[0:09] Okay, good evening everyone. I want to welcome

[0:13] you to the Red Hope Town Board meeting of Tuesday, September 8th, 2026.

[0:20] May I ask you once again to join me in the pledge of allegiance, please?

[0:25] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:31] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:36] justice for all. >> I want to thank you all very much.

[0:42] I hope you've had a wonderful summer. I know technically it's not over, but in

[0:49] many respects it is. Um, and Suzanne, if I could kindly ask you

[0:57] to pan over to the screen, please, so that we can show the folks what we'll be

[1:03] discussing tonight. Um, we have, because it's the first meeting of each month, we

[1:08] have both the supervisor's report and the clerk's report, snapshots of the

[1:13] financial condition of uh the municipality. We've got some

[1:17] announcements. We'll take some public comments for 15 minutes. Our agenda

[1:21] items are uh to entertain a resolution to rebid the Salt Hill Bridge project.

[1:29] If you recall, we rejected the bids uh last time we went out back in the

[1:35] springtime and we determined that we were going to go rebid the project.

[1:41] Meanwhile, uh we received good news about additional funding for that

[1:46] project. We have a bond resolution to entertain that goes along with uh the

[1:51] bridge project now that we have um an estimate. Um we can't award the project

[1:58] until we have a bond resolution go through the process. So we need to

[2:03] entertain that now if we're going to award um in the next few meetings. Um,

[2:10] we are we have a resolution to accept a local records management grant. We want

[2:16] to thank uh both Alex Collins Field was moved into a new position as the uh

[2:23] bookkeeper uh to the supervisor um and and Ruben both for their work on

[2:30] applying for this uh records management uh grant and uh we'll be talking about

[2:36] that briefly today. We have a notification from Office of Cannabis

[2:41] Management. That's what this acronym stands for. It's for the renewal

[2:46] application for Upstate Pines across the street here. And so we'll be discussing

[2:52] that. Um uh we uh put off to this meeting appointing a a shelter

[3:00] um to assign for a markets law. Hopefully we'll hear from Kenny on that,

[3:04] an update on that. Um, next up is a resolution to approve an amendment to uh

[3:11] sell tower sub lease agreements. We have uh three uh cell service companies um on

[3:18] our uh towers and so uh one is coming up for renewal, another one uh soon

[3:25] thereafter and then the third one in a couple of years.

[3:30] Uh resolution for intermunicipal agreement for shared service. This is a

[3:35] carryover. Um we discussed um this is slightly different. We have had for many

[3:41] years an IMA with the county on shared services and equipment related to

[3:47] emergency response. I think winter storms, you know, uh is a good example.

[3:52] Um they've asked for an expansion of that. Um and so what we're uh trying to

[3:58] do is to um look at uh how we could approve that but also make sure we have

[4:06] appropriate internal controls. We the board are responsible to make sure that

[4:10] when a whenever any equipment is laid out uh for another municipality

[4:17] um that the uh you know the cost of those services are reflected in either

[4:23] barter or uh in time uh and charges. And so, uh, we've got some draft language

[4:31] for us to look at and then, you know, either make some edits or whatever and

[4:35] then, uh, pass over once we feel comfortable with it to the, uh, highway

[4:40] superintendent so she can discuss with, um, the, uh, attorney to the town and

[4:47] see if we can come to some sort of compromise on

[4:52] um, the internal control language without being overly personal. Um, and

[4:56] then I've included board and committee reports. We don't do them uh on the

[5:00] first meeting. Um, we do them in the second meeting of the month, but since

[5:05] we didn't have a second meeting of the month, I thought I would include them

[5:08] for the packet for the public. I don't know tonight that we'll have time to

[5:13] read them, but I do think that there were one or two like the housing

[5:16] committee where they were asking for some followup. Maybe we could discuss

[5:19] that tonight and let the other uh reports speak for themselves unless you

[5:24] know uh others feel differently, but we do have to make a 9:00 uh tonight uh for

[5:31] an executive session. So that's our target for the bowl. Um and so without

[5:38] further ado, let us jump right in. Uh we have the

[5:44] supervisor's report for the month ending August 31st.

[5:49] We started uh with a balance of 11,597,000

[5:55] and change receipts of 1.8 million thereabouts dispersements of 1.466 466

[6:04] million uh leaving an ending balance of 11,960,752.

[6:13] We have some uh budget adjustments here. I'll draw your attention to a few of

[6:18] them. Um one uh we had um uh some adjustments moving from budget various

[6:25] budget lines in the DB fund, the highway fund. As you know, uh this was an

[6:30] unusually uh busy uh winter year, the 25 26 year. So, um some of those lines need

[6:37] to be replenished with um monies from either other lines or from the fund

[6:43] balance. And you'll be seeing more adjustments, I think, coming up at the

[6:47] beginning of October in preparation for um the wintertime. So, our highway

[6:53] department has what they need in each budget line.

[6:57] Um, okay.

[7:03] Anything else? There are those budget lines that

[7:07] I referenced.

[7:14] You'll see the transactions for the uh the sale of the surplus of water

[7:20] department parcels. Um, that has uh concluded.

[7:27] as well as the uh bonding

[7:35] and you have your variance reports as you always did.

[7:39] » Can you speak up a little bit? >> Sorry. And you have your variance

[7:43] reports as you do each month. Thank you.

[7:48] » Okay. Um, if there are no questions, would anybody like to make a motion to

[7:55] entertain the supervisor's report to accept it?

[7:59] » Move. >> Thank you, William. Is there a second?

[8:04] » Second. >> Thank you, Jacob. Uh, any discussion? If

[8:10] not, all in favor? Kenny. >> I. Myself. I. Christina.

[8:14] » I. >> Thank you.

[8:17] » All right. William and Jacob Ne. Hi. >> Hi.

[8:21] » Okay. Um uh for the folks uh at home, may I introduce you to our new deputy

[8:29] town clerk, Jenny? I see. I love the sign. I'm a big Forest Gump fan, so I've

[8:37] been saying Jenny for 30 years or something now. Jenny, did you want to

[8:42] introduce yourself to the folks? >> Hi, I'm Jenny. I'm the new deputy clerk.

[8:47] Happy to be here. >> Okay, so Jenny's filling in tonight um

[8:52] for Deanna and uh you'll be seeing more of my I'm sure in the future.

[8:59] » Okay. Um

[9:04] we have the town clerk's monthly report. Jenny, would you like to uh read that?

[9:10] » Okay. The town clerk's report for the period of August 1st to the 31st of

[9:14] 2026. Um, the total local shares remitted to the town, $9,16.61.

[9:22] Amount paid to New York State Agriculture and Markets for the Spay

[9:25] Neuter program, $24. Amount paid to New York State Department of Health for

[9:29] marriage licenses, $67.50. Amount paid um to New York State

[9:36] Environmental Conservation for hunting and fishing licenses, $1,763.89.

[9:44] Total state, county, and local revenues $10,962.

[9:49] And I hereby certify the vouchers number 35223

[9:54] to 35323 totaling $180,974

[10:02] processed in the month of August 2026 are accurate. Reporting of abstracts

[10:07] approved for payment by the town board.

[10:12] All right, guys. Is there a motion to accept the clerk's

[10:17] report? >> So moved.

[10:19] » Thank you, Christina. >> Second.

[10:21] » Thank you, Jacob. All in favor? Kenny. >> Hi,

[10:24] » William. >> Hi.

[10:25] » Myself. I Jacob. >> Hi.

[10:26] » Christina. >> Hi.

[10:28] » Okay. A few announcements. Um the county legislature

[10:34] um passed a tax incentive to address housing shortage by increasing ADUs.

[10:40] And so, as you know, we had a few years ago, we passed a resolution in support

[10:46] of the plus 180U program. Boy, I think it was the end of 2024. So, last time

[10:52] was not a meeting. I think you ran that meeting. December 30th, 2024, if I

[10:58] remember. Yes. Um,

[11:01] and uh the local law would off Duchess County into a New York state tax

[11:06] exemption while ensuring public incentives. So, uh, let's take a look at

[11:11] this and see on the local level if that's, um, something that we want to

[11:16] entertain as well. Uh, the county is having, uh, Kenny, uh, a government farm

[11:24] and business hazardous waste collection event, conditionally exempt small

[11:28] quantity generator registration. So, this event is a Friday coming up in

[11:33] about five or six weeks. And here are the items.

[11:39] that uh you can dispose of.

[11:44] We'll have this on our website as well to remind you.

[11:47] » Robert, can you just be louder? I I know I'm not good hearing, but

[11:51] » Sorry, >> you're not the only one.

[11:55] » No, I know this is uh the volume could be up higher, but

[12:00] and I am admittedly a mumbler. So, okay. So, here are the uh items that are

[12:08] accepted.

[12:12] We'll have it up on our website. Should give you some time, but you do need to

[12:15] register as you do with all these hazardous waste events.

[12:19] Okay. It's hard to believe. 50th anniversary for Hearts Scrabble,

[12:24] September 19th, 2026. I believe they have a page where you can see um the

[12:32] performers. They always do. Czech village website. Um there must be a link

[12:38] there that's coming up rather quickly weekend after next.

[12:46] Okay. Uh we've got a few events for Historic Red Hook. The cemetery crawl,

[12:50] the ever popular cemetery crawl. It lasts for 5 weeks. It starts also on

[12:58] the 19th. You get local cemeteries and you get to learn a lot about history.

[13:07] Uh more talks.

[13:10] Jack Kelly, a local will be talking on the 27th from 4 to 5

[13:17] at the Almondorf and also by Zoom. you can understand.

[13:25] And then they were also having a hard open house.

[13:36] Okay. Um that is all I have for announcements.

[13:42] Anybody else have any announcements? I just want to remind everybody that

[13:47] this Friday is the 25th anniversary of September 11th and I hope that people

[13:54] will take a moment to think about all the Americans that died in that

[13:58] horrendous attack that we suffered. I just want to make sure everybody is

[14:04] aware of that when they wake up in the morning.

[14:09] » Yeah, thank you.

[14:14] I knew personally three individuals in the Twin Towers, including one of my

[14:19] daughter's classmates. So, I appreciate your question.

[14:25] Okay. Um,

[14:29] with that being said, oh, and uh, Typ Street Painting, we didn't get a flyer

[14:34] on that, but we know that it's coming up the following weekend after hard gravel

[14:38] day. So, that would be the 26th. Everybody's favorite to the event.

[14:46] Okay. Um, thank you. Moving right along. We will take public comments. Who would

[14:53] like to go first? Linda. Linda would like to go first. Linda, if you'd be

[14:57] kind enough. We all know who you are, but if you would say just

[15:00] » Linda Keeling. Um, I came here specifically to congratulate

[15:05] uh, Alex and um, Ann Rubin for completing a records management grant. I

[15:12] had been doing this in the early 90s for the town as well as the village and so

[15:17] there was a big gap and I'm glad to see that they're starting to take it up and

[15:22] work on the records again because it can get very deep in paper and whatnot. So

[15:29] congratulations to them. It was over $62,000. So that's great.

[15:33] » Yeah. Thank you.

[15:37] » Roxan. >> Yes.

[15:38] » See, Bill, that was a good one. >> It was excellent.

[15:44] » Good evening, members of the board. I want to begin by acknowledging a welcome

[15:49] correction in the supervisor's reporting. In the monthly statements

[15:54] through mid July, attorney expenses appeared under the B fund. the town

[16:00] outside village fund which improperly burdened outside village taxpayers. Over

[16:07] the past two months, those legal expenses have finally been moved where

[16:12] they belong into the townwide a fund. Now, looking at the current townwide

[16:19] legal budget, general legal council is budgeted at 50,000 with over 29,000

[16:26] already spent. Other legal is budgeted at $25,000 with nearly 11,000 spent.

