Town Council - Regular Meeting

or a motion so move the agenda is presented motion made and seconded is there any discussion any questions any additions hearing none those in favor please signify by saying aye aye second item three approval of minutes I give a move of May 12 2026 move to approve those minutes second motion made in seconds to approve the minutes are there any changes any alterations or conditions or solutions hearing none those in favor of the minutes as presented please signify by saying aye aye aye opposed nay so agenda item four public hearing on amendment to chapter 264 of the Code of the Town of East Hampton. Is there anyone who desires to make a public comment?

Of the amendment to the .

Yeah, we're going to talk about what?

I had a question. I was trying to keep a public remarks as I said.

If it relates to the sewer amendment, you should speak now.

Crystal Chan, 34 Walnut Avenue. I'm not the best informed about everything and I'm trying to learn and trying to understand. With the amendment to the code of the town, of East Hampton regarding the sewer use. That's chapter 264. And there was amendments to dash 7, dash 8, and dash 9, to my understanding. And dash 7 was amended to say, if you have septic, you may connect. You don't need to connect. that I understand that. I think that makes sense. Dash eight, everything was crossed out and just said reserved. And then dash nine was saying that after a sewer, it becomes available and you've connected that you shall discontinue and do whatever is appropriate to mediate your former septic. So that also makes sense. My question was about Section 8 where that was just crossed out because it spoke to regulations about unlawful, I think it was unlawful construction if you needed to repair or replace And then it said, maintain, I see, it seems like that the maintain should be, you should continue to maintain if you're in septic and you should be able to allow it to maintain if you can appropriately maintain your septic. But my question was why the section about, um, if there's a concern that you need to replace, or there's a, uh, extensive repair such that your septic existing septic is no longer functional. it seems like there should be some language that would say then you should connect to sewer similar to the dash nine. Oh, that was, sorry, I'm a little, scrambled a little bit here, but dash nine I think talked about if you're a new construction that you need to repair. So I think in the same sense that dash eight, if you have a septic that's no longer functional or needs significant repair, seems like there should be some language then in the amendment to maintain that language. That was my long-winded kind of question and comment. Does that make sense? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, anyone else?

Yeah. Can we have Dave explain why you're showing me the product of the changes that have occurred since?

I don't know if you want to take all your public comment first and then we can go back to that. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I can do it now. I can do it later.

So anyone else who would like to make remarks?

I think there's one online. Lee?

My name is Lee Calvo Caressi. I live on Tiffany Court. And I'm wondering if the sewer system is to be expanded, if homeowners will still have a $40,000 lien placed on their property.

This was last year. I understand that does not exist. That was that new provision was removed from the regulations or the policies of the water pollution control.

My understanding that was just an estimate of the cost is that it was going to be passed on to the property owners that the town or the council decided not to agree to the funding for that. That has been shut down. So right now there is no $40,000 number anywhere out there.

Thank you. There's nothing to do with anything. All right.

Hi, Erica Cowes, 103 Mott Hill Road. I just wanted to get up and speak in favor of the measure. I think it certainly points to more efficient uses of resources and more practical solution. When I was reading the original version, I actually couldn't understand how some of the 90-day mandates could actually be executed if we had brought a whole lot of sewer online at the same time? How would that even have been practical? And also just more efficient in the sense that if someone has a working septic system with no issues, I know there's new construction nearby my house that's going in now, and they're putting it in right now, only to have that be reversed. So it seems much more practical on that level as well. And I think it also gives an important incentive for the sewer system to operate and perform in a way that would attract users to buy in, right? To have a cost-effective and efficient system that people want to opt into rather than sort of a perverse incentive where they have sort of a captured population that has no alternative but to turn to that service. So, I just, I think the question earlier from the earlier public commenter, who was the 1st here is a good 1 about provision aid and what should happen to systems that do fall into disrepair or would need substantial. Remediation to remain effective, but I'm not sure that a mandate. Necessarily makes sense to me, but maybe there could be a note within the provision saying, you know, it's suggested you consider this, or there could be resources provided for people to calculate the relative costs. I think that's something that a lot of homeowners won't have a very good sense of. And I know that the 40,000 dollar number that that gentleman online mentioned certainly scared a lot of people to hear that. So maybe there could be resources the town could provide around estimating the immediate and long-term costs of the alternatives to help people in making those decisions of which way to go if they're in a kind of a borderline situation. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone else? Sure.

