenario is scenario is

[1:16:09] going to happen every year though, right?

[1:16:11] » Yes. And recommendation would be to do it earlier in the years before the rolls

[1:16:15] close. >> So we don't need the county.

[1:16:17] » So you don't need the county. Catherine Katherine can change them before the

[1:16:21] roles are finalized.

[1:16:29] » All right. We good with that one? >> Yes.

[1:16:31] » Thank you. >> Thanks, Greg.

[1:16:34] » All right. Uh no public hearings tonight. We're going to move on to 7.1.

[1:16:39] New business. Joyy's replacement discussion.

[1:16:46] Who's leading this? >> Darren

[1:16:52] put in there just

[1:17:10] what her duties are right now and what it entails just so

[1:17:17] she can speak a little more depth of them.

[1:17:21] The only concerns that I had, this is for everybody,

[1:17:28] anyone actually somebody knew coming into the position trying to do

[1:17:33] administration might be the hardest out of all these

[1:17:39] parts

[1:17:44] or we can work on doing it in our person.

[1:17:50] the only one that I saw.

[1:17:56] This is just

[1:18:02] talking on top of this. The actual replacement

[1:18:06] portion I have going forward is going to be a budget budget discussion

[1:18:14] because she's not going until April 1 of next year. So it would be talked about

[1:18:22] how

[1:18:38] » you'll have a recommend. You'll put your recommendation together.

[1:18:46] » Okay, I'm all set. Yeah, >> I am too.

[1:18:49] » Thank you.

[1:19:10] I am the only

[1:19:16] » that'll be part of your recommendation. >> The first of the year we renew all those

[1:19:21] policies in theory. No.

[1:19:32] Does it does the policy joy say your name or your position?

[1:19:36] » No, my name. >> Okay. Well, I think that that's just

[1:19:39] probably the policies to the position.

[1:19:44] » So, I mean, I don't see that as as a as a

[1:19:48] huge issue at all. I I understand if if the person who's sitting in that chair

[1:19:54] and an appointment isn't in the in that chair that day, but the position exists.

[1:20:00] So, I'm good. Just have it as part of your

[1:20:04] recommendation. And even if that, you know, if there's other things like in

[1:20:07] the policy that specifically name her, name the position.

[1:20:16] » All right, we're going to move on. 7.2 two bch scheduled discussion had no

[1:20:21] backup for this. I I don't >> So there's a resolution later on and I

[1:20:27] sent an email. I wasn't exactly sure what fees we were updating. Adam did

[1:20:31] respond to me asking about the dog license fee which the board already

[1:20:37] approved by resolution last year sometime. So I just said

[1:20:41] forward the resolution onto e-code or general code. They should be updating

[1:20:46] the fee schedule because you can update that fee schedule. You can increase or

[1:20:52] decrease the fees on the fee schedule by resolution. So that one should be

[1:20:56] resolved. And then the other one was the blank check fee that you bounced check

[1:21:01] fee, excuse me. So there is no fee for bounced checks in your fee schedule.

[1:21:07] So, I think that would take a local law based on the way that I read it and that

[1:21:12] there's no other provision in your town code that separately authorizes the

[1:21:17] board to set a fee for bounced checks outside of that fee schedule. I'll

[1:21:22] contrast that with the roof fee schedule, which your building code

[1:21:25] administration chapter says you can set fees for the building code stuff by

[1:21:30] resolution from time to time without limiting ourselves in the way that

[1:21:34] chapter 19 fees does. So, we would need a local law, I think, to adjust that fee

[1:21:39] schedule. If we're going to do a local law to excuse me, not adjust it, to add

[1:21:44] a new fee. If we're going to do that, I'd recommend just revamping it a little

[1:21:50] bit more. Um the and just really completely if we want if

[1:21:57] we can get away from needing to add fees to this by local law unless you're

[1:22:03] comfortable with that of course you know but the flexibility to add new fees and

[1:22:09] increase and decrease them by resolution is just it's good because it lets you be

[1:22:14] flexible. um local laws take of course a public hearing notice

[1:22:19] adoption filing with the state. Now there's benefits to that as well. If you

[1:22:24] want to be a really if you are want to have that public

[1:22:30] notice and input then that's the way to go. Um if you value the flexibility

[1:22:36] responsiveness to changes and needs then you would say I would say go by

[1:22:41] resolution. It's whatever you guys want to do, of course, but if you want a

[1:22:44] bounce check fee, I think we need to do a local.

[1:22:52] » I I went back and looked at the historical portion of what we did with

[1:22:57] these fees and it was originally in our code and it was originally a local law

[1:23:02] change. There were some things that that came up in the 20145

[1:23:06] time frame where there were some fees that were just never happened in the

[1:23:13] past that we didn't have the opportunity in that budget year to do anything in

[1:23:16] it. So we added the language for by res we can change then by resolution

[1:23:24] if it was an existing one. But the but the conversation at that time was still

[1:23:31] an annual review of what our what our fees were. So I just want to give you

[1:23:38] what has been done in the past and what we had been what we used as a board just

[1:23:42] in the time that I've been on a board on on what it was. Um, so

[1:23:47] adding our fee schedule to our January 1, the first meeting in January as a

[1:23:54] review, I think takes care of a lot of stuff because we budget throughout the

[1:23:58] year for it and if something comes up, we can take care of that. We do all of

[1:24:02] that with all the other stuff. So it's a a public meeting. I just wanted to give

[1:24:06] you the background on it, hear how it goes. Might might I suggest so of

[1:24:11] courseing budget now anyway opportune time for your department heads

[1:24:16] to recommend due fees now so that you can but then

[1:24:24] adopt them in January at your or anything that gets increased and then of

[1:24:29] course if they say oh we should have a new fee then we do a local law to try to

[1:24:34] time it so that the local law takes effect as of January 1st. as well.

