Town Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Bedford Town Board meeting of March 17th. Happy St. Patrick's Day uh to everyone. Uh I will call this meeting to order and if you could please rise if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So, we have two public hearings um to start off the meeting. Uh we have uh first um the proposal to amend town code section 12.5 uh 12-5. A to eliminate the requirement that there be one um board of ethics member who is a town official or town employee. Do we have a motion to open that public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? I.

This is a provision that has been in the code, I guess, since um it's it was written. It's been a long time, but I don't believe we've ever had a town official that was officially appointed to the committee um as the fifth member. We've had five community members and then we've had a member of the staff who helps with organizing the meetings and taking the minutes, but hasn't been appointed as a official member um at least in recent history. So, we have five community members appointed to the committee. And then one of them asked, "What about the requirement that a staff member or public official also be on the committee?" And that has not really been the practice. So, um, that's not normally in a lot of ethics codes. And so, before the ethics committee starts convening again, and we've appointed a couple of new members, we want to clean this up. Anything else, Eric? Yeah, that the general the New York State general municipal law does also contain a requirement that there be a member who's a um official or employee of the town, but typically that's not um followed by most communities. And there's a specific provision in this local law that overrides that

sorry that general municipal law requirement. And again, most communities override that requirement because having a an official or employee is often results in that um official or employee being conflicted out if it relates to because most of the uh um complaints or or matters that are reviewed by the ethics board relate to other officials or employees. So,

right, it usually does relate to someone asks for an advisory opinion um who is an employee or an official and then it could create a conflict. Um, okay. Do we have any public comments? Okay. Any questions from the board? No. Okay. Uh, there being no further public comments, um, I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I and we have a motion to adopt um to amend the the town code. So moved. Second. Any further comments? All in favor? I. Motion carries.

We also have a public hearing um scheduled to amend chapter 110-4 and 110-5 of the town code regarding real property tax exemption to senior citizens 65 or older whose income falls below stated thresholds. Uh we uh I'll make a motion to open that public hearing. We're a few minutes early on that. Oh, 610. Okay. Yeah. Oh, wait till 6:05 scheduled for 610. Oh, we have to wait till 610. Okay. Okay. We will um

Well, we can talk about it before we open the public hearing. Um this is to amend our code which already sets up a sliding scale um for exemptions for senior citizens. And with us we have our assessor Harry Curtstone. Hi Harry. Thanks for being here. Hi. A couple minutes. Yeah. I don't want him to have to repeat again, Ellen, because if we talk about it now, what Harry says needs to be on the record for the record. He's passing out papers, but thank you. Thought it was helpful. I had

Thank you. Please. Thank you, sir. Thank you. This is a much better Oh, wait. Oh, this is such a good I love this.

Mhm. That's exactly what I was just calling because knows whether the air I'm ready. That's why I called you. Okay. Yay. So, we're just waiting one more minute to start our public hearing so that we can um go into great depths as to what this sliding scale means and how we might amend it. Um, and then we will have Irish soda bread after the meeting or even after Harry, take some before you leave. Um,

we could skip to the consent agenda and get that done. It's almost We're so close. We'll just wait. Very close. I'm the only person who Oh, no. Mitch wore green. I'm wearing green. Are you wearing green? Oh, I didn't see your green pants. It's hard to see it from, you know, underneath, but it's super green. Okay, I see that it is 6:10 p.m. So, I will make a motion to open the public hearing. Uh, amend chapter 110. Second. All in favor? I

and um Harry has passed us passed out a cheat sheet. So, if you'd like to walk us through. Yeah, I won't I try to be brief, but uh good evening everyone. I'm Harold Girdlestone, the town assessor.