I'm a little taller. I'm Hunter Stiles 103, Mott Hill Road. Just wanted to briefly also speak in support of the amendment. Acquainting myself with it, like many of us are, just appreciating in general that it to me reads as more fair, more practical, reasonable compromise. I know that there's a lot of efforts to balance protecting public infrastructure with respecting existing homeowners, particularly those who have functioning septic systems. To me, this reads like a reasonable balance in that way. So speaking personally, I would always support sewer where it's needed. There are clear needs, particularly with regard to public health and risks to public health. I have not at this time heard Rationale, although I may have missed some information along the way, I'm sure I have rationale for that implementation of a mandatory system in this way. So it seems to me that functional and compliance services should not be forcibly placed without a clear public health necessity. And that's why I am happy to see this amendment and find it to read more fairly and more practical. Thanks.

One online.

Sure, it's Rebecca.

iPhone?

I'm pretty sure that's Rebecca.

Hello?

Yep, go ahead.

Okay, I wasn't sure if I was connected. Rebecca Harvey, Flanders Road. Just wanted to, I know you guys all know how I feel about it, but just wanted to say that I am in support of the amendments to this. And that's it.

Thank you, thank you. Is there anyone else? We're on a roll here. Is there anyone else? I think that's asking three times. Seeing no one desirous of adding further comments, I'm going to close the public hearing. Moving on in our agenda. public remarks when we get to it at the on the agenda so anyone who desires to make public remarks on other issues tonight oh sorry someone nope no you're good seeing or hearing no one desires and making public remarks.

I'm gonna close that. Crystal Chan, 34 1 Avenue. Again, just trying to stay informed and get questions out and hopefully answers. I am a parent in this town and I have one child in Memorial and one in private daycare. And I've been in other meetings in the past where there's been concerns and questions about readily available information about the budget and the BOE and where funding goes to and what it all means. And I honestly, um, again, not being the most well-informed was relying on information that was being pushed to me from like parents square and relying on like Facebook to, to give me that information. But as I dug deeper, um, I saw that there was a lot of information very readily available on the BOE website. There's actually a 76 page. budget book where it talks about the finances, what the kids gain from what the BOE has done, what their plans are, long-term strategies. that money goes to teachers, admin, cost for custodians, cafeteria, paras, interventionists, nurses, secretaries, all those things and that a large part of the budget, 85% of the budget goes to salaries and benefits and that To some extent, our hands are tied when it comes to these cycles, except that there's the three year cycle, is my understanding, where the BOE and the collective bargaining groups discuss what the salary should be for the teachers. So that seems like that may be the opportunity at which point we discuss where we can possibly rein in the challenges that taxpayers feel the burden of. But once we've committed to what we commit to for our teachers and what they do for our students, I feel like we are somewhat obligated to hold to that commitment. So I just wanted to voice that I like others thought there wasn't information out there and that why am I not seeing this only push from parents where but it is you just have to look for it and I know it's challenging for the town council and our manager to push all this information because there's so much information that people are asking for different topics um but that's one where I was like okay I'm gonna sit down and try to look for it and I found it um and also someone had posted about there's Obviously, $40 million is a scary number. You break it down to 180 days of school, also still a scary number. Then you break it down to the number of students in the school, and it's a little over $100 a student per day. When I look at what my private daycare gives my student versus what I see the teachers and all of the professionals that support my child at that school do for $100, that is priceless compared to, is that my time?

Yep.

Oh, sorry, I had one more question.

You can't ask it? No, I can't ask it.

There'll be public remarks at the end.

Okay. Thank you. All right.

Yes. Anyone else desirous of making public remarks? Seeing no hands waving and no one online, close this section of the agenda. Move on to item six, presentations.

You have no presentations this evening.

Thank you. Move on to item seven, bids and contracts.

No bids or contracts either.

Move on to agenda eight, resolution, amendments, policies, proclamations, review, and possible action on amendment to chapter 264 of the Code of the Town of East Hampton regarding civil use.

So you have in front of you now for after public hearing potential action, the ordinance to amend the sewer use code as you've been discussing for a couple of meetings now. The ordinance was changed to try and address the council's desire to make voluntary the connection to the sanitary sewer system. There was a question with respect to 264-8, which is in a part of the code that talks about private on-site septic systems. That was removed because it required that as soon as there was a sanitary sewer system in front of your house you could no longer undertake any of those actions that were listed because you had to under the previous iteration you had to connect to the sewer system and so that's basically what was going on in the town when the sanitary sewer system was was established back in the 80s our our those that lived in the community at that time and were in the area that was being served by the sewer construction projects that were ongoing were required to connect and were required to dismantle their systems. The maintenance of our septic systems, our onsite systems is required under other sections of statute and code, not necessarily related to sewer use. So that's why that piece was removed in response to the questions. Um, I put on the desk for the council to, to take a look at, uh, and I will, uh, if I may, um, share that with, uh, the community, uh, online as well right now, and those in the room. Let's see, Kath, can I share? I think you need to give me permission cause I'm a nobody. Can you promote me up? Can you find me and promote me up?

