[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.