(1) Town Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, very good. Welcome, folks, to the Red Hook Town Board meeting of Tuesday, July 14, 2026. Would you be kind enough to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

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,

Thank you very much. And for the folks at home, Suzanne, if you'd be kind enough to hand to the big screen, we can let them know what we'll be discussing tonight. It's the first meeting of the month, so we do a snapshot of the finances as we always do. That's the supervisor's report. We also have the monthly clerk's report. we've got only one or two announcements uh this evening and then we'll take 15 minutes of public comments and then we'll move right into our agenda and our agenda we have with us our town engineer and her firm who have been working diligently to prepare grants if you've been following along for the last several meetings we've been discussing many of these grant programs and we've hopefully have settled on or are settling on which grants we're going to apply for. And so we'll be discussing resolutions to approve those grant applications. They include a new combined village-town IMG grant for sewer expansion for the village and town TND sewer district. We will consider possibly applying for this one-time New York Kicks program, which has to do with FIFA and Soccer Mania. So it's a program that New York State has geared towards promoting soccer in New York State. We are going to consider an application to state Parks Department for that pedestrian trail bridge. If you remember either the mailing that came out of my office or other meetings, we are going to connect Rec Park with the Cookingham Trail on the west side of that property. And so we received a grant. two years ago, almost two years ago from Greenway to do preliminary design, and that is underway. And so now we'll be looking for some money for construction of that bridge as well. As a follow-up, because we will next year be doing implementation of the update for the comprehensive plan, we are going to apply to the same department for some more smart growth planning monies, this time for implementation. And then we're going to look at the water quality improvement program as it relates to a couple of culverts off of Willits. We received a grant quite a few years ago, right, Brandy? And that was for design of those culvert replacements. These are large culverts that we're discussing here. We're going to talk a little bit more about the Aspen Wall Bridge. As you know, at the last meeting, we rejected the bids that came in. We want to perhaps discuss whether or not we want to have some alternate as it relates to the bridge facing and any other alternate that may be appropriate. A little bit of background from our attorney on the County Shared Services Agreement. We have one item for reorg, which is appointing somebody as a permanent member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And then we are going to go into executive session and discuss hiring counsel, outside counsel, for some matters. And then we'll be back out to take some action with that. We've got some correspondence as well.

Robert, being that the room is full, I'd like to request, as I wrote to you in an email today, that items five and six be moved to the beginning of the agenda, because I anticipate that that's what everybody is here for. Thank you.

Yeah, I do realize you made a last minute request to add something to the agenda, which is acquisition of waterfront parklands. As you know, with open meetings law, we cannot same day add something that is going to be discussed or decided upon.

We rearrange the agenda all the time. So I think being that the room is full, it would be more efficient and peaceful if we moved five and six in the beginning.

Yeah, we need to go into executive session related to at least item number six and we have our consultant here and we're going to work through the business that was in the published agenda which relates to grants and that is timely.

Is our attorney not available?

Kristina, we're going to stick with the agenda as published to the public.

Okay.

So let's go to the items on the agenda. We have the supervisor's report. We started this month with an opening balance of $11,683,363. We had receipts of $1.4 million and change, disbursements of $1.5 million and change for a closing balance of $11,548,000. dollars and change. You have also the budget adjustments as prepared by our bookkeeper. I will draw your attention to buildings and grounds. There was an increase for appropriation because we had a leak in the roof, so we replaced the roof over on that L-shape of Town Hall. and the other adjustments are rather minor. You have your variance report as you do each month. I will note It looks like sales tax is tracking nicely as budgeted. Mortgage tax is looking good as well. We also have quite a bit of community preservation money coming in. I think it was $80,000-ish for just the month of June alone. And so the revenue side seems to be doing quite well. Any questions about the supervisor's report? If not, would somebody like to make a motion to accept it? OK. Thank you, William. Is there a second for that? Second. Thank you, Jacob. Any further discussion? All right. If not, all in favor? Kenny? Aye. Bill?

Aye.

Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Aye. Thank you. Deanna, would you be kind enough to read the town clerk's report, please?

Town clerk's report for the period June 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2026, total local shares remitted $88,652.48. Amount paid to New York State Agriculture and Markets for the Spay-Neuter Program, $26. Amount paid to New York State Department of Health for marriage licenses, $157.50. Amount paid to New York State Environmental Conservation for hunting and fishing license, $564.02. Total state, county, and local revenues, $9,400. And I hereby certify that vouchers numbered 34999

two three five one two six processed in the month of june 2026 or an accurate reporting with the abstracts approved for payment by the town board thank you very much diana is there a motion to accept the clerk's report thank you jacob is there a second second thank you bill all in favor kenny christina aye myself aye jacob and bill Thank you. Announcements, we just want to once again remind you we have this wonderful opportunity this year that folks in town have, the Oriel Mills Pool. It's the Camp Rising Sun property. They approached us a couple of months ago and said that Camp Ramapo who was scheduled to rent the property was not doing so this year and would we like to rent the pool and so it's been open since late June and it's becoming a big hit people love it I would love for you to go there and experience it. Not only do you have an opportunity to swim, but there are picnic tables if you'd like to have a picnic there. The trail is also open. That will give you an opportunity to experience that project. As if you've been following previous meetings, that is a preservation trail project that we are doing with Winnikee Land Trust that hasn't closed yet. But we think it will in the next couple of months. And so we will have public access easement on that property as well as a conservation easement. Here's the current schedule. We have blocks of time, and if you're wanting to know, the busiest time is the 3.30 to 5.30 open swim time. All other times seem to be a little less crowded. And it's really been a lovely experience, and we thank Camp Rising Sun for making that offer available. to the town and we have a little directions map because not everybody knows where it is. It's on a quiet little road and it's a lovely little spot with the pool sits down below where you can't see it. The only other announcement I will have is because it's the 250th, we've been doing some history events. We had a wonderful event, perhaps you heard me talk about it, at the Red Church back a few weeks ago. For folks of you who are interested, the Red Church was the only church in Dutchess County here at the time of the Revolution. The only church. And so it was a wonderful opportunity to open it up. We, the town, own and are responsible for the Red Church property and for the cemetery as well. It was technically abandoned, which is a nice way of saying that the lovely people who maintained it so well for over a century, by the way, came to us and said they were not able to continue to do so. So the town maintains that property, and that's a wonderful bit of history, but I wanted to share with you for one second, then we'll get to the agenda. If I can do this properly, let's see. I can. Well, I may have lost it. Sadly, let's see. Here we go. You've heard me talk about, and others talk about Kenny as well, talk about the gas station on the corner, the old Red Hook Hotel, and just a little tidbit of background for those of you. The hotel was built in 1799 by Cornelius Elmendorf, and of course you've all heard that name because it It's the name that is synonymous with the Elmendorf Inn. In 1813, it was owned by Henry Walter, and it was the site of the very first Red Hook town board meeting. In fact, they had the meetings there in 1813. They had the meetings in 1814. And in 1815, they moved over to the Elmendorf Inn. And I'm sure you've heard me say this before, but in 1817, and I see a lot of farmers and 4-H people in the audience, in 1817, the Elmendorf Inn was the site of the very first combined Dutchess and Columbia County fairs, agricultural fairs. And that's what I have for announcements. We are going to take our public comments. And again, folks, as a reminder, we'll take 15 minutes of comments. As rules established prior to any of us being here, Three minutes for each speaker, so that basically means five speakers if you're doing comments. So who would like to make some public comments? If you'd be kind enough to just come up and state your name for the record, that's all you need to do.

Roxanne Fish, Ferrytown.

Thank you, Roxanne.

It is entirely fitting that we gather on July 14th, Bastille Day, dismantle absolute rule and government secrecy. The message was simple. The people rule, not kings. Tonight, we are delivering that exact message. If you've driven around town lately, you've seen the bumper stickers. No kings in Red Hook. For nearly two years, this administration has hidden behind executive sessions to avoid public scrutiny. But the wall of secrecy is finally cracking. We know now from FOIL requests that over $300,000 in legal expenses have been spent. We watched Justice Rosa hand this town its second major court defeat. We have a pending lawsuit by former town attorney Al Treza over unauthorized use of outside counsel by the supervisor. And we heard from Councilwoman Ducharme's courageous admission calling out decisions made in executive sessions without any cohesive plan. We don't have to look further than page 111 of tonight's meeting packet for the proof. Tonight, you are being asked to pass a resolution retroactively authorizing thousands of dollars spent on outside lawyers. This is a retroactive confession. If these attorneys were hired legally and with proper public votes, you wouldn't need a retroactive resolution tonight to cover the supervisor's tracks. But by placing this resolution on tonight's agenda, you have handed us the key. You have officially opened the door to discuss the Red Hook Boat Club. You can no longer claim this topic is off limits. If this board tries to limit tonight's discussion to simply rubber stamp legal bills, we expect councilpersons Christina and Kent to use their procedural power to introduce a new agenda item and force a public vote to rescind the eminent domain authorization entirely. Look around you at these panels. We are your neighbors, your taxpayers, and your voters. We demand this board vote to rescind the overreach tonight. Stop wasting our tax dollars and bring Red Hook's government back into the light. No kings in Red Hook.

Thank you, Roxanne.

Curtis Stoltz from Wappinger Falls, the Grand Lodge of New York, Grand Lodge of Illinois, Grand Lodge of Indiana, Grand Lodge of Florida. What I've discovered, my family has had big investments with Chevron Corporation. And as of right now, the town clerk and the board of Red Hook will be hearing from the Chevron Corporation. And what I have discovered so far, that they did some kind of agreement back in 1948, whatever it was that took it over. and they cleaned up the property on the surface. Well, in my experience and associate geologists and in the Illinois patient of oil wells, you can't go in there and take a property that is still owned by Chevron now as of 2025. So what the problem is here with the intimate domain, you can't take something that doesn't belong to anyone except for Chevron. So as it is, Red Hook Boat Club is a custodial. They're actually employees of Chevron. It was given back in the day. They were given permission to take over, basically clean up the property, put filter over top of the existing soils that had not been evaporated properly under the EPA law. So there's really not anybody here that owns that property other than Chevron. They took over Hess. They own Texaco. And I'm just saying, I think you're going to be in a world of corporations here wanting to find out what's going on here. So I'm with the Hudson River Boat and Yacht Club Association as the executive board director. I'm affiliated with the United Enter Yacht Club Association. That's Brooklyn and Jamaica Bay. And I'm also friends with the Mohawk Hudson Council of Yacht Club. So I drove all the way up here so I can pass this information to the board. So this is where it stands. I come from a long family of oil wells and oil production. And even my dad was a million mile safety driver for Texaco. So I've been in the Texaco business. I've been in the the petroleum industry in southern Illinois. I run equipment, I run everything you can think of, name of. But like I said, I'm a sailor and I'm also a flamethrower with the USS Nemus. I didn't get to go down to the celebration and see the old girl again, but I'm good. I'll see it in about two years when they decommission it in Norfolk. And that's all I

Thank you for your service. Linda, so we'll take three more speakers.

I think we'll have enough time for that. Robert, Robert, don't say that in the bylaws.

