[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