[16:35] Together, that is a $75,000 allowance and more than 40,000 has already been

[16:42] drawn down. Beyond this month's report, foil records show that the town's

[16:47] cumulative legal costs are approaching or have already surpassed 300,000.

[16:56] Even allowing for legal fees that may overlap with current numbers, the sheer

[17:01] scale of public money committed to legal fees is staggering. And that still does

[17:08] not count the additional defense council provided by the insurance carrier. The

[17:14] legal beater never stops running. They say the definition of insanity is doing

[17:21] the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet month

[17:27] after month, the bills pile up, the friction continues, and we stay on the

[17:33] very same course. So with a nod to that definition, I'm standing here tonight to

[17:40] make the request once more. I urge council members TA and Hamill to look

[17:48] honestly at where this path has brought us. Stop the bleeding of public funds

[17:55] and move to resend your votes. It is never too late to change course. Thank

[18:02] you. >> Thank you.

[18:05] Okay. Um, let's move on to our first item in the agenda and thank

[18:11] you all for coming tonight. >> Thanks.

[18:18] » So, we have a resolution to go out and rebid. Um, just a quick summation for

[18:23] the public if they haven't been following along. We rejected bids. Um,

[18:27] we had two bids previously. one was defective or nonresponsive is the

[18:32] technical term. Um the second one we were not happy with uh both the number

[18:37] and had some questions. So uh we decided with consulting with our engineers that

[18:45] um we were told that folks who have pulled some plans that they would be

[18:49] interested in um bidding but the timing wasn't great when we went out to bid a

[18:55] few months ago. So, we're going to try again and hope we get some more

[18:58] submissions. Um, we entertained the idea of maybe doing some other materials, but

[19:05] um I can only speak for myself. We didn't see any great alternatives

[19:10] um that would retain the character of the bridge. I hope we don't have to go

[19:13] back and look at that. But, um so we're now uh looking at um going out to rebid

[19:21] once we get the bids back in. We now have some estimates from the engineer of

[19:26] what the construction inspection would cost. Um what we've already spent. We

[19:32] have uh been notified, although I don't know that the tip has been updated yet.

[19:38] Um that we have an additional $57,000. I think I mentioned to you uh after my

[19:44] last conversation with DOT. Um so you've got um in your uh

[19:52] information given to you about budget wise. Um

[19:56] so this resolution just essentially uh recounts what I've said uh at least

[20:04] briefly the important part. And so the idea is that we would go out to bid um

[20:12] and to have them received a month from today, as a matter of fact, October 8th.

[20:18] And then we would need, >> you know, certainly a little time for

[20:23] the engineers to review. >> I actually spoke with him today, Jack

[20:29] the the engineer, cuz I couldn't remember

[20:32] » why we rejected the two bids. >> Okay. and he said their their in-house

[20:39] estimate was like 2 million and change and the lowest bid

[20:46] that we got was 3 million. So and so he explained that um

[20:53] the work in the saw hill because of the environmental issues can only be done

[20:57] certain months and we just totally missed the window which is what you

[21:01] said. It's just the details I think are are important that um

[21:05] » Right. >> Yeah. I mentioned that we would there

[21:08] would be some amount of work possible in 2026, but essentially most of the work

[21:14] now is going to be in 2027. Um and then DOT has updated be updating

[21:20] their records to show the additional funding.

[21:23] » And obviously there's a you know there's a there's a pool of contractors that

[21:26] typically do this type of work. and he said he was surprised that none of of

[21:33] the usual suspects are were were bidding on the work. So it was I mean

[21:40] » Yeah. So we hope to get more of that. >> Yep.

[21:42] » And that could also just be timing, >> you know,

[21:45] » it's timing. they have a count so they know they can do this type of work is

[21:49] based on a calendar year he was explaining and

[21:54] we bid it out at at a time when their calendars were already full. So um okay

[22:06] very good um any any thoughts on the resolution?

[22:10] Does it essentially say what we needed to say? Jen, can I quiz you for the next

[22:16] resolution number? >> 45.

[22:18] » 45. >> Okay. Hearing no further questions, I

[22:24] would entertain a motion to approve resolution number 45 authorizing the

[22:29] solicitation of public beds for the DOT Sill Bridge project.

[22:35] » Are you making the motion? >> I would entertain a motion.

[22:38] » I'll make the motion. >> Okay. Thank you. as the leazison is on

[22:41] to the highway. All things rose. Um >> second.

[22:46] » Thank you Christina. Further discussion if not all in favor. Kenny

[22:51] » I. >> William I.

[22:53] » Myself I. Jacob. >> Hi.

[22:54] » Christina. >> Hi. Thank you. So that's resolution 45.

[23:01] And there's the uh notice that will be placed on the town website on bidnet

[23:07] and be circulated with all the known uh contractors as we did

[23:13] previously.

[23:17] So now we have the bond resolution. Um this is resolution 46 and the bond

[23:23] resolution um messages two important figures. One is

[23:29] the estimated maximum cost of a project. And of course, that's hopefully exactly

[23:35] that maximum, not something that we would have to expend, including all that

[23:41] additional grant funding. Um, but it also needs to reference what we would

[23:46] need to borrow. Uh, most of the funding we received, remember, recall for those

[23:52] of you who are have been around for a while on the board, the initial grant

[23:57] was Bridge New York money. So that's 955 money, 5% batch. We received additional

[24:03] money through the county, that's 8020 match. And then this last batch uh that

[24:09] we got from DOT goes back to 955. So I gave you that schedule that's in here

[24:16] just to give you an idea of potential estimates.

[24:27] I have a few questions on that. >> Sure.

[24:30] » That page. >> Sure. On this page. Sure. Okay.

[24:34] » Um,

[24:37] so

[24:41] I don't I didn't see it in the packet, but I think there were emails circulated

[24:46] or I saw it somewhere else. But part of this is an increased fee for the

[24:52] engineering cost. the uh cost. Yeah, there's an estimate

[25:00] at the moment. The engineer is estimating a maximum again a maximum

[25:05] cost of $370,000 which is not um something we're going to

[25:11] take up at this meeting um because we want to see the bids and

[25:17] you know we're certainly not going to agree to contract for for CI. So, what

[25:23] we're approving is um >> just a bond resol for an estimated 3.9.

[25:31] » No, not approving a bond. You're approving a bond resolution for a

[25:36] project with a maximum cost of 3.9. That includes all that we've spent which was

[25:41] design, construction, inspection, what all that will add up to. No. So the

[25:47] difference is a bond a bond is a bond and a bond resolution is a is an

[25:52] » so it has two numbers. What's the maximum you're going to spend on the

[25:55] project? What's the maximum you're going to borrow?

[25:58] » Right. >> And so the 900

[25:59] » and the bond is borrowing. Is that right?

[26:02] » Okay. >> Yeah. So that's the 900,000 figure in

[26:06] the resolution. So this approves up to

[26:13] » up to either one >> up to a total project cost of 3.9

[26:17] » including funds already expended design so on and so forth and construction and

[26:24] then inspection and anything else uh there'll be some legal not much

[26:31] » so I have a few more questions so >> sure

[26:34] » um I understand it's broken between federal and local.

[26:39] » Yes, >> federal is is covering significant

[26:45] amount of the the cost um under the total funding of 3.3.

[26:55] You've got 388 that we already spent and then a subtotal. Who pays the

[27:00] contingency and how did we come up with 200? It's just like a funny number. It's

[27:05] like not It's like I would be like contingency 10% or something.

[27:10] » Yes. And not even 10%. >> Yeah.

[27:13] » So that's like a little over 5%. >> So a couple of things. Some of the

[27:19] numbers are known already. Some of the numbers have already been expended. So I

[27:23] know you deal with this every day. We're trying to develop budgets with

[27:27] contingencies because this project is

[27:31] again because we already have a rough idea of maybe what contractors are

[27:36] willing to bid on the project and hopefully lower because I think that's

[27:39] what we're looking for. We have a sense of what the project might come in at. Um

[27:46] and so I don't think we need a large contingency and I'm not sure that we're

[27:53] prepared. Did so did we come up with that with the 200 200,000 or was it the

[27:59] engineer like that? >> It was discussion between the engineer

[28:03] my office. Um yeah and again it's just it's a admittedly an estimate or a

[28:11] spitfall on this and it's only because it's we have more certainty than if we

[28:16] were just starting from go on what uh we would need for contingency. So who would

[28:22] pay that the contingency? >> So the again the user

[28:27] » the contingency just think of the contingency as the total project

[28:34] » is going in order to get to that 3.9 million something. How much do you have

[28:39] left? like here's what you think the project's going to cost and that gets

[28:43] you to 3 million right 300 and 7 3,742 >> right

[28:52] » and so what if it actually costs you more because something happened

[28:56] » fully understand that you understand >> I understand that my question is

[28:59] » it's lower than 10%. Who pays the contingency? US

[29:04] » in theory >> or or federal or is it split or like

[29:08] » the whole thing's broken out between federal and local. So is is that a local

[29:12] cost, >> right? Yes. In theory, we could be

[29:16] paying that contingency. Again, it's just really relates to the

[29:21] total project cost. We can't borrow more than 900,000.

[29:25] » I understand that. But the answer to my question is us. We we would pay that.

[29:29] That wouldn't come. Not necessarily. >> Not necessarily.

[29:32] » Not necessarily, but it's a fair assumption.

[29:34] » It's not one of those people, you know, >> 4 months ago, we didn't have the

[29:39] $57,000. Okay.

[29:42] » So, yeah, this is what happens with

[29:46] » And how did that 507 come to exist? >> Uh, that's uh a matter between the DOT

[29:55] gods and and their offices. So they had additional funding left over. What

[30:00] you'll find with these projects, there's hundreds of projects and many of them go

[30:06] along schedule. Well, I don't need to tell you. I know you're in the private

[30:09] sector, but many of the projects go along schedule and then some of the

[30:12] projects get delayed, but the funding has already been assigned and allocated.

[30:17] And so there's money then becomes available because project 394 wasn't

[30:24] » completed in time. So, uh, DOT recognized that we rejected the bids,

[30:30] looked around just like Duchess County did, looked around and said, "Where can

[30:33] we find some additional funding?" So, um, the federal government also has a

[30:39] particular having worked there, um, the way they budget and the way under

[30:45] federal law, the way Congress appropriates funds, funds have to be

[30:48] expended by the end of the fiscal year. So, as you get later into the year,

[30:53] there are projects and other things that the federal government looks at. Do we

[30:58] have extra money that wasn't expended on this prior project that we can

[31:01] appropriate to another project? So, um part of the mystery of of when you get

[31:07] federal funds is their appropriation process because in

[31:13] the federal government with very few exceptions, it's use it or lose it. it

[31:17] goes back to the treasury and most federal agencies don't want to lose it

[31:22] because then it affects their budget for the next year and I guess you didn't

[31:25] need it so we're not going to appropriate you more money I I did some

[31:28] of that for a living so I understand but I mean I it's I think it's it's a

[31:33] wonderful thing for us and with the bond you know all these

[31:39] bonds you know like with the water tower we appropriate a bond for I think 1.6

[31:43] six and change. >> We can weigh under on that. So, you

[31:47] don't you're just you're just putting money aside to borrow if you have to and

[31:52] you hope that you don't. >> These are authorizations, right?

[31:54] » That's all it is. >> It says that um the town is authorized

[31:58] to expend and to borrow um up to these limits. It doesn't unfortunately have

[32:05] the crystal ball to say that these numbers are this accurate or this

[32:09] inaccurate. These are reasonable last time.

[32:15] Other question. Okay.

[32:21] Uh 46.

[32:25] Approving accept. Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no. Robin, you don't go that way.

