Town Board - Regular Meeting

Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, we'll start off with public comments. Anybody from the public have anything that's not subject to a public hearing? OK. I see that Susan is with us and Elizabeth Smith. So we'll move on to the wireless communication master plan. Susan, are you ready?

Yes, I am. I just had to unmute. Thank you. And let me share my screen. Thank you for having us on this morning. I really appreciate it.

Good, good. And also Christine Elizabeth Smith is with Cityscape as well. So if she, great, thank you. Yeah, we tend to turn off videos unless somebody is presenting.

Okay, that's fine.

Perfect.

There we go. And just a moment. Okay, great. Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. Continue to share. I've got a pop-up window. Okay. Do you see the pop-up window on your end?

Yes, we do.

You do. Okay. Let me stop sharing and see if I can get that to go away. Let's try again.

Yeah, it's gone.

Okay, great. And, oh, it doesn't like it when I expand my screen. So I'll tell you what, I won't expand my screen. Oh.

Christina can share if you'd like.

Let's see.

Or I can if you want.

There we go. Let's do this. I just enlarge it like so. Um, Let me try this button. No, I can't. I don't understand why it's doing that.

Just hit continue to share. Just click that. There you go.

Yeah.

It won't do anything.

It will not. It's never done this before. You could, or I can. You sent it on to Christina. I did. Or I can. Open the PDF. Open the PDF, but now my computer's frozen. Oh, no. Here. I can't see anything but this. Oh, dear. My apologies. I don't know.

Do you want to try Christina? Yeah, I can.

Christina, can you, by any chance, turn off my video? Turn off my sharing ability and maybe I can get rid of this. She just brought it up. Can you see it? I can't. I'm going to have to log back in, I think, because my computer's frozen. Okay. Are you there? Yes. Yeah. Okay. yeah i'm i apologize i don't know why it's doing this i'm gonna have to log out and come and go back in do you have enough can you do you have another item and have me come back after that um yeah yeah we yeah taylor's island we can do that okay let's do that i apologize in the meantime yeah i'm gonna have to shut down and come back in all right thank you

I'm just bringing up the Taylor's Island. Do you have that in front of you? Oh, I have it.

Christine gave it to me. All right, so the Taylor's Island is asking to use the Josephson Preserve for their benefit. for the Smith Taylor Cabin in Taylor's Island. And it's sort of a thank you for everybody who works on Taylor's Island, right? That's what this one's for?

No, this is a fundraiser.

Oh, this is a fundraiser.

Thank you.

I guess I'm so confused. So it's for 75 to 100 people max throughout the event. It's finger foods and homemade lemonade. The event is going to take place Saturday, August 15th from 4 to 6. There's going to be a set up and clean up before and after the event. So it's all the same day.

And this is something that's been held at White Oak before on Taylor's Island, but it hasn't been held on Taylor's Island since before the pandemic. Yeah, they're going to be using the outs outdoors.

Are they putting up like tables and stuff? Yes. I believe so tables and help proceeding.

Yeah, and they are requesting a noise exemption, which. Doesn't it's never struck me as. Exceeded the noise.

Are they adding music or something? I mean, this doesn't really say noise exemption. I think they're just asking you to pop.

Yeah. Yeah, I think it's just standard, you know, asking for the noise exemption. I don't see any issues with it. It's usually a fairly sedate event. Yeah. It's been nice. It's nice of them.

Yes, it's fine by me. We did send it to Tui, and he said that the CPF

um committee voted unanimously to approve and support the event yeah they didn't see initiative i would i would like to add a caveat um that recognized and that taylor's island foundation is a all about the preservation of a historical site that the town oh yes it doesn't open the floor for fun other fundraisers or That's all just to qualify.

Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. Yes. But we don't start to get. Request after request for that property.

Yeah, especially while we're trying to, you know, if we could take them individually.

Yeah, because we are still trying to decide the CPF committee is trying to decide the stewardship plan for that property. So that's a good point. Okay. All right. So we have time, so we can put that on for July 20th. I don't see that Susan is back on. Bless you next item on the agenda. She's what? Okay, we can quickly just talk about stuff with any water authority and West neck water that was on here, but I wasn't sure how far Thomas was going to get with talking to sub can water authority. We. Don't have when we were running Western water district, if we had to link 1 accounts, we had the ability to shut off the water supply. We don't have that same arrangement with under water for it, because in the operating agreement, we never gave them. A mechanism for doing so, and what they normally do with. systems that they actually own and run, they're just operating, of course, they will land people's property. But again, there's no mechanism for that happening. So Thomas will have to work on this next week or the week following is going to work on what we can build into the operating agreement modification so that we give them authority or we have a way to go about and say, okay, we're giving you permission to turn off this person's war. That's where we are. I would have pulled it from the agenda, but we only started talking about it yesterday. So I figured since it was on here, people might be wondering what we were doing. It was an opportunity to . All right. Susan, if you're ready, we can go back to the wireless communication master plan. OK, that would be great.