Yeah.

Now, you know, go on the end of the three dots and promote. Oh, here we go. So I want to show you some potential other language. I looked at the language that was originally proposed for 247 and To be honest, if you kind of panic 264, I'm sorry, 264.7. Sorry. I looked at that language and I thought, wait a minute, is that exactly what the council intends? And is there some sort of weird unintended consequence in there? So I So I suggested, I looked at what there might be for a potential change to that language. If we were to take the language that was proposed, which talked about things that existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance and after the effective date of this ordinance. And I was a little concerned that we might have an unintended consequence there. So I would propose to you that we modify the language to rather than focusing on the date of the ordinance, we focus on houses that existed or properties that existed prior to the construction of sewer, whether that happened 40 years ago or happens 10 years from now. If there was a house that existed prior to the construction of sewer, it is not required to connect. I believe that was your intent. I believe that's what the community intends. okay so i've proposed some language that changes that additionally the language said it talked about houses that were constructed after the date of the ordinance and this is really where i i realized we had an unintended consequence really what we meant to say is houses that were constructed after sewer existed in front of their property your intent was that those properties would be required to connect I'm proposing alternate language that I believe says that more accurately for 264-7. It's the language that's on the screen in front of everyone here in the room and online. It says the owners of all houses, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, commercial, business, manufacturing, recreation, or other purposes. which existed prior to the construction of public sanitary sewer on a street to which the house building or property has access may at each owner's own expense install a building sewer to connect their building drain all of which are defined terms with the public sanitary sewer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and applicable codes Then it says, except as provided in 264-8, we'll come to that in a moment, of this code, any new houses, buildings, et cetera, et cetera, which have sanitary sewer, which are newly constructed after the construction of public sanitary sewer on a street to which the house has access, they would be required to connect. I paraphrase there. That, I think, matches your intent. It was suggested to me that the council had talked about a property that was fronting on a street in which construction occurred and sewer was put in. But that house is set far back from the street. and it doesn't make financial sense to move that sewer all the way down there when in this particular instance it would make sense to allow a septic system. So that's what 264-8 is now employed to undertake. All right, so we've effectively eliminated the language that says you're required to get rid of your system. And we're using that section to identify an exemption for those properties. So it basically says any of those houses or buildings that we described before that have sanitary sewer facilities, which are newly constructed after the construction of new sewer in their street, or rather after the construction of sewer in their street, may be allowed to install a private septic system. And I talk about private septic system and on-site treatment to make sure that we encapsulate options. In lieu of connection to the public sanitary sewer, when the cost of such connection, that is connecting all the way up to the sewer, including the cost of construction and the connection itself, is greater than the cost of the private septic disposal or other on-site system so we're using that to create a built-in exemption that says even if you're if you wouldn't have met the requirement to connect to the sewer as a as a mandatory connection but you're for some reason it doesn't excuse me it doesn't make sense then you have that exemption. So I'm proposing to use some language that would accomplish that. And then number two of that section basically says, all bets are off. If your subdivision was approved with sewer, you gotta connect your property, right? So a new lot in a subdivision that was approved contingent on sewer, regardless of whether it's a flag lot or otherwise, it needs to connect. If those make sense to you, then perhaps that becomes the language you use in your final version. If you need time to mull that over, of course, you have time. You've got a moratorium in place on sanitary sewer work anyway. You have a little bit of time to look at those potential language changes. So those are on the table in front of the council. They are available if people want them after the meeting. But those are suggested changes to the ordinance, at least from a staff perspective.

Dave, would we have to state here who would decide that? Like who's the, what body is making that decision on if the cost is, you know, reviewing the cost of a hardship?

I guess we'd have to provide that to the, to the public health facility, whoever it is. If you have a quote for your septic to be put in for, you know, $25,000 and you're going to run the line up to your house and it's going to be $40,000, you know, it's, You know, it's got to be something that they've just documented.

So we indicate that that determination is made by the WPCA.

I just want to make sure that we have a process in place if we're going to use that.

Documentation provided to WPCA.

Well, I just wanted to make a comment on the the question, the $40,000 question. So I that at the last meeting of the WPCA, we discussed what the cost is to connect when the sewer is outside your house and you just connect. And the comment was that in the previous WPCA, the new WPCA hasn't set a price for that, but the previous WPCA had set $7,000. for that cost. So if you have a house, there's a sewer by your house, the cost would be $7,000.

The connection fee.

