(1) Town Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, folks.

Welcome to the town board, the town of Red Hook, town board meeting Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Would I kindly request that you 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 for all. Thank you. Good evening. And Suzanne, if you would be kind enough to hand over to the big screen so we can show the folks at home what we'll be discussing tonight. We're going to start off with, as we always do for the first meeting of the month, the supervisor's report. That's a financial snapshot at any given moment. The clerk's report as well. Tonight we have a public hearing on a topic that has been the matter of several agendas and meetings and that's the acquisition and disposition of will have a public comment. I might make a slight suggestion tonight that we take public comment after agenda item number one, because that will be a segue right into that agenda item, which is the discussion of potential resolution to authorize the sale of those surplus products. public comment and then resolutions authorizing the sale of surplus items in the highway department we're going to put one item up for auction and we are going to sell we then have a resolution authorizing the town clerk to advertise or request for seal bids for the purchase of ice control abrasives the bond resolution. You'll notice there are blanks in the bond resolution because it's not ready yet for prime time. We're going to continue some discussion on that Aspen Hall Bridge, some good news related to that, and decide whether or not we want to consider some alternative materials. If not, then we can go ahead and fill in and prepare a bond resolution for a subsequent the annual auditor results. And so we have our draft resolution to accept those audits. Number six, we had to do an emergency replacement of the roof in the annex here in the building. And we had to take off the solar panels. We're about to put them back on. And the solar developer basically said, you know, take a look at that. We, if you recall a couple years ago, we got a grant for a drinking water source protection plan too. And so we developed that plan and that plan was finalized by the state. Bill, help me remember, maybe a year or about? A little less. A little less than a year or about? We're now at the point at which we're going to take some next steps, which is the implementation of the plan. So oftentimes you hear us talk about plans and we're taking action related to a plan that was adopted either recently or several years ago. This is that process now where we're taking the second step, which is implementation. We're going to continue discussion. We had a request for a campus expo over at Gregg Farm, and so we got some additional information right away, by the way. We've requested from Upstate Pines. And then Deanna's going to talk to us for a moment near the end of the meeting about voluntary shelter contributions on dog license applications. This is a fairly new thing for American markets as of last year, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. And so that's what we have for tonight's meeting. We've got some correspondence. And with that being said, apologies for being about three or four minutes late on the public hearing. Indiana, would you be kind enough to read the notice for tonight's public hearing? And we'll start with that, and we'll come back for the supervisor's report.

Notice of public hearing regarding disposition of Town of Red Hook Water District No. 1 surplus lots and acquisition under the Town's Community Preservation Fund Program. Please take notice that concurrent public hearings will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Red Hook On August 11th, 2026 at 735 o'clock p.m. local time at the Town Hall 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York. Pursuant to Town Law Section 19812 to hear all interested persons regarding the disposition of vacant properties described below by the Town of Red Hook Water District No. 1. The parcels described below are owned by the Town on behalf of the Town of Red Hook Water District No. 1 Water District. and are proposed to be declared as surplus property unnecessary for the Water District purposes. The proposed terms of sale are to be based on the estimated fair value of the Water District parcels as determined by the Town Board on the basis of an appraisal with receipts to be credited to the Water District. Please take further notice that a concurrent public hearing will be held at such time, date, and place pursuant to Town's Community Preservation Fund program. to hear all interested persons regarding the acquisition of an interest or right in real property to preserve open space pursuant to section 247 of the general municipal law regarding the properties described below. The town proposes to purchase the parcels for purposes of preservation of open space including protection of wetlands. The parcels are collectively approximately 8.55 acres and are identified on applicable tax maps as Aspen Mall Circle, 134889-6273-13-182357, approximate acreage per tax map 3.2, assessed value $60,100. 47 Albee Road, 134889-6273-13-186379, 2 acres, $57,700. Aspen Mall Road, 134-889-6273, 13-188-303, 1.80 acres, approximate $60,100. 12 Chestnut Street, 134-889-6273, 13-214-377, .63 acres, $34,800. Aspen Mall Road, 134-889-6273, 13-156-333, 9.92 acres, $39,500. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard in person or by directing comments and writing to the town board, 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York. All reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. In such a case, please notify the town clerk in advance so that arrangements can be made. Please take further notice that copies of materials connected with this proposal are available for review at the office of the town clerk the Red Hook Town Hall 74 340 South Broadway Red Hook New York by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook dated June 24th 2026 Deanna Cochran town clerk town of Red Hook Thank You Deanna many of you I think have been here at previous meetings so you know the area that we're

We're talking about the area off of Aspen Wall and Albee Road to help orient you. I will let you know that when you come in Park West over here on Linden, you have those stone dust paths. The exit comes out around here and then you make your way to the Blue Trail over here if that's the way you wanna come to the Winnikee Trails. These parcels that we're discussing tonight are one, two, three, four, five. What's new since we last met on this topic is we thought on this parcel here that there was a right of first refusal that existed to the adjoining parcel owner. It turns out when we got title work back that actually that right did not extend to them. It was a right that did not run with the land. It was to the owners at the time. And they are no longer the owner of that property. And so there won't be a conveyance, which seems to be fine with this adjoining landowner. They get a little strip here that they've been maintaining, which they still get to maintain, because that did, that easement did run with the land. So that's an uptick. And who would like to speak on this topic? I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Christina. All in favor, William? Aye. Jacob? Aye. And Self? Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Christina. Who would like to speak on this? Would anybody like to speak on this matter?

My name is Al Trezza, 77 West Curly Corners Road, New York.

Robert, the land is already in the name of the town of Red Oak. There is actually no legal justification for you to now offer for sale and buy it back.

This is simply an opportunity for you to misuse community preservation funds to benefit the water district. And it's totally wrong. The Water District does not own this property. The legal title is a name of the record. You want to preserve a floating space? Don't do anything with it. You've already done it. There's no rationale for this at all. And I'd like to have your attorney present so we can question him or her as to what the legal justification is. I'd like to have them present here with us tonight, not coming in by Zoom. So I'd like to really know And like the public to know, this is mere subterfuge to bail out the water district. It's wrong. And you should not be doing this. And if the rest of you agree with him, you're also wrong. And I'm looking at you, Jacob, and you, William. You already own the property. Do you really believe that it's legal or proper to do this? It's like you selling your house to yourself, William. That's ridiculous. And you know that. And you shouldn't be doing it. Thank you. Thank you, Albert.

Would anybody else like to speak on the topic? My name is Jeremy Cohen. I live in Linden Acres. I've spoken at prior meetings supporting the preservation of this space.

The land is integral to the character of the community. Linden Acres, if these were to be developed, would

I understand that the gentleman has questions about the legality. I've heard at hard meetings the concept of a trustee and distinct ownership. As long as the town is comfortable and the lawyers are comfortable with that, I'm strongly in favor of preserving the space and urge you all to do so. Thank you, Chair.

Anybody else like to speak on this matter? Okay, I know that we've had previous meetings and folks especially immediately surrounding the area have had an opportunity to speak up. Many of them in favor of preserving the parcels. I did have a chance to meet with many of the adjoining landowners and I saw some of you out on the road there. And so it seems like there's quite a bit of support within Linden Acres to go ahead and preserve these parcels. I would like to say that this is very consistent with some of the more recent projects we've done, partnering with Winnikee Land Trust to protect the lands adjoining the Salt Hill for the preservation of the wildlife. And I just want to read off chapter Community Preservation. Acceptable uses includes the following. A, preservation of open space. recreational areas. I think I read this at a previous meeting. C is agricultural. D is scenic. E is preservation of freshwater and saltwater marshes and other wetlands. F is preservation of aquifer recharge areas. G is undeveloped beach lands or shoreline. H is wildlife threatened or endangered species i is preservation of unique or threatened ecological areas k is preservation of forested lands l is preservation of public access to lands for public use including stream rights and waterways m is historic places and n is undertaking any of the purposes of this subdivision in furtherance of the established are the uses that are detailed in the Code of Community Preservation. I appreciate the thoughts. The question has already been answered by our attorney at a previous meeting as it relates and in fact is referenced in the Community Preservation Fund Advisory Committee recommendation report that in fact the the town acquired the streetlights. Some of the streetlights belong to the town. Some of the streetlights belong to the lighting district, which is a separate entity, like a sewer district or a water district. It's all owned in the name of the town on behalf of either the lighting district or the water district, sewer district, or in this case, on behalf of

Robert, that's not true. You own the property. You don't own it on behalf of anyone. There is nothing in the deed that says you own it on behalf of the Water District. You own the property now. You're right.

You read what the community preservation funds can be used for. I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm disagreeing with is you already own it. You already own it. You don't own it on behalf of the Water District.

The Water District is simply a district created within the township. If they owned the property, it would be a different story, but it was never done that way. I was the attorney at the time of the transfer. The town owns the property. You cannot spend this money to buy property from yourself. You cannot use that subterfuge.

It's wrong.

And I want to tell you something else. permissive referendum with the spending of the town money?

Do you have more comments? I can't hear that. Do you have more comments?

I want to know if it's subject to a permissive referendum, Robert. Robert, is it subject to a permissive referendum, yes or no? You're not going to answer the question, Robert? First call tomorrow is going to be to our attorney. Thank you, Robert. Answer the question, please. Yes or no?

Thank you. We'll make a determination if it's subject to permissive referendum. I can't hear you, Robert. Speak up. We'll look at the resolution. When we get to the resolution, we'll discuss that. Do you have more comments for the public hearing? Robert, answer the question. Thank you. Robert, answer the question, please. All right, shall we include in our review, we took a look at the secret documents 1, 2, and 3. Does anybody have any questions about those in re-reviewing them? We have added to that. We have the community preservation funds advice on it. There was the question of ownership raised by one of the members. There was the clarification for the public's benefit. Before we have this conversation, should we close the public hearing? No, we don't have to close the public hearing.

We don't?

If you'd like to make that motion, go ahead.

Okay, I move to close the public hearing. Nobody else is speaking. I think we should leave it open.

Is there a...

I mean, we can close it when we're done discussing it, but, I mean... Is there a second on closing the public hearing?

Okay. We'll leave it open. All right. So we also received the memo from the CPF Advisory Board. They spoke about who was in attendance. I think they mentioned I was in attendance, but I really wasn't. I was in my office working. They did come in and have a question or two.

That's not what I heard. You went in and convinced most of the people in that board to vote for this.

Sorry, I was asked a question about ownership. I gave my best answer and I went back to my office. That's not what I heard. Well, I'd be happy to have somebody come forward and say otherwise. So the question of ownership came up. The committee confirmed with Chris Schall, Esquire, When that happened, the town attorney, based on town's record, the parcels proposed for acquisition were formerly owned by the Annandale Water Works Corporation. It's a transportation corporation. For folks at home, if you don't know how it works in New York State, when a developer comes in, they need to provide their own water and sewer for a development. They set up a transportation corporation. I'm sure somebody can correct me if I get any details wrong. They have to own it for at least five years, and then when they abandon it, it becomes an obligation. of the municipality, so know that that's something that could be coming down the pipe with any developments like that. It was transferred, the assets were conveyed to the town for the benefit of, it says if, but I think they meant to say of, the town water district number one. Michelle also explained that because a town water district is not a corporate entity, The town holds property on its behalf and must account for the proceeds of disposition to the water district. Just like we must account for, certainly when we're creating the sewer district, we must account for all the funds related to the sewer and the lighting district, we must account for all the expenses associated with the lighting district and make sure that only those users benefit users called special benefit assessment districts get charged for those expenses. The question came up about the expense and wanted to know what the balance is. The balance right now in the Community Preservation Fund is approximately 3.7 million dollars.

So this is going to be I would say 8%

Yeah, well, we have it. The resolution you'll see is for 222 for acquisition plus expenses.

How did we get to those numbers?

Well, you saw the appraisals, and the appraisals came out to 222.

And so... Can you show, can you bring up the appraisals?

I don't have it up on the screen, but I did print out some markup days again. Maybe that'll come out. So we have the appraisals broken up. There were two separate appraisals. As you know, we were initially looking at appraising the four parcels because we didn't think that we were going to look at the fifth parcel. We were going to sell that to the landowner because they had expressed interest in exercising their right, which is not Something that is the case now.

Well, what jumps out at me is that the one, if you go to the packet, the sheet that shows the wetlands.

The wetlands, sure. We have this one.

Right, so the parcel that's not a wetland parcel. This one here? Yeah. So what is the appraised value of that parcel? $122,000. And I think just read the other four. What's the appraised value of the other four?

$100,000.

Sorry?

$100,000. The five parcels total $222,000. It doesn't seem like a lot for five parcels of land already subdivided. And I think I explained the Board of Health tries to work with property owners when they have already subdivided parcels to, you know, in many cases, you would know this, I'm sure, if there's going to be, in your profession, in many cases, you have to do an above-ground septic or something if you have to stay away from environmental constraints, but they try to work with property owners who have existing plots of record. So 222 doesn't seem like a lot of money to protect this region, and again... Did we get one appraisal or two? We got two appraisals. Because we initially thought we were doing just the four parcels, and then we had to get the fifth one appraised.

If you want to protect them, Robert, why doesn't the town board give them a Winneke Land Trust and conservation easement for nothing? And it's protected.

Answer the question.

