[5:14] What's that?

[6:25] Reminder to turn on your microphone

[6:29] and we'll call this meeting uh August

[6:32] 24th meeting of the board of trustees

[6:34] order. Please rise for the pledge. I

[6:37] pledge algiance to the flag of the

[6:40] United States of America and to the

[6:43] republic for which it stands. One nation

[6:46] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[6:50] justice for all.

[6:57] » At this time, um, we will allow public

[7:00] comment. We've found uh the past few

[7:04] meetings that sometimes our public

[7:06] comment has been half an hour long per

[7:09] person and it makes for a very long

[7:11] meeting. So, we're um we are restricting

[7:15] tonight our public comment to five

[7:18] minutes. And when you're recognized,

[7:21] please go to the microphone, state your

[7:24] name, uh any organization you're

[7:26] associated with, and your residence. Um

[7:29] that is for the uh village clerk's

[7:32] information and uh other than that we

[7:35] look forward to hearing from you. So

[7:38] first bold person

[7:42] no one has any public comment tonight.

[7:45] >> Hello my name is Kyla. I'm here with

[7:52] the robot

[7:55] um is with us from Ukraine. We're a

[7:57] design team that's been brought on by

[7:59] Kissan Main Street Partners. Oh yeah. Um

[8:03] we Kissan Main Street partners recently

[8:06] purchased three uh vacant buildings on

[8:09] Main Street. We are refacing the

[8:13] buildings that have been through the

[8:14] historic committee. We have achieved

[8:16] certificates of appropriateness for all

[8:18] three buildings for the facade

[8:19] renovations.

[8:21] and Dick from zoning suggested we come

[8:23] in and um inform everyone what the

[8:27] development for the interior is. So on

[8:29] one of the buildings of Nicolletas which

[8:31] will have new apartments upstairs for

[8:35] yearround uh ideally for people who are

[8:38] working on Main Street in some of these

[8:40] projects. The next building is adjacent

[8:43] to the beverage exchange. is used to be

[8:46] a card shop and and I think short south.

[8:51] Um those will have retail or office

[8:54] space on the ground floor and renovated

[8:56] apartments above and those are both

[8:58] scheduled to get new windows and siding

[9:00] done in the fall and then CVS which is a

[9:03] really exciting one. Um, we're hoping to

[9:06] do the facade renovations this fall, if

[9:08] not early spring, hoping to be able to

[9:11] house the Cookertown Farmers Market

[9:13] potentially uh as the Hoff and Lane

[9:16] project happens in the same schedules.

[9:19] And that's going to be retail

[9:22] uh year round ideally. And this right

[9:24] now what I'm sharing is our current

[9:27] development

[9:28] uh concept development. And we're hoping

[9:31] to have multiple

[9:33] um spaces that showcase local and

[9:37] regional

[9:39] art, crafts, products, as well as a

[9:42] place for uh people who are in the

[9:44] farmers market on Saturday afternoons to

[9:46] then bring their products to. So they're

[9:48] available to buy all week long without

[9:49] having to take those home, including a

[9:52] potential cafe that then uses the

[9:54] products farmers market to cook the food

[9:57] with a a small stage and venue so that

[10:01] there can be music and other

[10:02] programming. And then the interior has

[10:05] flexible space that can be used for

[10:07] Christmas markets or other kind of

[10:10] events like the town picnic at the range

[10:13] or kind of flex space. So, that's that's

[10:15] where we're at with the development now,

[10:18] and we'll probably be back as needed. Uh, we're hoping to do

[10:23] scaffolding on the renovation on the

[10:26] facades

[10:27] um later in the fall or early in the

[10:29] spring when there's uh list to disrupt

[10:32] and won't be taking any parking spaces

[10:34] to do. Um, and I know that there's a a

[10:39] water tying some of the things that

[10:41] we'll be dealing with as it progresses,

[10:42] but this is our first unofficial

[10:45] introduction to all the rumors that it's

[10:48] a nightclub wear of baseball t-shirt

[10:52] shop doing Main Street.

[10:56] >> This I was going to say we you have time

[10:58] and I'll let any of the trustees ask

[11:01] questions.

[11:02] So just from a from a zoning perspective

[11:05] in each case the first floor the

[11:08] sidewalk is going to be a public office

[11:12] retail restaurant

[11:13] >> in all cases and then I believe there's

[11:16] five apartments above and four above the

[11:19] bar shops that are currently underway

[11:22] getting renovated for yearround housing.

[11:24] >> Great.

[11:26] >> And trustees have any other questions?

[11:28] >> Above the market hall there's not going

[11:29] to be apartments. Sto Market Hall above

[11:31] it. There's nothing that have that

[11:32] facade. Um I mean ideally maybe someday

[11:37] the building can structurally have

[11:39] something nice up there. The the owners

[11:41] were very interested in bringing like a

[11:43] public theater to the town. Uh doing

[11:46] something that had a large space. But I

[11:48] my guess is that that's a possibility

[11:51] for wait right now. We can get this all

[11:54] ready for spring for the farmers market

[11:58] um move. That's our goal.

[12:00] >> It has an amazing basement.

[12:02] >> It does ceiling height. I mean,

[12:06] >> are you seeking any public financing for

[12:08] any of these?

[12:10] >> I think this is a way for the owners to

[12:13] kind of invest in the community.

[12:20] » Any other questions?

[12:21] >> There's a lot to digest. Thank you.

[12:24] >> Thank you for sharing the printed copy.

[12:26] We saw it when it went to uh the zoning

[12:29] board. So,

[12:31] >> you have any questions or wants

[12:33] involvement? You can reach out anytime

[12:35] and I can present whatever is

[12:37] interested.

[12:38] >> Thank you, Kyla. Appreciate that.

[12:45] » Is there anyone else who has public

[12:47] comment tonight?

[12:50] If not, I I will be closing the public

[12:52] comment section of the meeting and we

[12:55] will begin our business. So, no other

[12:58] comments. Okay,

[13:03] public comment session closed.

[13:07] Correspondence.

[13:08] Um, on your additional agenda, you all

[13:12] probably saw this email from Jan

[13:15] Kusminsky regarding concerns with

[13:18] overcrowding at village parks. Uh, that

[13:22] will be uh referred to parks. I did

[13:26] because it came as an email. Um, I tend

[13:28] to respond and she was very

[13:30] appreciative. I pointed out that we'd

[13:33] recognize that in particular with um

[13:37] Glimmerclass State Park closing for now

[13:40] almost three weeks um due to harmful

[13:43] algo blooms that um there were a lot of

[13:48] people who wanted to use the lake that

[13:50] then went to three mile and fairy

[13:53] spring. So we did kind of get um

[13:57] inundated that park had certainly state

[14:00] park had been closed previously but

[14:02] perhaps the weather hadn't been quite as

[14:04] wonderful in those years. So we did put

[14:07] up um sandwich board signs. We quickly

[14:10] ordered signs and um the park caretakers

[14:14] at both very spring and 3M had the

[14:17] ability once the parking spaces were

[14:20] filled and they really reached capacity

[14:22] to close the park and that did help

[14:26] curtail that a bit but it was a bit of

[14:28] an onslaught but that'll be addressed at

[14:30] Parksport.

[14:33] Uh that was our only correspondence. We

[14:36] have two public hearings today um which

[14:39] will be opened at 6:30, proposed local

[14:42] law number four to amend the section um

[14:46] of our smoking and vaping law and

[14:49] proposed local law number five to amend

[14:52] a section of our zoning law relative to

[14:55] temporary use permits.

[14:58] Um, I will entertain a motion to

[15:03] uh approve the minutes of our regular

[15:06] July 27th meeting by um Molly. I will

[15:11] second and I should add with corrections

[15:13] submitted because I know we did submit

[15:15] some corrections. All in favor? I

[15:17] >> I

[15:18] >> as well as our August 10th special

[15:22] meeting with corrections submitted. I'll

[15:24] make that motion. Seconded by Cindy. All

[15:27] in favor?

[15:28] >> I.

[15:34] » Permits. We have an email from Tom Sing

[15:41] requesting that vending be extended

[15:43] until 300 p.m. in the Double Day Field

[15:46] parking lot for next year's Hall of Fame

[15:49] induction.

[15:51] And I think you've all read it. Um

[15:57] it actually came up at breakfast with

[15:59] the board this morning that u particular

[16:02] vendor. So I can refer this um to the

[16:07] double day committee. Um unless uh any

[16:10] trustees have a comment they'd like to

[16:12] go with that.

[16:13] >> Just a clarification that so that this

[16:15] would be the second day of vending.

[16:17] >> It's a Sunday.

[16:19] >> The third day third day of vending.

[16:21] >> Yeah.

[16:23] But the vending continues the other day.

[16:25] I'm confused about whether this is per

[16:28] day or just the last day. This is the

[16:31] last day.

[16:32] >> Yeah. A lot of people do not bend on

[16:34] Sunday because people theoretically are

[16:37] maybe down at the Clark Sports Center

[16:39] for the induction.

[16:40] >> Okay.

[16:41] >> But he found you wanted to. So that it

[16:43] will be referred to uh double day

[16:45] committee.

[16:49] We have uh an application to use village

[16:53] property village streets from Kristen

[16:56] Griger uh for the growing community for

[16:58] our annual harvest supper plan for

[17:01] Sunday September 27th. Um they say 12:00

[17:05] p.m. to 8:00 p.m. but that's set up and

[17:08] take down. Um it's uh 4 to 7 are the

[17:11] hours of the dinner and requesting that

[17:14] again this year we wave the insurance

[17:17] requirement. Is there a motion

[17:21] >> by Cindy? Second by George. All in favor

[17:26] >> uh on your additional agenda we have a

[17:31] uh permit request application to use

[17:34] village property. Karen Dunlop walk to

[17:37] end Alzheimer's requesting to display

[17:39] purple bunting and wraps on the flag

[17:42] pole base and the porch of 22 Main

[17:45] Street for one week and for the

[17:48] application fee to be waved. She's uh

[17:51] this is a walk that is you know from the

[17:54] sports center but these were what she

[17:57] wanted relative to public property.

[18:01] I think as long as the purple bunting

[18:03] does not bleed onto the porch woodwork

[18:06] particularly, it seems like a wonderful

[18:08] idea

[18:09] >> or the stone for that matter.

[18:11] >> Yeah.

[18:11] >> Okay. So, you want to make that um

[18:14] motion with that caveat?

[18:15] >> I have a comment. So,

[18:17] >> okay. We'll just make it and then we'll

[18:18] have a discussion. So,

[18:20] >> I'll move it.

[18:21] >> Move it by Joe, seconded by Cindy. Your

[18:24] comment, Richard?

[18:26] I have no problem with purple bunting on

[18:29] the porch or on any of our

[18:31] lampstandions. I question whether it's

[18:34] appropriate on the flag pole and I also

[18:36] question whether or not it's just going

[18:38] to create an issue.

[18:40] >> You

[18:41] >> wpping wrapping the flag pole in purple.

[18:43] >> It's the base.

[18:46] around where like the

[18:48] flowers are and other

[18:50] >> because it says flat. It says on the

[18:52] pole flag pole. Okay. Any

[18:55] other questions, comments? Um, so motion

[18:59] made and seconded. Um, all in favor? I

[19:11] » We have a zoning official report is in

[19:14] your packet.

[19:17] And we do have a um

[19:22] is this on as a

[19:25] just on for the application to come in

[19:28] or are we making the decision tonight?

[19:32] >> Point is here to discuss the

[19:34] >> All right.

[19:36] >> Yep. In front of us. I'm glad that you

[19:39] brought the large P drawings because we

[19:43] were having a hard time I think looking

[19:45] at the smaller ones. So, um, were, first

[19:48] of all, were there any questions or

[19:50] comments on the zoning report? No. All

[19:54] right, we'll accept that and go on to

[19:59] um, Caruso's Red Point 63 Lake View

[20:02] Drive, requesting a setback relief of 14

[20:06] ft from the lake. And uh yes question

[20:10] with that 14 I'm not sure where that

[20:12] number comes from because the the

[20:14] closest point we are at is at 30 ft

[20:17] which is still 20 ft back or at least 80

[20:21] ft back from the original house.

[20:23] >> I don't know why did

[20:25] >> I thought it was on the application.

[20:32] » Okay. I I think for our purposes

[20:36] um the point is kind of moot because we

[20:39] can't grant the variance. The zoning

[20:42] board of appeals does that but we need

[20:44] to grant or make a determination grant a

[20:46] special

[20:49] >> yes on it's just the area variance to

[20:52] construct house less than 100 ft but

[20:54] again that would go to uh ZBA

[20:58] then

[20:59] >> yeah but we have to rule first.

[21:02] >> Yeah. Yep.

[21:03] >> Or or Yeah. In conjunction with

[21:06] >> Yeah.

[21:08] >> All right. Um do you want to you can

[21:11] take the time now if you like. We have

[21:14] the larger maps. You can you're welcome

[21:16] to make um a presentation on this. We

[21:19] are looking to you know origally we

[21:22] monitor

[21:24] or the uh

[21:27] band but on further inspection we

[21:30] noticed that the foundation was in dire

[21:33] straits. There's a lot of hydraulic

[21:36] pressure from the the hillsides pushing

[21:38] in and the only way we can really um

[21:42] work with this house is actually to

[21:44] build that that elevation. So, um, going

[21:48] back on the 100 foot rule, that setback

[21:51] is actually outside of our our line, our

[21:54] lot. So, there's actually no way to

[21:57] comply with that 100 foot setback.

[22:05] You see, there's a big red line that I

[22:07] have drawn on page

[22:12] two.

[22:13] That fleet line is our 600 foot setback.

[22:17] It's just about 50 feet into a lot and

[22:21] lot.

[22:22] Um on page 4.2 you'll see a pink outline

[22:26] of the house. That's the existing house.

[22:28] What we're trying to do is push the

[22:30] house back as far as we can

[22:33] and actually um push it back further

[22:36] than the house is now. So

[22:40] approximately 18 ft back is further back

[22:44] from where we are starting.

[22:47] >> May I ask just a question on the

[22:50] footprint?

[22:51] >> Yeah. On page 821, you describe the

[22:56] footprint of the existing house as 251

[23:03] square feet,

[23:04] >> right? The proposed house is 2482 square

[23:10] ft plus

[23:13] >> plus a garage of 528

[23:17] which is a structure.

[23:18] >> So we're actually increasing the

[23:20] footprint. for it even out evening out

[23:22] some of that jogging setbacks of the

[23:25] house and kind of making more of a leg

[23:29] order to do a um a foundation that is

[23:33] kind of open and recessed. That's kind

[23:36] of

[23:37] >> right. I guess my question is the

[23:41] existing footprint

[23:44] there's enough going on in that site

[23:45] that we described to them so far anyway.

[23:49] It suggests to me that expanding the

[23:52] footprint

[23:54] will exacerbate conditions

[23:57] >> except we what we're doing is kind of

[23:59] creating a kind of a more modern

[24:01] footprint, more modern walk out

[24:04] basement. There would be tag to the

[24:06] bedrock. We're actually reducing any

[24:08] kind of infiltration into the lake and

[24:11] any kind of sed flow. We're actually

[24:13] creating larger, more stable um

[24:17] retaining loss with that foundation.

[24:22] » In this rendering at the front on the

[24:25] front page, I guess page one,

[24:29] you depict a shoreline. Is that an engineered

[24:34] shoreline? Is there a bulkhead there

[24:35] now?

[24:36] >> There's no bulkhead. There's a bunch of

[24:38] uh timber cranked sort of timbered hang

[24:41] walls that are rotting as you can see

[24:43] some of the existing photographs. Those

[24:45] are all going away and pushing kind of

[24:47] reducing that kind of encroachment onto

[24:50] the lake and pushing it all back into

[24:52] the house.

[24:53] >> And what does this picture depict?

[24:56] That's going to

[24:57] >> This ising sorry depicting the house

[24:59] that exists here that that we're

[25:01] proposing to

[25:04] I'm just I'm talking about the riparian

[25:06] zone. Oh, that's existing. That's

[25:07] nothing else.

[25:14] » The um patio that is existing where you

[25:17] see there's a fireplace there that's

[25:20] exist. So we may need to repair that.

[25:34] It's the garage which is well within

[25:37] this zone. What's your reasoning for

[25:41] this

[25:42] >> justifying that encroachment?

[25:44] >> The reason for that,

[25:46] >> right? How how do you rationalize that

[25:49] encroachment?

[25:50] >> You know, we were kind of advised by

[25:52] either the pristill or you know

[25:55] department to like ask for what we need.

[25:57] This was prior to knowing the setback.

[26:00] Cool. So this is something that the

[26:02] client wished for. If so, we kind of

[26:05] included that in the propert.

[26:09] It's a small oneard garage that fits

[26:12] within tombs of the hillside.

[26:15] >> Will there be a residence as part of it

[26:19] upstairs?

[26:20] >> No, no, no. It's just a singlestory

[26:23] garage.

[26:24] Do you have a rendering of this with the

[26:27] houses surrounding it? Yeah, if you look

[26:30] on page the

[26:34] um 61

[26:37] game 61 sort of a

[26:41] new pipe comparison and then I'll sort

[26:44] of just kind of show you the view sheds

[26:47] of all the houses neighborhoods.

[26:52] » Are there any restrictions regarding

[26:54] height? There are but we are well well

[26:58] that

[27:00] >> just so everyone knows this they're

[27:03] making a presentation and it's fine we

[27:05] can ask some questions this will go back

[27:08] to our zoning boards for their comment

[27:11] that's planning H barb etc. It also

[27:14] needs to go to the county planning. So

[27:16] that will all occur and we can set a

[27:20] public hearing for our what will be

[27:22] September 28th meeting at 6:30 when we

[27:25] would kind of hear from the public and

[27:28] then make a decision. So

[27:31] >> may I suggest that when we make our

[27:32] referrals uh this be referred to the

[27:35] wersheds?

[27:36] >> Yes. Yep. Absolutely. On the list

[27:40] >> a question related to the garage.

[27:42] >> Yeah. So it is tucked between the front

[27:46] yard setback and the lake setback. It

[27:50] would there be a scenario to request a

[27:54] variance to the front yard setback to

[27:56] keep it out of the lake setback.

[27:59] >> So if the topography doesn't allow for

[28:02] that is because the the road behind it

[28:04] is taking up majority of their

[28:07] >> property. So this this is allows

[28:10] basically it also cuts into the hillside

[28:12] creating another bulkhead to kind of

[28:14] hide or top that garage. So it really is

[28:17] a low profile garage that was kind of

[28:20] set at. Yep.

[28:21] >> If you look you can see kind of view of

[28:24] that.

[28:30] » I did a basics

[28:34] the bottom of the page. See, you can see

[28:38] how that fits into the leg.

[28:44] Just on that follow your question,

[28:47] Sydney, the um

[28:50] the total increase

[28:52] in the

[28:54] given the increase of 400 square ft or

[28:57] more in the house with the garage being

[29:00] incorporated into the house.

[29:03] >> Well, could the garage be I think we

[29:05] could do that.

[29:06] eliminating structure.

[29:07] >> Yeah, we could we could find a way to do

[29:10] that where we kind of thought well do

[29:13] that

[29:16] this

[29:23] are there any other questions?

[29:25] >> I can make a series of motions.

[29:27] >> Yes, we're we're ready unless you have

[29:29] any comments addition we make. All

[29:31] right. All right.

[29:32] >> Explain anything.

[29:34] Thank you.

[29:36] >> So first motion is that I will make a

[29:40] declaration that this is a type two

[29:42] action for the purposes of seeker and

[29:46] that is because it's a single family

[29:48] residence

[29:51] that

[29:52] >> um and we can vote on that now. So any

[29:57] questions on that? All right. All those

[29:59] in favor of um ruling that this is a

[30:02] type two action for purposes of seeker

[30:05] say I.

[30:06] >> I.

[30:07] >> And then I will make a motion to forward

[30:10] this application for comment to the

[30:11] zoning board of appeals, the planning

[30:13] board, the historic preservation and

[30:15] architectural review board, the

[30:17] watershed supervisory committee, and the

[30:19] county planning department. and set a

[30:22] public hearing for September

[30:25] >> 28 at 6:30 p.m. to consider a special

[30:29] use permit for a new single family house

[30:33] within the waterfront development

[30:34] overlay district.

[30:36] >> Motion made. I'll second.

[30:38] All in favor?

[30:39] >> I.

[30:40] >> All right. Will we need to have heard

[30:43] back from all five of those?

[30:45] >> Everyone, including be able to hear back

[30:47] from five of them.

[30:49] >> Yeah. as I was hearing you could. Okay.

[30:52] >> Well, the there was a

[30:54] >> I think we will with planning because

[30:55] planning meets on the 22nd

[30:58] >> and they'll be

[30:59] >> Yeah.

[31:00] >> Okay.

[31:00] >> And we did our seeker determination. So,

[31:02] the county should not have a hold up.

[31:06] >> All right. Thank you.

[31:09] >> Um we also under zoning um we have an

[31:13] updated zoning map.

[31:17] » It's on the table. Um it's essentially,

[31:20] if you recall, we updated one I think

[31:22] just about a little over a year ago, but

[31:24] the actions we've taken since that time

[31:27] include um changing

[31:31] uh a section that was considered

[31:34] business part of the Cooper Inn property

[31:36] that came over on Lake Street to um

[31:40] residential

[31:42] R3, right? Is it R3?

[31:46] >> Um yes.