And we're here tonight for a public hearing for the town board's consideration to adopt two local options, each relating to the lowincome senior aged exemption for recent changes to real property tax law 467. Option number one to increase the maximum tax exemption percentages from 50% to 65% for income under 47,000 and a new income sliding scale up to 50,000. And then option number two to to include taxable IRA distributions as income in determining exemption eligibility. Judson Sbert to Keenan Bean has provided you a draft copy of a local law that I believe you guys have got. So, uh, I was going to ramble on to try to say this, uh, verbally, and it was too much, so I apologize. Um, but it's a nice little cheat sheet. So, the changes to to the law, as you saw, several significant modifications have been made, uh, which governs the low-income senior exemption for people 65 or older on their primary residence. Uh these changes are primarily for new income limits and percentages, sliding scale options, and adjustments to income that localities may adopt. Currently, the town of Bedford, we've adopted the maximum amounts allowed by state law. Uh uh if you make under $50,000, you can get 50% off of your uh real property taxes for for town purposes. Uh counties and schools can adopt it as well. Um, and we also have a sliding scale that goes up to 58,400. So if you make just under that, 58,399, you get 5%. So it doesn't exclude everybody. So the option number one we have on today, lower income thresholds and increased exemption percentages.

Beginning with the 2026 assessment rule, the town may grant a local option up to a 65% tax exemption for qualifying low-income seniors. increasing from their previous max of 50%. County and schools have not adopted this year. They may in the future, but I reached out to them. They're not going to consider it this year, so we'd be ahead of them. Um, the new proposed percentages and reduced income thresholds with sliding scale may be adopted as follows. Under 47, 65% tax exemption. income be over 47 but under 48 60% tax exemption 48 but less than 49,000 55 and if you make 48,000 49,000 up to 50,000 you get 50%. So it's a little redundant but what I did is I in yellow I spliced that onto our current settings. So the black is what we have in place now. So we're adding that layer on top. So, it's redundant, but it's all together

if we adopt it. The tax implications. I spoke with Bobby and Councilman uh to a couple of councilmen in the town board about this. And u for the 2025 assessment, we had 81 lowincome senior exemptions granted with 55 seniors receiving the 50% maximum tax exemption. The income ranges are as follows. 50% had under 47,000. Two seniors were be were between 47 and 48. Zero between 47 40 48. And three between um actually that last should be between 49 and 50. That's a typo. Sorry guys. I copied it. Okay. So the last one is we had three exemptions between 49,000 and 50,000. Not the 47. In fact, I I I think I copy both of those lines. So, the first line is correct. The second line is correct. The third line should read read 48 to 49,000. And the last line 49,000 to 50,000. I'm sorry. I'll correct that and and redistribute that.

All right. So assuming I instead of I was going through it all. So I just said, you know, I'm just going to assume everybody all the 55 people who got the 50%. 65. It's going to be a little lower than that, but just for to make it easier and simpler on my life. And if I when I did that, it increase the tax rate 3 cents per mill. And the typical property residential owner with an assessment of 70,000 market value 915 that's our median assessment it would increase $220. So I don't think it's significant. It's very significant to the people who receive it who are fixed incomes. Uh but that's the uh couple of council people wanted the impact. So that's what it is and that's kind of a worst case scenario. The second option, flip over to page two on the back and um including taxable IRA distributions in determining exemption eligibility. A summary recent changes uh to legislation stipulates that it used to be you had to get all the income and it was very intrusive to uh uh some of the residents they had to come in they had to open up all their end of year statements really people. So the state simplified it for 2025. So it starts with federally adjusted gross income as reported on your tax return and serves as the base

value to work off of. And then uh the FAGY can be adjusted as follows. You include all tax exempt interest and dividends not included in FAGY fedally adjusted gross income. uh inclusion of non-t taxable social security benefits not included in FAGY and capping the net loss amounts on any schedule to 3,000 totaling you can't write off more than 15,000 those are those are part of the the new requirements but also at local option additional adjustments to FAGY may be made or adopted by localities inclusion of taxable IRA distributions and and I think that's worth considering because I've been seeing a lot more people applying for that with some significant amounts of taxable IRA distributions and I'm not sure that's what the intent was, but I've been having to grant the exemption, but that's up to the town board's discretion. Uh, and I think over time as more and more people transition away from typical pensions and IAS, that number of exemptions is probably going to grow with the future. Um, the other option you could do, you could you could actually deduct non-t taxable social security benefits. I wouldn't recommend that. And you can deduct for unreimbured medical expenses. We talked about that a couple years ago. I don't think that's a good idea to administer. So, I would recommend if anything the taxable IRA, you can do it any year. You can do it this year. You can do it next year. However you want to structure it. All these can be looked at on a yearly basis. I have a note pensions and annuities are already included. So if you have a regular state pension or any other annuity, it's included in there as well. So we're treating them the same. IAS and pensions other Westchester count other Westchester municipalities have already adopted to include it. Some of our neighbors, Greenberg, North Castle, I mean Newcastle, and some others. And where people don't

