Video recording

Then I'm going to talk a little bit about the TAP grant program and application process and then we will review some proposed uh project scope of work and cost estimates and then uh have some Q&A and discussion with the board. >> I have a quick question. >> Sure. >> Are the cameras working because none of the lights are on them? >> Suppose that they are >> okay. I just don't see lights on any of them so I didn't know if they were working or not. Yeah, they're not on the side. >> There it is. >> Just because we're on the um screen. >> I'm sorry to interrupt. >> That's a good question. >> Just wanted to make sure the cameras were on.

>> Better safe than sorry. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, um there's been a lot of activity over the past uh five years in in this area. really beginning in June of 2021 when the Webster Economic Development Alliance secured a $90,000 grant to do a planning study, a re a revitalization plan, and it was a approximately a two-year effort um engaging with the community. There was a committee formed and in June of 23, uh that plan was finalized. Um, a subsequent application in January of 2024 for uh, sidewalks in West Webster was pursued. Um, unfortunately, we were not successful in in that initial attempt.

And I'll, um, explain a little bit in more detail later on the presentation. And then we fast forward to uh 2025 where in May the town uh solicited bids for demolition of the former uh Webster furniture stripper building at the corner of Old Ridge and Gravel. Um that was a major uh focus point of the revitalization plan. Uh the community members wanted uh that property and the blighting influence to be addressed. So, um, the building ultimately came down in August of 2025 and, uh, has created a lot of excitement and interest in the area since. So, uh, just going back to that, uh, planning study, the priority recommendations uh, basically focused on the intersection of Old Ridge and Gravel Roads.

uh that was identified as the highest priority area based on all of the community feedback that we received. On the left upper hand uh image shows what we call a heat map. So any comments that were placed on the geographic map that we had uh available for throughout the duration of the surveys as you could see um the orangeish red colors were where the concentration of the most comments occurred. The middle image is a what we call a word cloud and it basically um quantifies the most repetitive words that were contained in the comments and the size of the word is commensurate with the number of comments.

As you could see, sidewalks was one of the most commented on uh items through this effort. And then, as I previously mentioned, the community uh really wanted to see the blighting impacts of both 600 Ridge and 602 Jade Palace uh mitigated. And the images below are just some snippets from the plan. One of which is a rendering of what the intersection of Old Ridge and Gravel could look like with some streetscape enhancements and uh addition of sidewalks, street lighting, signage, etc. So, a little bit about the uh transportation alternatives program, also referred to as TAP. So, this grant funding source provides financial assistance for projects that improve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.

um projects that provide safe routes to schools for children and parents and projects that facilitate and promote the use of non-motorized modes of travel. So um the grant details uh eligible activities include planning, design and construction of both on and off-road facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. The application cycle opens approximately every two to three years. Um, this is the funding source that the town was successful in getting to construct the sidewalks uh along Ridge Road from FiveMile Line to Rachel Drive. Um, we were successful, I believe, in 2018 and the sidewalks were designed and constructed um through this grant.

So there's a maximum request of 80% of the project cost. Uh and it has a local match requirement of 20%. As I mentioned, um our 2023 application was unsuccessful. And as the town usually does, we participate in a debrief with uh some of the folks from um the agencies that review the various applications to get feedback on how we can improve upon uh any future applications. So the feedback that we received um was very positive. You know, they were very positive of the project. uh they literally said that it was perfectly aligned with the program goals. Unfortunately, it was a very competitive year.

Um the only recommendation that they were able to provide us with that said, you know, how to strengthen any future application, it was re recommended that the town pursue survey and preliminary design to accompany any future application, which would both enhance the competitiveness of our application and illustrate uh the town's commitment to the project. So with that information, we did reach out to three local survey and engineering firms that um do this type of work. And uh in an effort to kind of provide the most amount of options to the board, um we kind of broke it up into two scopes of work.

um just basic surveying of the right of way plus both uh sides of the road 15 feet off of the right ofway. And that would just get us uh basic topographic and base survey mapping showing things like you know driveway aprons, mailboxes, um utility poles, uh and anything within the right of way. Then we also asked each firm to prepare a more robust quote that would include preliminary design services that would then take that base ser survey mapping and start to come up with an actual sidewalk alignment plan. It would identify any obstructions or areas that would require, you know, the town to obtain easements.

Um they would do a much deeper dive on any potential drainage and utility uh issues um with the installation of sidewalks. And it would also include um one public meeting with the community to present uh the sidewalk plan, the preliminary design plan, and two internal town coordination meetings. I know on the chart it's listed as also public meetings, but those that was intended to be internal uh town coordination meetings. So each of the proposals were fairly uh similar in their scope. The one uh the one anomaly was the MRB group um also included sections of Gravel Road uh north and south of Old Ridge.

Uh the reason being is that they did assist us with the initial 2023 application and um that phase one also included uh some sidewalks on gravel road. So they took that and kind of built upon their previous work. So the only difference between the three scopes is that MRB also includes some additional uh areas on gravel. So the completion time frames um were also fairly similar. All survey uh only quotes indicated that it would take approximately 2 months to conduct that weather permitting. Um and for the preliminary design option um it ranges from 4 to 6 months for a completion time frame. Um as you could see the costs also um varied quite a bit.

um from firm to firm uh survey only ranging from 15,000 to 425 and then the preliminary design um really ranged from 36,000 all the way up to just under 80,000. So reviewing all of the proposals, um the town staff recommendation would be to go for the preliminary design option uh that Costich engineering has outlined in their proposal for a cost of 36,000. So survey and preliminary design, why move forward with this now? So, as I mentioned previously, uh the addition of sidewalks in the West Webster Hamlet area aligns with the priority recommendations in the community-led revitalization plan as well as uh really fitting uh the criteria for the TAP grant program and its goals.

Um, moving forward with this would also position the town to have a significantly more competitive TAP grant application. Uh, following through on the suggestions that were provided to us uh during that debrief. Um, we want to continue the sustained momentum uh from the demolition of the former furniture stripper building. Um, as I mentioned, there has been an increased interest in the area from the investment community. um adjoining properties are being put up for sale and having new owners that plan to invest uh money in improvements. We're working with several property owners through code enforcement to get some facade improvements and uh remediate some other code violations in the area.

and it would really build upon the town's uh commitment to revitalization of this area and build upon other investments that the board has authorized to date. Uh I will say that in the event that we're not successful in getting the grant, I don't think this effort would be all for not. Um, Oldridge Road was formerly a New York State DOT uh road and it was dedicated over to the town many years ago. So, in speaking with Pat Stevens, our highway uh superintendent, the town um literally has absolutely no information in terms of utility locations, catch basins, um any infrastructure within the right of way.

Uh we do not have anything on this road. So um even going with the survey would be valuable to town staff for when it comes time to either make repairs or maintain uh segments of that road. Um, now we didn't have anything budgeted in the 2026 budget for this project, but in speaking with finance director Paul Adams, um he indicated that the project costs could be charged to the general part town B fund, the the surplus unappropriated fund balance that was talked about at length uh during the the budget approval process. Uh so here's an image that was prepared uh back in 2023, just kind of a conceptual image showing uh what what the area could look like with the addition of sidewalks and some decorative curbing.