[31:47] >> Yeah. So that was sort of the primary

[31:50] change. We also altered the colors to

[31:53] make them more

[31:56] um compliant with uh visual impairment

[32:01] issues and we also um improved the key a

[32:06] bit so that was easier to read. But the

[32:08] primary change on the zoning was the

[32:11] reclassification of that one piece of

[32:14] property.

[32:20] There a motion to approve the new zoning

[32:22] map with the that made by Joe, second by

[32:25] George. All in favor?

[32:31] » We are approaching

[32:34] um the time of our public hearing. So,

[32:38] I'm going to I think the next one might

[32:42] take a little bit more time. So

[32:46] we've got only like four minutes. So I

[32:49] am going to um

[32:53] uh

[32:55] open our public hearings.

[32:58] Uh, our public hearings are proposed

[33:02] local law number four of 2026

[33:06] amends section 233-3A

[33:10] a smoking and vaping law and primarily

[33:16] um this is I think about the third month

[33:18] this has come before us and um based on

[33:23] trustee feedback last month we have

[33:27] essentially actually made that section

[33:30] of the law a 233-3A

[33:34] read this way. The following buildings

[33:37] and adjoining land along with vehicles

[33:40] owned by the village of Coopertown are

[33:42] hereby designated as smokefree and vapor

[33:46] zones. Water treatment plant, wastewater

[33:50] treatment plant, streets building, fire

[33:53] hall. the other part of that section had

[33:57] been adopted a number of years ago. So

[33:59] that's the change right there.

[34:02] Uh and we also will open the public

[34:05] hearing for proposed local law number

[34:08] five of 2026

[34:11] amend section 300-17.2

[34:14] two zoning law temporary use permits and

[34:18] change the number of events for

[34:21] nonprofit organizations to 14 per

[34:26] calendar year. So, at that time, I'm

[34:30] opening the public hearing on those two

[34:34] proposed local laws. And anyone who

[34:37] would like to speak, just come to the

[34:39] microphone, state your name, address,

[34:42] and uh speak. And and which law you're

[34:45] addressing. Thank you.

[34:53] » My address is 6050 State Highway 80.

[34:56] However, I am a property owner in the

[34:59] village also. I am here to speak about

[35:02] the local law number four and I

[35:06] feel that at the village board you have

[35:09] an obligation to protect the health of

[35:11] volunteers and employees. I'm sure

[35:14] you've all heard the term secondhand

[35:16] smoke. Allowing people to smoke on

[35:19] village properties and in village owned

[35:21] vehicles exposes volunteers and

[35:23] employees to immediate smoke and

[35:26] secondhand smoke. Unfortunately,

[35:29] volunteered firefighters and personnel

[35:31] are exposed to smoke at active fires in

[35:35] spite of all the equipment that is

[35:37] purchased to try to protect them.

[35:40] deliberately allowing people to be

[35:42] exposed to smoke and secondhand smoke is

[35:45] totally irresponsible. I just can't say

[35:49] enough about how strongly I feel that

[35:52] the village needs to protect the

[35:54] employees and the volunteers. Thank you.

[35:58] >> Thank you, Marvin.

[36:02] » Anyone else like to speak?

[36:08] Hi, my name is Christine. My address was

[36:10] on Main Street Cougar's town. I'd like

[36:14] to speak on the local law board. I wrote

[36:17] it because he's gathering.

[36:21] So, I'd like to express my support with

[36:22] the proposed local law board prohibiting

[36:24] smoking on village own property. Village

[36:27] property belongs to and serves the

[36:28] entire community. our public buildings

[36:30] and the grounds surrounding homeland

[36:32] should be places that residents,

[36:33] employees, volunteers, families,

[36:35] children, and visitors can access

[36:37] comfortably and safely. While smoking is

[36:40] a personal choice, exposure to

[36:41] secondhand smoke is not always a choice,

[36:44] especially when someone have to walk

[36:45] through it to enter a public building or

[36:47] use a public space. There are members of

[36:49] our community who are particularly

[36:50] affected by cigarettes, including

[36:52] children, older adults, and people with

[36:54] asthma or other respiratory conditions.

[36:57] No one should have to choose between

[36:58] avoiding cigarette smoke and accessing a

[37:00] building or service that belongs to the

[37:02] public. I don't view this as an

[37:04] antismoker policy. It does not prevent

[37:07] anyone from choosing to smoke. It simply

[37:09] establishes a reasonable boundary for

[37:11] where smoking takes place when the

[37:13] individual choice affects the people

[37:15] sharing a public space. I think is

[37:17] reasonable to ask that the activity

[37:19] takes place on village property. Village

[37:22] property should reflect a commitment to

[37:23] health, safety, cleanliness, and

[37:25] consideration for everyone who uses it.

[37:27] A clear smokefree policy also removes

[37:29] any uncertainty about how close to an

[37:32] entrance, gathering area or another

[37:33] person is considered acceptable.

[37:35] Ultimately, when we are talking about

[37:37] property that belongs to the entire

[37:38] community, I believe the health and

[37:40] comfort of the community as a whole

[37:42] should come first. For those reasons, I

[37:44] feel support.

[37:46] >> Thank you, Kristen.

[37:48] >> Thank you.

[37:50] Is there anyone else who would like to

[37:52] speak?

[38:00] » The first read a letter from Victor

[38:02] Jones.

[38:03] >> Chad, just say Chad Bellinger. I heard

[38:06] >> Chad

[38:09] Victor.

[38:10] >> He'd like an address.

[38:12] >> An address.

[38:12] >> Your street address.

[38:14] >> Thank you.

[38:15] >> Um, let's see. Victor Johnson tonight.

[38:18] So he says, "Good evening. I would like

[38:20] to speak in support of the proposed ban

[38:22] on smoking and the dirt fire acts. I

[38:24] want to be clear that my support for

[38:25] this is not intended as criticism to

[38:27] anyone who smokes nor about passing

[38:29] judgment on their personal approaches.

[38:31] It is simply about protecting the health

[38:33] and safety of everyone who use the fire

[38:34] station. More specifically, those

[38:37] members of the public who had

[38:39] significant reaction are being exposed.

[38:41] As firefighters and emergency

[38:43] responders, our members already accept

[38:45] significant risk as far as observing our

[38:47] community fires. They are exposed to

[38:50] smoke, carcinogens, and other hazardous

[38:52] substances that we now know could have

[38:54] serious and long-term health

[38:55] consequences. The fire service has made

[38:57] significant progress in reducing those

[38:59] exposures

[39:00] through better protective equipment,

[39:02] decontamination, and increased cancer

[39:04] risks. But that doesn't mean it

[39:06] shouldn't stop there. It only makes

[39:08] sense that we take responsible steps to

[39:10] reduce preventable exposures at the fire

[39:13] station as well when we are not

[39:15] responding or returning from an alarm.

[39:17] For most members, the time spent fire

[39:19] safely small portion of the time they

[39:22] actually spend at the station. Members

[39:24] are there for training, meetings,

[39:26] equipment checks, work details, social

[39:28] problems, and simply making themselves

[39:30] available to respond. Repeated exposure

[39:33] to secondhand cigarette smoke during

[39:34] that time is an unnecessary health risk.

[39:37] that we have the ability to control and

[39:39] should have been controlled up until

[39:40] this point. Our fire station should be a

[39:43] place where members can train, work,

[39:46] volunteer, and serve their community and

[39:48] is the healthiest environment as we can

[39:50] responsibly provide.

[39:52] And those members of the public

[39:53] following who use the hall for various

[39:55] events should also be free of those same

[39:57] unnecessary closures, not to mention our

[40:00] neighbors who are in close proximity to

[40:02] our station. I am certain to appreciate

[40:04] having a window or a DC unit running

[40:07] without rolling a second. The number one

[40:10] method we send when adopting this

[40:12] proposed change is that our fire

[40:14] department members health and safety is

[40:16] number one priority. No exceptions. For

[40:18] those reasons, I respectfully support

[40:20] the proposed smoking ban I believe is a

[40:22] reasonable step toward protecting both

[40:24] our current members and the generations

[40:26] of the firefighters EMS providers who we

[40:29] hope will help. Thank you, Victor Jones.

[40:34] All right. And then this is my exhibit.

[40:36] So Lia, I want to start by saying thank

[40:40] you for allowing me to speak. My name is

[40:42] Chad Bellinger. I'm speaking tonight as

[40:44] a concern resident and an active member

[40:46] of the community. The following will

[40:48] only be a reflection of my own personal

[40:50] thoughts and experiences and in no way

[40:52] represents the opinions or interest of

[40:54] fire department or any other village.

[40:57] All data I've gathered come from

[40:59] publicly accessible websites which I

[41:01] have sourced. According

[41:04] to the NFBA, in a four-year span between

[41:06] 2019 and 2023,

[41:09] there were an estimated average of

[41:10] 15,209

[41:12] structure fires annually that were

[41:14] started by smoke, resulting in 590

[41:17] civilian fatalities,

[41:19] 1,048 civilian injuries, and 674 million

[41:23] in direct property damage. It's also

[41:26] worth noting that the most common point

[41:28] of origin for these fires was not inside

[41:30] the structure, but on the outside, such

[41:32] as an exterior balcony or porch. An

[41:35] additional 894 fires originated on an

[41:38] exterior wall surface. According to the

[41:41] World Health Organization, globally, the

[41:44] vacule fills more than 7 million people

[41:46] each year, including 1.6 million

[41:48] non-smokers who are exposed to

[41:50] secondhand smoke. Locally, the CDC

[41:53] claims that in the US, exposure to

[41:55] secondhand smoke caused an estimated

[41:57] 41,000 deaths annually. And of those,

[42:00] 7,333

[42:02] are caused by lung cancer, while 33,951

[42:06] are caused by heart defects, all

[42:08] attributed to secondhand smoke. as

[42:11] someone who has personally witnessed the

[42:12] untimely and painfully slow deaths of

[42:14] people close to me both first and

[42:16] secondhand smoke as well as known

[42:18] someone from perish fire caused by a lit

[42:21] cigarette. I urge for to consider the

[42:24] consequences of not instituting a

[42:26] smoking at all properties and for your

[42:29] own conscious do it for longevity of

[42:31] both your employees and potentially your

[42:33] buildings. and smoking has been proven

[42:35] to be dangerous not only to the smoker

[42:37] but also to non-cover.

[42:40] I encourage you to make a decision that

[42:42] mitigates the unnecessary risk involved

[42:45] allowing people to smoke on any building

[42:47] owned property

[42:48] the problem associated with allowing it

[42:51] or avoid avoidant. Thank you for your

[42:53] time.

[42:55] >> Thank you Chad. Good luck.

[42:58] >> There he is.

[42:58] >> Oh, would you like to ask a Chad, there

[43:01] was a question.

[43:02] to propose that the statements written

[43:04] statements be provided to the cler.

[43:07] >> If you have uh them they can be it's

[43:09] also we're also recorded too. So we have

[43:12] them in in the recording.

[43:17] » Is there anyone else who would like to

[43:19] speak to um either public hearing

[43:24] but particularly the smoking one? I

[43:26] guess seems to be it.

[43:29] Anyone else?

[43:32] No, not I'm I'm going to close the

[43:36] public hearing

[43:39] and uh have the board have a discussion.

[43:46] Right.

[43:48] So um this was um this came out of

[43:53] buildings committee and um this is the I

[43:57] think the second or third permutation on

[44:00] this at last month's meeting. We um rather unanimously agreed that it

[44:08] should include not just the building but

[44:11] the village owned property and vehicles.

[44:15] So that was the reason that the we had

[44:19] to set another public hearing because

[44:21] that made the law stricter than we had

[44:24] publicly noticed previously. So this is

[44:28] that opportunity. Um does everyone want

[44:32] to have a chance to speak about it or

[44:35] >> I I want to express that a concern that

[44:38] I have expressed in the past two

[44:39] meetings as well and that is by

[44:41] including land

[44:44] we are in effect creating a designated

[44:46] smoking area that is on public sidewalks

[44:50] or on adjoining properties

[44:53] adjoining the places where the village

[44:55] owns. So for instance, particularly

[44:58] problematic is the water treatment plant

[45:01] which is

[45:03] you know marked on either side by basset

[45:05] property. So BAS property is not

[45:07] smoking. If all village property is not

[45:09] smoking then employees there who smoke

[45:12] will likely step into the public

[45:15] sidewalk or the street on the hillside

[45:18] coming up from the parking lot. I was

[45:21] very much in favor last night last last

[45:23] month of including designated smoking

[45:27] areas on properties to allow those who

[45:31] have what I agree is a bad habit um that

[45:34] I wish they would not partake in

[45:37] somewhere where they can do that where

[45:39] it is less obnoxious to the public at

[45:43] large than in front of a village

[45:45] property.

[45:48] Thank you, Cindy. Richard, do you have

[45:50] >> I don't really have anything to add to

[45:52] this. I indication to eliminate smoking

[45:55] of public property.

[45:58] >> All right, Joe.

[45:59] >> I would just like to thank

[46:02] everybody who's testifying about this

[46:04] issue. It's been personally most

[46:06] educational over the past what two or

[46:08] three months to hear all the different

[46:10] perspectives and I appreciate the the

[46:13] research, the depth of feeling, the

[46:15] concern that's been expressed and um in

[46:18] my case I am supportive of the

[46:21] legislation.

[46:23] >> George,

[46:24] >> I'm also supportive. I think the health

[46:26] issue trumps just about every

[46:28] everything. And again, we we speak about

[46:32] a designated area as an option there,

[46:35] but smoke travels and

[46:39] if you know, we can just use this room

[46:41] as an example. People are smoking in the

[46:43] corner there, the wind's blowing, it's

[46:45] going to affect this side, you know,

[46:46] this side of the room.

[46:48] So, uh, I would look to support the ban.

[46:54] Well,

[46:55] >> yeah, I would have to agree with Cindy.

[46:57] I feel like we should have even though

[46:59] smoking is an incredibly bad habit but

[47:02] lots of health effects I do agree with

[47:04] Cindy that we should have we may have a

[47:07] set aside able spot for these people who

[47:10] do choose to partake in smoking to be

[47:13] able to go go back and have have a

[47:17] spoke. I would have to sign with the

[47:20] event that they maybe create this space.

[47:25] >> All right. Um thank you all. I know this

[47:28] is seems to have been a little difficult

[47:30] for um some of us uh on this trustee

[47:34] board. Uh I would concur that um the

[47:38] good outweighs

[47:40] kind of the infringement on someone's

[47:43] privilege to smoke. Um we do have two

[47:48] village employees that smoke. Um, and

[47:52] they do have that potential to smoke

[47:55] then on a sidewalk in particular in that

[47:59] one location. I think it will they will

[48:01] be vastly outnumbered by the number of

[48:04] people standing outside Basset Hospital

[48:07] smoking on the sidewalk. It is what it

[48:09] is and you can just kind of get around

[48:12] them and fortunately hopefully the

[48:14] wind's blowing in a different direction

[48:16] when you walk by it. But um I also am in

[48:19] support of it. So, I will make a motion

[48:23] to approve the changes to chapter 233

[48:28] smoking and vaping in section A. That it

[48:33] uh include the following buildings in

[48:35] adjoining land along with vehicles owned

[48:37] by the village of Coopertown are hereby

[48:39] designated as smoke-free and vapor

[48:42] zones, water treatment plant, wastewater

[48:45] treatment plant, streets building, and

[48:47] fire hall. Is there a second? Second by

[48:50] Joe. All in favor?

[48:53] >> All oppose.

[48:56] Two. Okay. Thank you very much. Um and

[49:00] now we have we have the second um

[49:04] proposed local law, but as I understand

[49:07] it, we didn't get anything back from the

[49:09] county, did we? Or

[49:11] >> No, we could we could do the short

[49:13] environmental assessment form just to

[49:15] check that off of the list. Okay. But we

[49:17] do have to wait for the county referral

[49:19] to be returned.

[49:21] >> So this will probably be postponed uh to

[49:26] uh our next meeting, the September 28th

[49:29] meeting when we could formally adopt it.

[49:32] Okay. All right. Do you want to go walk

[49:34] us through?

[49:35] >> Yes. Well, I'll start by declaring this

[49:37] action, which is to amend the number of

[49:40] days that a nonprofit entity could have

[49:42] a temporary use permit from 7 to 14 as

[49:45] an unlisted action for the purposes of

[49:48] Seagar with the village of Coopertown

[49:50] acting as the lead agency.

[49:53] So, that's the first motion.

[49:54] >> All right. Second by Richard. All in

[49:57] favor?

[49:59] So then we need to complete part two and

[50:02] part three of the short environmental

[50:05] assessment form. Um I would make a

[50:09] blanket motion that this change will

[50:11] have no or small impacts on numbers 1

[50:14] through 11.

[50:16] We can go through them one by one if you

[50:18] want. But

[50:18] >> I think we did we all get that? I know I

[50:21] saw it digitally. Yeah. So we've all

[50:24] >> Yeah. and was also you have a hard copy

[50:26] so you've seen it. Um is there a second

[50:29] to that or any questions?

[50:31] >> I'll second.

[50:32] >> Second by Joe Fabber.

[50:35] And then I will make a motion on the

[50:38] back page that uh we check the second

[50:42] box which says check this box if you

[50:44] have determined based on the information

[50:46] and analysis above and any supporting

[50:48] documentation that the pro proposed

[50:50] action will not result in any

[50:52] significant adverse environmental

[50:54] impact.

[50:56] >> Second by Richard. All in favor?

[51:01] » All right. So, we'll essentially um

[51:05] return this to the packet and put it on

[51:07] the agenda for the September 28th

[51:09] meeting.

[51:12] Um moving on,

[51:15] we have uh now QC hospitality request um

[51:22] for a community development block grant

[51:25] toniclip in. Uh we had that uh meeting

[51:30] on August 10th with the proponents of

[51:34] this project and um I think that we all

[51:41] uh reviewed everything that was provided

[51:45] to us. I would like rather than to get

[51:48] into an extended discussion,

[51:51] uh I'd like to give every trustee a

[51:54] chance to speak to

[51:57] um the request that the village of

[51:59] Coopertown apply for a community

[52:02] development block grant for uh the Tana

[52:05] Cliff in. I'll begin with you Cindy.

[52:08] >> Yes. So I'd just like to say that I am

[52:10] in favor of this project that is the

[52:13] rehabilitation of the Tennoc Cliff in. I

[52:16] am concerned that the information

[52:18] presented to the village thus far is

[52:20] lacking in details about finances and

[52:24] job creation on which the CDBG

[52:28] application would be based.

[52:30] >> All right. Thank you, Richard.

[52:32] >> Uh, as per Cindy, I'm in favor of any

[52:35] project that will increase the value of

[52:38] property in the village, increase jobs.

[52:42] Uh I also agree that the presentation

[52:44] left much to be desired and I was

[52:47] thinking as we got the presentation from

[52:49] Breadpoint that the opposite I'm not

[52:52] redpoint from

[52:54] the um what was it the organization I

[52:57] was presenting

[52:59] >> or the oh the main street building

[53:01] >> main street.

[53:02] >> Oh okay.

[53:02] >> You know that's the way a presentation

[53:04] should appear. I also don't know why the

[53:07] village should be the lead agency on

[53:09] this. um the benefits to the entire

[53:12] county. The county has professional

[53:14] staff to do these sort of things or

[53:16] should uh they certainly have a high

[53:18] enough payroll for that and I think they

[53:20] should be doing it but I'm certainly in

[53:22] favor of the project going through. I'm

[53:24] just not in favor at this point. I have

[53:26] enough information to see why the

[53:28] village should take on any economic

[53:30] interest in it.

[53:32] Joe.

[53:33] >> Well, in my view, this project is the

[53:36] presentation that was made and I can't

[53:38] support the project.

[53:40] We did have some discussion um without

[53:44] getting into the details of it that in

[53:46] my view was incomplete.

[53:48] The information he did receive was

[53:51] unsatisfactory

[53:53] um unprofessional.

[53:55] Um and so uh the idea in the abstract of

[54:00] rehabilitating British buildings of

[54:02] course unsupported but as the project

[54:05] this project which seeks the villages uh

[54:08] support for development block.

[54:13] » Thank you George.

[54:16] >> I'm very much in support of rehabing

[54:19] parts of the village that are crumbling

[54:22] and all that. I think having when we had

[54:24] the restaurant, the toner cliff there

[54:27] was a nice addition to everything else

[54:30] that existed in terms of where you can

[54:32] eat and all that. But I would just

[54:34] recommend that we're very very cautious

[54:36] to make sure that it fits the needs of

[54:39] the community is

[54:42] regulated, controlled so it doesn't

[54:44] become an overblown

[54:47] project that affects us in a negative way.

[54:53] Yeah, I'm definitely in favor of

[54:55] revitalizing the tennif. It would be

[54:58] nice to have something uh something

[55:00] better and I guess nicer to look at

[55:02] every time I'm coming out of stage

[55:03] coach. I do would like to see more

[55:07] information. It did seem like it was I

[55:10] want to say I think it was you Joe that

[55:12] said it was kind of professional or kind

[55:14] of scattered their the company's um

[55:18] presentation a couple weeks ago. I would

[55:20] just like give you a little bit more

[55:22] professional information and the

[55:24] presentation. Um so I wouldn't I guess

[55:30] project

[55:32] >> um we really haven't had a chance uh to

[55:34] discuss this. So that's what I was

[55:36] giving everyone the opportunity to do.