[32:29] You go this way. 46. Bond resolution dated September 8th, 2026. And we're

[32:35] going to do a roll call on this because it's part of resolution. authorizing

[32:39] reconstruction of Sulkill Road Bridge over the Salt Hill Creek at an estimated

[32:43] maximum cost of 3,950,000 and authorizing the issuance of serial

[32:48] bonds of the town of Red Hook, Duchess County, New York in an aggregate

[32:52] principal amount not to exceed 900,000 pursuant to the local finance law to

[32:58] finance a portion of such cost delegating certain powers in connection

[33:02] therewith to the town supervisor enumerated in the various sections. I

[33:07] think I've described the um uh usefulness. Um just for the folks at

[33:13] home, if you are uh wanting to uh become more interested in the exciting life of

[33:20] borrowing money for municipal projects, know that each project has a potential

[33:26] useful life and you can only borrow out certain uh duration terms. And so in

[33:33] this case that period of probable usefulness of set purpose is 20 years.

[33:39] Um we uh determine that the proposed project is unlisted.

[33:45] The maturity authorized in this resolution will be in excess of

[33:50] 5 years. The board plans to finance a portion of the cost by the issuance of

[33:55] serial bonds. And again, that's a maximum now amount we hope to be quite a

[34:00] bit under that. Uh

[34:07] it's may reimburse the town. Um we build this the state the state reimbures us.

[34:13] So there's cash flow issues there which is why we have a higher number for the

[34:18] bond you know for the bond issuance. um to manage the cash flow.

[34:24] Okay. Um authorizing the supervisor

[34:30] take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to ensure

[34:35] the continued status of the interest of the bonds blah blah blah. 10 days

[34:40] adoption. Town clerk authorized and directed to cause notice in the uh

[34:47] papers as required by law. Takes effect 30 days after adoption.

[34:58] Any other questions, folks? This is resolution number 46.

[35:04] Who would like to move 46 bridge? >> So moved

[35:08] » for trouble water. Okay. These waters are calm.

[35:11] » These waters are calm. This home, you just changed it. We're going to have one

[35:16] of those uh December rainy floods. Okay. A second by uh Deputy Supervisor

[35:22] Hamilton. Thank you. Further discussion. If not, we're going to do a roll call.

[35:28] All in favor? Ken? >> I.

[35:32] » Thank you, William. Hi, >> myself. I Jacob. Hi,

[35:36] » Christina. Hi. >> Thank you all.

[35:46] Okay, we we uh already heard about the records grant. We have records grants.

[35:54] We've been doing a lot of records lately. Uh you'll read more about um

[35:59] records from the courts uh further in our

[36:05] packet tonight. Um, a resolution approving acceptance of New York State

[36:10] LG RM IF. I dare anybody to say it quickly what it stands for.

[36:19] » Quickly, quickly. Uh, >> whereas the town of Red Hook has been

[36:24] selected to receive a local government records management improvement fund

[36:28] grant in the amount of 62548. I want to see that budget to fund a

[36:33] records management project. Um, it includes updated records inventory,

[36:39] records management, policy, and engagement of consultant to train the

[36:42] staff. All project work must be completed. It's another one of these

[36:46] grants where you've got to get it done uh fairly quickly by the end of June.

[36:52] So, um once we have a contract on this, they'll be engaged um quickly. So, we

[36:57] hope we do get um hope we do get that. Right now we're

[37:03] doing the NBWE compliance work

[37:12] and that's the schedule of how the payment works on this grant program.

[37:20] » Do we have a list of all of the grants? >> Of all the grants that we've received?

[37:25] » No. Of of the ones that are active like the ones that

[37:29] » Well, we sure do. I mean, we have a file of them. Yeah. we can update you on give

[37:34] you a list of currently active grants. >> Yeah, I think that would be helpful like

[37:38] if we have um a document that has >> like when we talk about grants maybe

[37:44] that could be in the packet so we have um perspective on

[37:51] what we're doing. >> Have a lot of them end up in that in

[37:55] those uh variance you know the budget lines variance because we create a line

[37:59] for each month. We can we can do a list to

[38:04] the 12 14

[38:09] moving this way. >> I am moving this way.

[38:13] Uh

[38:21] okay. Um, that was resolution 47 to accept the

[38:28] grant. I think we talked enough about the grant.

[38:33] And again, congratulations. Thanks for the work. And as many people can tell

[38:37] you, getting the grant is only part of the fun. That's all that goes along with

[38:43] it. Um, paper, paper, paper. Who would like to

[38:49] move resolution 47? I'll move it.

[38:53] » Thank you. Will. Is there a second? >> Second.

[38:57] » Thank you, Jacob. Any further discussion? If not, all in

[39:01] favor of New York State LGRM Records Management Grant exception

[39:09] acceptance. Kenny.

[39:13] » Hi, >> William. Hi.

[39:15] » Myself. Hi, >> Christina. Hi,

[39:18] » Jacob. Hi. >> Thank you very much.

[39:23] All right, moving right along. Good. As we should continue to

[39:32] Where am I? Oh, here we go. Uh,

[39:38] this is not So, this is not the request for the showcase. Um, that was already

[39:43] sent. I uh as per your instructions um leazed with the zoning officer

[39:51] confirmed that that was uh permitted um sent word uh to both upstate pines and

[39:58] OCM um to uh no objection to the showcase.

[40:04] Um this is uh a renewal. They didn't realize they did annual renewals on

[40:10] these. So, here we have it. Uh, received August

[40:16] 20th. So, we're in timely 30-day use. I have heard no uh no complaints on this

[40:23] establishment. >> Can you can you talk about

[40:27] » Sorry. I have heard no complaints on this estab establishment. Um,

[40:33] at least not none not that I'm aware of. So they contribute a significant amount

[40:38] of tax revenue. >> Um there is sales tax. Yes. So the way

[40:45] it works with cannabis, it's very different than with general sales tax.

[40:49] General sales tax is appropriated by the county based upon agreements they

[40:54] have with the two cities. And there's a remainder

[40:58] portion that gets split by the municipalities. I believe our share is

[41:04] 2.9% of that remainder, if I had that right. They're 10-year agreements that

[41:09] get reuped. With cannabis, it's different. There's a 4% tax. Um,

[41:17] » we get 3/4 of it. >> We get 3/4 of it. But

[41:21] that particular property lies both within the town and the village. the

[41:28] actual boundary lines diagonally goes through it. So right now

[41:34] we are splitting 5050 the sales tax revenue our portion of it with the

[41:39] village as well. So um yes there there is some revenue

[41:45] associated with that. >> Do you know what that was approximately

[41:48] in last year? >> Well that's in your that's in your

[41:51] variance report. you can see both the in and the out um

[41:56] of that. You'll see in the budget, I'll be giving the budget as I do each year

[42:03] by the end of September to the town clerk who then passes it on to the town

[42:07] board by October 5th. We then go ahead and schedule workshops and then we have

[42:13] to have a public hearing no later than the Thursday after election day and then

[42:18] we need to pass the budget no later than November 20th of each year. Um in there

[42:24] you'll see a budget. Uh it has been a bit challenging because the revenue gets

[42:32] collected by the county and then gets distributed to us. For a while we were

[42:37] getting all the revenue and sending the village their share and then they

[42:41] started sending the village their share without letting us know. So we were

[42:45] sending the village their share. Um

[42:49] so we'll see what we'll see what uh if by the time the tenative budget is

[42:57] ready and we've had budget some budget meetings with the

[43:01] departments. uh as of the state. We'll see if we have

[43:05] more insight into what to project um for 2027. I think it could be

[43:14] um somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to

[43:17] $80,000 a year is >> for what I'm thinking for a year for our

[43:22] share. >> That's what

[43:23] » Jacob just pulled it up. It was 77 year year to date.

[43:26] » And that's across both establishments in the town, right?

[43:30] » Well, hang on. Don't don't get too excited.

[43:33] » Okay. No. >> Okay. 77. What we've collected so far,

[43:38] » we gave half to the village. So, it's not 77. Okay.

[43:43] » So, >> and that's across all cannabis

[43:46] establishments. And >> we don't know.

[43:50] » We don't know. >> What do you mean you don't know?

[43:51] » We don't know because we don't get that detail.

[43:56] » You just send us a check. >> Oh, you don't you don't get a breakdown.

[43:59] We don't or we don't get a breakdown from the county. We just get

[44:04] » a check >> and and we we've struggled to

[44:09] understand. They do tell us for which quarter it is, but quarters aren't

[44:13] quarters we're familiar with. Um and so we're still trying to understand how

[44:18] it's being collected, how it's being distributed. So I apologize for

[44:23] » but either way I mean it's a business that's contributing or is it both the

[44:28] both businesses are >> contributing

[44:32] somewhere in the neighbor neighborhood of $80,000 back into

[44:37] the local community. >> Well I I think the tenative budget I put

[44:42] out may have a number between 60 as a projection. It had 80, but it looks like

[44:48] you're going to exceed that in even though we're getting half. But

[44:52] » I'm sorry. I'm not I apologize. Maybe I'm not communicating. Well, our portion

[44:57] that we will get to keep for 2027. I'm thinking is going to be somewhere

[45:02] between 60 and 80. What you're looking at 77 is both the town and village

[45:06] because there's another line you're not looking at, which is distribution to the

[45:11] village for cannabis, which is >> half of that. If if both the collection

[45:17] and the distribution has happened within the same monthly report that make sense.

[45:26] Okay. So, uh yes, that was one of the things

[45:31] that uh folks spoke about was the sales tax revenue

[45:37] municipality who opted in and we're one of the few municipalities who did opt in

[45:42] on this side of the river. I think no attended.

[45:45] » I parked it. >> I parked it as

[45:47] » there's one that opened just south. >> Okay. Okay.

[45:50] » It's fancy.

[45:54] » Okay. Okay. I'm I'm going to let that that

[45:58] just fly away. Um Okay. So, we have 30 days to make any comments. Do

[46:08] you want to make any comments or

[46:13] Nope. >> No objections. Okay.

[46:21] » Uh, next up, Kenny, I don't know. Did you have a chance to to uh take a look

[46:27] and and maybe come up with a recommendation of

[46:30] » No, I have not. I'm sorry about dropping the ball on that.

[46:34] » Okay. >> This is the uh

[46:37] » which contribution.

[46:39] » Yeah, exactly. Yeah, but okay. All right. Well, let's see if we can tackle

[46:45] it.

[46:56] There's too much on this.

[47:03] Okay. Um I think I mentioned we have uh three cell tower companies over there

[47:08] Kelly Road. Um, two of which have agreements

[47:13] uh coming up for renewal and we have a proposed agreement that

[47:20] might be something we would entertain.

[47:26] Um it has an increase um on the rental account

[47:33] for uh Verizon

[47:37] and um

[47:41] seems to

[47:44] continue uh what's been working well.

[47:50] Cell companies generally try to tell you that they

[47:58] are thinking about moving somewhere else if you don't renew at a reasonable rate.

[48:04] Um we do have that option and so we try to be both reasonable and be in the

[48:12] taxpayers's best interest. And so this is an agreement which has an

[48:17] increase. Their uh renewal comes off November 1st

[48:22] and uh I think it reflects uh some of what we've discussed for negotiations

[48:30] and continue to work on the other two carriers. One of which is coming due

[48:35] soon and one of which is not.

[48:40] » Which one is coming due soon? Uh, T-Mobile. Okay.

[48:46] » What are the dates of all three?

[48:50] » You're going to test my memory. December for T-Mobile of this year. AT&T

[48:58] is 2029.

[49:07] Will I remember the month? Maybe Christmas. The month. I asked because

[49:12] ATG has an application before the planning order for something.

[49:14] » That's correct. For January. Yeah.

[49:20] » Chris, do you remember what month in 2918 do you use to

[49:25] » um end of the year? Uh

[49:29] » it was December maybe. >> Have to look it up. It's 2029. I know.

[49:32] But >> yeah.

[49:35] » Okay. >> Is the generator is AT&T's generator

[49:37] going on this site? >> Yes.