Uh also street lighting and and signage would also be something that could be considered. Um so in terms of next steps uh the we would look for authorization from the town board to make a decision to whether or not to move forward with preliminary design andor survey services uh from the recommended consultant. Um if if you chose to to go that route, uh we would need execution of a contract with the recommended firm. Uh so we could then give them the authorization to proceed in terms of uh next steps. After that, we would work with our existing uh grant consulting firm to begin preparing uh the TAP grant application while the survey and preliminary design work is underway.

and then uh we would be in position to submit a highly competitive TAP grant in 2026. Um so I will say that the prior cycle opened up uh applications in the month of November and applications were due in January of the following year. As of November 6th tonight, um the portal has not officially opened. So, it has not opened. So, we do believe that um it's going to be pushed later into 2026, potentially um you know, spring. And I'm not sure if the government shutdown has anything to do with this because it is uh federal highway funds that flow through the state's uh DOT. Um, so with that, uh, basically part and just in case there's any questions about overall project cost, part of what the consultant we're talking about tonight would do is prepare updated cost estimates uh, based on the preliminary design that that gets generated.

So, um, back in 2023, the extent of that project was estimated at approximately 5 million. Um, which would have made 4 million eligible for the grant with a local match of approximately 1 million. Um, so those were in 2023. That also included a a larger scope. Um but part of what this consultant effort would also confirm is to to finalize uh cost estimates of the project based on preliminary design. Um the the estimates that were prepared for our initial application were very conceptual because again we don't have survey or uh or a preferred alignment. So it it was very conceptual at that time.

So the only commitment um would be for the 36,000 to execute the survey and preliminary design work. So I will end the presentation again with the graphic that shows what the future vision contained in the the revitalization plan shows versus um you know what it's like out there in present day. And with that, I'd be happy to turn it over to the board and answer any questions or hear any comments you may have. >> Hey Josh, thank you uh for bringing this information forward. I you answered a couple my questions already. Um do you know what the total linear footage was for the Ridge Road project and the total linear footage for this phase or um for this West Webster?

>> I believe it's just over a mile. Um I'm it's not uh popping out at me right now, but yes, I believe that um the stretch of Old Ridge between Bay and Empire is 1.1 miles, so just a little over 5,000 linear feet. >> Okay. And then the the previous proposal extended it I'd say maybe another 500 ft in either direction on gravel >> which is not part of this current proposal. >> So you mentioned the 36,000 and quite frankly I'm amazed at at the differences in these in these price quotes. >> Yeah, they were >> it's it's it's astounding >> wide ranging. >> Yeah. Um now you mentioned the 36,000 for the preliminary design.

Um but they have listed here also the 15,000 for the survey. Would we be paying for that too? I would assume right or no? >> So again the the 15,000 was for the survey only if we add the preliminary design aspect to it the total would be 36. So it's inclusive of that 15,000. Now what are the specifics with respect to this grant should we get it? >> So if we were to be successful in in obtaining the grant um up to 80% of the project cost is eligible to for reimbursement and there's a 20% local match requirement. >> Okay. What what's historically what is the the time frame in which the reimbursement comes through with TAP?

Uh, I believe that it's tied to progress. I don't think it's one of the grants that you have to basically expend the full amount and then get reimbursed afterwards. But based on our experience with the uh TAP grant that we got for the Ridge Road sidewalks, Yeah. I mean, Paul, do you do you have any indication of how long it took to for the state to reimburse us for that project? I thought it was a couple months. >> Yeah, it was relatively quick if my memory serves me. >> Thank you. >> I I do have a question Josh. Um you mentioned that the portal has not opened although last time this process was in place it had opened in November.

Um, one of the recommendations was that we have this survey and preliminary design. Does it have to be completed before we can put in an application or is the fact that it's in process enough to make it a stronger application since we don't know when the portal is going to open? >> That's a good point. Um, our number one goal would be to try and have this work completed, right? And and submitted alongside our application. Um, and that's that's why we wanted to bring it, you know, as soon as possible to the board. Um I think that uh I think though if we were somehow unable to to make that happen if for say the weather didn't cooperate and they weren't able to complete it by that time I think the fact that we state that we have procured the service and it's underway I do believe that still gives us an ad job but our number one goal would and we've made it very clear to to the consult consultants that our goal is to have it done uh as soon as possible.

>> So I guess then I have just one more question. Do we do you have any idea of how long that portal remains open? >> Yes. So last as I mentioned I think last time around it it opened in early November and then applications were due either at the end of January or early February. So >> sorry you did say that. Yes. It was a about a two or three month window. >> Okay. >> Thank you. My questions were similar to Patty's about timing and if the portal isn't open yet and we're working on the comprehensive plan which is going to be making progress and in that similar time frame come forward with I presume preliminary recommendations.

So, does it make sense to push forward with this now knowing the portal is closed or try to time it closer to the um report from the um comprehensive plan? Sorry. >> Okay. So, no, that's a good question. So because we went through such a robust planning effort within the past two years, you know, finalizing this revitalization plan in 23, we intend to incorporate the recommendations of that plan into the comprehensive plan. So I don't I don't really see a need to to wait in terms of waiting to see how the comprehensive plan u you know comes to fruition. you know, thi this area is actually one of the focus areas of the 2008 comprehensive plan.

So, we're we're kind of actually just now getting around to starting to implement some of those. So, I wouldn't say that it would need to to wait for the comp plan to to progress. And I will say that um we are fairly confident that there will be a 2026 round because Congress has allocated a substantial amount of money into this program and it it is it's on their website that it has been funded. They just haven't opened the portal yet. >> Okay, good to know. Thank you, >> Jenny. Anything? Well, right now, I mean, with everything's going on with the government, you know, I'm just kind of ly about the grants and things and for us to put this effort and everything in it, you know, I hate to see that it's going to come back and the taxpayer have to end up, you know, um, chewing up this for this project because we didn't get the grant.

So, that's the only thing I'm concerned about. >> Okay. Okay. in the I don't really have a question as much as a comment that I I think it can't be understated that that the December 20 2022 income survey which is now three years old um that is a real feather in our cap that we were able to prove that that is a uh an under >> low to medium income doesn't get grants a lot of times because we're an affluent uh relative community that area's income study that we did and I give Matt Chatfield a lot of credit for having you know for pitching us to go do that because that is is something we that's a real feather in our cap when we apply for grants uh in that area.

If I remember correctly, Josh, that study is five years life. >> Yes. Good. 27. >> Three out of the five are gone. So we we can utilize that income survey that show that puts gives us advantages for two more years. Um and then that's poof and some other future board if they want to do something over there in that hamlet. We'd have to get another survey and whatever. So thank you Josh. Yeah. >> Uh and just for the record there, you know, uh resolution number seven on the regular town board meeting tonight, uh is pertaining to this survey, uh and design work. So, just something for the board members to think about as we move toward that.

So, next up is Pat Stevens, uh, the Webster Highway Superintendent, and he has a presentation, uh, update on the Salt Barn Wash Station process timeline and the estimated cost of that, including the demolition of the old highway garage. So, Pat, I'm going to hand it over to you. >> Up here, >> thank you. Just give me a second to get this pulled up. I think it was on the two on there, Pat. There was one that had a newer date. Should you grab the newer one or >> This one looks good. >> Okay, >> there's a couple of other presentations. You might have looked at the month. Those are probably almost a year old.