Yeah, that's the fee to put the box at the end of your properties. But then you're responsible to get it from that box to your house and connect. That's the cost that we're talking about in this section.

I wasn't referring to this section. Trying to answer the question from public comments. I wasn't dealing with the section, sorry. I thought you were.

Other comments, questions? What's your pleasure?

I would like to make a motion to adopt the ordinance as revised by date. Seconded.

Seconded. Are there any questions? Any comments? If not, those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Ayes have it. 7-0.

Thank you for the revision explanation.

You're welcome. So we'll make those revisions. We'll get it executed. And then we'll get it published, the final version published. And then as you'll all recall, it's 20 days. On the 21st day, it's effective. So a little bit of time, and then it'll be changed.

Nope, no one saw those. Keep them going for 21 days.

Agenda item nine, continuing business, subcommittee reports and updates. Are there any?

I just want to, I did the River Cog meeting that was a couple weeks ago, and they talked about trying to regionalize garbage.

Regionalize the what?

Garbage. Garbage.

Is that going anywhere or is that?

They're looking at a grant. They're doing a study on whether they presented the individual, the going through towns or doing a full build out. And the difference was who has actual say in it. I don't think that the fully authority regionalization is going to go anywhere because the towns then have absolutely zero say in anything. They're basically excluding all the towns in there as to cost, you know, anything to do with it is just, you just pay what they tell you to pay. So I can't really see that going forward, but there is a semi-regionalization, but they are looking at a grant also.

There was a joint facilities meeting The Joint Facilities Committee has members from both Colchester and East Hampton. It's very important that the waste treatment facility is well run and efficient. And the facility is operating well. It is planned that an engineering firm will study the facility and provide analysis and recommendations.

Just a question, either of you guys want to be on the Joint Facilities Committee?

No.

It's fine. If not, moving on. Item 10, new business A, set public hearing date for review of the Neighborhood Assistance Act application.

front of you an activity that you pretty much undertake every year. You've received an application from Epic Arts for Neighborhood Assistance Act funding. You'll recall that this funding is provided through provided through donation from corporations in the state of Connecticut. And in exchange for making those donations to private non-for-profit entities, those corporations get a tax break for their Connecticut state taxes. um there are a variety of limitations on that in the organizations that is the corporations get to choose the organizations that they want to support i believe that epic arts has been pretty successful in getting funding from this process for a number of years and they've been able to undertake some pretty significant modifications and improvements to their building because of that uh so the way the town is involved here is that you review that is the town council reviews the applications that come uh from uh locations in east hampton you take And accept public comment, you review those applications and then make recommendations to the state and then we handle when once the state has gone through the process, we handle notifications here locally. So, at this point, the town council is is asked to. Application and any others that we receive as part of your next meeting, which is on June 9. 2nd.

Motion made and seconded to set the public hearing for June 9th. Any discussion, questions, comments? If not, those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. So adopted. Under 10 new business fees and charges update. David, do you want to?

Sure. So thank you. Some years ago, the council adopted a policy that it would handle all of that the town applies other than for the utility through a process of annual review and adoption by the council. So we make an effort every year to try and capture all of those that are out there and update them as appropriate. So what you have in front of you is a document that identifies to be really two classes of changes one is relates to permits that are issued through the building and land use department We're catching a couple that we missed in the last round that are all proposed to increase by $12, which is the fee that we are charged for the software that we use for permit tracking and maintenance. You see the driveway permit, for example, on the first page, and then if you plow into the document and go to the zoning fees, you see anything that was $25 is increased to $37. The other more expensive fees, we're leaving that alone and proposing to just eat the fee as part of the original application fees. The other item that was is proposed to change is the amount that we charge for our police officers when they work private duty. You recall seeing officers on the road working, protecting, directing traffic, for example, Asplund or Eversource or other companies that are working in our rights of way. or state rights of way within the town, the fee that we charge those entities for our officers' time and the vehicle that they use is identified herein. Those are all going up for the private entities. Those fees would go for weekdays, $112.25 per hour, for weekends for the officers, $166.25 plus the cost of the vehicle. And the nonprofit rate for those same timeframes would be $90 weekend or weekdays, rather, and 120. So those are the proposed changes at this point for the fee schedule effective July 1, as recommended by staff.

Comments, questions?

I guess for the driveway permits, you're saying that all these zoning permits, like the LP tank, the signs, we pay $37 to our vendor to process the permit?

No, we pay $12 to the vendor. For every permit that we do, we pay $12 to the vendor. That's how we pay for the software. That's their fee. And then the $25 is for the town to cover its expenses and activities.

We just haven't got food because we haven't done that.

