Can you all hear me? Yeah, I guess you can. Good morning. I'm Peggy Lauber, President of our North Fork Audubon Society. We're based in Greenport.
And thank you all for giving us the opportunity to present our shorebird report that we did for the town of Southhold in 2022.
We also, this is the continuation, we did it in 2021 as well, and we did it in years past thanks to a grant from Southhold Town.
So the monitoring activity season is basically March through August.
And we are responsible for monitoring 22 locations that are designated by the DEC.
Some are active and some are inactive, as it turns out this year, 10 of them, 10 of those sites were active.
And this does not include Suffolk County parks or New York State Park, like Orient Beach State Park,
which had several pairs, but we weren't responsible for monitoring those.
So we checked the active sites approximately three times a week throughout the nesting season.
And what we did was at the beginning of the season we went around and checked and we determined
that all of these locations, ten of them, were active.
And then the other inactive sites, we just checked them a couple more times during
the season to make sure that there weren't any late arrivals.
Our team was led by Jennifer Murray. Jennifer is a local naturalist and educator dedicated to shore bird conservation.
She conducted the training sessions for our volunteer shore bird stewards, who could be anybody who wants to do this.
And we're always looking for more volunteers, so hopefully in 2023 we'll have the contract again and you can help us out if you want.
So Jennifer also scouted all the beaches to see which sites were active and inactive.
She coordinated the installation of the string fencing and signage, which believe me, it
doesn't sound like much.
That is like a Herculean job, just putting that string fencing with to put all the
posts in and signs and it's way more complicated than it may seem if you go down to any
of these locations.
And we also call it symbolic fencing, meaning obviously anybody could walk right through
if they want to, it's just like a string.
But it's alerting people to the fact
that don't walk here, basically.
So Jennifer also compiled the daily site visit reports
and assisted the volunteer shorebird monitors
throughout the season.
She was our guru.
Any questions that we had?
If people weren't sure about what they were seeing,
because it's not easy, believe me,
she would come out and willingly help us.
and she also coordinated with DEC and wrote the final report.
So we had 16 volunteers and we attended three pre-season
training sessions that Audubon coordinated,
that Jennifer coordinated.
And then there were also some training sessions on Zoom
that we did with the National Fish and Wildlife Service
and lots of, we have lots of written information as well.
So the volunteers were just required to make the visits, fill out the site visit reports and then keep in touch with Jennifer forward them to her throughout the season.
We also had additional volunteers that helped install and remove the fencing and the signage, like, you know, my husband and other people's partners that said, come on, help, because this is a big job.
Okay, so just to give you guys an idea, we used the following abbreviation, and so we've
got six birds listed here, but basically the ones that the DEC and we are most interested
in are the piping plover, PIPL, the least-turned L-E-T-E, and the oyster catcher, the American
oyster catcher, which I don't have a photo of the oyster catcher here, but if you've
never seen one there, just the most beautiful birds, they're larger and they have long
orange beaks and they are called oyster catches because those beaks can like, you know, break
up mollusks and that's how they eat.
So you have a picture here of the breeding adult piping clover and the breeding adult
lease turn and, you know, with very specific markings and, you know, we refer to these
a lot as we were doing our monitoring, trying to make sure we were seeing the right, the
right, whether it was a male, female, whatever.
So, okay, so here was the most critical time, late May and June, because when those chicks hatch,
they're like so tiny, like cotton balls on toothpicks, they're literally, these little things are so easy to mess.
They can walk and run, but they can't fly, so they're like scurrying along the beach, and they are just perfectly camouflaged.
and and then to make things worse like if they feel threatened at all people are
walking along whatever they what they do is they hunker down so they just
hunker down into the sand and and you just don't see them so literally humans
can step on them but you just you think you can see them but you can't see them
and they're very vulnerable to predators especially dogs as well as
foxes, raccoons, skulls, crows, etc.
And coyotes, yeah I know I was thinking about that,
adding that to the list. Yeah, domesticated
dogs, and just as an aside here, most
members of the community, when we would alert them to the fact that there were poepers nearby,
they were just more than willing to help us
and if we'd come up to them and say, please don't walk your dog in this area, because
You know we have the fence off areas, but that doesn't mean the chicks can't run
Pass though. They don't the chicks don't stay inside the fence if they don't go
Oh, I can't go past here because there's a string
So they're you know running around the beaches and but anyway most most
members of the community were really really
You know on board was like oh my gosh. I'm very respectful
but not all
So here are the ten locations and I don't need to go into too much detail here
you guys all have the report in front of you, but basically what we did here was this is
the total for the season, the number of pairs, the number of fledglings, and then the fledg
rate.
So you'll see, so like for example in Matatuckena, that was our largest location as far as yielding
piping plover fledglings.
We have 13, Lakewater Beach and Bailey Beach.
The fledgway was 1.86 and that's pretty healthy, believe it or not.
I guess we can just go right through these.
I'm not going to go through all of them because you can see,
and if anybody's interested in a particular, the ones that survive, yeah.
So for example, if you look on the page, this page,
to the Conklin Point, the oyster,
because I actually was monitoring that site.
So we did have one pair of oyster catchers
and they did have two babies and they were just so adorable
but, and they're very hard to see, you know,
but we were able to see them, but then they both disappeared.
So, yes, they were the ones with the distinctive
orange beak, but they disappeared.
So they were probably predated.
So, you know, we don't know.
But so we just call that nest failure because there was a nest and they were born but they didn't survive
So why don't we just skip through to the summary so
In summary so the three that I was talking about the piping plover. We had 16 pairs of
Which 30 pledged so that's pretty how basically almost to prepare that survived and as far as we know
Oh, there's a picture of the oyster catcher, by the way, that's the oyster catcher and
the juvenile to the left.
And then we had 82 leased turns, 82 pairs and 111 fledged.
The leased turns had a lot of problems with nest abandonment due to predation and other
disturbances, but they still had a fledged rate of 1.35.
and then the oyster catchers, you know, did not fare well.
Only five pairs of which three fledged.
And so that was a fledged rate, 0.6.
And then just to compare with previous years,
everything was up in 2022.
So we feel pretty good about that.
In 2021, as you've seen, we only had 14 pairs
of piping clovers in 22 fledged.
Least turns, half as many and a third as many fledged and the oyster catchers only one pair
and none fledged.
And then the year before, just to compare with the group for the East End
was doing it that year, so they had a larger number of Least turns. I recently read that
Least turns, that doesn't mean because we had less in 2021 and then more in 2022,
Least turns also travel up to like Connecticut, so they might, like we might have a low year
police turns here on Long Island and yet they might have more of them on the
shores of Connecticut so that because their range is pretty broad so it's a
kind of hard to tell you know how they're doing in general so we came up
with the following recommendations to manage shorebirds going forward one is
to continue to work with the South Pole Police Department on active beach
violations, make sure that they are on that, and the timing of piping over chick hatches
and ATV deployment. We had an issue with, you know, the police were like running around
on their ATVs trying to patrol the beaches, but not realizing that ATVs, baby chicks,
not a good combination. And then we want to continue to partner with private property
owners who were very much involved this year because, you know, again, the
plovers don't know, like Bailey Beach continues, and then it becomes private
property. They're nesting where they're nesting, so we did, for the most part,
have a lot of positive cooperation. Again, not all, but most private property
owners. And then we want to continue to work with the park districts,
environmental organizations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, DEC, Suffolk County
parks and New York state parks which by the way Jennifer also monitored New York state parks just it
wasn't part of this this contract and then we want to work on the appropriate town of South
Hold Environmental Division on strategic planning of dredging projects that you know just to make
sure that we're in the loop when a dredging project is proposed because people might not be
be aware that it's a potential site and then sure
just be great to keep us on the loop.
I see, okay. Good to know. And then just continued public outreach and installing educational
displays and informational signage, creating town-wide support and participation of threatened
and endangered shoreboard sneezes and I forgot to mention at the beginning that I also have
our fellow board member Teresa Dilworth here who put this presentation together and was
of great help with everything from writing the final report to helping with the organizing
the volunteers and just every step of the way she's been a wonderful supporter so thank
you.
Any questions?
Sure.
When I
was on the trustees, it became apparent that less and less would be shorebirds.
And then the DDC had, we noticed on different projects that it was doing, and the environmental reports and the sea marine reports,
they kept mentioning shorebirds and then it became part of the dredging aspect.
It became part of the dredging aspect of it.
And it just evolved from there.
And then the trustees, we went to the downtown board
and we said we had to, we had no way to monitor.
And I think that's when we decided to contract out
because we didn't have an in-house environmentalist
and this is really the best way to do it
because it's really comprehensive.
As you can see the report that we got today.
So I'm trying to think of how many years ago, but it's been quite a few years now.
And by the way, I should interject.
This is just the power point.
It really doesn't go into the detail that our final report does that I sent to Dennis earlier this week.
So, okay, you have that.
Good.
Great.
Yeah, so in any report, you also give detailed recommendations that you'd like to see with different groups and stuff.
So, that's great.
But, oh,
I know, well, we'd love to be included, you know?
Yeah, I mean, how could we, I mean, I wonder if there's a way, you know, we'd have to have
a volunteer who lived on Fisher's Island, you know, that we could count on to do the
day-to-day monitoring.
It could come over for the training sessions, but we'd totally be open to that.
What'd you say?
That's
a great suggestion, I was telling you that I got to go to Fishers Island.
A few months ago, for the first time, I've lived here 40 years and I've never been there.
I was just blown away. It's just so beautiful. I was so struck by the fact that we don't have
a deer issue here. I saw that right away. You could see the difference in the understory there.
It's just amazing. You can only imagine how different it would be here if we didn't have the deer.
And yeah, but you keep it under control, which is not easy.
Anyway, thank you all.
Thank you.
Yeah.
meeting. We were discussing electric vehicle charging stations and this was
something I had done some research on a while back but it's you know somewhat of
a complex issue when it goes through the municipality. So Michael Collins had a
suggestion that maybe we issue an RFP to see if there's a private company that
would like to install them on municipal parking lot properties for us so
then that way we can have them kind of do the legwork for us.
So I just wanted to bring that to the town board
see if we're interested in doing that
and then move that forward.
I mean, I think we could,
we could, like similar to how we did the solar
on the landfill, so we could definitely write it
sort of however we want to see it done,
but just write it into the contract
that they would, you know, be maintaining it and, and, and everything, you know, installing,
maintaining, we would just kind of do like a lease on the, on the parking lot facility itself.
What you should do is parallel as the issue of the art piece, you also, at the same time,
reject a NYSERD, you could probably contact them through the Long Island representative
who's going to hopeful, because they've been potentially looking to do this.
We've had some conversations a while ago that I told you COVID kind of level up there.
Yeah.
Yeah, you can reach out to them as a pair of up, you know, maybe you can call, I don't recall where to wrap right now.
Obviously, they COVID sorted this place, everything.
I mean, I guess would that be something that we do, or would that be something that the company would do, sort of, at the same time?
What, you know, if we, I know what the COVID's looking for.
So we're going to have a really nice, she's very approachable, cool, and say, look, we're going to go to the store of Hebrew.
Do you have someone from my server actually go to?
Yeah, well, yeah, where they're at, where he's, and then...
Okay. All right.
Yeah.
If they don't have anything, if they're not able to, they can probably give you some insight on how to,
as per your plan.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
They're very, very responsible.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm going to reveal that to 2025.
I'm actually here
to request a commitment for funds under the American Rescue Plan Act
for the senior center.
And I'm just going to list some of the things.
I think one of the things that prompted this was we had several repairs to our walk-in
freezer box that's inside the building and the man's been back four times he came
back in November on November 23rd there's ice outside the box where the
framing and the plywood is so he said you're gonna have to really look to
replace these also when the ice melts the water now runs down and comes out
the light fixture in the refrigerator walking box.
So, you know, we had a temporary fix.
It's been the third fix.
I think now that we have the, you know,
if there's ARPA funds available,
certainly this is a worthy project that we could fix.
They were built over 30 years ago
when the town bought the building.
No, we have an outdoor freezer
that we got under our grant under the COVID CARES Act. I'm glad you brought that up. So,
you know, since I've been here over 32 years, I've brought in over $800,000 in grant money
to do repairs and upgrades to the center. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity
to come down, I would love you to come and, you know, we have pictures of what it was and
what it is now. And it's a great facility and it serves our seniors well. So the
estimate on the cooler box and
the freezer is about $80,000.
That being said, if we're going
to go ahead and take the step
and fix that equipment, we're
going to have to fix the roof.
The roof has leaks in it.
We've been patching it.
The area over the cooler box is
on the roof.
Actually, at one point was
spongy and washy was the
description, so that's been
repaired in the front of the
building the ceiling tiles have been replaced numerous times and I think what
we've been trying to do over the years is you know we understand we're trying to
stay within our budget under the 2% cap and these are things that if we can
repair in the wait for the right time sometimes an opportunity like this
presents itself and you know I think it is the right time the other thing
too is if we're going to do that the floors in the building we just we
We had a capital budget and we
are carpeting three quarters of
the building.
We didn't have enough money to
finish it, so that project is
going to start in a couple of
weeks.
So one area of the building is
going to still have the old
carpeting.
To finish that job, that's an
additional $5,000.
Let's
see here.
Also, again, I would invite you
all to come down and take a
look.
If we're going to commit the
funds and this, again, under
ARP or many senior centers got
upgrades, repairs. They expanded buildings. They really did a lot with the infrastructure.
I would say let's get it all done. That includes bathroom floors. The seams are
buckling, but we're repairing them. So the total asked for those projects is $180,000.
Now that being said, we need ADA electric doors. And I know under the Community Development
program, that project description I came before the board November of 21, the project I believe was approved, not sure really behind the scenes what the delay in that is, but the project's been in the works for a while and the
community development block grant.
The
thing with that is the funds that are committed, the concerns, I don't know how long it's going to take to get that done.
Right now, the bottom of the doors are rotting and actually the material is coming off the bottom of the door.
They're difficult to lock, they don't line up.
So I think that, I put in,
those doors are $50,000 to replace the four doors.
So I'm putting that as an add on as a contingency that should, because I did talk to Dennis and
I don't think Dennis that if the doors are really inoperable and we go ahead and do that,
community development will not reimburse. Is that correct? Okay. So I'm just throwing
that out there in case something happens over the winter.
It's usually, you know, three or four months before, before we get a release of bonds at that point.
But this way, we should have gotten it on one time.
And with the county's computer issues and like.
Well, we should have gotten it on one time.
If there was a commitment at the county level, I'm not quite certain it was.
So is there any way some phone calls or something to make that happen sooner?
I will try to make a phone call so that they are not all working.
They're not all working, and there are emails to the community development block right here.
Emails are still back, because I have tried specifically for this contract to get it back and forth.
Because I have public questions on some of the contracts.
But they were about nine months behind on everything they were doing.
So we were still getting funding when I first started from 19 when I started at 4.0.
So Karen, it makes sense to me to do everything that you listed because the one thing is another.