[49:39] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[49:41] So the context here is we have a tower. It's on kind of the highest point in the

[49:47] town. >> It's right behind the tank,

[49:50] » right? I mean, I don't know if that's if that's absolutely true, but it's one of

[49:54] the highest it's highest elevation. We have this

[49:58] tower and the cell phone service is is terrible. I

[50:05] mean, particularly AT&T. Um,

[50:10] so my my questions are >> so related to Verizon.

[50:16] » It is. Yes. It's I mean it's Yes. Related to Verizon, but it's it's like

[50:21] I'm looking globally at all three. We have a number of positions on the tower.

[50:26] » Yeah. >> Right. I asked you about that earlier

[50:28] tonight. I think you said um >> Yeah. I think we have Verizon, T-Mobile,

[50:32] AT&T 2, three, four. Nobody wanted one when I became a veteran,

[50:37] » which is kind of crazy because if any of them moved up to number one, then

[50:45] they would So, when we looked at the tower that was proposed near the bridge

[50:51] approach, I don't know whether that's been started yet or whether there that

[50:55] was like a weird like fight between AT&T and Verizon. This is when I was on

[51:02] planning board. Um there was like a race to get an approval because they wanted

[51:07] to each of each company wanted to own the tower.

[51:12] Um and so we looked extensively at the um the mapping of the signal.

[51:21] » Mhm. >> And it was surprising to me to see that

[51:25] 10 ft made a huge difference >> at that location.

[51:30] » Yeah. And so my question is this is a lease that goes until when?

[51:36] » Well, these are these are five-year leases that can be extended for four

[51:41] more additional terms. So provided the technology continues

[51:48] to have demand for cell towers in the future.

[51:52] And I'm not a futurist so I will not speculate on that though I love studying

[51:57] the stuff. Um, we could, you know, we could have

[52:02] equipment on that tower for another 25 years.

[52:06] » Sure. >> And we have an open spot

[52:08] » this term goes to 30 2031. >> Okay.

[52:13] » But this one, yes, it's five five at a time.

[52:15] » Okay. >> Yeah. Um,

[52:20] well, I mean, I it's positive that they're paying more rent, but I think

[52:25] the bigger issue is like, have we discussed with them

[52:30] what equipment they're putting and like are there options for the equipment?

[52:34] » We always do. We have the engineers review any proposed changes. In fact, I

[52:39] think some of them have come front come of the planning board when when you and

[52:42] Bill were >> were on the planning board. Um, you

[52:46] know, we always do the engineers review the equipment. We look at whether or not

[52:49] that additional equipment means they're occupying additional space and it's

[52:54] above and beyond what the lease was for. And that's what

[52:57] » Well, when I was on planning board, they they numerous companies came numerous

[53:02] times and it was really like insignificant updates in terms of in

[53:07] terms of the strength of the signal. It was like emergency services or like some

[53:13] other like technical piece of equipment that needed to be updated. But

[53:18] » we don't have cells service. I have AT&T. It the calls drop on 9G all

[53:26] the way to the bridge. Right. And also in town like literally in the center of

[53:32] the village. >> Mhm.

[53:34] » There are days when it it just doesn't work.

[53:37] » Yeah. um which is really a a huge problem.

[53:43] » Yeah. >> So if we're looking at renewing these

[53:48] leases like what have we done to

[53:54] that and like for example we could make the tower taller

[54:00] we could negotiate better equipment. I mean, I

[54:05] don't I like I don't know the technical solutions, but it's like we have this

[54:09] chance to to push them through through a lease and

[54:14] say this is this is what we need. We need we need phones to work.

[54:18] » Well, we we certainly can do that. Um uh alternatively, I would say that there's

[54:24] no reason a renewal of a lease precludes that either. Um, I don't know

[54:29] necessarily saying to Verizon because there's AT&T coverage issues,

[54:35] um, that we're not going to sign a lease with you, Verizon. I happen to have

[54:39] Verizon. I don't experience any issues around that area. Um, again, I haven't

[54:45] studied um, you know, what what service. Um

[54:51] » the maps are funny that they have on um I looked at them today and the coverage

[54:55] maps they show it's one color and it's just like binary. It's like service or

[55:02] no service. And there's like there's there's small areas like Elizaville is

[55:06] is not I mean we're talking about Red Hook, but like there's Eliza there's a

[55:10] big hole in Elizaville there for AT&T. Um but it shows complete coverage

[55:17] through 9G and the bridge and the bridge approach which is certainly not true.

[55:23] » You're talking about Verizon. >> I'm talking about I'm talking about AT&T

[55:27] and Verizon. I mean they're um >> so my no my point is is that the maps

[55:34] that they have show coverage it's like coverage no coverage and when the on

[55:44] planning board we looked at it in detail we looked at the the actual signal

[55:48] strength in different areas and the gradient of what that is and what that

[55:53] means and like where your call is going to drop and where you don't have data

[55:56] and you can't conduct business or download anything. I

[56:01] mean, the signal strength is not just like on or off. It's like,

[56:06] » right, >> so they're a AT&T and Verizon are

[56:11] showing complete coverage, which is just not true.

[56:15] » They do. Here's what I would say. It's not in their defense at all because I

[56:19] have Verizon and I have to stand in special spots in my house, but it's but

[56:23] it is in there are environmental factors. So, for example, in the winter

[56:28] when the leaves are off the tree, I have better coverage in my home than I do

[56:32] during the summer. And um you know, I know which rooms in my house have better

[56:40] have better service than others. And so when they do their map, they're

[56:45] basically saying, well, I I'm sending the signal to this area.

[56:49] I think there are things that get in the way. Um and some of those things are

[56:55] really not in our control. Um but they did it was it two years ago or 3 years

[57:01] ago I remember they increased their signal. They they did make an

[57:05] improvement because there was a period where I had no service in my house for

[57:09] about 3 months. I think they they changed it really to the they were

[57:12] changing from a 4G to they were they were upgrading and I had I really had no

[57:17] service at my house and I kept calling and saying hey you know I I have to go

[57:20] into the village to make a phone call you know from the library and um they

[57:24] they somehow they worked that out and it it was restored but it it is somewhat of

[57:30] a mystery. Well, I guess my point is that I've lived here for for 25 years

[57:35] and we've had gaps in coverage that haven't really improved, which so it's

[57:42] my point is that it doesn't seem like a situation where

[57:47] the market is going to take care of itself. Like they're not motivated to

[57:51] fix it. So >> because they think they have you,

[57:54] » right? And they they kind of do. So >> because many people have gotten rid of

[57:58] their landlines, >> right? So, I mean it's it's really I

[58:01] mean it affects my business that I can't have I can't continue a phone call when

[58:06] I drive across the bridge. >> Well, yeah,

[58:08] » it's so if if >> Okay, but we we have to recognize that a

[58:14] tower that is located miles away from the bridge isn't necessarily going to

[58:18] provide that that coverage. They have approvals to build one right by the

[58:23] bridge approach. So presumably they made the argument that they absolutely need

[58:28] to have that coverage and so they haven't built.

[58:30] » My question is my question is have we looked at that and have we do we do we

[58:36] have an understanding of the equipment that they're mounting on our tower under

[58:42] this lease and do we know >> there's no change in equipment. So when

[58:47] they have a proposed change they come they come in front of our engineers. But

[58:52] but why but why not? Why don't I mean >> do we know that they can't improve

[59:01] coverage by changing something

[59:06] an equipment whatever like >> Yeah. Again, I'm not in that business. I

[59:12] » Yeah, but we're renewing this. >> Can I Can I finish my thought?

[59:15] » Can I finish my thought that >> we only have this opportunity

[59:24] to negotiate with them because when there's no other there's no other way

[59:28] that that we can say hey uh our coverage is terrible. So if we why wouldn't we at

[59:36] least understand where what equipment they have and what

[59:43] is available and where the holes in the in the

[59:49] signal are and say hey we need you to put better

[59:54] stuff on our tower or move it up >> upgrade

[59:58] » upgrade okay so here's what I'd say again I have no expertise in in this

[1:00:03] area. I just it it's in my mind logical to assume

[1:00:08] » that they would continue to do what they have done.

[1:00:11] » But have we have we have we finished my thought? I haven't finished my thought.

[1:00:16] » I know, but it's just I didn't answer like just say yes or no.

[1:00:20] » I'm trying to answer >> and I can't get in a word and edgewise.

[1:00:24] I I understand your point. I'm just trying to answer you. Okay. It's for me

[1:00:29] at least logical to assume that they will continue to do what they have been

[1:00:34] doing which is asking to put newer and better and more effective and presumably

[1:00:40] better coverage equipment on the tower. They have done it multiple times during

[1:00:44] my time. >> No. Well, yes,

[1:00:47] » they haven't. It's the They haven't fixed

[1:00:50] » the car. I I'm not saying that they fixed it. I don't know what kind of

[1:00:54] coverage is possible from just one location. Presumably, they are about to

[1:00:59] build a tower down by the bridge and that's how they're going to get the

[1:01:04] concentric circles. >> Doesn't answer my question, though. It's

[1:01:06] a it's it's just it's a question. It's a yes or no question. Did we we negotiated

[1:01:13] the rate? We negotiated that we're getting a little bit more money. That's

[1:01:17] that's good. But did we negotiate what equipment they're putting on and

[1:01:23] and upgrading it or addressing any of the coverage gaps?

[1:01:28] » We did not. And again, I this is Verizon. I happen to have Verizon. I

[1:01:33] happen to be within this, you know, the area of this tower frequently.

[1:01:40] » I don't experience the same. And again, I don't want to get into which vendor is

[1:01:44] providing the service better than another pro.

[1:01:46] » Yeah. But I don't experience what you're

[1:01:50] talking about as a Verizon customer anywhere near this this tower and in

[1:01:55] fact I can now go to the bridge approach and go over the bridge without any

[1:02:00] service interruptions in my service. So um but that's Verizon and that may be in

[1:02:05] part because of the tower that exists by Rubies now that didn't exist um just two

[1:02:11] years ago or something like that. >> That's a pretty tall tower. That's a

[1:02:14] tall, >> but that's fair. But but my but it

[1:02:18] doesn't make sense to me to not have that information. Like it's to say that

[1:02:24] I experience I don't experience a call dropping is different from saying I have

[1:02:29] data. I have a map. I have some sort of evidence of

[1:02:34] saying do I have like a high signal, a low signal? Like talking on the phone is

[1:02:40] different than downloading a document. Like

[1:02:47] Well, there's one thing to ask for the information. The other is do you think

[1:02:53] you have leverage to negotiate a better deal? And frankly, there's nobody who's

[1:02:57] sitting up here in the DAS who has the technical expertise to make those kinds

[1:03:02] of decisions. And I when you were on the planning board and I was the liaison to

[1:03:06] the ZBA, >> the same people from AT&T with their

[1:03:10] teams of lawyers and engineers >> were coming for variances for certain

[1:03:15] things to build the tower which they haven't built yet.

[1:03:17] » Um, and you had what I would call engineer wars. Uh, where one team of

[1:03:23] people would have their engineers say, "Well, if we do it this way, it'll be

[1:03:25] that way." Right. >> I don't think any of us have

[1:03:28] » and we would have to spend a lot of money to have and they didn't even we'd

[1:03:32] have to spend a lot of money to hire consultants

[1:03:34] » who have some technical expertise in this area to even put us in a position

[1:03:39] to do that. I I I think >> I disagree. I disagree because

[1:03:43] » are you suggesting that we don't renew a lease with the major one of the major

[1:03:46] cell carriers? I think your constituents would be very unhappy.