[1:24:41] » Okay. >> Do do you guys want to do a local off or

[1:24:46] bounce check fee >> or do you want to ask your department

[1:24:50] heads if there's any other fees that they want to add into a local offer

[1:24:54] doing what anyway? >> I I would think we would want to we're

[1:25:00] going to do it all at once. I we could just I can send an email see if there's

[1:25:05] any other fees, but that's the only one that's come up to me was the bounce

[1:25:08] check.

[1:25:13] » Yeah.

[1:25:17] » Kevin, do you know what we've done in the past with a bounce check?

[1:25:20] » I don't I don't know. I'd be honest with you. I have no idea. It's the first time

[1:25:23] I heard that we had one.

[1:25:28] » How frequent is this, Adam? That's Greg. Does that ever happen in your

[1:25:31] department? >> Billing.

[1:25:34] » And what do you do with it? You wave it. >> We call the homeowner and they repay it

[1:25:40] with a good check. They get the fee through the bank anyways. Their bank.

[1:25:44] » Do you get a do you get a fee? >> We don't get charged a fee though.

[1:25:47] » So, what's what's the fee that we're putting into a local law then?

[1:25:51] » Penalty.

[1:25:56] » Oh, we don't get charged the fee. >> Right. We're not. It sounds like we

[1:26:00] don't get to charge a fee from our banking institution. This is a penalty

[1:26:05] what we're talking about. >> Well, the way the way I see

[1:26:08] » I I don't think I do either. >> The way the way I could see justifying

[1:26:11] it is that the time it takes for the staff person to enter the initial check

[1:26:17] only for it to bounce and then to recognize that now there's a deficiency

[1:26:22] and then to follow up with the homeowner potentially or whoever it is. Hey, your

[1:26:26] check bounced. You need to get me a new one. And now there's a second bite at

[1:26:29] the apple. It takes time. >> Well, it takes time to also process that

[1:26:33] $10 fee. And $10 is not is not even coming close to cover. I I'm not saying

[1:26:38] not not do it, but penalty I don't have an interest in dinging somebody for for

[1:26:44] that. >> Okay.

[1:26:47] » No, I'm I'm in agreement with that. I I thought we were getting charged a bank

[1:26:51] fee on that. So if we're not going to try No,

[1:26:56] I'm not for >> I would like to see something for

[1:26:59] relevy. We relevy a lot of accounts in October.

[1:27:05] So that's something that I would like to see

[1:27:08] » a fee for relevy because we revy and that's $150,000 we probably relevy.

[1:27:14] » So we're we're already getting interest and penalties on that through just the

[1:27:19] failure to pay. It's 1% every month. So like I we're already being compensated

[1:27:24] for that.

[1:27:28] » Okay. All right. So we're good with the fee

[1:27:31] schedule. We're going to move on to department

[1:27:34] reports. 8.1 DPW report.

[1:27:41] Um I received the email from BNL. The contractor on contract one is asking

[1:27:47] if we would like to leave the existing building there. Um

[1:27:53] there's roughly $10,000 left in that part of it for their demolition.

[1:27:58] They suggested that if we wanted to leave the building, there could be an

[1:28:02] opportunity to um sheetrock, do lighting, do some electrical upgrades in

[1:28:08] that building and keep that building. >> I would say yes. It's good for storage.

[1:28:16] Greg, what's the uh what's currently on the walls on the interior of the

[1:28:21] building? >> There's some plywood. There's mostly

[1:28:25] block. >> If you're using that for storage, where

[1:28:28] what would you be drywalling? Because it seems like it would get damaged just in

[1:28:33] a storage condition. >> Some of some of the walls that had some

[1:28:36] electrical stuff on it was drywalled. Some of the one of the lower rooms had

[1:28:40] some drywall on it. the outside wall between there and the MBR tank. It's

[1:28:45] just block. >> You would leave that

[1:28:48] » the block. >> Yeah.

[1:28:49] » Yeah. It's a block wall. >> Yeah. And then instead of drywall, maybe

[1:28:53] infilling with plywood or something or >> Yeah.

[1:28:55] » I'm just I just looked at the drywall part of it and I was like, if you're

[1:28:58] using it for storage, that seems like it's going to get damaged pretty quick.

[1:29:01] » It It doesn't have to be drywall. >> I was just curious. I was just curious.

[1:29:04] » That was just in their email. >> Was something the town board wanted to

[1:29:08] look into. We can dig deeper into it. If not, we have them tear the building

[1:29:11] down. >> So, it's a nice secure building. I mean,

[1:29:15] you store chemicals in it or >> No, there's already storage for chemical

[1:29:19] in the back in the new building. It would be snowblowers,

[1:29:23] pumps, spare parts,

[1:29:31] snowblowers, um, is a fire code issue.

[1:29:37] » So, I would, unless you're going to put the facilities that need to be in

[1:29:43] there for for the fire hazard. Just be very careful about what you're what

[1:29:48] you're storing in there.

[1:29:55] I think that that that would probably be the only thing I'd want to make sure

[1:29:58] that we document like what what our decision is going to be based on is what

[1:30:02] you're going to store in there >> to make sure that the facility is

[1:30:06] actually capable of storing that. Okay. >> Um

[1:30:09] And it'll also make sure that in five years it doesn't get

[1:30:15] turned into something that it shouldn't be stored for.

[1:30:21] » Greg, what's the size of that building?

[1:30:30] » 20 by 40. There's a wall in between the two rooms. One was the electric room,

[1:30:37] the other one was the blower room.

[1:30:41] floor is in good shape. >> Yes.

[1:30:46] » I think we're crazy to knock it down. >> I do too. I I don't have any issue with

[1:30:50] keeping it. I'm uh I was just concerned with what we're spending, you know, to

[1:30:54] kind of freshen it up what we're doing in there. And I agree with Jean, you

[1:30:59] know, hazards. I mean, I don't know if the brand building sprinklered. I don't

[1:31:01] know anything. I think paying attention to the to the uh the use of the

[1:31:06] building. >> We can also just get the credit.

[1:31:08] We don't have to do anything. That's also an option. If there's $10,000 left

[1:31:12] over for them to demo, they should. >> But would you need something done in

[1:31:17] there for storage then? >> No.