[55:40] For those newer to the board, the

[55:41] village historically has done one

[55:44] community development block grant and it

[55:47] was for our um distillery. It was for

[55:51] the 7,000 square foot addition, the Rick

[55:54] House, to an existing um business. the

[55:59] business owner owned the building

[56:01] already and had already had a pretty

[56:03] viable business model going when he um

[56:07] requested support for an addition. This

[56:12] grant the community development block

[56:14] grant becomes has to be

[56:18] handled by a municipality. So either

[56:21] it's the village, the town, the county.

[56:23] Those are the three agencies that could

[56:26] do that. Uh in the case of the um

[56:30] Coopertown Distillery, we did handle

[56:33] that. It was the first one we did and it

[56:35] was quite successful. Um on this uh

[56:40] again, our name would be on the line and

[56:42] I'm not comfortable with all the data

[56:45] that I have received. So at this point,

[56:49] uh is there a motion?

[56:51] >> May I make one last comment? We can make

[56:54] the motion. Well, let me make one last

[56:56] comment if I may. We for the members of

[56:58] the public we did discuss this in

[57:01] executive session and because there was

[57:04] financial information that the developer

[57:06] was um interested in protecting. So our

[57:10] ability to share what went on the

[57:13] executive session is obviously

[57:15] constrained but um my comments about the

[57:20] proposal are derived from what we

[57:23] learned there and I won't comment

[57:25] further on that. But I will finally say

[57:29] that we the the request here, the action

[57:31] here is to have the mayor supported by

[57:34] the village board of trustees attest to

[57:37] um the quality of of a grant application

[57:41] that I think there is not sufficient

[57:43] information

[57:45] to to to justify it. Okay.

[57:48] >> So is there a motion

[57:50] >> a motion to decline

[57:52] >> decline an application? Just need. All

[57:54] right. Is there a second? I'll second

[57:57] >> second by Joe. All in favor?

[58:01] >> Okay. No post. All right. Thank you.

[58:03] >> Would would it be fair to say that if

[58:05] additional information were forthcoming

[58:08] that we might reconsider that vote? Is

[58:10] that a possibility?

[58:11] >> That vote was not or that vote was

[58:14] tonight.

[58:14] >> Yeah. the 100% the um budget information

[58:19] we receive should we find that there is

[58:21] a new bud preliminary budget application

[58:24] submitted for village purview uh with

[58:27] documentation certainly there would be a

[58:30] different approach

[58:31] >> and I think we would also like to see

[58:34] capability statements by the project

[58:36] proponents which

[58:39] >> we need.

[58:42] >> All right. Um, moving on, uh,

[58:48] public safety committee and in your, uh,

[58:51] additional agenda, you had the, uh, had

[58:55] additional,

[58:57] uh, materials for public safety.

[59:04] » Like to start off with a little, you

[59:05] know, story. We had, we had an incident

[59:13] August 10th, I believe, when we had a

[59:15] woman fall into a ravine

[59:18] and uh fire department, police

[59:20] department responded. And uh just

[59:23] because he's sitting in a room, I just

[59:25] want to make note of the tremendous job

[59:27] that officer Lance did uh assisting the

[59:31] victim out from the building. He's about

[59:34] 40 40 feet deep where where she was. And

[59:37] uh again uh an extraordinary job by you and by by those who assisted.

[59:45] Terrific.

[59:52] Now I just have a I have a question for

[59:54] the board regarding today. I know

[59:56] certain when I was working there were

[59:58] formal accommodations that were made for

[1:00:01] heroic actions. Do we have that ability

[1:00:03] here in the village? Is that something

[1:00:04] that we do? I don't think we we

[1:00:06] certainly could do a uh umclamation

[1:00:09] >> proclamation. We don't have official

[1:00:11] commenation forms, but

[1:00:13] >> could I make a recommendation though

[1:00:14] that we move towards doing that?

[1:00:17] >> Yep.

[1:00:18] >> I can second that.

[1:00:19] >> Yep.

[1:00:21] >> All in favor?

[1:00:22] >> I

[1:00:24] thanks Jess. Uh other than that, uh the

[1:00:30] camera system now is fully operational.

[1:00:33] Uh it's been useful in at least a couple

[1:00:36] of instances and again if you could just

[1:00:39] if you recall quick because I didn't

[1:00:41] take notes when we spoke but if you

[1:00:43] would just a couple instances where the cameos like I'm losing

[1:00:49] >> good evening thank you everybody for the

[1:00:52] nomination I'm happy to serve I'm happy

[1:00:54] to do that or anyone so I appreciate

[1:00:58] that recognition so as to saying our

[1:01:02] camera system that mobility group is

[1:01:05] proud proudly up and running and in the

[1:01:07] short couple of weeks that it's been

[1:01:09] live following our policy, we used it to

[1:01:13] um solve two instances. One was to uh

[1:01:18] actually dispel some rumors that there

[1:01:21] was a 911 call of a individual with the

[1:01:24] firearm

[1:01:26] early in the morning hours. The cameras

[1:01:28] caught this individual was not caught by

[1:01:30] troopers because it happened at 4:30 in

[1:01:32] the morning. At 6:00 a.m. I was able to

[1:01:35] catch the camera catch this gentleman on

[1:01:37] camera see exactly what the individual

[1:01:40] was carrying that match description of

[1:01:42] the 911 call and immediately report back

[1:01:44] to the hospital came in from the

[1:01:47] hospital that the Clark entities who

[1:01:50] Peggy passed by that there was no threat

[1:01:52] to the community before anyone probably

[1:01:55] woke up for coffee. So that was quite we

[1:01:57] were quite pleased to be able to get

[1:01:58] that guarantee that there was no threat

[1:02:01] to the public even though that call came

[1:02:03] in from a concerned um basket employee.

[1:02:06] So really pleased with that. I also had

[1:02:08] a I was hit and run accident that I

[1:02:10] heard right from the post office that

[1:02:12] was all um saw exactly who the

[1:02:16] individual was saw the damage to the

[1:02:19] other vehicle and he was obviously um

[1:02:21] addressed with that accident report

[1:02:23] today. Believe it or not, this morning,

[1:02:26] you know, quite a long day since

[1:02:27] breakfast with the board and getting

[1:02:28] other complaints in, um, we had a an

[1:02:32] individual come in that was quite

[1:02:34] concerned of another individual that

[1:02:37] there's been an ongoing issue with their

[1:02:39] place of business on 8 week. that person

[1:02:42] realized, you know, what we had in in

[1:02:46] operation and she stated that the fact

[1:02:49] that those cameras are there, she feels

[1:02:51] much safer knowing that if that

[1:02:53] individual that who is trespassed from

[1:02:56] that facility, her place of business,

[1:02:58] that we are able to continually protect

[1:03:01] her and her employees at that

[1:03:03] establishment. So, that was another

[1:03:06] thing that she was able to leave the

[1:03:07] building. she entered in tears because

[1:03:10] of the concern that she had of the

[1:03:11] subject knowing that she's kind of um

[1:03:15] available and we have that tool out our

[1:03:18] resources. So that was um very happy to

[1:03:21] report those and there'll be quite many

[1:03:23] more that we can report and some will

[1:03:26] probably I won't even be able to get to

[1:03:27] tell you about that'll help a lot of the

[1:03:29] community. So it's a great project so

[1:03:31] far. Thank you.

[1:03:32] >> Thank you.

[1:03:33] I think it's been implemented

[1:03:35] very well by

[1:03:37] >> question where where are they hosted?

[1:03:40] >> So presently these are the ones that

[1:03:42] were previously um set in the policy.

[1:03:46] The current location is main street and

[1:03:48] fair street

[1:03:50] pioneer street at Main Street Main

[1:03:53] Street and Chestnut Street and then the

[1:03:55] final fourth count presently is at the

[1:03:58] docks covering both of the village owned

[1:04:01] docks. Yeah.

[1:04:03] >> Thank you. Yes.

[1:04:06] >> Just one other just one other item

[1:04:08] briefly. It should be in your packet

[1:04:10] that we have an application for a full

[1:04:14] >> full-time officer.

[1:04:16] >> Parttime I'm sorry, part time.

[1:04:19] >> And if you have a chance, you can review

[1:04:21] that. Uh you want to say a couple words?

[1:04:24] >> Happy Sue. I do apologize that he w he

[1:04:27] came in late last week and wasn't able

[1:04:29] to attend this morning's breakfast with

[1:04:32] the board. Um he was actually working

[1:04:34] the shift at Sunni Onata. um comes very

[1:04:37] highly recommended by two other officers

[1:04:41] of our department including myself who I

[1:04:43] personally work with this individual

[1:04:45] very dedicated um former county deputy

[1:04:49] sheriff who presently worked his is

[1:04:51] working now at Sunni Onian in their

[1:04:53] police department um his dedication to

[1:04:56] the service he's had 12 years at the

[1:04:59] county sheriff's office here knows our

[1:05:01] area patrols it very well he was very

[1:05:04] excited to say that you know He chose

[1:05:07] our department for a part-time position.

[1:05:10] He's keeping his full-time status at the

[1:05:13] university, but they have a state shifts

[1:05:15] 12 hours. So, we've got quite a few days

[1:05:17] off. He declines applying to another

[1:05:20] village, I'll say it's goary county,

[1:05:23] that pays $10 more in Allen. He decided

[1:05:26] to apply with us because of the

[1:05:28] relationship he has with the members,

[1:05:31] the ability that he knows the patrol

[1:05:33] area and how we want to he lives in and

[1:05:36] would like to stay closer than ongo

[1:05:38] county. So we're very happy to receive

[1:05:40] the application completed all the

[1:05:42] documents and waiverss. So that u

[1:05:44] background the full background has been

[1:05:47] being conducted obviously the approval

[1:05:50] will be pending his full background

[1:05:52] coming back. We're very excited that he

[1:05:56] soil has back out and wants to serve

[1:05:58] this community as well as soon.

[1:06:02] >> Thank you.

[1:06:04] >> You you bring up a point that's

[1:06:05] concerning to me. If we're being outbid

[1:06:08] by that much in general, not everybody

[1:06:11] is going to say, "Hey, I'd rather work

[1:06:13] in Hoover Town."

[1:06:14] >> That's absolutely correct. you know, and

[1:06:16] that's something that last year we were

[1:06:18] I was proud to address the part-time um

[1:06:21] payroll for part-time employees, and I

[1:06:24] think that helped greatly, especially

[1:06:27] for our current part-time staff, because

[1:06:28] they certainly appreciate that bump that

[1:06:31] we are able to provide them. But yeah,

[1:06:33] this is another small village that has a

[1:06:36] lot more crime, the one that pays um $10

[1:06:40] an hour or more for part-time employees.

[1:06:43] Um yeah, we're fortunate. You know, we

[1:06:45] don't have that, but we still need the

[1:06:47] same exact personnel that they do with

[1:06:49] the training. So, yeah, certainly

[1:06:51] something that our head has.

[1:06:54] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:07:02] Moving on to fire.

[1:07:04] >> Yes. Move on to improvement.

[1:07:06] >> Um just briefly, no notable little

[1:07:09] stuff. Uh there's a lot of discussion

[1:07:11] when we met about the fire down at the

[1:07:13] uh the lakefront there. Uh the

[1:07:16] conclusion is is that it was electrical

[1:07:19] in origin and all that. Uh pretty heroic

[1:07:22] effort by the people who come out at

[1:07:26] 3:00 3:00 in the morning to address

[1:07:28] those type of those types of issues. And

[1:07:31] again they deserve you know they deserve

[1:07:35] uh a grat our gratitude and whatever way

[1:07:39] we can do that I don't have to do this

[1:07:41] process for

[1:07:43] >> I'm looking forward to your drafting of

[1:07:45] these commenations because obviously

[1:07:48] with your police experience you know how

[1:07:51] to do

[1:07:51] >> I was an English major

[1:07:53] >> and you you're a double whammy there.

[1:07:55] You got it.

[1:07:58] Uh there were 29 fire calls, 14 within

[1:08:01] the village. Uh other than the fire down

[1:08:03] at lakefront, nothing nothing on the

[1:08:07] other side of the house with EMS. They were summoned 118 118 times during the month of July and saddled

[1:08:15] with their responsibilities for the uh

[1:08:18] the induction the induction weekend

[1:08:21] uh and the special events that take

[1:08:23] place. I think the latest finger event

[1:08:26] was the triathlon on the on the on the

[1:08:28] lake and again hats off to that group

[1:08:31] because they just do an extraord

[1:08:33] extraordinary job.

[1:08:38] » Any questions, comments on the public

[1:08:40] safety report.

[1:08:42] Motion to accept the public safety

[1:08:45] committee by Molly, second by

[1:08:49] um Cindy. All in favor? I

[1:08:53] >> may I bring I don't know if this is a

[1:08:55] time point of this records uh document

[1:08:58] is that something nice

[1:09:00] >> yeah we haven't gotten Yep you're right

[1:09:02] we did

[1:09:03] >> it was appended to the public safety

[1:09:06] >> oh right that's in your packet and it

[1:09:10] looks like this

[1:09:12] um

[1:09:14] is there any questions comments while

[1:09:16] Jess is here about this it came up I

[1:09:19] think last month but we didn't have this

[1:09:21] in front of us. So now you have the

[1:09:24] actual resolution that we would approve.

[1:09:28] >> Yeah. I was just going to ask Jess if

[1:09:29] you could give us your views of this

[1:09:32] system. Do you think it's value added to

[1:09:34] your

[1:09:34] >> Yes, absolutely. So I'm sorry that

[1:09:38] wasn't available the first reading of it

[1:09:40] when I forwarded it over to the village

[1:09:42] clerk. I attended a full day course on

[1:09:45] 1/4 of records at um Syracuse University

[1:09:49] and the presenters were very specific to

[1:09:52] New York State law and how it applies to

[1:09:55] us being a steward and releasing public

[1:09:58] records. One of the items that came up

[1:10:00] from the uh New York State Archives, the

[1:10:03] state library is the fact that every

[1:10:06] municipality New York State state law

[1:10:08] covering their e electronic records

[1:10:11] their electronic signatures creating

[1:10:13] paper. We're going for more paperless

[1:10:16] electronic documents. The municipalities

[1:10:20] are not covered under that law that has

[1:10:22] already been passed. They would have to

[1:10:23] adopt this document which they provided

[1:10:25] and I reached out to the archives to

[1:10:28] make sure that we have all of that. Each

[1:10:30] municipality would adopt that to then

[1:10:33] allow those records to be electronically

[1:10:36] signed and stand up in court for

[1:10:38] whatever reason being. I believe our

[1:10:41] universal traffic tickets that are

[1:10:44] operated by New York State. I believe

[1:10:45] that applies there. of art. We have e

[1:10:48] signature that go on there. But any

[1:10:49] other document that I generate for local

[1:10:52] court or anything else, we may then or

[1:10:56] to the e version of that electronic

[1:10:58] version as the original. Um and we can

[1:11:01] kind of we're working on to revise our

[1:11:03] record section, but we generate a lot of

[1:11:06] documents and I'm trying to get more and

[1:11:07] more people to go electronic and get it

[1:11:11] scanned, get it recycled, securely

[1:11:13] shredded and recycled. So um by adding

[1:11:17] this I think that could help every

[1:11:19] department not just the police

[1:11:20] department but every department and

[1:11:21] entity within the village to then have

[1:11:23] that strength of resolution to utilize

[1:11:27] electronic documentation.

[1:11:28] >> So this would not be specific to our

[1:11:31] department. It would be specific to the

[1:11:34] entire village record.

[1:11:37] >> That's what I understand. Yes.

[1:11:40] Not a slave. That was my question as

[1:11:42] well, whether we were approving this

[1:11:44] specifically for the Coopertown Police

[1:11:46] Department or whether we were approving

[1:11:48] it for all

[1:11:50] >> Coopertown. That resolution was

[1:11:52] entitywide as the the village board of

[1:11:56] Gooerstown passes that resolution. Every

[1:11:59] one that pulled under the village

[1:12:01] government would now apply for the

[1:12:04] electronic document fee. I mean,

[1:12:06] >> so it's not just for police records,

[1:12:08] it's for any government record,

[1:12:11] >> right? So, and I can appreciate the

[1:12:13] value of it. I just don't know. Do we

[1:12:14] need to consult with the rest of

[1:12:16] >> Yeah, I think we better because um this

[1:12:19] came up to a degree in the finance in

[1:12:22] the treasures and we do have like a

[1:12:24] seven-year policy

[1:12:26] >> and uh so it's not necessarily something

[1:12:30] that

[1:12:32] you know it'd be very the quantity of

[1:12:35] our financial records would rapidly fill

[1:12:38] this building. Um and you know our data

[1:12:42] systems um it's not all digitized all of

[1:12:46] that financial records

[1:12:48] >> like I to me it makes sense if we want

[1:12:50] to move forward for the sake of your

[1:12:52] department in the third blank to fill in

[1:12:55] Coopertown Police Department and then to

[1:12:57] return to this. But I too concerned

[1:13:00] about financial records.

[1:13:01] >> Oh yeah. And it's certainly not they're

[1:13:04] calling for bucks to go paperless.

[1:13:07] No, no. Yeah. The ability to then

[1:13:09] generate or provide any document. So, if

[1:13:11] I were to email it over to another

[1:13:13] entity, for example, if it has our

[1:13:15] signature on it, it would be the same as

[1:13:17] or considered an original. Um, cuz some

[1:13:20] entities, believe it or not, 2020 states

[1:13:22] when I was sending documents to New York

[1:13:24] State DCJS, they're requiring the hard

[1:13:27] copy. Well, so that that's exactly what

[1:13:30] concerned me is the last sentence that

[1:13:32] is on this page because it indicates

[1:13:35] that paper copies will be convenience

[1:13:38] copies,

[1:13:39] >> disposed of

[1:13:39] >> and disposed of um

[1:13:43] >> and and we know in some cases that they

[1:13:46] are more than convenience copies. They

[1:13:48] are considered the the copy. So it was

[1:13:50] that last sentence particularly as I was

[1:13:53] thinking about finance, as we think

[1:13:55] about invoices that are born digital but

[1:13:57] which we print. Um we need to know that

[1:14:01] those printed copies carry the same

[1:14:04] weight as the the digital copies and

[1:14:07] that may be true for you as well.

[1:14:09] >> Yeah. Like we know which ones because

[1:14:11] like a lot of my original um wet paid

[1:14:15] wet copies I would call it do go

[1:14:17] directly to the court if it's to that.

[1:14:19] So my then I have a whole jacket a case

[1:14:22] jacket of copies that would have the

[1:14:24] same if the court does in fact lose

[1:14:27] those. They're apparently under a lot of

[1:14:29] workload right now. So

[1:14:31] >> yeah,

[1:14:31] >> they would again my other copies would

[1:14:34] be considered by law an original.

[1:14:36] >> So I don't believe this this resolution

[1:14:39] at all calling for a paper list or um

[1:14:42] you must go by this date. It just gives

[1:14:44] I understood it and we can certainly get

[1:14:46] more um guidance from the state archives

[1:14:50] that it would allow us to you to have

[1:14:52] that option and have that other layer of

[1:14:54] protection under the law that gives it.

[1:14:57] So that's was my understanding.

[1:15:00] >> Yeah. I two thoughts on that. This last

[1:15:02] sentence has a lot of meat on it.

[1:15:04] >> Yeah. Yeah, it sure does.

[1:15:05] >> It's shall be deemed convenience copies

[1:15:07] are disposed of when no longer needed

[1:15:10] for reference or other administrative

[1:15:11] purposes. and the administrative

[1:15:13] purposes means we need that as the the

[1:15:16] record for us. It's it's

[1:15:19] >> sort of got an internal contradiction.

[1:15:20] The second point I have, Cindy, I might

[1:15:23] be missing something, but it doesn't

[1:15:25] talk about departments. It talks about

[1:15:26] >> Yeah, it's the government. That's I was

[1:15:28] wondering how you just make this

[1:15:29] Coopertown Village Police Department

[1:15:32] because it's totally talking government.

[1:15:34] I think we need a little more background

[1:15:37] information on this. Um it and maybe

[1:15:41] draft something that might be applicable

[1:15:43] to the police.

[1:15:44] >> That would work under the state law that

[1:15:46] would allow us to have a policy so that

[1:15:49] we could specifically be that entity.

[1:15:51] >> Yeah. And why don't we begin there? But

[1:15:53] I think some we need a little more

[1:15:55] information

[1:15:57] >> documents from the records retention

[1:16:00] people.

[1:16:03] Well, I'm just wonder to follow up on

[1:16:05] that more information

[1:16:08] >> if I know you had those training

[1:16:11] conferences. I don't know if this would

[1:16:12] be a topic at training to see how double

[1:16:16] wide this policy

[1:16:19] schedules. Obviously, we know we can't

[1:16:20] get rid of these held. So, I think this

[1:16:23] is something

[1:16:25] >> this is specific to digital.

[1:16:27] >> It was born digital.

[1:16:28] >> It's totally digital. um perhaps gather

[1:16:31] a little more information, bring it to

[1:16:34] public safety and back to the village

[1:16:36] board next month and we'll look into

[1:16:38] this further. I don't think we're ready

[1:16:40] to take an action on it.

[1:16:42] >> Absolutely. Happy to do so.

[1:16:44] >> Thank you so much, Jess.

[1:16:48] And the only other thing that um would

[1:16:51] have been under police committee is um I

[1:16:53] had brought up the compact car

[1:16:56] definition because we have it in our um

[1:17:00] our village law. Um but we don't have a

[1:17:03] definition. So I had begun to draft one.