file a tax return, there's a worksheet that the senior can fill out that mimics the FAGY. and we we basically just take the documents from them and we really reconstruct the federally adjusted gross income and the adjustments if applicable. So the tax implications for the 2025 final assessment role uh taxable area distributions line 44B were excluded as income in determining exemption eligibility for the low income senior. However, if the local option is adopted to include taxable IRA distributions as income in determining uh exemption eligibility, the tax implications implications would be as follows. 14 seniors based on my analysis would lose their exemption. Eight seniors would retain their exemption but at a lower percentage. Now again, these things fluctuate every year based your income fluctuates. It can go up or down. So some people qualify one year and don't the next for income ups or downs. They sell their home. They're institutionalized or even god forbid they pass away. So the the amount of the exemptions and the income fluctuate on a yearly basis, but typically we've been around 50 to 60 exemptions. We're up to 80 and I think that's because the IRA. So uh so I would recommend uh except uh passing adopting both options as stated.

I'm sorry. What did you recommend? The two options. Okay. Option one and two, adopting the lower limit of 65% under 40 $47,000 and option number two including taxable IRA distribution as income in determining uh eligibility for the lowinccome senior exemption.

Thank you Harry. Um so the state uh when this opportunity was enabled to go to the 65% they redefined what the um federal adjusted gross in reported income should be for this or they were silent on how to calculate for this particular

Well it's a good question. This year this year they raised it to 65. That's 2026. They redefined for 2025. When we brought this up two years ago, we talked about it. We were going to just accept the defaults and the default when they passed the new legislation to streamline it. The default was to include social security but exclude IRA. So we didn't uh at that time we I don't think we you guys weren't in it or we whatever we tabled it wait and see but that was actually in place for for last year that you could when they re when they streamlined the exemption so we could have adopted it but we accepted the defaults as is and I'm surprised the default excludes the IAS

right there's no explanation for why but that's what they do the default was to exclude and a lot of other towns have since passed that and uh when I've been looking at our increase in the exemption and down the line as the uh people get older and our our our pension plans less people have pension they have more this this exemption could really grow and affect our tax base so that's your decision but to answer your question this isn't all part of 2026 just the 65% 47 that is just recent the was was redefined last year to streamline it. Okay. Thank you very much. Um I guess the

um if people are applying for these exemptions by May 1st. Yes. And they got it last year. Um I would think they had been maybe counting on the way that it was calculated last year this year. So I would be reluctant to adopt that for the reasonable approach. That's reason. Um because I would think that would really put people in a bad place.

I I happen to agree with you. We some of us spoke, but that's totally up to you. I mean, you could put it off totally till next year. We redo this again. We do this again next year. Hopefully not on St. Patrick's Day, but but as Jud wrote it up, Jud Sieber, you you can have that piece or exclude it. It doesn't have to be. So, we can still do the 65% uh uh for 47,000 under plus the sliding scale up to 50,000 and table that for next year or however you want to handle it. It's not a it's not it's one you don't need to do both.

And this is how we calculate it for all exemptions. So this may if we would it be that we're deciding it only in this exemption or it would mean IRA uh would come into the calculation for any of the any other you know is it for the star or the enhanced star um are there other we don't determine star anymore the state took that program over but they do exclude IRA in the star calculation they do okay yeah they take line 11 minus 4B so the state for star they get it excluded. So, they're getting that. Okay.