Folks, I think we've explained this. I understand you may not be satisfied with the answer, but it's been explained by our attorneys and it's been explained ad nauseam. We have a fiduciary, just like we do to the lighting district. We have, to replace the lights, we have a fiduciary to the water district if we own something on their behalf to ensure that We are being fair to them as well as to the community preservation. It's been explained. Albert, I'm going to ask you to please. Albert, I'm going to please ask you to not interrupt. Okay, we're going to make it through here. We can just agree to disagree on this one, okay? Our attorneys have already explained it. There are many instances when a town owns something on behalf of a special benefit assessment district. You know this. You were a former town attorney. Okay.

I just have a couple questions. So the reason I was confused is because in the packet, it's emphasizing the assessed value, like the tax assessed value.

You list the parcel, you list the parcel number, you list the assessed valuation. Stop interrupting her, Robert. Let her finish. I'm answering her question, Albert. Yes. So you list the assessed value.

Correct. So this was circulated a while ago in June. Yeah. Where's the second assessment? Sorry, appraisal?

Don't you have it there? Those are both from... Those are two separate... From the same company?

How does that work?

I don't get it. realized we didn't have to offer the right to the adjoining landowner, we then asked them to also appraise the fifth person.

But where's the second appraisal?

We don't get two sets of appraisals.

Oh, that was what I asked.

No. No, we don't.

We get one appraisal?

Yeah, we don't often get two sets of appraisals. Are you asking from other appraisers?

No, I mean, we've had other issues. There's been other issues that have come up. I thought we got two appraisals.

No, we don't always in a small thing like this. It's hard to get two appraisals these days, by the way. We wait months for that. What do you mean, we don't always? We don't always get two appraisals. Do we sometimes? I'm trying to remember. No, I don't think so. I think we, I don't think so. I don't recall an instance where we've had two different appraisers. I mean, if you're not satisfied with the work, then sometimes you do get a second appointment. So does the man matter to a physician?

Well, no, I appreciate that the lot that is buildable was appraised for a higher value than the other lots. And I was confused because as I'm looking through the packet, which is what the public is seeing, we're looking at the assessed values and they're all kind of about the same. So that was confusing to me looking at this. And I think that it's important to say that the reason that we're doing this is because the water district has been charging lower rates for too long. And so this is to essentially bail out the close to 500 families that live in that district. And we've heard from people in multiple meetings, and there's been support for this. I'm not against it, but I think that it needs to be clearly stated what the goals are and why we're doing this.

I can't speak for others on the board, but I couldn't disagree with you more. There's no bailout here. First of all, the dollar amount be all that meaningful to the water rates that are necessary to pay for this capital upgrade?

This is something that... Well, that was the second question that I was going to ask, actually, was that if we're going to do this, then is this going to be enough money to cover what the water district needs to get back on top of its costs?

Okay. So, if I could finish. We had... The water board chairman come in here several months ago and explained that he has been for years saying that these are surplus properties. They don't need them. They would like to dispose of them. For years he's been saying that. There was no real reason to do it at any particular time. It seemed like when there was an upgrade that this would be a good time to do it. It's that simple. It's not a bailout. We've heard very hyperbolic comments. Over here we've heard scaring people into having two houses or something on properties. This is a suburban subdivision. There's nothing scary about two more houses where 100 already exist. And this is not a bailout. This is this district, like the lighting district, owns. it the town on their behalf it's a similar thing they have made a decision that this would be the right time to dispose of these parcels it will pay for 200 and that maybe two hundred and ten thousand dollars water district number one so whether it's in or out it's not going to make a significant difference but we have an opportunity still as it turns out because until next week, so we have an opportunity to apply these funds if we know that they're coming, since they've started the project already, if we so choose to move forward, and I can't for the life of me understand why we wouldn't move forward, There you have it. There is no bailout. The water district and the water district grades will be just fine in the ensuing years with or without this.

So now I'm even more confused though because can you explain why we would spend 8% of our CPF funds on this land, because what I heard from every person almost that came up and spoke about this was that the people that live in this neighborhood, they don't want this land developed. So the motivation was to say that we don't want this land sold. We don't want more density in our neighborhood. And we heard from a whole bunch of people that lived in the surrounding area. I mean, that's what I heard, but it was almost confusion over what the issue was, right?

So the land... Never confusion with me. It might have been confusion with you. It was an opportunity to create a green space, a pocket green space.

Robert, I'm an intelligent person. If I'm confused, other people are confused. So I think that it's important to just say what we're doing and why.

I think you've reiterated, we've all reiterated, it's an opportunity to create a pocket green space in the middle of Linden Acres where There is biodiversity, and there's wetlands to protect, and it's very consistent with a lot of the work that we've been doing. Let me just finish, because you mentioned 8%. I'm not quite sure why that's significant. But $222,000, I think, in the last two months that we've had collections, we've collected about $220,000 in the CPF fund. So if it's two months' worth of collections, or thereabouts seems to me like a worthwhile cause. Once the CPF funds are used, then they can't be, the lands cannot be disposed of and developed for residential use. And that's what, you know, the folks we've heard from tonight, but also in the previous meetings where we had more people here, so.

All right, so to be clear, so the land is currently owned by the town on behalf of the water district.

Where does it say it in the deed? It doesn't have to.

Do you have children? Do you ever open a savings account for your kid? No, this is what it is. If you open a savings account for your child, the bank is not going to let a minor open their own account. So you act as a trustee. But you have a fiduciary responsibility to manage that account on behalf of your child. This is the same thing.

Yeah, but what are you saying that it could be built on? That could never happen unless this board agrees on it. Okay? The deed is in the town's name.

Well, just to clarify.

So the town, this board right now could put a concept, we could talk to Santa Claus and the EOC and put a conservation easement on that without buying it. I think it's a poor use of funds.

No, that's fine. We have a fiduciary. Look, you may not be used to having a fiduciary to two separate entities, but we have it in this situation. We have it with the water district that we're about to create. We've had it with the sewer district that we created two years ago. We've had it with the lighting district, which was created, I don't know how many years ago, but many years ago before me. We have a fiduciary to both. So when we purchase the street lights, and you're gonna see in the budget just how much money we've saved, both town taxpayers and people in the lighting district because we transferred them all to LEDs and we own them and don't rent them from Central Hudson. We own them on behalf of the lighting district We must account for those money separately. They do not belong to us. Just because they're in our name doesn't mean that we don't have the fiduciary to the water district, okay? I think we've batted this around long enough, right? We can just agree to disagree, right? And if you don't want to expend the funds to permanently protect, and by the way, You can't just go to Winnikee and say, we want to put on this because it's going to require the input of the water district in order to do so. And I don't think they're going to be very happy that they have an asset that has some value that you want to remove all the value because you would prefer that.

Wait, what? Well, I'm going to address that. Hank Van Parlous, who runs the Water Department and the Water Board, have repeatedly come to the town and said that these parcels, since they discontinued the wells, they viewed them as an asset of the Water Department to be considered for disposition at some future date. They've been very clear about that in these meetings, at their meetings that I've been present for because I'm the liaison, and they view it as an asset, as an opportunity, and now they felt this was the right time to dispose of the asset. Now, this is the question I had for Al. You had said it's a bailout, and so did you down there. If the Water Department, if Lee is a town, put them up for sale on the open market, would you still consider that a bailout?

Absolutely not. Put it on the open market. You're using community preservation funds. No, no, I'm talking about the issue of a bailout.

The issue of a bailout is trying to save a financially struggling organization.

Here's my answer to you.

If you put it off for sale to the open market, which I think you should if you want to get rid of it, that's the proper way to do it, the money will go into the town's general fund, not into the water district fund. It is not owned by the water district, and you are not a fiduciary responsibility. You own it. You are responsible for it. And in the lighting district, you set the rates. The problem here is the water department, our water district, has been not properly managed on setting the rates and setting forth what's going to happen in the future.

That's what's got me upset.

These people need to pay for their district. Just like the lighting district pays for its district, the sewer district is going to pay for its district. Everybody pays. Look what happened in the village of Red Hawk. Started out at $7.50 a year, and now they've doubled. Because the sewer district needs the money. And that is the reason I'm objecting to this. You own the property. Put it up for sale. Put it in a general fund. Save the taxpayers some money. The rest of the taxpayers are in town, including those in the water district. Thank you. Now, that is why I'm objecting to this. Fair. Fair enough?

Thank you.

Thank you. And again, it's our attorney's view that it's not possible to put it in the general fund.

Okay. Wait. So, Bill. Yeah. So I think it just needs to be clear what we're doing. And I know you've spent a lot of time with the water board. And we just approved recently the rehab for the tank. And we talked about that the rates are too low. We raised the rates. Correct.

I think this situation is a little unusual in that it's a confluence of two different issues. It's a confluence of the issue of the water department has an asset that it has viewed as money in the bank for some time and has made the decision that it believes this is the time to liquidate. But it's also a confluence because this is an environmentally sensitive area. It's primarily wetlands. And I'll talk later about water source protection and about that report because the State Department of Health and DEC are very concerned about protecting our water. And to the extent that you are able to accomplish two things at once, that's why I think it's unusual. I have to take the advice of our lawyers on whether it's legal or not, because I'm not a lawyer. And I have done some research on the issue of being a fiduciary and trustees. There's a disagreement just because it says in the deed that it's the town. My understanding is it was always set up that we act as their fiduciary. And since I have a fiduciary responsibility to the water department and it's their asset, I know Al disagrees, but I see this as a twofer actually.

I could agree with you on the four properties that are potentially wetlands because I could One could make the argument that they're not really going to sell in the open market because they're not buildable. And hearing the people that spoke at prior meetings saying, we don't want density in this area, we value this open space, that makes sense to me. But the lot that is valued at, what was it, Robert? 100? 120. 120. Why not sell that on the open market? Why not let a family buy that and build a home there? I don't believe that it's going to devalue the neighborhood if you put one more house on the one buildable lot that is left. So that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm trying to think where that... The old aerial... Aerial lens.

Where is it written that we have a fiduciary? Is it written somewhere?

Yes, you can look up. It's not on the deed. Is it stated somewhere? You can look up special benefit assessment districts.

Can you talk into the mic, Robert?

Sorry. You can look up special benefit assessment districts, and there's whole laws regarding that and our role with them.

Well, why wasn't that presented to this board? and to the people. Kenny, we've explained this. The attorney was here to explain this before. No, he explained it, but let's see it in writing. Let's see the document that shows that.

No, I agree. It's very confusing. I was so confused today looking at the packet, because I'm looking at it going, all the parcels are valued the same, and we didn't include the appraisal. I think it's very important that we tell the whole story completely. Bill, I appreciate what you're saying, that it's an asset to the water district. That makes sense. And if that's true, then buying land that's unbuildable could be a benefit to that district. But the buildable lot, that would sell for more than $120. Potentially so so why are we buying that?

You're making these Declaratory statements that are not helpful Christina. That's not buildable. There are four lots there. We had our engineer again to help Satisfy questions or concerns you have we had our engineer look at these lots and what did she say I? that she felt very comfortable saying two houses could be constructed, right? She did, yes. Okay, she has experience in that. And we know the Department of Health likes to work with none of us have the crystal ball, likes to work with each independent lot of record so that they can help the landowners understand how they can build a house. Sometimes it's one of those above ground septics, raised bed septics that are expensive, so that does devalue the parcel, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't build on those parcels. These are federal wetlands and I think we all know that they lack the protections that they did once upon a time. Again, we go back to where we are. I'd like to be able to get through the seeker.

I think we've all sort of... I need help connecting the logic because if this is an asset to the water board... Water district. If this is an asset to the water district then we want to get the most out of that asset that we can given the feedback from the public which is don't build on this land, don't create more density, we value the open space. Well, that one lot,

You have an opinion that it might be worth more than $122,000. I don't know necessarily that I would agree with you, but I'm not an expert either. It has an easement on it, right? So the adjoining landowner can continue to use a portion of that.

Is that in the packet?

Yes, that's been explained. We went over all of that previously.

And Christine, if it didn't have that easement, I'd be in agreement with you. But I think that's a complication that is...

But the easement would go to the town, right? If the town bought it, then the easement would belong to the town? No?

Carrie, please, no. What?

What do you mean, please? You're treating me like you're treating Christine, like it's not important what we're asking.

It's an easement to maintain a portion of that parcel that does not go to the town. I explained earlier and I realized that you came in late. Can you show us the language? I explained earlier and I realized you came in late.

I explained earlier that the easement... Roxanne's been here the whole time and she doesn't understand that either, so I don't think I missed anything.

I'll see if I can get an aerial up and I can explain to you that there is an easement, as I have in previous meetings, where the adjoining landowner can maintain a portion of that property. I don't know that I would put an aerial here. But I can give you my best iterations. Over here, there's a triangle that exists. If you look at my cursor,

Robert, I'm going to need to see the language of the easement or the means of balance of the easement.

The title report was shared. The title report was shared and it is the, not a means, the federal report was shared and it's maintained. I can show you on parcel access. This adjoining landowner is maintaining a triangle here that runs with the land. The right of first refusal that I explained earlier, the title company report, it does not exist.

So hold on, let's just zoom out for a second. So what are we trying to accomplish tonight?

Tonight we're going to entertain a resolution to dispose of and to acquire these parcels. We're now on month I don't know what with this. And if we'd like to apply it towards the principal, we can figure it out now that we've delayed.

So essentially we're having a closing on these parcels?

Not tonight. We are entertaining the approval, but we need to get through a couple of steps.

I need to understand. What are the next steps after this? Is it going to come back before us, or are we making a decision tonight whether we're going to buy?