Thank you. let's try again. Um, I need to be able to share my screen and if it doesn't work this time, Elizabeth can, there we go. There we go. All right. Can you see it now? Yes. Okay, great. All right. Sorry for that inconvenience. And again, thank you for having us on the call today or the meeting. We, uh, recently launched the wireless infrastructure survey to get feedback from the residents about the draft master plan and the maps that we presented the last time that I met with you all. The survey opened on June 2nd and it was closed on June 24th. There were 31 questions and we had a total of 72 online responses. Now, not everyone answered every question, but they answered the majority of them. So I'm going to walk through the responses now. The first part of the questions were specific to getting information about the responder, excuse me, and their experiences with wireless coverage. So the first question was to find out who the responder was. 75% of those who participated in the poll indicated that they live on Shelter Island year-round, and then you had 21% that indicated that they live on Shelter Island seasonally or during the holidays. We then wanted to know how they use their phone, and they could identify or check as many of these that applied, and 95% indicate they use their phones for personal recreation and leisure use. You also have a large number that indicate that they use their wireless devices for employment. And then you have them using them for smart devices, telehealth, all sorts of reasons. They then had the opportunity to provide comments pertaining to either one of those first two questions. We did receive nine comments. In summary, basically indicating that they use their phone for many purposes, that they depend on their device, and that coverage was poor for them. You did have one that indicated they did not want you to install monopoles. Excuse me. We then wanted to know who their wireless provider is. And the majority have AT&T. followed by Verizon, and then T-Mobile, and then some additional carriers who may have their own network or roam on the other major providers. We asked how many cell phones or wireless devices are attached to their subscription, and the average was 3.5. The range was 0 to 12. We asked this question because the response helps us gauge information about capacity. If you have a lot of people using multiple devices in their subscription, it affects the capacity of the network. So this sort of gives us an idea of the range of the capacity. We then went into a series of questions asking about their experience of their cell phone coverage on Shelter Island, both where they reside, where they work, and as they travel. So with regards to coverage inside of their dwelling units, you had 11% that indicated it was excellent. The majority or the larger indicator was that it was acceptable, 34%, 31%, four, and then inconsistent. If they live in Shelter Island, we wanted to know if they used a network extender or a booster, and you had 71% indicate they do not, 26% indicating yes. And if they live on Shelter Island, do they rely on the Wi-Fi to help improve their phone service at home? And the majority, almost 80%, said yes, they do rely on Wi-Fi. Now we want to know if they... work somewhere other than their residence what is their phone coverage at their workplace and you had a wide variety of responses here most of um or a large percentage do not work on shelter island they're either retired or they don't work in the town of those that do you had um the majority saying that it was acceptable, three bars. And again, we asked if they rely on Wi-Fi to improve that network coverage, and the majority of the response said yes. And then we wanted to know about traveling. What's the experience of traveling? And 44.4% indicate that it's acceptable, which is three bars in the vehicle. Only 8.3% indicated it was excellent. When asked if the quality of wireless phone service is important to them, 79% indicated yes. And when asked if they would rely more on their mobile device if the network was better, you had 41% indicate that they entirely agreed with that statement. followed by 27% neutral and 20% somewhat agreed. And then the last question in part one was to find out if they had specific areas of the town where they experienced poor service. And you had 41 responses. And of that 41, 13 of those responses mentioned the South Ferry area. Nine indicated the IGA. And then you had similar numbers for Silver Beach, Ram Island, and the Sitter. And then the other 40, the difference of that, those numbers of 41 were basically just people referring to individual residential streets. Now we move into part two, which is questions about the actual coverage maps, visual preferences, and future wireless facilities. So we showed the existing coverage map, the estimated existing coverage map from your existing sites. And just to sort of remind everyone from the last meeting, because it is a lot to remember and absorb, that this map shows the estimated coverage if all the service providers were on every site and the yellow indicates in-building coverage, the blue or green is outdoor, blue is primarily indoors, and where there is no coloration on the map, that's indicating your definite gap areas or no coverage zones.