We uh last year in 2025, part of the same thing. They everything's verified by Albany now. So, they don't apply for the star exemption anymore. They they it's verified at at Albany. They come in, ask us questions. We give them contact information. But that's all administered and part of the administration. They take the prior year. They for this year's star eligibility, they take the 2024 tax year and they take the federally adjusted gross income. They start with FAGY but but they do minus out the IRA distributions to determine STAR eligibility. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um other questions? Okay. Okay. We can have more. Why don't we um I'm sure

we open to the public hearing. So if there are public comments on um this both options the um increasing the sliding scale to go all the way to 65% of a um where am I assessed valuation exempt from taxation um and moving it down to 7 47,000 less than 47,000 to get that um as well as this question of whether the IRA they should be um excluded uh or included in the calculation for eligibility. Any comments by the public? Okay. Um discussion by the board. If we were to um you know leave it as is and not um include the IAS this year, can we vote on it tonight for it to to kick in next year? Do we have to vote next year? I'm just curious. We could amend the law to say that it would go into effect next year, but we would probably have to amend the law and and hold another public hearing, which is fine. We still have time. I think it's May 1st. We'd have to

pass this by then to um

enable people to apply for these exemptions. Um but yeah, if we wanted to propose that we could hold another public hearing. Um or we can I know there are other exemptions that the state has enabled that go into effect next year. So we could reconsider this along with those. There are mostly like veterans um I think exemptions that would be uh have been made available for next year. So we could bring this up again with more discussion. I would I I would agree with Ellen and MIJ. I mean, we've already gotten uh exemptions in for this year and it would be kind of pulling the rug out under their feet for this year.

But I do believe it's something that we re I I think it's something the Tom board really has to seriously consider. But I think it might be best this year to just, you know, hold our keep our powder dry then meet again next year. Maybe even have something in the summer workshops bring seniors in to really flush it out. So, but you know, I'm for but it doesn't mean it has to be done this year because it is a little late. I agree with all the councilmen. So, probably better to just punt on that one and re regroup next year and really maybe even have some uh work session on it or two. Right. Right. So, we could get really hear from the public on it. Yep. Um

and I guess make sure that it does I mean this is the terrible thing to say but like if next year it's they'll be counting on it again. So we'd have to just have it timed so time's correct. It could kick in with enough notice,

right? So we could have a work session on it in the fall. I think we could also consider the veterans exemptions in the fall so that people, you know, know by the beginning of the year what what has been adopted and and how to um consider whether the IRA is going to count or not. Um it is true that more and more people will have those IAS with the required distribution. Um you know at the same time not um you know it's I hard to imagine someone living here and paying their taxes and making under $47,000 a year. um you know if they're still living obviously this applies to people who live in a home and um there's you know not a lot of places to go if they can no longer afford their home. So this is a this is um very low income.

Just a point of clarification it it's not an asset check. So you could have $2 million in the bank or whatever money could be set aside in trusts and it would not be acknowledged. So yeah, I I think the issue here is that if we're going to be shifting the tax burden to other taxpayers and we want to make sure that seniors can age in place, we have to be very careful about when we're shifting that burden. Exactly. Exactly. I just want to say that that's it's not also it's a flat exemption amount. You could be in a $2 million home at 65% or 50%. There's no cap.

So uh there is a correlation between income and how much you, you know, can afford to the house you can live in. But um I I just think for fairness, I think if the timing is right for this year, it's probably too short. But uh because we consider other forms of pension and other stuff in, we're kind of treating people differently. Treating people differently, right? Yeah. And it it does feel like um you can almost plan for putting more in your IRA where your pension is a little less calculated. um people who know how to sort of work with within this framework and figure out how to you know get a bigger exemption.

Yeah, it's an interesting tough question. No question. Yeah. Okay. Um other comments?