If there was a newer date, it might have been 2024. Keep a bunch of presentations on this. Uh, let's see here. Start. Just trying to get it. this one. There we go. All right. Thank you for having me in tonight uh to go through this presentation, an update on uh topic that we've discussed several times over the past few years in the development of the highway facility. Um most recently in February, uh we came with an update uh on the overall building as well as um the salt barn and the budget. So, this is a continuation of that. Um so, I'll hop hop right into it. uh the the biggest uh issue. So, we haven't had any scope changes so far on the project.

So, just to be clear, the presentation tonight represents the same salt building, salt salt barn replacement building uh with the same capacity that we originally proposed, which is larger than the capac capacity of the current building. Um that requires the demolition of the existing highway garage, which is the former main building um where all the trucks were stored and the offices were. um the footprint of the new building is within that. Therefore, that building has to be demolished as a part of the new salt barn install. And then uh per um some better operational practices, EPA recommendations and things of that nature, we've also got a standalone building that would be used for heavy wash out of the trucks to improve water quality from the site involved in here.

Uh so um the plans have now they've now been brought to 100% to date but the last time the cost estimate done was done at 60 was at 60%. Um and these are the the results. Um this number is larger than we had discussed previously. Um, as we continued the design of the project and and brought it to this point, um, the complexities of the project, uh, stemmed larger cost than I had originally estimated, uh, using some, um, generic pricing. So, here you see the salt barn um, at the 1.9, the truck wash out building at the 1.6. Uh, we're carrying an incidental budget for the project that rec covers design, insuranceances, uh, legal fees, things of that nature.

Um there's the demolition of the existing building at 950,000. Uh paving and utilities as its own line uh much larger than we expected at uh 1.4 million. We're carrying a construction contingency on the project of 350,000. And then within this presentation, we'll show you uh what I believe are possible cost savings to help uh reduce the overall cost of the project for a total of 2 million to make the um current estimated cost at the end of the day at uh 4.7 and change. Uh so I mentioned the cost savings of around $2 million. This outlines what those are. We have applied for a grant uh from the state uh in relation to the water quality from the site for $600,000.

We should have the results of that in the middle of December. So hopefully about a month from now. Uh we've identified that within the current state chips funding that we already receive, uh storage buildings of this nature are eligible for those dollars. Uh we reviewed our current budgets and where we stand and we believe that we could allocate 300,000 from that funding source to this project. Uh we have an alternate built into the bid to utilize timber frame push walls within the salt barn uh where they're currently concrete. Uh the concrete has a slightly longer life but isn't deficient in any other way.

So that would be a cost savings that we could consider at bid time. Uh then self-performance is probably the biggest area. That paving and utility number that I had in the last slide at 1.4 4 million. Uh, a lot of the activities within that are stuff that our highway department has the skills to do that we do for the county for revenue every year and that we do on our own roads. So, if we were to self-perform that portion of the project, we could potentially save up to $825,000 uh based on my calculations of that 1.4. Um, last line item there is competitive bidding. Uh that's the biggest factor in this is all of these estimates are designed to be conservative.

Uh and when you get in a good competitive bidding situation with contractors that are, you know, looking for work, uh those numbers could be drastically lower than we're estimating currently. So, uh the next slide, I did a side-by-side comparison of what was presented in February of this year. Um you'll see that we had numbers for the salt barn truck washing and incidentals that totaled a little over 3 million at that time. Um as I said earlier uh those were based on generic per square foot prices. So if you take the square foot square feet of the salt barn and the washbay uh to the tune of however many hundreds per square foot that was the extent of the specifics that were put into these budgets.

Um they were intended to be conservative, but obviously now that we've gotten the specifics of the design uh pretty well complete, uh they have proven not to be. Uh there's a lot more complexity, especially to the exterior of the buildings with the utilities than we had expected. Uh which increases the price significantly from what we thought. Then um the other point of clarity, which I already kind of touched on, is that the expectation of change from 60% to the 100% plans that currently exist. I reached out to our consultant today and they and they said it should be little if if none. Um we've seen in the past that when we go from 60 to 100 sometimes things come down because several questions get answered about the design.

So they're able to be a little less conservative on things. So I we believe this um the figures here are still representative of the 100% plans as well as the 60% plans. Um, so when we put this in uh totality for the project, uh, as we've talked about before, this portion of the project was inc originally included in the bond resolution and the intent for the project. It was removed for cost savings purposes early on and never bid. Um, so if you look at uh the current bond resolution and the amounts against it, we're around 21 million for the highway building and additions to Cliff Jones. Uh the remainder of the numbers there are the 60% estimates um that were presented earlier for the salt barn wash out demo paving utilities construction contingency incidentals um and the identified cost savings.

Um so this projects that doing this project with the current the budget shown here we would still end up uh roughly 1.8 8 million under the current approved bond amount for the project as as a total. Um so key factors to consider as I was going through this and looking at the parameters and and different strategies we might be able to take to make sure we keep the cost as minimal as possible. Um the existing salt storage building currently lacks capacity. It's nearing the end of its useful life and has structural issues. uh failure of the structure will immediately threaten our ability to maintain the safe travel of the roads.

That's why we're here discussing its replacement before it actually collapses or has a structural failure versus structural concerns. Um and then the capacity issue uh you know was shown full boore last year with the salt shortage. Um that the amount we keep on hand can typically be replenished throughout the year. Um we currently hold roughly half what it takes to do an entire season. Um, so we would like to increase that so it is more like closer much closer to an entire year's worth. That would minimize the risk of when there's high uh demand for salt, us needing those um deliveries. Uh right now we rely heavily on those to make sure we make it through the entire winter without the supply running low.

Uh having increased capacity in the building would eliminate a lot of that risk. Uh the cost estimates are intended to be conservative. uh competitive bids may be much lower than the cost shown here. That's always the hope. Um and then the last note here is that the wash building is a key component of the grant application. So some of the ways we look at cost savings and strategy would be to phase out certain parts of this project to not spend as much upfront and space that out over a longer period of time as budgets allow. Um, we would have to be we would have to if we were to be awarded the grant that we've applied for for this because the wash building is a part of that grant application, we would have to coordinate with the um agency that is providing the grant to make sure that we would still qualify if we tried to phase the wash building out of the project uh to make sure that didn't impact uh any grant award that we might have received.

Um, so the next steps here are are pretty straightforward. Uh we're in a place now that we could put out an advertisement to bid uh the current plan and spec package that we have. Um once that was done, we would analyze those bids and we would be in a place potentially to award bids and construct. Uh but obviously that analyzation piece is understated here. Uh obviously there's a lot of analysis that would have to happen to the bids, but if we don't get bids at this time, um you know, we we're relying solely on the estimates to um determine what we think the budget for the project is. Uh with bids coming in, we would have the information firsthand from competitive contractors and then we could uh use that to guide our decision- making um on any awards or potential awards or restructuring of the phasing.