We then wanted to look at

where address points are in relationship to the map. And the dots are colored similarly to the coverage map that I just showed you. The yellow dots represent in building, the blue dots outdoor, the green in vehicle, and then where there is no coloration, there is no service. We do this so that we can see where the population generally is living and working. This area here doesn't have any coverage or has very poor and spotty coverage, but we also make a note that no one lives there. And then we look to see why we see that it's the preservation lands. And so that helps us in the modeling and our approach to problem solving the gap analysis. So we looked at your zoning code and the code encourages the use of public properties. We then vetted over a hundred of the town owned lands and compared them to the gap areas and the rest of your zoning code and came up with four locations that could potentially be used to help remedy the gaps that we identified in the maps. And these are your sites, PM01, PM02, PM03, and PM04. We then created two scenarios. Scenario number one is for a macro cell at PM01, PM02, and PM03, all at 120 feet in height. And then we created a second scenario where we changed out PM03 with PM04 because we were, we had some concerns about that Southern area and, but we weren't sure, you know, of those two sites, which one the community would support because the PM04 is closer to the shoreline. PM03 is a little more interior to the community. And so we were able to demonstrate that both of those scenarios provided very similar coverage, not exact, but either one of those three or four would help solve a lot of the outdoor only or in vehicle only experiences that people have now. We then compared those coverage maps to the address points to see if indeed the address points were going to have a similar coverage to what the coverage maps show. Sometimes we see a lot of variations. And the variations could be caused by topography, could be building clutter, it could be vegetative. These are all variables that we build into our models. But what we found when we looked at your address points, they did follow the coverage maps rather closely. And when we compared the address points, we found that we could significantly improve the in-building with both scenario one and scenario two. You can see sort of the nuances. You have more in-building coverage with scenario one. then you do a scenario two, but they're very close. There is one address point that we could not get coverage to from either scenario. And that was brought up in one of the comments that was made at the end of the survey. And I'm just going to go back to this scenario map here. We were trying to demonstrate how few sites you would need to get the most coverage for your geographic area. And so we found that generally at 120 feet, you could provide space for the three primary providers and get this sort of a coverage pattern. This one dot over here, That property is located in such a way that coverage from this proposed PMO2 site cannot get to that point. And I did have engineering go back and look at that situation because of the comment in the comment sections. And they indicated that this PM02 site would need to be raised to 310 feet in order to get coverage into that location. So it is an option if you're trying to get complete coverage to all the address points, but the heights of these proposed sites would need to change. So then we went through and we asked specifically about the proposed locations, and we wanted to know if the community would support facilities at those sites. So with regards to PM01, you had 65% of those who participated in the survey say that they would support a facility behind the tree line at the golf course at 26 Sunnyside Avenue. You had 81% indicate that they would support a facility on South Ram Island Drive. 78% would support a facility on 4 Heritage Drive. And 71% would support a facility at 8 Osprey Drive. I do want to point out that there was a comment made about 4 Heritage Drive indicating that the entire property was in the wetlands. I looked at that before we considered this property, and I did not see that the entire property was in the wetlands. And I went back and checked the wetland map after I read that comment. And a large portion of the property is in the wetlands, but not the entire parcel. I've seen towers that have been built right next to, right close to that wetland line and other situations. And so I still think that for Heritage Drive is viable. However, the good news is if you want to stay clear of that property, then that might be an indicator as to why you would go with scenario number two, which puts the facility at PMO4 instead of PMO3. We then asked if between the two macro cell solutions, which one would they support the most? 50% said either one. percent said they didn't support either option. And scenario one came in a little higher than as an only option compared to scenario two. Not quite sure why there was no support for either option when there was support for facilities at those four locations. But regardless, you have 50% that indicate that they would support either scenario. Now we wanted to find out what design type would the community support. And we offered the three standard non-concealed facilities, all of the above and none of the above. And you had 34% indicate that they did not support any of these above facilities because they wanted concealment. And in looking at the concealment, the monopine had the largest vote percentage of 60%, followed by a unipole, followed by the painted pole. Then we introduced the concept of small wireless facilities that typically go in the right of way and asked what design type they would support. And the concealed design came out on top. And if small wireless facilities go in the right of way, the hope is that they would be designed for co-location so that you would have fewer of them. And then overall, which macro cell tower design do you prefer? And this is just sort of a check and balance to see if the answers align. And they did. You had 63.5% indicate that they want visually mitigated facilities in the future. We wanted to find out now what is really the most important thing to them. Is it connectivity, visual appearance, or are they basically the same? And you had the majority, 45.2%, indicated that they want good connectivity with minimal visual impact. You had 16.4% indicate that they would prefer less wireless infrastructure and they would be willing to tolerate less noise. cell phone coverage and 34% indicating that they want excellent cell phone connectivity. This next question deals with location and wanting to find out where they would support new wireless infrastructure. And 56%, the majority, continued to support the use on town-owned and then 50% publicly-owned properties, followed by non-residential lands, private lands used for non-residential purposes. There you go. And then fourth was in the street right-of-way. And then anywhere in the town and somewhere other than my neighborhood was 17%. I just love that response. And then, which do you prefer the most with regards to public, private, right-of-way utility easements? And it was 50%. I know these questions are similar, but they're just nuanced to help give us really a better understanding or clear understanding of the community support. And then I'll talk about that more when I get into the zoning piece. So if you support using the town-owned property, what is most important to you? We gave them options for like managing the location of the infrastructure, controlling the overall design, the revenue that I wouldn't support it at all. And you had 40% indicating that all of those were important to them. And you did have 12% indicating they did not support the use of town owned properties. And you had 57% indicate that they would like to receive further information about this project. So overall comments, you had the concern about, you had 12 comments that were left at the end of the survey. You had a comment about the Heritage Drive wetland, which I addressed already. The lack of improved coverage on Big Ram Island, which I talked about that the height would have to go up. Concern for the new tower heights and your current code allows a maximum or up to 150 feet for maximum heights and we did try to keep the towers as low as possible. So the 120 feet is actually 30 feet less than what the code would allow. You could always, I'm sure the industry would always want to go up to the 150 foot mark, but we did demonstrate that 120 feet you're able to improve your coverage. There was a concern about not having enough coverage on Silver Beach. And again, you could probably get a little more coverage if the height of the tower at the golf course or maybe PMO4 were increased, maybe both of them. Alternatively, if the industry comes in and they're talking to you about deployment, If there is a concern, especially from public safety on Silver Beach, you might want to talk about a small wireless facility, maybe in that vicinity. There was concern about, one person voiced concern about the size and visibility of the ground equipment at the base of the tower. And yes, that ground equipment that is at your current two tower sites would be required at the other new tower sites. Your code does require though, that there be vegetation and screening. And I recall from our assessments when Elizabeth and I were out in the field that your two existing sites don't have a lot of screening around the base. And perhaps it was because the code came after those sites were improved or built, or maybe when they were built, you decided that not much screening was required, but your code does allow you to address the vegetative buffer, the fencing, the screening on a case-by-case basis. And I think your code gives you enough flexibility that if you have concerns about the screening, that you can address that when a site comes in. You had two that indicated they had no support for any new wireless facilities. And you had two that specifically mentioned that they appreciated the efforts of the project. And then there were some remaining other just individual observations that were made that you can read when you get the survey results. So in summary, the wireless service and usage, the majority indicate that the quality of wireless service is important to them. And 45% indicate that the coverage where they reside was excellent or acceptable. So that's the combined percentage for both of those responses. And you do have 70% of the respondents relying on Wi-Fi to achieve that excellent or acceptable service. And 41% indicated that they would use their mobile devices more if coverage were improved. With regards to design, 34% do not support the use of non-concealed. If you're going to use a non-concealed, the guide tower was the preferred non-concealed option. The monopine was the most preferred concealed type. And the majority, 37.5% support the use of concealed small cell sites as well. And if they go in the right of way, the majority want those sites to be able to accommodate multiple providers. and you had majority that supports the use of publicly owned properties for new wireless infrastructure. So we've taken that information and studied your code a little more thoroughly and a few things to bring to your attention. So your code is found in chapter 48 And specifically, subsection 48-4 is your general criteria, and you list a preference, one through four, of where new sites would go. Your first one is on public property, which aligns nicely still with what the poll respondents indicated. And then your second was to go on public utility structures like a telephone pole, transmission line, water tank, followed by colocation on an existing site, followed by location on a portion of a site that's not visible from a residential area. So that would be public or private. So that's all very consistent. However, well, that's consistent with what was in the survey, but it's not consistent necessarily with other subsections of your code. because subsection 48.6, which is your co-location, says that shared use of existing towers or structures shall be preferred to the construction of new facilities. So if that is the case, then I would suggest moving co-location, which you have as number three, to number one, so that those align, because right now it's creating a gray area for an applicant when they come in. They're going to be like, well, you say you wanted to go on public property as your number one choice in collocations number three. And then in this section you have, again, you know, shared is preferred. So I would suggest, you know, remedying that. You also have in your code in subsection 48-10 titled visibility and aesthetics that towers shall be galvanized finished or painted gray above the surrounding tree line and painted gray green black or similar colors designed to blend in with the natural environment below the tree line and that's not consistent with what the responses are in the poll the painted tower had 28% of a preferred design type. And the monopine had the 63. So I would consider, or I suggest considering maybe changing that section to be more flexible to allow other design types besides just the galvanized or the painted. And then I would also suggest if you are going to support the proposed or potential, not proposed, potential locations in the master plan, PMO1, 2, 3, or 4, you could actually build those into your hierarchy as preferred locations so that, because they've already been vetted, and so that the industry sort of has an idea of locations that they could consider right away for improving the coverage. Now, when we look at your cell tower code in comparison to the code of federal regulations, there have been some changes to the code of federal regulations that are not reflected in your code. The first one is there's a number of definitions, but the one that's most important is that you need to add a definition for the base station. The base station, as I mentioned previously in the other presentation a couple of weeks ago, is that the base station used to be considered the ground equipment at the base of the tower. Now, a base station is anything that the antenna attaches to that is not specifically a tower. So, for example, a water tank or a rooftop or an existing utility pole. And the reason that's important is because there's another definition that's been added called an eligible facility request. And if the industry meets the criteria of an eligible facility request, then they have the right to increase the height of an existing tower or base station by either 10 feet or 10% for a base station, or 10 feet or 20% for a tower. So those definitions all need to be included in your code. Presently, you don't have any design standards for small wireless facilities in the rights of way. And I would recommend that you add some so that when the industry comes in to put in small wireless facilities that you have more control over what they're going to look like. And lastly, the Code of Federal Regulation has prescribed and required timelines that must be followed. Generally, you have 30 days to determine if an application is complete. That's nuanced with small wireless facilities. When they come in and submit for a second check, you have 10 days. But I didn't get into that great detail with the timelines. I'm just saying generally. And just keep in mind, there are nuances to all of these, like when the shot clock stops and starts. And it's a little more detailed than that. But just generally, it's 30 days to determine if an application is complete. 60 days approval for a co-location on an eligible facility. Again, that's the reason you need to have that definition in your code. 90 days for a new co-location. or a new small wireless facility and 150 days for a new tower. I know that that was a lot of information at one time. We are in the process of revising the draft master plan that we provided to you a few weeks ago to now include the survey results and the summary of code recommendations that I just made. But I found that the survey was very helpful in providing direction and affirming that what you've done so far still aligns with community preferences. So I thought that was great. And I appreciated the commentary that was made by the poll respondents. So if anyone's listening or listening later and you made a comment, I thank you for that because it really does help us to one, double check our work and two, give us an opportunity to take a second look at things that people bring up that are a concern. So I think we've addressed all of their comments and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