[1:03:51] I am asking the question if we had the information and the answer is no. So,

[1:03:58] and what I would say is that we can talk about renewing the lease and what what

[1:04:03] we're up against and if it makes sense to move forward with it without that

[1:04:07] information, we can talk about that. But my point is that these these are huge

[1:04:13] companies and they're very used to providing

[1:04:18] information about their signals and the RF studies or whatever they're called,

[1:04:23] right? And you do not really need a consultant to

[1:04:28] understand the map. You can look it up yourself. It's they're very

[1:04:32] understandable. It's like it's showing it's like kindergartener can understand

[1:04:37] it. It's like a gradient and there's colors and there there's strengths and

[1:04:40] you can understand what each of them means and really see in detail. Like we

[1:04:46] looked at it and said the issue with the other tower is that 9G is a scenic

[1:04:51] corridor. So we were we were weighing how tall the tower should be and how

[1:04:57] visible it should be in that location with the benefit of the signal. And I

[1:05:03] was very surprised to see a few feet made a big difference.

[1:05:09] » It does. They still haven't built that tower.

[1:05:11] » Well, yeah. >> Right. But my point is

[1:05:13] » somebody suggested a few feet made a big difference that I would just leave that

[1:05:18] for you. >> No, they they mapped it. They showed us

[1:05:20] the evidence that a few feet made a like we were like, "Is the tower going to be

[1:05:25] this tall? Is it going to be this tall?" And they gave us the studies of each of

[1:05:28] those. So you could look at it and say, "All right." And we made them put up

[1:05:32] like balloons or there was like we looked at the height above the trees. We

[1:05:35] looked at all of that >> and

[1:05:40] weighing should the tower be like 10 ft higher or lower had an enormous impact

[1:05:46] on the on the signal. So, number one, it's it's crazy that we're not like

[1:05:52] pushing somebody to take the top spot on this tower, whether it's Verizon or AT&T

[1:05:59] or or T-Mobile.

[1:06:03] » Somebody should be up there. It's It's crazy that it's empty.

[1:06:06] » You You would think the people in the business

[1:06:09] of providing that service jump in 25 years, it hasn't improved. So,

[1:06:15] who's going to who's going to push them to Wait a second. I you know bus

[1:06:21] » who do you currently have? >> I have uh AT&T.

[1:06:24] » She has AT&T. >> That's your problem.

[1:06:27] » Well, I think >> I don't disagree

[1:06:29] » with Verizon. I I know >> we don't have any trouble spots.

[1:06:34] » Yeah. >> Well, I mean I have

[1:06:38] » I agree with you. Maybe I should should switch. But

[1:06:41] » lots of people have AT&T and we should have good signals in our in our town

[1:06:45] » in an interesting collision, right? In an interest of moving this along, how

[1:06:50] about we compromise? We try to get some of those maps. How about we compromise

[1:06:54] in saying that before we we entertain a renewal of AT&T which has the bottom

[1:07:02] spot on the tower that we have discussions with them about the still

[1:07:09] available top spot on the tower as a way to uh generate better service and better

[1:07:17] revenue. and we'll have time to do that and to look at the studies and then

[1:07:22] hopefully that'll uh satisfy you on on um

[1:07:28] » on those issues because >> you know as as Phil well AT&T we have

[1:07:33] plenty of time. No, on on on this resolution where they're there at

[1:07:38] least runs out when >> this is November 1st.

[1:07:42] » So, you know, it has to go through corporate Well,

[1:07:46] » you say it's plenty of time, >> but both sides need to agree. I don't

[1:07:50] think it's plenty of time. Again, I think you haven't even demonstrated that

[1:07:56] there's a problem yet. and you want us to go ahead and solve something that

[1:08:00] hasn't even been demonstrated as a problem as a way

[1:08:03] » No, I'm saying we don't have information. I'm not I'm not I'm not

[1:08:07] including a result. I'm saying that that we should have information on what model

[1:08:15] of of equipment is on that tower and what's

[1:08:18] » well we do have that because the last time they were in they presented that

[1:08:23] the engineer review and asked me to remember it off the top of my head I

[1:08:27] deal with hundreds of you know various things in in this job.

[1:08:31] » Should we include that in the lease though? Should we say you got to give us

[1:08:34] the best stuff? I what does that even mean? I mean, we don't know. I can't

[1:08:40] project to the future. I mean, I don't know what the best stuff is. What are we

[1:08:44] going to monitor their equipment? Presumably, they know what they're doing

[1:08:48] and they're going to get the best equipment so they don't have to pay too

[1:08:52] many times different rents that they want to have the best trajectory. I

[1:08:57] mean, at some point, cuz Jacob's Well, let me finish. Jacob's absolutely right.

[1:09:02] I mean, maybe they're going to say, "Enough with this nonsense. We're

[1:09:05] working with AT&T. We're going to build that tower. Buy the bridge approach.

[1:09:09] We're going to go up that amount of fee. You may get better service and be happy

[1:09:13] about it, but you're going to get zero revenue for the taxpayers. So, and you

[1:09:18] may be fine with that trade-off. I'm not suggesting that that's a bad trade-off.

[1:09:21] I'm just saying that I don't know that a non-existent problem with Verizon

[1:09:29] service in that part of town is something that

[1:09:33] is cuz I never get complaints from people about cell service in

[1:09:37] » I just don't like the flip side of it is that maybe there's like like there's

[1:09:42] people that are concerned about the the environmental impact of the signal. Like

[1:09:47] I'm just saying we don't know. >> Totally. I mean with neighbors who were

[1:09:52] worried about >> so like maybe there's something that's

[1:09:55] healthier for people. I don't know. Like why don't we know what their what the

[1:09:59] options are >> and what their like we're just saying

[1:10:04] all right tower. You can put up whatever you want and and it seems like something

[1:10:09] we should engage in to to know what's available, what they currently

[1:10:17] have. Like I I I don't know. But but it doesn't sound like you know either. And

[1:10:22] I think I think we should know like what if we have junky equipment and they're

[1:10:26] you know the next town over has better stuff.

[1:10:30] » How how old do how old is it the equipment there now?

[1:10:34] » They the the various providers have updated their equipment. I can't tell

[1:10:39] you which one updated on which day got approval from the planning board. Did

[1:10:43] the you know did the work. I can tell you that the last couple approvals that

[1:10:47] came through the planning board while I was on planning board were not about

[1:10:50] signal strength. They were about 911, emergency services, stuff. It was like

[1:10:56] it was stuff like that. It was >> pretty critical.

[1:10:59] » Of course, it's critical. I mean, maybe like that could be part of it, too. But

[1:11:02] the point is is that if we don't know, why don't we know and why why don't we

[1:11:07] engage in that sign a lease? I think again

[1:11:12] you know this is like trying to solve a problem that you haven't quite

[1:11:15] demonstrated that there is a problem but now you're saying why don't we know what

[1:11:18] equipment is we do know what the equipment is there I just don't have it

[1:11:21] in front of me that's >> even if we did we're not techn we're not

[1:11:25] engineers none of us and and it would require us hiring probably and I don't

[1:11:32] think anybody tying bond has that expertise it's a very narrow

[1:11:37] » I disagree I like there's saying like follow the logic. You're

[1:11:43] saying you're are you saying that we shouldn't

[1:11:47] engage in the equipment? We just we don't care. That's up to the company.

[1:11:51] » But I wouldn't know. It's like speaking another language to me that I don't

[1:11:54] speak is my point. >> Okay. But saying you don't if you're not

[1:11:58] going to understand it is like >> what I understand is is it an upgrade?

[1:12:03] Is it new technology? Uh is it an upgrade from the old technology? Is it

[1:12:07] supposed to improve our service? They're going to say yes. And and unless someone

[1:12:12] of us has the expertise to challenge that, I don't think we're in a position

[1:12:16] to have that conversation. And this is just about renewing the lease. You know,

[1:12:20] I think we should renew the lease. I'm going to make the motion right now that

[1:12:24] we renew the lease. Uh if you don't want to vote for it, that's your business as

[1:12:27] a legislator. But I I think that conversation that you're having is not

[1:12:33] is a conversation that can be had. It's not for this. That's all I'm saying.

[1:12:39] » My question to you would be when if not now, then how and when would we would we

[1:12:44] negotiate it with them? This is the one point where we have leverage

[1:12:50] » number one is is around the corner. Well, again, I I I threw out as a as a

[1:12:55] what I thought was a sensible compromise is if the issue seems to be with AT&T,

[1:13:00] no reason to to disbelieve you on that and they are at the lowest crime, then

[1:13:06] happy to uh make that known to AT&T that is part of our renewal, we need to see a

[1:13:12] demonstration that they have improved service within that area of potential.

[1:13:16] I'm happy I'm happy to do that. That seems like a reasonable compromise

[1:13:20] between >> and I would be happy when we when they

[1:13:23] came in front of planning board they they were in a mad rush and they were

[1:13:27] able to turn around all kinds of information in a very short period of

[1:13:31] time like two weeks >> three weeks so

[1:13:37] » my suggestion >> I'm happy to get working on that now

[1:13:40] even though that renewal is not due for three years and I hope to be here in

[1:13:44] three years when that renewal comes But yeah,

[1:13:49] » um >> we made recently.

[1:13:54] » What's that? >> Nothing.

[1:13:56] » I Bill, I am not I am I I think we need to renew this definitely before the

[1:14:01] lease runs out, but I think we should have an opportunity to to to

[1:14:09] have more information and see if we can we can make it better.

[1:14:16] I can tell you there is no way between September 8th and September 23rd that I

[1:14:21] can advance that discussion so that we first of all I have no ability

[1:14:30] to get from them information about other equipment that is possible. I can say to

[1:14:36] them, look, we're not going to sign until, you know, you you tell us what

[1:14:40] better equipment there is and give us guarantees that you will always use the

[1:14:44] state-of-the-art. Presumably, a business is doing that because they're in

[1:14:47] competition with T-Mobile, Mint, and all, you know, all these other carriers.

[1:14:51] So, presumably, they're doing that. I hear you. I don't I I I want to be sure

[1:14:57] that, you know, I convey that I hear you and I think that's good for us to do

[1:15:02] what we can to improve the service. The planning board has already approved this

[1:15:07] tower which is on private property. All the revenue will go there. And once

[1:15:12] that's built, right? That makes a better time to

[1:15:18] discuss with AT&T. Hey, look now this works fine, but by the way over here on

[1:15:24] Kelly Road, this ain't working so good. So we want you to, you know, consider

[1:15:29] the top spot, better equipment, whatever. I think that's the time to

[1:15:34] engage with AT&T on that. But that's just my opinion and I'm almost ready to

[1:15:38] entertain Bill's brother. >> I would be happy to to take that on with

[1:15:43] them and have the discussions and see. I mean, I spent an enormous amount of time

[1:15:48] learning about this when when the other tower came in front of the planning

[1:15:52] board. So, it's really not rocket science. Yes, it's technical, but it's

[1:15:57] not it's it's you can do the research and understand it.

[1:16:02] And and so I think >> that matter took a long time for the

[1:16:05] planning board to resolve. I mean, there were meetings after meetings after

[1:16:08] meetings because it was a parallel proceeding with the zoning board of

[1:16:11] appeals. I I I'm very familiar with that because I was on the other end. And I I

[1:16:17] I don't I think you're right. When there's something that's so exoggen,

[1:16:23] they'll find a way to get it done. But I think considering that there are three

[1:16:28] cell providers and most people have given up their landlines and this is

[1:16:32] their essential way of communicating for emergencies, I don't think it's

[1:16:36] responsible to not renew this lease. >> I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't go

[1:16:41] back to them in the future because our tower's old by the way.

[1:16:44] » Uh when was it? >> Our tower is old and the idea that we

[1:16:48] would extend the tower upward >> that's a whole different

[1:16:52] » that's a whole another conversation. But but that's the time to have that

[1:16:55] conversation is >> wow

[1:16:57] » our tower is old >> and why would we extend the tower? We

[1:17:00] don't even have a provider who wants to take the

[1:17:03] » Well, there's probably business reasons. >> There's there's multiple levels of it,

[1:17:06] right? Like, are like, can we negotiate with them to force them to do a whole

[1:17:11] engineering study? Maybe not, but maybe they have information

[1:17:16] at their disposal that could answer some of these questions. And it doesn't seem

[1:17:19] like we ask the those questions to them in this lease negotiation.