There's no limits to speakers. Why don't we just talk and not waste time talking about talking? My name is Linda Cassidy, 211 Burytown Road, Burytown. The way that I am looking at this right now, tonight's an integrity test, especially for you, Mr. Tesco. Tonight, you'll decide, and it will be a public decision eventually, whether you do it in an executive session or not, to sign your names to overtly dishonest and unethical conduct, or to finally stand up for truth and accountability in our local government. Tonight's packet, as you know, includes a resolution retroactively authorizing, great phrase, right? What does that mean? The retention of two law firms, one at 370 per hour, 360 per hour, and one at 225 per hour. So obviously, this is a panicked response to the lawsuit recently filed by Mr. Trezza, which asserts that the town board, you, knowingly violated New York's open meeting laws. Yep. The resolution, so besides that, besides all that, raises a very troubling question. Why was that outside counsel suddenly needed? The town already employs attorneys, an attorney, many attorneys. If the town attorney, the official town attorney, can't represent the board in this matter because of a conflict of interest, well, then that needs to be publicly announced. It's our money. This is our town and our government. You are the stewards, not the owners. What makes this especially difficult to defend is the pattern. And so now we have seen this publicly. And you, men, have seen this publicly. So there's no place to hide anymore. We all know now what is happening. We don't know what has been happening before this fight, which may be much in the same vein. But we know now what is happening. The board has spent who knows how much now, well over 300,000 to take the vote, public and in domain, before doing any of the homework, including obviously a true speaker, a true environmental report. And now, if you vote yes to this resolution, the board is once again saying to the town, we are not concerned with the fact that we're wasting your money on legal fees meant to protect us, because we behaved badly. So I think we need to reject that. I think the town does reject that. And the more this comes out to the town in general, this is all just bubbling up to the surface now. The truth has a way of coming out. The more the truth comes out, the more you two gentlemen are complicit. Because you're the only ones who know the truth, besides Mr. McKean in this room. whether or not these things that are included in the resolution, this retroactive authorizing, was something that had been agreed on.

You're the only ones who know that.

Now, our records suggest otherwise. So when this meeting is over, your public, your constituents, won't remember all the procedural motions, the legal invoices, the numbers of the bills, but we are going to remember who chose truth and accountability, and who chose political expediency. So, Councilman Testa, Councilman Hamill, tonight your votes answer a simple question. When your integrity was put on the line, where did you stand?

Thank you, Linda. We're going to take two more speakers for a five-minute period. We're going to take, folks, we're going to take two more speakers for a five-minute period.

There are rules of order, and the rules of order call for a 15-minute period.

Lisa, you'll be kind enough to...

There have been various news articles regarding the second court ruling by Judge Rosa Council Member Ducharme's statement opposing eminent domain and the lawsuit filed by Mr. Trevor. Collectively, there were 346 comments, 229 shares, and over 1,500 reactions. The comments underscore widespread opposition to eminent domain and deep dissatisfaction with three of you. Only two commenters supported the town. Here's a few of the comments. McKeon and the board members should reimburse the town. We should seriously consider impeachment. Stop wasting our money. Put it to rest. Thank goodness for new board members. Supervisor McKeon was so determined to seize private property that he repeatedly ignored the legal guardrails designed to protect taxpayers and property owners. Recall the supervisor. Transparency has been out the window for his term. May their reign end ASAP. Thank you, Christina. You speak for most of us. Keep speaking up, Christina. We need help here. Enough already. Leave it to a brilliant woman to speak truth to power. This whole fiasco is beyond ridiculous. And go get them, Mr. Trezza. Thank you, Al. Such a waste of our money. Thank you. The legions of supporters on which Robert and Jacob based their votes never materialized, even in a forum where they could remain anonymous. If support ever did exist, it has evaporated. Adding insult to injury, tonight's packet contains a resolution in direct response to Mr. Tress's lawsuit to retroactively approve engaging counsel and related expenditures. Read carefully, it's an admission that proper procedures and approvals were not followed, and the supervisor acted unilaterally to authorize legal actions and use of town funds. The resolution is crafted to shield the supervisor from personal liability, so he would realize a benefit from its adoption. Robert McKeon has a clear conflict of interest. As such, he must recuse himself and leave the meeting during the discussion of and voting on the resolution. And any board member who does vote to approve this resolution effectively condones his unauthorized actions and is complicit in their commission. And Bill and Jacob, if there's any question about where the supervisor has led you over the last almost two years, here's the rock. Here's the hard place, and you are here.

Thank you, Lisa. Folks, we're going to take just one more. Is it going to be you? Folks, we are just taking one more. Is it going to be you?

Robert, Robert, Robert, I'd like to continue hearing from people until you can demonstrate where you have authority to say whether to show or not to show or not on that screen and let's look at them. I want to see the rules.

For public comment.

Robert, do you have the authority to make that decision?

Yes, I run the meeting.

All town supervisors run the meeting. Christina.

Albert, would you be kind enough to take your three minutes? Then we're going to move to our agenda. Thank you, sir.

Yes, we are.

Albert Trezor, 77 West Carolina Corner Road, Timothy, New York. You know, I'd like to draw the board's attention to Sir Walter Scott, a poet and writer.

He wrote a little, very cogent two-line poem, which applies to your resolution number six, or to the resolution regarding .

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. You know, we've been gaslighted. We've been BS'd. We've been stonewalled. We've asked for this information in public meetings. Roxanne, and Lisa have written several foils only to be told that it does not exist. Now, you're passing this resolution, quite frankly. Not only do I think Robert does not have the right to vote, and neither do you, Jacob, nor do you, Bill, because mentioned in this whereas is some meeting on December 9th at which the world president held an executive session and said nothing about what the executive session was about. now claiming that it has something to do with the hiring of these attorneys. Well, you don't go asking for a non-protein resolution, which means from the very beginning, if you did something at the beginning. First of all, December the 9th, except for Article 78, in which Hodgkin and Rusk appeared, didn't occur until it was filed in January 21st, 2026. How could you discuss this authorization to appear in this case? What is going on here, John, is quite... I don't want to discuss the merits of the lawsuit. We'll get to that in the examinations before trial of all of you. And now I'm going to have to include Christina Cain and Ms. Solomon in this matter because they were there present at that meeting. So what I'm saying now, you spend $300,000 What have you got to show for it? You're squandering. You've got two losses before Judge Rosa, and you've just, by Judge Rosa's decision, to my estimation, have strengthened the both clubs that claim against the amount of domain action. You failed to do proper seeking, and that's an essential enemy. Look, quite frankly, you've done this town a great disservice. With these two losses, you make the town look very foolish. You made yourselves look very foolish. For the last 10 years you've been on this board, you still don't know how to pass local law. Not once, but twice. Next, you're making all of us look foolish for having voted you to represent us on this town. Thank you. Very frankly, I think you ought to stop this nonsense, and very frankly, I think you ought

Thank you. Thank you, Albert. I appreciate it. Folks, that concludes our public comments. We're going to move to the agenda items. Richie, I'm sorry. We're going to move to the agenda items.

We are going to move to the agenda. Chris is online. Chris is online.

For everyone here tonight watching at home, I'd like to bring this down to the item list.

Robert, these are our agenda items. So here we go.

Richie, I'm sorry, but we can play the public comments.

The number of months since the supervisor announced the town's intent to take the Red Bull Club by evidence of name. He likely assumed that he could fast-track the action with little pushback.

Folks, I'm sorry, but we have our consultant here.

The percent of residents opposing eminent domain during the public hearing period.

Richie, could I ask you to please give the microphone to our consultant? Thank you.

The number of signatures on paper petitions opposing the eminent domain action review. $300,000, the amount that we know about spent to date on planning and legal fees related to zoning laws and the vote club acquisition.

Randy, I think we're going to need to get started.

Three, the number of law firms currently on retainer by the town. Travis, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you.

Mr. Ross, Mr. Ross, I'm sorry. I'm sorry we've had our public comments. There have been plenty of opportunities for everybody to speak on this topic. This is a public comment period as concluded. Christina, please don't interrupt. I'm sorry, please don't interrupt. We have our consultant here. We are moving to the agenda.

Kristina, you're right, I'm not listening. Chris is on the line.

I'm sorry, but I will tell you the rules of order call for 15-minute comment. And that's why it's on the agenda.

Chris, where's Chris?

Brandy?

Chris, I have a question.

Let's get started, please. Thank you. Richie, I'm sorry.

Listen, I will personally pay for Brandy's time until we hear everybody in this room.

Christina, you do not run the meeting. There's an opportunity for you to do so. Brandy, let's get started with the agenda items, please. Thank you.

I haven't heard from Chris. I have a question for our counsel.

Yes, you're right. You haven't heard from Chris. I've told you the rules of orders adopted before our time calls for 15-minute public comment.

Can you break the rules? folks.

Brandy, we need to get on with our agenda. Christina, I'm going to ask you not to interrupt again, please. Thank you. You are. I've answered your question. I've answered your question.

There are the rules of order. Brandy, can we begin, please? Thank you.

Christina. Christina.

Thank you. Thank you. If you would consider the resolutions, we have a time limit on the schedule.

Thank you, Brandi.

Understood. And we also talked, we have a meeting in eight days, and we also talked about a special meeting right after that. So the grants are absolutely a priority. But I also think hearing from the public, it's a priority.

Thank you, Christina. We have heard from members of the public for a year now, in addition to the action. Folks, I'm sorry. Randy, can we begin?

Thank you.

Christina, I have answered your question. Brandy, can we begin? Thank you.

So the first project we are working about... Christina, I'm sorry. I've answered the question. There's a 15-minute... Brandy, may we begin, please? May we begin, please? Thank you.

Who do you work for?

Brandy. Maybe begin with the first grant, which is the combined EFC, IMG. Folks, I'm not going to ask you to interrupt. Please. Thank you.

Robert, do we need to take a break and go into executive session to discuss for five minutes because you're not answering my question. Where is Chris?

Chris is online.

Chris is here.

We're going to turn the audio up so she can hear it. chris can you confirm for christina that there's a 15-minute public comment period in the rules of order the town of roger um christina i'm looking at the rules of order that were approved in 2010 and the order of business for the second tuesday meeting

is the for the regular meeting is called to order roll call supervisor support town clerk report and public comment period 15 minutes then resolutions and motions old business new business communications and adjournment thank you chris i appreciate that i appreciate that we're not having an attorney client session okay robert

Let us speak. Brandi, can we begin our agenda item? Christina, we have our consultant here.

I'm new to this, so I have some questions.

Then you can pose your questions at another time. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but somebody is charged with running the meetings and that is my responsibility. This is the public agenda and we are going to stick with it.

Brandi, let's begin with EFC. Have the town rules and procedure been requested? And Chris, can you

Christina, I'm going to ask you not to interrupt.

It's rude to the tent.

I'm sorry. That is not true. I run the meetings. The town supervisor is charged with the responsibilities. You have asked for confirmation. You got your confirmation. Brandi, let's begin with Joanne, please. Thank you. We're not talking about the IMG infrastructure, Brandi.

I have a question for Chris.

Christina, I'm going to ask you to please not interrupt Brandi. Thank you. She's insane. She asked a question. She got an answer.

Oh, I have. No, no.

I did not get an answer.

You told me that Tuesdays are different than Wednesdays? No. So the second meeting has a different public comment period than the first? Is that true?

Christina, the second meeting also has a 15-minute public comment period in the rules of order. And the presiding officer can modify the order of the ministers of the board, can modify the order on motion. Otherwise, you're following the agenda as it's published. I'd like to make a motion.

We'll just make a motion. i would like to make a motion and i will need a second to extend the comment the public comment period to hear everyone in this room i'll second that

Until we hear everyone that wants to speak.

That's right. Folks, this is not a public hearing on the matter. Hey, quiet.

It's not a public hearing.

It's not a public hearing.

i will entertain adding additional speakers but i want a time limit and if you make a motion say 10 more minutes you got five of us

I was in a gym auditorium in which almost 500 people spoke for hours and hours.