When do you think you'll have the plan finalized for us? Elizabeth and I can work on the coordination of that, but the redress, the narrative will be finished this week. So I'm not, I know Friday, most people are not working Friday because the 4th of July holiday. So I don't know if we'll be able to get it to Thursday, maybe next week, but it'll be very soon.

That's fine. Yes. Yeah, and I guess, you know, as far as like steps go, we should clean up our code to incorporate what you suggested before we start to actually look at engaging with providers who might be able to erect towers if we want to be moving forward with this.

I think that would be helpful because it just, like I said, right now, you've got a few inconsistencies. that I think should be helpful to clear up and then to add the code of federal regulation standards to your code, I think would be helpful.

And also, just for the public, I mean, code changes will require public hearings discussion. And then also, if we have applications to erect. Towers that also has a process where. The public can weigh in, so just just. Let the public know or not, like, there won't be a cell tower in your neighborhood tomorrow.

No, we won't just go right. Topping them down.

We can't this process. Yes.

Right. And Cityscape does not build towers. This is a roadmap that sort of complements your comprehensive plan section on infrastructure to be used as a guide for future discussions.

Any board questions before I open it up to the public?

No, not on the study.

yeah someone what we got to do afterwards, but not on the study that was very thorough Thank you yeah once we have the final we can pre look at it moving forward any questions from the public. In the physical audience or on zoom. Okay. Thank you so much for that we look forward to getting the final report and.

Thank you. Thank you very much and happy 4th of July. Thank you. Bye. Bye.

All right next on the agenda, we had pay loader grant application another quick item. We had approved the purchase of a new pay loader and that's being financed and we have working Ken has been working with our grant writer. To look at opportunities, and there is 1 out there, and I believe it's a 5050 grant. So I just wanted to bring it to the board's attention that we want to apply for that. So. At our next good news. Yeah, it's, it's like the 1 that we had, I think, for the grinder where it will take a number of years before we.

Hey, you know what? But it's better than nothing. Exactly, exactly. It's like if you're not in it, you can't win it.

So I just wanted to bring that up. And it's 50%, but I think it's also, it may be similar to the grinder where the percentage of use on various projects, I may limit it a little bit further, but. If we can get what we originally were just gonna have to come out of pocket, so yes exactly second yeah so just wanted to alert you to that so that'll be on the next work agenda. Moving on to last night's various applications, the first one being the Carol application. So we closed the Carol Dock application last night. And what do we think about this one? I'm fine with it as submitted. That's just me.

I think I expressed myself last night. new code calls for a significant reduction in the non-conformity and i i really believe i said it i said it three times and i didn't get any kind of a pushback on it and i think the appendages that are being removed aren't really used they're inconsequential and it's kind of giving something to get what you want you didn't push back either jack or the elf um The first meeting that this was discussed at the WMAC, there was pushback from the committee and they asked Jack to go back and he said, I had to talk to the owner about this, you know, and whatever, continue the discussions. He came back to the board and was the same plan, presented the same plan, but took off a foot at the end of the dock, which I thought it was kind of ridiculous last night, insulting to be honest, but at any rate, um, the biggest thing, the code, which we've just kind of, which we've just initiated the new, the new doc code calls for a significant reduction and not conformity. Um, and this to me doesn't represent, I think you could take. I mean, Bill had put in a potential, not that he's going to design the dock. It's up for the applicant to come back, work it out with the contractor. He can take, shorten the dock. It's 175 feet. I mean, you wouldn't be able to build a dock now. Thank you. By any means.

I'm sorry, look. Are you finished, Albert? Yeah, go ahead. OK. I mean, I've sat through these meetings at the WMAC and looked at all these applications. And I don't want to overstate how I'm actually offended. We spent so much time and effort rewriting the dot code. And it calls for a significant reduction. And a foot reduction? I'm sorry, it's just not significant. And this to be the material, for this to be the first thing we do after we pass a code we worked on for years, I just don't have words for that. Especially when the alternative is an easy alternative. In the meetings with the applicant, we said you can lop off, you can reduce it by 20 feet, reverse the float, and it'll actually improve the docking situation. His boat will be in deeper water as opposed to shallower water. It would help you to reduce this dock. But they just want what they want, and they want us to ignore legislation we just passed. And they keep bringing up the Tetona stock, which is the exact opposite fact pattern. So hold on. Hold on. The Tetona stock was in shallow water. There wasn't a deeper water option there, plus a whole bunch of other things. It's not a good comparison, and we shouldn't do this. We should not do this. Thank you.

Just just just to clarify the old code, which is what to tell us was decided under the standard was is determined by the time we're too significantly less than the pre existing nonconformity. The current existing code is is determined by the time we're too materially less than the pre existing nonconformity. So that word change. I mean, to me, those are kind of similar type of terms, but just to clarify where we are in code.

material, looking it up or googling it, whatever it says, significant or to a great degree. Yeah. Stephen, I remember Leventhal said that he thought material is a better legal term. The legal context fitting in the regulation changed it, the materially, and that did give confusion to members of the WMAC.