[1:31:19] » Oh, you don't? >> No, not necessarily. If they wanted to

[1:31:21] upgrade the lights, stuff like that. Sure. But we can also take the $10,000

[1:31:26] as credit.

[1:31:30] » That needs to be removed though. >> Like was in there has been removed.

[1:31:34] » It's already is. Okay. So, it's a blank canvas right now. Well, there's still

[1:31:37] stuff and let me rephrase that. There are still electrical stuff that's being

[1:31:40] used because we haven't flipped over to the new complete system yet.

[1:31:44] » And then after that, then we'll have that removed.

[1:31:46] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:31:48] » What was the original plan? Why did the original plan call for it to be demoed

[1:31:53] if there was a potential use for it? >> Because the electrical room got moved

[1:32:02] forward into the new addition to the building. Okay. And reclaiming that

[1:32:07] space of the building, there's not a benefit to that.

[1:32:11] » That building is gone. What is What is the space?

[1:32:13] » Yeah, it's all all new electrical room now.

[1:32:16] » No, the the building that we're talking about that is going to be demoed.

[1:32:20] » Well, you you couldn't turn one system on without

[1:32:26] you had to install the system in order to get it that running before you demo

[1:32:30] the existing system that's there, which is the electrical and the blowers. Once

[1:32:34] everything's turned on to the new stuff, all that equipment in there is not going

[1:32:40] to be used. >> I'm talking about the footprint of the

[1:32:42] building. The building itself, >> it was just going to be blank space,

[1:32:45] » but it was going to be gone. >> Yes.

[1:32:48] » Gone. Foundation, walls, roof, gone. >> That was the original plan.

[1:32:51] » Correct. >> So, there had to have been a want for

[1:32:54] that building to go away because you didn't need it.

[1:32:57] » And then what was the space potential space for that? Couldn't Was there a

[1:33:02] plan for it? No, not that I'm aware of. I didn't design it, but all I understood

[1:33:08] was that the building was coming down. It was going to be blank space, grass,

[1:33:12] concrete, black top. That's all it was going to be.

[1:33:17] I I just would want to get the engineers, you know, understanding of

[1:33:22] why they were directed to demo it so that I knew what

[1:33:26] what we're trading up. >> Yeah. What are we missing out on if we

[1:33:30] do leave it up? >> Yeah. and $10,000 for,

[1:33:35] you know, if we're gonna eventually buy a $40,000 demo and we're getting it now

[1:33:41] for $10,000, get rid of it. I I just want to see I

[1:33:46] just want to understand the whole life cycle of this decision.

[1:33:50] That's all, >> right? Because there would have been

[1:33:53] removals. There would have been either restoration of grass, pavement,

[1:33:57] something >> a lot more than $10,000.

[1:34:00] » It smells that way. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:34:07] » All right. Anything else for DPW? >> No, I assume we have time to make this

[1:34:13] decision, right, Greg? It's not like they were like, "We need to know."

[1:34:15] » No, they're still using the building, right?

[1:34:17] » Electric.

[1:34:20] [snorts] >> I just I had one thing. I had the lady

[1:34:25] call. She wants to sell back two plots, cemetery plots. I know you're aware of

[1:34:31] this, >> correct? You

[1:34:33] » Greg had emailed me. If you'll see my report, I mentioned

[1:34:37] » Is it on your report? Okay. Well, >> sticky note on my desk asking

[1:34:41] » which cemetery. >> I don't know.

[1:34:44] » Maple Grove. >> Maple Grove.

[1:34:46] » But I'd asked um if if you don't mind, I can I can

[1:34:48] » Yeah, you take it. Take a run with it. >> So, in looking at it, I I don't see that

[1:34:53] the town has any obligation to buy back burial plots that people do not need.

[1:34:58] There's nothing in the agreement that I was sent about that. There's nothing

[1:35:02] under state law that requires it. However, if the town board would like to

[1:35:06] buy them back, you certainly can. So, it's really just a decision to you folks

[1:35:10] as to whether or not you would like to buy these back or not.

[1:35:16] » How full is the cemetery? >> I have a lot of open space there.

[1:35:21] There's a lot.

[1:35:25] I I don't have any issue with buying cemetery.

[1:35:29] » I I don't want to pay more than what we got paid, but I don't know, you know, if

[1:35:32] we got paid in the 40s for them. I I I don't know what

[1:35:36] » what was the value looked like they were pretty recent. Um 20 I'm going way off

[1:35:42] field left field here, but it looks like four lots were purchased. It looks like

[1:35:46] they might have divorced. >> So I I actually in my email back I'm not

[1:35:50] sure if she can sell these. Correct. Like we need to know who the actual

[1:35:55] owners of it are. There might have been some divorce settlement or she got to he

[1:35:58] got to. I don't know. We'd have to see more information about like the actual

[1:36:03] state of ownership on their side of it. But I'm sure Greg's staff can find or

[1:36:08] the clerk's office can find how much was paid for these, when it was paid. There

[1:36:12] is paperwork indicating when it was purchased.

[1:36:14] » Yeah, I think Jody has it all. >> She did.

[1:36:17] » She's been contacting our office. So, I just if if the board

[1:36:22] wants to entertain it, we can get everything together and see how much and

[1:36:27] if it's even possible to see the legal side of it.

[1:36:30] » Yeah, I don't see any issue with buying. >> I support buying them back.

[1:36:33] » I I do too. I just want to see the the documentation.

[1:36:36] » All right. I'll tell Jody get everything to you.

[1:36:38] » Yep. >> All right.

[1:36:41] There's just two to buy back or the four.

[1:36:43] » Uh she she's just offering two. >> Just two.

[1:36:49] Anything else for DPW?

[1:36:55] Moving on. 8 8.2 ordinance report. See the

[1:37:01] » you want to answer? >> I have no questions.

[1:37:04] » Everyone's good with that. 8.3 dog control report.

[1:37:10] » Looks good.