[1:17:25] » I I think that's fair. I don't think that it's been demonstrated that there

[1:17:30] is a problem. In fact, I think that the services being provided from those of us

[1:17:34] who have this particular carrier in this part of town. Had no complaints in my 11

[1:17:39] years and change in this position. Uh coverage uh in this part of town. I

[1:17:44] think it's critical just like you say it's critical to to be able to conduct

[1:17:48] business. It's critical to be able to make emergency phone calls, cell phone,

[1:17:52] and so so on forth. So, I want to make sure that um this carrier doesn't move

[1:17:58] to some other location privately owned that may be even more inferior,

[1:18:04] especially since there's no issue. This carrier has the highest spot that's

[1:18:09] occupied right now on the site. So, I hear you. I'll see what I can do to

[1:18:15] try to help uh address some of your concerns. I'm willing to do do that, but

[1:18:20] I I know just with this time on I'm not going to be able to advance I'm happy to

[1:18:25] do it and I think it would be reasonable to say that we we give this until the

[1:18:30] the October the the first October meeting.

[1:18:36] You can sign a lease within 3 or 4 weeks like

[1:18:42] » Okay. What what what do other others think? Um, Jenny,

[1:18:49] » I just said I think we should I think we should make this decision on the first

[1:18:54] October meeting and use the time between now and then to see

[1:19:00] what information is available about the equipment and the signal.

[1:19:04] » Okay. >> Okay. But I I would like to

[1:19:07] » Is that a proposal? Well, before you go entertain that proposal, I would just

[1:19:11] like to remind folks there are other things that we were supposed to be

[1:19:15] tackling we haven't tackled. Okay? So, I know you've offered your services here.

[1:19:20] We're still waiting on salt shed stuff. We're still waiting on So, I appreciate

[1:19:25] that you all want to jump in on this stuff, but we're still waiting on other

[1:19:30] things. So, just keep that in mind. >> Wait, what? I don't understand what your

[1:19:34] point is. You're what are you saying? My point is before you say that you're

[1:19:39] going to tackle something between now and the next few weeks. I want to remind

[1:19:43] you that months ago we were supposed to have something back on salt shed and all

[1:19:47] that stuff. >> I'm not in critical path on salt shed. I

[1:19:49] I designed it and sent it to Brandy. She's working on it. But no, I mean, so

[1:19:56] are you saying I'm just saying that we we don't take on more than like I've

[1:20:02] just indicated. I'm not going to be able to advance in the next couple of weeks.

[1:20:05] this what you're asking for and and again I think you you have

[1:20:12] identified the problem related to AT&T on the lowest wrong but somehow we're

[1:20:17] going to get >> do you feel guarantees we're

[1:20:20] jeopardizing something if we approve this in October yes

[1:20:25] » why >> because I think they're trying to figure

[1:20:28] out whether or not it makes more sense for them to go to a different location

[1:20:34] » which would not be good for >> that is that is their options. Our

[1:20:38] options are to say, "Hey, we want more money or we want more equipment or

[1:20:42] » then they would have to build a tower." >> They have to build a tower.

[1:20:44] » That would be much more expensive than >> You mean the the tower that they have

[1:20:48] approval for? >> Is that what you mean?

[1:20:51] » They got the approval. They haven't built the

[1:20:52] » Is that what you mean? That tower on private land that they have approval

[1:20:56] for? >> Yeah. Well, what's it cost to build a

[1:20:58] tower?

[1:21:04] I would just say we have four rungs occupied. We have three. No.

[1:21:10] So Christina, what you're proposing is to get information about equipment

[1:21:15] coverage, things like that by the 1 October meeting. And then at that point,

[1:21:21] what do you think we should do to change that with release between that meeting,

[1:21:26] the meeting to approve it effectively, not immediately, but that meeting or

[1:21:32] hypothetically the next meeting? Um, I don't know that I don't know if we're

[1:21:36] going to have sort of the time to get that information, have a discussion

[1:21:42] about it, figure out how that fits into changing a lease agreement, going back

[1:21:46] to Verizon to see if they're okay with the changes, which I imagine this is

[1:21:49] probably fairly standard like across >> Wait, but you you missed an important

[1:21:54] step. Who were we hiring, >> right?

[1:21:57] » What do you mean? >> The planning board hired somebody to

[1:21:59] review their work. They hired somebody before they came to the planning board.

[1:22:04] They're experts on on the coverage, right? Who are we hiring? Where's that

[1:22:09] step fit into the schedule? And how much money are we going to expend?

[1:22:14] I am not suggesting that we hire a consultant because I think the

[1:22:18] information is understandable

[1:22:22] to enough people with a certain level of

[1:22:26] technical knowledge. I can understand it. I wouldn't need a consultant to

[1:22:30] explain it to me. >> I would raise my hand and say there's no

[1:22:33] way I'm going to understand the best equipment. I think your words were and

[1:22:37] make sure they put the best equipment on that. There's no way I'm going to be

[1:22:40] able to understand that. And the best equipment today is not going to be the

[1:22:44] best equipment in two years. And >> is talking in circles here because your

[1:22:48] displeasures with AT&T and I've heard the same thing from many other AT&T

[1:22:53] users about the corridor on 9G. We're not talking about AT&T. We have plenty

[1:22:59] of time to work with AT&T to try to get that service improved.

[1:23:03] » Talk about price. We are talking in circles. But my point is to be very

[1:23:07] clear. >> It seems foolish to not have the

[1:23:14] information. >> Well, my motion still stands to approve

[1:23:19] this lease.

[1:23:23] If it doesn't go forward, that's fine. But I I think it's foolish and I think

[1:23:27] it's reckless frankly to not for something a critical service like this

[1:23:32] which people rely on to call the 911 when someone's having a heart attack

[1:23:38] to to you got less than two months to work this out. Now if you brought this

[1:23:44] up when we had our last conversation about this lease which was two months

[1:23:48] ago that might have been a different story but

[1:23:51] » I agree. But we're but we're not we're not this is where we are now. And I and

[1:23:55] I I really think it's not the responsible move to be trying to

[1:23:59] question this now. Now we'll have 5 years to decide and there'll be 5 years

[1:24:05] worth of I'm sure in the course of 5 years there'll be additional upgrades

[1:24:10] and you know improvements to service you know that they're going to advertise.

[1:24:14] And that gives the town and the town board time to look at that issue. Um,

[1:24:20] and it also gives the town board time to look at, you know, the tower is old and

[1:24:25] do we want to do a new tower. Is that is that a good financial thing for the town

[1:24:29] to do? Um, does it provide the level of service that we think our residents

[1:24:33] deserve? Those are all, I think, good conversations to have. I This is an

[1:24:38] issue of making sure that we get Verizon back up and uh I'm not hearing any

[1:24:45] complaints from Verizon. I've never heard complaints from Verizon users. Um,

[1:24:51] and so I I think it's apples and oranges. I I do

[1:24:55] » Well, I like the idea of walking and chewing gum, which is passing a

[1:24:59] resolution and to try to get you the information that you want and then, you

[1:25:03] know, during the negotiations with AT&T, see if we can solve this issue, maybe

[1:25:07] get somebody to occupy the top spot and maybe make that a condition. But if we

[1:25:12] don't have if we don't have renewals on our tower, those renewals, you know,

[1:25:19] I don't know how they work together on these towers to occupy the spots. They

[1:25:25] like to own one and their competitors are renters and all of that stuff. But

[1:25:32] boy, they certainly have the financial wherewithal to do whatever they they

[1:25:36] want and presumably they're in competition with others. And soon we'll

[1:25:41] get it all from satellites. So the technology may not last but 25

[1:25:48] years.

[1:25:52] » Um >> so Billy, you think if we like if we

[1:25:55] waited two weeks to the next meeting like you think this is in jeopardy that

[1:26:00] » I'm a conservative person and anything can happen. People get sick. Think

[1:26:04] you're talking about a very short time frame for a significant service that we

[1:26:09] have to pro find a way to provide for our residents

[1:26:12] who use that particular carrier. There's only three carriers and if we if this

[1:26:16] was an AT&T conversation, I'd be saying the same thing. I I don't that's not

[1:26:21] something I'm going to I'm going to take the risk on.

[1:26:23] » Um >> so they have a lease until November

[1:26:26] » till November 1. That means October 31st. So really talking about less than

[1:26:31] you're talking about less than two months. Um,

[1:26:34] » so just to be clear, you think that it will they're that it will jeopardize it

[1:26:38] like they're going to rip their stuff off the other

[1:26:41] » but they have other business options that they can go and negotiate if they

[1:26:45] think we're not going to renew their lease. They can go talk to other people

[1:26:48] who have towers and say, "Well, you know, uh, I'll put it somewhere else." I

[1:26:53] I just don't think it's the responsible thing to do at this stage.

[1:26:56] » I I know that there are others supporting them in other locations of

[1:27:00] the town.

[1:27:04] you're elected. You're entitled to a position as a legislator. But I but I I

[1:27:08] I I strongly disagree with you and I think that the timing of this is not

[1:27:14] good. Uh would I like to have more time to answer questions? Absolutely. But we

[1:27:20] had a conversation previously a couple months ago. That was the time to raise

[1:27:24] this. Not now. several I again I just I don't know who's going to advance this

[1:27:29] fall because in two weeks I'm not going to be able to speak intelligently about

[1:27:33] equipment in the future what's on there you know I I would need to have

[1:27:37] consulting engineers I think we need to keep this keep it moving what do you uh

[1:27:44] Kenny Jacob you guys haven't chimed in as much uh thoughts

[1:27:48] » I mean I think it'd be great to improve the service I I'm skeptical that we

[1:27:52] could add something to this agreement that they to sign off on to tie them up

[1:27:57] with improving their equipment. I'm really doubtful of that happening in the

[1:28:01] next couple of weeks. >> I don't I don't see why we're assuming

[1:28:03] that they aren't putting on the best equipment

[1:28:06] » because they are changing it out and saying it.

[1:28:08] » But I think that them tying themselves to that with this lease agreement. I I'm

[1:28:12] skeptical that they're going to want to do that.

[1:28:16] » It's it's a guess, right? You don't know. Like

[1:28:19] » So the question is, and I I appreciate your position, Bill. It's like saying

[1:28:23] that like and and Robert, you know, you're talking to these people. You

[1:28:28] know, you have a relationship, I'm assuming, with someone from the company.

[1:28:32] And if you think that they're going to they're going to turn and run because we

[1:28:35] didn't approve it tonight, like I don't know. I mean,

[1:28:39] » I don't know. I don't want to I don't want to speculate on that stuff. I don't

[1:28:43] have any inside knowledge. I just know that they have options. Anybody you

[1:28:47] negotiate with generally does or doesn't. and uh they have options.

[1:28:53] They're a major carrier. Um we know that there's already approval for one tower

[1:28:58] site. I can tell you that there are others courting them to to build a tower

[1:29:04] on u other property in the northernish part of town. So I

[1:29:11] can't really speculate on what might happen and I'm not to sug suggest that

[1:29:17] they'll run and turn tomorrow. I'm just saying that I don't see that I would be

[1:29:23] in a position to speak intelligently on the topic and equipment today, two weeks

[1:29:30] from now, four weeks from now. I would need a subject matter expert to help me

[1:29:36] through that. And um especially when it relates to two years from now. But if

[1:29:43] there's some language that you want to propose for

[1:29:47] how we insist they have the best equipment on there, I just don't know

[1:29:51] how we we do that. >> I don't think logic is broken to me to

[1:29:54] say like we don't want more information because we might not understand it.