Yeah, he was reading O'Gary's lettering. At the time, the interim town attorney thought it was a better term legally, you know, depending because of themselves. My issue with this is, you know, we have, we did write the code so that you have to lessen it. And in looking at the gaps. The doc goes to, I think, like. get to water, you don't need to go 175 feet. It could be lessened. So I'm not in favor of this, just because I think that there could be a modification that better fits what we were trying to accomplish with the code.

When I look at it in the context of all the neighboring docks in the area, You know, it's within the pure line of all these existing pre existing non conforming docs and I like the fact that they're taking out permanent platforms and replacing it with something that's seasonal because that does have an environmental impact. You're reducing it the year round. you know, shading to the bottom by removing the platforms and by decreasing the platform at the end and reconstructing it a little bit, you know, switching it out, you know, some of this weird polygon shape into a clean rectangle and then adding the seasonal dock, you're actually reducing the year round shading to the bottom. I don't have a problem with this application. I think it makes sense. Whether they use the platforms or not, it's still a reduction in the impact to the bottom. It's in keeping with the character and nature of all the other docks in that stretch. It's not an area of the island that takes a beating. So I really don't feel a need to shorten it. I feel like shortening it would seem strange in the area that it's in. I can share my screen so everyone can look at them.

We all kind of know what it looks like. Meg, the problem is that all of these docs are nonconforming. And this is just the first one. Just because it's the same as the other ones that are nonconforming is exactly the point. You want this to be the first one that's shortened because when the one to the left or right of it comes in for modification, you want to be able to say, you need to shorten this one too. You don't want to give them a reason to say, well, you didn't make Carol reduce the length of it. So I want to rebuild it as is. That's kind of the point.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I just don't think it's necessary. If the dock hasn't been a navigational hazard, it hasn't been problematic. It's been in place for over 100 years. I don't. feel a need to shorten it to meet a code that was written decades after the dock was installed. So, you know, I don't think that it has any real impact, whether it's 100 and whatever feet versus 100 feet to the area. I mean, by pulling out all the pilings and stuff, you're just going to do more damage to the established ecosystem. I'd rather just take out the platforms and add a seasonal dock that's going to have less impact than tearing out half the dock, tearing up the bottom, pulling out the pilings. I feel like I don't necessarily see the benefit. But that's me.

My impression, this is strictly my impression of the WMAC meetings, when Jack came in to discuss the application the second time, there was discussion about modifying, which Bill had presented to us. Someone did discussion. He terminated that discussion. He just wanted a vote. Give me a vote. Give me a vote. Give me a vote. Just vote on this. Because I think he wanted to bring it to the town board and all he talked about after that was to tell us that the town board gave to tell us what he wanted. That was just my impression of what transpired.

I mean, technically, they did approve it. Right.

Which is, I think, important to find out here. However, I guess, yeah, I mean, it was three.

No, I mean, but I mean, it's just, I think we kind of are.

I just, you know, I was like,

I mean, we've definitely heard some opinions on. The folks that have reservations on it, but I think it's important to.

It was actually, it was actually 2 people who didn't agree with it. Both decided to write into us instead of the 3 people who did approve of it. They didn't decide to write into us, but I mean, the committee overall did approve it. So, you know, it's.

Well, let's be clear. The approval was to pass this to the downtown board with a recommendation.

Yeah, absolutely.

We now have to act on it.

100%, but I think it's just important to point it out, right?

And what we're being told by the vote is that they are divided over this. So yeah, it's a question of which side of that dividing fence you sit on. But this is not, it wasn't a 7-0 vote or a 6-0 vote. It was a 3-2-2-1 vote. If that isn't divided, I don't know what is. So it's actually up to us in a very clear way to use our best judgment to decide this.

Yeah, I mean, it always is. That's the nature of this.

But I mean, I feel like if this dock were in an area that took a beating like on Peconic, I would say, yes, shorten the dock. Right. Because then there's less structure to be out there getting torn up in the weather. This is a protected area. It's been there forever. All the docks around it are similar in length and structure. So I just I just don't see a need to shorten it. I don't see a rationale for why to do it.

So one, why did we spend all that time rewriting the code to say, shorten it?

Well, the shorten it is a judgment call for us, how much we want it shortened. I'm saying I'm fine with this option.

Oh, okay. That's one way to read it. Okay. I hear you, Meg. And in the discussion, Also, another option was a very reasonable option. It was 20 feet, reverse the float, and your boat will be in deeper water and safer. And for some reason, that's not okay for them. I don't know why.

How can you shorten the dock by 20 feet and get into deeper water?

There's a gully underneath the water there, probably created by the currents that run through there at tide change. So...

um yeah but looking at the yeah when you look at the hydrological depth if that that's not realistic well you don't shorten it against the water yeah although i mean there's still there's still adequate water shortened yeah but it's not yeah it's not deeper oh okay

Well, put it this way, it's certainly not shallower. It is. I think it's actually deeper. Let me just call this up. We just changed this code. We've got to stand by it.

I mean i'm not not following quote there's a material reduction they're taking up 250 square feet of permanent structure and replacing it with a temporary structure, you know I feel like that.

I mean, I think I think what's going on is is. Removing stuff we have different opinions of what that is right, so I think a material production differently yeah.

I'm sorry, material is not removing stuff that you don't even want. But it is, though. It is.

It is still part of the structure. Yeah. It's still part of the structure. So if someone were going to take a deck off their house and it's intruding into the wetlands, we would consider that a material reduction, even if they don't want the deck.

Only if it takes away the nonconformity.

But it does. And so does it here. It does. It reduces our footage.

We would think it was okay if it took it out of the wetlands and got rid of the nonconformity. Yes, that's material. This is not.

It is. It's reducing the existing square footage of permanent dock. So it is. It's a reduction in the nonconformity.

Again, I'll repeat. I brought it up three times to them last night. that you don't want those appendages you don't want them you're still part of the structure yeah you want them so that's great it's not a material that's not a significant reduction to be a material reduction i'm not going to convince you to and you're not going to convince me on this so let's just in those sense going back and forth I want to enforce our code as it's written.

It flies in the face of the code we just wrote.

I think that I hear your opinion.

I don't agree. I do think that there's three of us who are saying we're not going to approve this. Nope, not me. I think Thomas, you can write it in the negative. I just also point, you know, like they're putting in the floating dock back aways. It's not even on the end. It goes back, which means that they don't need to be as far out as say they are.

And we got to think about the next doctor. One on either side. Yeah. When they come up, we got to be, we got to have a, we're gonna have done the right thing here.

All right, so next item on the agenda is STARS at Weigart.