[1:37:14] » 8.4 attorney's report. >> Yep. See, pretty short. Uh, we've

[1:37:20] already talked about the cemetery burial plot buyback question. The one item on

[1:37:25] there that you might say, "Huh, what was that about?" So, I note that we had a

[1:37:28] video conference, we meeting Alex, uh, the Brian, the new code officer, and

[1:37:33] myself with an attorney for the Quinn Estates LLC, which is the parcel

[1:37:40] neighboring adjacent to town hall. It appears based on what he'd indicated

[1:37:45] that they will he they anticipate submitting an application for a PDD

[1:37:50] reszoning of that parcel some point in the near future. He did not show us any

[1:37:54] plans, did not any get into any detail. He was more asking like what the

[1:38:00] procedure might look like just so that they could have some expectations as to

[1:38:06] what a timeline might actually be. um try to explain what our code says and I

[1:38:14] also flagged that we are in the comprehensive planning process. So I

[1:38:18] don't know how I was very upfront. I have no idea how receptive the town

[1:38:22] board will be to this one way or the other. So, if they apply, Alex knows

[1:38:28] he's going to look at it, confirm its completeness

[1:38:32] uh before moving it on to the town board for your review and then your decision

[1:38:38] whether to move it on to the planning board or not from there. But we're I

[1:38:43] think all Alex and myself and Brian's still so new at it. We're going

[1:38:50] to say we're on the same page. But, you know, if and when this does come in,

[1:38:53] we're going to move it forward in the appropriate process.

[1:39:01] All right. Anything for Nate?

[1:39:06] Good. All right. 8.5 supervisor's report. Everybody see the budget

[1:39:11] modifications adjusting the lines that are short.

[1:39:20] Anybody have any questions on those? We are creating one new line if you

[1:39:26] approve it for the justice grant.

[1:39:39] Questions, concerns, comments?

[1:39:47] Kevin, will these will these modifications take us through the end of

[1:39:50] the year? Is that the is that the idea? >> There's I'm just looking there's there's

[1:39:55] quite a few there obviously that are uh in the negative now. Um

[1:40:02] and it looks like we've got a number of them moved from water fund balance.

[1:40:08] » Those ones Greg would have to answer to >> because I'm looking there's there's

[1:40:12] three, right? >> Yes,

[1:40:14] » Greg. Yeah, that's what I see here because

[1:40:18] obviously that one is significantly

[1:40:23] um in the negative. So essentially even moving the

[1:40:29] modification amount, it's basically going to leave you nine

[1:40:32] grand left for the for five months.

[1:40:38] Am I looking at that right? >> Yes. That's what we discussed when Kevin

[1:40:41] and I talked about yesterday. >> Is that going to satisfy

[1:40:47] that through the end of the year, that $9,000? Because that's that's what not

[1:40:50] unless I'm looking at this wrong, but that's all you're going to have left in

[1:40:53] that. >> As long as I don't have to replace

[1:40:57] $50,000 in unbudgeted pumps and drives and everything else.

[1:41:02] » Is that what that was driven from? >> Yes.

[1:41:06] » I replaced two pumps that are >> Maria. I I remember

[1:41:09] » $20,000 a piece. >> Okay. As normally normally at budget

[1:41:14] time, we don't have money for those types of repairs.

[1:41:17] » We do budget for for one. Yes. I don't budget for

[1:41:21] » the two that you >> three. No,

[1:41:24] » you have you had a third. I know about the two.

[1:41:27] » Well, I ordered pumps three times. Oh, we had the original. That's one. Then

[1:41:30] I've ordered pumps twice. >> Right. Because you you had the one

[1:41:34] stock, right? >> Yeah.

[1:41:35] » Okay. >> I had three drives that went down. Mhm.

[1:41:39] » And one has been replaced, one has been fixed, and one I'm waiting on

[1:41:46] price on a replacement.

[1:41:51] » So those expenses will go underneath contractual instead of repairs.

[1:41:57] contractual I purchased the pump from the

[1:42:02] company

[1:42:05] who did the repair I should say equipment to go under the tube

[1:42:17] where does it leave you for a um a balance for

[1:42:24] the F99

[1:42:29] I don't remember what off top of my head what it was. It was a couple

[1:42:34] hundred,000. >> Okay.

[1:42:42] » $527,999.

[1:42:45] » That's what it leaves him >> or that's what it is before we pull off

[1:42:50] this. >> That's what it is prior to these

[1:43:05] 502 >> 50299

[1:43:07] » 5029 >> Okay,

[1:43:14] » that's that's before these modifications.

[1:43:21] So, we're going to be pulling

[1:43:26] 71,000 off of this. Correct.

[1:43:45] I don't see another option. >> Yeah, there's no

[1:43:47] » Yeah, there really isn't.

[1:43:54] And then at budget time, do we budget for two of these next year?

[1:44:02] » Depends on how much you want to raise rates,

[1:44:07] » right?

[1:44:11] » Kevin, aside from that, when I look at this, I didn't see anything else that

[1:44:14] came out of the fund balance. Is there? >> It looks like these just had to be

[1:44:18] reallocated. >> Yeah. All the other ones were

[1:44:21] reallocated. The only fund balance was for the water. We really didn't have any

[1:44:25] other money in the budget. There's no other money in the budget to take from.

[1:44:28] » Okay. >> The other ones we kind of

[1:44:30] » talk to each department head and figure out where we could get away with moving

[1:44:34] some money and not >> So those were like those were true

[1:44:38] transfers. >> Yes.

[1:44:39] » Within the budget >> and a lot of them were mistakes that

[1:44:41] were >> I see that.

[1:44:43] » Yeah. Greg, do you do you have any other um

[1:44:48] issues in the budget besides what the ones we're talking about transferring

[1:44:51] here that you think could be a potential issue over the next five months?

[1:44:56] » I hope not. >> Okay.

[1:44:59] » It's been a very expensive summer.

[1:45:06] » I'm all set. Thank you, Greg. >> Yeah.

