Webster Town Board
October 3, 2024
A regular meeting of the Webster Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Flaherty at
7:30 p.m. at the Webster Town Board Meeting Room, 1002 Ridge Road, Webster, New York,
with the following officials present:
Supervisor ................................................................................ Thomas J. Flaherty
Councilwoman........................................................................... Patricia T. Cataldi
Councilman ...................................................................................... John J. Cahill
Councilwoman............................................................................ Ginny L. Nguyen
Councilwoman...........................................................................Jennifer S. Wright
Town Attorney .............................................................................. Charles Genese
Town Clerk .................................................................................. Danene M. Marr
Department Heads Present:
Communications Director ............................................................. Bridget Harvey
Deputy Commissioner of Public Works-Sewer .................................. Art Petrone
Finance Director ..................................................................................Paul Adams
Personnel Director ...................................................................... Brayton Connard
***
Supervisor Flaherty led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
***
Supervisor Flaherty announced a Public Hearing to consider an addition to the Consolidated
Sanitary Sewer District, specifically the Woodard Road Extension.
Art Petrone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works- Sewer, explained that this is an extension
of six homes that want to connect to the Town’s sewer system and get out of septic. Mr. Petrone
wanted to thank the residents, Town Attorney Genese, Finance Director Paul Adams, and
Marianne Lamb for their tenacity to get this item back on track. Supervisor Flaherty commented
that the main hurdle was New York State having a very outdated rule on this topic. Art Petrone
agreed and indicated that this made the process cumbersome and troubling.
At 7:34 p.m. Supervisor Flaherty opened the Public Hearing. No comments were received.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
***
Resolution No. 284: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the addition to the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District, specifically the Woodard Road
extension.
WHEREAS, Paul & Helen Sleeman, Papis Convenient, Inc, Andrew & Kara Foote, Jeremy &
Mary Beth Covert, Alex & Stacy Szabo, Christopher Anschutz & Heather Horvath, the owners
of certain parcels of land in an affected portion of Woodard Road in the Town of Webster,
known 1673, 1680, 1681, 1683, 1690, 1704 Woodard Road are desirous of extending sanitary
sewer to their property, such parcels also identified respectively as Tax ID Number 051.03-1-3.1,
050.02-1-30.1, 051.03-1-4, 051.03-1-6, 050.02-1-30.2, 050.02-1-29 the boundaries of such
1
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
extension being shown and described on APPENDIX A of the Map, Plan and Report, which is
annexed hereto, and have requested the Town Board pursuant to Town Law Article 12-A to
extend the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District of the Town of Webster to include their
respective properties therein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the map, plan and report of Costich Engineering, as revised July 2024,
and as annexed hereto as Exhibit A, the total costs for this extension to the existing sewer district
is estimated not to exceed $194,113.00, and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will include the extension of sanitary services to the
above properties, and construction and emplacement of a sewer main which will discharge into
an existing 12” gravity main on the north side of Woodard Road, from there directed to the Town
of Webster Walter W. Bradley Pollution Control Facility; and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual capital cost of the improvements contemplated herein to the
typical property within the extension will be $1,545.71, as shown by and in the proposed
$194,113.00 Public Improvement Serial Bonds schedule attached hereto as Schedule “A”;
and
WHEREAS, once these parcels are added to the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District and will
be charged a capital fee (currently $97.70 annually), and once connected an operation and
maintenance fee (currently $199.13 annually), the total annual cost will be $1842.54; and
WHEREAS, a one-time entrance fee (currently $1,000.00) will be charged at the time of
connection; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost(s) to each resident property to abandon existing septic
system(s), and to connect to and enter the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District is
estimated to be $7200.00, which is based on approximately 120 linear feet times $35 a foot
(actual cost may vary depending on the actual length and complexity of the installation),
connection to existing service including any indoor plumbing changes, and
decommissioning of existing septic tank including pump out and backfill; and
WHEREAS, if the creation of this extension receives approval of the State Comptroller, the
owners of the affected parcels to be added will grant easements to the Town of Webster for the
construction of said sanitary sewer improvements, which easements will be recorded and shown
on a map to be prepared for the Town of Webster Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s intention is to finance this project with funds from the Town’s
Sewer Workers Compensation Insurance Reserve by means of a bond resolution being
passed which will give the Town the option to refinance the cost with serial bonds in the
future; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of adding this parcel to the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer
District will be paid for by the residents whose property will be benefitted thereby, by means of
financing the project with funds from the Town’s Sewer Workers Compensation Insurance
Reserve. A bond resolution will be passed which will give the Town the option to refinance the
cost with serial bonds in the future, and it is expected that all the property and property owners
within the proposed extension will be benefitted by the addition of such extension; and
2
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, if approval of the State Comptroller is received, the addition of these parcels and
residences to the Woodard Road Extension to the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District will
result in the revision of the map, plan and report of that Extension and District; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Webster Herald on September 18,
2024, posted on the Town’s website and on the Town Clerk’s Bulletin Board at 1000 Ridge
Road, Webster, New York; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing on the addition of these parcels and residences to the Woodard
Road Extension to the Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District was held by the Webster Town
Board on October 3, 2024 at 7:30 p.m., and all interested persons having had an opportunity to
be heard at the Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, a short form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the proposed action has
been prepared, and has been submitted to the Town Board and reviewed by the Town Board:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Town Board of the Town of Webster does hereby authorize and approve the construction
of certain sewer improvements along a portion of Woodard Road in the Town of Webster,
servicing the above parcels and residences located on Woodard Road in the Town of
Webster.