We need to just finish this. Any questions on the seeker? Any questions about the referral?

I don't understand. Christina, did you read the resolution?

I did, but you know what, I think that a lot of people are confused and so what would be helpful is for us to summarize like just in plain language what we're doing.

The parcels are surplus. We're looking to acquire them under the CPF to preserve them as open space. I think that's it.

Is there more?

Yeah, because, like, if this is, so my question was, I mean, this is a reasonable question. Like, if we're buying these parcels, this is our real estate closing on these, our decision tonight is the last part of acquiring these parcels. And we don't even have the language of the easement, like.

You've been sharing the title report.

Yeah.

The S ball.

Where is it?

You've been sharing.

Pull it up.

You've been shared the title report, which describes it. If you look in the appraisal, you can also see the mode area. It has an area. It's about the length that I described.

Well, maybe it'll be helpful to understand what the basis of the easement is. Kenny knows this because he used to drive, there was a driveway that went diagonally up to the property.

You don't buy a property without looking at the language of the easement.

I'm going to give you the plain language of the easement. The adjoining landowner has the right to continue to maintain this triangle here. He can even put up fencing.

You moving your mouse on the page is not like we're going to close on this land. Okay.

Jeremy, is there more you would like to contribute, please?

Yes, because I understand Christina's question.

Can you talk into the mic?

Sure.

Thanks.

I understand Christina's question. I also understand that there's a fair bit of rancor both within the town as well as within the board about other issues that have made it perhaps more difficult for everybody to communicate clearly and to believe that everybody is coming from the best of intentions. I think that everybody in this room loves this town. Everybody, including Robert, including William, including Ken, including Jacob, including Christina. Christina, I understand your question to be if there's a potential buildable lot, Why sell to the Community Preservation Fund if the land is owned in trust for the Water District? What I would like to say is that I assume the appraisal has taken into account the easement as well as all other relevant considerations within the context of the land in determining the appraised value of that land. As such, if you're looking to maximize the proceeds from the perspective of the Water District as you're acting as trustee for, I think it's perfectly appropriate then to rely on that appraisal. And the concern, the question that you were raising, I think is answered by that. And I understand the reason why you might have been frustrated by the response of some of the members of the board there. But I think that everybody is working towards the same thing there. And I think that's how you square those two circles. in conjunction with what Bill was saying in terms of being able to effectively kill two birds with one stone, which is maximizing proceeds for the water district as well as maintaining and preserving land in furtherance of the purpose of the fund. Thank you, Joe.

Okay. Folks, I want to get to the secret part of it. We've had the only new additions has really been the update. as it relates to the ROFR and the CPF advisory. We reviewed in previous meetings part one. We did a review of part two as well. Are there any questions that you have? Obviously the impacts are no or small. There's not a development proposal. This is simple form.

I was going to ask on the part three. I don't know if we're getting to that yet. It's marked as the potentially largest significant adverse impact.

Yeah, that was the wrong box is checked. I think we corrected that on a previous thing, but we should make sure that this one is corrected.

Yeah, it's the wrong part.

Yeah, so we corrected that in the last one. Let's make sure this looks like it didn't have the May 6 date. That correction never got in the box.

The other thing that's not correct is this application. It says all the parcels are federal wetlands.

Right. And that was the other edit was that since we increased the application to be a fifth parcel, it says federal wetlands run through each parcel. We should clarify that to say run through the four parcels.

Maybe you could bring your mic closer to your mouth. Because I know you're just talking to each other, but we'd like to hear. I'm sorry. It's really hard to hear you out.

Sorry. Just make sure the application clearly states that now that there's a fifth parcel, the federal regulations run through four of the parcels as mapped. as CMAP's provided. Description of property, former well site. The town wishes to purchase the parcels for water resource protection. No current or future plans. It'll be entrusted if this were to be voted upon tonight and then closed off by CPF funds and could not be sold for development in the future. And there will be a pocket green space in the middle of Linden Acres. So for part three of the description, wait, let's just see if we can get through part three, please. Christine, if you have questions related to that. For each of the 11 impact assessment questions.

Maybe if you put the microphone closer to your mouth, it would help us.

Are you having a hard time hearing me?

I am.

For each of the 11, and I'll get to that so you can read it while I... There we go. In case you can't hear me, this is what I'm reading from for each of the 11 impact assessment questions. In part two, all answers were no impacts. The action is the addition of five undeveloped parcels of land, forming a collection of parcels that as a group are contiguous with Red Hooks Recreation Park West. and the Winnikee Land Trust Inc.'s Salt Kale Trails Preserve. No development is proposed on the parcels since the parcels about lands used for passive recreation activities like trail walking and bicycling. Connections with existing trails may occur in the future. The parcels contain extensive wetland and floodplain areas, according to Hudsonia, which surveyed the adjoining Winnikee lands. The area's wetlands generally are important for amphibian breeding and support several bird and reptile species of greatest conservation need. No trail development activities will occur without further environmental assessment and, if needed, obtaining permits from appropriate state and federal agencies. According to State Parks and Rec and Historic Preservation CRIS database, no prehistoric historic cultural resources are associated with the five parcels nor with any of the lands that adjoin the parcels. Web mapping databases of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation were queried to determine if any state records exist related to the five parcels including the Hudson Valley Natural Resource Mapper and the DEC Info Locator. None were identified. The parcels have significance to water quality because two tributaries of the Soquel flow through four of the five parcels. The Sauk Hill is a source of drinking water to approximately 2,800 persons down the stream. Prime farmland soils exist in some areas, riparian buffers follow the outlines of the two tributaries, and contiguous habitats exist linking the parcels with the town parkland and the Winnikee Land Trust preserved parcels. Finally, no adverse impacts on the water district are expected because the parcels are no longer used for the district wells and may not be a suitable location for new wells under current regulations. And the box is checked for if you have determined based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts the mappers included as part three for the med deck. Any questions about the narrative there? I think that clarifies some of the questions about four out of five parcels. Bill? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm just saying that the application at least admitted. Right.

Can you talk into your mic? It's just I'm having the hardest time hearing people.

Okay.

No, I'm talking about Bill. I don't know what you just said.

Yeah. I don't know if the volume is low. Bill, if you want to grab that.

If you just move them closer.

What I said is in the application for the CPF, it states incorrectly that wetlands run through all five parcels, and I said we have to correct that.

Okay, so we'll clarify federal wetlands, as it's described in the seeker, run through the four parcels as mapped. Now that we are looking at five parcels. Okay, that change is made as well. We have reviewed the CPF Advisory Committee's recommendation. The majority spoke in favor of the purchase. I think I've read the long list of acceptable uses of the funds. Many of the categories are relevant Can we use CPF funds for adjoining Winnikee Land Trust lands? I think, Kenny, we used some CPF funds to acquire properties owned by your uncle there in the Winnikee Land Trust for state quarter preservation on the south hill there. All right. Is there anything? We still have a public hearing open.

On the... Close it stands.

Close it stands. All right. Do you want to deal with a vote on the NEGDEC, shall we? I don't think we have a resolution. We do. Well, the NEGDEC itself is a resolution, yeah.

So I have a question. Sure. So I'm reading from the meeting, the CPF meeting. Yeah. And it states that... Parcels proposed.

Hey, Kenny, can you bring your mic closer?

Parcel.

Anyway. were formerly owned by Annandale Water Works Corporation, a transportation corporation, and were conveyed to the town for the benefit, if I think that's a typo, of the water district. So how were they conveyed? I mean, how do you convey it from the Annandale Water Works Corporation to the town water district, and now the town holds them on behalf of the water district? So what I'm asking for is where I would like to see the document that shows these, how they were conveyed.

I think that those documents exist in the clerk's office, I think in 1903 or so, going off of our collection.

So I just want to see the legal document. I think that should have been brought up months ago so we could see the connection between the town and the water district.

Okay, I think it's been explained.

I know it's been explained, and I see it in writing, where it's in the document of the, you said it's somewhere in the town, and it says, Chris said it, so why can't we see it?

I think we've talked about it for months. Kenny, if you wanted to see that document, I think it's appropriate that maybe you had asked for it months ago. We've explained that it is owned by the town, right? It's not a dispute on behalf of the water treatment. I feel like we're just wasting a lot of time.

Robert, I'll tell you this. I'm in support of the NEGDAG on the secret. Okay. So let's see if we can get that accomplished. But what is the... What is the time on here?

The time is if we'd like to apply it to the rehab project, we should vote on it.

Exactly. So this money is needed for the rehab project, which is why I said it's a bailout.

It is not a bailout.

And it's not needed. It just lowers the debt for everybody else.

It's really not appropriate. I mean, you know, get your sensational headline that you want to get your, you know, if that's what you'd like. Can you answer the question? I'd like to continue to move forward with the work of the town. You can vote. You can vote.

Robert, I will tell you that I am lightly in support of the purchase if we have all the information and if I can understand all of, all the information which I currently don't. So I can't, I will support the NEC Act but I can't vote on this tonight because I don't have information on the easement. I mean, Kenny made a good point.

You've been sent the information on the easement.

Well, I mean, we're not, the public doesn't know. Why isn't it not in the lab? So we're sitting here, then let's go through it.

We're not going to go through a 60-some odd page document.

The easement?

We're not going to. It's a full title report. The language of the easement is within the large document. We've explained it to you. We've done this in previous meetings. We showed you exactly where the easement was. We showed you the area. I feel like we're just reiterating the same thing.

No, I mean, we did talk about the easement, but I haven't seen any language.

Yes, you were sent the title report, which includes the language of the easement.

Then let's just look at it.

What would it change for? Yeah.

Well, I'd like to see, besides Robert moving his mouse on the screen, I don't know where the actual easement is. I mean, Kenny said he knows from living in the area that there used to be a driveway there. We talked about that at a few meetings. But I would like to see the boundaries of the property and understand how much of it is an easement. and how much of it is buildable, because it affects the value of the land. Just like we're looking at a wetlands map. If we're just talking that, OK, there's wetlands, and we don't know where the wetlands are, we didn't, I mean, the whole thing is very loose to me. We didn't get the wetlands flagged. We don't have two appraisals. And can anybody back me up that we just talked about another property that we were getting two appraisals for? Bill? Jacob, Ken, I mean, did we not talk about this recently?

I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about. I really don't know what you're talking about. Do you know what it is? Do you have something in mind that you're trying to talk about but you're not talking about?

Yes. I mean, I can't say things that we talked about in the executive session, but there were other properties that we talked about getting two appraisals for. Okay. I mean, am I crazy?

I just think you're mistaken. I don't think you're crazy. Here's the aerial, okay? The easement language in plain terms allows them to continue to mow and maintain that area.

Robert, that's parcel access. That's not easement language.

That is the language in the easement. You can actually see it on parcel access. You can see it on parcel access. Or if it's green.

Come on.

You would never... And I guess I don't understand what...

This is the way it was written. We would not write it this way. This is the way it was written. Years ago, it was written between the developer and the adjoining landowner. We would maybe have meets and bounds, but that's not the way it was written. Okay?

And so... Truthfully, I am not trying to be difficult. I do not think that we have... You would never... You would never sign all the closing papers for this property if you don't have this information in front of you.

I have the information.

To say that you sent it in an email and it was circulated, no. You've got to...

It's unclear. Let's see what steps we can take. proposal has drafted, has modified with the change there. Who would like to make a motion to approve the NEGDEC on the acquisition?

I will make a motion to approve the NEGDEC on the Seeker. Okay.

Who would like to second?

I'll second.

Okay. Is there further discussion on the NEGDEC? Okay. All in favor? Kenney? Aye. William? Aye. So, hi. Jacob. Hi. Hi. Christina. Hi.

Okay.

So we've got an egg deck. We've got a referral. We've discussed a couple of things that not everybody is happy with the explanation. That's the way the world works. Not everybody is happy with explanations. We've, I think, spent a lot of time on this. We've spent many months on this issue. We've discussed these parcels ad nauseum. We've discussed the purpose of these parcels, that it was a two birds with one stone type of a situation. And here we are. And if you're in favor of the project, it would be nice to know so that we can go ahead and entertain. resolution which we have drafted it's now 845 we have a lot of business in front of the board yes sir would you like to make that motion I'll just continue the motion they made previously to close the public I'll second your motion thank you further discussion about All in favor? Kenney?

Aye.