Surprise surprises. I'm okay with this application to as long as they like, the 1st, 20 feet of the fence with some kind of planting or, you know. Flower pot barrier, so that people can't park there and you maintain my site to the door. Because that was really the main concerns people pulling in to be. inside the entrance and having their line of sight blocked by an SUV right at the edge of the fence where you can't see someone coming out of the store and down into the drive. So I think if they put up that barrier to looking for it right on the corner so you maintain line of sight, I think it's sufficient.

yeah and i think just some kind of provision in there about whatever they're using in there about making sure that it's not a tree you know what i mean like it's not a tree or it's not something super big just because that is in fact the whole point of it yeah um but i have access to landscaping material so i'm sure they could pull it off um but yeah i don't see this is an issue at all yeah

i i i just have concerns about the way i've always had it even when we first looked at this um seven years ago whatever when it became the wine tasting it kind of odd the fencing um The intersection that it's right there, it is people heading south on 114 will come across and continue on Manwaring. It is a busy intersection. Sylvester Madden now is putting in a new two-way entrance, although how much use that gets on occasion, yes. I don't think it's a bad idea to have somebody, an expert, a traffic study, look into it and see if it could be reconfigured to make it better. I mean, we know how it is, how it's been for years, but I don't think it's the worst thing to have somebody look at it to improve it in conjunction with the intersection that it's right up against alongside. It's a lot more traffic there than the wine tasting at. I don't know if there is still events held there. They're still putting it out for events, you know, which, you know, there was events there. They probably still are able to. I just not heard to have it re-looked at.

then they do have the opportunity to use the white oak yeah i mean i think that that's what he was saying was is that with events they would have them open the gate and then park along the property line yeah yeah there's not a whole long area yeah and usually those events are thrown by white oaks And then, yeah, and they have access to the whole other on the whole thing where they have a couple landscaping material or, you know, on the other side.

So, yeah, my experience has not been the. You know, entrance and the exit. It's just been the cars parked up against that line.

Right. Yeah, that's I think that that is the thing that I see is makes me nervous. Somebody who goes in and out of there pretty frequently.

So I have to say that's actually where I park. So you're taking away my parking space.

Yes, we're making it. We're going to take away your parking space.

I think parking is the big issue here. We can fix it. I think what's going on there is a super positive thing for the community. So let's try to make it better.

Are there any other conditions? It seems Albert seems to be the only one who wants to.

I mean, I think it's a great thing that they got going on there, but I just I think it's a prudent move that just have an expert look at it. Maybe it can be reconfigured for the better. That's all.

Well, I don't have handy the didn't the planning board make parking suggestions on this?

it's just about to look up those they said something about the if i'm remembering the memo about uh handicap wasn't delineated and so then they came back and then that first basically they came back with updated parking and that first one all the way to the right by the portico is they've does it so they basically responded to that yeah the handicapping was the thing that struck out to me because that was

Yeah, they didn't have a designated handicapped spot, but now they do. They put one right next to the walkway that leads into the parking lot.

Which is like really where it should be. I think oftentimes, you know, people were similar to you, Ben, using right up by the fence, which is exactly where they shouldn't be because it's not protected from traffic. So putting the handicapped spot more protected so they're not. dealing with coming in like incoming traffic makes a lot more sense that's where you'd want someone with mobility challenges to be i mean i think the other thing just to talk about in public that I thought was wild. I think we had a few of us had noted on was that there was something then there was like 50 people, you know, and, um, like it just to be like, I just feel like it's worth just even like saying it out loud.

I'm just that was in Reid's report. No, I know. It wasn't I would bring it up. It was in Reid's report.

I know. I just wanted I wanted to speak to it. Right? Like that's just to is, you know, I think, I think like Matt, or I would just encourage anyone To go, I have no idea how you would get 50 people they mean they would have to be sitting like cross legged on the port like I just like logistically I understand that there's maybe some math room with the thing the building department where that could happen but. I would encourage anyone to go over there and try to figure out how you would get 50 people in there even standing and I i'm not totally sure I many times been challenged to find a place to sit with my coffee. With 15 people out there, so I don't know how it would work so I mean, but I think it's good to talk about because if you're you know. there's only so many people you can fit in there, I guess, is what i'm trying to say so. get to that is like, is the parking sufficient? So it's like, I would say, yes.

The maximum capacity for, and I'm trying to think of like, how big the purple area is. It's probably a quarter of this room. Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Especially because it has like that railing that looks like a shelf where you can put things down. It takes up more space. Yeah. But I think if we approve it with the condition that the first 20 feet in from, I'll show you why I'm saying 20, I'll share this.

Yeah, with some kind of planting not to impede visual, but you know, I don't know, Tom, you could give us something good, you know?

um from the corner of the fence in 20 feet kind of lines up with the edge of the building so that means that you'll have clean line of sight from where people exit here and where you enter so i think if this area here is blocked off with you know planters or vegetation or something then people could still park down here and it wouldn't be an issue with the line of sight for people leaving the building yeah you'd be able to see them as you're entering

I'd rather see it longer.

So you think you'd like, like, what do you, what do you think they would like to longer?

Yeah. I mean, they don't have parking there.

No, but it's human nature to just pull in and park there. So if we did 30 feet.

Yeah, I mean, but they could also just sign it so that like, no parking.

Right, but isn't it fine no parking on the other side? Right. I think you have to block it.

Yeah.

Because the first thing people are like, I want coffee, and they just pull in. Right. And walk in.

Yeah. So if we go to like 30 feet, that sort of goes to the middle of the . I mean, because the people who pull up at the fence are just grabbing a coffee and leaving.

they're not you know you know but my concern is more just people pulling like people pulling in so if it is busy and you've got lots of like too many people parked along there right so you're saying amber 30 feet is that what you're i just want to make sure yeah i think you know at least 30 feet yeah

30 feet from the fence.

From the corner of the driveway. I think. Yeah. That's what I was saying. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. So that the red line with the two X's that's 30 feet. If you go from the end of the fence in like right by the entrance.

Okay.

That's the area that was causing a problem. When you have like an SUV or a truck parked there, you can't see the building when you're pulling in. So you don't know if someone's leaving or if someone's in the driveway.

That's very true.

So by making sure that that stays car free, you maintain that line of sight to the whole driveway area.

Yeah.

Do we know if they have any plans to have new parking or additional parking?

Well, they have the five spots.