[1:29:58] » No, I think we had the I I'm sorry. I think we had the equipment because I

[1:30:03] think they've all upgraded. So, we have that in our files somewhere. In fact,

[1:30:06] came through the planning board almost all of it. I think the engineer may have

[1:30:11] signed off on something if it was dimminimous in nature, but we have all

[1:30:15] that information, what it means and what what else is out there available and

[1:30:20] what we asked them to. >> When did they when did they upgrade the

[1:30:23] equipment? You have a record of when they upgraded

[1:30:26] it >> and did they have to get approval from

[1:30:29] the planning board to upgrade? >> In in many cases, yes. In some cases,

[1:30:33] no. If it was dimminimus, if it was just they were taking this little piece and

[1:30:37] putting a newer version, think in terms of modems, right? How many times have we

[1:30:41] all like upgraded our modems? Yes. And you don't know what the future modem is

[1:30:45] going to be like. Um, so >> but yeah,

[1:30:48] » I don't have the dates. I don't have the dates,

[1:30:50] » right? I'm just saying. So, if you know when they upgraded them last, what did

[1:30:53] they upgrade them to? >> And once you have the the model, you

[1:30:57] know, every modem has a model number. So you look up the model number and you

[1:31:01] talk speak to somebody. >> The technology is changing and so I

[1:31:06] think the question is >> anything that we would mandate that they

[1:31:10] do or require that they do or meet standards that they do. I'm not even

[1:31:14] sure that we >> question they upgraded to 5G in the very

[1:31:21] you know easy past. So that's a big upgrade.

[1:31:26] What? But they're having AT&T is having issues with

[1:31:31] AT&T. We're talking about 5G. They made a big

[1:31:35] point about it. >> Yeah. For anyone who wants to subscribe.

[1:31:40] » Well, is it possible? Is it possible we can do both of these things, try and get

[1:31:44] more information on the AT&T equipment and put ourselves in a good position to

[1:31:49] negotiate better service and um better revenue from them when the time comes.

[1:31:55] That's two years away. I feel two years and change.

[1:31:58] » That's the AT&T. >> Yeah. And I feel like we can do that in

[1:32:01] a couple years. >> That's what everybody complains about.

[1:32:03] So you got >> So I mean I think that's

[1:32:05] » that's my compromise I offered 45 minutes ago and I'm kind of still there

[1:32:10] but >> thoughts Jacob.

[1:32:13] » Yeah. I mean I don't I don't think that for Verizon I have an issue moving

[1:32:18] forward with this agreement today. I agree it'd be great to improve service

[1:32:21] but I don't know if that's going to come from this

[1:32:24] process. So I don't think in the next month and a half we're going to figure

[1:32:26] that out a change to this agreement that they're going to tie themselves to

[1:32:31] improving their service in some tangible way just from signing this agreement. I

[1:32:36] think that for 18 there are like very clear things that we can do as far as

[1:32:39] like moving up which if that's the the carrier that has the most issues like

[1:32:43] there's >> it seems like well you're saying they

[1:32:46] move up a couple feet >> it improves things. That's a pretty

[1:32:48] clear thing. >> They're the fourth position so they're

[1:32:50] quite a few feet down >> if they're fourth position. Um I read

[1:32:56] it's awful sometimes. >> You have

[1:32:59] » Yeah. And it's and I have the same issues on 9G for sure.

[1:33:02] » Um but I think that what we're hearing is Verizon doesn't have the same issues.

[1:33:07] » I'm less concerned about securing them as SE and then it seems like they have

[1:33:13] improved their service over the years in a way that

[1:33:16] » the people who have Verizon are happy with it. I think we we should use the

[1:33:19] time we have between now and the next AT&T. renewable to leverage enough to do

[1:33:24] that, collect the information for that >> and then um you know,

[1:33:28] » we don't want the wrong kid to get the time out.

[1:33:31] » Right. >> So that's why we

[1:33:36] » Okay. >> I'm hearing that that might be a

[1:33:38] compromise, but not necessarily making everybody happy, but we'll work toward

[1:33:44] improve service. >> Okay. Uh, you you said you wanted to

[1:33:50] make that motion. >> 48 48.

[1:33:54] » Who wants to second? >> I'll second it.

[1:33:59] » Further discussion. Okay. Thank you. That was a lengthy

[1:34:03] discussion. I thought a good discussion. Um, and I think that we can hopefully

[1:34:08] achieve both of those goals. >> I do have one other quick thing to say.

[1:34:12] » Sure. Um to Bill's point about we did discuss this in

[1:34:19] » two months back >> totally acknowledge.

[1:34:22] » I think what would be helpful to me >> is if we can have more

[1:34:31] um be more included in the communication as

[1:34:37] it's happening. So I'm looking at my emails. The last email I have on this

[1:34:41] besides the ones from um the packet this week were in uh March. So, you're right.

[1:34:48] We did talk about this a long time ago, but if we're included in, you know, I

[1:34:53] make my employees CC me on everything, like if we're reading this and and

[1:34:57] seeing how the discussion is evolving or if Robert, if you have a

[1:35:04] phone call, send us your notes from the phone call. So, we're kind of thinking

[1:35:08] about it actively. >> Yeah. There's very little change between

[1:35:12] um the instructions you gave me and uh the result uh that we see today.

[1:35:17] » No, my point is that it's it's very easy to keep everyone on the board very

[1:35:24] informed of where it is. It's it's hard to prepare for a meeting

[1:35:30] when you have a packet and you're like, I haven't thought about this in six

[1:35:33] months. So, it's something I'm just going to

[1:35:37] bring up. I want to talk about it more at the end of the meeting in terms of

[1:35:40] procedure and communication and the end of the meeting is about to approach

[1:35:45] because we have people waiting for us.

[1:35:51] We have a motion. We have a second. Additional discussion. Any more

[1:35:56] discussion? If not, all in favor? Kenny

[1:36:01] » I. >> William.

[1:36:03] » I. myself. I Jacob >> I

[1:36:06] » Christine >> Okay,

[1:36:08] that was 48 >> minutes.

[1:36:15] Uh, okay.

[1:36:20] » Shared services. >> Shared services. So, again, this is just

[1:36:25] some language. If you um have had a chance to look at it, we're I want to

[1:36:31] remind you our fiduciary, all of us elected, those of us who hold not only

[1:36:37] taxpayer dollars, but also equipment paid for by taxpayer dollars, we have a

[1:36:43] fiduciary to make sure there's a proper accounting of those pieces of equipment

[1:36:49] and services that ensue from the equipment. And so uh what we're trying

[1:36:55] to do is to once again do two things which is provide the flexibility that

[1:37:01] we've had during emergency situations to share and you know uh more locally the

[1:37:07] villages you know we do the street sweeping you know vice versa all that

[1:37:12] stuff and there's been a very good you know mostly barter arrangement but that

[1:37:18] does not mean that we can exempt ourselves

[1:37:22] uh both the department and uh the town board and myself as the chief financial

[1:37:28] officer from uh proper internal controls such that if uh

[1:37:36] truck is loan to another municipality and there's no accounting has it been

[1:37:43] there for a day has it been there for a week has it been there for a month did

[1:37:47] the truck stay at town of ABC or did the truck then end up at Joe and Janet

[1:37:54] Smith's house and so on and so forth without having proper internal controls

[1:37:59] in this situation. Um uh we we could find ourselves uh being both ignorant

[1:38:07] and having it run foul of um of our duty responsibility. And so um

[1:38:16] drafted for your consideration some language and then if you find that it's

[1:38:22] mostly acceptable then we can um uh forward to the highway superintendent

[1:38:28] take a look at it as well. Um these are things that we're already doing. We're

[1:38:32] already accounting for the gasoline at the village of Red Hook uh and in the

[1:38:39] Tiboly fire department and all that stuff. We've got counters for all that

[1:38:43] stuff. All of that is is absolutely necessary. And so the suggestion that we

[1:38:49] don't need internal controls is just not something that is at all um in concert

[1:38:55] with our uh responsibilities. So, um I'm sorry if it appears that we're pushing

[1:39:01] back to the highway superintendent's recommendation um that we not have

[1:39:06] internal controls, but we absolutely must have internal controls to

[1:39:10] understand where our dollars and equipment and services are being

[1:39:14] provided and that you know simple logs and simple rate comparisons. We do that

[1:39:21] um in many situations. So, >> and the state controller audits us and

[1:39:28] Most people don't most people know that I was a federal agent, but they don't

[1:39:31] know that my first two years of employment with the federal government

[1:39:33] was as an auditor. I was a federal auditor. Internal controls are boring.

[1:39:37] They're they're they're dry. They're un butter toast. I get it. But they're

[1:39:42] critical and they're the things that often prevent bad things from happening.

[1:39:46] So, you know, I hear where Theresa is coming from on this, but I do think we

[1:39:53] have a legal obligation to make sure we get it right and so that when the Office

[1:39:58] of State Controller comes in and audits us, they don't ding us for not having

[1:40:02] adequate internal controls because that's one of the things the auditors

[1:40:05] do. >> Okay.

[1:40:09] Um, did you all have a chance to I know

[1:40:13] you've had this for some time now. Did you have a chance to look at it? Do you

[1:40:17] have any questions or concerns about it? Would you like to entertain?

[1:40:22] Um, at least forwarding this uh draft to the highway superintendent to review.

[1:40:30] Uh, not saying that it's finalized, but I know that she's been wanting to have

[1:40:35] this um approved. And did we get that exhibit in there?

[1:40:41] » Exhibit A. >> Yeah.

[1:40:42] » Yeah. So she's so she's wanting us to to her recommendation was

[1:40:49] to approve it without any changes and you're saying you want to you want to

[1:40:55] » Robert and Bill you both want to >> our council is saying

[1:41:00] » is actually saying >> Chris is saying

[1:41:02] » well wait you know there's there's yes legal advice but there's also our

[1:41:07] responsibility to ensure remember we're in charge of the money So if the money

[1:41:14] is not and the services and the money that you know the services goes towards

[1:41:19] if there's not a proper accounting of those services for another municipality

[1:41:25] then that raises a problem. It also means that it's outside of our you know

[1:41:30] custody control and and all of that stuff. So um we we cannot simply say

[1:41:36] have no internal controls. That's just not possible. Um, certainly not

[1:41:42] something >> I don't I don't I don't I don't disagree

[1:41:45] with that. I guess my question is is more one of again of timing. Like this

[1:41:49] one has been around for a while. If if she wants this and is requesting we move

[1:41:54] it along. >> What What is our time frame of

[1:41:59] » So one of the other things that she reminded is we still have in place our

[1:42:03] agreement for shared services with the county with equipment. This is an

[1:42:08] expansion agreement. >> Yeah. But

[1:42:10] » and that expansion >> that's separate from the question I

[1:42:12] asked though. >> Um there

[1:42:16] » are you asking when does it be done? >> There is no there is no deadline.

[1:42:20] » I I understand there's no deadline but >> but it would be nice to have this in

[1:42:24] place before the winter season. >> Um so uh

[1:42:30] » I support you want to make changes. I I support that. I have no issue with that.

[1:42:35] But I know this has been >> on our agenda a bunch of times.

[1:42:41] » Let's let's forward it to her to see, you know, what we think is a good first

[1:42:46] draft on some internal controls. And again, this department's been doing this

[1:42:50] with other things, gas, diesel, sand, salt, so on and so forth. Those logs

[1:42:56] take place. Uh there's technology that, you know, makes it easier. this may be a

[1:43:02] little bit more challenging and that you would have to do input like we loaned

[1:43:06] our truck to town of so and so for three days the value of that truck and those

[1:43:11] services are x amount of days that all needs to be accounted for that's all we

[1:43:15] don't want to make it too cumbersome um you know uh

[1:43:20] » should we have a goal of when we want to when we want to

[1:43:24] » well have the a draft finalized >> I'd like to do that by October at the

[1:43:29] house but that's just me. I mean, I don't think we're going to get October

[1:43:33] snows. We're not getting any snows this year.