[1:17:07] Uh I don't believe anything further was

[1:17:10] done on that but I will work or did was

[1:17:12] it?

[1:17:13] >> Yeah, it was I may have it in my packet.

[1:17:16] If not, could you quickly produce copies

[1:17:18] for everybody?

[1:17:19] >> Yeah, I can print that as well if you'd

[1:17:21] like with the hard copies or I can

[1:17:22] verbalize it as well.

[1:17:24] >> Yeah,

[1:17:24] >> I know. I can certainly go print that off because I sent that over to

[1:17:28] George this morning before our meeting.

[1:17:30] So, there is in fact no, there was a

[1:17:33] question I know he had about the

[1:17:35] definition in New York State vehicle

[1:17:37] travel. There is no specific definition

[1:17:40] of a compact vehicle. What we had

[1:17:42] located was the um EPA has a cubic size

[1:17:49] space but interior cubic space of the

[1:17:51] vehicle. I would suggest potentially

[1:17:54] going by the wheelbase. That's something

[1:17:56] on the exterior that can be checked by

[1:17:59] my enforcement officers. They do believe

[1:18:01] it or not carry a ruler. We have already

[1:18:04] a minute to measure how far off the curb

[1:18:06] they are. So if we would define it as a

[1:18:08] village uh the wheelbase the standard

[1:18:11] wheelbase and in this email it says

[1:18:13] between a 96 and 103 I believe that will

[1:18:17] give us an exterior quantitative number

[1:18:20] for how compact vehicle and then it

[1:18:24] would be an because we're not

[1:18:26] contradicting state law by that and I'm

[1:18:28] not

[1:18:28] >> right I I last month found that and I

[1:18:31] said obviously our poor um public safety

[1:18:33] can't measure cubic feet within a

[1:18:35] vehicle

[1:18:36] But there were communities that defined

[1:18:39] it. But this came up because we, for

[1:18:42] those who might have missed that, we

[1:18:44] have a compact cars only uh signage sort

[1:18:48] of in front of, you know, the former

[1:18:50] church and Scott building at and it's

[1:18:54] not I've been told we can't enforce it

[1:18:56] because we don't have the definition and

[1:18:58] we don't have it in our vehicle and

[1:19:00] traffic laws. So, we need to do that,

[1:19:03] set a public hearing to define a compact

[1:19:07] car and to establish that parking space

[1:19:11] that's already labeled um for that. The

[1:19:16] um other municipality I'd seen had an

[1:19:19] actual dimension. It might have been

[1:19:21] wheelbase, but it's it talked about and

[1:19:23] the comp did talk about the cubic feet

[1:19:26] or of of the interior, but it also

[1:19:30] talked about 17 ft or less, 16 ft or

[1:19:33] less. Um, many of the trucks that are

[1:19:37] out there now are actually in violation

[1:19:39] of our 20 foot maximum on our street.

[1:19:44] And when a 20

[1:19:46] foot plus truck parks in that spot,

[1:19:49] you're imperiling

[1:19:51] pedestrians trying to cross on the

[1:19:54] sidewalk, the crosswalk there. And you

[1:19:56] know that intersection that they were a

[1:19:59] standard pickup truck. It wasn't

[1:20:02] extended. It had no additions to it.

[1:20:04] that was parked in a diag diagonal spot

[1:20:06] in front of the hall that was impeding

[1:20:08] traffic because cars had to go on the

[1:20:12] other lane and it was backing up to the

[1:20:14] flag pole that I checked and that was he

[1:20:17] was up to the curb. He still received a

[1:20:19] citation for his parking space because

[1:20:21] it was over the footage and no only one

[1:20:23] lane could get past out main street.

[1:20:25] This is a couple months ago. So it's

[1:20:28] >> yeah.

[1:20:29] >> All right. So for um let's set a um

[1:20:33] public hearing for um our September 28th

[1:20:37] meeting to um you know approve a compact

[1:20:42] car definition that will be both for our

[1:20:44] zoning and for our

[1:20:46] >> zoning was not in favor of of adding the

[1:20:48] definition to the zoning law

[1:20:50] >> even though it's in there

[1:20:51] >> because it gives discretion to the

[1:20:53] planning board on unusual lots. Okay,

[1:20:56] then fine. Then we would just do it for

[1:20:58] the vehicle and traffic law and that and

[1:21:00] in particular that space.

[1:21:02] >> Yep.

[1:21:03] >> All right. So second

[1:21:05] >> second by Joe. All in favor?

[1:21:10] » Perfect.

[1:21:11] >> Happy to write it up just

[1:21:13] >> where it goes.

[1:21:17] » Yeah, I say I'll work with George on

[1:21:19] public safety on it.

[1:21:22] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:21:24] multiaceted

[1:21:26] wonderful.

[1:21:28] >> All right, moving on. Other committee

[1:21:31] reports

[1:21:32] double day.

[1:21:34] >> Yeah, we had a pretty busy meeting for

[1:21:37] double day. Um Mr. Kurpin said that the

[1:21:40] field has been pretty busy with

[1:21:42] tournaments this summer, which is good

[1:21:44] to hear.

[1:21:46] um for the friends of double day update.

[1:21:48] Um I believe last month we talked about

[1:21:51] the painted side on the outfield um of

[1:21:56] the stadium there that was friends home in baseball. I guess back in the I

[1:22:02] want to say early 1930s 40s 50s and 60s

[1:22:06] there was a painted sign that said I

[1:22:08] think birthplace of baseball and uh we

[1:22:11] would like to change that to the home of

[1:22:12] baseball. I want to say Mr. cats or Jeff

[1:22:15] Catz and Vinnie Russo are going to work

[1:22:17] together to kind of figure out the

[1:22:19] dimensions about how big that sign would

[1:22:21] be and exactly where we go on the

[1:22:24] outfield. So, and when we get that,

[1:22:26] we'll come back and I guess we can vote

[1:22:28] on whether or not we can put that on

[1:22:33] there. Um, and we also talked about the

[1:22:37] uh double D

[1:22:40] museum, I guess. Was it you, Ellen, that

[1:22:43] maybe?

[1:22:43] >> Well, I actually I think Jeff might have

[1:22:46] said museum in the bathroom area. I had

[1:22:49] brought up the um former field manager's

[1:22:52] office and I hadn't said museum.

[1:22:56] It said sort of like a history

[1:22:57] interpretive center for with panels for

[1:23:01] tourists so that they could understand

[1:23:02] the history of

[1:23:05] >> I brought it up that we could maybe use

[1:23:07] one of the field managers offices but I

[1:23:10] guess it seems like they all or all the

[1:23:12] offices are being used currently.

[1:23:15] You know, I saw that and I I think I'd

[1:23:18] like to follow up on that because until

[1:23:20] we third phase building and I hope most

[1:23:25] of you have seen the Gil Manager's

[1:23:27] office, it's really big. Um, and that

[1:23:32] space he was in previously in the 1939

[1:23:36] building was his office space. There is

[1:23:39] storage space under the uh stadium

[1:23:43] seating at the third base pavilion. So I should think that there might be other

[1:23:49] um

[1:23:51] space for storage and that

[1:23:54] is a very visually attractive place to

[1:23:58] potentially welcome tourists and give

[1:24:00] them interpreting centers

[1:24:03] there. So, I'd like to I think the

[1:24:06] doubleA committee might want to look

[1:24:07] into that a little more.

[1:24:09] >> Okay, sounds good. I'll bring it back up

[1:24:10] to them. Um, and I guess once we figure

[1:24:13] out where that museum will be, our

[1:24:15] little um little area,

[1:24:18] we'll kind of have to let Jeff Catz know

[1:24:21] so he can uh start some fundraising.

[1:24:24] Uh, let's see. The St. Louis Cardinals

[1:24:27] fantasy camp weekend is coming spring of

[1:24:30] next year and uh we were talking about

[1:24:33] maybe publicly promoting the event but I

[1:24:35] guess in the past St. Louis Cardinals

[1:24:37] really haven't wanted a big

[1:24:39] >> don't want to be really being promoted

[1:24:42] so I guess we probably won't really do

[1:24:44] that.

[1:24:46] >> Um Hall of Fame weekend was pretty good

[1:24:49] uh pretty good ground for the Hall of

[1:24:52] Fame. Um, and one of the new businesses

[1:24:57] that I'm excited for is the uh asset

[1:25:00] generation shoot with Casp Majestic.

[1:25:04] It's just going to be happen happening

[1:25:05] in about a month. Uh, mainly a double

[1:25:09] day field. They're basically going to be

[1:25:11] shooting some shots between 7 and 10

[1:25:14] a.m. on the field. I guess it's kind of

[1:25:18] gonna help promote tourism to the double

[1:25:21] day field.

[1:25:23] Um, and then we were talking about I

[1:25:26] guess there was some company I forget

[1:25:28] exactly which company they had reached

[1:25:32] out to Marsha and I and they were hoping

[1:25:34] to maybe have a barbecue uh set up for

[1:25:37] induction weekend next year. They were

[1:25:40] hoping to serve about 200 800 people on

[1:25:43] the Saturday afternoon of induction

[1:25:45] weekend. used to mention,

[1:25:47] >> but we

[1:25:49] were trying to figure out which location

[1:25:52] to do it in and we were we couldn't

[1:25:55] really come up with a location that

[1:25:56] could serve up to 800 people

[1:26:00] and yeah, we were talking about Fowler

[1:26:02] Pavilion or Lake Park and we said

[1:26:07] there's probably no way. Then we told I

[1:26:11] think someone was gonna tell the company

[1:26:12] if they really want to do the county or

[1:26:14] do it in Coopertown, maybe reach out to

[1:26:16] the county, they do it on the county

[1:26:19] lawn.

[1:26:21] And that's really all um Oh, we also

[1:26:25] talked about I guess this the same

[1:26:27] company wanted to have blacks

[1:26:30] commemorating uh the customers that have

[1:26:33] visited all 30 major league stadiums in

[1:26:36] the US. But and I guess they wanted to

[1:26:38] put it on double be feel and we all were

[1:26:41] like that no

[1:26:43] that's not appropriate.

[1:26:46] Well that's really all we all we

[1:26:48] discussed about our double date

[1:26:53] uh meeting. Yes, slide three.

[1:26:57] >> On the um additional agenda,

[1:27:01] there is um the we'd like to consider um

[1:27:06] increasing the nonrefundable application

[1:27:10] fee for the double day field

[1:27:12] application.

[1:27:13] What you have in your packet are two

[1:27:16] pages. one um if you look at it and kind

[1:27:19] of look the fees funds you understand

[1:27:23] our policies

[1:27:25] and there's also a sheet that indicates

[1:27:29] the refunds that were given. Now

[1:27:31] remember if you're you get at least four

[1:27:35] innings in we don't cancel some of these

[1:27:38] you don't even get those four innings.

[1:27:41] Um, so we processed applications and

[1:27:45] each funded $10,720

[1:27:48] thus far this year. So this becomes a

[1:27:52] bit of an administrative

[1:27:54] burden for $25. It's uh ties up our

[1:27:59] deputy clerk. It um ties up our finance,

[1:28:03] our treasures department, cutting those

[1:28:06] checks, you know, all the approvals,

[1:28:08] etc. So um this was discussed at finance

[1:28:13] and it seemed rather than you know any

[1:28:16] pro rating etc that um increasing the

[1:28:20] $25 fee Marsha said they wouldn't even

[1:28:23] probably bat an eye if it was $75. But

[1:28:27] it does seem that the village um in

[1:28:30] recognition of all the work involved by

[1:28:32] our staff to both these games, handle

[1:28:36] the correspondence, then issue refunds

[1:28:39] etc. is certainly more than $25.

[1:28:46] » So I understand how that would work with

[1:28:48] single games. So they would pay I would

[1:28:51] even say a $100 non-refundable

[1:28:54] application fee. How does it work with

[1:28:57] tournament tournament games? Um, do they

[1:29:01] pay an application fee plus 5%

[1:29:06] non-refundable de deposit? Looking at

[1:29:09] the fees that are included in our

[1:29:10] packet. Um,

[1:29:13] >> right. The that means that

[1:29:17] can that's if they cancel. Are you

[1:29:19] talking about the 90% refund? No, I'm on page three of what's in our

[1:29:25] packet. So, it says single games, $25

[1:29:28] non-refundable application fee paid when

[1:29:31] applying for a game.

[1:29:32] >> And then tournament games, it says 5%

[1:29:35] non-refundable deposit due with

[1:29:37] application. So, do they not pay an

[1:29:39] application fee?

[1:29:40] >> No, everybody pays the $25. But what

[1:29:44] you're saying there is they just do that

[1:29:47] um paid when applying for a game. You

[1:29:51] don't you do that but if for the

[1:29:53] tournament games

[1:29:55] >> the 5% nonrefundable disposit due with

[1:29:59] application.

[1:30:00] >> What's the difference between a

[1:30:02] non-refundable deposit and a

[1:30:04] non-refundable application?

[1:30:06] >> That's I guess a better way to state the

[1:30:08] question that it is that some of those

[1:30:11] are like $3,000. No, I mean the term

[1:30:15] art, but we have an a non-refundable

[1:30:18] application fee and then we have a

[1:30:20] non-refundable deposit.

[1:30:22] I don't know what the difference. I

[1:30:25] mean, they all they all go to our

[1:30:26] administration, right?

[1:30:29] You see the different words. I'm I'm

[1:30:30] just focusing on the different words in

[1:30:32] each.

[1:30:34] >> Yeah, you're right. Um I don't know. I

[1:30:38] can't reach out. Marca explained that.

[1:30:42] >> Yes.

[1:30:43] per plus tournaments have to do that 5%

[1:30:45] because they're much larger. They take

[1:30:47] up like tons of spots. So they they're

[1:30:50] required to put down even more.

[1:30:51] >> It's a deposit on their rental. So say

[1:30:54] they um have booked three games or four

[1:30:59] games, it'll be $2,000.

[1:31:01] So they have to put 5% of that

[1:31:06] $2,000.

[1:31:08] So, I would just suggest including the

[1:31:10] line about the refundable non-refundable

[1:31:13] application fee, whatever amount we

[1:31:15] decide on in both both columns because I

[1:31:20] >> That's exactly right. That was the

[1:31:22] recommendation of finance that it not be

[1:31:25] predicated on your games or how many you

[1:31:29] did. It's a administrative fee is what

[1:31:33] we wanted it to be,

[1:31:35] >> right? And I guess

[1:31:37] we're really talking about a not less

[1:31:39] than number if the 5% non-refundable

[1:31:41] deposit is it cannot be less than the 75

[1:31:45] or $100 whatever we're charging.

[1:31:47] >> Well, I assume it's both. I assume it's

[1:31:49] the application fee plus 5%

[1:31:53] was very

[1:31:57] clear from the way this is written to

[1:31:59] me.

[1:31:59] >> What is the dollar amount on the

[1:32:01] non-refundable application fee we were

[1:32:03] suggesting?

[1:32:06] suggested 75.

[1:32:08] >> Yeah. So, what's

[1:32:09] >> said they wouldn't bet an eye.

[1:32:10] >> So, what's this 25? Is that something

[1:32:12] we're just going to change? Right.

[1:32:14] >> That is what it currently is no matter

[1:32:16] how much they book.

[1:32:17] >> Right. And so, we're talking about

[1:32:19] changing that. But the one that had me scratching my head

[1:32:24] was the 5% non-refundable deposit.

[1:32:28] It's always going to be more than the

[1:32:30] $75.

[1:32:32] Correct.

[1:32:34] I believe if I understand correctly what

[1:32:36] we're proposing is it be in addition to

[1:32:39] the fee

[1:32:39] >> there isation fee whether you do book

[1:32:42] single games or tournament games it's

[1:32:45] called an administrative fee and it

[1:32:47] would be $75. So then is the for

[1:32:50] tournament games is that that fee that

[1:32:53] 25% application fee each or $25 each

[1:32:57] game or the total number of games

[1:32:59] >> there's a onetime application fee for

[1:33:02] tournaments but tournaments are have to

[1:33:03] be so many games. So that's going to

[1:33:06] require 5% out of the $25 application.

[1:33:10] >> Okay, which is now going to be 75 of the

[1:33:13] application. Tournaments have so many

[1:33:15] games we ask them to pay an additional

[1:33:17] fee. because they take up a lot of

[1:33:19] schedule.

[1:33:20] >> So they have to pay that as you

[1:33:24] >> so it's 75 bucks in each case plus less

[1:33:26] the 5% in the deposit.

[1:33:29] >> So the recommendation was a $75

[1:33:33] administrative fee. So even if they get

[1:33:36] all their money back for a rain,

[1:33:40] the village is left with something

[1:33:43] besides

[1:33:45] $25.

[1:33:46] >> Yeah. Yeah, as as is correct, we didn't

[1:33:48] all that. We'll

[1:33:49] >> schedule them the paperwork and whatever

[1:33:51] and it's not our fault either that

[1:33:53] they're ranked out.

[1:33:54] >> So, I think we're we have what we want

[1:33:55] to do, but we need to articulate it in.

[1:33:58] >> Well, we'll have um Marshall do that,

[1:34:01] but essentially what we are saying is

[1:34:03] I'll move that we set a $75

[1:34:06] nonrefundable administrative fee when

[1:34:10] applying for um the games, you know,

[1:34:14] field regions.

[1:34:16] Um, is there a second?

[1:34:17] >> No question. Does that include applying

[1:34:19] for a tournament

[1:34:21] >> then? That there's that's something

[1:34:24] separate, right, Jenna? That

[1:34:26] >> Yeah, that 5% of that is the

[1:34:28] administrative fee.

[1:34:29] >> I was going to say there should be let's

[1:34:32] Okay. 75 if that's what you'd like. I

[1:34:34] prefer Audrey, but $75 non-refundable

[1:34:38] administrative fee. When making an

[1:34:40] application for a game or tournament or

[1:34:43] a tournament, there's an additional 5%.

[1:34:46] Make it clear, use the word additional,

[1:34:49] not nonrefundable deposit to the

[1:34:51] application.

[1:34:52] >> Yeah. So, that doesn't change. We've

[1:34:54] been a little fixated on that. We're

[1:34:56] essentially a $75 administrative fee

[1:34:59] whether you book one game or you book

[1:35:02] four games in a tournament, but they

[1:35:04] have additional fees if they book four

[1:35:07] games for. Further clarification. So in

[1:35:10] our example there we have a $600 gain.

[1:35:13] Is that does the $75 come out of the 600

[1:35:16] or is it $600 and $75?

[1:35:19] >> It's an administrative fee so that if we

[1:35:22] they are rained out um and our office

[1:35:25] has not only processed that worked with

[1:35:28] the double day field manager scheduled

[1:35:31] everything put in the time then they get

[1:35:34] rained out. and our finance department

[1:35:37] has to cut the check, handle all that is

[1:35:41] to cover our office time and

[1:35:44] >> right I get that

[1:35:46] >> has nothing to do with nothing to do

[1:35:47] with the rate. The rate is the rate per

[1:35:49] game. The administrative fee is the fee

[1:35:52] for making an application. That's all.

[1:35:54] Well, it's it's not quite that all

[1:35:57] because I'm assuming it in the

[1:36:00] tournament game the 5% non-refundable

[1:36:02] deposit

[1:36:04] >> that's been that that is

[1:36:05] >> right that is there but in the event of

[1:36:07] a cancellation I thought they get all

[1:36:09] their money back less the 5,000 the 5%

[1:36:13] nonable deposit the whole point is that

[1:36:16] the deposit is against the full price of

[1:36:18] your tournament it's a deposit

[1:36:20] >> right

[1:36:21] >> so it's not an additional fee it's it's

[1:36:23] so in the event of a rain out we keep 5%

[1:36:27] >> when it's a tournament

[1:36:29] >> but that's book like four days

[1:36:32] >> right no and I'm saying that's fine I'm

[1:36:34] just not I don't know that we're clear

[1:36:35] on

[1:36:36] >> so we're talking about adding an

[1:36:37] additional fee that would be above and

[1:36:40] beyond that deposit that everyone would

[1:36:42] make and it would be above the the field

[1:36:46] rental

[1:36:47] >> so it's going to be

[1:36:50] for a tournament it's going to be $75 $5

[1:36:54] per application or per game?

[1:36:56] >> Per application.

[1:36:57] >> Okay. Plus the And then we we retain we

[1:37:00] get that and we retain 5% of the total

[1:37:02] that they pass. And on the single gate,

[1:37:06] we're going to get we're going to keep

[1:37:07] $75 of whatever they had passed. But

[1:37:09] >> the easiest way is once the approved, it

[1:37:12] will go up here. except allove above all um field scheduling and rentals $75.

[1:37:21] So then you aren't having a confusion on

[1:37:24] >> Yeah. And so this will be my last

[1:37:26] question. I'm I'm sorry I'm thick. In

[1:37:28] the first bullet example, will this now

[1:37:32] $600 gain result in a check being sent

[1:37:35] to the village for $675?

[1:37:39] » We usually do separate checks. So you

[1:37:42] apply with the $25 which is currently

[1:37:45] with the application. Then as we set

[1:37:47] their dates, they give us the final

[1:37:48] payment by April or May. So there's two

[1:37:51] separate check sheets coming in. One is

[1:37:53] the application fee, one is the game. So

[1:37:56] it's not a $675 check. It would be a

[1:37:58] $600 and a $75.