We've got the spots like here, right? And then there's additional parking like over here.

there's like this which are like the designated spots that's your uh and then this one here is the new handicap yeah and then these are all additional parking here on the side like the grass in the lawn there's more parking here yeah and then down there parking yeah down here and then down in here yeah there's additional parking if they need it they can open the gate and people can come through and park here on the lawn if there is an advantage yeah yes

Yeah. But usually, stars isn't doing immense. It's white oak, and they're using that. Other side.

I'm just thinking. I mean, how busy does it get? I tend to go at off hours. but 830.

And people are just usually in my experience of it is people are in and out. So it just depends on if everybody's pulling by to grab their coffee at the same time, you can get a bunch of cars in there, but they're not. Most I mean, they do have a beautiful garden. So some people do hang out and sit, but most people are running in getting their thing and leaving, so like high turnover.

I mean, even if they plant the same tall grasses that they have in this corner by 114 here in front of the fencing, that would deter people from parking in that area. And it wouldn't obstruct the view. You'd still be able to see. And if they got too tall, you'd just chop them off at the top. Give them a haircut. But something like that, I think. Or plant, whatever.

White Oak can't come up with something.

So there's no feeling amongst our group that we should be looking for even more additional parking.

No.

Okay. Okay.

I mean, I thought of a couple of different scenarios. I was like, well, what if we have them take out this entire stretch of fence so people can just pull straight in and park. But then I'm like, then you're going to have multiple people coming in and out all over this whole strip. And I'm like, that's going to create chaos. At least, you know, people are coming in this end and people are leaving this way. So yeah.

Where the pointer is right now beyond that gate. I mean, does it make sense to put more parking there? Like parking?

But I mean, for what? I mean, they already use this area here for parking.

Yeah, they use that area, but just extend it a little if we need more parking.

But I think what they're saying is if they need to, they can, but there's not a usual need to do it. There's not a day-to-day need.

Oh, okay.

I mean, I don't know how often you go and see what the parking situation is, but...

I mean, I get coffee there pretty much every morning and I drive past it. But no, I'm just asking. I mean, sometimes it's busy. Most of the time it's not when I'm there.

Right.

So, and there's usually nobody in my parking space.

Now it'll be plants.

Okay.

I mean, I'm fine with 20. Amber, do you feel like it needs to be a little bit more?

I'm open to that, but... A little bit more won't hurt us or hurt them.

I mean, the only thing that I would say with that is that it's like a balance because you want to maintain as much parking as you can, but at the same time, you want to keep it safe. So that's kind of the balance. I think for us to think about is if we're taking up another parking space, then where is that car? You know, is that car on the street or something like that? So that's like the thing, I think just to weigh, you know, 20 feet long is approximately delightful parking space.

They're typically 20 feet long.

And like, when I've been there, like the five parking spots, plus a little bit of the overspill where you've got the Eric, the hand on the thing right now. cars there, I've never seen the overflow, the 10 spots that they're proposing on the grassy area.

If anything, you'll see someone park on their shoulder and then come in and then just leave. It's just grabbing coffee and going. So I think that's usually what people use this area for is if they're just running in to grab something and leave, they park right here. If people are going to stay, they tend to park in these spots.

think it's a good business i think it's great i just don't see the harm in having somebody look at it with fresh off we're not traffic experts or can't even we're used to the entrance the exit the parking we're used to how we we see it that's all i don't think there's any harm in

I would do can we do both like for now extend this. I mean, I think.

I mean, I think that. What I would also just think about here is thinking about is it necessary, because it also you know the is it a necessary expense that we're going to ask the small business to take on. You know what I mean? And if it is, okay, let's do it. But let's think about that this is all stuff that we are asking them to pay for, right? So if it is something that we feel like, gosh, we have to have it, we just can't move forward without it, then absolutely. But if we feel like we have enough information to make a decision, are we just impinging a... financial penalty or hardship on that. That's, I think, what we need to just keep in mind as well.

Doesn't that kind of push towards Albert's point, though, which is let's get somebody to look at it and tell us the most efficient way to do it and then do it?

But what I'm saying is we have to also consider the financial consideration, right? That we're asking, you know, I just think that I think we talk about these things sometimes is. If they're just free, but of course, they're not my guess would be is it would cost. I don't even know, you know, so is it. Like I said, if we feel like it's absolutely necessary to kind of add this financial cost to the applicant, then that's one thing. But I think we should be mindful in how much money we're costing small businesses. I just, I don't think it's necessary. I don't, I would agree. I don't think it's necessary, but, you know, I've said that.

So you don't think we should do anything here?

No, I think we should block off the first 30 feet by the fence so that you maintain a clean line of sight.

But I don't think that we need to hire... You're saying we should do a study.

Yeah, I don't think we need a study to tell us how the parking lot functions.

Anything else for this one then?

Well, I certainly think we should extend the fence 30 feet.

Yeah.

Take away my parking space.

We're going to take away Ben's parking space. You're just going to have to walk farther.

Yeah. So I think that's the only. I think that's the only stipulation.

As it is, it's going to need a site plan.

Yeah. We're done with that one?

Mm-hmm.

right do i get to go hang out yeah you get to sleep a little bit all right you can we're going to talk about sylvester manor next so oh wait the right i need to come back records the records are not the records open until for two more weeks all right thank you thank you oh no break for no break for us then yeah i mean

I didn't know. I mean, yeah, I agree.

Yes.

Thank you for reminding us on this. Somebody was awake.

Then we are on board member reports.

Yes, we didn't close up the county water story either. Right?

Correct. Yes. Yes. I knew to cross that one off. Good discussion at the public safety task force working on the legislation. I still waiting to hear back from the Lotus office to just understand the ramifications of whatever we do like will it knock us out for federal funding so nothing new to report there we did get an updated draft um from ola that they're proposing so i feel as if they've taken out anything that could be controversial and so i'm curious you know when i get through the lotus office that there is nothing in what we have um in this draft so far that would Erica Kaurudar, knockout funding. Erica Kaurudar, They took out the last thing which you know.

Erica Kaurudar, I just forget the sections, but it was like anyway, I was like basically coordinating with federal and then i'm just i'm not even going to try to remember but. Erica Kaurudar, yeah the 33 G agreement or something.

Erica Kaurudar, yeah something like that.

Erica Kaurudar, So that was out. Erica Kaurudar, And you know they pointed and he pointed out that that was something. Or that all have all appointed out that that was something that they didn't have in the legislation, but that East Hampton had added in. And so it was their viewpoint that potentially that that was what the loader was objecting to And it since

They've passed their legislation, I think, or when they were discussing it at least, the state has come down and said no one in New York State can have those agreements. So it's taken it out of town and villages' hands anyways.