We haven't done it on these particularly. We picked it up from building. I beg your pardon? So you're going up almost 50% on the feed.

No. What the county is doing is getting recovery of what they're putting out for that.

Will the feed not be going up almost 50% to the consumer?

No. No, it should have been in the first place.

The fee is going up almost 50% to the consumer.

It's immaterial. $12?

I mean, how often are people applying? I don't know. They always had to pay $12 extra all the time. I can certainly see that, but the amount of times that people are going to apply for these permits, I think it's reasonable.

Dave, just a question on this. Could anybody... Just walk into the building department and pay 25 bucks is the- No, everything is done online.

Online now. Everything is done online. There's a kiosk out in front. You do it there if you want to do it in front of us, so to speak. Everything is done online because that's how the permit is tracked. When it comes in, that's how it gets sent to whomever it needs to go to for review. That's how the record is kept. That's how, frankly, the public can see it once it's done. They can go and look it up on their own on the website. Payment is done that way through that system. It's up to the council. If the council wants us to eat that fee, we can do that, but that's the cost.

My only concern really would be if we charge them 25 for a paper one for them to process it, and now they're going to a kiosk and they're doing everything themselves. what are we then what is the 25 going for if they're and everything is done so shouldn't it just go down to the 12 if we're going to not have the staff do anything and it's just going to route to the you know whoever just you know does the permit i mean i guess i'm looking at from a little different so remember the the many of the fees that you pay for building permits land use fees and those things are intended to cover the cost of that department

So the cost associated with any building activity is paid for through those fees. The cost of any of much of the land use department is through those fees. And that so that it's the user, the person who generates the work, the person who requires the build the, the LP tank and requires us to do, you know, the zoning permit activity there or what have you or the person who. uh needs the driveway permit and causes us to undertake the driveway permit activity is paying that fee and along those lines that's why we anticipated putting on the 12 cost and were these included in the budget as revenues coming in uh you know to reduce the the the cost of that department when we when the budget was presented it offsets the expense that shows the increased rates are included in the budget I mean, these numbers are not huge.

And the only other question that I had on the officers was this all in relation to the last year, the increase this year, the added pension, does that actually cover the cost of the officer or is it, are we eating any of the costs for all the increases that they just received?

No. I'll answer your question backwards. No, the taxpayers don't meet those costs. That the things that you mentioned any changes in. All right back up. So, yes, any changes to officer salaries is incorporated. So that means people moving through rank. That means the changes that the council made last year, the cost of pension is incorporated in here related to all of those cost changes and. the staff in the finance department looks at the mix of officers that are actually undertaking the work, right? So a junior officer who gets paid their normal rate, their normal road rate or their normal overtime rate costs us less than the senior officer who's out there doing the same task. So we have to blend all of those rates together and make a projection on what we would charge to cover that. And that's the way we've been doing that fee for a very long time.

Mr. Another comment?

Mr. Yeah, I mean, my only comment would be that there's no reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill on any of these land use or other fees. Those should be paid by the person requesting the work.

Do I have a comment? Do I have a motion?

Do we need a motion?

You do.

Yeah, you have to put the fees .

I'll make that motion. Remember the fees as presented by staff.

OK. Motion made and seconded. Is there comment? Other questions? Discussion? If not, those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. aye opposed one day six yay okay thank you we'll get that posted send item 11 town manager report

So, I just want to mention 2 items out of my report, which is up on the town's website in the written version that everyone has. I want to highlight 2 items as we all know the budget referendum is coming up a week from today. Those absentee ballots have been available in the town clerk's office. So folks who are interested in getting an absentee ballot. Because they're not able to come out in person are encouraged to go ahead and stop by the clerk's office during. office hours and pick those up and you may handle those there. The other thing I want to mention is the village center. As we all can see, the paving is done in the village center. Now comes line striping. As the pavement now sets up, we'll start line striping probably next week. That'll likely get done overnight time in most of that work to try and prevent prevent disruption. There will be a closure of the parking lot for Main Street coming up here shortly. However, that's going to get done in advance so that we can get through and scrape off the lines that are there and get it restriped to the proper configuration. but anyway next week line striping will occur in the village center project that means everything from main street at route 66 all the way down to route 16 and summit avenue and the village center everything that we touched that needs a new line walnut avenue gets re the center line gets repositioned all of those things. I'll remind the community that there will be some new parking identified on the street in the Village Center formally. I know many of us park informally on the side of the roadway. So you'll see that there will be marked parking spaces on the west side of Main Street, both north and south of Summit. There were parking spots in front of Old Bank Flowers and Herbcraft in that area. A little fish, et cetera, those will be remarked and put into place and then continuing down main street. There will be marked parking spaces from summit street to almost walnut Avenue on the West side of the street. The lanes are shifting to the east, so there will not be parking on the east side of the street. The lanes will all be proper width, including the parking lane, so we won't have the congestion that gets caused from parking on both sides. That was a concern that the state had and a concern that the fire department had in moving through that area when cars are parked. So you'll have full-fledged lanes in both directions plus a parking lane. Additionally, did I mention we'll mark some spots up by the post office because we have pavement width there. We can mark two lanes of traffic and some parking spots. So there'll be four more parking spots as well. So that post office and the bicycle shop as well. So we'll have some parking up in there for patrons that use that area. Um, anyway, that's coming, like I said, overnight activity, six to six, uh, hopefully won't disrupt too much. Thank you. Any questions, Ted?