2. The maximum estimated total costs for this extension to the existing sewer district is
estimated not to exceed One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Thirteen Dollars
($194,113.00).
3. The maximum amount to be financed by the issuance of bonds pursuant to the Local Finance
Law shall be One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Thirteen Dollars
($194,113.00).
4. The estimated annual capital cost of the improvements contemplated herein to the typical
property within the extension will be $1,545.71, as shown by and in the proposed
$194,113.00 Public Improvement Serial Bonds schedule attached hereto as Schedule
“A.”
5. The estimated cost for each of these parcels will be a capital fee (currently $97.70 annually),
and once connected an operation and maintenance fee (currently $199.13). A one-time
entrance fee (currently $1,000.00) will be charged at the time of connection.
6. The Town Board is hereby authorized and directed to obtain definite plans and specifications
and, with the assistance of counsel as required by Town Law, to enter into any contract or
contracts needed for such improvements, provided the price of such contract or contracts in
the aggregate does not exceed the maximum costs estimated above.
7. Any costs of publication and recording of any documents, including easements, necessary to
affect these additions will be paid by and/or reimbursed to the Town by the property owners.
8. The Town Board hereby determines, by companion Resolution No. 285 of 2024 (October 3,
2024) that based upon the information in the Environmental Assessment Form and other
3
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
available information, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment within the meaning of SEQRA and does not require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 285: MOTION by Councilwoman Wright, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi,
that based upon the information in the Environmental Assessment Form and other available
information, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment within the
meaning of SEQRA and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
The meeting was open to the floor for public comment.
Greg Cummings, Webster resident, came before the Board to discuss Proposition One, which
will be on the ballot for this upcoming election. His main goal was to educate the Public and ask
that they look into this before they walk in and just vote, based upon what it come across as
directly on the ballot. It is essential that the public understand the many negative effects this
could result in. If this Proposition One is passed, the New York State Legislature has deemed it
the, “Equal Rights Amendment”. Mr. Cummings stated, “Who’s not for equal rights, we all are
just about, but that’s not the end of the story. Many voters will stop right there when they hear
that tagline or when they go in and read “Equal Rights Amendment”. They won’t read it, they’ll
just vote for it and the dangerous part is, there are a couple of things that we want to bring to
people’s attention. It’s also being sold as the Abortion Bill. Albany is very good as is our
Federal Government at naming things and driving things based upon what’s popular no matter
what poll you look at, more than 60-70% of Americans right or wrong want abortion, not going
to argue that fact that’s a personal decision, but they’re selling it as the Abortion Bill. Albany
knows more than 60% want abortion, but what they are not telling you is that there is a lot more
things to it. Mr. Cummings stated that he is part of the Coalition to Protect Kids in New York.
This Proposition One is trying to be slipped by without anyone knowing the details. Mr.
Cummings is trying to educate the public by giving them information about the Equal Rights
Amendment in the New York State Constitution. It protects things like race, creed, religion,
color, etc. but there are twelve new categories that are being added. Interestingly, even though its
being sold as the Abortion Bill, the word “abortion” does not even show up in this amendment.
What Mr. Cummings is really concerned about are two things; one is the word, “age”. From first
breath to last breath. If you have a child that wants to do something and you say, “no”, the child
can claim discrimination. The second word is, “sex”. You cannot discriminate on sex, so that
means, by the Constitution, if a boy wants to join the girls’ softball team, they cannot stop said
boy. Finally, this could also abolish all girls’ schools or all boy’s schools.”