William? Aye. Myself? Aye. Jacob? Aye. Kristina? Aye. All right, so the resolution is for the town's potential acquisition, it's authorizing the disposition of the water district number one surplus lots and acquisition, so it's a two-four in the resolution, Under the town's community preservation program, I'm going to read the resolution. Whereas the town of Red Hook, on behalf of the town of the Water District, owns parcels located in Red Hook, identified on applicable tax maps that's been read to you before, collectively totaling approximately eight and a half acres. Whereas the surplus Water District parcels are vacant parcels, which the water district's water board has determined are unneeded for purposes of the water district. Whereas the proposed terms of sale are based upon the estimated fair value of the surplus water district parcels and the estimated fair value is 222,000. The public hearing was duly held by the town board on the 11th day of August at 7.35 at Town Hall. in accordance with town law and discussion on the matter having been had and all persons desiring to be heard having been heard, including those in favor of and those in opposition regarding the disposition. Whereas pursuant to chapter 57 of the town code, the town board has established a community preservation fund. the project plan and the board has referred the application to the advisory committee, duly appointed by the board, for review of such application and rating according to the program criteria established under the plan, taking into account the importance of the resource and the anticipated availability of funding by others and availability of funding under the town's community preservation fund program. Whereas the town has recognized in its plan adopted pursuant to chapter 57 that the open space is vital to the future social, economic, and environmental health of the town. And whereas pursuant to the town's CPF program, the town is proposing to purchase the surplus water district parcels for the purpose of preserving open space including wetland areas. And whereas the surplus for preservation based on ecologically significant areas and significant biodiversity areas. Whereas in concurrent public hearing was duly held by the town board on the 11th day of August 2026 at 735 prevailing time at the town hall in the town in accordance with section 57.5 of the town code and section 247 of the GML. discussion on the matter having been had and all persons desiring to be heard having been heard including those in favor of and those in opposition regarding the acquisition of an interest or right in real property to preserve open space with respect to the surplus water district parcels including use of monies from the cpf fund and whereas the community preservation funding advisory committee has reviewed the proposed acquisition of the surplus parcels based on the priority ranking set forth in the CPF plan, and provided its findings dated July 22nd. Sufficient monies are available in the fund, whereas on May 27th, the town board adopted a negative declaration under secret, determining that the proposed disposition of the surplus parcels and the acquisition from the community preservation fund will not have a significant adverse effect. Therefore, it be resolved, the town board, by the favorable vote of not less than the majority finds that the surplus water district parcels are unneeded for the purposes of the water district and that the disposition of the surplus water district parcels on the proposed terms of sale is in the best interest of the town. The town board finds that the acquisition of the water district parcels is consistent with the town's community preservation fund project plan and will preserve open space including wetland areas on the water district parcels and that acquisition is the best alternative for the protection of community character of all the reasonable alternatives available to the town. The town board approves the disposition of the surplus water district parcels for purchase of price of $222,000 and the expenditure of community preservation fund monies in an amount not to exceed $240,000 for the acquisition of the water district parcels and related costs for this. The supervisor or, in his absence, the deputy is hereby authorized and directed to execute such deeds and conveyance instruments as are consistent with this resolution. The officers, employees, and agents of the town are hereby authorized and directed for the name and behalf of the town to do all acts and things as may be necessary for, in the opinion of the officer, employee, or agent acting desirable and proper to effect purposes of the foregoing resolution. So that's the resolution. We have spent many meetings on this. I realize that not everybody is completely satisfied on some of the answers.

That is the way it goes sometimes.

I think it's important to protect these parcels If there's nothing we've done in the town of Red Hook that's been a leader in protecting green space for our community, it is the economic driver of this town. The people move here and invest here because of the quality of life. We have an opportunity to, once again, to enhance the quality of life in this particular neighborhood. And we find ourselves doing it in each and every neighborhood throughout the town. I'm ready to entertain this resolution, and I know that not everybody may be at this time. Thoughts? You do have a resolution. What number would it be, Deanna? 40. 40?

I just find it frustrating. I think that things could be a lot easier if we were just kind of working together, and I want to support this, but I feel like I'm hitting a roadblock when I ask questions about it. And as somebody who's elected to represent people, I imagine if I have questions about it, other people have questions about it, right?

Well, I hope you see that I can't speak for any other board members. I think we've tried to answer your questions, Christina. I mean, you may have questions well beyond the time of acquisition of these parcels, but at some point we do have to...

I do not feel like you answered my question.

I appreciate that. I did say everybody may feel their questions have been answered to the degree. I would suggest additional questions that you want, please give me some more time. You had a question about a form that was actually in there, a memo that was actually in the document where it was. give us time not at the meeting to say, oh, can you go get this or go get that. We've been talking about this for months. So if you have questions, I would encourage you to maybe develop that list of questions a little sooner so that, I mean, we are on probably 10 months of this. I don't know. I'm just putting it out there. Something like 10 months for the acquisition of these parcels. We'll do the best that we can, but recognize our job is to advance the interests of the township. It isn't necessarily to answer all the questions that you have, though we are trying to do that.

Oh, I wholeheartedly disagree when there's questions.

I hope you see that we're trying to get you the answers to the questions that you have, but we don't know what questions are going to come up, and at some point we do have to take action.

10 years that I was on the planning board, when there was a question, you can't think of everything about every project all the time, but when there was a question, and somebody on the board would say, oh, what was the thing about the thing, we would pull it up, we would pull it out of the file, and be like, oh, here's the answer.

I think I've tried to pull up things for you.

No, you haven't given the answers, and that's frustrating to me, because I think that I'm asking very basic questions.

I did my best to try to answer those questions. But if I can, after tonight as well, I'd be happy to resend you things. I reprinted things out for you. I mean, I can't, at some point, I work for everybody. So I need to continue to advance the progress in this community. So I think 10 months, lots of questions, a lot of repetition, some of the comments that people have made. I'm ready. I'm ready to take action on this. I don't know how others feel. Is that a motion? It sounds like a motion. I'd like to move resolution number 40, please, as both described.

The liaison for the water department and water district, I will second that. Okay.

I hesitate to say further discussion, but I'm going to say further discussion. Okay. If not, all in favor? Kenny?

Nay. All right.

William? Aye. The resolution passes. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You can talk into the mic.

Thank you all who attended, not only tonight's public hearing, but all the previous meetings. As you see, democracy has both people in favor of and against certain matters. I will remind everybody the most contentious things what it was with the real estate crash of 2007. Without CPF, we would not have the ability to protect much of the farmland, certainly in West Curly Corners, we heard from Mr. Trezor tonight. We were fortunate enough to be able to partner with him protecting that farm and joining family-owned farms. I'm driving to the city at 3 a.m. tomorrow. I agree with you.

I'd like our meetings to run as well. Let's move on, please.

Okay. With that said, our next item on the agenda... Oh, we're going to take some public comments. Who would like to make some general public comments tonight? Thank you all for coming. Roxanne, if you'd be kind enough to.

Roxanne Fisher, Barrytown. Thank you. I am informing the board and the public that I have received formal confirmation from the Office of the New York State Comptroller, acknowledging receipt of my fourth Supplemental complaint. This formal submission to Chief Auditor James Latainer's team documents a persistent pattern of fiscal impropriety, statutory noncompliance, and compounding municipal waste. In his July 17th coverage with Daily Catch, Supervisor McKeon admitted his intent to divert open space revenue, stating verbatim, When we conclude the final two elements of the Cookingham project, we will have, not because that we intended to, we will have made enough already on Cookingham, so much, so much money on that project, we will have paid for not only these legal fees, but any ensuing legal fees. To be clear, under New York State Town Law, Section 64H, CPF funds are restricted solely for open space preservation, not a slush fund for general litigation and court defeats. Furthermore, on June 25th, Justice Rosa handed this town its second major court defeat, striking down local laws B and C for continuous seeker noncompliance. In spite of multiple lawsuits, our foils to the town had not yielded any invoices for 2026, which must mean that there are skyrocketing costs from our legal partners for multiple lawsuits. Finally, the board continues to ignore insurmountable realities. Restrictive deed covenants barring public parks and an open active CSX rail line bordering the access route. No amount of money can offset the catastrophic safety liability of routing public park traffic alongside active train tracks. Council Member Duchamp was entirely correct when she noted on the record the total lack of basic planning behind this project. The current 3-2 block is squandering public money on an unviable project. But 3-2 majorities are not set in stone. Tonight, I appeal to Hamel and Tester. You have seen the court rulings, the mounting legal bills. You know the severe liability risks of the site. Continuing down this path exposes our town to continuous financial and legal jeopardy. Step forward. Re-examine the facts and vote to rescind your previous authorization for these eminent domain proceedings. Restore fiscal integrity to Red Hook.

Thank you, Roxanne. Would anybody else like to make some public comments?

This report out Clara was unable to stay. She had other meetings tonight. She asked me to read this on her behalf. At the July 14th board meeting, many of us witnessed unprofessional behavior by Council Member Jacob Testa directed at Council Member Christina Duchamp. That behavior was also the subject of a fair number of social media comments. Council Member Testa repeatedly interrupted her, spoke in harsh and rave tone, and turned his back on her while she was speaking. When Councilmember Duchamp requested to serve as a point person for communications regarding a recently filed lawsuit, Councilmember Tester accused her of being biased in favor of the poll club, accusing a fellow board member of bias simply because she unapologetically listens to her constituents and is a blatant double standard. By that same logic, Councilmember Tester's consistent vote undeniable pre-existing bias. What Council Member Kester characterized as bias is in fact the desire of most of the community and we applaud Council Member Duchamp's commitment to speaking on behalf of the constituents. We have witnessed similar behavior by the supervisor. You will recall his condescending tone to a very capable and highly regarded highway superintendent as he disputed her well-researched vehicle recommendations and lectured her on following procurement procedures. How ironic, at the same time, behind the scenes, he was engaging multiple law firms without following proper approval procedures. And many of us recall his dismissive and exclusionary treatment of the former town clerk and deputy town clerk. One might notice a common theme among the targets of such behavior. Councilman Testa, that is not the behavior you should want to emulate. Not only is it disrespectful and unprofessional, but it is certainly unbecoming of an Associate Dean of Civil Rights. Disagreement is a natural and healthy part of local governance, but berating a colleague, cutting off debate, and using hostile behavior is completely unbecoming of an elected official representing this town. The residents of this Mr. Tesler and Mr. Handel, without town ward approval,

who have been parties along with the dictator to the illegal squandering of local taxpayers' money to the sum of $300,000. Shame, shame. How much more has been spent by the dictator without local approval? Shame, shame. I believe this money could have been better spent by the residents for their personal needs. The Board of Elections has a total count of 862 voters in the town of Red Oak. This $300,000 expense paid for by taxpaying voting residents, people you'll be talking to in the next year if you want to run again. may be allocated as follows. Registered Democrats, 144,510, 48.17%. Registered Republicans, 59,280, 19.76%. Other enrollments, $96,210, 32,007%. Residents deserve open government, honest representation, majority rule, not the past practice of hidden in executive session perpetuated by the dictator. Afraid to let the consultants hear discussion and compromise and the truth, Mr. Dictator? Shame, shame, shame, all of you.

Thank you, Robert. Thank you for that.

Anybody else like to make some comments? I'd like to make a comment on my own behalf, or question on my own behalf. For the last year, Robert, you and Bill and Jacob have indicated that it's your position that the majority of the town is in favor of your eminent domain proceeding. At the last meeting, Christina made a motion to hold a public referendum. And you all voted no, the three of you. I don't understand it. If you believe that the residents of this town are behind you in this matter on eminent domain, why not hold a public resolution? Show us that you're right. Show us that you're correct. Quite frankly, I don't agree with you because I think no matter what your station in life is, what your political persuasion may be, whatever your personal feelings may be, People really resent a government taking and stripping people of their property rights. But I'd like you to reconsider your thoughts.

Not this meeting.

Christina, I asked the next meeting to make the motion again. Let's see if you guys can reconsider and show us that you really believe that the public is behind you. And as far as the cost is, it's nominal. You've already spent $300,000 fooling around with lawsuits. And now you've got four of them, five of them pending right now. So a few thousand dollars to hold a public referendum is peanuts in this matter. Show us you're right. Show us you're correct, Robert, Bill, Jacob, that the town is behind you. Vote for a permissive referendum. And let's find out. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll take one more.

Thank you, Carrie.

Carrie Kittner, Barrytown, New York. Actually, Al... covered what I wanted to say. I had heard that there was a motion for a referendum. And actually, I hate to point at you, Jacob, after you've been kind of pointed at already, but I know that you and I share being democratic socialists. And I think your reason for wanting the vote club is because you think it should belong to everyone. But that's just socialism. That's not democratic socialism, which is really different. Socialism is when a powerful government takes things from the people and decides for them how it should work. Democratic socialism is allowing a democracy to decide, and that is the people. So you can't be for democratic socialism and vote against a resolution that is dividing this town in a way that is breaking my heart. We started with the Pledge of Allegiance, and when I was thinking about socialism, I was like, oh yeah, a lot of people think of socialism because we grew up with the USSR. That was never socialism. That was communism and oligarchy and powerful government. Real socialism is actually for the people. And then when we were talking about the United States of America I think about how that's not really true anymore in so many ways and we're not the United States anymore we're like the divided states and I feel like it's happening here in our town and it's really distressing and so as a democratic socialist and that means that I'm for social security and public schools but I am not for taking from a collective, which this, I mean, you know, this group, this boat club, number one, I'm for social clubs. This is a social club and I think people should be allowed to have clubs and they are, they're a little community of a hundred families. So that's hundreds of people sharing two acres of land and you want to take it for everyone? Like it's a limited resource. know like health care that's a big resource and schools and that's like for everyone this is not for everyone this is this is for like people who have motorboats so anyway just want to say as a democratic socialist to another democratic socialist please let's have a referendum let it be a democracy

I'm going to get on with the agenda. I just want to remind you all just the rules of decorum for our meetings are such that please do not target your comments to any individual board member. The comments are for the board as a whole. And we ask that you not.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that.

Yeah. Sorry. It's OK, Terry. I think that there have been things that have been misrepresented tonight. I don't feel like fighting it. But thank you for your comments.