I mean, you're not going to replace the freezer if the roof is still going to leak on it.
You're not going to replace the floors or the tiles, the ceiling.
It seems like it's a rotating replacement.
I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
So once you replace the freezer, you need to replace the roof.
And then once the roof is replaced, then you can fix everything else.
So I'm in agreement with getting all this done.
You've been limping along for years.
Every budget time you talk about all these fixes, and you always say, but we can make,
we can do, we can make buying, you know, DPW is great, they can help us.
And I really appreciate you stretching the dollar like you have.
Well, I think it's something, you get to a point where you hit that brick wall.
And I think, well, and I think also you have to see, you know,
opportunities present themselves and I've always been very diligent looking at
grant funding and what we can do. I mean I know in DASV and Dennis through
community development we've made we've really redone all the sidewalks there's
so much we've already done and I think if we get this project these
components all finished I think the place is in really good shape and it
will be an excellent hands with Jackie. So it's just they're necessary things.
So I'm just, I do have pictures.
This one I thought was a, I know Scott came in toward it
and I showed him a lot of things.
This is just a picture of the ice on the outside
of the freezer box.
We had seals replaced.
We've done everything we can.
So it's apparently there's half inch plywood
in the area, the plan area.
And I think that's getting compromised.
So it's something that's gonna have to be done
at some point I think the use of these federal funds is really a blessing that
we can do this with this funding so I wanted to bring that all to your
attention I have pictures of everything but I would really prefer if you'd all
come down I'm sure Jackie would love to give you a tour if you want to come
before Friday I'll still be there I
know I look at the fear in everybody's
oh god is she doing that again.
No but thank you and it's been a great opportunity
and I want to thank you all and I can honestly say as an employee of the town
you won't see me here at the table you may see me in the audience but
I want
in the regular budget process.
It seems a little...
Can I take that?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, I can explain that.
The freezer box in the refrigerator,
that issue just came to light on November 23rd.
So that being said, it's kind of a trickle down effect
in that if we fix that,
we then should probably attend to the roof.
And I guess the bigger question is
if we have an opportunity to use federal funds
why would we go to local taxpayer funds to make these repairs so I think that's
why I'm bringing all this to your attention some of these things
Are they urgent? Absolutely not. But if we're going to go ahead and rip off the back of the building and put on your roof, let's get it all done. And this is a great opportunity.
No, I'm not. You know, I'm not making it down that good.
They actually were in a private meeting.
Yes, in the different place.
Right. For 2024, the capital budget, I had talked to Jackie. Some of these items, I brought to her attention. As far as the roof being repaired, it was repaired successfully.
I'm just looking at the bigger picture to avoid problems down the road, having to go to a capital budget with local taxpayer money.
I'm looking at this opportunity.
I think going back, I work with Tim.
We're looking at all of the projects across the town that need to be attended to.
One of these at that time were urgent needs.
Some of the, right now, the credit box, I would say that's a really important thing we need to do.
The move certainly has been
patched and repaired, could be
stretch out another year.
By all means, that was going to
be addressed in the 2024
capital budget, because we
really could probably stretch it
and get to that point.
In the meantime, looking for
grant money is something that
I would always prefer to do, as
opposed to go to, you know,
the local taxpayers to pay for
these big items.
So, awakingness is an opportunity.
That's why I'm bringing all of the items.
And I think the roof has been fixed right now.
There's no leak in the roof over the unit.
It's kind of,
it's a project that I think you got to come
together with and look at.
I think it's separate and single items going
for our budget next year.
I did talk to Tim.
We looked at different projects.
And some of these we did say
that we would handle down the road.
So the roof, we're supposed to get 25 years out of a roof.
It's at the 21 year mark.
So we're kind of trying to say, hey,
can we get this to a point when we bring it to the town board?
A visit at any time by any board member
and a walk through by town would make us all aware
of what the fiscal needs of the building are.
We have a thorough discussion every year
is what can we budget for this year?
What shouldn't we budget for this year?
And that's how we move forward.
the unique opportunity for funds that just came
in discussing with Karen.
Karen said, you know, let's button this all up at one time.
We have a schedule of repairs for each of these years.
Let's get it all done at once.
That's, but again, if we go out and visit the buildings,
you know exactly what those buildings are
and you know what the time tables are.
I just wanna say, talking in the court building issues,
We have talked about Karen's building. Scott has brought it up every time we've had a conversation, so none of this is new.
In those discussions, Michael said that some might have fixed it, but that was not part of this discussion of doing, you know, full halls on buildings.
Because she had a five-year plan stretching it out, just like she explained.
So, I mean, I don't know, I've been there and she's had a bunch of times she talks about
different repairs that she has, you know, stretched out.
And you really got to take a look at it.
I've been down to look at it.
The walk-in freezer, the first time I saw it, many years ago, I was like, wow, this
thing's old.
And she's stretched the life out of it.
Right.
And again, we just had the final repair on 11-23.
plan and had today's excessive repairs, you know,
light bulb goes off and I'm like,
what is the issue with this?
Why do we continue to have problems?
That's when that was built to light.
That was after the budget was put to bed.
Okay, as far as the capital discussion
about major infrastructure items at the Resource Center,
again, the roof was not gonna be something
on the table next year, it was for 2024.
As far as the floors,
what I'm saying right now is when they were done.
And right now they are, the seams are lifting a little.
Are we fixing, is that an emergency thing
that we needed to address next year?
No, that was something that we were looking
for an opportunity to say, you know what,
let's see when it's in grand funds, fix that.
If not, that's going on 2024.
None of that really was on the radar for next year at all.
You know, for instance with the floor
that we decided to do 75% of it and not the other,
and it would have just been another $5,000.
Just speaking for myself,
I would have supported putting that in the budget.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out
how we can be better board members
and better partners with you or with Jackie now
to make sure that this stuff gets done.
And so it's not coming to us right after we,
you know, the week after we sign off.
But it's-
There's like plenty of projects that we undertaken there over the years that we didn't discuss
in quite a time, because opportunities presented themselves during the course of the year.
Making some repairs are part of owning any building.
We have a unique opportunity.
The schedule over the next two, three, or four years is simply not necessary if the
money had the, again, unique opportunity for the funds has shown up and counted.
So look, let's fill it all up on time.
Now, why wait till 23, 24, 25 when all these things can be done now, and completed now?
That's not unusual. We haven't budgeted for things in the past that we were able to do during the year to spring.
Because we weren't aware of it, but no, we've got a great opportunity. Let's chase it.
Even though this particularly pair was scheduled for 2000 and whatever, we're going to have to do it now.
And that's not unique.
I'm not discounting that at all. I'm just saying we have these meetings to go over what the needs are.
You know, we sit down with all the department heads and ask these questions.
It's just puzzling that we're not talking about this sort of stuff then.
You know, absolutely, we should all spend more time down there and go through all this stuff, through all the buildings.
You know, there's real capital needs in the town that we need to address.
I mean, Karen's been touching on this every year.
I mean, it's not new.
I wasn't surprised to hear any of this.
When we look at the HRC too, we have other things coming up.
And I know, I think, next year, under DQW, Tim put in front of the parking lot.
So we try to balance those projects year to year so it doesn't all hit at the same time.
So again, in regard to the carpeting too, that was budgeted for this year, but prices as you all know went up.
So we intended under the whole thing, we just didn't have the money to finish that.
Again, it's something probably we could put under this plan to finish that.
And I think more than anything, this is saying to Jackie,
if something like that happens in the future,
again just speaking for myself, come to the board,
I would support finishing the whole project.
I think everyone understands with this unprecedented
inflation and supply chain issues
that this is stuff we need to do.
And it's our responsibility as board members
to help serve the community.
And for us to only do 75% of the project
because of supply chain issues or inflation,
for $5,000 it seems like we could find that money.
Yeah, definitely.
Okay, we found it.
Yeah, yeah.
And here I am.
Yeah.
So I don't know if anyone has any questions, again,
if you'd like to come down the boat,
I'd like you to come down and take a tour.
And that's it.
Yeah, maybe it does make sense for us to,
you know, as we tour the police station,
you know, as a group, just to go down there so we're all kind of looking at the same stuff.
You know, maybe set something up for next week.
Yeah, I mean, I've been there, it's been a couple months, but I've been there.
You know, she said this just popped up, so...
Well, the free, yeah, I don't think you'll be able to see the freezer repairs
if she talks about it unless you want to crawl into the ceiling.
Well, you can see the ice when you walk in on the ceiling.
Yeah,
yeah.
and let us know.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Please come around.
Mr. Wilson.
Hello.
You know that you approved for land use training seminars for this year.
Some of you actually attended the two that we had, the planning board and then the trustees.
They were so engaging and there were so many people participating that instead of lasting
the predicted hour or so, they went on for like two and a half hours each.
So,
exactly, thank you, because that was the goal, and it was time for all of us to understand the interrelationships
of all of these boards that deal with land use because of the challenges we're all facing now.
In any case, what we're requesting is that the two remaining seminars with the building department,
who's been so swamped that Mike just hasn't had time to do anything other than permits,
and the other one was with Melissa, land preservation, and she's been very
busy because she's obviously wrapping things up for retirement. She's scheduled
for January, so what we're requesting, the zoning and planning boards, is that
you roll over the two remaining seminars for next year's training,
end of
She's January 17th. She's available.
And what we're going to try to do, just as an aside, is to set these up in the bank area, you know, the annex.
I don't know how the wiring is going to work relative to the Zoom and the speakers and so on.
It's very easy to do, and the space is really underutilized.
was set up temporarily because of COVID restrictions,
but it's not nothing's happening there.
And we got bumped.
You got bumped and we got bumped on Thursday
because of Justice Court having a trial.
And it makes perfectly good sense
to utilize that space as another meeting hall.
I mean, you've got trustees in that building,
zoning in that building, and planning in that building.
And all of us could benefit
from having that as a meeting space.
and leaving that other states more for the courts
and for town board.
Yeah, it's all about the wiring, the technology stuff.
And we met back when COVID started.
I think it was Jim Benizzi when I met him there.
I'm sorry.
You were there too.
And it's gonna be an undertaking, but it can be done.
And we probably should look into it at this point.
Well, since we've been talking a lot back
in the courtroom itself, we don't have a very good system,
very difficult for people on Zoom to hear,
maybe we can apply something in the bank building
that works there.
Yeah, Boyd has been talking to a consultant
who I think is coming out to the bank building
December 6th, or December 6th.
So maybe we can ask Roy to have them come back
some other time and look at the bank for it.
Yeah, yes, Lloyd actually,
there's been quite a bit of work from him right now.
The difficulty is a lack of availability
of the consultants, the companies,
because such a Zoom is, you know.
Takes a long time to work.
Taking up every word.
So I asked him to give me a timeline,
give me an update, give me basically some boxes
of what we've been doing on this several months.
So he's getting that together for me
and I'm gonna send out some emails.
So we won't look at that right now.
some of the challenges out and we need to take in one tap as we move forward.
That's great.
Well, so we need to check with my colleagues in terms of the conversion.
That's amazing.
Well, because we might have subject issues.
What's up, Karen?
So we just need to, what, yes, Karen?
I don't know where.
See if it's an ADA compliant bathroom or something.
There is a bathroom right in there.
It doesn't work.
They don't work.
The only functioning bathrooms in there are upstairs.
That also doesn't sound like this.
This will be ready in time for the next, um...
Well, we're going to do that anyway.
I mean, it's on a much smaller scale, so we can.
You know, people can attend in person if they want, as attendees.
We're not totally dependent.
Just as an aside...
So, you know, with this training, I prepared, and Eric Sipnowski, on behalf of the trustees,
did a really wonderful PowerPoint. And we've also got something, I'm sure, of Melissa's
preparing something to land preservation. My help is, as another project, which is not
related to this board particularly, I'd like to try, and they're all, they're bullet points,
so they're dependent upon verbal additions
to try and convert them into something manageable
so that they're self-sufficient
so we can put them up on our website.
So that's just another outcome of this training.
You're recording the Zoom when you do this, right?
Yeah.
Okay, so you can maybe take snippets from that.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Yes, exactly.
We could save them.
I mean, it's a project.
It's something I think worth pursuing
because it would be a real benefit to the public.
It's
an empty three, well sometimes it depends on whether we were masks or not.
Are you having the same problems when you listen to the recording as when someone calls you to Zoom?
I mean I've had the experience where you catch here, you catch there.
I guess the recordings are pretty much the same, so you lose a lot.
You do lose some. Liz Sacarellos who transcribes all of those from the recordings occasionally has blah blah blah.
But, you get the most of it you get, I mean you're going to miss some of it, but each
one of us would have to work on it individually anyway, you know, with our expertise, but
I think it would be worth pursuing.
So that's it.
I'm just going to double check.
I'm pretty sure.
I'm just going to double check.
Yes.
No, sorry.
It's Thursday, January 19th.
Well, please, this is Brian. Good morning.
Hey, Brian. Oh, hi, Brian.
I just wanted to thank you for that doontorial.
The only thing I didn't have was my photocop and popcorn
when we met with the trustees.
That was one of the best things I had ever watched,
and I thank you for doing that.
I thank you for your expertise,
and thank you for sharing your institutional knowledge.
Thank you so much, Brian. Appreciate it.
Okay, so we'll all take this session on another topic.
Did you need to know the resolution from last year
for the training?
No.
Okay.
Oh, thank you for approving and the budget
are restoring our second full-time office assistant.
I'm just here to ask if we can get the process going
so they can actually start in early 2023.
So, yeah, the process, we don't have to do the line
budgeted for 2023.
It's budgeted in 2023. I don't want someone to start. It just takes
a long time.
Yeah.
Okay.
As long as we're not at the point where Christy says,
oh, wait, we've got to wait for the point from here.
I mean, that's pretty paper where we can start.
So what?
I'm going to email Christine right now and answer the vote
for the list.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
Are we going to call for the town list?
Probably going to be.
Will that be the town list?
Is it actually posted or I think it's likely?
Yes.
That should be done.
So will that be the town list?
Yeah.
And then she has to post it internally. There's all rules about that.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, well, just as a matter of understanding,
we have a hard time throwing these positions as you like over to be aware.
There seems to be a lack of interest, which is the exact opposite
of what we found 10 years ago. Yes.
So, well, canvass the local list. If there's no interest, we have to go through the process
It's just as an introduction, I actually had a recent code committee meeting, well I'm sorry I had a recent advisory meeting, and obviously the ongoing discussion of, which we're going to be touching on in a few minutes from now, which is the, the, the three visiting chapter 70,
by having landings rights, et cetera.
But there's also another issue they came up with,
Anthony had brought it up and a couple of others agree,
and that is the,
the,
oh I didn't even know it.
Oh I didn't even know it.
Well I was looking down, I was looking down the whole time.
I just wasn't, I'm sorry, I just wasn't,
I didn't mean anything from that.
I was reading.
You should read for the team tonight.
I guess so.