4
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
John DeMarco, Webster resident, Deputy Town Attorney for the Town of Webster, and Senior
Partner in the DeMarco Taylor Law Group. For transparency, his law firm was one that
provided a response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) from the Town of Webster which is
relevant to item five on the regular town business agenda this evening, which is the resolution to
authorize the supervisor to sign an engagement agreement for Town legal services. Deputy
Town Attorney DeMarco stated that his comments are going to be addressed primarily to the
three board members that were not part of the committee that has made a recommendation
relative to the selection of the law firm and of course that’s Mr. Cahill, Ms. Nguyen, and Ms.
Wright. “The reason why I’m addressing it to the three of your primarily is also because the
Town decided frankly, unbeknownst to me at the time, that the RFP process was the process that
they decided to use to go about determining what would be best suited for the town. I didn’t
realize at the time, that there was a resolution back in October of 2023, that certainly allows this
to be exempt from that process and the Town was not required to do an RFP for these services.
The reason why that is relevant is because I have made attempts to speak with Ms. Wright, Mr.
Cahill and Ms. Nguyen and I think all each individually viewed , at least my perception was, that
they were handcuffed from speaking with me regarding this process because the RFP process
requires that they don’t because I’m a prospective vendor, but in reality the RFP process was not
necessary and they could have been able to speak with me as one of the prospective law firms.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with my background, very briefly, I have been a municipal
attorney for fourteen years, nine with the town of Irondequoit, five with the Town of Webster
and also served as Town Justice for an additional eight years and acting judge of the New York
State Supreme Court for a decade. My firm also practices municipal matters for individual
clients and has been practicing law close to forty years now. For the last eighteen months, I’ve
been involved with the Town Board at the request of the Town Supervisor and the Town
Attorney to assist the Town in a backlog of legal matters that the Town Supervisor wants to
essentially enumerate, pick up speed, and close things that have been going on for a while. This
certainly is not a comment against Mr. Genese, who is probably one of the finest municipal
lawyers in the State of New York and I know the Town is sorry to see him go. We have
participated for the last eighteen months at their request, on the basis of our performance over the
last five years as attorneys for the Town of Webster, and I suspect because of my almost forty
years of being in and around these issues. My ask this evening is simply that I would encourage
the Town Board to vote to either table or workshop this matter so that the three members that
were not part of that committee have an opportunity to review what we have reviewed over the
last eighteen months, not only with respect to the Supervisor’s matters that he wanted to get up to
speed on, but a considerable amount of time in determining what Attorney Genese has been
engaged in over the last thirty years. The amount of time that he spent and the expertise that was
required in all those matters, and trying to understand from a budgetary standpoint, because
again, with all due respect to Mr. Genese the compensation and those hourly rates were
extremely antiquated, and we were asked to participant in that process. I think there is a lot of
information that came from that, that you may not have been privy to, given the amount that was
shared or not shared with you. My second ask is that the Town takes some action to unshackle
those Board members that have not participated in this process, so they can engage directly with
those individuals that may be part of the process in attempting to become the successor to Mr.
Genese. I am available for the balance of the evening when you get to this item, should you wish
to ask me any further questions. Thank you for the opportunity and the time.”
Donald White, Webster resident and Webster Village Attorney. Mr. White grew up in Webster,
5
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
went to RL Thomas High School in Webster, went to Flaherty’s when it was called Flags. Mr.
White stated, “I have been involved in town government for almost forty years and was a
member of the Webster Town Board in the late 80’s early 90’s, before that I was a Deputy Town
Attorney serving the Zoning Board of Appeals and I am currently, for the last ten years, the
attorney for the Village of Webster. When I looked at tonight’s agenda and I saw a resolution to
sign an engagement agreement for Town Council Legal Service, and I clicked the button to look
at that agreement, frankly I was shocked and very disappointed to see that it was not a local
attorney that the town is seeking to hire. Like I said, I’ve been involved in this for years and I
can tell you it’s always been a local Town resident attorney that has represented the Village or
the Town of Webster for as far back as I can remember, you know with Herb Stern, Chris
Kotary, Jerry Mitrano and Charlie Genese and I think it is a grave mistake to go away from that.