Christina, I don't think it was 500 people.

73 or 76 people.

500 people attended. If you want to be honest with the public, be honest with the public.

Don't exaggerate.

So we had almost 500 attendees, and the speakers went on for almost, what would you say, Jacob, four hours? Four hours. We heard everybody. Four hours. We heard everybody.

It was a public hearing on the matter, folks. We've had our public hearing and our decision on this matter. It was a public hearing. The motion stands as I stated that I would like to hear from everybody in the room and Kenny has seconded. So if there's any discussion on the matter before vote. I think there was. I've made my contribution, which is that everybody has had a chance to talk. And you are welcome to put things in writing. We have business that we need to conduct. We are responsible for doing that for the patients.

There's a motion on the floor.

There's a second on the floor. I have expressed myself.

Jacob? I mean, I'm open to hearing from more people, but I think it would be good to... I don't need the applause. I don't need the justification and everything. I don't need you to pat me on the head for doing the right thing. What I'm saying is, I think that we have business that we want to address for things that we've had on the agenda, things we need to get to, things that are timely. I would like to be able to get to that. I think it's important to move the work that we told the public that we're going to do. I would like to have some limit. If there's a line of people up, let's cap it at that. People are ready to speak now and move on.

So would you like to make your motion for 10 extra minutes or 15 extra minutes?

For five more speakers.

Five more speakers. That's 15 extra minutes. It's 8-12.

That's not a negotiation.

It's 8-12.

That's more than five people in one. Let's go. Let's do it.

Let's start. Folks, there's a motion to continue, I think, a motion to continue the public hearing.

Can everybody stand that would like to speak? We are. That modifies. Okay.

So we see the end line there. Another 15 minutes. 15 minutes. Another 15 minutes.

I will modify my motion to hear from the people that are currently online. I'll second that.

Modified. Eight additional people. That's 24 minutes, Brandy. I apologize. Okay. Motion as modified. Seconded by Jacob. No, seconded by Kenny, I think, right? She modified, basically. Okay. Thanks. All in favor? Kenny?

Aye.

Bill? Myself? Aye. The eight people, we've got 24 minutes. We're not going over this.

We don't have 24 minutes, Robert.

We've got eight people, three minutes each. We've got 24 minutes. Richard, did you want to finish your comments?

In the interest of time, I will not start at the beginning. I will pick up where I left off. with two numbers to count. The number of access points within 10 or fewer miles that are safer and more conducive to windows on the Hudson, fishing and launching of canoes, kayaks, motorboats, and jet skis. How lucky are we to live in an area where so many opportunities already exist? Number one, the number of people unilaterally making decisions on behalf of the town without consulting the other four board members. two the number of board members that have consistently voted with the supervisor to advance his personal agenda regardless of his failure to keep them informed two the number of duchess county supreme court rulings against the town knowing the local laws which enacted zoning changes to initiate the taking of the boat club four the number of cases still active in duchess county supreme court appellate court and federal court certain to quickly increase the amount of money spent on legal fees one The number of board members it takes to make a motion to rescind the eminent domain action and force a vote to end this. There must be a board member who originally voted for the action. So Bill, Jacob, we're looking at you. And finally, zero. The additional amount of time and money this community wants wasted on this personal quest. For those here tonight and at home, let's be clear. If Robert, Bill, or Jacob did not make a motion tonight to rescind the eminent's main action, they're choosing to stretch those 17 months into years, doubling, tripling, or more than the $300,000 already wasted. Choosing themselves over the community and telling us what we want doesn't matter because they know better. In closing, Bill, last I spoke to our attorney, you and I have a deposition scheduled for Thursday. That's what was told to me on Monday. I haven't heard otherwise. You know, I've said this to you guys again. This includes Christine Kane, Julia Solomon. I suggest you guys have your stories aligned. And I also hope that none of you would lie under them. That's a concern. Jacob, you know, I have to say this. I truthfully do. It's my understanding that to run for public office in the town of Red Hook, you have to live within the town of Red Hook. Correct? Yep. So it's also my understanding that within 30 days of moving to New York State, you're supposed to register your car with New York State DMV.

Thank you, Richie. Marshall, would you say your name for the record, please? I was about to. Give me a chance. Thank you.

Can you talk into the mic?

We can't hear you.

Okay, darling.

Marshall Cordell, Stanfordville. You have been ignoring my emails and registered letter considering the attempt to confiscate the Red Hook Bone Club. Because of you ignored me over the past year, I want the cost of postage of $5.85 refunded back to me that I previously delivered as a receipt to you in person. Your incompetence in corresponding to the taxpayer indicates to me that you have alternative motives. After looking at the big picture, it is my opinion and consideration that you are planning to take over the bow club and then sell the property to Bard College, fulfilling some other or something that the public is not aware of. Our property is sacred ground to us because the deceased members dedicated blood, sweat, and tears, which makes the club what it is today. There are three memorials dedicated to them. If this place was defaced by some ignorant vandals that would bring tears to our eyes, please stop stealing the Bo Club from us. Thank you.

Teddy Blank, Claremont, New York. Collateral damage is the unintended side effect of an action. If we were to put a face to the term, it would be Christine Kane. As a result of the eminent domain issue, Christine Kane's fate was sealed at her party's caucus twice, and she saw years of public service unceremoniously end. But that hasn't deterred Robert, Bill, and Jacob. Let's be clear, Robert McKeon is reveling in the attention that this issue has brought to him. Even seemingly enjoying the spotlight of two losses in court, he displays classic signs of narcissism and has a need to be front and center. Conversely, despite their staunch adherence to Robert's schemes, Bill and Jacob try to remain in the shadows. We do not see them in local public parades or at community events. Granted, given the public sentiment, doing so currently must be pretty uncomfortable. Bill and Jacob, it's your time to show real leadership and recognize that your only reward for remaining on the literal losing side of the eminent domain issue is likely being the next victim of collateral damage. You both have served a purpose for Robert, and that is probably a better reality. But it's time to save yourselves because, as we saw with Christine Kane, when push comes to shove, Robert is not going to save you. Make a motion to end this now. Do not allow one more cent to be spent on this fiasco. Prove to this community that you are listening and show Robert McKeon that he no longer controls your vote. Thank you, Ted.

Ronald Reingers, Red Hook. It'll be exactly one year ago tomorrow that three members of this board, Robert McKee and Bill Hamel, Jacob Testa, voted to proceed with eminent domain. One year ago, each member of the board walked in here with prepared speech and no intention of listening to the public, pleading with you not to proceed with eminent domain. But your minds were made up long before that meeting. They were made up before the public hearing. They were made up when the supervisor first mentioned the taking of the vote club. One year ago, Bill Hamel waived his pocket constitution and infamously stated that residents were mooching off neighboring towns for river access. I don't know if Bill Hamel has ever launched a boat from Germantown, Ryancliff, Kingston, or any other location. If he had, he would have found that those towns are not only better equipped for boat launching, but welcoming to the breadth of residents. Bill. Do you see the irony that you've been mooching off the taxpayers to advance Robert McKeon's personal agenda? Jacob, I'd like to remind everyone that you are the Associate Dean of Civil Rights at Bar College. You actually get paid to protect the rights of others. But you have voted in lockstep with Robert to deprive private property owners of their rights. That's not only ironic, but stunning. And in your prepared speech a year ago, which suspiciously and phrases uttered by the supervisor. You claim to have spoken to residents in support of the eminent domain action. At the same time, your former colleague, Christine King, said she had not. Quite curious. Bill and Jacob, look where Robert has led you. He considers you his best bet when it comes to voting, and so far, you've done exactly what he expects of you. So now you, along with Robert, own two losses, of which you've never lost a suit, per your record. In court, at least $300,000 in wasted taxpayer money, and lack of trust in town government. Robert got what he wanted from you. Are you happy with what you've gotten from him? Thank you, Ron. Robert?

My name's Rob Singleton. I live at 19 Smith Street in the village.

Board members, each of you was elected to the board by the citizens of the town of Red Hook to do the will of the citizens of the town of Red Hook. Over the past year and a half, it must have become apparent to you that acquiring the Red Hook Boat Club through eminent domain is not the will of the people of Red Hook. It has been made apparent to you in a number of different ways, including Regular appearances by citizens at these meetings expressing their opposition. Social media and standard media posts and editorials expressing opposition. Banners and signs throughout the town expressing opposition. If any of you contends that there is support for this action, you haven't ever provided any evidence of that support. Anecdotes of alleged phone calls without any documentation don't count as evidence. if there ever was even a small amount of support for the acquisition. There is even less support for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on legal fees before you have even gotten to the cost of the acquisition itself and the improvements that will be needed to make at the site. Each of you owes it to the citizens of this town to ask yourselves, Is spending all of this taxpayer money on legal fees for an acquisition that the majority of the citizens oppose really serving the citizens of this town? Couldn't the money be better spent on more pressing issues? You need to ask yourself these questions. If the answer is no, then you need to vote against this latest resolution, which is essentially a blank check to spend taxpayer dollars. Board members, the signs are clear. In one direction, there is a boondoggle, wasted taxpayer dollars and public ire. In another direction, there is an off-ramp and an end to an ill-conceived plan. I ask you, choose wisely, do the will of the majority of the citizens, and vote no.

Thank you, Ron. Linda?

Linda Stoddard. Thank you. Bill and Jacob, you guys have a problem. And he's sitting right there in between the two of you. Of course, this is a problem of your own making. You blindly followed his lead for years, failed to ask the pertinent questions or do your due diligence regarding the two rounds of zoning changes, both of which were annulled by the court. You sat on your hands when the supervisor announced his intent to seize the boat club immediately on the heels of the first zoning changes you approved. You sat on your hands when every speaker at the May 16, 2025 public hearing expressed opposition to the eminent domain action. You sat on your hands when the overwhelming majority of the community told you to vote against the action. You sat on your hands when your former colleague, Christine Kane, saw 40 years of public service end due to the eminent domain action, which now is her legacy. You sat on your hands as the expenses mounted. You even sat on your hands when you were blindsided by the supervisor authorizing an appeal to the first court ruling without informing any other member of the board. Boy, that's real loyalty. So yes, you guys have a problem. And that problem is called complicity. Your problem of your own making has cost the taxpayers more than $300,000, two court rulings against the town, a colleague rejected by her own party members twice, and a community that no longer believes in your ability to govern. So what's your plan? Are you ready to solve your problem by voting to end this unprecedented waste? Or are you going to double down, commit to more wasteful spending, and continue to worship at the altar of Mr. Robert McKinnon?

Thank you.

Well done. Mr. Supervisor, like it or not, better for worse, kind of like a marriage,

You are a leader of a team of five, not just three. You do not have the luxury of picking your favorites. The two minions sit on your side. And not including the new members of the board in your decisions. Thank you, Christine, for failing tonight.

Thank you for the one and, you are the one of the team of five

and as a team leader responsible to the residents of the town villages for using the taxpayers' tax dollars paid by the residents and for producing benefits. To read upon by all five of you, you are squandering taxpayers' funds in secrecy and manipulating the actions of the town board by running a three-man show. Shame, shame, shame.

Thank you very much.