[1:45:08] » All right. Everybody's all set? >> Good. Yep.

[1:45:09] » Good with the budget modifications. >> Please forward. I'll send everybody

[1:45:13] email today with the fund balances as of July 31st if you got to see that it's

[1:45:18] and I can add it to the agenda next. I didn't get them till this morning. So,

[1:45:22] » okay. >> But if you want me to add it to the

[1:45:24] agenda, do you want it for discussion? We could talk about that in future

[1:45:27] topics, but >> I'm I'm fine with it.

[1:45:29] » I'm fine with future topic, right? >> Yeah.

[1:45:30] » Okay. >> Under the sewer, the one for the .edu

[1:45:34] edu payback. Will that be then credited back to the account where we paid back

[1:45:40] the $5,000 plus dollars for the EDU out of the sewer account we were going to

[1:45:44] transfer SS fund? >> What are you talking about

[1:45:50] » the repayment for the .edu? >> Yeah. So the BC laundry one, we approved

[1:45:56] that by resolution last budget modifications which I think was April.

[1:46:01] We approved that. It was never moved. >> Correct. So that I have to I have to get

[1:46:06] Tom to move that >> that money that was already approved by

[1:46:10] resolution. These are things that we're finding that are not

[1:46:12] » Okay. >> I just saw ARPA on there for the water.

[1:46:14] I was just making sure. >> The ARPA one was never that's why I put

[1:46:17] it on here because I went back and look at the other resolutions that the board

[1:46:20] already approved and and that was not on there. So,

[1:46:24] » okay. >> That one had we had to put that on here.

[1:46:28] » But yes, you will get that. That'll put an extra

[1:46:32] » 5,000 in there. All right. So, we'll talk about that.

[1:46:36] And then, did you see the other thing I had on there? I sent you an email and I

[1:46:39] put it on here about help with the finances and the budget. Budget time

[1:46:43] coming up. >> I didn't see that. When did you send

[1:46:48] that? >> It's on the agenda here, too.

[1:46:50] » It's right underneath budget modifications where it says super help.

[1:46:53] » I also sent it by email. >> Superhel.

[1:46:57] » Superhel. >> Oh, I thought it was a runover from the

[1:47:01] budget modifications. Sorry. No, I could have labeled it

[1:47:05] differently. >> Nine.

[1:47:07] » Okay, >> we knew what it meant.

[1:47:11] » Trying to get it on there. All right. Um,

[1:47:13] » I think it's a good idea. >> Well, Joy Joyy's ex just a just

[1:47:18] explanation here. Every day when my truck pulls in, the phone rings by the

[1:47:22] time I get to my office. Joyy's like, just I don't want to ruin your day, but

[1:47:27] this is what I found in the in the financials and this needs to be

[1:47:30] corrected. And so she has a pretty good grasp on what's going on in our uh

[1:47:36] financials and she's shown a lot of interest in helping out getting it

[1:47:40] straightened out. She's even I think she sat down with Tom the one day to try to

[1:47:45] straighten a whole bunch of the highway lines out and I don't think she could

[1:47:49] get through to them. So

[1:48:00] » and these these lines are are not these lines are mistakes.

[1:48:05] So a lot of this is just things that were done incorrectly

[1:48:09] even in the last just this year just just mistakes.

[1:48:16] Um, so we're just we really I'm just trying to get this.

[1:48:20] » I want everything clean. >> I think it's a great idea

[1:48:23] » and just like like Greg said with his there's a BC laundry one. I mean that

[1:48:28] that was just an overlook. I mean I thought that was already funded into

[1:48:31] your line and I'm glad you caught it and >> we just we got to get that fixed so you

[1:48:35] have that money. There's $5,000 that should be in your line. Yeah.

[1:48:39] » Um and there's a lot of them that are like that. I mean, I know that the the

[1:48:44] comprehensive plan was taken out of the contractual line and not the actual

[1:48:47] comprehensive plan. The first payment was should have been taken out of the

[1:48:50] comprehensive plan by I mean, they just need to be fixed. These are just

[1:48:53] mistakes. Tom says they can be fixed if they're if they're mistakes and not

[1:48:57] actual transfers of money. If they're just a mistake that was made on the

[1:49:01] accounting part, he said we can fix those because there's a trail of why

[1:49:06] those were not. I mean, if the board wants me to put them all in here so you

[1:49:10] can approve them by resolution, I can.

[1:49:15] » That's a journal entry issue to me. >> It is. I think that's what it is.

[1:49:19] » Exactly what he said. A journal entry. >> There's already been a resolution to get

[1:49:22] these fixed and it just wasn't Yes. >> entered. Okay. So, so just so you see,

[1:49:27] this is what I'm I put on there >> about Joy. I don't know if anybody has

[1:49:32] an issue with it or concerned with it. I'm looking for help to the end and I

[1:49:35] also need help with the budget. I I've got to enter the budget all myself. So,

[1:49:43] so I've been taught how to do it. So, maybe Joy will teach Joy how to do it.

[1:49:49] Um, >> I'm comfortable with it.

[1:49:53] It's it's it's it's hard not having

[1:49:58] somebody in that seat day in and day out and they're coming basically per the

[1:50:05] contract how many hours we put on there is the only hours that they're spending

[1:50:08] in the town which I don't know is enough but we signed the contract we'll get

[1:50:12] through the end of the year we'll see how things go.

[1:50:15] » Well in my opinion this has certainly come a long way so I appreciate what

[1:50:18] you've done and I think this is this is a great addition. Um, I'm in favor of

[1:50:23] moving that forward. Just do it. >> Well, we we've got we we've done these

[1:50:28] budget modifications and everything by resolution. So, I would I would expect

[1:50:32] that we're going to have a formal resolution

[1:50:35] for this cost at some point to document it.

[1:50:40] » But is this a budget modification?

[1:50:44] » Yeah. Well, I'm looking at it as a budget modification. We got to take it

[1:50:48] from someplace. We got to adjust. We got to allocate it from some account that's

[1:50:53] going to go over. We don't have that $5,000 in the budget anywhere.