[1:38:00] >> Okay. But okay, but it ends up being

[1:38:02] $675.

[1:38:03] >> The 75 is not credited against the 600.

[1:38:06] And what what happens when we have a

[1:38:08] tournament scheduled, multi-day

[1:38:10] tournament, and the first day gets

[1:38:12] rained out?

[1:38:14] They don't get anything back for the

[1:38:15] whole tournament, do they?

[1:38:17] >> They get credits on their um days.

[1:38:20] >> Yeah. Most of the time with tournament

[1:38:22] rain, they try to squeeze in games when

[1:38:23] it's not raining. So, a it just works

[1:38:25] out with tournament. They always seem to

[1:38:27] find a way and it works out. No, we

[1:38:29] don't typically refund,

[1:38:32] >> right? Okay. I mean, they don't say,

[1:38:33] "Hey, we couldn't get our tournament

[1:38:35] started, so you know, we want to re we

[1:38:38] want a refund for everything." Okay.

[1:38:40] >> All right. I believe I made the motion

[1:38:42] and Molly seconded it. All in favor?

[1:38:45] >> I

[1:38:48] brought that one up.

[1:38:51] >> All right. So, that was the last action

[1:38:55] under double day field. Motion to accept

[1:38:57] double day field committee report

[1:39:00] >> by George. Second by uh Joe. All in

[1:39:03] favor?

[1:39:03] >> I.

[1:39:04] >> Moving on to streets committee.

[1:39:07] >> Sounds good. So just to give you some

[1:39:09] updates on things that were covered in

[1:39:11] the minutes. Um Bill Clark came to the

[1:39:14] meeting about water that runs down his

[1:39:16] driveway onto the sidewalk and into his

[1:39:18] house. So, our street crew is looking to

[1:39:22] assist uh Bill as well as the neighbor

[1:39:25] with whom he shares a driveway to create

[1:39:27] a little speed hump at the entrance to

[1:39:30] the driveway so that that water is not

[1:39:32] doing that. Um under trolley since we

[1:39:37] had this meeting um the Adiggo County

[1:39:41] has received an offer from the city of

[1:39:44] Oni to purchase

[1:39:47] uh the broken trolley that we have

[1:39:50] talked about month after month after

[1:39:51] month. Um, so that went to Common

[1:39:54] Council on Thursday night and appears to

[1:39:56] be moving forward um, likely at a rate

[1:40:00] of $7,500

[1:40:02] for them to acquire that trolley. We

[1:40:05] spent a lot of time last night talking

[1:40:08] about sports signs. You may recall if

[1:40:11] you have come into the village of

[1:40:13] Coopertown from the south, you will see

[1:40:16] that Mitch has found a solution. Um,

[1:40:20] which is to double up the signs. It's a

[1:40:23] lot of signs, but it does uh they

[1:40:25] managed to fit them all in one pole. So,

[1:40:27] if we like that, they can do that at the

[1:40:29] other entrances to the village. So, take

[1:40:31] note when you pass uh when you pass

[1:40:34] Bokeh. May

[1:40:34] >> I return to trolley for a second? I was

[1:40:37] confused by the second bullet.

[1:40:40] T citing writership. It's Is it

[1:40:43] >> It's incorrect.

[1:40:44] >> It's There's a

[1:40:46] >> It's down

[1:40:49] by 3,200

[1:40:51] writers. I

[1:40:53] >> Anyway,

[1:40:55] >> 5,800 writers and then that's down from

[1:40:57] 3,000 writers.

[1:41:00] >> Yes, there there is a there is a

[1:41:02] typographical error. I can look up the

[1:41:04] correct numbers for you.

[1:41:07] >> Well, it's okay. I just wanted to be so

[1:41:09] what were and and your the comment was

[1:41:12] that the that 6,000 and 2,000 ridership

[1:41:16] is not good for us.

[1:41:18] >> That is correct.

[1:41:19] >> Okay.

[1:41:20] >> Yeah.

[1:41:22] >> I was thought I read having been some of

[1:41:25] those down by

[1:41:29] >> it is it is down by that number.

[1:41:32] >> Yes.

[1:41:33] >> I just confused.

[1:41:34] >> Yes. though from is in the wrong place. So it should

[1:41:39] be down the number from 2025.

[1:41:42] >> Yeah,

[1:41:43] >> good catch up.

[1:41:45] >> Um

[1:41:47] in terms of sidewalks, I would like to

[1:41:50] make a motion to go to bid for new

[1:41:53] sidewalks on Sesuana Avenue. You have

[1:41:56] the bid documents in your packet.

[1:42:01] » And where will these new

[1:42:05] They are

[1:42:08] um

[1:42:11] fabulous.

[1:42:12] >> I believe it's between walnut and

[1:42:15] beaver.

[1:42:21] » I I walked my dog on them today.

[1:42:24] >> Let me let me ask Mitch where they where

[1:42:26] they are. It might be the next block

[1:42:28] then.

[1:42:28] >> Yeah, then it's gonna be the next block.

[1:42:30] They're fabulous. Good. Great.

[1:42:33] Do you think that we think it's the next

[1:42:35] law?

[1:42:36] >> I will confirm with him. Cindy,

[1:42:38] >> you said that though that info was in

[1:42:40] our packet, didn't you?

[1:42:41] >> I thought it was.

[1:42:42] >> I I don't see it, but maybe

[1:42:46] >> Was it only on our streets? Maybe it was

[1:42:48] just on our street agenda. I'm sorry.

[1:42:51] >> So, you like the number?

[1:42:53] >> Beaver to Beaver to Elm. No, this is to

[1:42:56] issue the bid.

[1:42:57] >> Is Oh,

[1:42:58] >> we're not talking about money yet.

[1:42:59] >> Okay.

[1:43:00] >> Beaver to Elm.

[1:43:00] Sorry, my confusion.

[1:43:03] >> No, I was going to say they were done.

[1:43:06] Whoever did them.

[1:43:08] >> No, this is just to to get quotes, which

[1:43:10] we will hopefully talk about next month.

[1:43:14] Um, I've been drafting a letter related

[1:43:16] to the trees that are breaking up the

[1:43:19] walls of Willowbrook. Martin read it

[1:43:21] today. I think the one question is whom

[1:43:24] should it come from? Should it come from

[1:43:26] me as chair of street? Should it come

[1:43:28] from Ellen as mayor? come from Mitch as

[1:43:30] DPW superintendent. I don't know whether

[1:43:33] anyone has any strong feelings.

[1:43:36] >> Foundation question.

[1:43:37] >> Who owns what here? We believe the walls

[1:43:41] are owned by the village and the trees

[1:43:45] are obviously on the lawn of individuals

[1:43:49] and it is the root system and

[1:43:51] encroaching upon the law.

[1:43:53] >> Yes. So I was just we have surveys and

[1:43:56] title of I mean

[1:43:59] >> it's not that clear

[1:44:00] >> water course because often times the

[1:44:04] property lines go to the

[1:44:06] >> my understanding but Joe I can't tell

[1:44:08] you I can be definitive is that those

[1:44:10] walls were put in by

[1:44:13] I guess we can determine

[1:44:16] surv

[1:44:17] >> I don't think we own the property the

[1:44:20] because as Joe's pointing out the

[1:44:21] boundary lines often go to the center of

[1:44:23] the creek, but Martin Barton and I both

[1:44:25] believe that the village put in the

[1:44:27] walls,

[1:44:28] >> right? And so how but I it's just a

[1:44:33] puzzlement to me that we've got public

[1:44:35] infrastructure on private property and

[1:44:37] now we're commanding the private

[1:44:39] property owners to

[1:44:40] >> not not if we had it there was an

[1:44:42] easement operation. I think there must

[1:44:43] have been an easement.

[1:44:44] >> I think the village did many things in

[1:44:46] the past without getting formal. And the

[1:44:49] idea I mean it clearly would damage

[1:44:52] infrastructure that uh preserves village

[1:44:56] and others property. So um

[1:45:00] >> it's fine. I mean we'll wait to get a

[1:45:02] reaction. I'm not I don't want to hold

[1:45:03] that up.

[1:45:04] >> I just I think that's probably the best

[1:45:06] bet. I I mean that to me um but if if

[1:45:10] there if it came down to someone saying

[1:45:12] I'm not doing it. We have an obligation

[1:45:15] I think to preserve that given the fact

[1:45:18] that uh if the water runs the box

[1:45:21] somebody else is going to be damaged.

[1:45:23] Let me let me point out, Martin, again,

[1:45:25] you know, the logic here, okay? You're

[1:45:28] not you're not going to do it because

[1:45:30] you think that you own that, fine. If

[1:45:33] you own it and you're responsible for

[1:45:35] what it's doing, if it fails and causes

[1:45:37] problems downstream, you're going to get

[1:45:40] sued for it.

[1:45:41] >> The minute you tell somebody that, oh,

[1:45:43] wait, wait. No, I don't know. You won't.

[1:45:46] >> You may be right back.

[1:45:46] >> Do you know what I'm saying?

[1:45:48] The question, Richard, the question is

[1:45:52] it you can admit that it's public

[1:45:54] infrastructure, but it's on private

[1:45:56] property. The question is, it's up to

[1:45:58] the public entity who went onto your

[1:46:01] property.

[1:46:01] >> Quite honestly, though, Joe, if we put

[1:46:04] that on there, we probably now own that

[1:46:07] property through adverse possession.

[1:46:09] >> Yeah.

[1:46:10] >> Oh, yeah. After 10 years, we would have

[1:46:15] taken that. much less.

[1:46:16] >> It's the same argument we have with

[1:46:18] Baller Way. Anyone who you puts a

[1:46:21] permanent structure somewhere and then

[1:46:24] maintains it, uses it, you know, relies

[1:46:27] on it, nobody complains.

[1:46:28] >> It's Yeah, they're going to have a hard

[1:46:30] time proving it's theirs. And

[1:46:32] >> I'll leave that one for the Albony Law

[1:46:34] School first year property exam, but I'm fine. Let's get the all the

[1:46:38] question.

[1:46:38] >> Yeah, I'm just trying to think who would

[1:46:40] be the one to sign it. That That is the

[1:46:43] question. If I got it from the treaty

[1:46:45] committee, it doesn't bear much weight

[1:46:47] to me.

[1:46:48] >> Correct.

[1:46:48] >> When you think if it were the

[1:46:50] >> I would agree. Yes. I think if you're

[1:46:52] comfortable signing it, that would be

[1:46:53] the best.

[1:46:54] >> Well, I think it should be from the

[1:46:56] village board of trustees. So, it looks

[1:46:58] like a united decision.

[1:47:00] >> Absolutely.

[1:47:00] >> We can certainly do that.

[1:47:01] >> I think that's what it should be.

[1:47:03] >> Yeah. I'm not opposing any of this. I'm

[1:47:04] just saying these are the

[1:47:06] >> Yeah.

[1:47:06] >> underlying you got questions.

[1:47:08] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:47:10] >> There's a box of easements in the vault,

[1:47:12] too. was anything.

[1:47:13] >> I just I just feel that we sending too

[1:47:16] many too much stuff back to the law

[1:47:18] school for the students for their mood

[1:47:20] cause.

[1:47:22] >> Yeah,

[1:47:24] >> we could keep we could keep them busy

[1:47:25] for years with all our discussions on

[1:47:27] this.

[1:47:29] I can certainly also pull the deed on on

[1:47:32] the property in question and see if

[1:47:33] there's any thing that starts to explain

[1:47:36] it because I remember when um mom and dad we pointed that entire

[1:47:43] side they did the whole wall.

[1:47:46] >> Yes. Um

[1:47:47] >> certainly on that part of Willowbrook

[1:47:49] there is a different there there is a

[1:47:52] there was a different mechanism in place

[1:47:54] for the wall. Um, but I would that's

[1:47:58] that is a wall. There's a wall behind on

[1:48:02] a budding that property

[1:48:05] that was restacked and and and

[1:48:08] repointed. I would think that the

[1:48:10] property owner is not going to make a

[1:48:12] case for oh I now own the property to

[1:48:15] the middle of the waterway to which I

[1:48:17] would say as somebody downstream oh so

[1:48:20] it's the failure of you to maintain the

[1:48:23] infrastructure that's causing my problem

[1:48:26] I I would never want to

[1:48:29] o over three feet of property take that

[1:48:31] risk on some people might but you know

[1:48:35] it's kind of kind of stupid say I'm

[1:48:37] responsible this is mine. It also when

[1:48:39] you say this is mine, it also means I'm

[1:48:41] responsible for it.

[1:48:42] >> Yeah.

[1:48:45] >> So, the board of trustee would like to

[1:48:46] send the letter requesting that the

[1:48:49] property owner take care of the trees so

[1:48:51] they stop damaging the wall.

[1:48:54] >> Okay. That'll be the plan.

[1:48:55] >> Right.

[1:48:56] >> I'm sure we'll be talking about this

[1:48:58] more. right now in the world is that

[1:49:03] >> I don't know how widespread this problem

[1:49:05] is and we just as a board of engineer

[1:49:07] study and look at the integrity of

[1:49:08] everything is this something that we

[1:49:12] should just say you know we are looking

[1:49:14] at the quality of our infrastructure up

[1:49:17] and down and we see encroaching trees we

[1:49:19] want we want to come on and fix we want

[1:49:22] to remove the tree rather than say you

[1:49:23] got to fix it because if they don't

[1:49:26] I mean it's just going to be slow burn

[1:49:28] to one some kind of failure and that

[1:49:32] doesn't really get us if we think it's

[1:49:34] important enough to get rid of the tree

[1:49:36] to protect what we think is our

[1:49:38] infrastructure I think we ought to do

[1:49:39] that I don't I don't know we put that on

[1:49:41] the property just

[1:49:44] >> I agree with Joe

[1:49:46] >> basic

[1:49:50] the letter which I have not shared with

[1:49:51] you but I'm happy to do is is written in

[1:49:54] such a way that says we'd like to come

[1:49:55] to with we'd like to find a solution

[1:49:57] It's

[1:49:59] >> It's not a demanding letter. It is.

[1:50:01] You'll get to edit when you before you

[1:50:03] sign, Joe.

[1:50:03] >> Yes.

[1:50:04] >> No, I I'm happy to share it with

[1:50:06] everyone.

[1:50:06] >> If we want if we want the tree down to

[1:50:09] protect our property, we should take the

[1:50:12] tree down.

[1:50:12] >> If it's our property and they're

[1:50:14] damaging it, they have an obligation.

[1:50:17] >> Well, I think what we're really

[1:50:18] concerned about is downstream effects of

[1:50:21] a

[1:50:21] >> That is exactly what we're concerned

[1:50:23] about. So, it's another property owner

[1:50:24] who's involved in this and and what's

[1:50:26] our stake in the other property owner.

[1:50:29] >> Well, we are the other property owner

[1:50:30] because this the stream is headed to

[1:50:32] Double Day Field.

[1:50:34] That's where it goes.

[1:50:35] >> Right through it

[1:50:38] underneath it

[1:50:39] >> because Willow Brook is so much fun. I

[1:50:41] will tell you that we're also having an

[1:50:43] issue near the railroad in with a pipe

[1:50:45] that has been

[1:50:47] >> blocked.

[1:50:48] um the owner of that property

[1:50:51] is aware and when the summer season is

[1:50:53] over has agreed to address the problem.

[1:50:58] As I said, I'm sure we'll talk about uh

[1:51:01] Willowbrook more

[1:51:04] because we always we always seem to um

[1:51:09] you had and I emailed you today and I'm

[1:51:11] sorry it was so late a draft of the

[1:51:13] sidewalk replacement reimbursement

[1:51:15] application procedures. Joe has provided

[1:51:17] some comments. Um, I don't think we're

[1:51:19] ready to approve this at this point and

[1:51:22] certainly it wouldn't go in effect until June and we would need to take it

[1:51:26] into consideration with budgeting. So,

[1:51:28] if others have comments about this

[1:51:30] particular draft, um, we can we can

[1:51:34] hopefully approve it next month.

[1:51:36] Perfect.

[1:51:37] >> Okay. I just and I sent it to everybody.

[1:51:40] >> I saw it and

[1:51:42] >> I'm sorry. as he said, make sure you

[1:51:44] click

[1:51:45] >> track check uh track changes and I did

[1:51:49] and

[1:51:50] >> Okay.

[1:51:50] >> Yeah, made sense.

[1:51:52] >> The other thing that I would like to

[1:51:54] report by way of good news that might

[1:51:57] fit better under grants, but it is

[1:51:59] certainly streets related. You may

[1:52:01] recall that we put in an application

[1:52:04] throughout county for an infrastructure

[1:52:07] um grant that county would apply for

[1:52:10] through the state of New York. cutives

[1:52:12] for the replacement of water, sewer, and

[1:52:14] streets from um the county office

[1:52:17] building up to Grove Street. And we were

[1:52:21] the successful recipients.

[1:52:24] >> Congratulations.

[1:52:25] >> So,

[1:52:26] >> it's um Governor Hook made the

[1:52:29] announcement because it is through the

[1:52:31] regional economic development council,

[1:52:33] but it was county infrastructure grant

[1:52:35] fund that were only available to the

[1:52:38] counties. And uh we applied for that

[1:52:40] last year and Ken wasn't really they did go to somewhere else, didn't

[1:52:46] it? Last year did they go to Oniana or

[1:52:48] >> for the first time it went to Onian in

[1:52:50] the first round and then we went back in

[1:52:52] the second round and

[1:52:53] >> and we got it. So it's about a million

[1:52:56] dollar project and we 50% covered so

[1:52:59] $500,000.

[1:53:04] The only um thing I just want to make

[1:53:06] sure the trustees understand about our

[1:53:08] trolley because I know it was at one

[1:53:12] point we thought we might be able to

[1:53:15] recoup and keep more money from it, but

[1:53:18] Nicole Ron at the county sent a u sort

[1:53:22] of a summary. And if you recall, this is

[1:53:25] our last trolley. This was purchased in

[1:53:27] 2018, so it was already eight and a

[1:53:30] quarter years old. Um it uh we paid 10%

[1:53:36] about $14,000

[1:53:39] out of the uh $140,000 for that trolley.

[1:53:43] So that was our share on it. And then

[1:53:47] they did a kind of straight line

[1:53:49] depreciation of it. Remember this could

[1:53:52] not be

[1:53:54] um kind of sold on the open competitive

[1:53:58] market because it had received 5311

[1:54:01] funds the federal funds. So could only

[1:54:04] go to another community. Oniana is the

[1:54:07] most um on our depreciation on it and

[1:54:11] all. We would have only gotten about

[1:54:13] 5,000. So we're actually getting more

[1:54:15] with that $7500

[1:54:18] sale. This will be the last trolley that

[1:54:21] the village

[1:54:23] was involved in that 10%. The 2020s

[1:54:28] will be obviously in 2030. There is a

[1:54:31] hope Nicole thought that they will

[1:54:34] change the law and that we might be able

[1:54:38] to retain some, but we won't have vested

[1:54:40] any in it. But the the the beauty of it

[1:54:44] is if it is sold competitively, those

[1:54:47] funds will come back because and to the

[1:54:50] county which and used for their support.

[1:54:52] So they're hoping to get that kind of

[1:54:55] change by the time those um 2020

[1:54:59] trolleys are sold.

[1:55:01] >> Did you want to accept the resignation

[1:55:04] now or later on the

[1:55:05] >> I had it under personnel.

[1:55:06] >> Okay, that's fine.

[1:55:09] >> All right. Motion to accept um streets

[1:55:11] committee report by

[1:55:14] um

[1:55:15] >> Joe second.

[1:55:18] » Buildings committee. Um we had a uh

[1:55:25] Zoom meeting of uh when was that? last

[1:55:29] week with um the engineers who are doing

[1:55:34] the HVAC

[1:55:37] engineering study for um our building

[1:55:40] specifically looking and we mentioned

[1:55:42] this before the geo the potential for

[1:55:45] geothermal

[1:55:47] um the problem being that we don't have

[1:55:50] much property and about the only space

[1:55:54] that could be considered would be um uh

[1:55:58] along Fair Street where we have those

[1:56:00] small trees. They would obviously have

[1:56:02] to come out and and that would be the

[1:56:04] space we'd be looking at. But it was a

[1:56:07] really good Zoom meeting um that had

[1:56:11] Cindy and me and Mitch. No, Mitch.

[1:56:15] >> Yeah. And Jana and Heather.

[1:56:17] >> Okay. It was another meeting Mitch

[1:56:19] couldn't get to. Um and and so everybody

[1:56:22] had some input on it. Um what a

[1:56:26] long-term hope would be for this because

[1:56:28] it would be several million dollars

[1:56:31] would be that the library might have

[1:56:34] access to funds that we don't um etc. Uh

[1:56:39] so that is being looked at. One thing

[1:56:43] that came out of it is that it really

[1:56:46] depends on your test wells. And so we

[1:56:50] discussed the fact that we would like a

[1:56:52] quote in the proposal they're giving us

[1:56:55] to so that we could budget in our next

[1:56:59] year's budget for test wells because if

[1:57:02] it turns out that it's not even viable.

[1:57:05] we go down and we're hitting water or

[1:57:08] we're hitting something that doesn't

[1:57:09] allow the installation of a geothermal

[1:57:13] system, it'll let us know when we won't

[1:57:16] be pursuing something that um wouldn't

[1:57:18] be viable.