I am Shelly Day. Thank you, Ken and Christina, for forcing the conversation about the eminent domain action to be made public. It was only by Ken Askin, who authorized the appeal and its related expenses at the start of the April 14th meeting, that we learned the supervisor had not shared that news with the other board members. And following the news of the latest lawsuit filed by Al Trezza, Christina issued a lengthy statement asking for full transparency, public disclosure of all the expenses related to the eminent domain action, and a call to end the town's pursuit of the boat club. Her words reflect overwhelmingly community sentiment. Bill Hamel and Jacob Testa, you are now in the spotlight. You are at a crossroads. You have likely seen the multiple articles and social media posts, read the comments, and understand that residents are fed up with the secrecy, exorbitant costs, and the fixation on acquiring a property no one asked for and no one wants. The power to end this rests with you. Are you ready to work for the people you were elected to represent? We're waiting to hear from you and implore one of you to make a motion to end the eminent domain action. bring litigation to an end, and stop the bleeding of resources better directed to real areas of need. Thank you. Thank you for voting also to allow me to speak and the last one in line. I do very much appreciate that. And just a reminder, we really think you need to refuse yourself from the Resolution 6 vote.

Okay, thank you, Brandy. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. And if we can get started with our first grant application.

Well, before we start, I would like to actually make a motion. I have a few comments.

Kristina, we're sticking with our agenda. We have our consultant.

I do have a motion to make, Robert.

We are on our first item with the agenda, with our consultant. Brandy, can you begin, please?

If you would like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion, Robert.

Okay. If you'd like to make a motion after so Brandy can get to her item, we can do that. Brandy, may we begin with the agenda? Thank you.

Well, okay. The motion, I have a few comments to make before we get to that. I think that A park would really be great, but according to the town's own documents, we are acquiring land and we are not approving an actual park plan. And my feeling is that there has been an unreasonable amount of effort into not planning this. And the question I would ask is why? We don't know what the acquisition is going to cost. We don't know the legal fees. We don't know what it's going to cost to build and operate a park. And everyone in this room that's filling this room feels like they're having something taken away from them. But there are other people, I believe, in the town that believe they're gaining Waterfront access and Robert you've stated that they're afraid to speak And of course there's two sides to every issue However, I feel that the way that this has been handled is really disrespectful to both sides Because it is disrespectful to take something away without having a plan and it is disrespectful to promise the public something that without a plan. And people ask me all the time, Robert, what is happening with this issue? And I know more than most people being on the town board, but I don't still fully understand what actually the town is doing. So I'm not going to go through every legal detail, but the simple version is that the Dutchess County Supreme Court has now thrown out two separate zoning and environmental review actions because the town did not adequately explain or study what they're planning to do with the property. So could we imagine adding something as simple as a park bench? Or parking? Or bathrooms? Or signs? Or docks? Or more people using the site? Of course. And who benefits from that failure to do that work? Not the current owners. not the people that actually want a waterfront park if they exist, because they haven't spoken up, not the taxpayers. So none of this is working. And the question is whether we're going to keep going down the path or stop and figure out the actual cost, the feasibility, and the logistics of what we're trying to create. And so my question for Jacob and Bill is, do you know what the acquisition is going to cost?

Okay. We're not having a conversation. No, I haven't made my motion. We're not having a conversation. My amendment domain is not on the agenda for tonight. It is not on the agenda.

It is on the agenda and we have our consult. Christina, thank you.

I think we have tried to accommodate your request and the public's request. Do we know what's already been spent? Do we know what it costs to continue? This is not on the agenda.

Do we know what it's going to cost to create and maintain a park?

Brandy, may we begin, please? Thank you. And so the motion, Robert. Christina, I'm going to ask you to please don't interrupt. Thank you.

Robert, the motion that I would like to make is that I move that the town board state its intent to discontinue the town's effort to acquire the Red Hook Boat Club property by eminent domain and direct town council to prepare for consideration by the town board the resolutions and other actions necessary to rescind the town's prior actions and discontinue the eminent domain proceeding. Okay.

Okay, we're going to entertain this motion.

We heard Kenny's motion. Kenny's second.

There's a motion and a second on the floor. And I would like to get to our agenda item. There was a second from Ken Migliorelli. Is there further discussion on this matter? Or would we like to take a vote? Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second.

All in favor? I feel it's going to be a money pit and it's not thought out just like Cookham East and Cookham West was not thought out properly. And it's going to be millions and dealing with a half a dozen agencies to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. So I feel it's a waste of time and money. Thank you very much.

Anybody else like to make any comments before we take a vote on this motion?

Bill and Jacob, now's your time to stand up for your citizens. Now's your chance.

Please don't interrupt.

Okay, Robert. Let's hear it.

Please don't interrupt. We're going to take a vote on Christina's motion. I'm going to just make one comment, which is that we made a decision, a difficult decision last year around this time on this issue, and I think we've expressed ourselves on this issue. I do want to address the money issue because you have raised a number, which we don't believe is accurate, but it's not important. Hang on. Hang on. please allow me to finish it is significant of course if you continue more lawsuits against the town it will be more significant please please let me finish i would like to say that we have been involved in a lot of land projects in the last few years when we conclude the final two elements of the cooking ham project we will have not because that we intended to we will have made so much so much money on that project we will have paid for not only these legal fees but any ensuing legal fees and have several hundred thousand dollars left after this. We are in the strongest position.

Please don't interrupt me.

Please don't interrupt me. We are in the strongest financial position that we have ever been in. Taxes are lower than they have, the town taxes.

Town taxes are lower than they were 11 years ago.

So the answer to your question is we will be in a better financial position, including all legal fees, at the end of 2027. With that being said, if there are no other comments, I'd like to take a roll call. Christina.

Aye.

Jacob? Nay. Myself, nay. William?

Nay.

Okay, thank you. We are moving on to the agenda. Christina, we're moving on to the agenda.

Robert, I have another motion that I would like to make. Christina, you're not making... No, I'd like to... Well, I think we've been accommodative. I already told Brandi she could send me an invoice for her time.

No, it doesn't work that way. Christina, no case also includes these meetings.

My second motion is...

I'm not entertaining any motions now. If you'd like to do it at the end of the meeting, that's fine. I move that the town board state... Christina, I'm asking you, please save any motions to the end. We can accommodate your motions at the end of the meeting.

Brandi, would you continue, please? Okay.

I would like to make a motion that the town board states in tact that the decision to acquire the Red Hook boat property for a public park, including the acquisition by eminent domain, be submitted to the voters if there is a lawful procedure for doing so.

The floor belongs to our engineer. Brandi, would you begin? Thank you.

I'll repeat it. I'll repeat the bill.

No, folks, we need to get on with our agenda. Thank you. I'm sorry.

All right.

So let's be quiet. I'll repeat it for Bill. So the motion on the floor is that I moved that the town board state its intent that the decision to acquire the Red Hook Boat Club property for a public park including the acquisition by eminent domain, be submitted to the voters of the town of Redhug if there is a lawful procedure for doing so.

Okay, that's not a real motion, but that's fine.

That is a real motion, Robert. That is a motion.

And it was seconded. Kenny seconds that. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? William?

No.

Okay. Folks, we're moving on with our agenda.

We're paying for a consultant.

Folks, we're moving on with our agenda. Jacob.

Folks, I'm going to ask you to please don't interrupt.

Folks, I'm going to ask you to please not interrupt. I'd like to say something.

Between you and Bill, you stated that there's many people that are for this.

So put it up for Thank you. All in favor, we're going to do a roll call unless there's any other comments. Penny?

Aye.

William? I already voted. Nay. We are now going to move to our consultant. Brandy, you've been enormously patient. Can we do the EFC grant, please? We need to get our sewer grant in. Thank you.

I see 99 more lawsuits.

Folks, please don't interrupt our consultant. Thank you.

We have an application that is in preparation jointly with the Village of Red Hook. This is for the joint sewer project between the village and the town. Last night, the village passed their operating resolution to make the application with the Environmental Facilities Corporation. Tonight, you have a resolution also. If you recall from the last meeting, we talked about the fact that the state has requested that the village and the town go in on the application together to the benefit of both entities for the comprehensive sewer project, which is the upgrade of the village's sewage treatment plant, the addition of the collection system in the village, and the addition of the collection system in the town's T&D. So that resolution is before you tonight. The application is in process right now and we're expecting by Monday to have a draft to the board and to the village to review. We've been working with the village's consultant to accumulate all the village's documents and we had obviously the town's documents from the last application that was made.

And in the application, the Village did increase the cost for their portion of the project, and so we now have a combined cost that's over $30 million for both the client and the client.

The Village's consultant did provide us with their estimated cost for the total project, which was just under $25 million, and when you add that to the $6.5 million for the town's share... That's the 31.5 that is in the resolution. We're working out a few minor details, minor cost numbers to add to that application, but it won't exceed 31.5 million.

So I have questions about this topic, but I also have to say, Robert, this is exactly why I suggested in writing that we move items five and six to the beginning of the agenda, because I think everyone in this room is invested in those agenda items, and it's It's frankly difficult to concentrate and get work done when the room is full of people. So we can work through this. Do you have a question for Brandy? But I think we should move back to items five and six so that we can get through.

We're sticking with the agenda. So, Brandy, sorry. So... Can you just go over? Our share is not changing.

I have a big picture question, though. So last meeting, Robert, I asked whether the award of the grant would be rescinded. And since then, it's been my understanding.

It has been rescinded, yes.

It's been rescinded. So we don't have it.

The state allows just a single application for municipality, so prior to us being able to make the new joint village-town application, the state rescinded the town's previous application from last year.

And I think we explained we thought we could apply for our portion, they could apply for their portion, but it was not part of the program materials that we understood that there only could be a single application. Correct. We now understand that.

So if we didn't make a change, then it would be automatically rescinded. We don't have an option to continue with it. That is correct.

Right. And so this could be a blessing in disguise because we could then get 40% for both municipalities, up to 40%, and the resolution has a total of $12.6 million for the project. I note that last night the Village of Red Hook held their meeting and passed their resolution approving the total project, so they focused on their number, which is the sewer plant and the addition to the collection system.

Right, that's correct. The Village's resolution has a different number in it if you happen to look at it, because they are focused on the Village, the town, because the town is making Because the town is making the joint application, the application needs to have both the town and the village's number in it. So that's why the town's application is for more, but it spells out specifically what the town's share is in the resolution. So that is unchanged from our previous application.

And then the other thing we discussed at the last meeting was kind of the handshake between you and the village engineers on who's responsible for the design of the treatments. And I requested that you submit a proposal to peer review the treatment plant so that there was a consistent responsibility across the entire system.

Yeah, that is in progress. We've been very focused on getting the application in because it's due on the 27th and there's been a tremendous amount of coordination with the villages consultants trying to pull the documents together and trying to work out what the cost numbers were with them, but we'll certainly get that to you.

Yeah, I think that's important in considering the total Cost of the grant, all the soft costs together.

And to be perfectly honest, Christina, we've had a lot of people on vacation right out of the school year being closed. So my key to people that are putting that together, they'll be back later this week and I'll get them on that.

But we could, in a future date, maybe ask the village engineers to come and explain how the MBR system is different than the current system.

They have prepared their preliminary engineering report, so if you have process questions for us.

I'd definitely be open to that, but my issue is, given all of the troubles that the village has had with their system, that there's one professional... from beginning and end to everything that we're going to add. If we're going to get a grant, we're going to pay for adding sewer to all these other properties, then I think that there should be responsibility from beginning and end to that system.

Yes, we're going to have oversight over the project. Exactly right. It's important because we are responsible for those.

But we currently don't have those numbers in front of us.

I don't know what you mean by that.

For the soft cost for your review of the treatment plan.

No, I don't have that for you.

It sounds like you're looking for a second opinion.

Correct. I've asked for a peer review of the treatment plan. Right.

Okay. So when the design's ready, I think that makes sense, right?

I think you could provide a cost before the design is ready, though. I think you could put a not to exceed without prior authorization number together.