OK, let us move on, shall we, in furtherance to the supervisor's report. Let's go back. We heard some comments. Well, folks are gone. Already working on next year's budget. Very happy to talk about the finances of the town of Breckhoff and how taxes are lower than they were a decade ago. And we've got 90 plus projects completed. The snapshot is for the period ending July 31st. I will put my signature on this when you make a motion to accept. We started the month with an opening balance of $11.5 million and receipts of $856 million. and 97,000 and change. You have as part of your packet some budget adjustments prepared by Ann Conway. Any questions you have on that please let me know. And you have your variance report as you do each and every month showing where we stand versus budget for each one of the accounts. Any questions Board Members 9, 13, and 9? If not, who would like to make a motion to accept the Supervisor's report? Kenny? Sure. Second. William? Jacob was second. All in favor? William? Aye. Christina? Aye. Dan, could I impose upon you to do the clerk's report, and then we'll move to agenda items.

Town Clerk's Report for the period July 1st through July 31st, 2026. Amount paid to the Town of Red Hope, $7,670.60. Amount paid to New York State Agriculture and Markets for the Spay-Neuter Program, $39.00. Amount paid to New York State Department of Health for Marriage Licenses, $45.00. Amount paid to New York State Environmental Conservation for hunting and fishing license, $198.40. Total state, county, and local revenues, $7,953. And I hereby certify that vouchers number 35127 to 35222, processed in the month of July 2026, are an accurate reporting of the abstracts approved for payment by the town board.

Motion to accept the course report.

Second.

Bill got in there before Kristina. All in favor? Kristina?

Aye.

Kenny? Aye. Myself, aye. Jacob? Aye. Okay. Let's go. We're going to skip a rest today. We do have... I'm going to go to water first. Sorry, David. I'm going to go to water first. They got her foiling. Item number seven, drinking water source protection plan two.

Maybe it's appropriate that I do since I was the town board member.

I'm going to step away for one minute. All right. I'll keep talking.

Keep talking. Thank you. So the New York State Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation have a program called Water Source Protection. And what it is is they like to work with municipalities find ways to protect our water sources. And you work with them to come up with a plan. The primary focus is to look for the things that are potential contaminants of water. And we've been at this for a while. We finally have a finalized report. I've been at this maybe three years to give a finalized report. The benefit of this finalized report is now the town of Red Oak has access to certain state assets, not just grants, but they have staff that help do certain things and they make certain things available to the municipalities that have this plan. And I don't want to get too much because the plans are really long, but I think what's is in the plan, and it goes to what we just voted on regarding the CPF fund acquisition of those parcels. In the plan, it's made of the public document, there's a series of maps. And there's a map that has a list of parcels that the state has determined would be ideal for the town to acquire to protect the water for the town. And most of those parcels sort of reside along the Saltkill Creek, which is a major water source for the town. And they didn't know, at the time that they finalized this, because it has to go to the State Department of State and everybody else, we had just done the acquisition or the easement on the Camp Rising Sun. And they were very pleased to hear when we had the final meeting to, I guess, adopt this plan. They were unaware that a mile and a half of the sulk hill, and that was one of their big parcels, had been protected. There is another one next to it and a few others on the other side that go more downstream, I believe. And then there's a list of other properties. So they're very, very much supportive of any action that we take to help protect our water source. The other big one is potential sources of contamination. whether they be oil depots, salt sheds, whatever they are. So they have another map that has all of those throughout the town and the villages. And so now that we have the report done, it's been approved, the next steps are to implement the plan. And some of the implementation We already did, by the Camp Rising with Sun Act, an easement acquisition. We haven't closed yet. We haven't closed, but they were very surprised by that. They didn't know that that had happened, because it's one of the biggest parcels, they said, that we need to protect. But there are many others. And then there's issues related to how we deal with our salt for the water, brining roads, a variety of things. And so the next steps for this, process, if you will, is to implement the things that are on the plan. And I'll just go real quick. There are five goals. One is to foster inter-community discussion and promote collaborative partnerships among the communities, water systems, and water users. Promote equitable, sustainable, and climate-resistant development in Red Hook that preserves the area's unique aggregate history and character. Evaluate present and future land use to minimize threats to existing and prospective drinking water sources through proactive zoning and other measures. Engage and educate communities, water systems, and water users about drinking water sources and source protection. And lastly, pursue funding opportunities to increase water supply and treatment reliability, including source water and conservation easement acquisition. And so they were unaware that we were getting in the late stages of our community the comp plan. And so that falls into one of these goals. So we, in many ways, have been, without even having this plan, doing many of the things that the state is very supportive of. But the bonus here is they can help us with certain resources, certain assets, potential makes us more competitive for certain kind of grants. And this will be the roadmap for the foreseeable future on how the town goes about trying to preserve what is really outstanding quality water, whether it's in our water district from our wells or even all of us who have our own wells. We have really excellent water. We have a really excellent group of aquifers. They all kind of go down towards the river. And the sewer is another one of those. I know it's counterintuitive for people to think of a sewer as protecting your water, but it really is one of the best ways to keep your water safe. And as they discovered in the village, as they started putting in their sewer system, there were septic systems, private ones, that were on the verge of catastrophic failure, which would have polluted our water. many ways we've been way ahead of the curve and now this is just a validation of that and more support and more help for the town in the future that's it

Did you want to? Did you want to?

Well, you're a part of this effort.

I was on the committee with Bill, and it was a very interesting process. The people from the D.C. were very capable. They really knew their stuff. It's one of the important effects of accepting this plan and implementing it is that we basically have consultants And don't have to regrow it to speed because they know what's already going on. So I think that in and of itself makes the whole process really valuable. But it was interesting because while we were doing it, while we were in the process of evaluating what the water was and what needed to be preserved and stuff, we were also in the process of doing it, which I think was kind of a step ahead of the whole time, which is unusual for most towns, I think.

And it surprised them.

Just a few comments. Excuse me. I'll go to the mic. I think it's a wonderful plan. It's very comprehensive. It's so comprehensive it really is hard to kind of really get in there to the nitty gritty. And in any plan as comprehensive as that, I do think there are some odds and ends that I could really argue with. And there's a few inconsistencies in there. Nothing that I think is of particular concern. I'll give you one example. One part of the document talks about land that should be acquired because it's along a major tributary. And then other times they just talk about land to be acquired along a tributary. And I think there needs to be some clarification as to whether or not you're going to look at lands on every single creek and stream in the Sauk Hill watershed or the defined major tributaries along the Sauk Hill. I will say that the part that we're involved with the Sauk Hill is really to advocate for the watershed and not any individual properties within that. We're looking at the whole entire watershed And I can't stress enough the continued need for information and data to base things on. And as we stand here now, the data collection process, because of the relationship we've had with Bard in the future, is not necessarily going to be there for us. That we implore the town to keep an open mind in terms of what it's really going to mean to continue to collect reliable data throughout the whole watershed. And it is going to take some financial resources. And I was pleased to see that though there are financial resources in the plan, I think we might need a little bit more than that. But everybody's going to say the same thing. Forget that I'm with the Sockville Watershed community for a minute, but just as a regular community member, I do have a general concern about how do you go about acquiring property? What is the process for that? We had a lot of discussion tonight about acquiring property. What is acquiring property? And where does it go? And what is the process? And who's involved in that process? I think particularly today, that's going to be a real key. If this is going to be successful and folks are really going to be on board with it, I do need to think it has to be in a very, very above board process. And the broader constituency you can get involved in that, the better it's going to be all around. But I think it's really a wonderful report. Implementation of it is going to be huge. And, you know, we're here with the Sauk Hill watershed community to say we're here to support that. Okay? Thank you.

If I could just add one quick thing. Just something for all of us to keep in mind going forward. The accumulated data we have on the water temperature in Sauk Hill indicates that it is now half a degree warmer than it was 10 years ago. This is a direct result of climate change, and it has serious implications for the future in terms of what we put into the water and what we get out of it. And things like acquiring the water district parcels for wetland protection become increasingly important as we go forward. Thank you.

I would just add, things about this is this is really a small subset of the community preservation plan. There's something in the neighborhood of 1,300 parcels in that plan. All are eligible for acquisition. And it talks about all the different...

But if I'm one of the parcels that's being called out to be acquired, you know, what's going to happen when you knock on the door and say, we want to acquire your property? Sure, sure. And when is that going to happen? Yeah, so, I mean,

And what does it mean to acquire property? Well, exactly. So there are a bundle of property rights and oftentimes you're looking at in these cases easements, conservation easements to protect the resource. For example, a bill referenced Camp Rising Sun, which hopefully we'll be closing on in the next couple of months. That's a state water quality improvement program, grant funding. Winnipeg Land Trust sort of partnered with that. That's number 15 here. And so you can see just the length of the soft hill right here and just how protective it is. And by the way, since we're talking about Camp Rising Sun, if you haven't been to the pool, go to the pool and walk the grassy trails. They're available. They've opened them up early for the public to see and enjoy. But here's a parcel that has recently sold within the last couple of years. And so what we might do is an outreach and just say, hey, look, there are these voluntary programs available. This one actually has really good agricultural resources and has been a farm for generations. So, yeah, there was a very extensive process to reduce the targeted, if you will, parcels if you're trying to maximize protection along the sawpill. And as you can see, it's really very efficient. And it's tributaries.

And I think that's key, what tributaries. Again, again, part of the document talks about major tributaries and their names. And then some of the parcels are not along those tributaries. They're along unnamed tributaries.

We've identified at least 11 tributaries.

And fortunately, we have partners in Winnikee Land Trust and Seneca. We have partners who share the same goals and agenda. and have helped us, you know, that 15 is huge. And so, you know, the hope is that over time that some of these other parcels, that the owners of those parcels, we might be able to sell the purchase easements, rights, or other things. Just be careful with the concept of acquiring property. Well, there's the physical property and then there's the easement rights. An important distinction.

The stream along through the rising sun is just beautiful. Through the what? Through the rising sun. The rising sun is beautiful. If you have a chance to go look at it, it's what it should be.

This section here, I know very well. This is part of our farm. And that's underneath it. We've left it available to become a trail in the future of that section.

So that's also covered. And I didn't see a definition in there, however. And this may be a common legal term, cultivated land, what is meant by cultivated land. Right. What else? Well? Pardon? Pardon. I know a dictionary definition, but there might be a legal definition. Because if you look at the legal definition, I mean not the literary definition, any land that's been used for farming. But there's a lot more properties in our town that are not included to be acquired that would fall under that.

There's also a lot of land that was at one time used for farming. It's still considered agricultural by the county, but it's not currently being farmed.

So what's your process going forward with the DC on this? Do we have a schedule of meetings of some sort?

Well, we've been trying to work with Michael at the Department of Health to schedule some regular meetings, but we're going to schedule a kickoff or an implementation meeting to kind of go over the things that were done that they were unaware of as the plans were being finalized, and then perhaps prioritize what we think are the things that are achievable, short term, medium term, long term. And I don't even know what long term means in this context, because I'm certain it's a multi-year process, many multi-year process. But the idea is to set things in motion in a way so that future leaders can pick up where we left off and continue that process without too much interruption.

We wanted to sponsor a community meeting to present the report and bring in Michael.

I hadn't thought about that, but I think that's a good idea. One suggestion is that to the extent that we've been having community meetings regarding the comp plan, and this really in many ways is a subset of that or will help inform the comp plan. Maybe that's an opportunity. We can speak to Julia Solomon at the next. Well, they've reached out. The comp plan has already reached out. They have? Yeah. OK, great. And then maybe that's an opportunity to present this and talk about it, where we are. It really is a comp plan piece.

Yeah. We held a kitchen table conversation. We had some meetings with the consultants. So that was very much in our hearts.

Thank you. So has there been testing of the water along the Sawkill? Yes. Where have you been? Where are the results? Well, we've been here.

No, no, no. If you'd like to see the long decades-long series of water testing results. You can go to the Salt Hill Watershed Community website.

Well, we presented the, we have been doing testing for how many years now? And mostly through BART. And the data, okay, the testing that we did in 2025 We presented a report to the town, and that was made public in July of 2025. I believe it's on the town website also. In addition to that, we submitted a summary executive report in October of 2025, that's much, that really focuses in, and I would encourage every board, I'm surprised, I'm disappointed the board hasn't read that. You got nothing else to do. But I think, again, the data is there. The concern I was talking about at the microphone, though, is are we gonna be able to continue collecting the data and having the data analyzed, especially since the support we've gotten in the past from MARD may not be there as much as it has in the past.

And how many locations on the Sauk Hill?

Like a dozen? Well, on the Sauk Hill, it's 15. And in addition to that, for the first time last year, we included two sites on the Stony Hill because that is part of the town. So we expanded it last year. But the historical data goes back decades, to tell you the truth. And in addition to that, Bard published, released a database where any citizen can go in and access that data.

Online.

Online, yeah.

You can access that. There's a portal for that on our website. But the long series of data that goes back for more than 20 years is why we know that the average temperature on the planet is 100 degrees. And that has, you know, serious implications for flooding, and wetlands, and all sorts of bad stuff.

Well, thank you.

And the data collection has not only been through with Bard students, but it's been community volunteers also, including a lot of the high school students have gotten involved. Great. Thank you so much. Great. Okay. Until we start spending the money.

We'll hear more about implementation. Okay.

Well, we would love to be part of that process.

Of course. Absolutely.

Thank you. Okay. All right, you guys. Thank you so much.

Thanks. Have a good night.

We're sorry.

That sucks.

We jumped your line.

Whatever edition you're on. That's right. We'll go for it. Thank you.

I did, in rushing to get ready, I think I printed out a copy of your latest submission that came today.