[1:50:58] So, I mean, not allocated for this for this scope. Forget So,

[1:51:04] » well, there's $5,000 allocated for bookkeeping.

[1:51:07] » Yeah, that's what I was looking at. But not but that bookkeeping is already

[1:51:16] I'm just telling you where where where I'm

[1:51:19] I don't care about the scope of what this is, but we didn't have this $5,000

[1:51:24] budgeted for this up until this conversation. We

[1:51:27] didn't have it in the budget. So it it it to me it was

[1:51:34] a cost add to the budget because we've still got to we've still got to at some

[1:51:38] point this $5,700, right? >> What is that what it was?

[1:51:45] » $4,984. >> Sorry, I got

[1:51:48] » It's under the $5,000 threshold. >> There's money in the book. I I don't

[1:51:54] » I guess I'm Yeah, I'm >> I'm trying to follow this too.

[1:52:00] Okay. I'm I mean e either I'm okay to do a resolution, but I just looked at this

[1:52:04] this was in the bookkeeper's line. There's there's $5,000 there.

[1:52:10] » I did not look at this ask is that's what it was. It was it's a it's an add

[1:52:15] to the budget. So, we're taking it from somewhere. We're putting it somewhere a

[1:52:18] resolution for why we're doing it, why we're spending the money. I think that's

[1:52:22] that's really that covers us for everything.

[1:52:25] » But I don't look at it that way. I I look at it as I'm using the bookkeeper

[1:52:28] line which has at the end after modifications that we made to it after

[1:52:35] you approved this resolution for modifications.

[1:52:39] It leaves it leaves $20,589.81 in that bookkeeper line for the rest of

[1:52:45] the year. >> Right. But what was that? What was

[1:52:47] » that was for bookkeeping. >> That was that was for bookkeeping

[1:52:50] » bookkeeping personnel line. And that's what I'm asking.

[1:52:53] » But we were we were going to a different service for that. We have that in the

[1:52:57] public accounting line, >> right?

[1:53:00] » We have a public accountant line in the budget that pays for the public account

[1:53:06] and then we have a bookkeeping line. >> All right.

[1:53:10] Okay. I think we >> we do budget this year if you want to

[1:53:13] remove one of those lines. >> Well, this is a decision that either

[1:53:17] needs a motion or a resolution because every decision that we make, we can't

[1:53:20] just say go forward with it. We got to we got to we got to make a decision.

[1:53:23] It's got to be recorded somehow. We've done we've done employment there's

[1:53:28] an employment issue that absolutely should be done by resolution that we're

[1:53:33] going to employ this person for this amount of time for this cost through

[1:53:40] this period. >> So we'll do it by resolution then

[1:53:44] » I just when I just looked at this right when you say budget modification I'm

[1:53:47] assuming we're taking it from another account line. It it looks like it's

[1:53:51] coming out of this line, but it's not moved anywhere else.

[1:53:56] » Yes. And and I can see that. I didn't read it this way that I didn't read it

[1:54:00] that way when I read through it. I looked at this as a as a budget cost ad.

[1:54:06] So, we'd have to bring it from somewhere else and there wasn't a lot of

[1:54:10] documentation in it for that. I understand what you're doing with it,

[1:54:13] but the original resolution that we put together for that line item for that

[1:54:18] budget was this is the services for it. This is a different service for it.

[1:54:23] It's fine. It's it's just different. Um this is

[1:54:28] this is an employment issue. It's not really a budget line item issue more

[1:54:34] than than anything else. So, you know, the the way I think I would think of it

[1:54:39] is, and this should happen with some of your employees, right? You have an

[1:54:43] employee whose job duties are water and sewer.

[1:54:47] » Their salary or their hourly rate should come out of both of the personnel lines.

[1:54:51] So, I think what we are doing is we'll do a resolution saying Joy will be

[1:54:56] assigned additional bookkeeping duties for two and a half hours a day, you

[1:55:01] know, Monday through Friday or whatever it is as needed until the end of budget

[1:55:04] season. with her pay for those services to come

[1:55:10] out of the bookkeeping personnel line and then she just gets her salary or her

[1:55:14] wages split like that. My question is do you want to have her start doing

[1:55:20] tomorrow? So the resolution will ratify her starting those duties, you know,

[1:55:26] retroactive to September 3rd or do you want to wait for two more weeks?

[1:55:31] » Tomorrow. >> Yeah, tomorrow.

[1:55:36] I I mean I don't have an issue doing that resolution. It's up to you guys if

[1:55:38] you want to do it. >> I'm totally comfortable with that given

[1:55:41] » the only exposure that you have and I'm not saying there's any

[1:55:45] » it. But if we actually pay her for that without the resolution,

[1:55:49] you've encumbered it without without the resolution and I don't see a big deal

[1:55:53] with it, but I think it's important to know that that we're not going to meet

[1:55:56] again before payroll goes out and her working on it and getting paid for it

[1:56:01] before we've actually put it in place. I'm personally comfortable with that

[1:56:06] still. >> I hear what you're saying, but yeah, I'm

[1:56:08] good to move forward.

[1:56:15] » Move as fast as we can. >> So, I need a resolution or not just

[1:56:21] resolution will be at the next meeting. Okay.

[1:56:25] » All right. So, we'll have a resolution next meeting.

[1:56:31] » Thank you. All right, that's it for supervisors. On

[1:56:37] to resolutions 9.1.

[1:56:40] » Resolution. >> I have a question.

[1:56:42] » Go. Sorry, we got a question >> about the bookkeeper. We have um Tom is

[1:56:47] the one who's doing most of the hands-on work for us.

[1:56:51] » Yes, >> I believe. And the owner, she was having

[1:56:54] problems with having her personal computer connected to our town computer

[1:56:59] system. Yes, >> we were talking about maybe buying her a

[1:57:02] computer. Has that been resolved or >> We can't communicate with her.

[1:57:08] » We don't talk to her. >> We try.