I don't want to seem insensitive, but I mean I think we're kind of jumping ahead, right? We're like, should we include the IRA? But the question I think starts with why are we changing it um 50% is pretty significant tax exemption and it is not my understanding I don't think that every municipality is implemented the the 65% ex exemption. So again, not trying to harm any individuals who benefit from the exemption, but are we being hasty by going to the 65% at this time, particularly if we haven't come to any conclusions about what we want to do with the IRA

because one will affect the other. Right. Right. if well it looks like only 14 people would drop out if the IRA were in the calculation which means there's still a good number of people who um they are making very low income and affordability is a real issue for people um it is so while the 14 people may kind of be getting away with something this year um yeah I still think it's um you know something that in

this market where you know with the valuation of houses here um you know it's it's a burden. Yeah, it's a it's a tough question. Just a point of clarification for Stephanie, the other towns around us have adopted to include the IRA as income. I don't know of anybody who's adopted it as it is in my cheat sheet there. The county and the schools haven't adopted. I'm not aware of any other town that I'm asking. So that when I said other municipalities, I was talking about including the IRA, the IRA and the income. They've adopted it. But I know of no one yet the schools and county we would be out in front of this. They have not adopted this new 65 47 just a clarification.

Okay. Right. And it's fairly new. So, I don't know if like I'm just saying we have to rush into it or right or wait until we consider the IRA. Yeah. I'm just saying do we want to I'm not saying we should. I'm just asking do we want to make those decisions at the same time? Is there a rush to adopt the 65 exemption? only if we want to make it available to people this year, we would need to make that decision before May 1st, right?

Um, and you know, I know that there are seniors who, you know, are making a very little amount of income and um would like to stay in their homes and this would reduce their, you know, tax burden in those those homes a little bit more. A little bit more. A little bit more. It's

But to the point of people having been planning for this year, the plan wasn't for 65. The plan was for 50% difficult. I'm just throwing it. But I I think with the exclusion of say those people for whom the IRA is helping them to meet this threshold, even if we take away say 20 or so people that would still really help another, you know, 60 people that even if they weren't planning to have a little bit more help this year, I can't imagine that they wouldn't appreciate that. and it's not going to cause a an outsized burden on other taxpayers. I don't see a reason not to do it just because we don't have the IRA worked out yet for those people.

I agree. I'd like to do it because prices are going up on a lot of things. their electric bills are more, the gas prices are more, and I think if we can help the seniors that really need this in this time, I think it's important that we move ahead with it. Um, we could consider the IRA question sooner than later. Um, even if we do what maybe MID suggested and consider it go into effect next year, um, you know, but we would need to post a new local law with that provision and discuss it at our next meeting.

Um, if we're ready to do that, we want to hear from people. We could be prepared to do that certainly. Is that something I would do or maybe table table it until we review all of the exemptions later in the year? I I'm fine with that suggestion. Agreed. Okay. So, we have um I'll make a motion to Well, are there any other public comments on the current version of the law? No. So, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Uh, all in favor? I.

And um I hear I guess Mitch, there's a motion. You'll make a motion. Want to make that motion? Okay. I'll make a motion to to to um to um approve to change the law. Well, no. Are we are we approving the local law that was presented um as presented tonight? Is that or No, I think we want to amend it to Oh, to make so to continue the public hearing and amend it so that we're amend it to include the calculation of the IRA effective effective in 2027. Okay. We could add that in and continue the hearing, right? Uh-huh.

Which would make the 65% effective immediately for this year, but the um IRA calculation would be included this year, but excluded starting next year. Excluded for this year, but you're including it for next year. And then we would welcome public comments on that from people who um either want that to continue or don't want that to continue. Um, so that would come back before the town board on April 7th then. Yes. So we'd have the public hearing would be continued to April 7th at 6:00 on this matter.

So I'll make the I'll propose the motion to amend the law um as stated and to set a public hearing for April is it 7th at 6 pm. Right. To continue the public hearing at on April 7th on the law as amended. on the laws amended. So, so second it. Great. Well, did you make the motion? No, she made so moved by me. Mitch seconded. All in favor?

I motion carries. Okay. So, we will try to get that out to people and explain what that means. Um, okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks, Harry. Um, oh, we have a short presentation. Tom, would you take that sign that's next to you and carry it around the front of this thing so that if you could like a sandwich? I don't know if maybe lean it up against Eric. No, but we have to be able to see it, too. Yeah, maybe at the podium. That would be great.