And that is a uh overview of where we stand on the uh the budget and the need for the uh remainder of this project. So I'm open to any questions or comments from the board. So, first I excuse me I I want to thank you Pat for the amount of time that you gave me with all the questions that I had, the concerns I had and also giving me a tour of the salt barn and and I agree that u we definitely need to do something with that salt bar for sure. It's in a state of deterioration. Even some of the new supports and the gusset plates, you can see that the bolts have already started um to rust. Um so the the the presentation that you gave me um it was I think the total was like four 6.8 8 million, which you know, I almost fell out of my chair when I was there because it obviously doubled and and my concern was, you know, we're sending this entire project out as one project where to me, and I'm just speaking for myself, obviously, it makes more sense to me to send out three RFPs, one for the salt barn, one for the wash out building, and then again one for the demo.

and and I greatly appreciate the research and the fr the research that you've done especially with respect to the demo aspect of things. Okay. Um the the information that you provided me further proves to me that you know we are the right person in place um at the highway department. Um but we're looking at the grant funding is a possibility and the chips funding. So that's that's an additional possibility of an additional million dollars on the entire project and obviously that concerns me. Um I do like the fact that you have the ability to self-perform and and to that extent I was wondering do you have the manpower and the time given the amount of work that we would be doing for the county to accomplish that?

I I don't know. That's why I'm asking. >> Yep. Um so the reason that it would be feasible is that um a lot of the key components of that work would not be critical to the structure itself going up. So therefore I could phase it out as much as needed, right? >> So it would be used as fill-in and that's how we're able to self-perform on these types of projects without impacting the services that we offer, >> right? >> Is that the schedule becomes flexible. If any of these were absolutely critical to the foundations of the building or something like that going in, it'd be a much different case. it would have to be tied very closely to the bid.

A lot of these are storm drainage piping and then paving after the fact. Um we can operate off of a gravel surface in a temporary condition and that allows us to do that paving and that work when we are available to do it outside of our services. Um we can take it literally a day here and there and and work through it to get it completed. It might take a little longer than it would a contractor, but uh we we would be able to do it with the current amount manpower using that strategy to to fit it into the schedule. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> So, the only other question I had is in reference to, you know, when I took the tour, did you have an opportunity to dig down the foundation around those um side supports?

>> We started to. Yeah. The condition doesn't get drastically worse than what we noticed. There was the deterioration of the large um tieback beams. It stays pretty similar as it goes down. It's a little hard to tell cuz there was additional moisture down there. So, I think once a couple of them get dried out, we'll be able to see if the deterioration is a lot greater, but it stayed fairly similar, which in some places is up to an inch of deterioration off of those uh 6x12 >> timbers. Was amazed some of the ones that need to be replaced right now. State of deterioration. >> And that's the that's the salt effect.

You know, you don't see wood deteriorate like that in a normal condition, especially underground. But this is definitely getting to that point. Okay. And and on that note, thank you for taking the time to discuss things with me this week. Uh we had good conversations, a lot of good questions uh that, you know, I was able to feed some of them into this presentation and I appreciate your feedback. >> I appreciate your time. >> I I have a couple questions. Um one points to Councilman Cahill's suggestion of going out for three RFPs, and I certainly understand why you think that could be a possibility and a good idea.

Um would be would we be prepared to do that with what we have in our hands or would there be an additional cost before we could go out for those three? Uh there would be some different addition additional effort to sort of reorganize the documents that we already have. So we have all the documents that we need but there'd have to be some reumbering reorganization to make them three separate packages instead of one. Um so you'd have to have additional cover pages and stuff like that. So there would be some effort from a consultant to create three bid packages instead of one in order to physic to to organize it that way from where we stand today.

Yes. >> Okay. My next question really goes to Paul. Is there anything in fund balance that we could use to offset the cost of this? >> Well, the building is a general fund expense. there is surplus in general fund could use balance >> would if if we were to look at doing that would we still be staying within the fund balance policy >> yeah the as of right now the general fund is within the balance policy it's about 44% something like that but we our goal is to keep between 15 and 50% of annual expenditures. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Jennifer. >> What is the cost and can you share an estimate of the cost to break apart those bid documents if we decided to go in that direction?

>> I haven't uh requested any estimates on that at this time. it would it would be tough for me to speculate. Um, unfortunately, some of my generalities that I've used on this have already uh proven to to not be. So, I don't really want to go down that that path again. I I don't think it would be a large amount. Um, it would take a little bit of time. Uh, given we're near the end of the year, I think the the time aspect would change the dynamics of how this comes about. Um, I don't think it would be a substantial amount, but it it's hard to speculate these days. Some of the fees that these consultants are uh >> are needing now to uh to to do the work has gotten a little bit beyond my ability to >> uh generalize.

Yeah. >> Um, so I think it would be minimal, but it's hard to say without asking. Certainly something I could >> find out. >> To to Jennifer's question, and it's a great question, Jennifer. Um, how long do you think it would take you to get information from whatever consultants have formulated the existing drawings which are say now at 100%. Correct? >> Yeah. Yep. Everything's at 100%. The the bid package and this we just have to finalize the dates for the bid based on what happens here tonight. Um, I would say within a week we would we should be able to get an estimate from our current uh designer um for that effort.

>> And who is your current designer? Uh we're currently still working with MRB that did the the main building. Um >> they're they're not the ones that put the cost estimate together. That was >> No, we uh utilized campus construction. Okay. To do the cost estimate. MRB hasn't done any cost estimating for construction on on either of the projects. Technically, um it was campus construction that developed the numbers you see here. um based on their most recent bids in their their estimating department. >> I know that the the the building is deteriorating and we need to get it fixed. How long can we push this project out to see when we can get the grants so we can do the finalizing, you know, number and and go ahead with the um the construction and stuff.

Um, so I've estimated the the building may have as as many as 5 to 10 years left, but it's a big range. I I I think as a part of this process, I do want to get a full structural analysis from a a PE. Again, we have to do an RFP for those professional services to get a uh a structural analysis. I did reach out to a couple of contacts I have to get an idea and I haven't heard back from them. I was hoping to before tonight. So, I don't know exactly how long the actual structure will stay up, which is kind of what we're discussing here. But the grant aspect, we'll we'll know whether or not we receive the grant in about a month.

Estimated sometime in December is when those awards typically come out. So, we would know sometime next month if that grant was awarded at this time. But, as far as the overall length of the building, again, I'm speculating. I'm not a structural engineer. Uh, I just see some of the components that Councilman Cahill mentioned in in bad shape and I know that it's not as long as we would hope. >> And I just have one more question. And if we were to go out to bid for the whole thing to move this forward, should the bids come in wildly higher than what we're anticipating or or an amount we're uncomfortable with?

We don't have to award that bid. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Um, all of our documents state very clearly that we can reject any and all bids that come in. We're at no obligation to award any bids we receive. >> Well, we're a little bit behind, but Patty, actually, you did that nice and succinct because I I have three I don't know if they're questions, but uh one is that you have this structured uh for resolution at the regular board meeting tonight to put it out to bid uh advertise it by the 12th. 30 days, the bids got to come in sealed. we'd open the sealed bids and have them back here to discuss at a workshop on December 18th and whatever.