[1:57:11] » So, she she has an employee working with us, but she's not.

[1:57:17] » Um, Pyramid has tried to contact her

[1:57:21] numerous times. Pyramid sends me emails that they can't contact her. I've tried

[1:57:24] to contact her. Jod tried to contact her. Um, so

[1:57:30] We're working on it the best we can. I'll keep you up to date. Um,

[1:57:38] that's all I can tell you right now because Pyramid has an open ticket for

[1:57:41] that VPN issue and we can't get it resolved.

[1:57:46] So,

[1:57:51] » just a rumor that I heard. So, I just wanted

[1:57:53] » It's no rumor. All

[1:57:59] right. Resolutions >> 9.1 approving abstract number 17.

[1:58:07] » So move >> second.

[1:58:10] » Any discussion? >> None.

[1:58:13] » None. >> None.

[1:58:14] » Mr. >> Hi.

[1:58:15] » Mr. Simonus. >> Hi.

[1:58:16] » Mr. Johnson. >> Hi.

[1:58:17] » Mr. Hbert. >> No.

[1:58:18] » Mr. Warden. >> Hi.

[1:58:20] » 9.2 and 9.3. You'll see. I I don't believe I received the backupion for

[1:58:26] those yet. So, they're still just kind of placeholders right now.

[1:58:31] Uh 9.4 resolution accepting and approving justice court audit report for

[1:58:37] fiscal year ending 2024. >> So moved.

[1:58:40] » Second. >> Any discussion?

[1:58:42] » None. >> None.

[1:58:43] » None. >> Mr. Sla.

[1:58:45] » I. >> Mr. Simonus.

[1:58:46] » Hi. >> Mr. Johnson.

[1:58:47] » Hi. >> Mr. Hullbert.

[1:58:49] » Hi. >> Mr. Warden.

[1:58:50] » I. >> 95. Resolution accepting and approving

[1:58:52] justice court audit reports for fiscal year ending 2025.

[1:58:56] » So moved. >> Second.

[1:58:59] » Any discussion? >> None.

[1:59:00] » Question. >> Um when are is there a time frame that

[1:59:04] these have to be done in >> there was it's passed

[1:59:10] » and I'm I'm just extrapolating to 2026. When when do we

[1:59:14] » first quarter >> first quarter? Okay. I'd like our

[1:59:17] resolution for these should be done before the first quarter. or in the for

[1:59:22] in the >> right the audit should be done in the

[1:59:23] first quarter. >> Okay.

[1:59:25] » Yep. >> Now that we know the process, it will be

[1:59:28] » Yeah. >> much easier. I

[1:59:30] » I just didn't know if it was an a yearly issue.

[1:59:33] » It it is it's an annual thing, but I think uh April 30th or something like

[1:59:37] that. Trying to remember the date, but it's it's first quarter. It's basically

[1:59:41] you're supposed to get these in, you know, once the year's over with, books

[1:59:45] are closed. These are supposed to be in, I believe, by the end of April.

[1:59:49] » Okay.

[1:59:53] Mr. SL. >> Hi,

[1:59:54] » Mr. Sonus. >> Hi,

[1:59:55] » Mr. Johnson. >> Hi,

[1:59:56] » Mr. Hbert. >> Hi,

[1:59:57] » Mr. Warden. >> Hi.

[1:59:59] » 96. We talked about that earlier. Uh 97, resolution approving three new volunteer

[2:00:06] Shenango Bridge firefighters. >> So moved.

[2:00:11] » Second. >> Any discussion?

[2:00:13] » None. >> None.

[2:00:14] » None. >> Mr. SLA.

[2:00:16] » Hi. >> Mr. Simonus.

[2:00:17] » Hi. >> Mr. Johnson.

[2:00:18] » Hi. >> Mr. Hbert.

[2:00:19] » Hi. Mr. Warden >> I

[2:00:20] » and 9.8 resolution authoriz transfers. >> So moved.

[2:00:25] » Second. >> Any discussion?

[2:00:27] » None. >> None.

[2:00:28] » Mr. Schla. >> I.

[2:00:30] » Mr. Simon. >> Hi.

[2:00:31] » Mr. Johnson. >> Hi.

[2:00:32] » Mr. Hullbert. >> Hi.

[2:00:33] » Mr. Warden. >> I.

[2:00:36] » All right. 10.1. Future board topics.

[2:00:54] We have wastewater treatment plan on there again. Uh comprehensive plan on

[2:00:59] there again. We're going to hold off on the hometown heroes. We're good with

[2:01:02] that until we >> until budget. Yeah. Yeah, we're good

[2:01:04] with that. >> Uh we have budget discussion

[2:01:09] next uh next meeting. We said the 16th. >> Yep.

[2:01:14] Are you doing the department head um duties

[2:01:21] template? Department department head job

[2:01:24] description discussion with the Is that what you're looking for?

[2:01:27] » Yeah. >> Yep.

[2:01:29] » Okay. >> Yep. We'll put that back on.

[2:01:37] Uh, you're going to have the edus back on

[2:01:41] there again or just the resolution? >> It'll be the resolution regarding the

[2:01:45] edu assessment.

[2:01:50] » You have a reszo for Joy? >> Yep.

[2:01:54] And then the other resolution that you guys will need to do is uh introducing a

[2:02:00] tax cap override local law and scheduling a public hearing on that.

[2:02:11] Yes.

[2:02:15] » When's the next uh B&L update? >> Is that next meeting, Greg? Or

[2:02:22] » I see in Jod's hands for the next meeting.

[2:02:24] » Yeah, >> it is.

[2:02:25] » Yes, sir. >> Just curious how the schedule's going

[2:02:31] » because obviously we've passed substantial completion. Correct.

[2:02:38] When do you think you'll be able to have the information on that building

[2:02:42] demolition information? >> Next week. Next meeting.

[2:02:47] » As long as B&L will give it to me and have it in a timely fashion, I should

[2:02:50] have it. Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:02:56] Do we have do we have time on on our next meeting for that?