Then I could just spitball a number too, but it would be useful for us to talk with them about some of the details of their design.

Sure, but you're doing most of it, and my only issue is that you're not doing the totality of it, so I think there should be one responsible party for all of it.

And just to be clear, we have no current responsibility for any part of the plans.

Correct, that's my issue.

But that will be reviewed by both the county and the D.C.

As would be a residential system would be reviewed by the county. But that's not the issue. The issue is that the village has had problems with their treatment plant. So if we're going to expand upon that, I think that it would be beneficial to us to have you as our engineer review the totality of the system and give us your opinion on not only the branch lines but the treatment plant.

So you're asking us to review their collection system as well? We are designing the town's collection system, so just to be clear.

No, not the collection system in the village.

Just the treatment.

No, the treatment plant and the branch lines that we're adding in the town.

Yes, we will be responsible for the collection system in the town up to the plant.

You explained that last time, but my question was, please provide costs to review the part that you're currently not responsible for to make the new parts that we're adding fully function.

Yes. And that is in progress. Great.

Okay. This is the resolution they passed last night.

Can I turn on your mic?

Nobody can hear you. Please.

This is the resolution that the village passed last night. on their portion of it. So we're good to go to entertain this resolution. Any other questions as it relates to resubmitting for the IMG? And again, we've been encouraged to apply together to reapply to EFC to this program by EFC teams. Okay. This would be resolution number, Deanna, please. Sorry, 35? 35. 35. Resolution number 35, dated July 14th, authorizing application for a New York State intermunicipal water infrastructure grant for joint sewer project, whereas the town and village have entered into an IMA a couple years back and amended in December 9th, 2024, to provide for construction operation maintenance and financing of sewage collection and treatment systems in the town sewer district number one and in the village the joint project and whereas the town and village desire to submit a grant application to fund a portion of the cost for sewer district number one, proposed sewer district number one, no, actually it is sewer district number one, apologies, including installation of collection system components and expansion of certain components of the village sewer system to accept effluent from the town sewer district one, estimated at $6.596 million. and for expansion and improvement to the village sewer system, including collection and treatment within the areas designed by the village estimated at $24,921,000 for a total joint project cost of up to $31,517,000. For a total cost of $31,517,000. Who would like to make that motion? I would. Thank you, William. Who would like to second? Second. Thank you, Jacob. Is there any further discussion on resolution number 35? If not, all in favor? Kenny?

Aye.

William? Aye. Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Aye. Thank you very much. Okay, we now have resolution number 36. And before we go ahead and entertain a resolution to apply for the New York KICS grant program, you know, at first blush it seemed like a wonderful opportunity to make an application. to get up to $200,000 towards the construction costs associated with Rec Park West. As you know, we've started to build out over time Rec Park West, which sat there idly for many years after the acquisition. It has, why don't I get to the map for the folks at home, Well, that's not facing a very favorable way. But if you can imagine, that map is supposed to be horizontal. This is Linden Avenue. The built field is here, coming off here. Three rectangular fields are part of the adopted plan. Folks, if I could ask you to just go further into the hallway if you're going to chat so we can also be able to conduct our meeting. Thank you. So 200,000, but we're talking about, if we were to construct all three fields, a seven-figure number, aren't we? Yes.

Yeah. To build out the remainder of the three fields beyond the softball field that's out there requires a lot of work. And the master plan considered three fields could fit back there. The numbers were coming in pretty high when we were doing the pricing on the budget bill. And with the grant only being $200,000, I just wondered if it's a priority for the town at this point in time. It would probably only cover a quarter to a third of one field. if we were successful with that New York Kicks grant. So we want to make sure you're applying for things where we feel like you've got a good chance at getting it and that it'll really move the needle for you on projects. And I just pose whether or not this is one you guys want to focus on for this current funding cycle.

What is your opinion?

My opinion?

I think it's a limited pool of funds. So there's $5 million statewide. The maximum grant is capped at $200,000. So it's not a very well-funded program. I'm assuming there's going to be a lot of demand. So what does a field cost, roughly? It's somewhere in the mid-six figures, depending on...

So it's $500,000 per field, and we're proposing three fields, but we would get a maximum of two-liter?

What I suggest is a single field, if you were going to go forward, put the fields in in phases, you could do that. Put one in, and then in a couple years, if the town wanted to, you could add the others.

And the resolution cites $700,000. For a single field?

For a field.

And we anticipate that this is a one-time only grant, right? Correct. So it's either we apply now and get a portion of one field or we don't apply and we don't have this funding source specifically. Yes.

We would look to something like a member item perhaps because it's parks related. Something where we could have a larger...

It's not a program. program just for this year, so it's hard to know how they're scoring it and how many applications there are going to be, how much interest there is. So it's a little bit difficult. They are prioritizing low to moderate income communities. They're going to be getting, I think, 30% to 40% of the funds. So you guys don't need that designation yourself. You do jointly with the villages. But it makes it a little bit more competitive, I think.

So just because I'm new to this, what does it cost us to put the grant forward or to complete the grant, roughly, just ballpark?

Our fee is usually around $1,500 for a grant application for our time to pull the applications together. Okay.

So I have a question. Say you get awarded the grant. How long do you have to expend that money?

It's program by program. I would say what I commonly tell communities is that if you apply this year, it's for construction in two years. Because it'll take about a year. You won't care about your plans until December. It'll be next year contracting and then you'd be in construction. So it'd be a 28 construction.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about applying for a tiny bit of money towards... You know, part of it is we don't know what the future is for the Red Hook Soccer Club on the property that they are. You know, it would be nice to know. You know, I've been asking at least the former head of that program to understand whether they will have continuity because there is... you know, some infrastructure in their current place right now, but that property is up for sale. On the other hand, applying for $200,000 and, you know, if you're looking at a seven-figure for all the other fields, it doesn't seem like, you know, The worst thing you want to do is apply for the grant, get the money, and go, it's still not enough to go forward with the project. It's not a priority right now.

But we could also apply for additional money in the future to compound, right?

Possibly.

Where if we say, hey, we've got $200,000 from this, maybe we look at, like you said before, difference funding to say, could you help? get us over the finish line.

Absolutely. The challenge, though, and one of the reasons why I think we're so successful with grants is because, A, we apply for them. B, we complete the projects. And so what you don't want to do is you don't want to take away funding that could go to another municipality that just needs the 200, for example. So it's demonstrating that you will receive the grant and fulfill those obligations. Yeah, it's a tough one, but I'm not inclined to apply for this. That's just how I feel. I don't know how others feel. It's going to be a couple years, no matter what. I mean, it could be a year by the time you get it, and I think Brandy didn't cover this this time at other meetings, but once you do the construction, and maybe we can use in-house forces someday, you need two years before the fields will be ready.

Sorry, Kenny, you wanted to... Well, I just said, what if the property does get sold and they... The new owners might discontinue. I mean, I think they're on their last year lease.

They are, yeah. Their lease is supposedly up at the end of 27.

There's a lot of kids that utilize those fields.

Yeah. Yeah. But then there's, you know, then there's the possibility that the club could work out something with the new owner, right? So I think this is the challenge, you know, that... Here we are in this quasi, it's a club, but we want to make sure those kids have an opportunity to play soccer.

This kicks grant has to be for soccer.

Oh yeah, that's why it's called kicks.

I get that, but what I'm saying is, say you have a field and it didn't have facilities for people. Would you be able to use it for that?

That's a good question. I don't have the whole program description in front of me. I think it's for fields specifically. I don't think it's for amenities. Because the master plan has a much larger build out. There's concessions and Russian facilities and expanded parking in addition to the three fields. This would just allow you to move forward with installing a single field.

And I do think we need to get to the, we've been talking about and solving one problem, trying to get water, get utility over there. We have electric nearby, but we need to get water to that property. And so that I think we're going to get something from your office hopefully in the next month or so after the grant cycle. We'll talk about how to close the loop there on Linden and get water over there. But yeah, we need to look at that infrastructure. Bring the infrastructure to the property before we start stop going too crazy with the fields themselves Right. We don't have a restroom over there Which which we do which we do now have a we have a portable one I think it was the softball. Yeah, I So I don't know. What say you? What are your thoughts? I don't like to apply for grants knowing that we're not likely to be able to accomplish it. That's me.

I'm fine passing on it for now. It feels like something we can prioritize in the future.

I would agree.

Jacob, you look like you're struggling a little bit.

I mean, I think that the program seems like a good one. I mean, I think we could build a field, right? We could build one field, but I think that it is sort of a question of whether it's the most meaningful use of our time and resources to do this project in this way. Maybe not.

Not an easy one. Not an easy one. Well, we could always come back to this.

When is it due? It's due the 31st of July.

All of these grants are due the 31st, the CFAs, with the exception of the IMG, which is the 27th. Okay, let's go on to the next one then, shall we? We'll skip that over.

The next one is the grant application through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Parks Program. And this is the program this year. Every year their program priorities change, but this year they have a program priority It is for projects that enhance, extend, or complement multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trails, creating physical and functional connections among already protected state and local lands, historic properties, greenways, trails, and waterways. That's almost exactly what you guys are doing with that trail link. It closes the V2V trail gap also. And so the program has a maximum award of $675,000. We've been working on the bridge crossing concept design and preliminary engineering. We've been talking with a vendor that provides a turnkey solution on bridges. They'll do the design, the engineering, and the installation. And they have quoted us a price that when you couple it with the enabling site work that needs to be done to get in there and put the abutments in is about $1.3 million. So the 675 is roughly half. OF THE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST, AND THAT'S AN ESCALATED CONSTRUCTION COST TO 2028. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THIS YEAR GOING FORWARD. I THINK YOU'RE IN A GOOD POSITION GIVEN WHERE YOU ARE WITH THE DESIGN. AND WE DO WANT TO HAVE CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS SORT OF TEED UP SO THAT WHEN THE DESIGN AND THE PERMITTING IS FINISHED, YOU CAN MOVE INTO CONSTRUCTION AND BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION.

Do we have any issues with the grant covers up to 50% of the project? If you list 1.3 million, 675 is 1.35. Do we have any issues with that number being higher than the estimate?

They will only give you 50% or 675, whatever is better.

Well, I think this is an important project. I don't know what you all think. This is one that... We've got two minor connections, this being one of them, and when that's concluded, we'll be able to go from the village of Red Hook to the village of Tivoli. The trail system is built out otherwise.

I think it's great.

Yeah. Okay.

This is... And I would note that John Kuhn, in his report for their meeting, getting repeated requests for a bridge so people can park at the rec park as opposed to on park, which is part of the goal.

Okay. We're on 36. Resolution number 36 to apply to Office of Parks, Historic, OPHRP. It's all the way up here. Grant for Red Hook Trail Link Bridge project, whereas the town desires to submit a grant application for a New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. to fund a portion of the cost for the construction of the proposed Red Hook Trail link pedestrian bridge over the Salt Hill connecting the Red Park to the Cookingham Recreational Trails project with an estimated construction cost of $1.3 million. And now, therefore, be it resolved by the town board of the town of Red Hook, county of Dutchess, state of New York, town as follows. The town supervisor, in his absence or unavailability, the deputy supervisor, is authorized to submit an application to New York State OPRHP for a grant amount not to exceed $675,000 to fund a portion of the cost of the project.

Is this resolution 36 or 37?

I think it's 36 since we didn't vote on the last one.

The other one was supposed to be 36.

Okay, I would like to move 36.

Second.