Including the deputy attorneys were also by and large, always Town residents. I understand you
went through the RFP process, but it’s not just dollars and cents and this may be cheaper than
what you’ve been paying for legal services, but some of the benefits you can’t get through an
RFP is it’s someone local, they’re accessible, they live here, if they need to attend a meeting,
they can show up on a moments notice. If you hire an individual, you are going to get more
individualized attention and service than if you hire a firm. There are nine attorneys in this firm,
are you going to get the same attorney all the time, who knows. In addition, if the attorney is a
resident of the Town, they know the Town they live here, they got some skin in the game so to
speak. I was always in favor of the more police officers you could hire that live in the Town, the
better, because they know the Town. Same with your attorneys. lastly, there are political
reasons to hire someone local, I’m not going to get into those political reasons because you
probably know them, but like it or not, Town Government politics are part of Town Government,
like any Government, and it’s unavoidable and those are some considerations that I ask you to
please take to heart. Thank you.”
***
Resolution No. 286: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the September 19, 2024 Town Board Workshop Meeting Minutes as submitted by the
Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Abstain
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Abstain
Motion carried.................. 3-0-2
***
Resolution No. 287: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the September 19, 2024 Town Board Meeting Minutes as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Abstain
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Abstain
Motion carried.................. 3-0-2
***
Resolution No. 288: MOTION by Councilwoman Nguyen, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the bills as submitted in Warrant #1024 by the Director of Finance.
6
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
Fund
General (A,B) CL #3239-3419
Highway (C,D)
Sewer (G)
Library (L)
Drainage Districts (M)
Park Districts (P)
Trust & Agency (T/A,N/SF,T/T, WEMS)
Capital Projects (H) #123-136
H212 Thomas HS Stream Restore
H213 SB Waterfront Park Design
H216 Lodge at Sandbar Park
H231 WWTP Upgrade Phase II
H232 Highway Garage Building
H237 Coca-Cola/ FAIRLIFE
TOTAL
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Inside
43,803.77
52,250.49
25,483.22
5,473.59
1,136.00
2,415.00
0.00
Outside
317,808.96
67,041.23
59,928.01
15,023.56
1,584.88
0.00
362,648.85
Total
361,612.73
119,291.72
85,411.23
20,497.15
2,720.88
2,415.00
362,648.85
3,212.94
285.00
36,073.69
3,053,262.30
52,428.29
428,252.79
3,704,077.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15,228.79
0.00
839,264.28
3,212.94
285.00
36,073.69
3,053,262.30
67,657.08
428,252.79
4,543,341.36
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 289: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the prepaid vouchers included in Warrant #1024 by the Director of Finance in the
amount of $839,264.28. [Included in the summary of vouchers approved in Resolution #288]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 290: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
approve purchase orders as submitted by the Director of Finance.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 291: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Wright to
approve a license agreement to locate a fence and a shed within both a Town Sanitary Sewer
easement and Town drainage easement at 1123 Stonegate Drive, Tax ID # 080.17-3-24.
WHEREAS, a 20+ foot wide sanitary sewer easement was granted to the Town of Webster and
recorded in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office in Liber 230 of Maps, Page 83, running along the
western boundary of the property at 1123 Stonegate Drive, Town of Webster; and
7
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, a 15+ foot wide drainage easement was granted to the Town of Webster and
recorded in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office in Liber 230 of Maps, Page 83, also running along
the western boundary of the property at 1123 Stonegate Drive, Town of Webster; and
WHEREAS, Megan Sanna is the owner of the property located at 1123 Stonegate Drive, Town
of Webster, Tax ID # 080.17-3-24; and
WHEREAS, Megan Sanna has applied to erect a four foot high black chain link fence upon,
within and through both the aforesaid easements in conformance with the height and setback
requirements as set forth in the Code of the Town of Webster, and that in the event the placement
and/or height of such fence is not in such conformance, such fence shall not be constructed
unless the proper variance(s) is/are received from the Town of Webster Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
WHEREAS, Megan Sanna has also applied to maintain a 9.7’ by 12.1’ frame shed upon, within
and through the aforesaid sanitary easements in conformance with the setback requirements as
set forth in the Code of the Town of Webster, and that in the event the placement of such deck is
not in such conformance, such deck shall not be maintained unless the proper variance(s) is/are
received from the Town of Webster Zoning Board of Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have requested relief from the Webster Town Board to permit the
aforesaid fence and deck to exist upon and encroach within said easements; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster has the authority to grant the relief requested, and the public
good will not be harmed thereby:
Now, Therefore be it Resolved:
1. Pursuant to application of Megan Sanna, owner of 1123 Stonegate Drive, Town of Webster,
Tax ID # 080.17-3-24 and in recognition of the hardship created if the relief sought herein is
not granted, the limited detriment to the Town of Webster, and upon consideration of all
relevant factors, the Webster Town Board hereby allows the construction of the aforesaid
four foot black chain link fence and maintain the aforesaid shed which will exist upon and
encroach upon the easements affecting 1123 Stonegate Drive, Town of Webster.