So, I just wanted to give an exciting update on where we are with the wayfinding signage. Um, this beautiful sign has been made as a sample of the wayfinding signs that are going to go up in Bedford Hills. We're first talking about the one down here, Peter, at the podium. If you want to show that one. Um, these will be located um in Bedford Hills. It's part of the county um dig grant.

There we go. There it is. Look how shiny it is. Reflective. Um, so yeah, this one uh would be coming from Bedford Center Road down Main Street as you head into the Hamlet, showing you what's ahead. Um, public parking, library, trade station, shops, and dining. And there are um I think four of these uh to go in various locations as you enter the hamlet. one right at the top of I think five actually um at the top of um the exit off of the Sawmill River Parkway, exit 39. You look across the way and you'll see you know town offices that way, shopping that way, parking that way. Um one as you come into the hamlet from 117, another one from I think School Street. So these will be nice um pretty signs that help people get around in their cars. There are also versions that are going to be have a big P for public parking and lot and the lot numbers to help people understand where they're going for parking in the the lot. So that'll be um as you come down railroad railroad you see eight and four and then as you go down around the corner seven and 7A uh and then lot five is the one up behind the post office. So, those will all have the parking signs. And then this is the proposed look that's showing on the screen now for the gateway sign to replace the um old Chamber of Commerce sign as you enter Bedford Hills um on the little island at the near the traffic light. So, that is the proposal. It um still has the train which a lot of people liked um which was sort of the symbol of a lot of the old materials for Bedford Hills. It has the similar um coloring and lettering of the train station with the brick. There are a lot of brick um the firehouse and um you

know the train station all have that look. So this is the proposal for the gateway sign. It would be tall enough that you could put some landscaping underneath it and um have a nice welcoming entrance to the hamlet. So we are in the process of ordering these to be created. They should be installed in the spring, so they should be up before the summer. Um, yeah. So, I just wanted to give a little update on where we are. That's thanks to the county dig grant um funding. And that grant has also funded some facade improvements um that some of the businesses have applied for some new signage at the at Sydney's Nail Salon, at Spano Plumbing, at um I'm forgetting where else we've approved signage, but there's been some some new signs put up. And um we are also talking to the county about using some of that funding to improve the facade of the train station, the um bulletin board next to the train station, and um perhaps doing some kind of u mural uh project. So, we're working on those things. Um so, that was just some updates wanted to give. That sign's been in my office for a couple weeks and everyone who sees it likes it. I thought everyone should get to have a have a look at it.

Okay. So, we will move to the consent agenda. Number one, uh request by controller Connealy to approve abstract of claims and paid priors in the amount of $330,17022. Number two, we have the acceptance of our monthly reports. Number three, uh the town clerk requests the board approve the 2026 HSS bike ride through Bedford on Saturday, September 19th. Uh no town resources are needed for that. Number four, uh to authorize supervisor to sign the traffic and criminal software IMA between the New York State Police and the County of Public Safety and the um town of Bedford Police Department. Number five, um to authorize a supervisor to sign a 5-year IMA with Westchester County for Bedford Police firing range use retroactive through 2030. Um do we have a motion to approve those five items on the uh consent agenda? So

second. All in favor? I.

Motion carries. Um okay. And now we have under new business um the chief has requested um approval for the promotion of Joseph Saglaniano to the rank of sergeant uh at the annual base salary of $154,834 as per the PBA contract. Um, police officer Sagliano began his police career with the New York State Park Police in 2017 and transferred to the Bedford Police Department uh in December of 2020. As a patrol officer, he's a member of our police emergency service unit, a certified drone pilot, and a certified child passenger safety technician. He helps with the car seat installations. Uh he holds a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice from Sunni Onana on received numerous awards recognizing his service to our community including the meritorious duty, excellent police duty and unit citation awards. Um do we have a motion to approve this um wonderful promotion?

So move second. Any comments? Agreed. Agrees. All in favor? I motion carries.