Is there any further discussion? Okay. I'd just like to point out, just because there were some comments about the Cookingham Project. What? We just lost our technicality. The Cookingham Project is a model that's being used all along the Northeast of having many public purposes, the trails being one of them. permanent farmland preservation, affordable housing. We've received millions of dollars with our partner, Repco, towards the project. This is a wonderful opportunity on the spur that goes to the water treatment plant to connect the rec park to the Cookingham trails. It's an asset you don't often see in the village is to have these great wide open spaces. And as I mentioned, we will soon be preparing that property for sale. And that to a farmer, the farmland, we protected all of the active farmland with the permanent conservation. And there's also some property that was reserved for the village for an additional well site.

That sounds good. But to a true farmer, they would have never set it up the way it was set up.

Right. Well, I appreciate, Kenny, we may disagree on that. We've had a couple...

I'm not a true farmer, so you wouldn't know.

No shit. We have had people who are interested in the property and do like the idea of the fencing there, but the fencing was necessary to keep the people off the... Yeah, they'll be going up soon, right. It's Resolution 36. It's been moved. It's been seconded. All in favor of Kenny?

Aye.

Bill? Aye. Myself, aye. Aye. Thank you, Joe. Aye. Thank you. Resolution 36.

I believe the next one is here State Department of State smart growth community planning. This is the town is currently undertaking the comprehensive plan under a smart growth community planning grant from 2024. And because even though that comprehensive plan is not yet completed, because you are funded under this program, the state is allowing those communities to apply for the next round of funding so that you can move forward with implementation of your comprehensive plan, which would include making the zoning updates that the town has as recommendations in that comp plan once it's completed. So this sort of acknowledges the fact that there's sort of a lag in that grant contracting process, but this would help move the process forward. forward more quickly. I've talked with Julia Solomon, and I believe she talked with you also, Robert, and they think $200,000 is the budget for the zoning updates and the associated environmental review for that. We can make a grant request of $150,000, and so we'd recommend you move forward with that.

Very good. Yeah, no reason why we wouldn't. Right. It'll be ready by the time we get the grant and the monies. We'll be ready to implement. It does take a while, but it won't be awarded until the end of the year. By the time we get a contract, it's 2027. Okay. It's resolution 37. Who would like to move 37? You're the liaison, right? Yes. Okay. Very good. Is there a second?

Aye.

Second. That's a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Just want to thank all the folks volunteering on the Comp Plan Update Committee for their work. And all in favor? Kenny?

Aye.

William? Aye. Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina?

Aye.

Thank you. That was 37.

The fifth one that we talked about was the WQIP program, which stands for Water Quality Improvement Program. We did look at this program to see if we could fund some shed repairs with it. I did get word back last week from the Division of Water that they only will fund new ground-up salt sheds. They won't fund repairs. And so we were encouraged to look at WQIP has several subset programs in it, SALT storage being just one program. The other program, one of the other programs that they have is called Removal of Aquatic Barriers, and the Willits Culverts, whose design work is being funded under a Hudson River Estuaries program grant, would qualify under the Removal of Barriers for construction dollars for those culverts. Those culverts I think I mentioned at one of the last meetings were part of a study that the town did in 2008 to identify culverts that are prioritized for needing replacement. And the highway superintendent and her team do a good job of replacing culverts that they have the tools and skills to replace. But there were several culverts in town that have a more complicated construction. scenario and these ones on Willits meet that because they have large road cuts associated with them. So the estimate to replace the two culverts on Willits is preliminary estimated at 1.5 million dollars. The WQIP program will cover 75% of the project cost up to $2 million, whichever is less. So at $1.5 million, the town would be eligible to apply for $1.125 million towards the project cost, and we would recommend you go forward and make that under the WQIP program.

Sorry, I have to get back to my spot here.

There we go. Did you pull up the specific subset for RAM of aquatic possibility? I have a paper copy of it. Actually, if you scroll up to the bulleted list, there are eligible project types. The aquatic connectivity one is like four up from the bottom of that list there. Yep. So you can see that the match is 25%, so the state will fund up to 75%. We did have a preliminary conversation with our DEC contact, who's reviewing our design plans right now. He said that this program is what towns who have done the design under house and regressory program are using to move forward with construction. He obviously can't tell us we can get a grant, but he did encourage us to apply.

It's already done, right?

The design work is moving along. It's gone to the DEC. They're reviewing it right now. And then they'll send it back to us. And then we have to finish the permitting. But should you be successful here, it will be done and ready for bidding before the grant funds are available to the town for construction. Again, maybe a late 27 construction, 28 definitely. Yeah.

Any more questions on this one? This one seems fairly straightforward, 75% funding.

And we'll be doing the work to prepare to release these culverts. It's a great opportunity to actually do it.

Follow through with the first grant. Yep, yep. I got to believe they want to fund this eventually.

That's what the states keep telling us, that if they're making the funds available, if they're making the design funds available, they'll make construction dollars available as well.

Right. Seems logical. Okay. 38, 39, sorry, Deanna, where are we? 38. 38, thank you. Resolution number 38, dated July 14, 2026, resolution authorizing an application for the WQIP, otherwise known as Water Quality Improvement Program, grant for Willits Culverts. Town Board desires to submit a grant application for one 0.125 million dollars to fund 75% of up to a one and a half million dollar project to replace the culverts on Willits and Did I move that? It's culverts, it's culverts. You're the liaison.

Sure, I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I'll second.

Okay, any further discussion? If not, all in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, Kenny. Aye. William, myself, aye. Aye. Aye. 5-0. Okay. Randy, you're not involved with the Aspen Wall Bridge, but may I and apologize, put you on the spot just a little bit. You probably understand we have another firm involved with this. This was a, for the folks at home, we're replacing the Aspen Wall Road bridge. We received a Bridge New York grant a few years ago. You go through the process of design, so on and so forth. We got additional funding. And we went out to bid. We only had two bids. There was a problem with one of the bids. We were told the timing wasn't great to be going out to bid, so we've decided to reject the bids and go out to bid soon, in the next month or two. But in the meantime, we're looking at ways to also, because we didn't like the numbers necessarily either, if there are some alternatives that we could explore that might reduce the cost without necessarily changing too much the overall aesthetic of the bridge. So I think that's kind of where we are. And so the engineer sort of sent us some samples of, you know, instead of stone, this is sort of a stamped concrete look to sort of mimic stone. Asked him if he could send some additional ones. This is stone block, wing wall.

How come you have stuff for this but not for the boat club?

Form lined concrete to match, stone block, wing wall.

Prime example. I had luxury condos.

And then we have smooth concrete option.

Didn't we get input from the community of what their interest was?

Well, they wanted to retain as much of the character for the bridge as possible. And here's another option, which obviously has zero character, which is the box beam guide rail option. Obviously, the primary purpose of replacing a bridge is to ensure its safety for the passage of vehicles and others. Do you have any experience with stone alternatives? I know you don't do a lot of bridge work.

We do culvert work and it comes up in culverts. I would say, so just to be clear, we're not the designer, so I'm not sure what your consultant at Creighton Demanding is recommending, but it is not uncommon to bid alternative facing of the structure, so you would have a poured concrete and then maybe a stone veneer and then maybe a stamp concrete and that gives you the option to have some flexibility and award and sort of weigh that aesthetic versus um versus cost factor um in the bids

Yeah, that image, I'm sorry, it's not on this package, this packet, but it's been in all the other packets, so we have a visual of it. In fact, I can probably go grab that.

I think the example of the stone that I'm aware of is the bridge in Tivoli on Broadway. a stone veneer on it, so I think that's kind of what folks think about when they think about a replacement bridge with a stone.

And that would bring the cost down.

It brings the cost up, actually, yeah, to add that stone. So in order of cost, it's probably a poured concrete, either a smooth concrete or a collared concrete, and Christina may have some insights as well, because vertical construction, which is more her area of expertise. the concrete, and then the stamped concrete, and then the stone veneer, and then stone.

Well, we're not trying to make a decision tonight, right? This is just a discussion. Oh, man.

Wow. That's amazing. So, this is what the image is. If you recall, the bridge has stone throughout, which is part of the problem, the engineering problem, and So when it's not wide enough and it was overtopping and obviously the stone was becoming an impediment and causing flooding to surrounding properties. So the idea was to try to have the entrances on both sides to have real stone inside to sort of as much as possible keep the character, retain character. And obviously the water can pass through during these areas. I don't know if that's visible.

Is it going to remain one length? That's one length, right?

It's going to be wider. It's going to be a little wider because that was part of the problem. It wasn't wide enough. So this is also on our website. Sorry. So that's what it looks like now. I mean, if you have any samples too, and just to be correct, because I think you mentioned Creighton Manning, it's HVEA that's doing this project. They won the bid on this a couple of years ago.

Okay.

Anything else? I think we just need to get more alternatives and see if we want to, when we re-bid in the next month or so, if we want to re-bid with alternates and then see what those come in at and then make a judgment call on.

Do we have a timeline on making a decision?

Yeah, I would say probably next month we want to make a decision if we want to include at our August 11th meeting, we probably want to make a decision whether we want to include alternates in the re-bid. Now, if we're just going to re-bid the specs the way they are, then it probably can go to the next meeting or the first September meeting. I'll try to narrow that even more.

Was he only going to go out to bid on September 1? Was that the plan? Because he's going to need time to incorporate that into a bid document that you can then approve.

Right. So that's why I'm saying by August 11th, we'll need to decide whether or not we want to have an alternate. included in the bidding documents, and everything gets reviewed by DOT. In fact, we just heard yesterday, I think, from DOT that they were okay with us rejecting the bids and going out to rebid. So in answer to your question, August 11th, we need to decide. So if any of you or your firm or anybody has any other images or materials, we could take a look at it. I know HVA wants to send us more stuff. what they get their hands on. But this is pretty common, I guess, the stamped concrete?

Yes, very common.

Very common, yeah. I wouldn't mind going to see a bridge. I'm sure I've seen a bridge with stamped concrete, but I just...

Right now, off the top of my head, I can't think of any places. Yeah, there's probably lots of places that you can look at it.

Okay. I think that's it. Brandy, thank you very much for your patience this evening. I appreciate your help in all these matters. Okay. Chris, I'm going to put you on for a second if you wouldn't mind. Just give us a little background on the county shared services agreement. I know you've been trying to work with the county on previous. We had an agreement we signed a few years ago. We approved.