Anyway, come talk to us. I just want to be respectful of the time. Thank you. So, I'll have this little spiel for a while. Red Hook Housing Committee, we're about five years old. We've spent those five years researching solutions to both create and preserve affordable housing in the town. That time has been spent both a little bit of research, a little bit of self paralysis. We're doing our best. hopefully in a new era now in which we are trying to pivot toward storytelling for you all. And the proposal that you received in the packet prior to tonight's meeting is the second of that sprint or marathon, I'm not exactly sure what the metaphor is, and it refers to a good cause eviction. There is a New York State good cause eviction law that put some parameters on reasons for eviction among fair market value renters. This does not apply to subsidized or otherwise affordable housing, formally affordable housing. It does not apply to super high end luxury housing. There is actually a cap on fair market value. And the state law was written in a way that communities like ours have to opt into it. While the state law has a lot of parameters already built into it, it actually extends more selection of parameters to the communities that do opt in, such as that fair market value cap as high as 345% of fair market value. It allows opt-in communities to determine the scope of a landlord's real estate portfolio, how big or small it can be. So the housing committee is suggesting or recommending that we are one of those opt-in communities. And the parameters that are available to us are included in our proposal. of the highest fair market cap of 345% to protect the widest swath of renters. Even those who are maybe nominally in the luxury market, they deserve protection too. The proposal also defines the size of the portfolio. And we have defined it as rather small. because there is some field experience that suggests that the smaller the portfolio, the less likely a person can establish multiple LLCs, through which they can sort of surreptitiously own multiple properties.

And avoid the application of the good cause efficient law to their portfolio. Yes. It's not limiting the amount of property somebody can own.

It's whether this law applies to what they own. As you say, the more times I stand up with this microphone, the more out of my depth I will become. Because you can only become so fluent in affordable housing strategies over a short period of time. So thank you for having my back there, Jacob. And happy to field whatever questions you have about it within my abilities. But I think that this proposal has the depth and detail that the previous one did. I think it's a nice counterpoint to the HomeShare proposal, because whereas HomeShare refers to the development of affordable housing opportunities. It's really just maximizing the opportunities that are already in our midst. This is about preserving the housing of folks who are already here. So one is about development, the other is about stabilization. However, I did actually want to take a little bit of a detour from this because as Jacob mentioned to you in an email this evening, we've just roughed out another proposal And of the three that are now before you, this third proposal is actually more time sensitive than the other two. Good cause eviction can happen at any time. Home share could happen at any time. Ideally, it happens at the pace of our conscience. However, this third proposal is time sensitive because it has to do with emergency housing in wintertime. Emergency housing, experiences of homelessness, it's not exactly something that we had wanted to take on over the course of this committee's five years. It is a gnarly, systemic problem. When you think about people who are experiencing homelessness, you often need to think about wraparound services. It was just bigger than the committee thought itself capable of grasping. It didn't really feel like it was within our remit. But over these years, we have been visited by residents like Charlie Rubin. We have heard about the efforts of Red Hook Together. And we've also had members who have joined the committee with an eye to the both visible and invisibly unhoused populations of Red Hook. And so we felt compelled to participate in this dialogue, however much it doesn't necessarily feel like it's in our wheelhouse. And so the proposal that is not in your packet but just circulated by email this evening actually tries to touch at that. It is just in full transparency, whereas the first two proposals are low-hanging fruit. We have a state law, we have a Ulster County precedent for both good cause eviction and home share respectively. What we are proposing here, it's a little, you see things happening in Burlington, Vermont, you see things happening in Kingston, you see cosmopolitan communities that have our climate. And so, but this is, I think that because the precedents are fewer, because our climate is more extreme than like places like California, that are thinking about emergency housing and housing stabilization in nicer weather. We don't have too much to build upon incrementally. So like I said, in the spirit of transparency, I feel like this proposal that was just emailed to you may be the least resolved of the three. I think also it was least resolved because we were avoiding it. for a lot of our history. But it does feel like the most urgent. We did have a warming center two winters ago. The warming center did not materialize last winter. One of our members, Kat Viega, has talked repeatedly about knowing two people who have died of exposure. And so it just felt like the morally responsible thing to do. is to share this storytelling with you, however un-crystallized it is. So if you have to, I know you have very full plates, but if you could prioritize one of these three proposals for brainstorming and outreach, it would be this one. We are at your disposal to And I will say that the word continuum is coming up a lot in the housing committee's conversations. A continuum of housing preservation to housing development. A continuum of a person who needs emergency housing to a person who may be one medical bill away. It's just a continuum of security and insecurity. So this third proposal dovetails into that continuum. But because it is at the most urgent end of the continuum, it does seem like it should be the most urgent one for us to brainstorm about. Thank you. Thank you.

I have a question. Of course, Billy. when the state passed the law, did they do what they did with cannabis, which says if you opt in, you can never opt out? And I ask that because, you know, and I very much appreciate getting the list of all the opt-ins in the area, it's very helpful, but what I noticed was most of them were either cities or much larger communities than ours. I'm not saying we're not a large community, we're in that sort of weird sweet spot. And, you know, I want to make sure that we don't commit to something, and when the cannabis thing happened, you know, notwithstanding the fact that it's still a federal crime, which was my main reason for voting against it. But the other reason was the state had not, they were very far from completing their regulations and implementing a program. And I had serious reservations, which were proven over time that it took them a long time to figure out how to get to where they wanted to really be. And I wasn't happy approving something that you're stuck with forever when you don't, it's like driving blind, really. And so I want to make sure, I mean, I think this is very important. And I also think it's a part of our comp plan. You know, this is long-term stuff. But I want to make sure that that what we're being asked to do is not something that we can't undo.

Yeah, yeah. An escape hatch, right? Because sometimes we, you know, act with the best interests, good faith, as much information as we have, and then some, you know, the, what is Rumsfeld called? What did he call it? The unknown knowns, or the known whatever. One of those. So, yes, I mean, you're... But are we borrowing something that we don't know everything about? Can I make you the promise of reading the state law and then responding to Jacob's?

That would be great. It should be in there somewhere, but it would just be helpful to know what we're committing ourselves to.

Most of our proposals have come with some kind of for retrospective review at the end of a period of two years. I can't remember if that text is in the good cause eviction proposal per se. But either, well we'll have to see what the state law says, right? Because if there is no opt out in the state law, but we codify an opt-out, then once your council sends it to the state, there's going to be a little disconnect that makes authorization a little funky. So let's start with reading the state law, and we'll take it from there.

I think the risks here are different from cannabis sale or consumption sites, as far as whether you undo protections for renters.

But there are economic consequences for this. And the other thing that I saw was the issue of agriculture and housing for people who work in farms. And Kenny can speak to this. But I tried to delve into what was provided previously, and I didn't see anything that I'm not saying there should be a card out, but there should be some acknowledgement that it's a different kind of population. Like my wife's family are farmers in Oregon, and they provide housing for families who work, you know, they're not seasonal workers, they work full time on the farm, and they have for generations actually. And so I want to, it's a piece of a conversation that I'm not sure has been had or raised.

Do those seasonal workers or even year-round workers, are they market value renters?

I saw the thing about seasonal, but I didn't see about year-round. And we are, and we should continue to be, an agricultural town. So there are just some things that kind of, when I saw it, there were questions that came up. And I think your timing is actually kind of excellent, because We are on the sort of backside of getting a draft of a comp plan, hopefully end of the year. And I think these are, since we only do one every 30 years, this would be a great opportunity. And since zoning, housing, all these are sort of really comp plan issues, I think it would be great to

Yeah, get it in there.

The existing state carve-out that a semantics person, expert might say is that one of the exemptions to this regulation are people who live on-site, or landlords who live on-site, as long as there are 10 units of housing on-site or less. Could that apply to a family farm, potentially? But should there be... agricultural language in the state law. Yeah, it is a state law. And the state comprises both urban and rural areas. You make a good point.

My question relates to efficacy. So you have a law that's designed to help protect the more affordable, we'll call them, units in your community, of which most of them are in the village versus the town. And so I wonder, have you all discussed this with the village and what their thoughts on it might be?

Where the village is.

Where the village is, yeah.

Karen and Emily are kind of clued in. Compton's Emily. The Tivoli yard sale day to tell her what's going on. I'll bring it up for a couple reasons.

One of the things that I discovered when I was on the county's housing task force in 2021 or whatever that was, was that we had in the township, we did not have one multifamily of 20 units or more in our community anywhere. which is a decision of the community. I'm not saying we have to. I'm just saying that that was news to me. And so when we look at, for example, a portfolio that's about to change hands in the Village of Red Hook with 73 units, I think it is, something like that, I'm going to just take a guess and say they'll probably include many of our more affordable units. I just wonder if that's... You know, that's important for us to take a look at that. And how that may impact or may not impact the transaction.

Yeah, the POPLA advocates for simultaneous adoption across jurisdictions. But there is baggage that comes with this regulation. There's the potential economic consequences that Bill was hinting at. I believe, specifically, you're thinking that there is is concerned that this kind of regulation, a world of regulation, is going to be the straw by which some real estate holders do not want to build or keep their portfolios here.

Yeah, well, there's a long history of regulations in communities, and really when you look throughout the nation, this is new. but most of rent control went away. In fact, I think Boston and New York City still has it. Boston, I think, is the last. Hold up. Because there's that sort of push and pull about the small landlord will have enough money to maintain the property and have a decent return.

This is a nuance that we didn't discuss in the committee, but you bring up an interesting point about if we cannot have simultaneous adoption, then does it actually create the jurisdictional confusion that we all complain about, right? We don't know where the town and village, Hamlet, you know, and it's not intentionally obfuscatory, but it makes people confused and we don't want citizens confused.

And as far as emergency housing, all ready to go we have you know the advice of council is do not put it on municipal land we're not in a position to really supervise we've discussed that at least from from what folks know that there may be some mental health issues with a couple of folks were worried about and that's our primary concerns were worried about and I did notice that there was a you to mental health assistance just announced this week pilot program Dutchess County Dutchess Ulster maybe it's Dutchess so maybe let's look into that as well yeah it might be it's an opportunity but again I go back to it's the where because the money's already lined up the people who have experienced the setting up these shelters in fact that's a river housing setup that one that you referenced a couple of years ago it's the where and who's willing to have that yes in there in the neck of the woods you heard comments tonight from people who weren't boat club members but they live in barrytown and so we see whenever we try to do any project there is a please not in my backyard kind of a a sentiment that that comes from to find something that works in this situation because everybody deserves to have growth. I've been as a child housing insecure. I know what that feeling's like and it's not good.

Some of it's messaging too. I've heard a lot of conflation even on the Cookingham project about these ideas of housing projects going in. And you live across the street. I think some of it's about properly messaging what it is we're doing so that people understand what it is as opposed to these, you know, very scary ideas about that.

Sure. And definitions, you know. And the optics of this, you know, are another dimension of, you know, another challenging dimension. Even the transitional housing fund, you know, which doesn't necessarily touch upon, you know, folks who may be suffering from some mental health issues. It may just be that family that's that one medical bill away from insecure, but they want to keep their kid in the school district. Even that can be misconstrued as a handout. There are many reasons why this third proposal of ours is least resolved. It's also just really tough. But I think

Well, I mean, you guys are boots on the ground. I know Cat, you know, is around the village and elsewhere, I mean, and other members. It's really about identifying where, where can we do this? And, you know, maybe these mobile units are great. I mean, they sound like, you know, a potential solution. The problem is the support services. We all talk about can we improved and they can be the member of society.

There is talk of family services, putting a base down here, which would be great, because we know that sometimes access to services isn't necessarily about geography or transportation, it's just personal resistance, either to crossing the threshold into I'm a little afraid to say this on the public record, but I am afraid that we might not find the site that weaves this all together in time for the winter. But at least we're on the record for starting the hard work of trying.

We might need to knock on doors. We might have to come downtown.

In the meantime, I will look into opt-out and to any kind of farming language in the state law, and I'll email you. That would be great. Yeah? Okay.

Thank you, Derek. Thank you. Thank you for caring. Of course. Thank you. Have a good night.

Okay.

We are number two. It's nine o'clock and we're number two. The clock on the watch, I mean the hands on the watch. We've got, we're back to surplus. I didn't want to say this, but we also own the truck, but we own it on behalf of the highway budget DB fund. So we've got two resolutions, right?

One is for the van. It was for the dump truck. So, 41?

Yes, 41. 41 would be the 2005 Chevrolet, and then surplus. You know, the rec department looked at it, and they were like, maybe the village DPW is handy. $1,500 is the amount. It's really not going anywhere. It stays in the same garage.

Yeah. Yeah, somebody approached me from the rec department saying that they were using their own vehicle or something.

Yeah. So remember we talked about those pickup trucks? Remember we approved pickup trucks earlier in the year? Yep. So there's going to be a surplus pickup truck.

Okay.

I think they might be interested in that versus this van. How does that get transferred? Well, when she asked for that one to be put up as surplus, then we... Okay. Okay. And the value gets graded for that one. So in this case, we've got 41 resolution declaring the 2005 Chevy van surplus and authorizing its transfer to the village of Bracco. They've inspected it. The value hasn't been determined. recurring thing. The town board has determined that the van is no longer needed for town purposes. Well, we've determined based upon the input of our highway superintendent. I believe we went under the van to check it. And that it's transferred to the village of Red Oak for the purchase price set forth therein is in the best interest of the town. Now, therefore, be it resolved, the town board of the town of Red Oak as follows declares the following vehicle surplus property And let's fill in the amount of $1,500. The town board hereby authorizes the transfer and sale of the people to the Village of Redmond for the purchase price of a stated $1,500 in as is whereas condition. No give back to Village of Redmond without any representation or warranty by the town. Who's the lead? It's on to the highway department. So moved.