Okay. Um on the other end of the the spectrum we have um the accept the request to accept the notification of the retirement of Jim McHugh uh water foreman effective March 30th 2026. Um Jim is um has served the town of Bedford for 27 years. Uh he has demonstrated a strong work ethic, excellent knowledge of the water field, and a great sense of humor. In the four-person position, Jim's proactive approach to preventative maintenance and strong knowledge of the operation and maintenance of our treatment facilities and distribution system were according to Kevin Wyn, great assets to the town. He was instrumental in training newer employees to provide continuity of operations and succession planning. Um he has spent many days, nights and weekends plowing roads and applying winter materials with the highway department. And um we all want to thank Jim for his tremendous service and contributions to the town and wish him all the best in retirement. So do we have a motion to accept? So

second. All in favor? I I

Okay. and he doesn't want a party, so no party. Um, we have a request from the town clerk to approve and co-sponsor the village greenus gorge event on May 7th, 2026. Um, this is a retirement event for Rod Christie who has served many years. This is their minus river executive director. Um they have been approved for or they are asking for two police officers um to work this event and as per our policy we would cover their um overtime expenses for that because it is a expected to be a community event. Um I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Any questions, comments? Okay. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Um number four, we have a request um to accept the resignation of John Loveless from the board of assessment review. Unfortunately, John um has taken a job with the state that um creates a conflict for him to serve or they've said he can't serve as a member of the board assessment review. Um, do we have a motion to approve or accept? Some move. Second. Uh, all in favor?

I. So, we will be uh accepting applications for interested residents who would like to serve on the board of assessment review. There's a sort of a job description on the website under board of assessment review. Usually, um, people who understand real estate and property valuation. That's who we're looking for. and they help Harry um they review grievances and um you know make determinations when people want to challenge their assessments. Correct. Actually they're separate they're a separate board. They don't help Harry at all participate. All right. But you um let them use your sit in your office and I

Right.

Okay. Right. They don't help Harry but they do that provides an independent um sort of appeals board for what the assessor has determined as an assessment value. So they are separate um and we greatly appreciate their their service. Okay. Number five, we have a request to adopt a resolution to continue participation in the Westchester County um consortium to engage a monitor. of this got cut off to um monitor coned in their ongoing um reporting and operations that you know we were part of the Westchester County Consortium uh that was um very successful in helping with some of the settlement matters. There's a meeting coming up soon to review KED's capital projects to make sure that um they aren't all being done in New York City. uh that you know Westchester's getting its fair share and there throughout the next three years of the rate case um KED's submitting reports and documentation to the PSC and um a number of communities engaged um a monitor for some downount um water systems and sewer systems um oversight and they found that that was very helpful to have that engagement. So, uh, what, you know, we're proposing here is to adopt a resolution to agree to participate at, um, $1,000 a year to to be part of the continue to be part of the consortium, um, to engage Joel Deer of Deer Law as a special counsel to represent all the participating Westchester municipalities. And I believe there are uh, 29 or 30 municipalities already agreed to participate. Um, so

and Ellen, we're at a much lower rate because we only have about what 600 customers. We paid $1,000 towards the um was five or Yeah, we agreed to pay up to $1,000 for the initial um consortium. So, I've just put in here that we would agree to pay $1,000 towards this. If that works, we could negotiate something lower if you find that too much. I think I think the benefit that weighs the cost there. Okay. So, there's a there's a resolution in the packet. Um, I'll make a motion to approve. I will second. Any any questions or comments? I think it's it's good to it's been a good exercise of all the municipalities work together to have a voice in these situations. All in favor?

I I um motion carries. And then I have a resolution that uh I think Tom and Mij worked on to just formally oppose the NY rate increase. Um does somebody want to read it out loud? Do we want to read it fully? I mean it. Sure. Sure. Yes. I will I will Why not? Sure. We're almost done. I know soda bread is waiting.