On the, uh, first of all, on the, the Memorial day, um, uh, presentation, it was, it was a great job done by the VFW and, uh, Ted Turner. Um, I just wanted to make sure, um, was there any charge for the use of the school that was Because I know like when the Rotary, we do the breakfast with Santa, we get charged for the use of the school. Was the VFW charged at all for anything relating to bringing the festivities indoors?

I'm not aware of any charge. I'd have to ask the schools whether there was, you know, the kids that did the AV. I mean, we have, when it's outside, we pay the cost of the amplification equipment. So it's possible that that's how we would handle that. Again, if there needed to be a transfer of funds, we would do that because the kid who was sitting there probably got paid to do that. Custodians were there. I don't know. I don't know whether there was a charge made.

Can you find that out?

We can find out, sure.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

$47 million.

Agenda item 12, appointments.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a happy thing to report this evening. As you all may recall, for the last couple of months, Uh, we've off and on, we've discussed, uh, ordinances related to, uh, farming and that sort of thing. And then finally we rolled around and said, uh, well, gee, we, uh, we do have an ordinance, uh, related to, uh, agriculture and the, um, and really what is established here by ordinance is in fact an agricultural, uh, commission. And I'm happy to report tonight that with the help of Tim and Karen, the appointment committee sat down and over three hours interviewed many applicants. Matter of fact, sufficient number of applicants to fully seat seven regular members and two alternate members to the agriculture commission and i'd like to make those nominations at this time go ahead we um just by uh way of uh explanation uh the ordinance calls for four members four of the seven regular members to have three-year terms three of the regular members to have two-year terms. And for the alternates, the two alternates, they will be two-year terms as well. So here's the nomination. For terms, and by the way, these terms will begin now, immediately. And for the terms ending December 31st, 2029, I'd like to nominate Steve Strong, Tisha Grant, George Krivda, and Chris Bytel for regular membership. For terms ending 12-31-28, recommend or nominate Rick Walker, Mark Barmasi, and Jackie Reardon. for regular positions, and for the two alternates with terms ending 12-31-28, Marty Volker and Ray Nichols. So that's a right there. I'll second those nominations.

Is there any discussion or comment about those being?

I do have just one comment concern on one of the members you just mentioned. Mark Barmacy was the chair of the WPCA for the last, I don't know, probably 20 years. And since we just removed that board, I just have a concern with just throwing him on the next board that came up. And that does concern me. I don't know what his farming experience is or isn't, but I do have concerns over that one. So if at all possible. I don't know what everyone else's thought is, but I think maybe an alternate position, if that, and maybe move one of the alternates. But I do have some great concern on that appointment.

The committee interviewed Mr. Barmasi and his background. his education, training, where he grew up, in fact, lends itself very well to this type of activity. And we're pleased to make that recommendation. And can we vote on him individually, please? All right, the motion. The motion's already made.

And seconded. And I'm asking to amend the motion to have them voted on separately. OK. Second that.

Is there a second to that? I can second that.

Motion made and seconded to vote individually. Those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. No.

Nay.

No. Ayes have it.

Clerk will call the roll.

Um, to be clear, are you you're I think the intent is to vote on each individual individually rather than the role, right?

So, yeah, you don't have to call them. That's right.

Okay.

The nomination will be, I'll make the nominations. For each 1 individually, right? So we'll have what? 7. Bob 9 different. Nine different names. So, okay. I nominate Steve Strong for term ending 12-31-29, the regular member. Second.

Second discussion. Comment? If not, those in favor of the appointment of Steve Strong to the Agriculture Commission for the three-year term, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

I'd like to nominate Tisha Grant for term ending 12-31-29 as a regular member. Second.

Motion made and seconded. There's a discussion regarding the nominee. If not, those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So appointed.