We're going to just take that.
Thank you.
Yay.
John, we're going to need a chat.
I'm going to go to my son.
Where's the county section?
Collective.
Brian, I believe you're correct.
I believe you're correct.
I have a non-colonel report.
I'll take one.
I can't tell you.
Okay,
just as a quick introduction at the paid advisory meeting, we had our ongoing discussions
So with regard to revisions in Chapter 70,
I think it uses the PDR land, et cetera,
which we've got coming up at Item 6 and 7 on the agenda.
But there was also a discussion with Anthony and the others,
and that is simply something that affects everybody,
which is the lack of housing and certainly the lack
of apartments.
The challenges to them, like every business,
is not even being able to find places
for management for it or anything like that.
So, anyway, Anthony had brought up some issues that he had been raising questions about in the past.
And I'd advise with some luck we'd like an opportunity to go before the board to actually underscore how important
some of this is and outline what we'd like to see for changes, and I'm just going to leave it at that.
Great. Thanks, Scott. Thanks for having us.
I think this is a really simple fix, and I know we're all looking for affordable housing.
This in general will promote additional housing in town.
the current code as it reads and I put two strikeouts on B and on I really simple
I'm sorry so really simply what this will do is just open up inventory for
possibilities of apartments in town we can't guarantee that apartments will be
affordable but we can guarantee that we can add additional apartments in the
ag world as any other business we're all looking for housing for employees it's
really difficult for people to take a job out here and survive without
affordable or some kind of housing so if we look at the strikeouts that I put
in there the real simple one on B we we had in the code that it should be the
owners, principal residents, and I think that that also hinders a lot of possibilities for second
homeowners. Second homeowners typically could do an apartment and then open up to a local that may
just simply watch the house for them for in lieu of you know good rent and then work locally.
So we can open up some housing there and then on the back side what we've done here and the
The code is probably just outdated,
but it limited apartments in homes
that were built in 2004 and older.
So if we look at 18 years that have gone by,
I'm sure a lot of houses have been built in Southhold
that could be good candidates for apartments.
So I think we have a lot of inventory
for possibility for apartments.
The other part is it's a low density option.
We're now scattering apartments
and it's rather than doing high density
as the last proposal showed in Cut Jog
that we would put affordable housing in one location
is a high density type thing.
It definitely solves housing for employees and locals,
especially locals that wanna remain local.
And as I mentioned, second homeowners,
I think would actually benefit
from the option of having an apartment in their house.
So I think it's a really simple change to the code, I'm hoping. There are two simple strikeouts.
So I just, I can't confuse the difference in apartment costs. Would this require that the apartment be at affordable rate?
No. No, apartments that are created within the existing dwellings are, there's no CDA requirement anymore to get CDA approval, and there's no requirement to maintain that they're affordable.
That's the idea here was under the code it requires that one of the units essentially be the residents who are the primary residents of the owner and then the accessory department could be brain about no less but it would have to be your own resident.
I think what they're proposing is, look, the word primer is
what's holding back a lot of these issues.
And we could discuss simply the accuracy, soul of the art.
And there's a fundamental difference between the two.
In other words, the owner could be here
for 10 months out of year,
but claiming a primary residence in another state
for taxes or for any other purpose.
Yet, they might be here.
And the idea in the code years ago was to make sure
that we weren't creating surreptitious two-family housing.
But they also could be here for two months,
that's right, that's right.
But the point is, you would avoid the two-family housing
by simply making sure one of those units
are reserved for them at all times,
whether they're a primary resident of that home or not.
How does this work with, I'm not sure what such a code
we talked about for formal housing for family members?
That's different, that's the accessory for our code.
sorry that's the separate structure I
mean I don't know if we should strike out
that whole part because we need to have in there that it remains the owner's
residence. We don't want to create two rentals which is a real concern. That's
initially why we made it or why it was made. The principal residence was to avoid two rentals situations.
Right, so you're saying just strike out principle, right?
Should be the owner's residence.
Yeah, I would say the owner of the existing dwelling shall
after five, one of the dwelling units,
sold rather than, you know what I'm saying?
One needs to be reserved to their home.
And if it sits vacant for four, five months,
it'll be it.
I think after five, solely is better
if somebody can say, oh, yeah, that isn't a residence.
But I rent it out, you know, like, you don't.
So sully makes sense.
The owner, the beginning part of it,
the owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy
one of the dwelling units.
I think that she says it, right?
Yeah, let's just be clear with you.
I think the other thing we need to come to slate too,
and maybe this is a larger discussion
than needs to be had,
is ensuring that these are year-round rentals
that we're creating
that we're not just creating short-term rental units here.
I do wonder if this is something we can do
through rental code itself and registry
and all that sort of stuff where maybe these units
need to be designated as year-round rentals.
It is designated in the code.
I know, but I think we may need to strengthen that.
That's what the renting from the tool.
Yeah, and that's where I'm saying we may need to look at the rental code itself.
You're saying short term rental code in the rent house and for this?
There's a rental code.
Is it different than-
I think-
I don't speak yielding, and I would say I don't speak yielding.
I would say that to everybody.
I think the concern there is luck.
Let's put down, that needs to be the primary residency of the occupant.
I'm not. Let's put something in place and make sure that's the case. Right, right, and different things short term rental code. Absolutely.
Well, I think the prerequisite is to make sure the person they're renting to is really around residents. Right, it's important.
They're primary residents. It's not a second home that we're creating for them. It's not just a lease that, you know, the way it's written right now, they need to have a lease written for one or more year.
That could be a weekend apartment for them. Theoretically.
I think this is a great idea. Just with a little bit of tweaking. I don't know.
Let me just go to line now.
That is the, and I can tell you exactly why the date was in there, the January 1, 2009, that was actually an update.
Yeah, I just, I would imagine, yes.
For years early, the date was like 90 years.
Yeah.
So we had actually updated, at the time, it was 2009, when it was originally created, they went back five years and said,
look, that could be sealed five years prior to this code.
So when we uploaded the code in 2009, we said, well, let's say at five years, you know,
let's let something that's got old.
Because at the time the concern was around people to build what they used to call, you
know, what they used to call mother-daughter houses.
I don't know if that's the correct term anymore.
I don't want to get hammered here.
Right.
And the reason I striked out all of it is newer homes actually comply better
to current code, building code.
So why not have the newer homes have the apartment?
They'll probably conform much more easily.
I think that thinking at the time was
because it was a primary resident,
you can't build a house and establish yourself
as a primary resident until you've been living there.
Right.
Yeah, the kind of thing.
Again, that was all based on how it was worded originally.
I also think it was to bring in the compliance
that people come in and already have
this accessory apartment, but weren't supposed to.
The idea here was to focus on the existing stock of apartments or the existing stock of
houses and utilizing them because we know that they're there, that they already fit in the
community.
We're not expanding the footprint of the community.
You don't need to consider things like community character in this and that because the structure
is solid there.
And a lot of this code actually states that you're not supposed to transform the house and make it look different for the apartment
Yeah
You probably know that I spoke to the
Consultants that you've hired to deal with updates on his own code
Those were some of the updates we suggested
It's time when everything you've said is accurate.
The Board of Appeals totally supports that change.
It's been impossible to really know with certainty
if it's somebody's principal residence or not.
You can ask them for all kinds of documentation.
You still don't really know for sure.
And then the question is, what does it matter anyway?
If it's going to be another apartment,
as long as they own it and they live there
and they're not renting it out again,
It makes perfect liquid sense.
Yeah, and also the issue I brought up,
and I talked to Anthony about this a couple of years ago,
one of the concerns at the time of assembly
would have a lot of seasonal people coming out.
What you're doing is giving them the opportunity
to fund their purchase out here
because they can use that money
to offset the cost of their carrying charges.
But the realities are coming out anyway.
Now we're losing that opportunity to create a house.
And if it needs a need that we have in the community,
you know who cares if they're getting some benefit that's exactly right yeah
because we're running out of land yeah so what you have to do is leverage more
units out of existing land exactly this point this doesn't increase density
because the density is there anyway and this provision that more or less ensures
that it's not to family housing which I'm sorry
which is what we've been trying to avoid for years
What they needed to do was to apply for a special exception permit simply to prove with documentation
and testimony that they qualify, that they meet the standards in that code.
That's it.
And we're talking about two separate issues though,
because there was no requirement to go before the CVA,
it was an apartment within the structure.
The requirement was to go to the CVA,
it was an apartment in a separate structure.
Right, just to, when that code happened,
the accessory apartments and accessory structures,
then the ZVA stopped looking at apartments
in principled dwellings.
That is now just a building department function,
you can increase the size of the foundation by up to 25%.
And it's just a matter of a building permit.
Because it's got 100% right, it doesn't matter who you rent it to.
And the intent is to be a year-round,
it's supposed to be a year-round rental,
not a short-term, after you're into a B&B kind of situation.
So should we work with the town attorney
I guess the question becomes, we have talked a little bit about the rental code, and whether
we need to update that at all, you know, is this something we want to try to do all together?
You know, Leslie mentioned that she mentioned this to the zoning consultant, do we maybe
want to bring them in on the discussion?
You know, it seems to me like simple changes, but...
Well, I think the consultants are going to be reviewing the rental code.
So, let's see what, let's, you know, Heather, you can ask what they think of it.
Yeah.
This is awful. Yeah.
Right, so I think a lot of this is, I don't think we need to do double work.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Can we change this now and in anticipation of tightening up the rental codes at the same time?
Because if there are, it says in here, it already says what we want it to say.
You're saying let's just tighten it. So it already says it.
Yeah, so I'm happy to meet with John and maybe next board meeting.
We kind of discuss what these changes could be.
There's just separate issues and that is what do we want this code to say and second how to reinforce it.
We can go ahead and change right now what we want this code to say because realistically changing it doesn't put us in any different position that we're already in.
Which is someone can create an apartment right now and there's no verification process that they're holding one of those units for themselves.
So we can go ahead and change the code.
We're not risking any additional violations of the code.
That's an issue we got to clean up
as part of a different process.
Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering in terms of timing,
does it make sense for us to think about
what the mechanism of verification
or mechanisms of verification and enforcement look like
before, you know, not before,
but at the same time to making this change.
Well, that's going to be part of, excuse me, the housing land that we're working on
and also changing, you know, rezoning.
And you know what rezoning happens, you know, heather and routine are working on.
Unfortunately, it encompasses multiple coatings.
Yeah. Yeah, that's, it's a separate issue.
Yeah.
Yeah, so we've done this for two.
I mean, we had a lot of issues.
And let's, let's, let's remember, we're not talking about code enforcement, we're talking about the future theory of code enforcement in South Oakland, but some day we might get around to enforcing the code.
We're not, we're not, we're not making, we're not making calls.
You know, with regard to the date on the dwelling, all you have to do is say a legally existing certificate of occupancy.
Yeah, that's what, that's all, yeah, that's all.
All right, so we can move ahead on that.
I would just just right now language that says subject to periodic verification
reviewed by the town or annual review by the town so at least the language is in
there whether we can review it or not at least there's an understanding that
there's a provision in there that we have something we do want we can the
probably she still have to verify this. And we do, I guess I'm just a little
unclear what we're asking John to draft right now. Are we?
And that's for the rental unit we're talking about, right?
That it's the sole occupancy of the owner.
But we also wanted to be the sole occupancy of the resident.
It's really more the rental unit.
At least I'm concerned.
Well, we're going to give you both.
We're taking our friends away.
Yeah.
What's the significance of the difference between soul
occupying and principal residence?
Yeah.
So primarily that's going to be the same thing.
And as a matter of fact, soul occupying is the same thing.
Well, John, when we're trying to say it,
they're the only ones that have occupying.
Right.
But that's not their soul occupying.
They would be the soul occupying.
Yes.
Yeah.
What I'm saying is what you're talking about is even more restrictive than what you're suggesting is more restrictive.
The order of the existing dwellings shall be the sole occupant of one of the dwellings.
But that means that they can't have any children or a wife.
So they're not just so locked.
Okay.
So what we could work this out.
You know what we're trying to do, right?
I understand what you're trying to do,
but I don't have any idea how to get it.
Well, then I'd love to have that one.
Because what you want to do is you want to make this
their only half.
You want to make sure that this is their real home.
But you're not going to say the same thing about
principal residence.
That's not going to be their real home.
They just can't rent it out.
If you're only going to have this.
What you need is another sentence that says,
only one of the two units may be rented. Yes. Period. It's just I understand what
you want to do. It just might be a very different way to go back in. So that
address is the first issue that we've raised and I think this is a great
fix and in this this sentence you know only one of the units can be rented.
Period. Just put it in B right after the. Yes. But we also have the issue of
ensuring that this rental unit is the next sentence is the rental unit must be a year
around rentable. And then just add something to the verification by some
folks. That's a potential phrase that needs to be the pure rental but does not need to be the primary residence of the rental. I think it should be as well.
I think it should be a year-round resident, it should be the primary residence and a year-round of the renter.
Well, so, renter could mean a person being registered, so if you want the landlord to be the only type of person.
Yeah, I think concessually we want to make sure that at least one of the units is for
the owner and I think this is addressed by the owner and his family.
Yeah.
Do we share whether the main unit or the accessory coordinate is rented?
No, I don't care.
It says the owner, they've just been drawn and sent one of the dwelling units.
It says the other dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy.
Yeah, but all you have to do is, all you have to do is say the other dwelling unit shall be leased by the property owner for a year round primary occupancy.
That's what I was going to suggest.
That's good.
I think conceptually this is great.
We just want to make sure we're not creating
vacation homes for the two of them.
That kind of is a bit of a buy-tube.
That's a bit of a buy-tube.
I didn't know you were having a fight with me.
I will.
I think it's not the way to conceptually write it.
But we're going to either write it in there
that's specific or it's going to not be solved.
Yes.
There's going to be a proper residence
to not deliver it.
You can slow the sum home and have us on the residence
they could. So if the entire summer it would still be their primary residence.
Yes. And can I just say that we want to make sure that if people, if farmers
hire seasonal residents that they can use these because it would be occupied
full-time for six months or four months or five months.
I don't think so. Yeah, that's wrong.
Yeah, that's wrong.
In order to do that you have to write another
accepted.
Because I know there's a lot of seasonal workers that come like this or from other countries that rent places, that work in restaurants, and work in farms and stuff. So I was just, I was all in there.
My thought here is that we need to have different...
That's why I'm bringing it up because we want to be able to do that.
We have different sorts of units
targeted to different demographics,
different needs within the community,
and if we try to solve everything
with one sort of unit,
we're not going to be able to do that.
Right, but I just wanted to make it clear that we're not
And I think you raised an important issue,
and I think this shows that we need to
address farm labor housing and what that looks like.
But this accessory apartment thing,
I think the simpler, the cleaner,
the neater we can make it to better.
Because we need to create these units.
It's about this subject, it's not a different subject, do not get the win.