[1:43:36] » The sooner the better. >> Yeah.

[1:43:42] I would suggest that we we now forward this. If we don't have any glaring

[1:43:46] concerns about the language, we forward this and and ask her. I mean, she's

[1:43:50] given us her opinion, which no internal controls, but obviously we can. So you

[1:43:56] so you want to make changes to this draft and then forward it to her.

[1:43:59] » No, no, I want to forward it to her. Now >> this has the changes that you exhibit A

[1:44:04] is the the part about the internal controls, the activities log,

[1:44:07] reimbursement, all of that. So it's adding that to the thing that she's

[1:44:11] already reviewed and said she's in support of just the internal controls so

[1:44:15] we know how our equipment's being used and

[1:44:17] » Okay. Have you talked to her about it as >> not beyond the emails that she sent? I

[1:44:22] think that she made herself very clear in her emails.

[1:44:26] Yeah. >> So, let's try to do that between now and

[1:44:30] the first meeting in October. I think that that's

[1:44:35] » Well, I guess the question is, Jacob, when you chat with her

[1:44:40] » really the question is if there are things that she finds

[1:44:44] objectionable, please point them out. >> Sure.

[1:44:48] » No, no, no, no, no. recommendations for changes to something, right? Because we

[1:44:56] need to progress this to a a result. >> Functionally, this is one page. It's one

[1:45:01] page of things to review, practical controls. It's not complicated. It's not

[1:45:04] the full 13page agreement. It's just one page for how we want to handle things in

[1:45:09] the town. So, I think that she should be able to

[1:45:14] review it and get back to us within the time frame and saying, "Here's something

[1:45:18] I'm concerned about or here's something that I would suggest changing."

[1:45:22] » And and again, we can still share an emergency situation. So, now we're

[1:45:26] talking about non-emergency situations >> and we're coming upon, you know, the

[1:45:31] season where the plants are closing, you know, early November typically. So

[1:45:37] yeah, but sooner rather than later and it has been

[1:45:41] bouncing around.

[1:45:46] So is that is that a motion to send this along

[1:45:51] uh to the highway superintendent for comment and specific recommendations on

[1:45:58] potential uh changes to

[1:46:02] » document? Yeah,

[1:46:05] » sure. I I'll make the motion that we share this to

[1:46:08] » Teresa for review and feedback. And you know, I think to your question, the goal

[1:46:15] of getting this done as soon as we, you know, all feel good about it.

[1:46:22] Uh motion to share with the highway superintendent. Is there a second?

[1:46:26] » I'll second. >> Any further discussion?

[1:46:31] All in favor? Kenny >> I. Christina.

[1:46:33] » Hi, >> myself. Hi, Bill and Jacob.

[1:46:37] » Okay, we have the reports. Um, we got to get going, folks. Uh, we got three

[1:46:43] minutes. Anybody? Jacob, do you want to say something about housing committee

[1:46:46] and updates? And of course, >> um, I know that we have a letter from

[1:46:51] uh, housing committee. I wasn't able to attend the last meeting, but they asked

[1:46:54] for updates about um the proposals they made to us the last handful of meetings,

[1:46:59] including about emergency housing, good cause eviction, home share program. Um I

[1:47:03] think they're asking for thoughts and feedback from the board with respect to

[1:47:08] those proposals and you know, basically asking what they can do to move them

[1:47:13] along, >> right? So

[1:47:17] could we then take some time between now and the next meeting and look at those

[1:47:21] three? The one time sensitive they said was about um emergency shelter over

[1:47:27] wintering. Yeah. >> Um so could could we take some time to

[1:47:32] discuss that? Um I think I've sort of filled you in what I know about what's

[1:47:36] available grant funding and uh agencies to to assist with that. But um can we

[1:47:44] put that on the agenda for the next meeting? So

[1:47:47] » very at least we can share what we do know and what we do think.

[1:47:53] » Yeah. So I can I can get back to them and let them know that we're planning to

[1:47:55] speak about it or feel at our next meeting.

[1:47:58] » They also invited us to attend the next housing committee meeting which is the

[1:48:01] Monday after our next meeting. So 6 p.m. here in town hall. So

[1:48:06] » um >> yeah.

[1:48:08] » Okay. And then the last thing was a uh and then we're going to go I hope um is

[1:48:14] a letter from our honorable Justice Lisa.

[1:48:21] As you know, the town uh Justice Court will acquire the village of Red Hook

[1:48:26] Justice Court in April 2027. Um these are logistical issues. Um

[1:48:35] they uh have a meeting coming up this month with special counsel to uh town

[1:48:42] and village justices in the ninth judicial district to discuss some of the

[1:48:47] logistics. In the meantime, files, files, files. Right, we were talking

[1:48:51] about records and files. Um so as they have been doing in the village

[1:48:59] uh hall um they are requesting the assistance of clerk who's familiar with

[1:49:04] the process um that's Madison Hart

[1:49:09] um and uh they want um our services

[1:49:16] so that we can progress the uh filing of the

[1:49:21] files that are coming over uh before so they can be processed for destruction.

[1:49:27] So we have to have records retention of those uh one night per week for no more

[1:49:32] than 8 hours per week. The duration of employment would be 3 to 6 months.

[1:49:37] Suggested rate of pay would be $18 per hour. Um we believe Miss Hart with her

[1:49:43] knowledge. Loan and storage needs da da da will

[1:49:46] provide very helpful. They've had this uh underway in the village for a while

[1:49:52] now. So, they anticipated submitting an

[1:49:56] application to JCAP that has a $30,000 cap. Um we hope to include something

[1:50:04] else, new carpet, something like that in the grant application perhaps. um for

[1:50:11] the remainder of that balance.

[1:50:16] Um this will not cover payroll uh the grant. It will cover expenses

[1:50:22] associated. So we would need to do um a budget adjustment for this.

[1:50:28] » Was it for this year or for >> Well, that's not quite clear.

[1:50:31] » That's what I It sort of looks like it would start this year, maybe go into the

[1:50:35] next year because it's 3 to six months. So we'll see if we can get a little bit

[1:50:39] more at all.

[1:50:42] » So, no action to take. >> Um,

[1:50:46] can can we can we give uh the judge our initial implation if we do have one? I

[1:50:53] mean, I'm supportive of that. >> I'm supportive of

[1:50:55] » um cuz we want to make it, you know, a good

[1:50:59] transition. >> Yeah.

[1:51:01] » Yeah. Oh, I'm supportive of it. It's the hour the rate jumps out at me as being

[1:51:06] very low. And I >> um I think you know as we go through our

[1:51:13] budget for next year, maybe that's the time to really evaluate like

[1:51:19] if we're paying someone $18 an hour, I don't I don't consider that a living

[1:51:24] wage, >> right?

[1:51:25] » Red hook. >> Right.

[1:51:26] » So >> yeah. Um, and this is a this is a uh

[1:51:31] parallegal student I think Madison. >> So, this would be sort of along the

[1:51:37] lines of like a paid internship kind of a thing as opposed to um a steady

[1:51:43] permanent job, full-time job. But yes, what do we pay our lifeguards?

[1:51:47] » Hang on. Hang on. I totally agree with you.

[1:51:50] » I I'm not >> I totally agree with you.

[1:51:53] hourly rates discussion, but that jumps out at me at

[1:51:56] » I totally agree with you. >> That's a conversation with Lisa.

[1:52:01] » Be interesting to learn what the village has been paying her for the work she's

[1:52:04] been. >> I totally agree with you.

[1:52:06] » Curious how this compares. >> We'll be having lots of conversations

[1:52:10] about cost drivers. >> Is it that it says she's been with the

[1:52:15] village? >> Folks, we need to get going. Um I

[1:52:18] apologize. We can take up more of this, but we'll give the initial inclination

[1:52:21] to >> Are we not doing the committee reports?

[1:52:23] Because I have one quick thing to say. We're not

[1:52:25] » We're not doing committee reports. So, we're going to let them speak for

[1:52:28] themselves. >> That's fine. Then I just real quick um

[1:52:32] » Bill, your water your water leazison is on.

[1:52:34] » Do we have any progress on the dead ends?

[1:52:38] » Oh, you mean uh where the where the sediment you mean?

[1:52:43] » Yes. My understanding is they're discussing

[1:52:48] putting in some kind of flushing and they're going to do it. They recognize

[1:52:52] but the testing that there was some concern that what was building up was

[1:52:58] manganese. >> Yes.

[1:52:59] » And it's not. It's iron. >> Yeah.

[1:53:01] » Um >> which is its own issue but it it's it

[1:53:06] has to be addressed. Um and my understanding is that the water uh

[1:53:13] water department is trying to get they you know they have to get they usually

[1:53:16] use I think Frank Rossberg to do their esavating they have they have to get

[1:53:21] employees schedule to get things done >> I guess short answer is what is the

[1:53:25] timeline of fixing it like 6 months 12 months 18 months

[1:53:29] » oh no I think I think it's to this year right

[1:53:31] » oh yeah >> oh yeah to this year

[1:53:34] » okay thank you all for coming um at this time and we could be back out uh for

[1:53:40] action at this time. Um I would like to make a motion that we go into executive

[1:53:46] session to discuss

[1:53:50] pending litigation matters as it relates to initially as it relates

[1:53:58] to the Treza versus town of Red Hook. Uh action.

[1:54:07] Is there a second? >> Second. Don't Don't be all excited.

[1:54:11] Okay. Uh all in favor, Kenny. >> Hi,

[1:54:14] » William. >> Hi.

[1:54:15] » Myself. I >> Jacob.

[1:54:17] » Hi. >> Christina.

[1:54:18] » Hi. >> I want to thank you all very much. I

[1:54:22] hope uh you stay healthy um this September. and uh we'll see you

[1:54:29] back here September 23rd, if not after our executive sessions. With that being

[1:54:35] said,

[1:54:42] it's 9:58. We're back in the meeting. Thank you all very much for patiently

[1:54:46] waiting. Um, at this time

[1:54:54] uh we'll let you know that we discussed the town board discussed legal strategy

[1:54:59] regarding the Treza lawsuit in executive session and uh we gave council direction

[1:55:07] and that's all uh that we can report on that. At this time, we would like to

[1:55:12] make a motion to enter executive session to discuss pending legal matters,

[1:55:18] various um uh tax assessment, uh pending matters,

[1:55:26] um Damon, AOL. So, there are many of them.

[1:55:31] So, um at this time, I'd like to make that motion.

[1:55:35] » How many? >> 39.

[1:55:38] » Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> You're welcome to sit around.

[1:55:41] » No, I won't want to know if he's going to list them off, but at 39.

[1:55:48] » Um, >> I'm sure we can provide a list if we ask

[1:55:51] » a motion. A motion to enter executive session. Is there a second?

[1:55:55] » Oh, you have you moved it. Okay. A second.

[1:55:58] » Second. >> Okay. Uh, discussion. If not, all in

[1:56:01] favor, Christina, myself, I. Thank you.

[1:56:11] have the clock at 10:59.

[1:56:18] Thanks for waiting, folks. At this time,

[1:56:24] I would like to make a motion that we direct council to proceed in accordance

[1:56:28] with discussion in executive session as it pertains to the pending litigation

[1:56:36] matters. Bayon at atall um and uh the other 38

[1:56:45] um potential plaintiffs.

[1:56:51] » I think I made that motion, didn't I? >> Second.

[1:56:55] » Okay, any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Christina,

[1:57:00] » I >> Jacob myself.

[1:57:04] » Thank you very much. At this time, this concludes tonight's meeting. I want to

[1:57:08] thank you very much for your patience tonight. Stay healthy.

[1:57:14] » A motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second.

[1:57:18] All in favor? I I

9-8-2026 Red Hook Town Board

Agenda

Transcript