2. This Resolution in no way applies to any other encroachment, violations or relief sought by
the owner, her successors, grantees or assigns from any other building, structure or zoning
violation which may exist on such premises.
3. This relief is granted upon the following conditions:
A. The proposed fence shall encroach upon the said easements as proposed as shown on
the survey map prepared by Gary Guernsey, Land Surveyor, and dated March 9,
2020, and shall be removable.
B. The existing shed shall encroach upon the said sanitary sewer easement as proposed
as shown on the survey map prepared by Gary Guernsey, Land Surveyor, and dated
March 9, 2020, and shall be removable.
C. The proposed fence shall not be expanded to further encroach on or in the easement,
8
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
nor will it be moved from its permitted places within the easements as shown on the
Instrument Survey Map presented to the Town Board, and as referenced above, nor
shall the shed be expanded or moved from its permitted place within the sanitary
sewer easement.
C. Upon the destruction or demolition of the aforesaid fence or shed or any part of
thereof, through natural causes or otherwise, the Owner of the fence and shed will not
reconstruct it without a specific Resolution of the Town Board authorizing its
replacement or reconstruction.
D. The Owner of the fence and shed shall be solely responsible for any damage caused
by or to the fence as a result of the Town’s maintenance of either of said easements,
and the Owner, their successors and assigns further agree to indemnify, defend and
hold the Town harmless from any and all loss or damage caused to or by the fence
and/or shed as a result of work done by the Town as a result of reasonable and
necessary work done by the Town within said easements.
E. In the event of an emergency, or if the Town deems it necessary or imperative, the
Town will have the right to remove or take down all or any part of said fence and/or
shed, without recourse by the Owner or her successors or assigns to such removal or
taking down.
F. This Resolution shall in no way affect the rights, if any, of any other public entities or
public utilities in or to said easement.
4. The record Owner of the proposed fence and the existing shed and the Town of Webster will
enter into a licensing agreement incorporating all the conditions of this Resolution in form
and substance as approved by the Town Attorney, and which will further provide that the
Owner, at her expense, will record the licensing agreement in the Monroe County Clerk’s
Office.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
The Town Board was presented with a proposed Resolution to authorize the Supervisor to sign
an engagement agreement for town counsel legal services.
Councilwoman Cataldi, commented and wanted to thank those who came out to speak tonight
about making this motion, which is somewhat bittersweet, because the man sitting to
Councilwoman Cataldi’s right, has been to her right for many years and has worked with him for
a long time. He has her absolute respect. She has also been privileged to call him a friend. It’s
been a great honor for her to work with Charlie and he certainly deserves his retirement.
Supervisor Flaherty commented that he has really enjoyed getting to know Charlie for the last
five years and working with him. Mr. Flaherty stated that after Charlie’s twenty plus years to the
Town, Charlie deserved the right to be part of the succession planning. Charlie was able to
educate Mr. Flaherty on the Town’s legal issues which are far more complex in 2024 than when
9
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
Charlie started thirty years ago. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we are not the Town
that we were thirty years ago. We are a very different socioeconomic Town, we have a lot more
complex issues and he stated that John DeMarco made a very good point, and he can’t thank him
enough, and Kyle Taylor who is our attorney to the Planning Board. Mr. Taylor does not live in
Webster, therefore could not be a Deputy Town Attorney. Over the last eighteen months, as
John DeMarco stated, there has been a lot of activity and there has been a lot on Charlie’s plate,
to which we have asked John DeMarco and Kyle Taylor as W2 employees of the Town, just like
Charlie is, to help out even though it isn’t their specialty in Municipal Law, they were gracious
in helping. Since they were helping us outside of the bandwidth of what they were hired to do,
to be the Zoning Board and Planning Board attorney’s that when we switched in January of 2023
from two planning/zoning board meetings a month to one a month, Mr. Flaherty indicated that
there was no reason to talk about reducing their W2 payroll to the tax payers that we paid them,
prior to that, even though they were doing half the meetings because they were also helping us
on the general municipal items as Counselor DeMarco has said, and he will be forever grateful
that they did that.
Brayton Connard, Personnel Director, stated, on June 6, 2024, Town Attorney Genese publicly
announced his intention to retire at the end of the year. There had been succession planning
discussions that took place including all the W2 town attorney staff, so at that point, there had to
be a decision made on how we move forward, and so the Town Board authorized the Town to
issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP used the RFP template and model that the Town
has been using and simultaneously we also posted for an employee because the study group that
had been working on this did not know for sure the best path forward. Was it a full-time
employee, a part-time employee, a boutique law firm, a major large multi-service law firm.