And I think the other thing that I thought was interesting with the task force is, you know, we, you know, how we started was considering the OLA legislation and kind of what was right. And like, you know, it kind of this quickly moved to, should we be considering the law or should we be considering policy changes? And the other thing that Like, even though we really started focused on the legislation, you know, Chief gave us a real thorough walkthrough of policy. And the other piece of it that I saw that wasn't necessarily in police policy, and we talk about police policy and then the oil legislation, but one of the things I feel like we identified as a task force was thinking about like town policy right around communications which wasn't I don't think I mean I think we touched on that kind of in our original discussion but that was something you know so basically we're talking about should that be developed by this group that we have together now or you know how would we handle that but that would be potentially like a town policy just around communication so I thought that was interesting just really good input from everybody. Everyone in that group is really engaged and doing their homework, which I very much appreciate. That's very fruitful discussions. And we have another one. I think we have a date set. It was like after the fireworks, she was like, please let me get through the fireworks so that we can all sit down.

Yeah, the 15th of July.

I go next, I guess. So I guess I just wanted to report that, you know, Brandon and I are continuing to work on the city ally, just kind of going back through the financial models. We have Community Housing Board this week. We're setting up trying to coordinate some stuff with Gwen O'Shea and the county just to kind of do some Sage Robinsons, Co- funding sources and we're going to be meeting with. Sage Robinsons, Co- Hope, hopefully, like the Community housing board will meet an executive session kind of go over some stuff, and so our hope is to have something to kind of come back, maybe not for next tuesday's executive sessions. Sage Robinsons, Co- But maybe then week after that so we'll see how that's going, but I guess, I just want everyone to know, like we are working on it like. Brandon and I probably talk every other day about something. So it was like a very active, um, just to be real, like the situation out there is, uh, yeah, Ben.

No, sorry.

Okay. So, just just in everybody know that that's in. Process, and then just like a little just report, I guess, just to say some stuff that I think I've talked to you guys individually about just something that I'm working on in advance of the budget. I mean, I've been doing obviously, we know it's going to be a really challenging budget season. And so 1 of the things I've been. Thinking a lot about is the building department and fees versus expenses. So I've met several times with the building department just to do like a fee review just to make sure that we are. Charging fees that are appropriate for the amount of time that they. Folks are spending on it, right? Like, it just like RFPs in line when was the last time they did what is involved in, you know, like, these different applications. They've been really generous with their time. I think I have, like, my 4th meeting with them next week. We've just like, so I have, like, a lot of stuff to present on that, which I hope will be helpful. And then the other thing that I've been working on, and I should have a preliminary. I'm actually meeting with Barbara today. is like an overview of kind of how I approached this was that the building department should The fees should cover the building department because and so you know I approach the financial model and that I didn't think. My opinion was I didn't think it was appropriate for property taxes to be subsidizing the building department to do that, like that should be covered so that was kind of like my starting. thing like, does it cover itself or not? And so we do have specific line items in the budget, but there's lots of stuff that isn't covered benefits, portions of overhead. And so I've just been kind of building that out and meeting with Barbara and understanding where all the, like the actual costs. When is, so I've built in most of that been really helpful. Also like education in like how all the, benefits and everything work. And then one of the next piece that I need to do is to pull out some of the overhead expenses. And my thought was having worked in nonprofits to do a percentage of them and assign that to the building department. Usually like I've done in nonprofits and I'll walk you guys through it based on full-time equivalents. So like if you have And i'm just going to give out like a right, so you have like 30 full time equivalents in the town five of them are for the building department, so you would use that percentage for it or HR or you know just as kind of a methodology. I would say that one of the things I have found in my kind of initial things is that. based on my preliminary number, the building department does not cover some costs. So there's definitely some opportunities there, I feel like, potentially for us to help balance the budget, just like I said, just to make sure that the taxpayers and property taxes are not subsidizing new buildings, but in fact, that those are covering themselves. So it's been like a big project that I'm working on and I'll have an update for us soon. And then the only other thing was, which I'm sure you guys will talk about, the parade is on Saturday. So I'm really excited. And 10 a.m. And then there's also on Saturday, the Voices of Valor at the, or Sunday, sorry, thank you. Sunday at, you know, the Voices of Valor. So that's for July.

I had WAC, so WAC wanted to remind everybody that we're in a severe drought. Last night the town board accepted the recommendation to restrict irrigation use like sprinklers for irrigation between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the heat of the day because you lose most of that water to evapotranspiration and it's not actually benefiting your plants and it'll also actually burn your plants when it's very high sun and you have water droplets on it like a magnifying glass at the end. So we recommend not using irrigation systems between 10am and 4pm. That's an enforceable recommendation on our part. So keep that in mind. We had capital planning and grants on Tuesday, and we went through the requests from the different departments. One of them is the car for the senior center, and we have donation from the alliance club to help pay for that possible donation from the senior foundation. And I believe we found some money to help transfer to cover. The town portion, so we had that we have, we discussed body worn cameras. We discussed a camera down at Crescent Beach for PD to help license plate to be here. And it's good for some of their enforcement issues. We also talked about the Congdon's dock ramp. So down at Congdon Creek dock, the ramp there has sort of aged and sunken and it's at a bad angle. And so Ken was talking about replacing and fixing that ramp. the workbook came back up again. So that's another thing that we talked about. And then the building department wanted to talk about AI training, and we're not sure if that's actual planning or not, but it was something good to have on the radar. And HR is going to make a request for software to manage all the personnel. So we haven't heard that one yet, but we'll hear that next time. The parade is on Saturday, July 4th at 10 o'clock, if you want to come and see some floats. On the 3rd, there's a fundraiser for... Oh, I just blanked out. Cooper. Cooper. Yes, thank you. Cooper for Cooper. So the Legion is partnering with SALT to help raise some funds for Cooper on July 3rd. And then we have July... 11th is the fireworks, right? Yes. Okay. Somehow that's not on my book. So July 11th is the fireworks down at Crescent Beach and July 10th is the fundraiser for the fireworks at SALT. So those are a whole bunch of fun things that are coming up. We were supposed to meet about the irrigation code hopefully this afternoon, but we can't because some of the key people are not available. So I'm going to try to get it on for next week if we can.

Albert or Benjamin? Benjamin?

Nope. I don't have anything.

Then it's not on the agenda, but we do need to go into executive session to discuss a contract. Okay.

So moved.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everybody.