I'd like to nominate George Krivda for the term ending 12-31-29 as a regular member. Second.

Is there any discussion or questions regarding the individual, George Krypta? If not, those in favor of that appointment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

I'd like to nominate Chris Pytel for term ending 12-31-29 to regular membership. Second.

Motion made and seconded to appoint Chris Pytel as a regular member. The term ending 2029. Is there discussion? If not, those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. So adopted.

I'd like to recommend Rick Walker for term ending 12-31-28 as a regular member. Second.

Motion made and seconded. Rick Walker for term ending 12-21-28. Is that correct? 12-31. 12-31.

12-31-28. Okay.

Any discussion on the candidate? If not, those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. So adopted or appointed.

I'd like to nominate Mark Armasi to term ending 12-31-28 as a regular member. Second.

Is there any discussion or questions? If not, those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye

Motion made and seconded to appoint Jackie Reardon as a member for term ending 12-31-28. Is there any discussion? If not, those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

O is nay. So adopted. So appointed.

I'd like to nominate Martin Volker. to an alternate for the year ending 12-31-28. Second.

Motion made and seconded to appoint Martin Volcker to the alternate position on the Agricultural Commission. Is there any discussion or question regarding appointee? If not, those in favor? Opposed, nay. So adopted or appointed.

And lastly, I'd like to nominate Ray Nichols to term ending 12-31-28 as alternate on the commission. Second.

Motion made and seconded to nominate Ray Nichols as an alternate for the commission term ending 12-31-28. Yes. Any discussion? If not, those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed, nay. So adopted. Are there any other appointments?

Not for tonight. Thank you very much.

I'm assuming we did do the minority representation on all of them, right? Yes.

Moving on to agenda item 13, tax refunds.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to return five refunds totaling $1,655.54. Is that a great call?

Motion made and seconded to make appropriate tax refunds $1,655.54. There's no discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. So adopted. Agenda item 14, public remarks. Is there anyone desirous of making further public remarks at this time? Crystal? Surprise.

I have one question. Again, trying to learn and understand and figure out where information comes from. There is a referendum coming up and there is a vote about the middle school paving. I do not have a middle schooler, so I never go down child's road. I don't know what condition it is in. So this morning I drove down Child's Road so that I could understand what the condition is and why it's being considered for paving. My personal opinion, the parking lot didn't look terribly bad, but driving down Child's, and it is a dead end road, but it is a very important road to access to school. Child's Road was in very rough condition. So I, Don't understand and perhaps the information is out there, but I didn't know where to find it. Was the referendum just for the parking lot? Is there some associated? planning or pricing related to Child's Road such that this is coming up for referendum and that's why it's important for the parking lot to pass I want to have an informed decision and understand why there is debate and consideration for this and I don't know if the town council can answer but that is my question thank you David would you like to try to sort that out

So I'll answer the question about whether the middle school parking lot paving is related to the child's road paving. No, but if they are done at the same time, there is a savings of about, I think it was $25,000 for the middle school paving project if they were done at the same time. The reason that that item is going, if you will, separately to the voters is because under the town's charter and code, if an additional appropriation is made in a given year that is above the threshold of, I think it's $25,000. If it's above $25,000, it can only be made on recommendation of the planning of the board of finance to the town council by the town meeting, okay? So what's going on here is that the board of finance took an item that was in the town's capital improvements plan and removed it from the town's capital improvements plan, removing the transfer of new taxes to the capital reserve, thereby lowering the tax bill for next year, but took it out of the capital improvements plan and dealt with it as a separate issue using essentially the town's savings account. use of the town savings account is what causes the town meeting to have to deal with that additional appropriation because there's no theoretically there's no revenue behind it we have to we have to take money out of the savings to do it so um town meeting has to deal with the appropriation uh there is a savings if the two are done together Ron to the question of child's road. So every year there was an amount of funds in the capital improvement fund for doing road improvements. I know that as part of the activities planned for fiscal year 27, the one on which we will vote on Tuesday, the Public Works Department anticipates undertaking the paving of Child's Road during that year. So Child's Road is scheduled to be paved as part of the fiscal 27 capital improvements plan. What happens is that if We are delayed by, and this is not an endorsement one way or the other of the budget. This is a fact of what happens. If we are delayed by a failed budget, there is a possibility that we will have to delay the paving project to the subsequent year, regardless of what happens with the decision on the middle school parking lot. If that fails, that's a whole different question. The ideal is that they are coordinated together and that Child's Road and the middle school parking lot would get done at the same time. Child's Road is on the list for the fiscal 27. It just depends on when the budget gets approved, when that project would actually take place. As I stand here saying that right now, it is likely if both of those things got approved, we would tie their activities together and do them at the same time if we can to save that money. The roll of the dice there is what happens to asphalt prices get rebid in February, so we have to contemplate what happens there. That's my public remark, so to speak, to answer that other public remark. Further questions or comments?