Simply stated, the group wanted to explore all options. We sent the RFP to twenty-two local law
firms that advertise that they practice in municipal law, and so they were given until June 28,
2024 to respond. At the end of June 28, 2024, there were no attorneys inside of Webster or
outside of Webster who applied for the position of Town Attorney. There were however, seven
law firms that submitted responses to the Request for Proposal. Of those seven, six were brought
in front of the RFP Review Committee. The Committee was comprised of Town Attorney
Genese, Town Supervisor Tom Flaherty, Deputy Town Supervisor Cataldi and Brayton Connard,
Personnel Director. The Committee determined that six of the seven were responsive, one of the
responses did not answer the question and simply submitted hourly rates. The RFP had
requested a fixed price bidding so that the Town would know exactly what it’s annual legal
expenses would be for the services and so the RFP Review Committee looked at the criteria that
were included in the publicly issued RFP as to what the selection criteria was for public
procurement and selected three to be invited to finalist interviews. The three finalists made
presentations to the RFP Committee and the RFP Committee met and reviewed those
presentations and unanimously ranked all three firms in the same order. Each person did a blind
ballot, and so based on the review of all factors, the RFP Review Committee rates the firm of
Mancuso Brightman highest and unanimously recommends them to the Town to serve as
council. The other two finalists were qualified and processional, but did not have the
combination of expertise, experience, and cost to be rated as high as Mancuso Brightman.
Mancuso Brightman understand the unique challenges faced by the Town of Webster, they
practice almost exclusively in municipal law, in fact the firm was built for the purpose of
municipal law. They represent several other municipalities, including the Towns of Bright,
Rush, and the Village of Fairport. Their attorneys have previously represented the Town of
10
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
Victor, and they had references from all three towns, plus the Village of Fairport in their
responses. They have extensive experience providing legal counsel at Zoning, Planning and
Town Board meetings as well as defending their municipal clients from litigation and they have
experience providing 24/7 support to Town Boards because governing is a 24-7 operation. The
RPF Committee was impressed with the depth and breadth of experience and expertise of their
three-attorney team that is part of a seven municipal attorney practice. Each of our boards will
have a single constant lead attorney with a scheduled backup available at a moment’s notice, so
on any given meeting night, Planning, Zoning or Town Board, there will always be two attorneys
available. They will have standing office hours for in-site availability at Town Hall, and we
conduct monthly pre-board preparation meetings with staff. Their proposal also included
educational and compliance training for citizen Board Members. Mancuso Brightman’s
experience representing a large town with a police department was another differentiating factor
due to the specialized nature of law enforcement legal matters. They will be providing high
quality services consistent with the scope of work at the highly competitive fixed price rate of
$145,000 per year and any additional legal services that are approved by the Town outside of the
scope will be billed at the discounted municipal rate of $250 per hour. The Town’s 2025
preliminary budget contains sufficient funding and represents the reasons why the RFP
Committee supported that.
Town Attorney Charlie Genese, commented that it was a collaborative process, each committee
member brought something different in terms of advising and thought it was robust and as well
done as you can do for something like this.
Town Supervisor Flaherty stated that once they saw that the only candidates were law firms, it
was considered a professional service and we had a little more latitude and do not have to take
the lowest bid. Paul Adams, Director of Finance, confirmed that Mancuso Brightman was not
the lowest bidder.
Mr. Connard, stated that there was a question raised earlier about the RFP process and so it’s
standard language in the Town’s RFP documents as well as this one, as well as every municipal
RFP that he has seen in over his thirty-three years of government service that firms and
organizations that are responding to RFP’s are only allowed to make contact with a single point
of contact, which is to prevent confusion. This is why you have an RFP committee otherwise,
you know the Town Board would have to evaluate all the ambulance proposals, and every
engineering proposal, and such, it’s a standard practice to delegate these committees.
Councilman John Cahill, commented that the letter of engagement that was provided to the
Town Board members, under the billing arrangement expenses and disbursements, the sentence
says the firm is pleased to offer an aggregate annual retainer in the amount of $145,000.
Retainers are for what we will pay you to retain you, and then bill against that $145,000. Is the
$145,000 a retainer or no?
Mr. Connard replied, no, it’s a fixed price of $145,000. So if we perform tons of hours or if we
don’t perform tons of hours, it’s $145,000 for the year.