Is this transferable to another property owner, because, well, I'm bringing it up to ask the
Yeah
I feel because with bed and breakfast and with accessory apartments and accessory structures,
there were standards in the code that a property owner had to verify before we said okay. Now
if they go ahead and take out all their permits, right, it's fine, they go ahead and sell.
Does that new owner have an obligation to the town and somewhere in other to indicate
that they're going to use it the same way?
So then the point is, they can reapply it, it will almost be a gimmie, as long as they qualify, it's the same, but it should not be automatically transferable.
When you use transferable, they can transfer it to their name.
No, no, no, no, no.
You're only going to have to change an ownership.
You sell a property with a tenant, does the warrant become illegal on sale?
And what happens to the tenant that's got in your lease?
The reality is that it's not a question of being transferable, it's part of the use of
the home that's permitted.
Any new owner has to assume that legal use, and if they don't, again, we're getting back
to code enforcement.
I bring it up because the same thing happens with B&Bs all the time.
They are different, but the point is, it doesn't say in the code, we do it as a
is a conditional approval, not transferable to other owners,
because they have to prove their living there.
And any owner of the, yeah, since they don't require
ZBA approval now from you, from the code,
they have their subject to the same,
look, the subject to the same rules
with regard to inmates of the property.
That's just the way it is.
It's important to think about,
and I did discuss that with the zoning consultant,
where do you want to have some safeguards built in
so people don't abuse it?
That's all.
I'm leaving.
Thank you.
Not for leaving.
No, not for leaving.
I'm leaving.
Well, it's real life, I want to come back.
Thank
you, bye, to you.
Yes.
Good night.
Thank you so much.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
I think it's a good break.
I don't think it was a good break.
They want Jim to log into the room here
for the next discussion
and he's on his way.
There he is.
Look at that.
I'm sorry.
I'm a monster.
You can sit right there, Jim,
you're on the hot beer.
I just want to pull up a coffee for this discussion.
I've got to be quick.
You
have to break so that I don't have
to push it so round.
I'm going to go break it.
You have a couple of clothes?
I don't know.
I guess we're having a break.
I'm going to sit here and talk to Jim.
How are you?
I'm not Jim.
We're chilling.
You're in all right.
Who went to school?
We did our homework.
Oh, wait, wait.
Yeah, that's fine.
Michelle, can you let me know we're ready?
So we had discussed in our last code committee meeting for chapter 70 that we would discuss
We have some adding use to the developed rights of the land.
The town board asked the plan department to put together
some just some information for us, which I redistribute.
Heather sent it to us and then I distributed it to everyone again.
Just to make sure that we all slide so we can have some fruitful discussion
today about what we're looking to allow on health and rights
I
don't know exactly where we want to start and we want to start, I mean we discussed before about just, you know, processing and retailing, I think is our main focus right now.
So I don't know if we want to just start to discuss one or both or if anyone has any opening thoughts.
Yeah, I guess, you know, as I've been thinking about this,
one thing that we talked about last time
was maybe starting with processing and in retailing later.
I think in principle, I still like this idea
of trying to solve one problem and then move it on to the next one,
especially as we looked at, you know, some of the potential issues here.
I think it may be useful for the discussion
that we can at least decide if we have consensus on that point.
So we can focus our efforts now on processing,
or if there's the will to deal with both at the same time.
And I think that's it for the discussion for the board.
Yeah.
I mean, I should go ahead.
No, I was going to say, what do you stand in two things?
First of all, what are the uses
we're willing to extend to the ER?
Secondly, what's going to be the relationship
between those uses?
In other words, are you going to help them
more processing, we have less retailing,
but you don't allow for more retailing,
you have less profit.
In other words, it's a scope and scale here.
If we also have to decide to support it.
I have been talking to you,
I know that the Ag Advisory Community or Committee views
this as we shouldn't have any restriction
just like any other problem.
All right, we should be basically
with selling the right to houses,
we're not selling the right to everything else
that we need to do with Ag operations.
questions. The question is whether they can, what unless we accept that view in its entirety.
Or we want to say you have a point but we want to put some parameters in there because we
think there is a difference between the two. That's what this board has to address. I think
there's general agreement probably on most of adding those uses. The farmhouse is probably
something that we haven't discussed yet. I think that's going to be more of a challenge.
But actually, where's he's on his side?
Farmhouse.
Farmworker housing?
No, no, farm labor housing's pretty clear.
It would be farm housing.
Chris and others talked about, look, the family member
has the right to a farmstead,
and then the daughter has a penlet that the son,
which you can get a little bit out of here.
But I think, I think there's general agreement.
Again, we haven't had that,
we haven't gotten that for the discussion,
but I think there's general agreement on a lot of these things.
The question is what's going to be the scope,
the scale of the conditions, and what's
going to be the location, which is I know
it's going to really force you down.
But are we going to allow it anywhere on the farm,
or are we going to require it in those core, say,
activity areas, which is, I guess,
for lack of a better word, that's
what the land preservation focus is on.
So look, we're trying to balance out your right to uses,
but we don't have significant issues and things like that.
I agree with the overall point you're making here, Scott,
that I think we do need to decide
what all of these uses are.
But I wonder just in terms of focusing our discussion
and getting some updates done as soon as possible,
if it makes sense to kind of deal
with the low-hanging fruit first,
and I see processing as something,
at least it seemed like from the discussion last time,
that there was at least general consensus
that that was something we wanted to allow.
So let's deal with that now,
and then we can move on to,
and I think this in some sense is up to AG advisory
to advise us on what their priorities are here.
If we wanna move on to retailing next,
we can move on to retailing,
deal with retailing.
If we wanna deal with AG worker housing,
we can deal with AG worker housing.
But let's get an easy win here,
and get at least processing on the books.
Because I think it's something that we have the code
that was updated, what, three years ago
on developing rights and tackling
as a model that we can follow.
I think the planning department
fits together some good analysis of that program
and some modeling for us to look at here
that we can have a really focused discussion
and get something done soon?
Here's the issue, which was what, again,
we're getting facts out of the news.
Here's the issue, general lab processing,
we've registered the alarm.
Yes.
It's a processing structure,
there's gonna be a lab any more in that one.
That's, again, we can talk about adding those uses,
but you gotta tell us what are the conditions here
under which you need to pursue those uses.
Absolutely.
The only thing I would suggest in here
is that we focus on that discussion now,
and leave the other discussions aside for a moment
so we can answer the questions.
I think the more questions we put on the table,
the more difficulty we're gonna have
in answering them all.
If we can focus the questions on ag processing right now,
there's a limited number of questions.
And I think because there's already the will
of the board to allow it, it should be easier.
Because they go hand in hand, I mean, you can't say yes, you can have eye processing, but not say we're in the wrong way.
Yes, no, and I agree with you, and maybe I'm being unclear.
He's asking to keep like retail out of it, to keep, you know, slave turnover, how, all the other things.
So just talking about processing and where it's going to be located is the discussion for now.
Because that's all important stuff.
I agree, but I do think it's going to be fairly broad because of your process to intelligent back when you're retailing,
so I mean, how much do you back it up if it's all listed on your land?
I would like that to be...
I think that that dynamic is sort of in a way already set, but I think that the size of the retail operation is the conversation that we have to have,
if we're going to allow retailing.
I think that it's already tied together that, you know,
that ag production occurs, that the retailing is of the atrox.
I think it's more about size than the placement of retail that we have to discuss.
And I think that that's a bigger issue, I agree with Greg.
I think that there's more of a general agreement and a will to move forward
in the discussions processing, because I think we can all agree that, you know,
And we have protected all of this land,
but we should need to be able to keep it in agriculture.
And the way we do that is with processing.
So I think that that should be the course of conversation.
Do you have different opinion from the AAC of priorities
of how you want to talk about this, or?
So look, we're advisory to you guys.
We've been working on this for many, many, many years.
we've beaded up ad nauseam among our committee members.
We've now proposed to you what we would advise.
There's an underlying principle
that I think we are all in agreement on,
the advisory committee,
that when you sell your development rights,
you do not sell your agricultural rights.
any of them. And it is our strong belief that we do not want to have a system of
haves and have-nots among the farming community out here. I think if the town
is serious about being a farmer-friendly town, which I believe it is, but if
that putting money where our mouth is as a town
and wanna see farming prosper in perpetuity,
we don't wanna have a system of haves and have nots.
All right, and I think that boils down
to an underlying principle that your ag production rights
must stay intact.
Now, the idea of retelling in our language we're calling, we call it direct farm marketing.
Direct farm marketing and processing are rights that development rights intact lands have currently.
The way Chapter 7 is written, that is not the case currently.
We want to, I think everyone's in agreement. We want to rectify that. The question is how far are you guys willing to go in terms of evening the playing field amongst the farm community by having the same rights, agricultural rights for all farmers.
So that is up to you guys to decide how you want to go about evening the playing field.
But we as a committee would like to not have it, not distinguish the two.
I understand they have different angle, there's different angles to both to consider.
as a community.
Committee, we are in agreement, as we proposed to you guys, that both pieces are equally important
to us, and that we would like to see them both pursued preferentially together. That would
be our interest. Look, we know how the
pace of government can move sometimes, and I would
I hate to see, yeah, we get processing in
only to have direct farm marketing languish
for years and years.
There's farmers today who need that.
There's farmers today who need processing too.
Getting back to the farmer-friendly analogy,
we I think all agree, we wanna think of ourselves
as a farmer-friendly community and in many ways we are currently this is an
area that needs to be rectified in order to to better our friendliness.
I think you raise a key question here that we need to decide how far we want to go with this.
And I think there you know there are philosophical issues that need to be
answer that there may not be a single answer to and I think one of the
challenges we're facing and we see it even here balancing the views and
interests and philosophies of the land preservation committee with the
agricultural advisory committee and I think what I'm proposing here is an
effort to focus the discussion because I believe that there's probably more
agreement within these different, let's call them, interest groups within the
community, but there's a lot of uncertainty which breeds fear, which
breeds resistance, which I think on the board we've seen over the years has
led to inaction on some of these issues, and I can promise you that in my
next three years on the board. If we can get ag processing on, I will focus the
same amount of attention on my belief retailing should be next. Because I
think, you know, if we talk about added value in agriculture, it's both in
the processing and it's also in the ability to sell them directly. I think
I think those are two key, key elements to the future of farming.
I'm not a farmer, and I will take guidance from agricultural advisory.
I just don't see how we decide generally how far we want to go.
When we need to balance the interests of advisory, land preservation, the community,
you know, people that have supported the program over the years,
I think that the more we can break this discussion down into manageable chunks with the commitment
that we're not just going to check off the box and move on to something that's unrelated,
because these issues need to be solved, or we're seeing it now,
that land out on the North Fork is some of the most expensive in the country.
And if we want to keep it in agriculture, we need to support the business of farming.
Farming is more than a view.
It's a business.
And we need to make the business of farming sustainable.
And at least in my mind, that's through processing and all the farms we're dealing with.
I think we agree with all of that great.
The issue is first, the hats and hats nots.
This is what agriculture of land preservation is going to say.
Well, this process that happens and perhaps not is also who's received and who hasn't received and people that have sold development rights, what are they selling?
You know, there's going to be an issue there, but if you want to take and focus separately, then let's make a decision right now.
Are you willing to accept ag processing as a form building without restriction anywhere on the PD argument?
Me? Yes, to a certain size.
Well, they think the town code already declares a size.
But what I'm trying to say here is let's focus the discussion
because I don't think we will ever come to an answer on this general question.
If we frame it in terms of have and have nots related to all of the rights on PDR land, we will never answer that question.
Then let's answer it now. Are you willing to add processing as well used anywhere on that app?
Well what didn't Heather point out in her most recent writings on this that zoning already addresses that
and must be in the backyard or something for that effect?
No.
If it did, I mean there's a mistake in the code.
There's a mistake in the language.
Oh, that's all right.
No, I'm sorry.
It is currently considered an excess for use.
The problem is that was also something you wanted to change,
was not moving from 280 to 70.
This is what the whole purpose of the discussion is.
So as you take it out of 280, chapter 280, and you're moving it to 70, it now becomes a principal use, and there is no such thing as moving it into the back door.
Well, so here's a question, I guess, because it's sort of the root of, some of the root of what you're asking is, you know, if we're going to allow processing, is it, I think right now it's supposed to be, you know, close to, as an accessory use, right?
It's supposed to be close to the primary use, right?
It's supposed to be within the crowd.
But if we're looking at adding processing,
does it matter to the board if it's all the way to back?
Does it matter if it's right out in the front?
Where is it that it's a problem?
I mean, if we're looking into that,
and we're talking about view sheds and things like that,
what's wrong with the processing facility
in the back of the property?
Well, you still have to investigate.
Yeah, you still have to put the gate
that's going to be permitted.
In other words, what the Ag Advisor Committee says,
look, we want to be able to do this.
We're going to decide for ourselves
where that best location is.
If you're going to say, I don't put it in the back,
well, it's no different than the land preservation.
I'm going to put it to the side, so definitely
maintain the same usage.
You're still dictating to them where you go.
And that's what they're saying, isn't what should be.
Usually what dictates location structures
is the least desirable piece of property for farming.
So if we don't get rid of all that,
I'm just trying to clarify what they understand.
For utilities, electricity and water and things like that.
Right, proximity to utilities, which
may not be in the backyard.
In fact, it's usually in the front.
If you want to change this, processing,
all you have to do is one simple thing.
Take it from 280 foot to 7.
But what's going to happen once you do that
is ag processing is going to be
considered an ag structure, free and clear of everything
Everything else is going to comply with every easement that's been drafted since the beginning
and it's going to allow processing anywhere in that form.
Based on current code, based on current allowances, based on current occurrences.
Is that what this board wants?
You don't want to allow it anywhere as an act of it.
I think you have a lot of had pride from the public that remember we had someone
that was doing processing, this is a long time ago, right next to the neighboring house.
And I can't remember what it was for, but the compressors and everything else running on the noise, I would like to point to that.
I think we'll have a public that says, we have to have processing, but we also want to see a few.
That's just what I have to add.
Great.
Great said, let's take this one at a time.
Well, here we are.
Make the decision.
Do we want to move it to Chapter 70 and boom,
in order to manage these kinds of age structures
and select and run the farm?
What do you say?
I think what we should do is focus on, again,
the interrelationships of we allow for processing,
but we have to take it globally
and say, well, we're going to require certain limits.
I'm sorry, I do not think that we should say
this farm with development rights
sold in this farm that doesn't have it,
so it should be treated exactly the same way.
I just don't agree with that.
But all I need to point out though,
and this is one of the stumbling blocks,
that is, should we require the two acre bulk schedule?
And my argument is, give you that allowed use
for half a share of whatever it is,
so that you can add more uses,
rather than just those few uses allowed for more,
in other words, I think it's okay for town to say,
look, we want to balance these things here,
seeing a few sheds, and the right for farmers
to pursue their uses.
We can do that and we can also allow farmers to substantially add to their uses by getting away from the two acres only.