[1:57:19] >> Can I point out that the Alvarez home on

[1:57:22] River Street,

[1:57:24] >> they did a geothermal vertical, you

[1:57:27] know, just off the street,

[1:57:29] >> like two feet off the street, and they

[1:57:31] said it went about 400 feet down. So I I

[1:57:35] don't know if a vertical

[1:57:36] >> about that one because we do know of

[1:57:38] other geothermals but that's a fairly

[1:57:40] close one to us. So that's a good point.

[1:57:43] Yeah. Yeah.

[1:57:45] >> And it might be the same geological

[1:57:47] structure that's here and there.

[1:57:49] >> Yep.

[1:57:50] >> No, that was they just consult with

[1:57:54] the family.

[1:57:56] >> Yeah. Or at least find out what was the

[1:57:58] firm that did that.

[1:58:02] Um, are there any other uh questions or

[1:58:05] comments? I should point out that the

[1:58:07] door van was here the other day and so

[1:58:10] we are getting potentially a a quote for

[1:58:14] um kind of folding door um automatic

[1:58:17] door for our elevator to make them kind

[1:58:19] of truly ADA compliant. It'll be just

[1:58:22] one more thing I envision that will be

[1:58:25] temperamental and uh people will try and

[1:58:28] force and that will be that. I think

[1:58:31] somebody's liking your what you I

[1:58:33] thought you were heading to the idea.

[1:58:34] Let's just have a full-time elevator

[1:58:36] operator.

[1:58:36] >> Well, that's what I thought.

[1:58:38] >> I know

[1:58:40] floor, please. Medzanine.

[1:58:43] >> And they also looked at this door. Um, I

[1:58:47] think I'd like a codes guide just to

[1:58:49] double check on it because the door man

[1:58:51] said that we could flip this door cuz

[1:58:54] what we're trying to do is get it to

[1:58:57] >> put a breaker bar on there and he

[1:58:59] thought we could use it. And I said,

[1:59:01] "Are you sure it doesn't need safety

[1:59:03] glass?" Because it really seemed to me

[1:59:06] it would need safety glass. He

[1:59:10] said, "No, but I I think we're going to

[1:59:13] look into that a little more seriously."

[1:59:15] um because that's just a regular pane of

[1:59:17] glass. And I will point out I put a

[1:59:20] shower a stained glass window in a

[1:59:22] shower and I had to put safety glass

[1:59:27] >> on the shower side. So there's a lot of

[1:59:30] breaks. So I think we'll have um maybe

[1:59:33] uh our CEO just find out the code on

[1:59:36] that for us.

[1:59:38] >> Can I bring up something else in the

[1:59:39] minutes of the building?

[1:59:42] the discussion about the leases

[1:59:44] expiring. Um, so my understanding as I

[1:59:49] went back and checked this is that the leases

[1:59:54] have different dates. Uh, the the arts

[1:59:57] association does terminate in 27.

[2:00:02] The um the library lease started in

[2:00:06] 2018. The arts association was signed by

[2:00:09] Jeff when he was mayor. The library

[2:00:12] lease was signed by you, Ellen, when you

[2:00:13] were mayor the following year. And

[2:00:15] there's a typo in the lease. It says

[2:00:18] that it shall learn for 10 years from

[2:00:21] May 31 to 2018.

[2:00:26] And then it says terminating in 2027,

[2:00:30] but it's clear from the schedule

[2:00:33] of payments due the last payment of

[2:00:36] $20,000 for the last year would be and

[2:00:40] that last year runs from June 127 to May

[2:00:43] 3128. So the point is these leases are

[2:00:46] out of phase with one another. And I

[2:00:49] bring that up because of my chronic

[2:00:53] uh interest in making sure that if we're

[2:00:56] going into new tenure leases for both

[2:00:58] entities that and we have the arts

[2:01:01] association project that we make sure we

[2:01:04] have visioning going on for what library

[2:01:08] space

[2:01:10] is needed perhaps to expand into. And I

[2:01:13] just think there needs to be some

[2:01:14] collaborative, you know, moderated or

[2:01:17] mediated discussion of that. Um because

[2:01:20] obviously the library program is going

[2:01:23] forward or the arts association same and

[2:01:27] the only difference between the two is

[2:01:29] that they have another building that

[2:01:31] will be completed during the course of

[2:01:34] this lease. And what does that mean for

[2:01:38] if anything for library

[2:01:41] um space adjustment? And I'm thinking

[2:01:43] particularly of the the office space now

[2:01:47] occupied by the

[2:01:49] um art association and that little

[2:01:51] showroom

[2:01:53] there that

[2:01:54] >> Mhm.

[2:01:55] >> So I'm done too.

[2:01:57] >> No, I think uh definitely it'll be a

[2:01:59] discussion and fortunately both um the

[2:02:02] art association and uh the library have

[2:02:06] representation on buildings committee

[2:02:08] where this will be worked through. So

[2:02:10] there'll be plenty of opportunities at

[2:02:12] that committee to that they brought this

[2:02:15] up the that it was on the agenda.

[2:02:17] >> Yeah, they they were the ones who

[2:02:19] brought it up.

[2:02:19] >> Well, so I just want to point out the

[2:02:22] discrepancy

[2:02:24] in timing.

[2:02:26] >> Mhm.

[2:02:28] >> So if one lease is done before the

[2:02:29] other, that may foreclose the kind of

[2:02:31] discussion we think they can have.

[2:02:34] Um the only thing um I did note there

[2:02:39] that we had discussion on whether or not

[2:02:40] vehicles and I think it means

[2:02:44] were we saying under 20 ft there can

[2:02:47] park on I don't know why that came up in

[2:02:49] the streets department

[2:02:52] there

[2:02:55] >> but it's supposed to be over 20 ft isn't

[2:02:57] it

[2:02:58] >> he meant recreational vehicles under 20

[2:03:03] so That's the word. That's a correction

[2:03:05] that we'd like to make there.

[2:03:08] >> Yeah. There's also a correction above

[2:03:10] that. It's not the front door that's

[2:03:12] being replaced. It's the porch floor

[2:03:14] that's being replaced.

[2:03:15] >> Yes. Yeah. Well, and in case I don't sit

[2:03:20] on streets. I did notice you had what

[2:03:22] you know what that one was, too.

[2:03:24] >> Yeah. Plus, it says Richard wasn't

[2:03:26] there, but then later he made a motion.

[2:03:30] » But you are anyway. Yeah, I'd be happy

[2:03:34] to, Jenna.

[2:03:35] >> Yeah, we got them. All right. So, motion

[2:03:36] to accept buildings committee report

[2:03:39] by Joe, second by Molly. All in favor?

[2:03:43] >> As I remember, Jenna, that was an

[2:03:44] extremely filled day.

[2:03:47] >> All right. Treasurer's report. This was

[2:03:51] distributed.

[2:03:52] I think you guys all see the consent

[2:03:54] agenda. Key things to note are the

[2:03:58] permissive referendum to transfer money

[2:04:01] from building reserves to general fund.

[2:04:03] Pay for the front porch repairs and

[2:04:06] transfer from police reserve to general

[2:04:08] fund to play for police cameras. There

[2:04:10] are the invoices. Cindy politely

[2:04:15] reminded me or explained to me the large

[2:04:18] one for $275,000

[2:04:21] is for the Southland project.

[2:04:24] Um,

[2:04:25] does anybody have any questions?

[2:04:30] » The large bills to uh Kobasill Stone

[2:04:33] Products, um, 84,421

[2:04:36] was for our paving at Lake View Drive

[2:04:39] South. Um, 160,000 to Koboskill

[2:04:44] Stone was when we did Esley. So these

[2:04:46] are major street um paving projects we

[2:04:50] did and 71,000 was Lake View Drive

[2:04:53] North. So Lakeland Shores was on the

[2:04:56] agenda last year.

[2:04:59] >> The rest are relatively small.

[2:05:01] >> Yep. So

[2:05:04] uh did you move the

[2:05:05] >> I move the uh consent agenda?

[2:05:08] >> I'll second.

[2:05:09] >> All in favor?

[2:05:10] >> I thank you.

[2:05:12] And then um we have personnel

[2:05:16] >> um

[2:05:18] and we have a couple items on our um

[2:05:22] additional agendas.

[2:05:29] » Okay.

[2:05:30] >> Under for personnel. So there you um you

[2:05:33] can do

[2:05:34] >> I'll I'll make the motions approve the

[2:05:37] hiring of Sarah Lawrence as park

[2:05:38] supervisor at an hourly rate of $24

[2:05:42] >> a second getting a whole college for 24

[2:05:47] and approve the hiring of Benjamin Gramp

[2:05:49] seasonal laborer an hourly rate of 1825

[2:05:53] approve hiring of Justin Pearl as a

[2:05:57] part-time police officer

[2:05:59] >> and we also should accept Zack Burton.

[2:06:02] It was in this packet as well. His he

[2:06:05] was RHMEO his resignation.

[2:06:08] So

[2:06:09] >> may I is this the police officer

[2:06:11] awaiting the background investigation on

[2:06:14] J?

[2:06:14] >> Yeah. Contingent on the U background you

[2:06:18] know the all the materials.

[2:06:20] >> Okay. Yeah. I just treat

[2:06:22] >> Y

[2:06:23] >> I second it. All in favor

[2:06:25] >> I finance. I think there was also one

[2:06:28] more um

[2:06:31] >> I didn't know if you said that one or

[2:06:33] not. I was wrong.

[2:06:34] >> These all came in like last minute.

[2:06:37] >> Oh, that's right. It's not. Yeah.

[2:06:39] >> Another seat later.

[2:06:42] >> Okay.

[2:06:43] >> All right.

[2:06:44] >> So move.

[2:06:46] >> Second.

[2:06:46] >> All in favor? I move um move the invoice

[2:06:50] from town

[2:06:53] of the registar vital statistics fees

[2:06:56] the amount of $2570

[2:06:59] for this year.

[2:07:01] >> Well, actually it's

[2:07:03] >> should be last year.

[2:07:04] >> No, it it's

[2:07:05] >> for next year. I'm sorry.

[2:07:07] >> It that's that is correct. Um so we

[2:07:10] remit the fees. Remember this was

[2:07:13] decided in about 2021 when I was board

[2:07:17] um we we our staff handles all the

[2:07:22] registar fees and it amounted to 2570.

[2:07:27] So the town of AIBO invoice

[2:07:31] but so that then they can put in their

[2:07:33] budget as they begin drafting their 2027

[2:07:37] budget this fall they know that they

[2:07:39] will remit it back to us. It's

[2:07:42] essentially offline.

[2:07:43] >> Yeah.

[2:07:44] >> All right. So, there's a motion made,

[2:07:46] second. All in favor?

[2:07:48] >> I

[2:07:49] >> can I make a related motion to advertise

[2:07:52] for a new HMEO to replace Zachary

[2:07:54] Burton?

[2:07:57] >> Second. All in favor?

[2:07:58] >> I we know why he left.

[2:08:00] >> Yes. He's leaving on the end of August.

[2:08:05] >> No. Do we know why he left or what he

[2:08:07] left for?

[2:08:08] >> Here's his

[2:08:09] >> I saw that him saying

[2:08:11] What

[2:08:12] >> I believe

[2:08:13] she

[2:08:15] >> I know what I'm getting at is where and

[2:08:17] why. Was it money? Was it convenience?

[2:08:23] » Um motion to accept the financ.

[2:08:30] » Um moving on grants and projects. Um our

[2:08:35] next welcome home troops town will be um

[2:08:38] the 1st of September

[2:08:43] today.

[2:08:44] Um the lead women voters um will be

[2:08:47] there and be speaking about their

[2:08:49] efforts to promote democracy

[2:08:52] and um information for elections. They

[2:08:56] also will be providing the refreshments.

[2:09:00] uh local musicians um will in the group

[2:09:03] along some of the gold hats will be

[2:09:06] providing musical entertainment and

[2:09:09] members of the voices of Coopertown the

[2:09:12] musical group will also be on hand to

[2:09:15] promote all their fall activities and

[2:09:18] performances

[2:09:19] >> and that's next Tuesday

[2:09:20] >> September

[2:09:24] » um

[2:09:26] Cindy mentioned our success on the

[2:09:29] county infrastructure grant program. So,

[2:09:32] that's very exciting. Um, New York

[2:09:35] Forward, um, we have been working on,

[2:09:41] uh, the revised Pioneer Alley plan. We

[2:09:44] don't have it yet, but um, hopefully

[2:09:48] that's forthcoming soon from Paserrow.

[2:09:51] They are involved in the survey work um

[2:09:54] for the Grove Street sidewalk which we

[2:09:58] had hoped to uh get moving on. It's it's

[2:10:02] uh we haven't gotten that surveyed um

[2:10:06] but we're hoping when they're also in

[2:10:08] town to also do the work on Hoffman Lane

[2:10:11] which needs it but otherwise it's moving

[2:10:14] forward. Um, I will say we've had one

[2:10:19] success story and then we don't handle

[2:10:22] the small project fund that was handled

[2:10:24] by MVED, Mohawk Valley Economic

[2:10:27] Development District. But um, one thing

[2:10:30] we should all remember is that our New

[2:10:32] York Forward funds, ours for like all

[2:10:35] our

[2:10:37] downtown pedestrian way projects, those

[2:10:41] are funded from the Department of State.

[2:10:43] It's not like there's some New York

[2:10:46] forward DRRI agency up there. It depends

[2:10:48] on what your project is. Uh the ones

[2:10:52] pertaining to Josh's and and

[2:10:56] Franchesca's um the Grove project is

[2:10:59] through um HCR, home and community

[2:11:01] renewals. They got 1.3 million. Our

[2:11:04] small project fund is also under HCR and

[2:11:09] um so the projects are working through

[2:11:11] that.

[2:11:13] uh all the

[2:11:16] ones

[2:11:17] uh have to have an environmental

[2:11:20] clearance because remember these are old

[2:11:22] buildings and this is public funds. They

[2:11:25] can't be going in unless they've had a

[2:11:27] kind of an environmental evaluation

[2:11:30] and if lead or asbestous is found they

[2:11:34] then have to abate that. Um, one of the

[2:11:38] awarded uh uh businesses is trying to

[2:11:44] decide whether they have an old building

[2:11:47] and they worry that that could consume a

[2:11:49] lot more than they're willing to do. Um,

[2:11:53] all these small project funds have until

[2:11:55] December 2027

[2:11:58] to sort of be underway and completed.

[2:12:01] One is nearly complete. it it did have

[2:12:05] um its environmental review and then um

[2:12:08] they'll probably finish within the next

[2:12:10] month which is exciting. So these are

[2:12:13] positives with uh our New York forward

[2:12:15] funding. Uh, round nine, um, restore New

[2:12:19] York. We have the million dollar and I

[2:12:22] do know that, um, Rob Holtzen is, um,

[2:12:27] assembling all the materials for the HCR

[2:12:31] credit application, which is due next

[2:12:34] month.

[2:12:35] >> That would be for the Bat Factory

[2:12:37] project

[2:12:38] >> 217 Maine.

[2:12:40] Um,

[2:12:43] project fairy spring. Uh there were some

[2:12:46] additional questions as I reported last

[2:12:49] month from um the Middlefield um

[2:12:51] planning board largely pertaining to the

[2:12:54] uh friends of the parks

[2:12:57] um were and how they were going to um

[2:13:02] you know do soil retention during the

[2:13:05] construction of the wall and the

[2:13:07] building of the wall um in the

[2:13:11] relocation of the road um for the

[2:13:14] village. They were just inquiring about

[2:13:16] the septic system. Um just for common

[2:13:20] memory um that settling

[2:13:24] was designed for capacity of 275 gallons

[2:13:28] day. We had a took a six year average

[2:13:32] and uh our average is 40 gallons.

[2:13:36] So, even though we're not really adding

[2:13:40] more bathrooms in the sense that the

[2:13:42] ones that are there probably be used

[2:13:44] less, but we are adding these uh two ADA

[2:13:48] um bathrooms and one additional toilet

[2:13:52] um was felt well within it. So, on uh

[2:13:56] what was it? August 6, all were approved

[2:13:59] and we have our zoning permit. And so at

[2:14:03] this point, I would like to move that

[2:14:07] the village of Coopertown

[2:14:09] um go to bid um um for our portion of

[2:14:15] the Ferry Spring project which includes

[2:14:18] the ADA accessible restroom in the

[2:14:21] pavilion.

[2:14:23] Um, the caretaker's uh cabin ADA

[2:14:27] accessible restroom, new caretakers

[2:14:29] cabin bathroom, upgrading the electric

[2:14:32] plumbing and underground utilities. Um,

[2:14:36] and then revamping the changing room,

[2:14:39] all the work ads,

[2:14:42] etc. All the work that you have seen

[2:14:44] recently in the plan. So, I will make a

[2:14:46] motion that we go to bid for um Berry

[2:14:49] Spring Art.

[2:14:51] >> Second.

[2:14:52] by Richard. All in favor?

[2:14:56] >> Um

[2:15:00] the I have a feeling that achieve I'm

[2:15:04] hoping we will hear in the next month or

[2:15:06] so. Um, we're pretty sure we're locked

[2:15:09] in there because it's listed everywhere

[2:15:12] as a million for our double day field

[2:15:14] improvements, but we did have to fill

[2:15:17] out CF and the voting that uh that'll be

[2:15:22] officially announced soon. And we have

[2:15:25] not heard anything on the water meter

[2:15:27] grant. It's essentially a CFA even

[2:15:30] though it had an early application

[2:15:32] deadline of June 12th. So it could be by

[2:15:35] the end of the year before we hear

[2:15:37] anything on that. Is there any

[2:15:40] questions?

[2:15:43] Um moving on to parks board and are you

[2:15:48] giving it in

[2:15:50] >> Audrey's

[2:15:52] we definitely had a busy parts board

[2:15:55] discussion. Um we did have a couple

[2:15:58] people show up for public comment. Uh

[2:16:01] Tony and Jill

[2:16:03] came and discussed their concerns about

[2:16:06] um some of the boats at the village

[2:16:07] docks and they noted five boats have

[2:16:11] been have out of date registration

[2:16:14] stickers displayed and that there is

[2:16:17] obviously a long wait list to get a slip

[2:16:19] at the village docks and um that they've

[2:16:22] noticed that none of the slips have been

[2:16:24] vacant all year um if not longer. I

[2:16:28] think there's been a couple slips that

[2:16:29] have been vacuumed for at least two

[2:16:31] years now. Um, and they also noticed

[2:16:34] that there's an illegal kayak in one of

[2:16:37] the slips. Uh, they stated that the

[2:16:41] letter that the village sends out um

[2:16:44] states that the Ducks cannot accommodate

[2:16:46] boats longer than 24 feet. That includes

[2:16:49] the motor. But they also have noticed

[2:16:51] that there have been boats that they

[2:16:53] think are longer than 24 feet in the

[2:16:57] slopes. Um

[2:17:01] and we also they also just kind of asked

[2:17:03] us about what we think how we should you

[2:17:07] know monitor all these uh votes and the

[2:17:10] vote slips. Um they did say that they

[2:17:14] have reported these incences to the

[2:17:17] police department.

[2:17:19] Uh let's see. Then they kind of just

[2:17:22] talked about their uh their thoughts. Um

[2:17:28] all the uh parks, village parks have

[2:17:31] been doing well. Um nothing really to

[2:17:34] report there.

[2:17:37] We did defer the uh the barbecue that

[2:17:42] the company tried to ask us for double

[2:17:44] date to the parks committee, but they

[2:17:47] but the parks said no, we don't really

[2:17:49] want 800 people on our parks for the

[2:17:52] barbecue.

[2:17:54] Let's see what else.

[2:17:57] And we also talked about um

[2:18:01] talked with the friends of the parks and

[2:18:03] they said that they've noticed the lack

[2:18:04] of lifeguards at Fair Springs. Uh noting

[2:18:07] that many of these lifeguards worked

[2:18:09] more than one job. So there's been

[2:18:11] scheduling conflicts all summer with

[2:18:13] those guys. Uh the early bird went well

[2:18:16] in July.

[2:18:19] Yes, there was an auction um for a

[2:18:22] painting that Janet Monroe did and that

[2:18:24] was auctioned off

[2:18:27] and

[2:18:28] they also discussed I guess there's been

[2:18:30] some firework debris in the lake that

[2:18:32] they wanted to clean up. So, we were

[2:18:35] kind of talking about who should be

[2:18:36] responsible for that.