Mr. John Mancuso, from Mancuso Brightman PLCC, stated that the aggregate annual retainer
language was added in the agreement because as attorneys we often refer to the agreements as
retainer agreements and in my experience with municipal representation, municipalities usually
11
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
follow one of two frameworks. It’s usually a retainer agreement based on a fixed amount billed
on a 1/12 basis or once a month for twelve months or of hourly rate. Each one of those fee
structures was evaluated but based on the RFP that was provided by the Town of Webster, the
intent of the engagement letters was to provide a fixed fee agreement where the $145,000 is in
the aggregate, meaning it covers Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, essentially
comprehensive representation of the Town of Webster. There is no intention on the part of my
firm to request upfront payment in the amount of $145,000, we would bill the 1/12 amount on a
monthly basis consistent with the Town’s expectations for billing practices.
Councilman Cahill stated that there is no verbiage in the agreement to not exceed the $145,000.
Mr. Mancuso responded that it was the intention to fix the rate at $145,000 per year and is more
than happy to add language to the effect that it would not exceed $145,000 with respect to the
scope of work that was responded to in the RFP. The only thing that would be outside of that
would be separate engagements or matters that the Town of Webster would ask the firm to
undertake on the hourly basis that would be set forth in that agreement for $250 per hour.
Councilwoman Nguyen wanted to first thank Charlie for all his work and everything he has done
through the years counseling the Board and wanted to thank the selection committee, but as a
member of the Town Board she wanted to have input and ask questions on the decision for
choosing an all Town legal service. First, if the Town already has a law firm and they are doing
a good job, what is the emphasis for switching? Next, Mancuso Brightman PLCC is based out of
Syracuse, how many lawyers do that have in a Rochester office and which one will represent our
town? Additionally, if the Town is involved in a future litigation would it cost the Town extra
money for the legal service? Isn’t it part of the negotiation not only to get the best price, but to
get the best qualifications for the Town of Webster? Ms. Nguyen stated that she understands the
selection committee interviewed numerous law firms and is sure those law firms would be
equally qualified, but the Demarco Taylor Law Firm has a history with Webster and they are
currently advising the Planning and Zoning Board. They understand our code and our systems
that prove valuable in the future.
Mr. Brayton Connard responded to Ms. Nguyen’s questions. First, no, the Town does not
already have a law firm representing for general counsel. The reason for the switch is that
Charlie Genese is retiring and the RFP committee is recommending that instead of having
multiple representations, so instead of picking two different law firms to represent the Town
Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board or a mix of W2 employees and law firms, the RFP
committee said that the best services would be delivered for the taxpayers, is the Town to have
one firm doing it.
Supervisor Flaherty added to the response that Charlie Genese is a W2 employee of the Town of
Webster, he’s the Town Attorney, you also have your own firm John DeMarco and Kyle Taylor
have DeMarco Taylor and they are also W2 employees of the Town of Webster, for their
positions. the aggregate of Charlie, John and Kyle I think is around $138,000 a year. Our
budget for 2025 is $165,000 for legal services because we knew we would no longer have W2
employees because no one came to apply for these positions. So the law firm Mancuso
Brightman PLCC, their annual fee of $145,000 is going to be $20,000 less than what we
approved in our preliminary budget. Supervisor Flaherty added that we have to protect the
taxpayer money and it was commented earlier that Mancuso Brightman PLCC was not the
12
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
lowest bid. John DeMarco bid $201,000 and Mancuso Brightman was $145,000, that’s $56,000
less. Mancuso’s whole website if you go to it is municipal law, there is not one mention of
municipal law on DeMarco’s website. This committee as far as I am concerned did our job and
we have a recommendation that made sense fiscally to the town taxpayers and also from a
standpoint of who gave us the best chance going forward with the complexities that we have who
understands those as Brayton said.
Mr. Mancuso answered the next question, regarding if the law firm is based out of Syracuse.
The answer was yes. The firm was founded in Syracuse, New York, by his partner Christy
Brightman. Mr. Mancuso opened the Rochester office of the firm five years ago. We have the
majority of our attorneys in the Rochester, New York office. Of all of their attorneys, there are
only two that are currently sitting in Syracuse, our entire municipal team is based in the
Rochester office that would be representing the Boards of the Town of Webster.