>> Is that accurate? >> That that's yes, that's >> we will not be able to hit that time frame if we decide to split these up and go back to the and and get pay more money and all that to split up to three different RFPs. >> The time frame would change. Yes, Paul. Second out of three things, how much more money will the town be spending to put this out to bid if we did this resolution tonight? >> How much more if we put it out to >> How much more does it cost us to do a resolution saying, "Let's put it out to bid." >> Oh, it doesn't cost anything. >> That's correct. >> I mean, I'd rather find out the answer.

>> All right. And to Patty's point, my third thing is is that um I appreciate speculation and all that, but I'd like to see at a workshop on the 18th of December, it it did the the bids come in low and then even if the board says at that time, I don't care that they're low. I still got concerns about the grants, maybe we didn't get awarded the uh 600,000 from WQIP. We have no obligation to accept them. grant comes in high and now all of a sudden that means we'd have to go to amending the bond resolution. Well, I can tell you we're going to shut that bad boy down and that'll be kicked to the next board uh in January to see what they want to do or the bids come in exact.

But the beautiful part about that is is that we have actual things to sit there and look at on the 18th. And Pat, you'd be back here in that scenario doing a presentation, probably with Paul, maybe also with Kyle from a legal standpoint on bonding and all that, but I can safely guess that this configuration of a board, if the bids come back higher, well, then it's dead. or the next board in January decides why don't we go back to this and split it up into three components which I don't know if that's possible to do if we also find out on the 18th we got awarded the 600 WQIP but a lot of that speculation and if thens would kind of be known if we put this out to bid and get the sealed bids back on the 12th and come back on the 18th of December.

So, just food for thought as we get to that resolution at the next uh meeting. We're a little bit behind, but uh our next item tonight is uh Chris Bo is going to come in and do a presentation on the Sandbar Park. Um I I wish we could come up with a different branding of storage containers because I think that is maybe not the best way we should describe this, but uh I'm sure you'll do a wonderful job, Chris. >> Modular modular >> structure trailer >> temporary structure. >> No. >> All right. Good. full screen. >> No, >> I think unless you have it on a drive, I think that's the best. >> That's the best I'm going to get.

Okay. Okay. Good evening everybody. Um I'm here once again uh kind of go over some questions that came up from the presentation back in uh September in regards to the storage container modular facilities, however you want to describe it. Uh simple term storage container concept down at Sandbar Park. Um, and the idea to move forward with that bid process uh so that we can get some uh concrete information, data uh figures that we can uh we can present to the town board so the town board can make a decision uh down the road in regards to whether or not this is something that they wish to move forward.

But uh I did put together a few things uh in regards to kind of some questions that did come up from that last presentation. Um so kind of similar to what we just heard with the uh with the salt barn uh from a bid proposal process the uh the town obviously we have the option uh to go out for bid for two containers little different than the last presentation that I shared uh where we were looking at three uh we scaled that back a little bit pulled one of those off that was for the stage just because of the the size of that uh on that footprint just created I'll say not the visual concept that I think would be the in ideal use for that area.

So looking at two, one obviously um both of those being seasonal uh for for an food and beverage operation time frame roughly made at October. Um it would incur as as supervisor just mentioned and Paul confirmed no cost to the town to go through this bid process. It also obviously adheres to uh the town's uh procurement policy. So the proposal being one 40 foot storage container which would operate uh as a restaurant or grill uh one 20 foot storage container which would operate as a beverage or a bar. Uh both units would be equipped uh with the necessary uh infrastructure or the bones of the building uh to support both of those features.

So either the food or beverage operation uh things such as stove vent hood uh fire suppression system grease traps uh power gas connections those would be again the bones to those structures. Uh the selected operator would then be responsible for outfitting the containers uh with their own kitchen and bar equipment as they see fit. Again, very similar to what we kind of went through with the brickandmortar option where we would provide uh the infrastructure and the operator would then outfit it for their for their service or what the way they would provide. Uh once the bid information is received, uh ideally again based on our time frame, we're looking at around December uh 12th or so of this year.

Tom board would then have the opportunity to evaluate uh whether or not this uh is a project that we should continue to proceed with and move forward with uh selecting or soliciting for an operator. Um you know things to consider is as I got for an example if the bids results come back uh and they're less than what uh I shared back in September. So they come in again, we'll say around 250, the for both units, the board may opt to continue and move forward with looking for an operator. If the bid results come back and they're higher than what we thought, um then the board may decide to, as supervisor just mentioned, uh just stop the process and and you know, move it down the road and try to come up with something different down the road.

uh decision of regarding the acceptance of the low bid uh would be targeted for early of 2026. So again, similar to what we just heard with the salt barn, if the bids come in in uh December, we don't have to op um actually act on those as part of the bid pack, uh we do target in there that acceptance would not take place until pro possibly February of 26. Um that also allows us time to be able to um solicit and look for a uh qualified operator. Um so again assuming the bid results are favorable town will proceed with the selecting of the operator selection process. We'll follow basically the same format that we used with the brick and mortar.

Uh go out to RFP see if we can find an operator who would like to operate this uh these features in a seasonal operation. Uh this process will consider not only the traditional restaurant tours uh but also seasonal opera operators such as food truck operators since it's a similar business model the wrong so again after September there were some uh there was a lot of discussion and questions regarding the necessity of having food or beverage um option at Sandbar Park. Again, understanding what the cost for this type of a feature, these storage containers, uh would be uh will will obviously help the town board with the uh with the information needed in order to make a informed and decision whether or not to proceed.

Couple of bullets that I did put in here uh based on some questions that I did receive after that uh presentation. Uh, one was, you know, a lot of questions and a lot of comments about the original or the uh the previous brickandmortar building being um downsized or smaller. So, the option to construct a smaller restaurant um than what was actually designed and bid back in October 24 um just is not a viable business model for a potential operator. Um it was a consist the consistent message from all the interested restaurant tours was that the building had to be a maximum allowable footprint in order to provide for sufficient seating capacity in order to have a successful business model.

It's essential in know in it's it was essential for the restorator restaurant tour uh to achieve profitability and enabling a repayment of any bond issued by the town to finance the building. So, in other words, going to a smaller building, reduce the number of people that obviously that could be in it, which would obviously impact a restaurant tour's ability to be profitable. Um, again, as an example, if we were to construct a 1,600 square foot building, which was about the size uh of the previous restaurant, an estimated cost being about a million dollars, which would probably be a challenge uh just based on current construction costs.

bond repayment would be approximately $8,000 a month for that. A building of that size would not be able to be uh would not be able to accommodate enough seating to generate the revenue necessary for both profitabil profitability as well as repayment of the bond obligation. Um and again that was a message that we heard with every single restaurant tour that we uh we met with. previous financial model that was used for the formal restaurant is just not uh is no longer applicable. Uh that facility carried no bond repayment, required no minimal lease improve leasehold improvements which allowed for a totally different financial structure for them.

So a lot of people that have the um you know bring up the comment or or have the concern of well why don't we just go back to the same model? It's just not feasible. Uh if the new project bids allow uh that the town could actually purchase the containers outright without the need for any sort of bond um for example by using funds out of the parkland trust fund then the resulting financial arrangement with any operator would be significantly significantly be more feasible uh and sustainable for the operator. uh if we were not having to have a bond payment payback to the to the operator obviously then the town has a much easier time to be able to negotiate any kind of a licensing agreement or or restaurant agreement with them.