But before we get to the bulk schedule for the first question of location, you know, I think we do need some sort of, you know, guidance on where these structures are going.
How do we do that?
That's a good question.
I think that, I don't know, I just want to go forward that even the process of
social development rights, the new laws that whatever the place would apply to them should.
There wouldn't matter. Based on code language, based on use of that language.
I'm not sure all of it is.
You're right, that's a good point.
Well, there is a recommendation in one of these for us to consider potentially allowing this on the new business first.
I think well I think it's the opposite I think land preservation agreed to not
have language in there so that there aren't recent other words they want to
remove shall not be able to read that shall not be able to process they're
going to remove that so there's no second conference so regardless so let
the code evolve I don't think it's gonna get in the way of that but yeah
that the, what's that?
What's that's exactly what's answered at the last,
that's exactly what's answered,
and I think everybody even verified that.
So it's currently 1.5% lot of coverage, correct?
For processing building?
Yeah.
Maximum.
I would contend, Scott, I know you said something
contrary, but again, if we want to include
processing on DRS lands it should be equal treatment that advisory strongly
believes. So if it's 1.5% currently that would pertain to all Ag lands
regardless of their development right status. As to the placement I'm actually
not familiar I haven't put up a processing building but to their
replacement, the review process in town is exactly what site review, site plan review,
during that process, what restrictions or what, what would dictate the location of that
currently.
But within the existing code, buildings under a certain limit are examined from the site
planning process.
The planning board has the authority to weigh any site plan for any ice structure at any time.
It's probably not realistic to do that.
So is that mechanism...
I think to answer this question of how we do it, is it the site plan?
No, because planning board can't dictate what you put in the bar.
Well, I'm sorry, the ice structure.
They can...
So there's currently no...
Well, I'm sorry, when they try, you get to the ten annual situation.
situation of how likely to pronounce it. That's what I can explain to Troy to do that. You get an application being held up for seven years, that's not serving your interests.
No, no, clearly not.
And how do you pronounce that? Is that even close?
It is.
Is that even close?
So I'll just put my opinion out there of, you know, what you're sort of asking for and what I see. And I've, I actually worked quite a bit on this and did a lot of modeling to try different percentages
and look at acreage and applying it to my business
and just trying to see sort of what the scale,
size and scale of things that would be needed to do,
to have an ad, a modified ad processing facility.
But one thing I wanna just address first
and that I think is a big concern for everybody,
I could really send it out there,
but the 1.5% that we're talking about,
that's allowed in the development rights intact land.
We have big players coming into this town.
And historically, this town has been small farmers
that have mostly sold their things here and whatever,
but we are at a different level than we were back then.
And if we're looking at doing this same sort of 1.5%
on development rights sold land,
I do think that we are opening a mechanism
for the billionaires to be coming in and buying farmland
sheep and putting up massive structures.
And that's not the intent.
I know that's not what you're thinking,
or anyone in this room is thinking,
because none of us are doing that.
But there are people here doing that and coming.
And what really concerns me is being a small business owner
and something that came here and built a business like this
is I don't even know if it's
tenable for people like my family anymore
to be doing, to build and add business,
is to buy a piece of property to put up processing
and do this anymore because of the costs.
And what I'm concerned with opening up the 1.5%
is it's making it even less attainable.
I'm not even sure that it's possible now.
I mean, Anthony just did it recently,
so maybe there is still some room,
but I'm not even sure, you know,
now with land prices and all these costs,
and if we are opening up development rights of land
for big money to come in and buy, you know,
I think the opposite side is if we don't allow it, we are now going to lose the budget.
I'm saying that it's going to have to be capped, I think.
There's a self-limiting of crap, Sarah. The self-limiting cap is you must process your own product.
So how much, how big of a problem is this like, are you going to build if you can only
build a product?
But if you have 270 acres and there are farms that are, you know, even 100 acres, let's
just say 100 acres in this town, it's a 65,000 square foot building.
That's big.
If it doesn't have to be acreage all together, it's going to be spread out.
That's where we're at.
That's plus size.
That's...
I understand, and that's what I was trying to do with my modeling and my scaling
is scaling the size of the property to the amount of production and you know I think that
I think that there is space to allow processing in a smaller scale that still allows you to
be able to process the amount of anchorage that you have.
We run square up against the concept though of the halfs and half months.
I understand that but there is you know there is this element and I'm not looking
Looking at it from the sort of land preservation, I am thinking about that, but what I'm thinking
about is the difference in cost of that land price, the difference in cost of those two
farms, and the risk that we are running of making things overly permissive on development
rights of land and having that, you know, there be 65,000 square foot processing facilities
is all over on these development rights sole parcels
where they spent less money for acreage.
If somebody wants to be able to put up a building that size,
they need to be paying full price for the listened.
And I don't think that it's fair for the farmers
that have sold their development rights to you know,
I just, I don't want to run into that
when we have this run on our development rights
sole properties because we're going to allow,
because it's cheaper farmland for these players that are coming.
Right, and yet we are stuck with the reality.
We want a land preservation program.
We want to preserve farmland, not only for so many reasons.
We're preserving farmland.
I'm a testament to one of the reasons.
I am in an affordable farmland program.
I bought a development rights sold piece of land.
It's the only way I could get my foot into the industry.
And I did so.
But 23 acres, and I would not have been able to do so.
So we want to incur two farmers, right?
And this is one tool.
It's like affordable housing.
It's affordable farmland, the same idea.
But secondly, the development rights sold lands that you're referring to that may have, you know,
a desire to put up a processing building.
Look, most majority of farmers wouldn't.
I don't have any need for a processing building.
However, if you wanted to build one, you would be limited by your production capacity on your farm.
And no farm is going to ever put up a 67,000 square foot processing building.
No matter how large they are, it just wouldn't happen.
Here's one thing that I think will help this discussion is we're just talking about a processing facility.
be right now and develop the right solution.
You can put up barns, you can put up ag structures.
I think that one thing that would help this discussion
is separating.
I mean, if someone's going to put up
a strictly processing facility,
if that is limited in square footage,
however, there is storage elsewhere.
There's, and the thing about wine storage,
if there's key storage in a different barn,
If they're you know it different different things can break that up
So it's not all you don't need to have as big of a building because if we can have case storage in a different farm
That's already allowed in public rights of land. You know if you can have different things
Sure, just we're just literally talking about processing facility. I think that most
Products that are grown and processed in this town can be processed in a building that has a limit
I don't think that it needs to be a 65,000 square foot
for anybody, no winery, no brewery,
no anything needs to be that way.
So I think that we can have, we could allow
a processing facility, a processing building
on development rights homeland that has a cap
because the business can do some different things
elsewhere.
One other thing that I thought of
and this is something for the board to discuss
is what is our sort of appetite for non-permanent buildings
such as like shipping containers.
Shipping containers can be climate controlled.
They are not, they don't have to sit on the slab.
They can sit on a fresh rock or whatever.
They are removable, they are removable.
You could do quite a bit, you could do barrel storage,
you could do case storage, you could do different.
They're refrigerated.
They're refrigerated, you could do tape storage.
There's other options here.
So what is sort of our appetite for non-permanent structures,
hoop houses, things like that.
I mean, hoop houses are already loud.
We're talking about something for in the processing phase.
I think that there is room here to find this building size
that we could use for processing and then
some other alternatives for farmers to be able to use.
I think this is a great idea.
And, you know, especially with the point that you raised that no farmer is looking to build a huge structure.
I think one of, as we look at the fears potentially in different segments of the community,
it's usually related to unintended consequences of any of these changes that we make.
And it's usually tied to the bad actors.
you know if we can all agree that let's say a building over 6,000 square feet
with the sort of agricultural we're looking to support right now is not
something that we're looking to promote really anywhere here and that
addresses some of the concerns of the larger community and we don't think it
has a huge impact on farming that's probably worthwhile putting on the
table. If we can address the concerns, move it forward, get it done. Because I think the
other thing we're doing here is modeling a thought.
I think speaking from my own experience here, too, I started in the position that I was
going to be a resident of the house, but that wasn't true when people sold their development
rights.
It covered a lot of residential housing.
So I think we just have to decide what should be allowed because it's all a great process
and I think we'll get that.
I think speaking from my own experience here, too, I started in the position that I
that you did, that we needed to define
what these kind of guiding principles are.
But as I started doing the research,
started looking into the history of it,
I think it opened up this larger idea.
It almost becomes an academic exercise
if we're trying to define what a development right is.
I would much rather have a practical discussion
on what it is we want to allow,
where we want to allow it, how we want to allow it, and in doing so shed light on what
our guiding principles are. I think it's a useful discussion for us to have. I understand
your point of not wanting to have haves and have nots as it relates to development rights,
and I would agree with you generally that I think we want to allow as many things
is possible to promote the future of agriculture in South Old Town, but the way
to get there is not by answering that question. The way to get there is by
focusing the discussion on these practical elements and saying this is
what we're going to allow, this is how we're going to allow it, and just move
on. And I think over time you will see what our larger philosophy is as it
process and as it relates to retail as it relates to farm neighbor housing and by
answering all these questions we will answer this larger question.
I would
just offer that the town board we would the Ag Advisor committee would strongly
advise you guys to consider the concept that ag production and anything related
to ad production is not being restricted as you move forward on DRS lands.
Now, that being a development right does not restrict ad production.
It's in the current chapter 70 definition.
Specifically, it says everything but ad production is restricted.
So I do believe it's important to focus on the definitions
despite what you just said, Greg, because it is how you move forward.
Okay, these are the rules and then we're going to abide by those rules moving forward.
If the definition of the development right and the definition of ag productions are red and interpreted
and they're not that wishy-washy, they're actually pretty darn clear.
the definition of a development right is the permanent legal interest or right to prohibit
or restrict the use of land for any purpose other than ag production.
But that's over the process.
So currently, processing is not in the definition of ag production.
Right.
So it is.
So we are still allowing ag production into the development rights.
That's a separate conversation, separate definition.
And then, so the definition of ad production,
we're looking to expand in that sense,
to include processing and direct farm marketing.
So, but if you go back to the definition,
if you're gonna change the definition of ad production,
this is my point, to include processing
and direct farm marketing.
Therefore, we shouldn't be putting further
in conferences on DRS lands when it comes to those ad production rights?
Well it may not be the will then of us to include processing in the production definition
because I think that we are not interested in restricting any ad production going on
on any development rights of land.
But the processing and the retailing does need to have some restriction in my opinion.
So I think that's important, because it sheds light on these other issues and we're not just kind of, you know, having a salon about the definition of agriculture, you know, there's actually a lot.
Wait, are you guys implying that there should be restrictions for what reasons?
For process.
Because we have big players coming in and I don't want big players coming in and buying
cheap, I hate using that word, less expensive farmland and putting up, you know, massive
facilities. I think that is defeating the purpose of the Development Rights Program.
And also, I also can see this, the Development Rights Program, as a way to keep small farmers
here. Because if we keep the production small, you know, what's wrong with a bunch
of small farms around.
We don't need any massive farms,
and if somebody wants to do that,
they need to pay full price for the land.
I think that this could be a mechanism
for keeping small farmers here,
and in production, and in business,
making it possible for them to have a living
for their family, buying less expensive farmland,
but still being able to stay here.
I don't, and that's the reason
for limiting putting restrictions on it,
because I think that if there are no restrictions,
We have just, like, completely defeated the purpose of trying to keep small farmers here
and to develop the rights program.
I do think there's a misconception about what the town is buying as a development right.
I agree with you.
That misconception is that it's a simple transaction.
Here's some money, and then what are you getting,
what is the town and community getting for that money that's spent to restrict
the development rights? What are the development rights? This is why I was
kind of beating on that definition. One can say different things, one can
interpret that different ways. If you're simply saying no houses, no
subdivisions on that farmland in the future that is a huge benefit to the
town.
There's tax implications that are best. The property taxes that the
community pays is reduced. The more farms there are the less houses there
are, the less taxes to support all of those houses,
education, school taxes, police tax, fire, fire, fire tax.
All the taxes that go into your property taxes
are reduced.
All of us pay less tax because we
have farms in our community.
And I think there's widespread agreement
and both within the community on the board.
In the support of land preservation, in support of agriculture. And I think what we're looking
to do here, though, is try to figure out how to make the business of agriculture sustainable.
You know, I don't think what we're looking to do here is continue building support for
land preservation. I think that's already there. You know, the arguments, we don't need
the arguments anymore. Look around the community, 10,000 acres preserved. The character of the
community preserved. But the question before us now is how to make small scale, at least
the way I see it, at the point here, how to make small scale agriculture sustainable
in the future.
Right, so we came to you with a proposal to modify Chapter 70, strictly the Ag Lands Preservation Chapter.
And we as committee have, having batted this around for X number of years,
five have come to the realization that we don't want to see further restrictions on DLS lands
relating to ag productions than those that have their development rights intact. We are
advising you to not have a two-tier system.
And so I think where the misconception has come from
is that, oh, the farmers are getting a fat paycheck,
therefore they should be restricted for that.
But it's not a one-way street.
The town is getting real intangible benefits
from that farm, not being subdivided
into a housing tract and looking like Huntington.
And I totally agree with you, and I think that part of that benefit is that we are, with this program, we are, if we can open up processing, we are working towards keeping small farmers here, and I think that that's a benefit for the community.
And I know, I see that we fundamentally disagree, but I have to say, like, we need to start talking some of these harnesses.
I do want to get this done like I don't want this to just keep I know they don't necessarily agree with where we're going but this is I think where we've decided to go so we need to start talking sort of some of the hard details of where we want what we want to see.
If we can go through kind of a list of questions maybe to focus the discussion for the board you know do we support on farm processing on the RSO land I support it.
So then the next question becomes, do we support limiting its location or determining its location?
I do.
Yeah, Scott's already said it.
Let me just tell you right now, I think we should expand the uses just about everything.
And then he had something that you currently can preserve for instance.
What are the renewables we're talking about?
And I agree with you.
I agree with you 100%.
I might think we should buy this development rights
and then let you pursue those uses.
I do think, as I've told you,
I do think we have to write within a reason
to say, look, we need to locate this activity
into this one general region.
I think we need to be a little bit broader
in how we define that region
and make even, say, the suggestion from Sam
and allow for a floating credit somewhere in that bar,
because you need to put the bar,
you need to put the structure
where it makes the most sense for you.
We can talk about how that has worked out.
But in terms of concepts, I think we should allow uses
all of them, but for farmhouse.
And again, I think we should have the right
to at least discuss the general region.
I don't think scenic vista.
The problem with scenic vista, and I've told you this,
isn't a problem that it's considered.
It's a problem that it's been seemingly the only thing
that's been considered for years.
It seemed to have dictated all the decision-making.
I don't agree with that, but I do agree it should be a factor in the decision making with the cooperation of the act.
Scott, would the mechanism then go to plan? That's the question.
They can't really, maybe it doesn't get to say yes or no to things. They have to take the application as...
So what would the physical mechanism be to locate on a property?