[2:18:40] And then we kind of talked about the dog

[2:18:43] park and it seems like the school is

[2:18:46] kind of still on a stall about that and

[2:18:48] we're what we should do. So I thinking

[2:18:52] maybe try to figure out a different

[2:18:54] place to put the dog park in the

[2:18:56] school's still going to not really or

[2:19:00] drag their paint on that. And that's

[2:19:03] really all we talked about

[2:19:06] in the park. So

[2:19:08] >> yeah, on the fireworks issue, we

[2:19:10] discussed that to the watershed

[2:19:11] supervisory committee. The question is

[2:19:13] what the chemical composition of the

[2:19:16] fireworks is, what ends up in the lake,

[2:19:18] uh what kind of public health risk does

[2:19:20] it represent? And um one of the

[2:19:24] ingredients in the fireworks is

[2:19:25] perlorate which can have impacts on

[2:19:28] thyroid, but the we don't have any data

[2:19:31] on the nature and extent of its

[2:19:33] presence. Um so the people are reading

[2:19:37] up about it and thinking about it and

[2:19:40] one thought was to um since I believe we

[2:19:44] just have a single vendor

[2:19:47] that there too many vendors who

[2:19:49] >> yeah I think they do all of them

[2:19:51] American fireworks

[2:19:52] >> right so maybe have some discussion with

[2:19:55] them about what kind of alternatives

[2:19:57] there are for fireworks displays or

[2:19:59] maybe encourage the use of the less uh

[2:20:02] toxic ones um if they and do so and

[2:20:05] still keep customers happy. This isn't

[2:20:07] really any kind of a mandate. We we're

[2:20:09] not in a position to do that. But it is

[2:20:13] and and we have maybe what seven or

[2:20:15] eight displays a year. I guess it's not

[2:20:18] >> it's not that many, but it's it's it's a

[2:20:21] top

[2:20:25] » relative to the um dog park. Um Audrey

[2:20:28] is here, but she and Cindy and Joe and I

[2:20:33] and se several people from the dog

[2:20:36] committee and friends of the parks. Um

[2:20:39] when was that a week ago? Sunday met up

[2:20:42] at Berry Spring and and kind of

[2:20:45] identified it a potential area. Um I do

[2:20:50] wonder I noticed that the notes all talk

[2:20:53] about the 10,000 being kind feasibility

[2:20:56] where would be a spot. I know we've

[2:20:58] already kind of discounted Badger Park,

[2:21:01] but one of the big concerns about

[2:21:04] putting it at Very Spring is it's not

[2:21:07] walkable. And I have to tell you, I

[2:21:09] spent You won't you won't believe this,

[2:21:12] but I spent an hour and a half at Badger

[2:21:14] Park the other day um babysitting

[2:21:16] grandchildren. It was a lot of fun. It's

[2:21:18] perfect park for it. And the friends of

[2:21:20] the parks, I will say, have done it. Uh

[2:21:22] they have a storage bin there with

[2:21:26] bouncy balls and basketballs. So, you

[2:21:28] can do that. You know, there's a um

[2:21:31] paddle tennis thing set up and the two

[2:21:34] tracks benches that have been donated by

[2:21:37] the library for all our plastic bags

[2:21:40] that have um been recycled into very

[2:21:44] attractive benches. They're there um as

[2:21:48] you know for observers of the um pedal

[2:21:51] tennis. And while I was there, two

[2:21:53] people, one drove in and I got chatting

[2:21:56] with that individual and he said, "I

[2:21:58] always come in and park at Badger Park

[2:22:00] to take my walk around the village on

[2:22:02] village streets and he had a dog and I

[2:22:06] said, "Hey." And so I sounded him out

[2:22:08] and he said, "That would be a great

[2:22:11] spot." So I before we discount it, if we

[2:22:14] have this money, should we potentially

[2:22:16] get someone to look at our village parks

[2:22:20] and give us some guidance on what it is?

[2:22:23] The advantage there, yes, it is kind of

[2:22:26] the wetish area, but it would need trees

[2:22:29] removable. So does Fairy Spring, but the

[2:22:32] only way you're going to get to very

[2:22:33] spring is to dry if it's not walkable.

[2:22:36] So, I I think it might be good to have a

[2:22:38] sort of a community meeting led by

[2:22:41] someone who could guide us into the

[2:22:45] potentials and the and the actual

[2:22:47] feasibility using that $10,000.

[2:22:50] >> Yeah. I my view is um I want to be

[2:22:53] prudent about this and I want to make

[2:22:55] sure that if we do decide to spend any

[2:22:59] of the money on the investigation that

[2:23:01] we bear in mind the data we've already

[2:23:04] gotten in. I thought

[2:23:06] as many as 10 years ago the proximity of

[2:23:11] Badger Park to residences would make a

[2:23:14] dog park um problematic. And I thought I thought there was a we have a record

[2:23:20] of of that. So whatever we do and maybe,

[2:23:25] you know, the parks board team should

[2:23:27] just reassemble all that information,

[2:23:30] you know, as

[2:23:32] and and review it before because even if

[2:23:34] we were going to fashion

[2:23:37] a request for proposals, we we'd really

[2:23:39] have to identify some parameters. I

[2:23:42] mean, I just think tossing out different

[2:23:44] sites on the in the village would be

[2:23:47] feasible. One of the other things we

[2:23:49] discussed, Cindy reported on after

[2:23:52] breakfast with the board this morning,

[2:23:53] we talked about

[2:23:56] soliciting

[2:23:58] um the Clark Center for a potential site

[2:24:01] and apparently that

[2:24:07] » but Jean does say in the minutes and I

[2:24:08] was not at this meeting.

[2:24:10] >> Say that again. Jean mentions in these

[2:24:13] minutes and I wasn't at this meeting

[2:24:16] that she was aware of.

[2:24:18] >> Oh yeah, she reached out with me even

[2:24:21] before we met at very spring.

[2:24:23] >> Yeah, it it wasn't feasible.

[2:24:25] >> Okay.

[2:24:26] >> Yeah.

[2:24:26] >> Oh, that other site. Yeah, but it's

[2:24:29] okay.

[2:24:29] >> Right. Yeah.

[2:24:30] >> So, and I was interested you just

[2:24:33] elaborate a little bit, expressed a

[2:24:35] little bit on it. The Mr. Grant Grant's

[2:24:38] report, Badger Park, very busy fart. So

[2:24:41] what is I I've not only that way I'm

[2:24:44] usually down at Lakefront, but so it's

[2:24:47] the children.

[2:24:47] >> It's surprising and and I give all the

[2:24:50] credit to the friends of the park and

[2:24:52] the Lions Club. They put up that

[2:24:54] pavilion. Well, that one time we had a

[2:24:56] vis, you know, in village inspection. We

[2:24:59] ate our pizza there, but that's a nice

[2:25:01] spot. Then they put up a a little jungle

[2:25:06] gym or you know that is small compared

[2:25:09] to what's over at the school but it's

[2:25:12] you it is used all the time

[2:25:15] >> and they have one of those climbing

[2:25:17] monkey rolly things that I I have to

[2:25:21] tell you children just seemed to love

[2:25:23] that park. I was also probably one of

[2:25:26] the only trustees on skates last year

[2:25:29] and god why I did it I do not know but

[2:25:32] it was there was it was during winter

[2:25:34] parallel when it was really cold a lot

[2:25:36] of events kind of got cancelled but the

[2:25:38] building was open and my daughter and

[2:25:41] granddaughter and I all dawn skates and

[2:25:44] it was beautiful skating it we are so

[2:25:48] fortunate to have that and everything

[2:25:51] the friends do there because um I've

[2:25:54] also have been up in Syracuse and they

[2:25:57] pay about $80 to rent skates and use a

[2:26:00] skating ring for their

[2:26:02] >> for the four of them, you know, and and

[2:26:05] here it's free. And the smartest thing

[2:26:07] the friends ever did was put up um one

[2:26:10] of those barcode things or and you know,

[2:26:14] do you enjoy this? Consider a donation

[2:26:17] like or scanned it. Bam. And made a

[2:26:20] donation. Um, so I think that park has

[2:26:24] yet to see its full potential. It's our

[2:26:26] newest park. It started out as a garden,

[2:26:29] a community garden, and then it was

[2:26:32] decided to pave over the community

[2:26:35] garden and make a skating rink.

[2:26:37] >> Um, but um, there is more potential to

[2:26:41] that park and I and I think it would be

[2:26:44] appropo to look at the potential.

[2:26:47] >> Can I make a public service

[2:26:49] announcement? You mentioned QR codes. My

[2:26:52] firm, my law firm has cyber training and

[2:26:55] I just went through a course of it today

[2:26:58] periodic and they scared the Jesus out

[2:27:01] of me about

[2:27:02] >> using bar QR codes.

[2:27:04] >> They said there there are so many spoof

[2:27:06] uh versions of those things you really

[2:27:08] have to be careful

[2:27:11] >> because you're basically clicking on a

[2:27:13] link.

[2:27:14] >> Exactly.

[2:27:15] >> So it's uh

[2:27:17] >> but they are back in full force. QR

[2:27:19] codes.

[2:27:21] >> I I recognize that and so are the

[2:27:23] hackers and the things that I use that

[2:27:26] capitalize on your mistakes. One's

[2:27:28] mistake. Do not click on any links.

[2:27:32] >> All right. So,

[2:27:33] >> I keep getting serious. I get email from

[2:27:35] Ellen all the time.

[2:27:36] >> Me, too.

[2:27:38] >> Trust me, I got invited to three parties

[2:27:41] yesterday.

[2:27:42] >> Me, too.

[2:27:44] Donald's Gmail and now it's on in Gmail.

[2:27:48] >> Um, nobody

[2:27:50] >> I got I I got invited to a party by a

[2:27:53] woman who was been was angry at me 30 25

[2:27:55] years ago.

[2:27:57] >> There are a lot of them but still I was

[2:27:58] kind of surprised.

[2:27:59] >> How can you keep me right?

[2:28:02] >> This is in the public record.

[2:28:05] >> All right. Motion to accept the parks

[2:28:08] board report by Molly, second by George

[2:28:11] B. community environment.

[2:28:14] >> So, we need to accept the resignations

[2:28:17] of Lou Alstead and Richard Blay. But in

[2:28:20] doing so, I would like to thank them for

[2:28:22] their years of service to the village

[2:28:25] both on this committee, but on numerous

[2:28:27] other committees. Uh Lou is a trustee,

[2:28:30] Richard is a member of the planning

[2:28:32] board. They have both been really

[2:28:34] powerful members of our community and

[2:28:36] have served the village that they have

[2:28:39] grown to love. You're here.

[2:28:41] >> They resigned each.

[2:28:43] >> They are both they are both moving to

[2:28:45] other location.

[2:28:47] >> Really?

[2:28:49] >> Yeah.

[2:28:50] >> Where's

[2:28:52] them go? They're they really contributed

[2:28:54] a lot

[2:28:54] >> to a retirement community. I believe it

[2:28:56] was connected.

[2:29:00] We talked a little bit about the

[2:29:02] building heating retrofit which Ellen

[2:29:05] mentioned under the buildings committee

[2:29:07] agenda. We spent most of our time

[2:29:09] talking about wood burning fire

[2:29:11] regulations.

[2:29:13] Um, and as part of that,

[2:29:16] I started putting together regulations

[2:29:19] that are already in place regarding wood

[2:29:22] burning uh, fire outdoor fireplaces

[2:29:27] um, including requirements of the

[2:29:30] Department of Environmental Conservation

[2:29:32] that fall under the air resources um,

[2:29:36] law,

[2:29:37] requirements that fall under the 2025

[2:29:40] fire codes of New York State and then a

[2:29:43] kind of quirky requirement of the

[2:29:45] village of Coopertown zoning law related

[2:29:48] to smoke and those are all included um

[2:29:52] here

[2:29:54] there are lots of regulations regarding

[2:29:59] outdoor burning. I think part of the

[2:30:02] problem is that they are regulated in

[2:30:04] different ways by different agencies. So

[2:30:07] someone calls the village of Coopertown

[2:30:10] Police Department for instance, much of

[2:30:13] this is regulated by county codes under

[2:30:16] the fire code in New York State. So that

[2:30:20] m that may not lead to an immediate

[2:30:23] resolution. It may mean the codes

[2:30:26] officer has to come and measure how far

[2:30:28] something is. Um clearly being out of

[2:30:32] attendance is something that is you know

[2:30:35] an immediate sort of thing. Anyway,

[2:30:38] there is a lot on the books. The

[2:30:40] committee's

[2:30:42] recommendation to the board of trustees

[2:30:44] recognizing that in some places some

[2:30:46] parts of the village this is a concern

[2:30:50] are to begin with an educational

[2:30:53] campaign which we haven't started yet

[2:30:56] because we wanted to talk to you all

[2:30:58] first. Um there was a letter in the

[2:31:00] Freeman's Journal two weeks ago that

[2:31:02] Jesse Ravage submitted that was similar

[2:31:04] to the letter that was provided um here.

[2:31:07] I think we can follow up as a board of

[2:31:09] trustees with a followup to that letter

[2:31:12] um telling people you know what is

[2:31:15] already regulated and why it is

[2:31:16] regulated. Um for instance the DEC

[2:31:20] requires clean dry firewood. There are

[2:31:23] reasons for that. Uh we can do that

[2:31:26] through the newspaper. We can do it in

[2:31:28] Village Voices. We can do it um on the

[2:31:30] internet and we can see if that starts

[2:31:34] to change behavior. Um by Jesse's

[2:31:37] account, two of her neighbors who have

[2:31:39] been burning have I think as a result of

[2:31:42] a visit from the code officer changed

[2:31:45] their burning habits. Um that was not

[2:31:49] the only problem in that neighborhood,

[2:31:50] but it does seem to have started. So our

[2:31:54] suggestion as a committee is that we we

[2:31:57] make sure that people know what the

[2:31:58] rules are and why the rules exist before

[2:32:02] we start talking about local

[2:32:04] legislation.

[2:32:05] >> Yeah.

[2:32:06] >> Is there a greater frequency in these

[2:32:08] fire pits with rentals, the short-term

[2:32:11] rentals and B&Bs?

[2:32:13] >> There does not the the issues that that

[2:32:16] particularly were brought to the board

[2:32:18] of trustees attention have absolutely

[2:32:20] nothing to do with short-term rentals. Y

[2:32:26] » any questions

[2:32:28] community

[2:32:32] motion to accept the report by

[2:32:36] favor

[2:32:38] >> moving on

[2:32:39] >> water and sewer port.

[2:32:40] >> Yes. Um, a lingering issue we've had has

[2:32:44] been the repair of the water man at the

[2:32:47] 73 in the vicinity of 73 pine and our

[2:32:51] last water and sewer board meeting. We

[2:32:53] had a long discussion of it and a

[2:32:55] presentation by uh Eric H on behalf of

[2:32:58] his father who was the u

[2:33:02] 72 Pioneer Street. Um,

[2:33:05] briefly to recapitulate, there was a

[2:33:08] flood in the basement at 75 Pioneer

[2:33:11] Street. Uh, the

[2:33:14] village crew went out to investigate it,

[2:33:18] discovered um with the technology they

[2:33:22] have, two sources of leaks or apparent

[2:33:26] leaks. and one was across the street

[2:33:29] from the flooded residence and the other

[2:33:32] was on the same side of the street as

[2:33:33] the flooded residence in the front of

[2:33:35] the Hage home. Uh they chose to excav

[2:33:39] the village crew excavated there first

[2:33:42] did find a leak but determined that it

[2:33:44] was not the leak causing the flooding of

[2:33:46] the basement. They went on to the other

[2:33:48] one across the street excavated and

[2:33:50] there was a major leak in that main that

[2:33:53] was repaired. And the question was

[2:33:55] whether the pages not having so many

[2:33:59] help and it had no um knowledge of a

[2:34:02] leak or impact of the leak prior to the

[2:34:05] excavation. Um

[2:34:08] questioned their responsibility for

[2:34:11] paying the entirety of the um bill

[2:34:14] associated with uh the excavation at

[2:34:17] their place. As a result of an inquiry

[2:34:21] from the village, the the hes did say,

[2:34:24] "Well, I can't imagine you wouldn't

[2:34:25] repair the leak if um not before you

[2:34:28] filled in the hole." So, that was done.

[2:34:30] And the question then was what was

[2:34:32] consent to repair. Um this we sorted it

[2:34:37] all and there was a $2,500

[2:34:40] cost charge associated with that. And

[2:34:42] after

[2:34:44] we investigated in more detail and

[2:34:46] discussed it, um there is a document uh

[2:34:50] at the end, I think it's the last

[2:34:52] document in your packet put behind the

[2:34:56] water in Board minutes that is a um

[2:35:00] itemized bill

[2:35:02] Mitch and um

[2:35:05] water department

[2:35:08] that identified $1,112.94

[2:35:11] more sense is the cost um that could

[2:35:16] appropriately be associated with the h

[2:35:19] and the h's home and be their financial

[2:35:22] responsibility.

[2:35:23] The present time they have a $2500 tax

[2:35:26] lean um on their property because they

[2:35:29] had not paid um they had not paid their

[2:35:33] property tax bill payment would not be

[2:35:35] accepted without the $2500 and they were

[2:35:38] trying to sort that out. So the upshot

[2:35:42] of the water and sewer board meeting was

[2:35:44] a recommendation that the hes be um

[2:35:48] to to the board of trustees is that the

[2:35:50] hes be build with $112.94

[2:35:55] the that um the balance of the $2,500 be

[2:35:59] rem be credited to them. I know we can't

[2:36:02] remove it from the lean. Um and um I

[2:36:06] don't know if there are penalties

[2:36:07] associated with the nonpayment

[2:36:10] of the um well it was not that they

[2:36:13] wouldn't pay it. Their check wouldn't be

[2:36:15] accepted.

[2:36:16] So

[2:36:18] my recommendation, my motion would be

[2:36:21] based on the recommendation of the water

[2:36:24] and sewer board that the HEG uh ages be

[2:36:28] sent a bill for parts and labor and the

[2:36:30] repair of their lateral um in the amount

[2:36:35] of $1,112.94.

[2:36:39] And I would further move that the $2,500

[2:36:45] um uh LIN be uh adjusted

[2:36:51] uh through the means of a credit um that

[2:36:55] would leave them um not responsible for

[2:36:58] anything beyond the 1121

[2:37:01] $112.

[2:37:03] >> How do you come after that much?

[2:37:06] It's it's in it's right here at the

[2:37:08] earth. It's itemized in several hefty

[2:37:14] minds and we and I think that's all the

[2:37:17] hes ever wanted in the first place. But

[2:37:20] as it is um

[2:37:24] I think that's an I think that's an

[2:37:27] appropriate charge and I think

[2:37:29] >> are they okay with that? I think they

[2:37:31] will be conceptually in our discussions

[2:37:34] they said you know everything but the digging they they would happily

[2:37:40] be responsible.

[2:37:43] So that's um and there were a number of

[2:37:46] questions raised uh well what does this

[2:37:48] mean about setting a precedent um and my

[2:37:54] first response to that is we now have a

[2:37:57] consent form

[2:38:00] the property owner is going to be

[2:38:01] presented with anytime there's a leak

[2:38:04] identified

[2:38:06] >> if they agree it's sign they agree to

[2:38:09] sign

[2:38:09] >> if they agree sign. So now and and that

[2:38:11] brings up the very next problem we had

[2:38:13] which is kind of underway in Bowerstown.

[2:38:17] Uh there was um Charlotte uh and in some

[2:38:22] cases or at some times total loss of

[2:38:25] water pressure in number residents which

[2:38:28] at the which is at the end of our water

[2:38:31] supply system.

[2:38:33] And um it turns out that there are leaks

[2:38:36] in the vicinity and it's hard to know

[2:38:41] how much is associated with the leaking

[2:38:44] of the laterals or whether there's

[2:38:46] anything any main leak which we haven't

[2:38:48] detected so far and how much is just the

[2:38:50] nature of the infrastructure that we

[2:38:52] can't keep the pressure up.

[2:38:55] Although the problem

[2:38:59] the residents point out is that while

[2:39:03] there have been problematic pressures,

[2:39:05] it was only after the 2025 water main

[2:39:09] break up by the Walers residence on in

[2:39:12] Bowerstown that the um

[2:39:15] the problem became chronic for other

[2:39:17] residents. So that was repaired an

[2:39:20] excavation uh in 2025

[2:39:23] and then the repair was when we were

[2:39:27] receiving um really uh anxious calls

[2:39:32] from people saying we have to have

[2:39:34] something done. We don't have water in

[2:39:35] our house. Uh on last Monday, I think it

[2:39:39] was, uh the crew went out and excavating

[2:39:42] and we found indeed that there was a

[2:39:44] break and um I visited the site and

[2:39:48] discussed it with Mitch and he he showed

[2:39:50] me I've got photos I could show

[2:39:52] everyone, but he showed me the fitting

[2:39:53] that had um was the source of the leak

[2:39:58] and said this is typically a village

[2:40:00] responsibility. So, they repaired that

[2:40:02] one. And um I haven't followed up with

[2:40:05] him

[2:40:08] uh yet, but I I believe there are still

[2:40:11] problems with um water pressure out

[2:40:13] there. And even while they were

[2:40:15] excavating, Mitch said he didn't think

[2:40:17] that was the only issue there. So, there

[2:40:21] the the crew did a fantastic job. They

[2:40:24] had a subcontractor in who was all over

[2:40:27] the operation very effectively. But we

[2:40:30] do have a problem out there for

[2:40:34] several of our property owners.

[2:40:37] >> There are some extensive leaks out

[2:40:39] there. Um the village did repair

[2:40:42] essentially the reason we determined it

[2:40:45] was village and would be covered by the

[2:40:48] village. The lateral was okay. it was

[2:40:51] where it sistered to our main and that

[2:40:54] coupling which was you know could been

[2:40:56] almost I don't know 90 years old or

[2:40:58] whatever had deteriorated. So there all

[2:41:02] those um sistering attachments to the

[2:41:05] main were repaired. They have since

[2:41:08] found some major leaks and have shut off

[2:41:12] um some other signs and are still um

[2:41:15] working on the project there. We um it's

[2:41:19] not sort of by guess and by gosh. Um

[2:41:22] they

[2:41:23] sometimes we're fortunate and we belong

[2:41:25] to rural water and we can get them to

[2:41:28] come out but they literally have been

[2:41:30] dealing with communities that have no

[2:41:33] water or major issues. So we did get

[2:41:38] a company that has listening devices and

[2:41:40] they can tell where there is um a leak

[2:41:46] um in a line. And so um there is one

[2:41:50] that is significant that is um

[2:41:56] in the process of being undertaken. We

[2:41:58] think that's the reason that the people

[2:42:01] up further out have no pressure. Yeah.