So the town did actually reach out Passro Design actually did uh did work with us um at no cost to develop a conceptual visual or conceptual vision for that site. Um this this does show that 40ft restaurant building does show the 20ft bar featuring the walk up and window seating. Uh you know obviously the restaurant operator uh would have the right to be able to do things such as table service if they so desired. Um you know additionally plan incorporates a small covered stage to accommodate music or other type of performances. Um you know obviously the site does allow for other features that could be considered.

uh you know things again like fire pit uh fire pit with seating, patio heaters, outdoor play areas such as corno uh television and even uh something such as a kayak rental. So these are the conceptual conceptual drawings. Wish I could make them a little larger for you, but you can see that that that's a 40ft container uh that is on the uh north side of the grass area. And then that is the 20 foot bar feature uh that's actually on the east side of it. Um plenty of seating u room for additional table seating whether it's uh for table service and again also showing it out onto the uh to the walkway.

Uh and that's a closeup of what a bar storage container modular facility uh could look like. So ideally what we'd like to do uh is using this concept is go out to bid uh see what the cost would be for a 40ft container, a 20ft container, and then take those facts and that data, present it to the town board, make a determination. While that process is going on, uh we'll begin the process of reaching out to potential operators, see if there's interest. I can tell you that in order to uh put the information into a bid pack, uh that would be uh comprehensive for what, you know, would be required for the bones, so to speak.

I've had a few discussions with some food truck operators. Um I've had very good conversations with them about what they would need and what type of infrastructure. and they were all pretty similar in the fact that they're just looking for general setup and then they actually outfit it to their to their need. Uh but we also um discussed the possibility of um kind of going to the next step in regards to potentially looking at uh including them in the uh the RFP for an operator. So there is interest there from u from some vendors. Um but again, if we're looking at a 2026 season, uh we need to begin this process now so that early in 2026, uh potentially we can move forward with uh with the acquiring of these containers.

Questions? Who pays for the out the once the container is delivered with the bare bones inside of it? who pays for bringing it up bringing it up to what they would want to utilize it for? >> Great question. So, one of the things we did put in the bid pack is is one of the bid alternates is actually a connection to the utilities. Uh, so is that what you're asking for? >> Well, like the connection >> yes and no. >> So, say they're in the bar, we're not going to provide, you know, coolers and all that other stuff, right? >> Correct. >> So, who's >> the operator would? >> He would. So the timing in on this has got to be kind of difficult I would assume because you don't want to pay for these containers have them delivered.

We don't have operators and then where do we go from there? >> Well ideally what what'll happen is from here to the point of making a decision whether or not to purchase. We will begin soliciting for operators. If we can if we can find an operator that is willing to work with the town, then we'll actually begin the process of determining what needs to what what their needs would be uh to be able to include in their in in the unit. >> Okay. So, I know that you reached out to some of the um vendors this this that were there this summer, right, about this very idea. >> Yep. and and they seem to be in agreement that, you know, the containers would be the way to go.

>> Yeah. I had two I had actually two meetings in the last couple of weeks with two of the operators that that provided food service this past summer with their truck. Uh they were the ones to kind of provide some insight of some of those again those bones to what needs to be in there. Things like in in Monroe County, it's three sinks are required in a restaurant where in other areas uh it might only be two sinks. But in Monroe County, you need to have three sinks. So, as part of our bidback, we made sure that we had we had that feature built in. So, they were they were helpful in designing that piece as well as sharing their interest in potentially operating.

>> And who was going to pay for these containers? The town or the >> the towners? The town would because the town would actually own them. But then the town would the the restaurant tour would pay a lease which would help pay for >> the facility. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I didn't mean to cut you off. >> No, you didn't cut me off. I was just sort of trying to answer Jenny's question, but I think that like the salt barn, it's very hard to make a decision on something if you don't know >> correct >> what it's going to cost. So, like Chris outlined in his presentation, if this is $800,000 or a million dollars, it it's doesn't create a viable business model and then you're making a decision based on data as opposed to presumption.

>> I'm smiling as you say that because anybody who knows me knows that um I'm going to have a t-shirt printed up and it says, "I pray for patience and I want it right now." Um, one of the things I really have no patience for is is theoretical discussions and trying to project without data and facts. And I don't know why we wouldn't go out to bid to get these numbers so that we can make an intelligent decision until we have that. It's just talk that keeps going round and round. Well, we do have some some projections and how this differs from the highway department is in in the highway department that package.

We have the ability to send out three different RFPs at probably a minimal amount of money plus it would only take about a week per pat to get the information back as cost. Um, with respect to this this concept, Chris, um, I I've been to Backwoods and I saw that setup and I really like it. And this name of Backwoods, that's the setting. And I just I don't see that setting here at all. I I I just don't I'm not I'm not saying I'm not willing to send it out to bed. I absolutely am. But >> I don't know. Well, you'll >> my personal feeling is that that it's not really the setting for containers at at Sandbar Park.

Um >> I don't have a suggestion as an alternative. Um but I'm more than willing to send this out. >> Sure. >> I'd like to have more public input on this. Also, >> when you when you receive that feedback, when we receive the bids back, then obviously that gives you the fact to be able to determine whether or not it's something, you know, the the cost may come back and and may change your mind because of, you know, the ability to have an operator uh to be able to bring in revenue to offset the cost of the expense. Um, and you know, it's it's worth it. I think it's worth it for us to be able to move forward and be able to to uh >> and I don't disagree with that whatsoever.

And then at that point you'll make your decision whether or not to proceed with it. >> So would you be looking to make have us make this decision before January 1st >> decision to >> whether which way to go? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. It's part of the bid pack. It's actually written right in the bid pack that a decision wouldn't be made until February of 26. >> The the other thing I would like to interject is I actually saw one of these in the opposite setting is Backwoods. I was in Estus Park last week and there is one sitting right on the main street of Estes Park and it functions just beautifully.

>> Where is that by the way? Estus Park, >> Colorado. >> Darn it. >> So Chrisart, >> I saw a lot of elk, too. By the way, >> Gant charts are nice because they're visuals. So, let me do a verbal Gant chart and tell me where I'm wrong on this because I'm sure I'll be wrong. tonight when we get to a resolution I'm putting out to bid, which doesn't cost us anymore. Um, if we decide not to put it out to bid, we're done. If we decide to put it out to bid, then the next uh thing that would happen is that on the 18th of December, you would come back and show in a workshop, show what we got on those bids.

>> Correct? If the workshop, if you want to call it, is there a million dollars for these things, it's dead. We know that, right? But let's say it's palatable. Okay. Then the resolution that would be on the 18th regular board meeting is to put out an RFP to the restaurant, tours, bar owners, and the uh food truck operators who have shown interest. >> Then we all say, "Merry Christmas." we go home and then in January, late January or February, when you get back the RFP and have a a a valid operator, let's say, if you don't have a valid operator, once again, the town board in January, February says, "We're not moving forward with accepting the bids on the uh the the containers because we don't have an operator." >> That's correct.