Well, I think this is what we need to figure out. Is this something the board wants to do?
you know, we agree that we want to move forward with processing on DRS land.
Do we want to move forward with limiting or determining where it's going to be located?
It seems like three of us are in agreement that we want to do that.
Jill, what do you think?
I'm on board with that because of, I won't repeat what Louisa said, but because of the reasons.
I have a reason why it was put into factor in the first place a few years ago.
But I think it's a reasonable location.
I'm not exactly sure that I would sign off on the terminating other than if there was
a, you know, if there was a way for land preservation and the ad committee to be involved, if that's
I would support that.
I think maybe in the farmers in the table.
You know, to Scott's point, if we're just looking at Viewshed,
and the Viewshed is on the road and we're going to make a farmer
put an ag structure in the back of the lot
and put a driveway down it so it's not farmable anymore
and have to pay to put utilities down there,
that's not something we want to do.
There's practical considerations.
So I think, you know, the mechanism, you know, the devil's in the details here.
You know, is it an advisory?
Is it land preservation?
Is it them together?
I don't know.
We just reached no conclusions of any kind, Jim.
And I think the advisory would have felt that.
We just reached no conclusions.
We're right back to what this conversation is.
I don't think we are.
We're in a discussion of what the mechanism is.
I think we've made forward movement.
It seems like there's consensus to define where the location is.
Let's figure out what the most streamlined, most beneficial to all the parties involved is here.
Let's focus the discussion on that. We are not in the same spot.
How
would you think would be the best way to have this discussion about location?
understanding that I know you don't agree with location restrictions at
minimum advisory has to weigh in on it. Yeah. What's the farmers' issue? Thanks to
code to allow for that. The following is, you know, coming review is advisory.
That's it. Right. Maybe it should stay that way. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't, but the question, the core question is
going to allow for these uses, yes.
Also going to require, within reason, reasonable cycle.
Yes.
I'll say yes.
So we have to determine what this reasonable cycle means.
And what that is.
And scope and scale issues.
I mean, right now, if we were to accept everything that you say should take place, theoretically,
you can sell 50 acres of development rights and still build pressure out.
I don't think any of you are going to do that, I don't think the public is going to do that.
Well, that's a separate discussion though, because that's what we're telling processing.
Well, that's what they want.
What they're basically saying is we should have the same rights as any other form, regardless of where we are.
And believe me, I'm not going to argue about that.
There's discussion on processing and where we want to locate it.
If we start talking about retailing again, we're...
We're talking about processing and I want to stick with that because I think that we are moving forward with that.
And I think that that's most important in my opinion right now.
Does it make sense to have a code committee meeting about what this mechanism looks like with planning?
I think it's something we have to decide. I don't know that, you know, I mean, I think we have all of...
We just need to make the decision of who's going to be involved.
I mean, quick question.
A processing building is an ad structure, right?
Where is it finding it as an ad structure?
It's physical appearance.
It's not.
It's not currently.
Define us a different operation with it.
If you look into 70, it becomes an ad structure.
Okay, so my question is,
when we visually look at a structure,
it's a barn.
It's a structure.
So I'm not sure why there's a difference where the egg structure goes whether it's a processing structure or the typical
permissible
It's just kind of confusing that we're so concerned about it. It's not the retail component
We're talking about we're talking about a physical farm building placed on a building
because a barn which is a storage and not processing
Could be equally large, you know, I said you're right, but let's get back to one thing
and it also gets back to lock coverage.
Because once you declare an egg structure,
it is now allowed to be the lock coverage,
gets down to it based on the entirety of the farm.
So that brings back to my point of,
I think that for development rights on land,
that we should have a restriction
on the processing facility,
but you're still allowed lock coverage.
You're still allowed other farm buildings
that you can use for storage,
you can use for equipment,
you can use for different things.
But I think that that could be a happy medium
for everybody,
because we're getting the processing facility but then you know there's it's not just gonna be one
humongous building it's it's gonna have to be parceled up on the building right so you might have
a negative view to that as well now we have multiple structures on a on a site but that's
a lot already right let's not forget there's nothing that prevents anyone from putting up
a very big hedge, and there goes your view.
So there's nothing preventing anyone from doing that.
So the view shed, frankly, is not,
can the view
can be minimized through screening?
And that is a right of farmers to put up.
It's a right of everybody to put up.
And I would agree, but ultimately, it's much more tenable
to say, look, we're going to protect the future here, even
though someone can come along and lay an edge, rather than say,
you know, someone's going to build a huge structure.
There's much more permanence to that.
And again, I'm not suggesting you can't do it.
I'm just suggesting that we have the right to relocate it.
I'm not even trying to, well,
that interest in restricting the size.
to destroy some of this size of the court area.
So you should accomplish that.
And you take a lot of coverage based on the court area.
Yes, Melissa?
I'd like to say that this discussion kind of points out
why this is a very complicated issue.
There's a lot of facts.
There's actually some misinformation that's been said.
And there was a suggestion to have a task force.
Maybe we can do a small task force that is,
you know, given a short time frame
to make sure that the proper people are in the room and are part of the discussion and to try to solve some of this.
Because it's here we've spent an hour talking and there are so many issues.
And we've got nowhere, but I'm going to show you one thing. The proper people are in the room.
They hold the town board and the ultimate decision has to be made.
Of course the decision needs to be made by the town board, but there's information about setbacks, easements, what's allowed, what's not allowed,
about what ones were, which are sitting constructively at the table, maybe, or three weeks, while a
code committee with the proper people invited to it to be part of the discussion. You guys
have a lot to do today. There was a large agenda. There is no, there's a lot of good ideas
out there and I wonder though if we have a code committee or you know task force or
whatever discuss this issue of sighting it may be by focus and I think one of the
concerns that you know I don't want to speak for Scott here but that we're
going to continue just to have this larger general discussion without getting
down to creating and ultimately it falls on the board to decide what it is
is that we have the will to do.
And it seems like there's a will to do processing right now.
There's a question on how we limit citing
or determine citing.
I would like to figure out how to get
the right people at the table
so we can discuss these issues that you break.
It's the issues of setbacks and view of all of this stuff
that I think we need to consider
at least so we're addressing
any potential unintended consequences.
So I want to support a code committee to discuss the mechanics of what siting looks like.
What do we think about that?
I have a 7 on the agenda.
Exploit it.
No.
Well, we will do it.
Did you look at it with any clarity?
Yeah.
I
hear there's consensus about moving forward with the processing as a use on DRS limits.
Which is what we have already talked about two weeks ago.
Well, one other issue is besides that, I mean are we going to discuss other things at this code committee?
I think we should discuss the other sides a little bit.
Is there anything you would like Ag advisory to prepare for the meeting?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have to leave on first.
A lot of this could be simplified.
A lot of this could be simplified by, yes,
starting with the size limit.
And Greg, I think you mentioned...
6,000, I would say 10,000 square feet maximum for processing and building. Over that he built his
EBA. Sarah, you're fear-mongering about 60,000 square foot buildings. It's fear-mongering.
It's not going to happen because of the cost of the building to be able to donate anything
like that. And it's not going to be that kind of processing. And they're not going to be
scattered all over the town. This is crazy stuff. But I totally agree with everything
I mean, Jim is saying, but I got to run, guys, thank you.
Thanks, Doctor.
These are things like that that neighbors might as well share.
I mean, there's going to be some,
but I don't think it's any more than just
the farming operation itself.
I don't know if they're canning tomatoes
and they have something boiling in there.
I mean, even the last bottle of that
or canning plant, it's like it was processing.
It's within a facility as well.
Yeah, it's within a facility, yeah.
tractors and whatever.
I mean let's not forget too that diesel pumps, diesel powered well pumps are probably the most noisy thing you'll ever hear on a car.
And we all know that they're out there and maybe someone has it.
I'm sorry that I got delayed because I wanted to raise an issue that he said he's not here.
it is never right to defend itself, but I do want to defend Sarah to some extent in terms of it may be
fear-mongering to an extent, but we also, let's remember, people already have a large processing
building itself covering several acres. There's one already there. That's far exceed 10,000 feet,
so I don't think it's really fear-mongering. There's one in Bacca. I'm not considering all that.
There's several.
Well, one on Ag-Lanah-Cuttle.
That's probably close to five acres.
Again, I'm not going to call that Ag-Operations there
and talk about that structure.
But it's not like it's not possible for big money
to come along and build out that 50 is 60.
Well, I just think I understand what
where Doug is coming from.
But it's our job to be looking forward.
It's our job to be anticipating anything.
because 20, 30 years ago, there's a lot of things
that are here now that people would never happen.
And they're here.
So I understand what he's saying, and I know his perspective,
but it's my job staying in the seat
to anticipate those things as well.
And as you should,
I believe that's true.
And let's please just remember,
we don't want to shoot the little guys in the foot.
But that's my purpose of doing it.
I want to keep a little bit more restricted.
And the more that I did my modeling
and going through it and looking at my experience here,
this to me is the only way to keep the little guy here.
It's to make something possible,
even if it's restricted in size.
I mean, to me it's the only way to keep anything
slightly affordable for a certain amount.
To answer Anthony's question of what you guys should
to prepare for this COVID-19.
I think we need to understand Ag Advisory's position
on what role they're going to play here.
Is there a delay?
But we can ask them to, and they can play their role.
But it's just advisory.
I think we are looking to have them play a more
materially significant role here,
where it's not just advisory.
You know, they need to have a significant amount of input here to determine if we're going to restrict these locations.
Should the farmers tell us where it needs to be?
They're telling us they don't think we should restrict, you know.
But we don't say to them, we want to restrict it.
So they can add the purpose of COVID-19?
Yes.
What I am saying is, all right, the board is saying yes, we want restrictions.
Yes, the farmers may disagree with the restrictions, but
now I want the farmers to tell us, assuming that we're the deciders here,
we are deciding that we want restrictions.
Tell us how you can play a role that addresses your concerns.
We'll give us a, give us a input.
Absolutely.
So we haven't determined what the restrictions are yet.
We just know that it's going to.
That's what I was asking for.
Anthony asked for what to prepare.
I do just want to say to the board,
the reason that we're sitting here with this discussion
on the agenda is because we decided not to do
co-committing, okay?
We decided to not do co-committing,
and that the six of us, right, make these decisions.
And now we're here on a meeting
where we're supposed to make these decisions,
and now we're going to get to co-committing.
No, we never said that we're only going to have
co-committing. We had Chapter 70.
I suggest the code committee and it was we didn't want to do code committee because we were just
going to get back these were decisions that the board needed to make. I'm sorry but we I disagree I
think we did decide on code committee what we didn't agree to was to kick it to get another small
worker that was our decision which is why code committee is on the agenda because we agreed to
go and say, OK, we're going to keep moving on this.
But that was for Chapter 70.
This is for the ag uses.
I mean, they're weak, but they're not exactly the same.
Yeah, they are.
They are.
There's no undoing that.
They are.
Chapter 70 is the essence of what you're talking about.
To this.
That's what the Code of Unity meaning is.
Does the Ag 70, Chapter 70, determines those ag uses?
They're getting in on it.
But we have to determine what we're
going to allow before we amend the actual writing
of the Code Committee.
And that's what we're supposed to be doing now.
But we're still going to do it at Code Committee.
We're not going to let it do its time divine.
We're not going to bury it in another committee.
So it's going to do it here.
When the Code Committee, we're going to go on and on and on.
We're going to keep chipping away,
although I'm not sure exactly what we've got going today.
But I do think we at least reach consensus
that we want to broaden and allow
I think that's a step greater than our last co-committee.
I would agree with you.
Any step is great right now.
It's beyond yours.
Yeah.
Thanks, Betsy.
It's just so many students get close to me that the town board, the ag committee, the
fan club basically comes with their ideas of what they like to see.
So you don't want restrictions.
The town board has voice restrictions but not specific to this part of size and layout
and maybe the fan club makes a difference and then we can discuss it on the different ones
and find out where we end up.
Yeah, I mean they need to let us know what restrictions that they feel they can live with and we can go from there.
I think they have to report what we think restrictions are, but I don't think the other way around.
Yes, that's why. As well as having reservations about why they can't.
Right.
I mean we have to make a decision on that.
Absolutely.
Is
that appropriate?
We'll thank you.
Is that, is that, and I'll notice when we do that.
I think this is that we thought everybody could fit together.
We've December 29th with the arts.
Yeah, nothing going on 31st.
Yes, that's fine.
The 29th good for everybody.
That's a 10 board.
That's a 10 board, there's 29.
No.
So it's not.
Oh, stand up.
Stand up.
No.
That's not feasible.
No, I think it's hard to say that you can't do it, most of us in the Zoom option is feasible enough.
I mean, I think that it...
I don't want schedule put-outs as long as I...
Should we put out a few dates and see?
Yeah, we can look at that later.
We'll put out a couple of dates, but we're probably looking at the beginning of January at this point.
Yeah, what about the week?
but I think we have to have our own organizational line now.
I think that's right.
The first week of January is probably better.
Well, maybe it's a job with the Zoom.
The first week of January?
Yeah.
The first week of January?
I don't know.
We wouldn't have that.
Do you want to look at the first week of January
instead of the first week of January?
Thank you.
Thank
you.
Thank you.
Oh.
I don't think we're going to have time to see them.
I don't think we're going to have anyone to see them.
All right.
We decided
to look into the process of the TAM and if they wanted to give a one-time reimbursement
to none of the process in the TAM.
So we already set up a meeting, but in light of that, I asked Christie and John to look
into the regular federal regulations and how to do that.
So they did have some, some answers, but not all of them, John.
Well said.
Yes, so Kristi and I have interesting questions that are on this issue,
and the short answer is yes, we can do it.
In order to clog the federal ballot program, there's,
we have the self-sumptempo program today, the applicants,
and then assure that we are complying with the federal guidelines before we disperse the money.
So it can be done, which is going to take a little bit of time to figure out how we're going to do it mechanically.
We can do it, and the accounting is going to be able to keep on that,
as there are a lot
of laws to the distribution of these funds and the ending compliance.
And there's a separate, there's a separate level of analysis that's done when the money goes to one entity and then it transfers out to another entity.
And that's where we are at.
This first one is the sum of the third parties.
We'd have to set up a program for that.
That certainly can be done.
It will take a little bit of time, but I don't think enough time.
the conversation with Christine and how they had some concerns that they were able to be here.
And this would be a fairly significant project to undertake.
She did have to, she wants to meet up with the auditors, which also in December is very hard to get them to sit down with a meeting.
And go over what other towns might have done in this situation that don't have a process that they even money out.
So she was checking on all that and goes.
But how have we given our funds out before?
So under the community block grant, we have,
but we have a process for that.
So, well, it was different than community block grant.
Yeah, so I guess just to get back to this discussion,
you know, as John is just pointing out,
when a municipality gives funds to another organization,
that organization becomes a sub-recipient of these funds.
Right?
right? And I think as we look at an organization like CASP, they are already a sub recipient of these funds.