Dale Herrick, 74 Royal Oaks. I just have one question, and it probably may be a pretty easy explanation by you guys. Why is our referendum so late compared to other towns? Because if the budget doesn't pass and we go into the new fiscal year and then we have to maybe pay retroactive payment to employees, is there a cost to the town? Um, but having to do that, so I know he even had their second vote tonight, so we haven't even had our first vote yet. And I've seen before we haven't passed budgets. We've gone into new fiscal year.

Um, and it seems like if we moved our referendum up, we maybe would avoid some costs that we, I think the reason that we hold it so late is what appears to be so late. We tried to time. best information we could from what the state was going to do with funding and grants to the town in order to incorporate that in the vote on the budget so that that go to the absolute latest point

where we can get that voted. If it passes, you might not get it done before the new fiscal year starts. I think Colchester and other towns surrounding us, they're doing their second vote, I think, maybe tomorrow. Hebron did theirs today. It just seems like it maybe a little bit earlier referendum, maybe would save the town a little bit of money.

I agree with you. And just so I know in the past, we've suggested to holding off and we've been criticized for that, just that reason. But the reality is if it doesn't go through, then this council then sets the mill rate as a temporary mill rate. So you could be paying more than last year. You could be paying an arbitrary number of what they think is going to happen. And that is also a concern because it's taken out of the hands of the taxpayer at that point.

Yeah, that's why I think we're a little bit with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sounds for one for seven Colchester Avenue. I want to express my displeasure in the fact that you've not followed the Board of Education in seeking to have the insurance of the town employees combined with other similar towns like the Board of Education done to bring those costs down. It appears you haven't done as much as you possibly could do to bring the budget as low as possible for the town. I haven't seen any or heard of any movement in that area to try to seek the maximum savings for the town. Thank you.

Valerie Hillbaker, Lena Lane. I wanted to thank Mr. Hitz for bringing to our attention that the school budget could be reduced by $863,000 or so from its current level, rather than being increased due to the decrease in the population of students. We are spending right around $21,000 a student And we have 38% of our students that cannot read at a professional level for their grade. 46% can't do math at a proficient level for their grade. That does not, in my mind, justify any kind of a salary increase for the administration of the school. They need to answer for that. The buck stops with them. I also want to respectfully disagree with the gentleman from last time that said that our scores are low because of special ed students. I don't agree at all. There is a difference between a child that cannot learn and a child that learns differently. Children that learn differently often end up in special ed. All that means is you have to teach them in a way that they understand rather than And out of the box, everybody fits in the same square peg hole. So I don't believe that that is a good reason to say that our scores are low. I think it's really rather insulting to the children that are enrolled in special ed. And that's all I have. Have a good evening.

Anyone else?

My name's Greg Foucher, 64 South Main Street. On this education thing and all of the costs of that, I just want to know, do we ask the children how to save money? You know, like the kids go to school all the time. I went to school, and there were lots of things the school paid for that we didn't need, we didn't use. And my feeling is, you know, when it comes to students, you want to encourage people, you have to invite them. You know, if you invite a kid, what do you think? I don't know, is it a little bit interesting? What would we learn? It seems like a vast resource of creativity and tolerance that we're leaving, yet we're paying for it. I don't know, I just wanted to ask that because maybe there are things that we're not thinking of as adults that kids recognize You know, I worked for a hotel company, a company that wasn't very corporate, and it was all hands on deck. And if a busboy had a good idea, we did it. And you can be sure that employee was invested in the success of that company. I just wonder if we're doing that with the school. Thank you.

Anyone else? One online.

Hello?

Go ahead.

Oh, sorry. Rebecca Harvey 39 Flanders Road again. I guess just because she wasn't there tonight, I'm going to ask a question that the other Rebecca has been asking. What do we have to do to get that formal letter of withdrawal posted publicly from Griffin residuals? Another thing is I'm kind of shocked that six of you sitting up there tonight don't see any ethical conflicts. with appointing someone that was just removed from one board and putting them on another board, regardless of what their qualifications are or might be. That's just, that's crazy to me. I think the ethics committee is going to have to look into this one. That's really all I have to say tonight. Thank you.

Anyone else? If not, in public remarks. Item 15 in the agenda, communications, correspondence, announcements. Are there anything else that I'm aware of? Item 16, adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion may be seconded. Those in favor of adjourning, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. We are adjourned. Thank you, but you still know.