>> All right. But if you have an operator and you come to a a workshop in late January, early February and say, "Hey, we have this operator at this cost, this and that. They're they're very excited this that." Well, that would have two resolutions potentially that night after that workshop in late January, February. one to accept the low bid, which you're building the bid package to telling them right out of the gate, hey, you're giving us this bid by December 15th, but we're not accepting it until February. >> Correct. And >> and we don't have to accept any bids. So, that would be one resolution.

And the second one would be probably some semblance of accepting the operator who that board has decided is valid. >> Correct. Now, in that Gant chart, did I miss anything? >> No, you're you're spot on. >> Okay. Because that crosses over into 2026. I mean, the, you know, the risk of everybody is that three new board members, even if it's, well, the cost is good and we got a great operator, they might say, we want no part of this. We got public input this and that. We want no part of this. Correct. And that that could happen. >> Doesn't matter if we got a great operator and we got very reasonable cost on the low bid.

That's out of the control of this fivep person board. The only control we have >> is to put this out to bid knowing that then we're not dealing in with whatever you said patience uh you know whatever >> I need some facts. We're not if then if then. We'll find out by the 18th if it's what the price is. >> Correct. >> And you're willing to take the risk of the time investment also to go out to find out uh how to put together an RFP. And I know Keith is helping with this um to the operators who have already shown interest. So that's that actually that model we we're just going to follow a similar model to what we did for the when we when we did the brick and mortar.

It'll be very similar to that. And again, the reason why we're doing this now >> versus at a later point is if we want to have any semblance of a 26 season down there for this. >> Yeah. >> We need to have the information ready early in 26 to make a decision. >> Sure. It would be good for this to also line up with the comprehensive plan which I believe there is a Josh Josh another meeting with some of the preliminary results in the February time frame which should line up nicely with understanding if this type of feature is something that is commensurate with the community input and recommendation from the comprehensive plan.

So having them having the um cost estimate now would be a key piece to having those two things have the opportunity to even come together. >> Good point. Anybody else? Because we're a little bit behind. But um thank you Chris Lynn. Does this mean that you had three sets not best of five? No, your son in the volleyball game. >> Oh, yes. >> Did he finish early because he won and swept? >> I came early to make sure I was here, but yeah, they're going to win, I think. >> Oh, okay. Well, that's good. Well, Lynn, come on up. I don't know if you want to stand at the podium or how would you like to set Lynn up for her presentation slides?

>> Wherever you like. >> I'm just wondering. >> It's up to you. I >> here. You could see it on the screen. Okay. >> Um, >> stand there if you want to do any. >> Okay. I can sit here >> and uh I I keep referencing. I'll let Lynn introduce herself, but um um she is from Wam who we did uh our uh um safe harbor memo on the RNG project. >> Yes. And so we slotted Lynn for 7 o'clock tonight instead of six o'clock because her son had a sectional volleyball game which I can appreciate. So I appreciate >> I'm glad to hear they're going to win. So without further ado, >> Lynn, take over. >> Yeah. So um thanks for having me tonight.

I did put some information about me because you probably have never seen me or heard me before. So I work with with them. Um and I am in the National Tech Service Group. So we deal a lot with new and pending legislation. Um, and also I lead the clean energy practice for with them. Um, so I've had the privilege of working with a variety of forprofits and not for profofits since the inflation reduction act um to, you know, really maximize investment in in clean energy. Um, you might say, "Well, how have I not?" We might have been seen obnoxiously recently um at the Buffalo Bills game with them everywhere.

Um, is recently because we merged um with upstate New York um and Buffalo, Rochester and Betavia. So, I was with the firm before that. Um, but now we merged into three additional firms that brings up brings us to upstate New York and we were referred in to the town of Webster to help. Um so today I'm was asked to talk a little bit about um the bio gas property that you would be um able to in work with or utilize or extend I should say which is part of your waste uh waste recovery system that you've been working on since I believe 2023. Um but so just so you're aware if you're not um you know I I am not a an engineer by uh so I will admit that um but essentially what it happens is you are able to bring in a certain amount of methane which you'll see there has to be a certain concentration and that methane then can be put through um a bio gas system.

That bio gas system can then um um provide you with natural gas. And so obviously um you already had the system using a portion of that natural gas for for you for the town of Webster. Um and now there's ability to use the remaining portion as opposed to burning it off. Um which obviously is not great for the environment. Um but there's an ability to essentially work with RG& and re and be able to sell that natural gas. Um it's very popular method. Um for your particular case, it was really important um for us to get comfortable that the property or the biogas property would started construction before December 31st of 2024.

If you want to know why, I'm happy to like answer additional questions, but essentially the tax law kind of flipped between two code sections um between 2024 and 2025. And so for us to be able to maximize any federal tax credit that would be available to you, we needed to get comfortable. Construction started in 2024. Um so the the beauty about which is I I don't know how many of people have followed the inflation reduction act but for the first time in history um you're being allowed um Indian tribunal organizations, governmental authorities and not forprofits are being allowed to get a refund in relation to these credits.

So you might be aware that's very unusual. That has never happened in the past. Um and essentially it was because they knew the that in order to decrease greenhouse admissions um over the years they needed everyone involved for-profit, not for-profit, government, etc. Um and so as part of this, they're saying, okay, look at your property that you're investing in, which in your particular case is the bio gas property, and they're saying you can receive a credit for that. So the credit that we would be looking to place on that cost basis would be 30%. So that means for every dollar you're investing in the bio gas property, you're receiving a refund from the federal government of 30 cents.

Um so it's quite significant. Um the only item I like to bring up as well, which I'm sure this is you have no intention, but there is a recapture period. So to the extent that we claim the refund and then you stopped using the bio gas um property um in the next five years there could be a portion of that refund that would be recaptured or have to go back to the federal government. Um and generally when people take up this kind of investment they are tuned and aware of that they are going to be um operating these types of facilities for a long time. Um, so again, if you remember, I said it was really important for us to make sure you started construction as of 1231 2024.

Um, and essentially how we did that is we use what's referred to as a 5% safe harbor, which is um been around for a long period of time um even before they allowed um not forprofits and governmental agencies to absorb a refundable credit. and they essentially um provide that you must have incurred or paid 5% of the total cost of the energy project prior to December 31st of 2024. Um and so what our analysis was was to understand more about this particular biogas project and how it engages or intertwines with the larger um waste management project that you're working on um and identify integral parts to the to um this particular bio gas facility and understand how much you've paid in relation to those parts.

Um and so by going through our analysis which included um you know obviously working with the engineers you're working with but also other external engineers in our group to make sure they they they felt that the estimates were appropriate and that the property that was being evaluated was appropriate. We were able to gather that you had spent approximately 3.5 million um cash out the door. That number adjusted a little bit today that you'll see in the final memo that you hopefully received. Um but that essentially means that um we clearly have exceeded the 5%. We've actually are at a 10.6%. So that gives us a very strong case and it's now it's documented in the memo that we've provided that there's no question that this this project started construction in 2024.

Um, what's nice about the 5% safe harbor as well, you might say, "Well, Lynn, what would happen if we went over?" Like, if we said right now we're estimating the the bio gas project to cost about 33.5 million. If I go over, do I lose the federal credit? And the answer to that is no. Um, essentially, um, right now you would have to go over 70 million, which would not be possible, I don't think, um, for this particular project in order for them to come in and start saying, "Well, you can't use all the costs you're um incurring for this project towards the the federal tax credit." Um the other item of focus um for us was making sure everyone understood that once the 5% safe harbor is met, there's a second um requirement and the requirement is called a continuity requirement.