Yes. And thank you, MIJ, for for engaging with with me on this. Um and Ellen, your your help as well. Um so this is the town of of the town board of the town of Bedford resolution opposing NYG's proposed 2026 rate increase. Whereas as elected officials in the town of Bedford, we have the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the residents of our town. And whereas New York State Electric and Gas, a subsidiary of Avanguard, has proposed delivery rate increases that would raise residential utility bills by nearly 39.4% for electricity. And whereas electricity costs both for delivery and supply are increasing at rates that far outstrip inflation and what the average electric customer can afford, including electricity delivery rates increased 62% as per the 2023 New York State Public Service Commission PSC's approval of a compounding interest rate over 3 years and increasing in electric supply rates this winter due to high demand from extreme cold and geopolitical circum. irstances have also added an increased burden to NYG customers. Many who were moved from Westchester's power fixed rate program to the variable marketdriven supply rate to electricity this year. And whereas the electric delivery rate increases have imposed substantial burden on town residents, businesses, working families, and older individuals to to mention a few, many are facing a cost of living crisis. And whereas NISAG states the delivery rate increases are essential to improve customer service and to repair and improve infrastructure to meet state goals and industry demands. However, continue to show profits for Avenguard shareholders. And whereas the New York State Public Service Commission should stand up for the public and reject these enormous rate hikes that residents and businesses cannot afford and should not have to bear. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Bedford Town Board implores Governor Hokll, New York State

Public Service Commission, and our legislators in Albany to reign in Nice proposed rate hikes to protect rate payers. And be it further resolved that the Bedford town board request that Governor Hokll or legislators, our legislators, the PSC and NYG Avenguard make rate payer protection their highest priority and consider alternative solutions to rate increases to address the changes of transmission and distribution of electricity. Thank you. Thank you. Um do we have a motion to approve? Adopt. I will make the motion.

Second. Okay. Any other comments? I think um there's been a lot of talk about uh there being something done to make sure that rateayers are more protected in in these situations. And I think it's something that our legislators are talking about a lot and the governor's talking about a lot. So, if this helps um push that, that would be great. All in favor?

I I motion carries. we will send that along um to advocate for that kind of protection. Okay. Um do we have any public comments? Nobody. Okay. Um any board member announcements? If anybody wants to spend the night with Council Member Catalado, Friday, what is it? March 20th for Police and Pizza at the community house, 5 to 7:00. Um I will be there. I will bring my little guy actually um if anybody wants to meet him. Okay. And chise at the Bedford Hills Community House. Yep.

At 5 between 5 and 7 on this Friday. Friday. Okay. Thank you.

Um I think our wreck and parks brochure is coming out yesterday. Today should be out. It's almost out this week. And um pool registration opens on the 18th. Camp registration opens on the 25th. There are early subscription rates. Uh so people will want to sign up and get in line. Um we had uh the planning board had a couple of applications that had significant public interest in them. There have been web pages set up to show you know provide materials to the public. Um sort of easy way to provide materials about those projects. uh 150 Bedford Road and 633 to 647 Old Post Road are the two projects that um people have been interested in. Um so the planning board is continuing their process as required by law to review these applications and um have been providing um ample time for the public to comment and we'll continue to follow the process to get you know those through the various studies and review that they need under our zoning code and seeker and all of those things. So it's not they're nowhere near done. They're just um just saying that there have been websites set up to web pages set up to house all the materials coming in. Um once again, I'll just announce we have our Rev Up Youth video competition. There's a workshop on m March 27th with any awardwinning documentarians who are willing to help uh students who are interested in making films. And then um there's going to be the winners selected to um have their videos played at the Bedford Playhouse on May 14th and there'll be a panel of experts talking about the videos and um

grand prize money many grand prizes and things like that. So just want to keep um encouraging all students to participate. And um we I spent the you know we spent the afternoon interviewing um traffic safety working group members who would like to be reappointed to that committee. There are still um there are opportunity for other people to apply to that committee and um hopefully we will know we'll make appointments to that at the next meeting. But it uh for great conversations always a good reminder of how hard our volunteers work in their capacities on their committees and the traffic safety working group is no exception. and they've really accomplished many things with um traffic safety features and the AAA traffic safety award that uh goes to our T has gone to our town a couple years in a row. So um I just want to thank them for the work that they do and um we'll probably be reappointing all of them at the next meeting, but um we we will continue to um interview them to just to touch base and um as we do. Um, anything else from the board? Okay, there being no further business, this meeting is Thank you.