And as a sub recipient of these funds, they actually already have a process of reporting.
And the reporting process for these ARPA funds, these federal funds, is much simpler than the general process.
It is primarily focused on risk assessment of the organization and what they're doing.
And I think one of the really great, almost genius points of Jill's proposal to look at retroactive reimbursement,
we are completely mitigating the risk here because the funds have already been spent.
And as we look at the money that an organization like CAST has spent, the existing reporting
that they already do, it allows us to do this risk assessment.
It allows us to do what we need to do.
And I have spreadsheets from them that are the reporting that they already do.
we just need to put this program together in place here and I don't I think one of
one of the points that Scott raised which is very good here is we don't want to
limit it to one organization because there are many good
And that's what I agreed to last week,
only that we do follow-ups and we have to be content.
Absolutely.
So you agree that they don't have to base in Southall?
I think they should.
I think what they should, it should be,
they have to prove to us that the service
was done in Southall, that's what I didn't want to say.
The most place we agreed to were
serve the people in Southall Town,
be headquartered in Southall Town,
And as a point of clarification, just based on one of the letters we got from an organization,
it's not within the hamlet of South Pole, it is within the town of South Pole.
So it's anywhere within south old town.
Fisher's Island is green.
Excuse me, I just want to add a headquarter.
Let's clarify that because headquarter means
their main agency is headquartered in the town of south old.
Yeah, that's very interesting.
Every single agency, but for one, is now not qualified
to be sent to the city.
Right, so I would say they serve the town.
I personally, I've been in the jargon.
You took it safely.
Well no, I've been in the jargon in services
for 33 years.
We have had a long-standing relationship
with cast, many other agencies as well.
Using the term headquarter, I got a lot of phone calls.
Headquarter means family service,
like they're not headquartered in the town.
They have two offices in the town.
There's also a parish outreach.
They're headquartered in the diocese of Rockville Center.
So I just want to clarify that that word, I think,
has more power than I think you realize.
And I'm going to put that down.
And that's what I said last time that, you know,
you said the word headquartered and I said,
what we have to have John look at all that and and ask I want to make sure that we
get all all the people that are serviced in this town from all bona fide
nonprofits and it's it's not that they all need it we all know they all need it
and this is a one-time COVID happened and it hit us all hard and we are
fortunate to get this American recovery plan act and it's not taxpayers, several
taxpayers money directly so I think it's an opportunity to help all the
nonprofits that service the underprivileged in this town and that's
what I'm looking to do and we have the obligation to make sure that we do this
properly. Any funds that are given to the town are audited.
Kristi has, you know, she has the right to say, for the whole line, to say I need to talk to the auditors to see how this process is going to lay out.
If we don't spend it, you know, we need to be transparent with exactly where every penny of this goes.
So there's a difference, and you said that tasks.
An example already has to pay for this,
but the task may be something different,
because the town giving money to a non-profit
is different than it coming to the rest of the world.
Right, and I've said it many times,
it's that I'm not worried about the paperwork
from the non-profits.
It's we have to set it up with the town first.
And we all know what can be done.
It's just a matter of let's work towards getting it done.
But where CAS provides us a great model to follow,
they've received these funds already.
I understand.
They have.
They were not.
But not from the town.
How many people?
They said, they didn't fund it.
No, it's not being eligible.
It's not supporting the contract.
They've already done it for the town.
But no, not from our town.
They have received that from the town.
I don't know if I also want to.
I've been saying it over and over again.
It's not from the town.
Not from the town.
No.
No, it's community block grant funds, it's community block grant funds, it's not from this.
The ARCA funds they received are not from South Dakota, but they report on ARCA funds.
And what I'm saying is not, the only thing I'm saying is the model that they use to report on their ARCA funds
provides a great model for us to follow here.
And one of the great points of your retroactive plan is we can make the decision, we can decide
what is eligible and what is not eligible.
My concern with pushing this off till next year is that CASP has extended their emergency existence money now.
I understand that.
Where are these people supposed to go now that CASP is out of this money?
We have the ability as a town to fill this need now.
I think, as Brian pointed out, this is our moral obligation to do this now.
I think if we kick this off till next year, what happens for these next two months?
What happens when we need to finally reach out to these organizations and give them 30 days to respond?
I think we should announce a program now.
We're not going to announce a program that we don't have in existence yet.
I think we can establish contact with these organizations.
That's not responsible.
We're already doing that.
But if we announce that we are willing to move forward with this plan,
the same way we did last work session.
And the organization, you know, I think Jill proposed us sending certified letters to all
of these organizations.
I know some of them have already reached out to us.
We're announcing this program.
The details are going to be put together.
We're going to reach out to you.
I think it's our responsibility to put this together.
What, in two weeks now that we've all done various research?
I'm not going to put a plan together until we have the financial mechanism in place of
how we move forward. That's irresponsible to say that we're going to do business. No, that's
on their side. I'm talking about on our side. But on our side, if we say. But that's not,
I can't answer that question. If that paperwork is what we need. Chrissy has to get the
answers from the auditors from the federal government and that's what she's
trying to do. And John is saying it's going to take time. When we throw the
side to spend $250,000 on a front end loader and just sign the check with this
money. It's different. It's different. It's not tax dollars and just give
There's a difference, it's because they're the ones that have come to this task.
Right, and when Christy said, yeah I'm sorry.
There's no question that you can give to non-profits, but there has to be a specific connection
in what you're giving, what that is.
I mean we do, right now, it doesn't have to do with people with human virginity,
but it does have to do with, they have a presentation today,
It's not really a grant, it's a contract they've done to provide certain services.
We're allowed to do that. We can't just get its money.
And it's different when we're using ARPRO funds for the town.
It's a different mechanism, and Christie explained that that mechanism was already set up.
So what Karen asked earlier, to use the funds for a town on the municipality, we can do that.
And that's what's great about this retroactive program that you've been doing.
Right, so we just have to set up that mechanism that's not there yet.
And Christy needs, is asking, saying she needs time.
She's reaching out to the auditors, she hasn't heard back yet,
and it's just, she's trying to get this process done as quick as possible,
So in the meantime, while we delay this, who are people in the community
supposed to reach out to for aid? Good question because we have several
countless organizations that represent thousands of people in this community.
Lawrence Haven, Northwell-Paris County Family Services, every single one of them.
What are their clients going to do? They're going to wait, they're supposed to wait until we
got to act together, but we're going to do this later.
No, no, we have a request.
November 1st, and I have a sound board of members
going to cut a check on November 15th for six figures.
If Family Service League comes tomorrow,
if they stand at that podium, if they stand on every right
now to commit six figures, sevens to them,
six figures to grant, are you willing to?
If they just come to the podium, which is all that happens.
That's exactly what the conversation was about.
If you looked at a few months ago,
we had CAS come in and talk about this unprecedented need in our community.
We had them come in a few weeks ago to talk about the unprecedented need in our community.
all right and then they got up at the at the budget meeting to talk about this
and I think you raised some valid points Jill raised some valid points
Louisa, Sarah, Brian and we decided that we weren't going to limit this to
CAS we were going to open it up to all of the service organizations in South
Altan. And I think Karen raises a good point I would be fine
located in South Fulton, what I don't want to do is just open it up to everyone. I really want to try to focus on addressing the need in South Fulton and building infrastructure to serve these needs within South Fulton.
This isn't just about the need. This is about a long-term need. When we look at an organization like CAST that is serving 30% of the kids in our school,
What's 10% of our overall population in South Pole Town?
Listen, what we told you two weeks ago was due to COVID, and this is a reimbursement for 2020.
Scott talked about putting a group together to go for the future, so that we have two
separate conversations here, and it's easy to figure out in the town who the service
in the town because all these nonprofits
have to take ridiculous records that way.
So I'm not worried about that.
What I'm worried about is let's get it
in the proper fashion in order to,
for us to tell the control, we'll go ahead
and write a check.
And we're not, we're not,
but I don't think that we should wait
until that is done before we initiate this.
Well, I don't want to have the auditors come
and say, say, you missed appropriated this fund,
so now you have to pay back.
I'm not saying we should end it, but we need to initiate the letter and have the people
wind up so that when this is in place we can get it done before the end of the year.
But I don't know what we're going to say in the letter because we don't have some answers yet.
I'm just trying to be physical if you want to.
Haven't we agreed, right?
Last board meeting we agreed to headquarter in South Old Town.
Now we're talking about just located in South Old Town.
I hesitate to say that.
Okay, and that's fine.
And I think it's a point well taken.
Okay, let's let's say located in South Old Town. I think if we send, I think Scott or
you suggested a certified letter to all of these organizations. What the five
criteria are and that we are going to reach out to them by the end of the day.
And to me, I said I wasn't ready to do that.
I know, I didn't agree to that because I think those fine criteria where
at least that we created and have no basis in reality.
That was what it's up to the committee.
I don't want to take this to the very groups
that are out there that say, me,
I'm sorry, in the middle of my sentence,
Scott, there's way of beginning in your sentence.
But let me go from little to end on mine.
I think that we should be helping every organization.
I'm not suggesting we have a committee.
What I'm suggesting is have a meeting with them
and have it now. Don't forget, more than saving, then the service late, no preparer. They have
the same inflation, the same sparkling fuel oil, the same need, the same winter. So I think
right now we're so, we're rushing to give one organization money.
I just thought that it's the same need.
Again, I'm sorry. Well, how? How? How is it a different need? Just, how is it
a different need?
It might be a different amount of money, but it's the same.
No.
That needs to be included in their letter.
I think we need to ask them what they are looking for
and how they're going to send it.
But that doesn't mean we're going to give them exactly
what they're asking for.
That's how I was thinking.
We need to have some idea of what everybody's asking for.
Wait, so I need to know how we can do it first.
How much are we going to do?
What it is going to be, we're going to pay $200,000.
You made four of us did.
I don't know.
We all need to look to you.
I don't know.
I just don't have $100,000.
How each one of us, Professor,
as the total scope of this program, $100,000 for people, you know, serving people of South
Old Town. We had said headquartered in South Old Town. Based on this feedback here, I would
like to say located in South Old Town. That's number one. I would also like to say located
in South Old Town so we're building infrastructure within our community. I think that is a very,
very important long-term goal here and both a point of this this short-term
program to address the immediate need and this longer roundtable discussion that
Scott's talking about which is very very valid. Right and that's all reasonable and I agree to them based on the feedback we're going to get from the
controller and the town attorney. And we don't have that full feedback yet. That's what I am not comfortable with moving ahead with this until we have full feedback.
But I think we need to announce the program.
I think it's a mistake.
So we can establish contact with these organizations so when our program is finalized, which I'm hopeful that we can do within the next two weeks.
I don't. What I'm hearing today is we can't do it in the next two weeks.
And I don't think we should do an announcement when we don't know exactly how we're going
to do this and what the timeline is.
We can certainly start reaching out to people.
Like you said, we've gotten letters with people saying,
once you establish a program, please contact me.
I mean, it's in the news that people are talking about it.
So I think that, you know, what information are we going to ask for them now
when we don't know what we're going to ask for?
So I don't understand.
We talked about this. We talked about that being the process going forward, but we're talking about now we're talking about
Everybody knows, as the total scope of the entire program, there is one bucket of money, and that's what we said in the beginning.
So $100,000 is going to be done. Can we get up among these organizations that, we've said, meet these five criteria.
Serve the people of South Old Town. We had said headquartered in South Old Town, but no, now just located in South Old Town.
We said last time it was up to $100,000 to spread out all over the world, that's what we said.
So this could be a pal-mal rush to get this share of the money.
No, no, no.
So it's up to $100,000.
See, this new request at the microphone was for $100,000 for a single organization.
Everybody's allowed to request $100,000.
We didn't ask for $100,000 to get it.
In the emergency right now, it is $100,000 total.
That's what four of the board members
had developed consensus on, but that's
what we were going to look at.
I think this larger program that we're talking about,
ideally hearing what they're doing in East Hampton
with an application process, with an overall budget,
it is a worthy goal, a necessary goal, a long overdue goal, in South Old Town.
So if we're willing to give out a hundred thousand dollars of total funds to the entirety
of this community, I vote yes.
Now let's figure out how we're going to divvy up that money.
Because I do not think this reimbursement probe, first of all, is arbitrary.
Secondly, then there's going to be a Palmo restaurant getting the slips in.
And what's going to happen is some organizations are going to get a line sharing of this aren't so let's
If we're willing to commit $100,000 today, let's come up with a schedule on who's getting what
$100,000 in fact, I hope the end, I put $200,000 to every organization that does business as clients as Apple accounts
It's only about organizations that serve thousands, not just one, several
Are we willing to divvy up that money among the organizations from that
I would like to focus it on those two elements right now because that is where I see the
real need right here right now and that would be...
I'd like to interject here too.
Mental health services are important too.
I think that's something we need to also look at.
So, I'm hearing two things. One, we're going to do a one and done under ARPA for retroactive.
Moving forward, you want to develop a plan that mirrors East Hampton. Correct?
The two different things.
We haven't even had the discussion as to whether it's going to be an annual perpetual program.
Exactly. That's why I say let's stick to the one thing and maybe discuss that and finish that.
The request was for $100,000, and the group seemingly two weeks ago supported the idea of putting up $200,000.
So one organization. Now, if we're saying we're going to agree to $100,000, that's going to be divvied up to all the groups.
I'm 100% in favor of it. In fact, I would say that's not sufficient.
Last week we said $100,000 divvied up between all nonprofits. That's the only way I agree to it.
So I think Happy wanted to make a point just about reporting potentially.
You know what? I spoke to Kathy about the reporting.
What I need to hear is I need to hear the town attorney and the controller say,
we that have a town has to report back to the government.
That's what I'm worried about.
I'm not worried about the nonprofits reporting to us and us checking on them.
I'm worried about the town reporting back to where the money came from.
So, I have all the Treasury Department guidelines, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
Thank you, I appreciate your time.
So, I have all the Treasury Department materials I'm happy to share with the town looking at this issue.
So, eligible uses are through rent, mortgage and utilities.
There is no there is no federal requirement for competitive bidding a competitive process including bidding RFPs under federal law so a local government is free to grant a sub-award to any non-profit entity.
The requirement for the reporting is templates are right here for food assistance, and these
are exactly what we're using as a sub-awardee through another entity.
So we have all the information, it's very clear, I'm happy to send copies of this to
the town, but I understand you want to have a process, I am all in support of all human
service agencies serving located in South Old Town, serving South Old Town residents to get help.
We are in a crisis situation.
Our meal served is 800% since 2019.
I am almost $400,000 over budget.
Is it clear to you that this board just said that you're not getting close to $200,000?
I understand from the last meeting and I was fine with it that the $100,000 was going to be distributed to multiple entities based on an assessment of the receipts they're providing and the need, the numbers they're serving, so it's an equitable sharing.
I agree with that, it should be shared. That was the result I recall from the last work session.
I am super grateful that you see the need and want to increase it.