I don't think the county ever approved it. It came from the county, and we did approve it, but apparently the county, for whatever reason, didn't finalize it. And I don't know if that was because they had not enough participation or what, but this time around they've proposed a different agreement. That agreement was for emergency shared services throughout the county. This agreement is for any type of you know, highway and road-related shared services for any purpose, for any reason. It's a pretty broad scope, and the language is extremely loose, so that, you know, the authorized official can decide to share any equipment at any time with any of the municipalities that are participating in the county IMA. You know, so it's not... the town county necessarily, it's town and any other town or village, whatever, that happens to want to share equipment. And whether or not you share equipment for free or for pay, is just supposed to be agreed upon every time you do it. So, you know, it's an agreement that's pretty loose. We did provide some comments to the county, some extensive comments. They accepted a lot of them and revised the document, but they didn't accept all of our comments. So just bringing forward some of the issues that I think that you should consider if you still want to enter into the agreement, Notwithstanding that, I think you might want to consider creating some internal controls of your own that start with what does the resolution authorize? In other words, does the resolution authorize signing the agreement but authorizing the officials who are designated to manage this program to carry out a certain set of rules so that you all know when money's being spent, when your resources are being used, how long they're being used for, and all of that. Usually when we have an IMA with one municipality, we have a process where they're supposed to document how many hours in the truck, how many miles are they using the truck for. Everybody's supposed to log the same way you log your own equipment so that you can tell what you're doing, and whether or not you're going to decide to charge presumably depends on whether you are you know, benefiting one for the other if you're sharing things back and forth as opposed to it's sort of a one-way street. And, you know, since these are your resources, you have to consider what's the appropriate use of the town's resources. And certainly, I think that it would be something you might consider to have more flexibility for emergency situations, right, as opposed to wanting to share equipment for non-emergency situations. where maybe the process is a little bit more truncated in the emergency situation as opposed to just a garden variety situation. And I think you also need to consider you have current agreements with some municipalities that you've been using. Are you intending that you're going to not follow those agreements and follow these? Is this going to substitute for those? I think we need to be clear about that so you and your insurer understand what the rules are that you're supposed to be following. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it all makes sense. I mean, part of the challenge here is it's not just for emergency situations, which, you know, would be easier in some respects because emergencies don't crop up as often as this agreement would allow for sharing, which we've done many times with either a piece of equipment, the mini excavator being one of the most recent agreements we had with two or three other municipalities. But then you know those issues of maintenance and insurance and so on and so forth But we we do we do want to have this ability to share equipment So has anyone spoken to Teresa about this I saw that she shared I think this exact document Yeah, yes and this document is came to us, our attorney offered some comments to the county.

But do we know what our highway superintendent's opinion is?

I don't think we got a lot of specific comments, did we, Chris, when you were working on it? Did she share any comments with you? I didn't get any comments except that she thought we should look at this. Right.

She's interested in using this facility, which obviously gives a lot of flexibility. So, I mean, you could consider, for example, entering into the agreement to authorize the process, but then have an internal process by resolution where you specify, okay, this is what you think the process should be for your internal purposes. And I would leave that to you guys to decide what is an appropriate process, but you certainly need to have one, right?

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we do have some sharing with the village and how those times and equipment have been documented and how the cost share is happening in that situation. Obviously, we have shared facilities when it comes to salt, gasoline, and so on and so forth.

I was going to say, it would be good to know how many other municipalities have done this and get copies of any modification.

Well, Bill, there's only one agreement. The county is trying to facilitate a single agreement that everybody signs.

Oh, I understand that. But how many municipalities have signed this agreement?

We don't know yet.

Because that would be helpful to basically benchmark or contact other municipalities that might be similarly sized as us about issues that they may or may not have had with this agreement or modifications they might have made and worked out with the county.

Or the internal controls.

I think the county has made the modifications that they're willing to make. You know what I mean? So either you're going to make use of this agreement in some way and compensate for the extensive flexibility in this agreement with some internal procedures if you're wrong, right? Or you're just not going to do it. I think those are some choices that you have. I think you could, you know, create some internal procedures to help you manage this.

Okay. Does the county have any, like, proposed date that they would like municipalities to sign on to this, or is this something that's just everybody in their own time?

I think it's rolling. Well, and as last time, they sent us their agreement. We signed it, we sent it back, and then they didn't get a countersign back to us. Obviously, we need to be able to share equipment. I mean, there was a storm not too long ago. You all heard about it. We were fortunate that we were not. impacted the way municipalities in the southeast of the county falling, their CVS burned up in the fire. And there was some sharing of equipment there needed, and that was what the focus of previous agreements were, based upon emergency situations, which is easier, obviously, to administer. This is very open-ended, and I think that's Chris's concern, is that both the accounting and the administration of it. I mean, are we giving our equipment if somebody wants to do something that doesn't seem to be critical in nature? There really doesn't seem to be any guardrails there.

Well, I think, you know, if you, for example, if you said, look, if it's going to be an emergency, we can authorize it administratively. We're going to track it in such and such a way. You know, every time we do it, we're going to, you know, record what we're doing. And if we're going to do something that's not an emergency, we're going to bring it back to the board and at least, you know, have a motion to approve a particular sharing arrangement so that we know what's going on. I mean, that's one option. You can do, you know, any range of options, but... You know, I think you need to decide how you're going to manage this internally.

Yeah. I'm happy to reach out to my colleagues and different municipalities and find out what they're doing and why they're doing it, what internal controls they've established, if they have already.

My comment is just that this was circulated a month ago by Teresa, and I'm surprised that we haven't been nobody's connected with her to find i mean i could i could infer from the email that she's in support of this and she was looking to have it have it approved back in june okay well this is a different version that first went out we uh through our attorney gave our concerns about the agreement i am have you reached out to theresa i have

Well, let's do that between now and then. We've asked if Teresa can come to the August meeting. She couldn't come tonight, and she can't come to the August 11th, but maybe we can get her to the second August meeting, if that works for her schedule, and we can go over that in the meantime. Can you see if she had particular... Chris, has she been reaching out to you on this, giving you input?

Just reminders that she's been sending to the board that she'd like this to be resolved, right?

But with no input? Just that she wants it?

Well, I mean... Okay. My point is we've ignored her for a month, and that's, you know...

I don't think it's her.

I think we've heard her comments.

Yeah, I think... She hasn't asked for us to respond. She said that she would like for us to consider this. Yeah.

We're talking about it now. Chris doesn't think that's a fair comment, and I don't think that's a fair comment, Christine, in a minute. The criticism, we're working towards it. We've had this on a couple of meetings' agenda, and we're trying to figure out something. We thought there would be more changes made to this document, and it's not necessarily something we feel comfortable with at this point because it has too much open-endedness to it. I don't think it's fair to criticize those that are working on the document because someone didn't provide their input to the document. Okay. A couple things to do. You're going to see if she has any specific comments. I'm going to see other municipalities, what they've done so far, any internal controls to it. If they shared some of the same concerns, the changes that haven't been made that we requested. Anything else? Let's look to put this back on one of the August, let's see if the... That would be the 25th, no, 26th meeting agenda. For RE-ORG, we just have one thing for RE-ORG. Which is we have communication that we're fortunate Susan Grover is willing to step up from an alternate on the CPA to be a permanent member.

How long has she been an alternate? She's been attending regularly.

Meetings now?

They're really short on members.

had a couple resignations recently. Okay, so what we have for openings is a vacancy that ends in 27. And let's see, we have, we're not that short. We're just short the one, one position. Right? Christine, I know. Were you at the last meeting?

I was not at the last meeting, no. But they are looking to appoint Susan.

Yeah.

Yes.

No, but I mean, you made the comment that they're really short. But it looks like there will be a full complement once she's a permanent member. OK. So the vacancy exists to term ending in 2027. Who would like to make a motion presuming we do want to appoint her as a permanent member?

I'll make that motion.

Okay. Anyone like to second that? To appoint Susan Grover as a permanent member with the term ending in December 2027. Thank you, Jacob. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Kenny?

Aye. William? Aye.

Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Aye.

So to answer your question, there are two vacancies and Kate is leaving. So that's the answer. They have an alternate vacancy, and they have a member vacancy.

Oh, right. You were talking about alternates. There's a vacancy, right. But the membership is now a full complement of five, and Kate will eventually be leaving?

Kate will be leaving.

Okay. All right. So we'll look for that. I think she's finishing out the year, if not more. But we'll look for that. Okay at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to go into executive session to discuss the hiring of outside counsel in the matter of TREZA versus the town of Red Hill and town supervisor. Is there a second to that motion?

Would you have to recuse yourself for that?

I do not need to recuse myself.

We can hear you.

I made a motion to go into executive session. I made a motion to go into executive session to discuss the hiring of outside counsel in the matter of Trezza versus Town of Red Hook and Town Supervisor. Is there a second to that motion?

But I have a question.

Yes, I heard your question. I do not need to recuse myself in this matter.

Where is the transparency? Why not do it here? Second. Why not in front of us?

Thank you, Jacob. Is there any further discussion?

I don't know why we can't talk about it in public. Why can't you talk about it in public?

We're here.

We want to hear this conversation. We have a motion. We have a second. Folks, we're going to an executive session to discuss the hiring of Johnson. There's a transparency, Robert. All in favor? Kenny?

Aye.

William?

Aye.

Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina?

Aye.

All right. If we are taking action, we'll be coming back out.

Snakes. Don't you need this?

Snakes. Snakes are irregular.

I'm sorry. Snakes. I did. Take caution.

Can I take this?

Yes, we will be back out to take any action or adjourn the meeting. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, folks. We're back in. The meeting continues. We went into executive session to discuss hiring outside counsel in the matter that I previously described. This is agenda item number six. Would somebody like to make a motion on this item?

Excuse me?

Okay. Bill, do you have your microphone? Okay.

So this is a motion to approve the hiring of Zarin and Steinmetz LLP in the matter of Trezor versus Counter Red Hook regarding the summons and complaint number 2026-53464 filed on June 29, 2026 in Dutchess County Supreme Court and to authorize the supervisor to execute the letter of engagement dated July 13, 2026. That's the motion.

Thank you, Bill. I would ask you to maybe amend your motion so that it also includes the naming of Robert McKeon in his official capacity as supervisor of the town of Red Hook and the town of Red Hook. I think that's what the complaint.

This is, and to clarify, this is to sign the letter of engagement. Because I'm going to make a motion after we're done with this motion. This is just to authorize the signing of the hiring of this attorney.

Bill, did you amend your motion?

I said to authorize the supervisor to execute the letter of engagement with Zarin and Steinmetz dated July 13th, 2026. Okay. In the town of Redmond.

In the matter of Trezza against? Did you make that amendment?

I was in it.

Okay. Robert McKeon in his official capacity as supervisor of the town of Red Hook and the town of Red Hook, New York. Okay. Summons, I think you mentioned 2026-534-64. Yep. Filed on June 29, 2026. Thank you. Okay. So there's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Jacob. Is there further discussion on this matter? Okay, I'll call a roll call. Kenny?

Aye.

William? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Aye.

Aye. And I'm going to make a motion that the point of contact for the attorney just hired shall be myself and Bill Hamill.

Okay. There is a motion on the table. to have two individuals be the point of contact in this matter. Is there a second for that motion?

I'll second it.

Thank you, Kenny. Is there any discussion?

I think that's a big departure from the way that towns typically appoint people to be the liaison with council.

I don't think that's a particularly wise or efficient way to do that.

As members of the town board, all of us are entitled to the information that is gathered from our attorney who represents the town. This is really about day-to-day conversations about when things are due, how to do them. And I don't see any real necessity to have this motion and usually in all the motions that i've done because i am the deputy town supervisor they say the town supervisor and or his designee and so the reality is any one of us could be the destiny and any one of us could do it it doesn't i just don't think that there's much necessity for this motion um i don't think it adds anything i don't think you know, maybe for the public thinks that the optics are better, but on a day-to-day basis, I just don't think it's...

I do think the optics are important. I think that it's significant that Robert is the only one that's named in this, and so I think that, you know, given the overall toxicity in the eminent domain acquisition, It's important that somebody other than Robert be the representative.

Okay. I would say that I don't think it's wise, ever wise, to have somebody appointed to defend the town in a manner that they don't believe. is a matter that the town should be engaged in, so it would be inappropriate for you to be the liaison point, in my opinion, in this matter. And, you know, for years, please, folks, please, folks, As the day-to-day person, you see every resolution that comes in front directs the town supervisor or, in his absence, the deputy town supervisor, whoever that happens to be at the time, to fulfill these obligations and to be the point person in the matter. And so I won't be supporting your motion, Christina, because my job is to vigorously defend the town in this

But I will also point out that you're not by default a point of contact. You do have to have a motion and to vote on it and to agree on who the point of contact is.