Second.

Any further discussion? 1,500 minutes on this one. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The town board of the town of Red Hook as follows, declares the following items as surplus equipment. Purchasing agent is authorized to engage a reputable, reputable, I can't even speak. Online auction agent approved by the purchasing officer, actually it's the highway superintendent, let's make that change. Purchasing officer throughout this second line. It shall be available for inspection of the town highway department. That's resolution number 42. Who still is the liaison? Still moved. Who would like to second this one? Second. Further discussion? If not, all in favor? Kenny? Aye. Myself, aye. Williams? Aye. Christina? Aye. Jacob? Aye. All right, that's 42. Okay, we have 43. We don't want to be abrasive, but we do go out to people for abrasives. So it's authorizing the town clerk to advertise a request for steel bits. We go out to bits trying to get the best pricing each year for the materials and sometimes for the labor associated with highway projects. Those are the ice control abrasives, a request for seal bids for hot tanks, asphalt, and a request for proposals for various materials for 2027. These materials are listed here in the memo.

Do we want these? Or, like, when does that get pulled in?

Well, it's... So here's the document itself. And so she will vote out a bid, and they will... prepare based upon a tonnage.

So usually whenever we do this, we'll get the results back and they'll show price and unit and all that. So it's based upon the tonnage. Yep. Got it. And it says 1700 tons hot mix asphalt concrete, for example.

Okay. 43? Yes. May we? Who would like to move 43? So moved. Second. Thank you both for the discussion. If not, there's a return date in there somewhere. All in favor? Kenney? Aye. Williams? Aye. So aye. Jacob? Aye. Christina? Aye. All right, we've jumped around a bunch tonight. auditor and audits various departments and offices. Here is the auditor's letter. Reviewed the justice courts, the office of town clerk, office of tax collector, and the management General fund reviewed the consolidated checking account of conciliation each month for completeness and accuracy in assessing the cash disbursements, three vouchers per month, so they do all these spot checking cash receipts. If we were on our trail, all checks received by the bookkeeper were deposited within three business days. The Office of the State Comptroller, Local Government Management Guide states the employee responsible for collecting cash and preparing bank deposits should not be. We have just one bookkeeper, so there's not the possibility of bifurcating those duties. and what they do. This is what they do for the spot audits, the findings. And we will have March courts for next year. Town Park, same thing. Findings. Very positive management letter. Tax collector. 2026 tax receipts and disbursements, returns up completely. Old daily receipts evaluated, positive and timely loan. Through segregation of duties, through clean audits.

So is that correct on the page? I think it's page five. That one. Is that 2026 or 2025?

If I just do collection period, it should say 2025. There was one other typo.

She used my collection share. What's that?

Click the second one right after the resolution. He's still the judge. He's just not our judge.

44?

No, you didn't vote on it.

You didn't vote on it. Okay. This would be 44. Yeah.

Yeah.

Motion to accept the audit reports for the year ended December 31, 2025, and for tax misspelled collection, if we can make that.

Okay.

We're trying to be bilingual. Collection. Period. Tax collection period.

I'll move it.

Okay, I think Kristina got another one in here. Bill, do you want a second?

I'll second it. Further discussion?

If not, congratulations to all the departments on a successful audit. All in favor? Kenney? Aye. Williams? Aye. At the beginning of the meeting, the solar, so we had an emergency roof replacement. Called the solar installer, please put back the solar panels. We replaced and a lot of that was grant funded years ago. resiliency of the panel. And a new warranty as well. And a new warranty, and newer panels, and degradation. Folks at home are probably doing more exciting things than I am, but studying things like how do solar panels degrade, typically it's about half a percent per annum. So if you could start out at no panels, 100%, you would decline by half a percent a year. So a 13-year-old panel, you're already starting at, somewhat of a deficit. It's a great south-facing, and just subsequently Naomi points out it's a great south-facing roof. So good thing to consider taking this down.

Can you just explain the diagram that we're looking at?

Let's go to the videotape.

So just briefly, what are we looking at? So yellow is...

This is Town Hall, yellow. We're at L-Shade. Okay, these are the panels that were not affected. We had to replace this roof.

So what's the yellow represent on the roof? It's just the roof. It's just the roof. It doesn't mean like any effective area. Obviously, the southern part of the roof is most effective. The better part of the roof.

Yellow is better than orange.

Yellow is better than orange, or is that not true?

Yellow is better than brown. Yellow is better than brown? Well, only because it's stormy.

And how are we deciding how far over to put them towards that valley?

I wasn't planning on deciding that. I was going to leave that to other installers who are engineers to figure that out. But if you have some thoughts on that, we can do that. I think that's 22 panels there. We had 43 panels on this whole roof. And we now have more. Right.

I mean, to me, if we're going to put them on the southern face of that roof, that would make sense to max that out more than other slopes of the roof. Like, could we fit another row on the bottom? Or, like, could we go up to that? And then the other thing is, have they reviewed... There's something in a code about needing to have... fire department access across the roof?

Yes, so this is a safer, yes, this I think Dizzy covered in his communications with us. This is a, there's new code now on these, and there are new safety features that go with this. And there's also an inverter that's gonna be in place. Let me see if we can get to his communication on that. But it says it's 2025 building code compliant. It has the rapid shutdown. I think that was one thing that was described in the- Right, was the shutdown. Mm-hm. Module grounding, modules have increased inside, power density, module level, power electronics are now required on roof systems for rapid shutdown and safety. We did not have that because that was not required back in 2012, I believe, was this system, maybe 2013. Good thing to have. New 25 year warranties and their increased power density would open up more room for system expansion. We will reuse almost all of the existing AC wiring and utility interconnection that is already in place inside the building. So just to be clear, this would give us the same amount of output, but with half the amount of panels. If we wanted at a later date to expand, it's very easy and modular to throw more of them. We can take a look at what our needs are to do that. But the question was, before we go ahead and pay for two or three days of having 43 panels that are you know, half or a little better than half the deficient, do we want to do something that seems to be a no-brainer?

How much do we give back to the grid on AMO? Oh, you're not going to ask me to sound like that off the top of my head.

No, but you're the solar guy. You're supposed to know these things. All I know is what I was told. I'm not an engineer, and I was told that in the town of Brighton that we have buildings. so much solar, that during the best days, sunny days in the middle of the summer, that there's a possibility we're producing town-wide more electricity than we are using because of the solar. But on each system, don't forget we have a whole bunch that we've got, much of which is with grant funding, town hall, highway garage. Firehouse, I remember being a part of that project. 2009, I think we got a grant to open that one. Then the big community solar one, and obviously the cooking plant solar one now. What do we think before we tell them to put the old ones back on that we want to put these on? Kenny, your thoughts? No thoughts. No thoughts? New world for the same amount of money.

What happens to the old ones?

I asked that question, do they have value? And guess what it comes down to? Not really, because it costs. This is the hard cost, soft cost, right? So the hard costs have declined dramatically. I don't even want to tell you what we paid for these systems.

for the actual panels. But do they, are there recyclable materials like with spark plugs?

They can be used, but you have to weigh them. Just like we are, we like, and certainly with the roof, we're never going to take up the value of the space now. He says there's very little value to them, but we can ask to see if we can get it.

I was thinking about it in the context of the fridge, you know, the fridge or the freon. The dollar, you're going And catalytic converters have gold in them. And there are companies and businesses whose job is to harvest these precious metals, and I believe that they're, I think it's silver, or it used to be used. It's a highly industrial metal, so it might have been used in solar panels at some point. I don't know if they still are.

So when they're not being, if you can't use them anymore, how do you? Get rid of them.

Yeah. They'll get, they'll get.

With these bigger projects, there's a decommissioning cost.

And so that has to be put in a proposal that Christina knows what it is. Oh, the front end, right. Her time and you may be also in the planning board. You have to have a decommissioning plan to take them down, to appropriately recycle them, or whatever. But totally a very low value because they are not necessarily worthy of the installation. Does that mean somebody wouldn't want to be interested in it and put them together?

There's going to be a lot that expire in the coming decade or so. You know, I think they are recycling panels now, though.

We should... Question for Jeff. Sure, Jeff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Are we voting on this or is this... I think we should because... to approve the proposal as described in replacing the panels on the roof that had to be taken off because of the needs. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Second. Jacob for the discussion. All in favor? Christina. Hi. Jacob. Hi. Myself. Hi. William.

Hi.

Kenny. Hi. Thank you very much. All right. You skipped the aspirin one first. Yeah. Can we come back to that? Since there's nobody here waiting on us, would you mind if we come back to that? I'd like to just tackle cannabis expo. Yeah, so we've got some more communication on cannabis. It doesn't sound like a big thing that they're shooting for. They want to fit within the footprint. Now, we did refer to our building in VR. Um, the state, um, I think has some guidance when it comes to the cannabis. Exposed on some rules and regulations associated with that. So, unfortunately we haven't heard back from, uh, our CEO on that. I think he's waiting for some legal guidance on that. I think it's quite possible. no I wasn't suggesting that we might have a special meeting and I bring that up because typically the second meeting in August because it's fair we don't have a meeting because many of the public aren't with the fair or at the fair or otherwise engaged so I would propose we do a We do have one or two other matters under negotiation now, and if there's a movement there.

I mean, would it make sense for us to approve this with a condition? Or, like, what are we reviewing?

Well, we need to know if it's allowable. We haven't heard from our CEO whether or not this is allowed. with this type of an event.

Because it seems to me like we were last time when we were talking about this we were asking a question like why is this before us and it's because office of cannabis management requires that the town board take an action but if if we were to approve this contingent on the zoning review

I understand, and I want to say this respectfully, but this is where I sometimes get confused. Sometimes you won't vote on something because you don't have the last little detail signed off on them. That's a great trait for an architect.

We are generalists.

Right. And then there are other times we don't even get from our CEO whether it's legal or allowed, and you're okay voting on it. I'm just saying... I think we need to make sure that we're voting on something that is allowed under our code or under New York State. And so we were supposed to, like all these referrals were supposed to go to him and come back to us.

I'm happy to go on record and say, provided it's... Did he, I'm sorry to interrupt, did he get all the information? Remember we had asked for that additional information?

He did. And before we even had a chance to ask Upstate Pines, they sent it like a 40-hour or something like that. He had watched the meeting or something like that. He was thankful that we were generally supportive.

I guess my point, the reason that I would suggest that is because we're not generally involved in zoning decisions, right? So like what, why is OCM referring it to the town board to say that we are generally supportive? It's a requirement by the law. It's in their law. Right.

You know, I think because this is not a dispenser. This is like an expo.

Right.

So think about what an expo is. Sometimes it's a little fun, right? We heard about a car show that happened on that two acre property that is so tiny. And some of us went this spring down to Jacob Javits where there was another car show at Expo. And that was hundreds of thousands of people. So I think the idea is that we're supposed to gather information. We're supposed to take a look at the state law. We're supposed to look at our own local code and make sure it conforms. I'm perfectly comfortable with this. I'm perfectly comfortable. We've done this, maybe not while you've been on the board, but we certainly have on shorter call special meetings for either grant purposes or purposes to accommodate this. And I'm happy to make myself available to to call a special man to approve it, but I want somebody to tell me that it's allowed before we do that. And only the CEO can make those determinations. I don't want to stand in the shoes of the CEO.

I understand, but my only point is just saying that, like, because the CEO is day in, day out determining whether things are allowed or not. And so if If we were to say that we are comfortable with this, as long as it conforms with our zoning, I would be comfortable saying that, because I think that's the intent of us weighing in on it.

I think it serves a purpose. Sort of saying, we're waiting to hear that back. If we get that information that says, yeah, good to go, why have a separate meeting for to approve it if we feel like, if the answer's yes. Right, like if... You're okay on the hypothetical? Well, I think if the answer's no, then we don't...

But I guess the question is, are we, if, say, and I'm generally flexible about those kinds of things, but are we sending something to the state saying contingent on this, and they get it and they go, oh, this is fine.

No, I think we wait to sign off on the form until we hear from them.

Ah, I see. But could we pass it tonight saying, It is up to the ZEO to make sure that the zoning conforms, we're okay with it if he signs off on it, and then it goes to the state.

We delegate Robert's work with the ZEO to get that answer and then sign off on it if the answer is yes.

The fair starts on the 23rd, right? 25th. Oh, the 25th. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying to think about it in terms of if we had to run it here in the morning.

Oh.

You only need three of us to do it, so I'm not going where all of them are available.

Did they get this temporary extension of their dispensary? That's an approval plan from the state? It says here that the rented space, there's a temporary extension of our licensed retail dispensary. Do we have to get approval, or is that something... That's going to the state, I would think. Right. But you see where I'm seeing that? Upstate Pines is going to be selling cannabis. They're going to be the only ones that are these... That's right, they're the only ones selling it. Right, but they're saying the rented space will operate as a temporary extension of our license. Okay, yeah, I read that. I think what they're saying is... We have to get approval from the state to get a temporary extension.

I think if we approved it, I think that's what the state's waiting for.

Just to be clear, I want to make sure that we're not giving the wrong person. We don't approve it.

No, I know. The state approves it. The state regulates the state.