I couldn't agree more that it should be $200, $300,000, whatever you can spare from your
ARPA funds because the need is tremendous.
I can't even tell you how many people come in daily for food and rent assistance and
gas and electric.
We are out of emergency assistance funds and I will have to start sending people.
I don't know where and you can tell me where to send them but I know the other
other agencies are struggling to because I communicate with them.
So I think it's critical and important for the government to help the non-profits fill
this gap in immediate and urgent need.
I think it should be open to, based on the criteria outlined by the board, I think that's
smart and prudent.
I do think doing due diligence, it's federal money.
There's requirements, but I don't think it's as hard as complex as you may think.
I mean it's very simple the uses are very clear you write the letter these are the uses whatever it's rent food mortgage utilities
Tell the people then they have to provide their receipts and we've been audited every year with doing this
We get who that cares fact cares money. We've got NARPA. We've gotten EFSP money
Because I know that process is we're not gonna reinvent the wheel on that process
It's already there, it's been worked.
I'm worried about our end, and I need to get the answers,
and I don't have the answers.
And that's why I'm saying the answers are in here.
You don't even have time to do it.
That's it.
That's my problem.
Yeah, they're very good at math.
I read that, too.
Yeah, I have to worry about minimum performance
200, all that minimum performance, 200.
That's all fine.
But my understanding was two weeks ago,
the discussion was getting cast 100,000,
which is what the request is.
And that's how it was started,
I think that's absolutely perfect. I do think we should be viewed as a one-on-one thing so that we can put a round table together and discuss whether that's being going to be something that's going to sustain each year.
right now we have all the funds let's use it if what's okay about a hundred
thousand dollars among low groups I think that's right I really do that was not my
understanding based on the original request and based on the discussion two
weeks ago well I mean I just do respect I disagree and I think others would say
but it came I made a hundred thousand dollar request the work session ended
with and Jill said do you want to open it up to all the human service
nonprofits. He came up with the five criteria. Headquartered, now you're saying located in
South Holtown, serving South Holtown residents.
And I'm saying that I've shifted that now based on the feedback of the community.
That's okay, that's great. But again, the discussion we still was about getting one of the musicians.
Everyone in the room is saying that it's abuse and they have a different perspective of how that conversation ended.
Can we please just move forward? We have an agreement, let's go.
You're going to have to look at the criteria, because you have to do a needs assessment,
so you have to look at each organization that requests it, and you have to see if they're
they're eligible based on the federal balance, so you have to determine if they're eligible.
I appreciate all that. What do you say, we'll take care of the
administration at the end of this, and what we'll do is support, we'll decide who gets what,
and we'll take care of that. Thanks for having me turn it over to some of you guys.
But the reality is, if this board is agreeing to distribute in $100,000,
to all the organizations in Southold Town, based on who's decision...
They should need assessment. That's part of the article.
But they all have great things about Jill's retroactive plan
where they provide us receipts because it will show us
how much money they spend.
And I think we can decide proportionally
how much money they spend.
We take the total number of receipts
based on the proportion of each organization.
It's an easy formula.
So it's just giving people clients.
So we're going to create a program that's going to have all these organizations rushed to give us.
No, this is a one and done due to COVID.
And we're going to have them fill out proper paperwork, and we're going to review them all at once,
and we're going to decide whether we do it as a board and have Cameron and Jack come in
and have criteria of how we decide and say, okay, here's their need.
We're going to give them this much, this much.
They're not going to get, like, if CAS says, I want 100,000,
they're going to give us a need assessment.
This doesn't mean we're going to give them 100,000.
We're going to look at all the other needs,
and we're going to decide as a group how much we're
going to give them based on their needs assessment.
So we're not sitting here today and saying,
CAS is going to get this, and this is going to get this,
because we don't have their paperwork yet.
What I would also like us to do
would say that we're not delaying this for months.
I think this is something that is our moral responsibility
to get done now.
That's why I think we should issue the letter
to all organizations, asking them to send their need
to discuss with us.
But instead of being the chairman of the Senate,
we're going to start with who has designed
this needs assessment.
It's got to be uniform and consistent
and fair to all organizations to represent the state
of the need.
So if it's cost, it's food, it's output.
The other thing I've also added is organizations
like if they're putting a lot,
like my old budget is like 1.6 million.
I get X number of dollars from the county.
So I would say I think we need to know
what other new kind means you get it.
I mean, I think we need to do more than just say,
give us your need and everyone's gonna have
a different definition.
So we really need to be, and that's why I mean it's going to take forever.
I think we just, I mean, Kathy has a speech assessment.
Well, just for the, we are a sub-recipient of a lot of funds and what has been set up for
nonprofits for this is how many people you're serving and your receipts.
Those are the two things.
That's what I mean.
Right, now are those people unduplicated people?
Unduplicated, okay.
Receipts of what?
The food and the rental assistance and the utility assistance.
So we pay the vendors directly.
So we have to show proof of that, and we have to show our food and seeds, and that is the number of people served.
And I guarantee you that the other organizations have this in place as well.
If you're a senior federal, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't know. We need to ask them for it.
The other organizations were blindsided by this, I'll think, because they were not.
They never occurred to them to go to the podium and ask for it.
Well, I don't think that that's true, but I'm saying, going forward, we need to do this now.
We need to issue this letter, request the information so that we can get it going.
I think that needs to happen.
I think we should also set a timeline on ourselves that we are going to fund this before the end of the year.
I cannot set that timeline up again.
Where are they supposed to send these people?
Where is Kathy supposed to send these people?
I think we should make a commitment.
Let's set up a meeting that you said you were going to set up.
Let's set up a meeting.
I think we should ask the groups to submit to us a narrative as to why they need the funds,
not just based on their based on food, resistance and all that and based on the entirety of the need,
since it's meant to address all of them.
I don't think they can do that. We can't give them the funds unless they give us the needs assessment.
We are looking at what I'm suggesting, that is I see the next one.
According to the guidelines.
What's that?
It has to be the receipts.
Of course that's one of the receipts of what?
We have the right to expand assistance.
And housing assistance.
That is what I would, at least speaking for me,
that is what I would like to restrict us to now.
Food assistance and housing.
And I think the point that Kathy raises, you know, how many unduplicated people they serve
and what their receipts are. Those are two clear metrics that we can look at to inform
this judgment. To ask someone to write narratives and this and that. What does that do for us?
I'm going to tell you what it does. It shows that what the servants see up the garden
is essential and is a direct and the impacts to their points is directly related to the
impacts of the pandemic.
They can do that.
I think this is part of something for the longer term project, and I don't want to mix these two things together to over complicate what is an emergency need right now.
I want to try to simplify this now. I want to keep it as transparent as possible.
I think it's our responsibility, both as a recipient of these funds, but also as an allocator of these funds. It's our responsibility.
But what I don't want us to do is over-complicate it.
Good.
No, by all means, if you're willing to say,
we're going to distribute $100,000,
is there a clear understanding?
Because the emails I'm getting, there
was no understanding of that.
Certainly not by me, but by the very people lobbying
to grant the money.
In fact, they're specifically saying
they're demanding or they're requesting
I agree to the $100,000 to a single organization.
Let's work it this way. Just, I'm spitballing here. What do you say we get to talk on every time?
The reality is, is that there was a misunderstanding then, certainly by me and by a lot of people in this community.
Now if this board is saying we're going to take $100,000 and get it divvied up among all of the groups,
that's what I've been advocating for.
I do think we have to expand the role of need, but we'll take what we've got to say.
Well, you could put in a letter that priority needs will be.
It doesn't exclude other needs, but food, house and fuel, prioritize that,
and then down below, other things can be discussed, and then you don't make a decision.
And I want to put that it's a, not in these words, but what I've done for 2022 reimbursement.
and as we go through this process,
we might be asking for more information.
And as we develop the process,
we'll let you know what the process is.
Because it's kind of hard to,
I think it just should be like a pre-submission letter,
I'd be able to say, hey, we're working on this.
These are the things that we're looking at
and it's not limited to these things,
but it's due to COVID and we're going to reimburse you
for the year of 2022 only.
Because I don't, you know, what's gonna happen is
we're not gonna get ARPA funds every year.
So I don't want people to say, well, you gave it to us last year.
Well, that was ARPA funds.
So that has to be clear.
I agree with you and that's how we conceived of it last time.
And I do.
That's why the reimbursement is for,
is a great idea.
For the purposes of this year,
account, you know, financial-wise and accounting-wise.
That's you, that's all you.
That's just not a sexist financial world to me, I don't know.
It makes perfect sense.
You know, I think it streamlines reporting because the receipts are already there.
And we also can make the judgment based on those receipts.
You know, if we see someone, you know, submit a receipt for, you know, 1995 with Alan Stakes, we don't reimburse that.
Do you want to work on a letter? Do you want to work on a letter with John and Christie?
I think, do you want to work on that together with John and Christy?
You know, we've both been doing work on this, I think it makes sense to try to push this forward together, right?
Happy to do that.
All right, see what I mean, you were getting...
Yeah, but what I would suggest is rather than just with seats, you look at the total expenditure
because some people are able to leverage what they have spent with other government programs.
So if you want to get an idea of what they're spending on those fuel, on the...
You're going to include it entirely.
Well, that's why I said the reality is that again, what's going to be you start it when
you can start collecting receipts from this day from three weeks ago from a month ago
from the first of January from calendar year of 2022. And I would like us to start receiving
these by the end of the year. I would like us as a board to make the commitment that
that we are going to open up this program
before the end of the year.
I'm not going to make that commitment today.
We're going to use all of 2022.
In other words, that's going to be the basis.
I think so.
Yeah, that's what this was.
Yeah, that's why I'm not here.
I see it.
I'd like to talk to the organizations
and see what they can, but they can't come up with.
We can analyze ourselves into an election for so long.
No.
Again, there is a clear misunderstanding
understanding about what the intent of the request was and what the intent of this request was.
If you want to call up on a K, carve it up.
If you're worried about delay, carve it up.
And that's it.
And carve it up now.
And I don't think we could do it until, write a check until January.
And I agree with you.
I do not think we are going to be able to write a check until January,
but I want to put us in a position that we can cut a check in January.
If we're not sending a letter till January, we're going to need to keep the period up until February and then we have a month that we're looking at it.
So we're going to March and then we're into April and then it's May and we're in the spring already and there's people that have had unmet needs.
I think I put up now, but that's what I'm looking to do.
I'm looking for us.
You think it needs to set up the meeting?
Absolutely.
Yes.
What do you mean?
The round table?
No, no, no.
I think it's because I know what you're talking about.
We don't want to have so many games that never schedule another meeting.
No.
Carve it up now.
We can't.
You want to do it?
Carve it up now.
Based on what?
Based on client-based, based on whatever you want.
that's what I'm saying. So, they're saying they want to do a letter. I'm saying let's do a letter where they're gonna, you know, report to us what their unduplicated clients are, what their total spent is, you know, in these two categories. So, submit us a letter. We're gonna submit to you reporting requirements. We're gonna, we could allocate it after we receive this. And I think we will have a better sense of what the reporting requirements are.
with the town attorney and the
and we I guess what I'm saying
more than anything is I would like us to make
a commitment that we will start this before the end of the year.
So the meeting I'm talking about is he off he two weeks ago he said that he would
set the meeting between John and Chris and I'm sorry I said let's set up that meeting
because they want to do a letter. I would like to have John and Chris
is input in crafting that letter and that's what I'm talking about, setting up a meeting.
I mean, I vote that every organization that has clients in South Pole Town must set the threshold,
whether it's 100, 200, 300, gets 10,000 dollars.
I'm not going to do that.
But I will agree to getting this letter going on.
If we want to rush, if we want to hurry to get the one last thing on, we can move on.
But are we going to give an organization that has an annual budget of $50,000,
the same amount of money as an organization that has $500,000 annual budget?
Why wouldn't it happen?
That's my proposal.
In fact, the $50,000, the organization with $50,000 sounds like they need the money more than the organization.
I think what's critical is the number of people they're serving and not so much the full budget.
It's how many they're serving and how much it's spending on food and housing assistance.
And if these organizations had more, they might be able to provide more.
But they don't have the existing infrastructure.
I think the benefit of an organization,
and I guess what I really like about this idea of number
of unduplicated people plus money spent in receipts
is we're removing all of the administrative costs.
We're removing all of the building costs and all of that.
This is focused exclusively on giving money to feed people
and house people.
And it's money that's been spent.
The infrastructure is there.
But I'd like to start with what Scott said.
If you look at the overall budget,
like you need to see this 50,000,
what's there over it?
They're all over it.
It might be, you know, very, very large.
But it's very small.
But it's all for the equation.
And I think when you do the letter,
I would say, what's your total budget?
What are your overall admins?
And since any grants I've heard worth in that they're given out,
people want to know what your avenue costs.
We want direct services.
That's why Director Latif and Receives, I get that.
But if you're going to get a picture,
you've got to get the whole thing.
Then send out the East Hampton application.
Say, is the application here to let out get it back to us?
Because that answers all the questions.
So we'll get together next week.
Jill, John, Christie, we'll go together this slide.
Does that sound good?
And this is just clarification on the full amount and then proposed $200,000 or $300,000.
Well, we have to talk about it later.
We'll figure that out later.
What
else?
Okay.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
John, fire prevention.
What's the meaning of the book?
Are you going to put the state code?
Put the state code.
You didn't read it all?
It's expensive.
Yeah.
I just want to make sure that's all the movies.
Yeah.
We just brought our phone number back.
Yeah.
This
is what it confuses me because these are the emails on where we can support a $100,000 request.
Oh, good town.
That's some, what, versus opinion?
That's, no, what I'm saying is just so you're clear.
There's a real misunderstanding in the community.
So the fact is that I can't read your answer.
Okay.
So it's one person's opinion of what they heard from the meeting.
Of course they're going to ask for the vote.
So they're going to ask for the vote.
If there is.
Of course we cut out a lot of work.
I understand.
And that's why services to the community are helpful.
Over-production.
And I didn't want to argue that.
The labor at that point last week because I knew in the regulations
because it wouldn't allow us to do that.
But I didn't have that in front of me.
And I don't have Christy.
I said to Bayes, this is specifically on that.
I mean, I don't know if I think you're in there.
So it allows it, it does allow you to do that.
We could have done it.
And I have foreigners that also get a quarter.
No, we can limit it to people in the south of town,
but that's what I'm saying,
it has to be that service people in the south of town.
We want to thank the motion to go through an executive session, so that's, I don't want to use the right person.
Yes, I think the motion is going to make sense, especially with the purpose of discussing those opposites who fail, or at least who deal with poverty.
For publicity reasons, Gansley says the value there are, there's a lot of spiral plans.
And legal advice, it depends on what type of board it is that there's a share in coming in.
There's a lot of income for different persons and people where there's a lot of money coming in.
That's common, you know, there's a lot of money coming in.
He didn't know, he didn't know, he might just there any time.
Um, Chris, I have a question.
Um, I have a question.