And you'll see throughout history, not just in this municipality but in others, you'll see motions to direct the town supervisor to do this or to do that. That sort of leads to the next resolution.

It's timely that we respond to this lawsuit, so if this motion fails, then we should continue to discuss who the point of contact is until we have a consensus or until a vote passes.

I think we are going to vote on that, and I think it just may not be... It just may not be that in this case that the vote is going your way on this one. We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor, Kenny?

Aye.

Bill? Aye. Aye is to appoint. Thank you folks. We're going to get to a resolution further authorizing the retention of outside counsel.

So who's going to deal with this attorney that we're hiring? Robert is. No, he's not. He's not authorized to. He was only authorized to sign the letter of impeachment. Guys, we've got to take action on this. It's got to be somebody.

Do you want to be clear? We'll be clear. I make a motion to appoint Robert to be the liaison with the law firm. Every single appointment and working with council is done. History of the town.

Folks, folks, please, please, please don't interrupt. There's a motion. Is there a second to that?

You're going to second his motion.

Bill's going to second. Is there further discussion?

Kenny? Nay. You guys can.

You are nay? Okay. We didn't put it to a vote. We didn't put it to a vote, but we can put it to a vote. You are nay? Okay.

William? I sit up.

Aye. Myself, aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Nay. Thank you. All right. We've got resolution. We've got the fifth item on the agenda, which is resolution number 39.

That strings the task.

Is that right?

Wait, wait, wait. Yes.

The motion that we did...

The motion was to direct the supervisor to work with... Before that. Yeah.

Numerically.

Yeah. It was just a motion. There are no resolutions. Oh, no resolutions. Okay. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, that's right.

Okay.

These were both done by motion. We have a resolution. Oh. Sorry. Are we on 39, Deanna? Yes. Thank you. Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Red Hook further authorizing and ratifying the retention of Hodgson, Russ, LLP, and Keenanby, PC as outside litigation counsel for the Town of Red Hook, whereas the Town of Red Hook, New York, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal... Can you please speak up? Teddy, sorry, I'm happy to speak up. Thank you. Whereas the town of Red Hook is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with its principal office located in the county of Dutchess, state of New York. And whereas the town board of the town of Red Hook is the governing body of the town and pursuant to the town law 65-1 and 22-A is vested with the authority to authorize and direct any action or special proceeding in the name of the town. and to employ outside counsel in respect to any particular subject matter, proceeding or litigation as the town board may necessarily require. Whereas the town board by motion duly made and approved at its regular meeting on February 26, 25, engage the firm of Keenan Bean, PC, defend and respond to the legal challenges raised in the matter of Red Hook Boat Club versus the town board of the town of Red Hook. Index number 25. 50908, Article 78, Number 1. Whereas represented by the law firm of Hodgson Russ LLP on April 28th, 2025, the town board authorized the commencement of an amended domain proceeding to acquire certain property owned by the Red Hook Bow Club Inc. And whereas RHBC commenced a second Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Dutchess County challenging the town's adoption of three resolutions in furtherance of the town's proposed acquisition of the RHBC property, via eminent domain, Article 78, Number 2. And whereas on August 19th, RHBC commenced a proceeding pursuant to EDPL Article 2 of the Appellate Division, Second Department Docket 2025-0998, 1, challenging the town's adoption of the determination and findings to acquire the Red Hook boat club property by eminent domain which Hodgson Russ LLP represented the town in its defense and furtherance of its engagement with the town. And whereas the town board by motions duly made and approved at its regular meeting on August 27th authorized the firm of Keenan Bean PC to prepare and file a notice of appeal and a motion to re-argue regarding the decision and order dated August 15th, 2025 in Article 78, Number 1. And whereas the town board by motion, duly made and approved at its regular meeting on December 9th, 2025, authorized the town supervisor to work with council to continue to defend and respond to legal challenges raised by Red Hook Boat Club. And whereas on January 1, 2026, RHBC commenced a third Article 78 proceeding, Red Hook Boat Club versus the town of Red Hook, New York, challenging local laws B and C of 2025 adopted by the town board. Whereas pursuant to prior authorizations, the town supervisor acting in his capacity as chief executive officer of the town engaged Hodgson and Russ LLP to represent the town in defense of the Article 78 proceedings under Index Numbers 2026, 50382, and 2025, 54836, which retention the town board hereby finds to be within the scope and consistent with prior authorizations. And whereas the town board has been and is fully aware of the general nature and subject matter of the legal services rendered by Hodgson and Russ LLP, And Keenan B. PC, in connection with the RHPC legal matters, has audited and approved all invoices from each firm confirming their retention and has previously discussed and considered the town's legal representation in executive session. And whereas the town board has determined for absence of doubt and to minimize further legal proceedings, I think that was suggested, that it is in the best interest of the town and its taxpayers to ratify and confirm all prior appearances, filings, and legal services rendered by Hodgson, Russ, LLP, and the Article 78 proceedings, An eminent domain proceeding as authorized acts on behalf of the town. Ratify and confirm all prior appearances, filings, and legal services rendered by Keenan Bean PC in Article 78, Number 1, and in connection with the post-decision motion to re-argue and the appeal as authorized acts on behalf of the town. And authorize both firms to continue rendering legal services in connection with the respective matters described herein. whereas the town board determines that the further authorization, ratification, confirmation set forth in this resolution is necessary to protect the town's legal position to ensure the orderly continuation of pending legal matters and to confirm the authority for expenditure of town funds in connection with the legal services described herein. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the town board of the town of Red Hook, Dutchess County, as follows. Section 1, ratification and confirmation of prior services at Hodgson-Ross LLP. The town board hereby ratifies, confirms, and authorizes non-protont all appearances, filings, and legal services rendered by Hodgson-Ross LLP on behalf of the town of Red Hook in connection with the eminent domain acquisition of the Red Hook. boat club property and be the defense of the article 78 proceedings including index numbers 2026-50382 and 2025-54836 from the inception of those engagements through the date of this resolution. All such services are hereby deemed authorized acts on behalf of the town and all town funds expended or obligated in connection Therewith are hereby ratified as authorized expenditures. It is up on the screen, and I am following along with the screen. If that's helpful to you, if you'd like to sit over here to read it. Section 2, ratification and confirmation of prior services of Keene and Bean. The town board hereby ratifies, confirms, and authorizes, non pro ton, all appearances, filings, and legal services rendered by Keene and Bean on behalf of the town board in connection. With the defense of Article 78, Number 1, Index Number 2025, 50908, and the prosecution of the appeal from the August 14, 2025 decision, order and judgment in Article 78, Number 1. All such services are hereby deemed authorized acts on behalf of the Town Board and all town funds expended or obligated in connection therewith are hereby ratified as authorized expenditures. Section 3, Perspective Authorization. The Town Board hereby authorizes pursuant to Town Law, Section 865.1 and 2022A, Hodgson-Russ LLP, to continue to represent the Town in connection with the eminent domain acquisition of the Red Oak Oak Club property, and in any appeal, motion, and further proceedings in connection with the Article 78 proceedings, including Index No. 202650382, subject to the terms of the existing retainer agreement, Or any such amended retainer as the supervisor and the town board may agree upon. And I think that's referencing the notice to file the notice of appeal on the local laws B and C decision from the court. Keenan Bean, PC, to continue to prosecute and perfect the appeal from the August 14, 2025 decision order and judgment in index number 2025-50908 and to render such further legal services as the town board may authorize by separate resolution. Section 4, expenditure of town funds, the town board hereby authorizes the supervisor and or the town's fiscal officer, which is one and the same. To pay or cause to be paid all invoices for legal services rendered by Hodgson, Russ LLP and Keenan Bean PC in connection with the matters described in sections 1, 2 and 3 of this resolution. subject to the submission and review of detailed invoices in accordance with the town's ordinary bill approved process and applicable statutory requirements. Separability of any section clause or provision of this resolution shall be determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, clauses, and provisions hereof, which shall remain in full force in effect. this resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. And that's resolution number 39. Would somebody like to move resolution number 39? So moved. Thank you, Jacob.

I'll second it.

Thank you, William.

I have numerous comments before we go.

Sure.

So Robert, do you or somebody else want to explain

Yes. I thought we had our attorney with us so she can...

I can explain it if she's not on the line. It's a retroactive ratification of a past resolution. So it's basically fixing something that was done in the past. And so in this case, this is going back to resolutions that were passed in 2025. And it got a little shaky with the engagement of Keenan Bean and Hodgson Russ and what they were authorized to do. So retroactively, this resolution is not only continuing to authorize Robert as the sole point of contact with the attorneys, but it's smoothing out all of everything that those two law firms were engaged to do. So if I was going to consider voting for this at a minimum, I would need to see a second person in addition to Robert, and I would make a motion that I am that person. Of course. That would be added to as a point of contact. What? because it's a very contentious issue, and there's no reason that only one person needs to be the point of contact with the attorneys.

Why are you the best person to be the point of contact with the attorneys? Because Dale doesn't know.

Please, folks, please don't interrupt.

Well, any one of the five of us elected, and it's been, I think, very harmful for the town to have all of this contentious fighting over this issue. So as a point of reasonableness and transparency, as a new voice in there with fresh eyes to look at what's going on, I mean, there's nothing to say that you're not making any decisions, but in terms of bringing to light the issues that are that are in this case within what you can expose publicly in a lawsuit. I think it should be somebody other than Robert or really you or Bill. I think it should be Kenny or I and Robert moving forward.

I agree. I mean, I think we have plenty of opportunity as a whole board to have our attorney-client sessions where we all have the opportunity to work with the attorneys.

Please don't interrupt. I'm not hiding anything. Please don't interrupt. Please don't interrupt. Please don't interrupt.

We all have the same opportunity to meet their attorneys, right? We all have the same, when we go to an attorney-client session, we all have the same opportunity to ask questions, to hear those questions answered. to discuss, as a board, our legal strategy.

In an attorney-client session? Yes. But a lot happens...

So why are we muddying things up? When we lead those sessions, we designate, here's the strategy we want to take, here's what we're directing our attorneys to do, by adding a second person who's been very vocal against the action that this is related to.

Why would you not want to have a balanced opinion while we're defending the town?

Because I don't think you're trying to defend the town.

Well, I will point out that you ran on a platform to undo the eminent domain. So one could make the argument that you're conflicted out. i don't think this is a mechanical process we sit in attorney client the five of us meet with our lawyer and discuss strategy and ultimately it's not the town supervisor's decision it's the board's decision in attorney-client protocol and sometimes we don't agree so in 2026

uh a few months ago and you have to help me with the date i believe it was april we we we are not going to discuss matters that were an attorney no this is this is public information so there was a response to there was a legal response that was issued that the board did not take any action

Okay, I would like to respond to your question. You were not present on December 9th for the attorney-client session. You have no idea what the town board directed me as the town supervisor to do and whether or not it included responding to any and all actions related as this resolution recounts and reaffirms These two gentlemen were here. Did the town supervisor act in the way that you directed and fulfilled the directions that you gave?

As the board as a whole, yes.

Okay, as the board of the five at the time. Please don't interrupt.

Please don't interrupt. Please don't.

Please don't interrupt. Please don't. I'm going to ask you please not to interrupt. Okay, please not to interrupt. Thank you. You will see all these resolutions, regardless of who is town supervisor, all these resolutions throughout the years have the town board directing the town supervisor as the day-to-day person to enact.

That was voted on in December, but this is a new town board, so we can designate one person or more than one person.

I think you have made that motion.

Right.

Well, I made the motion to approve this resolution.