[2:42:04] So, we've had a water went out to

[2:42:05] Bowowers Town for 90 years.

[2:42:08] >> It was not put out by the village

[2:42:10] initially,

[2:42:11] but it is village now

[2:42:14] >> and it runs all the way down to the 4

[2:42:17] part as well.

[2:42:18] >> Okay. So, there was a line. Okay. Okay.

[2:42:20] So,

[2:42:21] >> yeah. And if you look at the

[2:42:23] >> Okay, I hear somebody else had a line

[2:42:25] and we took it over.

[2:42:28] » I do have a random question about the

[2:42:31] $2500 credit. Where are we with the

[2:42:34] Haitian? I mean, they did

[2:42:35] >> number

[2:42:37] asking that.

[2:42:39] >> What are we going to do? Like, how does

[2:42:40] this $2,500 credit work if we were to

[2:42:43] give them 25 credit?

[2:42:46] >> So, I don't want to have them be

[2:42:47] charged.

[2:42:48] >> We need to

[2:42:49] >> we we need to discuss that. My

[2:42:52] solution is that the $2,500 charge to

[2:42:56] the hes be reduced to $1,100 and the

[2:43:00] number I just gave you

[2:43:01] >> $1,112

[2:43:03] >> 94. I'd make a different suggestion.

[2:43:07] I'd make a suggestion that $2500 charge

[2:43:11] be removed and we then build them to the

[2:43:15] $1,100.

[2:43:16] >> We can't we can't do that. So this is

[2:43:18] why we have to do it this

[2:43:19] >> once it's on. It's on. It's like sticky

[2:43:22] glue. It It's gone to the county. It's It's been built to them. It's built

[2:43:29] for them throughout through the tax

[2:43:31] bill. Um it can't take it back. What the Joe's making is give them I

[2:43:39] mean it's one of many solutions. I guess

[2:43:42] we we say their original charge should

[2:43:45] only have been $1,112

[2:43:48] and we subtract that from the $25,000

[2:43:52] or 2500, excuse me, and that difference

[2:43:56] be given a credit on their water bill in

[2:43:58] the future. My understanding is they're

[2:44:01] accepting that.

[2:44:02] >> Yeah. Well, they could even I think it

[2:44:05] was clear they could we could even cut a

[2:44:06] check. What we can't do, Richard, is

[2:44:08] change the tax lean history. And they

[2:44:12] the hes understand that they're

[2:44:13] perfectly fine with that. It's it's if

[2:44:16] it nets out to this outcome,

[2:44:20] they're they're fine with that. And I'd

[2:44:22] like to make it the path.

[2:44:24] >> They're fine with it. I don't understand

[2:44:26] it, but if they're fine with it, that's

[2:44:27] good good enough for me.

[2:44:29] >> All right. So, that stays. So, probably

[2:44:32] what we should do is make a motion that

[2:44:37] um that

[2:44:41] uh the curb stop repair itemized

[2:44:44] indicates a cost of $1,112.94.

[2:44:49] They would have to pay the 2500, but

[2:44:51] then they would be issued I don't know

[2:44:53] why they couldn't be issued a refund or

[2:44:55] a credit.

[2:44:56] >> You could do it.

[2:44:57] >> Yeah.

[2:44:58] >> Or the amount. That makes sense to me.

[2:45:00] And then $1,387,

[2:45:05] » right?

[2:45:05] >> And I and I don't know.

[2:45:07] >> So

[2:45:09] just from the amendment, I I don't know

[2:45:13] where the whether there are any uh

[2:45:16] penalties associated with the late

[2:45:18] payment because it hasn't been made yet.

[2:45:21] But if we tell them as a result of this

[2:45:22] meeting and they make the payment and

[2:45:24] there's no other that the 2500 plus

[2:45:28] their property tax bill is all they owe

[2:45:30] that that's fine. I don't know if

[2:45:32] there's I don't know what penalties

[2:45:34] >> any penalties would have been added on

[2:45:36] at the time it was submitted I would

[2:45:38] think back to the county collection.

[2:45:41] >> Okay. So between the time of receive the

[2:45:43] bill and it hasn't been paid yet because

[2:45:46] of our sorting this out

[2:45:47] >> the only fee they might have incurred

[2:45:50] would have been um you know if you pay

[2:45:54] your bill in two installments there's a

[2:45:57] slight finance charge isn't there on the

[2:45:59] tax on your village checks I don't know

[2:46:01] I always pay it in its entirety in June

[2:46:04] >> but I think that they're late now I mean

[2:46:07] >> they are they because of all of this

[2:46:09] back in

[2:46:09] >> I thought it was So what what about the

[2:46:12] penalty for them being late?

[2:46:13] >> But they didn't take their first

[2:46:14] installment and

[2:46:15] >> well they they paid it but it was they

[2:46:18] submitted it but it was rejected because

[2:46:20] it was incomplete. They they didn't pay

[2:46:22] >> they paid the amount vote for the

[2:46:24] property tax but not the $2,500

[2:46:26] increment. So the entire payment was

[2:46:29] rejected which means they're delinquent

[2:46:31] on the entire payment. So if there is my

[2:46:34] I don't know what the number is but if

[2:46:35] there is a penalty associated with that

[2:46:37] >> I would like in a second. Why don't we

[2:46:41] vote that we're going to do that refund

[2:46:43] the $1,3876

[2:46:48] and then all those in favor?

[2:46:51] >> I

[2:46:51] >> and then the and then um make a motion

[2:46:55] about uh any finance to wave any

[2:46:59] whatever you want.

[2:47:00] >> Can we do that? I thought you said it's

[2:47:01] now

[2:47:04] we would a village charge only.

[2:47:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. because it's the village tax

[2:47:09] and

[2:47:10] >> I would like to wave the fees if late

[2:47:12] fees I would like to wave the late fees

[2:47:16] if possible if any

[2:47:17] >> if any. So that'll be the that's the

[2:47:20] motion. Any of the fees associated with

[2:47:23] the non-payment of the property tax bill

[2:47:25] by the pages and that would be in the

[2:47:28] form of a we could give them a credit or

[2:47:30] a check what if there is any such amount

[2:47:34] involved.

[2:47:35] >> Right. So made by Molly, second by Joe

[2:47:38] on paper. Hi.

[2:47:41] >> Um the only other technical thing to

[2:47:44] report is that they've um one of the key

[2:47:49] operating

[2:47:50] features of our wastewater treatment

[2:47:53] plant is that um the temperature in our

[2:47:57] sludge has to be between 85 I think and

[2:48:00] 100 degrees. And because of uh

[2:48:03] complications with one of our one of our

[2:48:05] motors, um our heat rather our heat

[2:48:08] exchanger um it's not functioning above

[2:48:12] 70° and we didn't replace that when we

[2:48:14] did the upgrade of the sewer plant. Um I

[2:48:16] think maybe the prior operator

[2:48:20] discouraged the the need for it. So,

[2:48:22] we're in the midst of uh looking for um

[2:48:25] vendors who can replace that. And the

[2:48:27] charges cost range between 50 and 100.

[2:48:31] Um but uh we think that $100,000. Um we

[2:48:36] think the $70,000

[2:48:38] um bid maybe is credible and maybe

[2:48:42] timely. So, we're they're exploring

[2:48:45] that, but that's an expense of the plan.

[2:48:47] Um, and you'll notice too in the second

[2:48:49] bullet um that we are trying to keep our

[2:48:52] phosphorus levels down, but the

[2:48:55] operating the press and um

[2:48:59] uh dealing with this this this heat

[2:49:02] exchanger has resulted in our levels

[2:49:05] being above the 1.0. They got as high as

[2:49:08] 1.4. Um, but they're working and I think

[2:49:12] very credibly. uh Scott Boltz and and

[2:49:15] Eric um are doing a great job of trying

[2:49:18] to manage all the different variables in

[2:49:21] that plant operation. Um so we'll keep

[2:49:24] everyone posted, but if there are any

[2:49:25] questions or I'm missing something, um

[2:49:29] let me know.

[2:49:37] » Second by

[2:49:42] um

[2:49:43] water supervisory duty. One of the

[2:49:47] things we've been really trying to get

[2:49:48] up and running and it's taken a while is

[2:49:51] our septic inspections. Um, as chair

[2:49:56] McKenna pointed out of the nine element

[2:49:58] plan we're working on for the protection

[2:50:00] of the Asiggo Lake Wershed, our job one

[2:50:03] under in that program is going to be to

[2:50:07] have top-notch inspection system and

[2:50:10] septic approval system because that's

[2:50:12] squarely on the village to do. So um in

[2:50:15] the last cycle um um Jacob Gillette um

[2:50:21] our watershed supervisor and coordinator

[2:50:23] has and inspector has um completed 14

[2:50:27] inspections. Um everyone but one being

[2:50:32] very cooperative and um compliant and

[2:50:35] understanding the importance of of that

[2:50:38] work. So that's uh I think we're

[2:50:41] beginning to get up to use a voting

[2:50:43] metaphor a little bit on plane. Um but

[2:50:46] in association with that we had a

[2:50:49] meeting with um a vendor

[2:50:52] um let's think that's in your

[2:50:56] supplemental packet.

[2:50:59] um

[2:51:02] a a septic installer who Jim Brooks um

[2:51:08] who is who came and visited with the

[2:51:10] watershed uh well the Pubashan

[2:51:13] representatives Bertine McKenna and I

[2:51:15] and Jacob that went over um his

[2:51:21] views on on best practices for septic

[2:51:24] inspections and best equipment to um

[2:51:28] kind of shift over to in in improving

[2:51:31] new septic systems. And um Jake Jacob

[2:51:35] and um Bertie and I

[2:51:39] discussed the value to Jake as he gets

[2:51:42] his program more and more refined. um

[2:51:45] having uh Jim Brooks as a consultant uh

[2:51:50] at an hourly rate at a time that is

[2:51:54] convenient to to Jacob's work to um

[2:51:58] provide guidance and training, accompany

[2:52:00] him in the field and um uh get him up to

[2:52:06] speed in as quickly and as effectively

[2:52:10] as possible. So there is a proposal in

[2:52:12] the packet um describing that and then

[2:52:15] there's some additional information

[2:52:16] about um the qualifications of this

[2:52:19] person. This would not be for the

[2:52:21] purpose of certification,

[2:52:24] but for the giving uh Jacob some extra

[2:52:28] certification, but it would just be to

[2:52:30] get him um trained in the best practices

[2:52:34] uh

[2:52:36] you know in making these inspections.

[2:52:39] And as Alte ke his predecessor that had

[2:52:41] observed to me many times um there's a

[2:52:44] big education component associated with

[2:52:47] the work of these inspections and that

[2:52:49] is explaining to the property owners why

[2:52:52] we are assessing this $50 fee why why

[2:52:56] these septic inspections are important

[2:52:58] not only to the village water supply but

[2:53:00] to their own healthy

[2:53:03] the lake health right in their the

[2:53:05] vicinity their property and so that that

[2:53:09] entails um a lot of diplomacy and Jacob

[2:53:12] is I think very good at that. He

[2:53:14] expressed um

[2:53:17] how much uh property owners appreciate

[2:53:19] having that contact. Um and as time goes

[2:53:24] by it'll move faster and more smoothly.

[2:53:27] But um the other component of this is

[2:53:31] that um while the wastewater treatment

[2:53:34] plant operators um have we discussed

[2:53:37] with them in the water and sewer board

[2:53:39] the prospect of their assisting with

[2:53:42] some of these inspections. they have

[2:53:44] very very limited bandwidth to do it

[2:53:47] because the wastewater treatment plant

[2:53:49] is a very complicated operation and

[2:53:51] requires

[2:53:53] um attent on campus attention. So um

[2:54:00] if there's some questions about uh what

[2:54:04] we're we're proposing um I'd be happy to

[2:54:06] try to address them but the idea is to

[2:54:08] retain on an hourly basis. So this is a

[2:54:11] long time or major commitment of village

[2:54:15] resources but it would assist in

[2:54:18] accomplishing the mission of septic

[2:54:21] inspections that's critical to the

[2:54:24] vill's participation in the island.

[2:54:28] >> I have two questions.

[2:54:29] >> Sure. Um, first related to the proposal,

[2:54:33] I wonder if there's a no more than

[2:54:35] figure that I mean $87 an hour could be

[2:54:39] well $87 or it could be $10,000. So, it

[2:54:43] seems like we have to put a cap

[2:54:45] somewhere. Um,

[2:54:47] >> right. Well, I Yes. I And we we could do

[2:54:49] that and we totally control the use of

[2:54:53] his time. So if we don't want to use

[2:54:56] them more than a couple thousand dollars

[2:54:59] worth that that's that's fine.

[2:55:02] So, and this relates to my my bigger

[2:55:05] question, which is which is going to

[2:55:07] sound very skeptical, but I but I am

[2:55:10] wondering

[2:55:11] >> when these septic inspections take

[2:55:14] place, and they've been taking place now

[2:55:17] on most of these systems for years, and

[2:55:21] we just upped this to once every three

[2:55:24] years, although it had been a longer

[2:55:26] period than that. And I see that J&B

[2:55:29] Septic suggested that all systems all

[2:55:32] the time every three years. There is

[2:55:34] reason why they might say that by the

[2:55:35] way. Um I I've I wonder how many systems

[2:55:41] we are finding out of compliance. And

[2:55:44] I'm not saying that inspections are not

[2:55:46] important, but having established this,

[2:55:50] are we finding that septic systems

[2:55:53] continue to be the problem that they

[2:55:55] were a decade ago, or have many of the

[2:55:58] problematic systems been addressed? many

[2:56:01] of the problematic system systems have

[2:56:04] been addressed and I think you know um

[2:56:08] Al's diplomacy has really persuaded a

[2:56:11] lot of people to it but there were there

[2:56:13] were what we really need is a a very

[2:56:18] accurate record system

[2:56:20] >> um because we are going to be learning

[2:56:24] more things we need to do and we'll be

[2:56:26] recruiting grant funding to do that we

[2:56:28] have to have a very solid baseline and

[2:56:30] it's good data sets. And um then what

[2:56:34] we're also finding is the evolution of

[2:56:38] septic systems um they're getting ever

[2:56:40] more sophisticated and the the the kinds

[2:56:45] that he has made himself a specialist in

[2:56:49] installing are really in the high end of

[2:56:53] wastewater treatment. Um not that he's

[2:56:58] you know

[2:57:01] He's not telling us that your best

[2:57:03] practice is to insist that everybody

[2:57:05] have a new septic system, but there are

[2:57:08] ways to go about identif

[2:57:13] um had a situation where the land owner

[2:57:16] had a um a holding tank

[2:57:20] um that got pumped into a septic system,

[2:57:23] but the property owner didn't know that

[2:57:25] he had a septic tank as well. So, that

[2:57:28] hadn't really been looked at. So, we're

[2:57:30] still finding new stuff out and um that

[2:57:34] is weave and it's a regular weave and

[2:57:36] yeah, we're learning more

[2:57:39] about what has been a good start over

[2:57:42] the years by an elk expert, but

[2:57:45] >> there's a consensus that we have to step

[2:57:49] up.

[2:57:50] >> But do you do you understand the

[2:57:51] question? My question is how much are

[2:57:53] these inspections contributing to

[2:57:56] improving the host lake and how much are

[2:57:58] they inspections for inspection thing?

[2:58:00] >> I wish uh Jake were here to answer that

[2:58:02] question. he feels very very strongly

[2:58:05] that um they're needed

[2:58:10] >> and and again

[2:58:13] we're going to run into very

[2:58:15] old-fashioned you know system holding

[2:58:17] tanks that have to be pumped out all the

[2:58:19] time right

[2:58:20] >> um and to the very modern systems which

[2:58:23] have their own you know it's the old saw

[2:58:26] about high techch high risk um there are

[2:58:30] some of these more sophisticated systems

[2:58:32] require a lot more attention and um go

[2:58:36] south badly if they aren't done

[2:58:38] properly. So um but to to your general

[2:58:42] question I think all the scientists we

[2:58:45] speak with on the water w waterershed

[2:58:48] supervisory committee everybody who's

[2:58:51] addressed this issue believes the

[2:58:52] inspections are are necessary. Having

[2:58:55] had inspected having had septic systems

[2:58:58] for about total 16 to 20 years,

[2:59:02] you know, I didn't even one time I

[2:59:04] didn't even know where there was a

[2:59:06] problem. We found it just during pumping

[2:59:08] out. Um, you know, just serendipitously

[2:59:11] we found a problem before it became

[2:59:13] disaster.

[2:59:14] Um, so, you know, maybe you're right.

[2:59:16] Maybe the systems have changed. Maybe

[2:59:18] they're better than they were when I

[2:59:20] last had a system 20 years ago or so.

[2:59:22] But, uh, I I I don't see a I don't see a

[2:59:25] downside having these things inspected.

[2:59:28] I mean, I get that there's an expenses

[2:59:30] that was needed, but I think it's to the

[2:59:33] benefit of the property owner, too.

[2:59:35] >> Yeah. I I think really uh and we should

[2:59:38] probably have a longer discussion of

[2:59:40] this some point, but the I as Jake put it, you know, we've

[2:59:45] done a lot for this lake over the last

[2:59:47] 25 or 30 years.

[2:59:50] >> And it and we're still having trouble.

[2:59:53] Um and he said if we hadn't done that

[2:59:56] we'd be so much better to solve and we

[2:59:57] have to do more so that we prevent you

[3:00:01] know the advent of different kinds

[3:00:04] additional and different kinds of

[3:00:06] problems. Um, you know, in a hospital

[3:00:09] metaphor,

[3:00:10] my conclusion is that this lake is in an

[3:00:13] intensive care unit already with what

[3:00:16] we're doing, monitoring, and so on. And

[3:00:18] so,

[3:00:18] >> a lot of this, you know, is is a bit of

[3:00:21] committee work. I think at this point,

[3:00:23] you're looking for

[3:00:25] um, you know, can we authorize the use

[3:00:28] of this at 85 $87

[3:00:31] an hour? How many hours? and I've just

[3:00:34] looked at the budget and I would say why

[3:00:37] don't we authorize up to 15 hours of um

[3:00:42] consultation and assistance

[3:00:45] >> and that would be within the budget

[3:00:46] >> right and then we can

[3:00:47] >> there's the motion second

[3:00:49] >> yes

[3:00:50] >> second all in favor

[3:00:51] >> I

[3:00:53] >> um that it for watershed

[3:00:55] >> um

[3:00:56] >> the only I can't correct your minutes

[3:00:58] but I think um you meant on meeting with

[3:01:02] J&B septic that you met with members of

[3:01:05] the sewer plant. You didn't meet with

[3:01:07] members of the water plant.

[3:01:10] >> Sewer plant, right? Eric and

[3:01:12] >> Yeah. because they were the ones.

[3:01:14] >> Yeah.

[3:01:15] >> Mistake and Eric.

[3:01:16] >> Yeah.

[3:01:16] >> Um the big item for everybody's

[3:01:19] attention is that on September 15th at

[3:01:22] the Glen Glass State Park, we're going

[3:01:23] to have the second nine element plan

[3:01:26] public meeting that um some of you may

[3:01:29] have gone to last year. That's a major

[3:01:32] milestone in uh

[3:01:34] >> under the terms of the grant we have to

[3:01:36] have three public meetings. So this is

[3:01:38] public meeting number two.

[3:01:40] >> Um on the wake vote issue um while

[3:01:45] everybody has

[3:01:46] >> six to eight.

[3:01:48] >> Thank you. While everybody hasn't done

[3:01:52] the same thing, all municipalities have

[3:01:55] stepped up to do something

[3:01:57] um about managing uh wake boats. So

[3:02:00] that's a I think that's a tribute to the

[3:02:03] collaboration and cooperation very

[3:02:06] differently to interest in the lake. Um

[3:02:08] but that that's um that's a good thing.

[3:02:12] And way after you did it for the

[3:02:15] village, Cindy, the village of

[3:02:16] Springfield salt shed is 95% complete.

[3:02:20] >> Yay.

[3:02:20] >> And um that's amazing. I couldn't

[3:02:22] believe the statistics they gave about

[3:02:25] in the absence of the shed up to 30% of

[3:02:28] the product is lost.

[3:02:32] >> So um

[3:02:35] I and the rest uh I I think those are

[3:02:38] the highlights. I won't take more.

[3:02:40] >> Okay, that's great. Motion to accept

[3:02:42] water at WSC minutes um report by

[3:02:46] George, second by Molly. All in favor

[3:02:49] and we had one other item,

[3:02:52] excuse me,

[3:02:55] resolution number seven of 2026.

[3:03:00] um adopting the Atgo County 2026 hazard

[3:03:04] mitigation plan that has been out there

[3:03:07] in the public and all the municipalities

[3:03:09] participated in it. Um I move that um we

[3:03:15] uh adopt it resolution number seven of

[3:03:18] 2026 second by Cindy. All in favor?

[3:03:22] >> That's it. Um I will adjourn. Reminder,

[3:03:26] breakfast with the board, our next

[3:03:27] meeting September 28th, breakfast with

[3:03:29] the board at 8. Regular trustee meeting

[3:03:32] at 6.

[3:03:34] >> Thank you.

Board of Trustees Meeting--8.24.26

Transcript