[2:03:02] » Absolutely. for that for that I would think so

[2:03:05] » I mean >> I don't know how much you want to get

[2:03:07] into the budget on >> well that the budget was probably

[2:03:11] » the most of it but I I I think we should move on this this I don't think that's

[2:03:14] it >> okay

[2:03:16] » I I have no problem with it I just don't want to overload it

[2:03:18] » you will also see um for the tree removal there's a need to be tree

[2:03:22] removal at the wastewater treatment plant

[2:03:25] » and we have to decide if we want to do it per the contract or if we can do it

[2:03:30] outside the contract because there's overund $1,000 difference in the two

[2:03:34] quotes just for the insurance requirements alone. So you'll see that

[2:03:39] in a report in two weeks. >> Okay.

[2:03:46] » Cemetery resolution buyback information. >> I think we need more information before

[2:03:52] I can put a resolution together, but we're going to work on getting that

[2:03:56] information. And maybe >> I was going to say if it was a recent

[2:03:58] purchase, it shouldn't be that long of a walk, right?

[2:04:01] » It it shouldn't be. It's just I don't because I don't have it all at on my

[2:04:03] fingertips. Can't say we're going to have the resolution, but I think we can

[2:04:06] report back at the next meeting about it.

[2:04:08] » Okay. >> What about the uh town storage network?

[2:04:13] Are you going to be able to get that so we can get that?

[2:04:16] » I'm I'm done making you guys promises. My last four weeks have just not been

[2:04:21] what I needed them to be. So, >> do you want me to get a hold of John?

[2:04:27] » No, I don't want to put anything on you that is mine. And it's more of just

[2:04:31] » Oh, you haven't gotten the responses? >> No, I I have not. John's asked me for

[2:04:35] information and I haven't gotten it. I have not gotten him.

[2:04:39] » If Jody could send him the procurement policy,

[2:04:45] » okay, >> that Okay.

[2:04:50] » I just did not dig that out. >> Okay. Well, I'll send it to

[2:04:53] [clears throat] Okay.

[2:04:59] I don't know how much more we want to add to if we're going to get into the

[2:05:02] budget. >> I think the budget's important enough

[2:05:04] that we

[2:05:08] » Are we expecting something on the Wisconsin Drive issue that Dave brought

[2:05:12] up earlier? >> Is that the King property?

[2:05:15] » Yes.

[2:05:25] » And I was not in the meeting today.

[2:05:33] and nothing from BNL has been brought to this table from the contractor for

[2:05:38] quotes for anything and this has been over a month and a half now trying to

[2:05:43] deal with this

[2:05:46] they're road hazards right now >> I guess

[2:05:55] if the stuff is submitted to to Jody for the agenda

[2:06:02] on time. We can >> get to it if we if we have it. I just I

[2:06:06] don't know what's got to happen on Greg and Alex's and Nate's end and your end,

[2:06:12] Darren. You know, I don't know what collaboration's got to happen there.

[2:06:16] » You said there was two Wisconsin and >> road.

[2:06:20] » I don't even remember the Prenise Road issue.

[2:06:24] » It's the same issue. >> Same issue. same issue but

[2:06:27] » I think >> okay

[2:06:30] » you should see a review from Alex then it'll be from BNL as well Alex went out

[2:06:36] today and actually looked at the sites >> okay

[2:06:39] » he gave us two cents as far as the other ones like carmich

[2:06:44] paving there is a price there incorporate all

[2:06:48] that into the next report

[2:06:53] that's how I understood it today Okay.

[2:07:00] All right. Anybody have anything else? I don't have anything.

[2:07:10] Good. Moving on. All right. We're going to go to open form. Guest shall speak in

[2:07:15] an orderly fashion, unlimited remarks of five time minutes or less. The speaker

[2:07:18] shall deliver their comments, concerns in a civil tone without the use of

[2:07:21] profanity, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior which may result in

[2:07:24] the offender's removal from the meeting. The speaker shall not be interrupted

[2:07:27] except in a matter of urgency. Would anyone like to speak tonight?

[2:07:38] Okay. See, we have no speakers.

[2:07:48] All right. Make a motion to go in executive session

[2:07:53] to discuss the department head probation,

[2:07:59] employee probation. Um, do you want to

[2:08:06] invite anybody in or does board just want to discuss? I think at this stage I

[2:08:13] would recommend board only first. >> Okay.

[2:08:18] » And then to have the ability to even discuss with department head or

[2:08:26] attorney to have them come in, but I think it

[2:08:30] should be the board first. >> Okay. But have the opportunity to invite

[2:08:35] department head or attorney in. >> Yes. I'll make I'll make that motion.

[2:08:41] » I'll second that. >> Any discussion?

[2:08:45] » None. >> None.

[2:08:48] » Mr. SL. >> Hi.

[2:08:50] » Mr. Simonus. >> Hi.

[2:08:51] » Mr. Johnson. >> Hi.

[2:08:53] » Mr. Hbert. >> Hi.

[2:08:54] » Mr. Warden. >> Hi.

[2:26:13] So

[2:26:41] like

[2:27:05] Oh yeah.

[2:29:00] Hydro power.

[2:37:13] Change right back. [laughter]

[2:38:08] Wait,

[2:38:19] wait, wait.

[2:52:19] » [clears throat]

[3:33:28] » Tornado warning.

[3:33:52] Stay barefooted. Stay barefooted.

[3:34:16] I know

[3:34:28] usually a big deal.

[3:41:24] » [clears throat]

[3:46:53] [clears throat]

[3:51:19] » Yeah, he's got

[3:51:29] All right, we're back in a regular session.

[3:51:33] Any other discussion tonight or

[3:51:38] I have

[3:51:41] » no do you want opportunity to speak or

[3:51:48] visit

[3:51:57] cemetery where my wife is

[3:52:11] recruited very large secretary.

[3:52:24] Thank you. >> All right, that's all the

[3:52:33] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[3:52:35] » All in favor?

Town Board - 02 Sep 2026

Transcript