The state approves it. But the form is asking us to approve for the state to consider.

Exactly. And I think the additional information that they provide us is that they're going to be the only actual seller. It's just that it's not across the street. It's going to be at the farm. I'm just wondering, is it legal for them to sell at this rented event? I think that's up to the state. And so when they make their approval, that's part of what they're approving. That's why I feel uncomfortable voting on it until we get it.

I think that this showcase event application is meant to account for those showcases happening in places that are different from the typical location that they're doing the business at.

Is there a compromise here where maybe we as a board can convey just for their planning purpose those that are provided without letting them know that our inclination is to support this effort if we get Do you want more information?

I'm fine with that.

We shouldn't do anything.

So I think it's not a vote to send a form. Eliminary okay.

What's that? Eliminary okay. Okay, so would I then ask you for permission to communicate with upstate pines to say that while they're still the outstanding question and legality that, you know, as a board, we did not see a problem with it, and for planning purposes, provided we get the information, we intend to convene a meeting, a special meeting, even if for a few minutes, to approve the form when it comes. You don't like it?

I don't like it because I just, it's a matter of principle to me. I mean, like, we're not in the business of of doing the zoning review. So I look at it as rather intensive.

That's why I don't want to vote on it. I don't want to vote on something that, you know, somebody hasn't told me.

So the language would be something like we appoint Robert.

It doesn't have to be language. It's just you're authorizing me to communicate with them that as a board we have no problem conceptually with doing it and what they've described sounds great. But we need to hear back from the ZU.

But they need to conform with our zoning law.

If it does, we will convene a special meeting. Well, not only zone law, but state law.

But we're not weighing in on the state law. We should weigh in on our zoning law.

That's town law, but then it's going to go to the state. Well, somebody in our municipality needs to be up on, and actually Brandon offered to take a look into that as well, the state law, to make sure that we're You know, being cognizant of that.

You know, the whole idea of this discussion is we all think about one thing. Liability. It's just like what was happening at Hartman's with the festival and the alcohol. There's liability on our part. In some ways.

You were around the Gathering of the Bibles. Yeah, well that.

Right.

Or somebody died. No, that was me.

Robert, I think your point is interesting to me. I didn't actually think about it that way, but is the authority having jurisdiction for OCM, the town or the state?

No, we don't have authority. No, I just pointed out that it's not our decision. We just need... to do our due diligence, which is to have our CEO says, yes, it's okay that they do that, and yes, what they're proposing conforms. See, what we're not anticipating is that they, Brandon comes back and says, well, they can do it, but they have to do A, B, C, and D, and this part of it they can't do, or whatever, and we're like, okay, well, wait, now what do we do? And so that's why I'm saying I think we should convey our sentiment, if we haven't already, And then, you know, I did ask Brandon about it today because I reminded him that it was on the agenda. He said he was still waiting to hear back on certain matters, you know, like the legal, I think the legal stuff. Because this is all new to us. I mean, it could be really one of the worst rollouts in state history was cannabis, and here we are trying to figure it out.

I mean, I guess that the form, right, the saying, what it's asking for us, right, is that the individual authorized to approve events on behalf of the Maloney municipality approving of the event to take place, the location, and the dates and times, right? I think that the discussion we've had tonight is, if we hear back from Brandon that, yeah, there's not an issue with this in our zoning, we're all like, yeah, go ahead, we approve it, no problem. I don't think we need to call into the meeting. I think we can authorize. you as the person to sign off on this, if that's the answer we get. If we get a different answer, I think that maybe it's prudent to call a meeting and have that discussion. But I don't see the need to call the meeting just to say, yeah, I think we all agree on the board. But I would call a meeting if Brandon comes back and says yes, but. If there's a qualification where the answer's no.

That's fair.

I think we can plan to hold the time.

I hope I don't regret that, but I can live with that, yeah. I think Kenny brings up a good point, which is the liability. Well, you all agreed. You didn't ask to see, is there first aid? Is there, you know, whatever? Is there the normal things that you would have at an expo? And this is Brendan's job, is to, you know, is this allowed by the site plan?

You know, all of those things. You know, it's a one-time thing.

You normally have some decent insurance. And the state's going to review the application as well. We're just saying, yes, you can have an event. I don't think we need to overcomplicate it.

I'll make that motion. To authorize Robert to... To authorize Robert to... To approve pending...

So I review. Wait. Can we just backtrack a little bit? So the motion is to authorize the town supervisor by name, not a name, the town supervisor to submit the form to OCM under the condition that The zoning officer approves of the event as described. Beautiful. That's my motion. All right. I'll second that. All right. Further discussion? All in favor? Any? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Deanna?

Oh, yes.

It's near heresy that we've left the pets to the near glass. We'll get to the bridge again. We'll cross that bridge again.

All right.

So just a very quick explanation. This is new.

This is the lava. The lava was passed last year. We, I already updated my system, but on renewal, on renewal license, we have to add an option for people to contribute to a shelter of our choice, whatever we choose, and then annually, it'll show up on my report, but annually, it'll show up on my report as people contribute monthly, but annually, we will pay the shelter, whatever's been collected.

Right. Is the amount a fixed amount? They have a choice.

You have a choice. You can do whatever you want. It's like when you go to a restaurant and they say, would you like to contribute to the hungry? And then you pick a whatever.

5, 10, whatever amount.

Yeah, but does the state set those amounts? No.

OK. That's up to, I mean, I was just going to do 5, 10, and then a blank to put whatever. Yeah. You know, or whatever, if you think it should be less. But I feel like people, if they're going to do it, they're going to do it. But we do have to name a shelter. They can't do a write-in. So. So, Kenny.

No, that's, well, so the ask is for you to come up with a recommendation in talking to maybe Patricia and maybe know, take a look at, I know that ASPCA is going through the transition.

Ulster takes a lot of dogs. What's that? Ulster SPCA takes a lot of dogs. I know. Yeah. That was my point.

So, maybe come up with a recommendation of a couple of places we might consider, because we do have to identify the shelter.

Right. Like not-for-profits that you, I just don't know any. That's off the top of my head. I didn't really do any research.

You're talking about Patricia Lynn?

She would probably know, yeah.

So maybe if you could have a conversation with her.

Did you phone me her number? I can do that. It's on the website. I can do it. It's on the website, but I can also help.

But the question I have is, on the form, is it going to be fixed? Let's say we come up with a recommendation. It's going to be fixed. It's just going to be one name.

There's only one choice. They can't do a write-in. It's just that. And it's going to say it. On the license, on the renewal, there's a spot where I'm going to be having that printed in, you know, donation, optional donation to such and such, and the resolution shows that too, and then it'll be like five, ten, or other. It's just an option. Like, I don't know why they're doing it, but we have to...

But the shelter doesn't have to be in Dutchess County?

No. No, it doesn't. I mean, it doesn't have to be. It's local. Some people are doing Dutchess County SPCA south of here, but others, I think, have done Hudson Valley Rescue. I don't remember the names, but Hudson Valley.

There's a few choices. Yeah.

I'll find them. The local shelters. OK. But it doesn't have to be in the county. All right. Just local.

Okay.

Thank you.

So yeah, there are a couple of blanks in that. If you want to take a look at them and come back to us in September. Oh yeah, we're not having a meeting.

In September.

We'll handle that after the bridge.

You know what? We already sent out our renewals for this past month. So if they go out in September, as long as we're working on this, we're compliant. I mean, I already have it updated on it. my system, so it already has a blank there, so I'll just finish it off once we decide, once you decide what shelter, you know, decide to donate to.

Do you know if we have the ability to change that option at some point after we've said it, or is it something that, sort of the question before?

I think so, I think we can designate it. identified.

Right, maybe like after a year.

The concept is that before somebody donates they need to know who they're donating to.

get to before that yeah that's fine but for like the resolution to choose because then my renewals will go out september or we can do it for actual life resolution number well we're not going to do it oh we're not doing this no because you gotta you gotta come up with a recommendation we gotta fill in the blanks no oh yeah yeah i know i know i'm talking about the bridge i'm moving on yeah yeah

So we're not going to take action on the bond resolution because there's no numbers in the bond resolution. The reason there's no numbers is because we still have to resolve that one question which is are we going to maybe change any of the materials and subsequently to the discussion that we had on this I've been in touch with DOT, and so I'm pleased to report, I've reported to you all, but I've reported to the public that we are going to get another allocation of $507,000 towards this bridge project. So we will be in a better position to entertain Going out to bid again in September, right? We decided that at a previous meeting. We were advised to do so by those engineers, HVEA. They sent us some alternatives, which... Like value engineering alternatives? Well, you saw the stamped concrete stuff and all that stuff. So, you know, I don't know how others felt. I wasn't all that excited about that block. I mean, I think I would prefer actually just continuing the... the open part of the bridge before that. So I wonder now that we have $507,000 more, if we want to keep the specs the way they are, if we want to make some value engineering changes. So what are your thoughts? Knowing that we need to decide by September.

By September, by the first September meeting?

September 8th. You've got time to design something.

Well, no, I mean, I looked at it.

We've been talking about this for a few months again, so I want to remind everybody that.

Valid. I mean... If there's no difference between making a decision now and making a decision in September, then I would say let's make the decision in September. If it's, I mean, I've looked at it, it's an important bridge.

It's like, it's gonna be very sensitive to... Yeah, we have public and co-sessions, we have neighbors. I believe it. Right, all that stuff.

I think it should be nice. I think it should be nice, I agree.

Now, this is the considerations, the joy of being in these positions. We heard about groups of taxpayers, groups of residents, these paying for those, and so on and so forth.

Well, also, we did a lot of work getting input from the public and the community. And to the extent we can afford to honor that, we should. And with another half a million dollars, I'm not so sure that that's going to be a problem. From your mouth. No. I mean, listen. We put it out for bid. The bid we got before... was acceptable in money-wise, but it didn't meet certain... But we only got one. And we only got one, but I guess my point is... Well, I hope we get good bids. Yeah, I want more bids, but I don't have a high concern, especially now that we have more money. I don't know. I don't share your thoughts on it.

The cheapest day to build anything was yesterday.

It was yesterday. Yeah, but we're not asking for a gold-plated bridge, right?

Is there anything preventing us from putting the alternative into the RFP? The which? Putting an alternative. Oh, alternative. The stamped concrete as alternative to or something like that.

I wouldn't. I think it's going to be bad. I mean...

like you know not stamped concrete but you know a nice finished concrete with a nice slate cap on top instead of the whole thing being stone at least it's not this guard rail but it's a you know a two inch you know so my opinion is my opinion is that the design like I was looking at it not from a

perspective of critiquing the design, because I believe that that has already gone through its process, and that's very important. But are there any other aspects? Are the culvert sides right? Are the footings, is it over-engineered in a way that we could pull back on anything that wouldn't affect the design intent? It would take more time to go through that, and a lot of times, it costs more in engineering fees to make the revisions than you're gonna get in savings.

You're going to push it a whole nother year.

I mean, when we received that six inches of rain a week or so ago, what did it look like there?

Funny you should mention it, because your town supervisor drives around town and documents all the flooding. And it was such a hyper-local event. I'm sure you read that Kinderhook broke records with 11 inches and whatever. I believe you had more than whatever. So did you drive by that bridge? I have pictures of the bridge.

Oh.

Stony Brook. I have pictures of Sengstang. I have all that because that's what I do.

So what's that particular area?

Interestingly enough, the bridge that we were placed on Stony Brook was having a hard time keeping up and we had widened it. Remember that bridge where you were at? Stony Brook Bridge. That was having a hard time keeping up the amount of water. Because the Stony Creek comes from the north. And there was all that water from the north. German town, right? And our boat keeper had lakefront property, couldn't get out. She needed somebody to pick her up. And the Salt Hill Bridge. And that one was keeping up for the moment. The one in . Yes, but you have to remember, you know, soils and electric soils and water, you know, as good as anybody. We had tremendous amounts of rain, not nearly what Tivoli had, not nearly what Germantown had, not nearly what but what we did have was dryness previous to that. So it was able to absorb a fair amount. So it really wasn't a good indication. Let's see in April if we get one of those rains, what that's like.

What did it look like when Hurricane Irene hit?

Yes. Because that dumped like 14 inches of rain. Well, it was Irene and Lake, and that was when we had the devastation. What about Sandy? Sandy was south. I'm sorry.

But it did, it came up the Hudson, though, didn't it? Yeah, but Irene put more water in. Oh, it did? Yeah. Oh, wait, what was your bottom line, though? That it held up, you said.

That it held up. But I think it held up in part because, remember, the Salt Hill comes from a very different place than where the Stony Brook comes from. So that hyper-local event was a huge difference between Well, you saw the damaged photos in Germantown.

Yeah, I know.

Right? So... If I understand where we are, consensus is... We're going to continue with the specs the way they are unless somebody has a better idea that they want to propose at the September meeting. Better get me that idea quickly because it'll need to be reviewed by DOT and let me tell you, you're talking months. That's not realistic. It's not realistic. It's not realistic.

We should just approve it. We should just send it back out.

Okay, so we're going to let HVEA know we're going to go out back to bid. Same specs. Fingers crossed. Hopefully more contractors. Look if we have to just continue to reject bids till we get a reasonable quote. And that's what we'll have to do.

Is that a motion?

Yeah. A motion to direct the supervisor to communicate to HVA that we are not going to change the specs and that we are prepared to go out for rebid at our September Did you make that motion? Well, I can't have a motion that directs me. So moved.