So for example, I can't just spend 5% and then decide in 10 years I'm going to actually work on the project. Um so the continuity safe harbor you can either show every year what you've been doing to work towards completion or there is a safe harbor in the continuity rules which say okay as long as you've placed it into service four years um after you initially um started the project. So your external engineer that's helping you or project manager that's helping you with this project is Navatas. The contract was signed in June on June 16th 2023. So, as long as we have the project placed into service as of December 31st of 2027, there's no question that you will meet both the safe harbor test and the continuous work test.

Um, and that December 31st, 2027 date was agreed upon. Webster feels very comfortable when I talked um with with um the people here that that would be met as well as um the this external engineering firm that you're working with. So here you'll see the potential investment and the tax credit range. And so I would say on the right hand side is where Navatas has said this is what we think is going to count um towards this particular clean energy um project the Spyro gas project. And then here because I'm always I'm an accountant so I'm conservative. So I put okay let's assume you know we get 80% of what Navatas is is estimating.

Um what would that look like? And so you'll see the initial ITC credit, I'd say on the low end would be 8 million and the higher end would be 10 million. Um there is possibility that that $33 million that's been identified um could get greater depending on our analysis of how other pieces of of the project could be integral and could be included. Um but right now I'd be comfortable with saying, you know, initially an 8 to10 million range. As you probably are aware, this this large project was being funded 20 million by a New York State grant and then the remainder amount was being funded by um eventually municipal bonds and those municipal bonds are considered tax exempt.

And so there is a haircut. So essentially what the government says is well we're already not taxing people on the interest they're earning from the municipal bond. You can't double dip and receive that same benefit on the uh ITC credit. So, the haircut for just for example purposes today, we assumed there would be a full 15% haircut. Um, that again would have to be evaluated as to whether potentially any of that $20 million grant received from New York State and I think there was a a little bit I think two million from the American Rescue Plan was used whether we could allocate some of that to this to reduce that 15%.

Um but most likely you're looking at um in worst case scenario can it go it can't go above 15%. So that would bring your ultimate ITC credit that we're estimating at this time to be somewhere between you know 7 million and 8.5 million. Um that is generally u received when the project goes into service. So or the the energy project. So, if if they were great and it was really moving quickly and there was no hiccups and it went into service in 2026, then you'd claim that on your 2026 return um if it goes into service in 2027, you'd claim that on your 2027 return. Something interesting for governments um that we've worked with other clients on is generally you've never filed a 990, so you've never set up your taxable year end.

So, it gives us some flexibility. So, if they say to us, "Well, Lynn, we're going to have the project done in March of 2026 or or 2020 um yeah, 2027," then I would say, "Okay, well then we're going to lock you into a March 31st year end because it's really not relevant for governments for for a tax year end." And so, that would be able to file your tax return more quickly and get the refund more quickly instead of waiting until the end of the year to file your tax return. >> I think that's it. Thank you, Lynn. Any questions for Lynn? >> So, John, while you're thinking of that, I just want to make sure everybody knows that this is the one presentation tonight that isn't followed by a resolution on the regular town board meeting agenda.

What will happen next in this process is on the 20th uh Paul Adams will give a presentation uh about the financial aspects of this and then Bob Whmer from Navatas will give a presentation at the workshop about what they think it's going to cost to engineer and design. So no resolutions tonight at >> I know >> are any of these incentives subject to change at all >> by that's a great question >> by the current administration. >> So the current I would I would have agreed with you that I would have had concern last year at this time, but the current administration just actually passed the OBBA and that was where a lot of people were saying we don't know where this clean energy initiatives are going to go.

Um, including the direct pay election is what you're using to say I want a refundable credit. Um, but that was passed on July 5th and you are good to go. Um, it's a it's a clear runway for the next 10 years. >> Um, so yeah, you shouldn't be concerned now. I mean, obviously, if President Trump goes out of office and you get a new president, we're always subject to potential tax legislative changes, but if you have your projects in service by 2027, you should be you should be locked. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, great question. >> Anybody else? No, I'm I'm sure we're going to hear more on the 20th, but the one thing I want people to to be aware of is that some of these benefits apply to work that we've already done if we move forward with renewable natural gas.

>> So, there's the potential to recoup money on the project as it stands now if we add this additional portion. >> Right? So, that was the how we were able to say we started construction in 2024. the primary digtor that's already in existence, right, is integral um to uh the bio gas facility working. Um and so there's a primary and secondary digtor that we were monitoring for this project. And and so the numbers you saw up when we said project cost times 30%. That's not the additional investment. That sounds like Navatas is going to come in and talk to you about what that additional investment might look like.

I think the additional investment somebody told me I think I was talking to Rick or somebody that was between six and 9 million. >> That was their I don't know if I'm allowed to speak to that. That's what I've seen. >> Okay. >> It's nine on the RNG that the board chose to go with a couple months ago because the $6 million one was when we were going to just do power on the campus. The $9 million option had the more bang for the buck. I will say this, when you look at this page, the last page before the questions, um, when you look at the total ITC basis of 33,400,000. All right. Well, we know we're in contract for 85 million.

All right. And if we add 9 million to that, that means it'd be a $94 million project. Well, the reason why the only 33 million we're estimating qualifies as part of this bio gas, >> not the full what would be 94 million. Now, the interesting thing about that, which I was really happy, and so was Paul as a couple of accountants, that when we were on a Zoom meeting with you and your engineers and all your technical people, they seem to be pinging Rick and I and and Paul saying, "I think you're being too conservative. You're not adding parts of this $85 million project that would probably qualify." And we said, "You know what?

We're going in front of the town board. do it conservatively >> because I'd rather the surprise in 2027 be that it it's a $10 million uh credit for tax refund than it going the other way. So, we were pretty happy with that, weren't we, Paul? That we were doing this conservatively. >> Yeah. >> Always be conservative. >> Any other questions or comments? >> There's also a revenue aspect to this, right? So you invest more, there's more revenue and a higher >> we're hoping by two weeks from now that'll be part of Paul's presentation because we've been researching uh with Navatas about we estimated at $750,000 a year, but doubting Thomas.

We're putting our fingers in the holes and starting to get some uh outside firms that are uh corroborating that. We're not ready to present that yet. We were ready to present the deliverable that the board did a few uh last month, which was no more than $40,000 for the safe harbor memo. And I got to thank you because you got it done very timely and we're able to present it. This was a highlevel presentation. The actual memo, I don't know if it's been delivered yet, but the board will all get it and >> 14 pages. >> Yeah, >> 14 pages. Very detailed. We'll have a lot of fun, but I appreciate >> that's what you want to do with this, right?

We don't want the IRS coming in and asking us questions that we can't have answered in this memo that we provided. >> All right. Well, Lynn, thank you. And are is your son on to the semis or finals? >> Uh, semis and then states. I think the I think so. >> So, here's what we're going to do. Uh, we're going to close out the workshop. It's 7:29. We'll take a 5m minute break and we will be back for the regular town board meeting at 7:35.