Brayton Connard replied to answer the question that Ms. Nguyen asked about how many
attorneys would be representing Webster, three attorneys from the Rochester office of Mancuso
Brightman will represent Webster and it’ll be only those three attorneys. They will back up each
other so it will not be a rotating cast of characters. The Zoning Board will have the same
attorney, unless there’s an absence. The Planning Board and the Town Board will have the same
attorney, unless there is an absence. That was part of their proposal and that was an important
factor why the RFP Committee was not interested in going with very large firms. Mr. Connard
also answered the question regarding future litigation services. If there it litigation outside the
scope of general services then those are billed individually per hour, that is the case today and is
the case with all three respondents. so all respondents were equal in that manner. Mr. Connard
also answered Ms. Nguyen’s question about keeping up to date with our Town codes and
everything else we have going on. He stated that with public procurement there should be an
open, fair and equal process and so that is what the RFP was done, it let every interested party
know the scope of work that the Town was interested in and gave them an opportunity to ask
clarifying questions and then issues answers to those clarifying questions. All of them were
given an opportunity to submit their proposal on how they would deliver the services and their
experience and expertise, the Committee looked at those, selected the best three and then
unanimously selected who they thought was best. Even if price wasn’t a factor, Mancuso
Brightman was rated the best and was the first choice of every member of the RFP Review
Committee.
Councilwoman Jennifer Wright did not have any specific questions, but one of the things that she
would like to do, especially now, given the way this conversation is going, she doesn’t have
input and would love to get input from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board in regards to
the support they are receiving and get an understanding of how the coverage they have today is
working and how they would like to see this work. When she was coming here tonight, she
didn’t have the opportunity to do that for this meeting, and given that we are voting tonight, she
was inclined to table this matter to be able to go out and get more information.
Councilman Cahill added that he appreciated the RFP process and the hours that were put into it.
Those people that participated in it, he respects. But Don White mentioned something that
resonated with him. What are some of the things that we get from the support of local attorneys?
A great deal. I am most certainly a proponent of the trend for the last forty – fifty years of the
Town being represented by local attorneys. I think we gain more than we lose, more than just
13
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
the bottom line of a dollar, there is a significant amount of intangibles and that’s why I am a
proponent for local attorneys and not a law firm that may specialize in municipal law. I would
say that between Mr. DeMarco and the other attorneys, that they have a significant amount of
experience. Mr. Cahill took the time to talk to a chairman and he is very satisfied with the
service he’s getting from our two attorneys, so you know my vote is going to be no.
Supervisor Flaherty responded and asked Councilman Cahill that if we move forward in a month
or so with DeMarco Taylor, which might happen, does Kyle Taylor not get to work on any of
these boards because he lives in Victor? Mr. Cahill’s response was no, he was not saying that.
Supervisor Flaherty indicated that when Mr. Genese announced his retirement back in June, we
were hoping to get it done in October so we could have a ramp up with the new firm
transitioning. But the good news is from what you just heard tonight, that if there is going to be
some contention on this being a positive vote, it’s three months away from the beginning of the
year, ideally, we would like the three months to get Charlie and the new firm and start
transitioning some of this. But we can do it October 17, we can do it November 7, we can do it
November 21 for all the reasons that everybody said.
Resolution No. 292: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Supervisor Flaherty, to
authorize the Supervisor to sign an engagement agreement for Town of Webster general
Municipal, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals legal services as of January 1, 2025
with Mancuso Brightman PLCC.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Nay
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Nay
Councilwoman Wright ....... Nay
Motion denied ................... 2-3
***
Resolution No. 293: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilwoman
Nguyen, to approve the following items for recycle/auction from the Sewer Department:
Lightnin Mixer
Asset Tag #3872
Generac Generator
Asset Tag #3986
Automatic Transfer Switch No Tag
Air Compressor
Asset Tag #2015
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 294: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
approve the following items for deletion from the IT Department:
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6991
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6474
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6508
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6485
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6983
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6473
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6939
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6378
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6947
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6390
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6932
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6162
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6984
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6197
14
10-03-2024
Webster Town Board
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6943
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6940
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6952
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6478
Dell Computer
Asset Tag #6223
Gigabyte Computer No Asset Tag
Dell Monitor
Asset Tag #6943
Dell Monitor
Asset Tag #5447
Dell Monitor
Asset Tag #5829
Samsung Monitor
No Asset Tag
Dell Monitor
Asset Tag #5131
Dell Server
Asset Tag #6028
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Dell Computer
Dell Computer
Dell Computer
Dell Computer
Dell Computer
Dell Monitor
Dell Monitor
Dell Monitor
Dell Monitor
Dell Monitor
Dell Server
Asset Tag #6218
Asset Tag #6190
Asset Tag #5232
Asset Tag #5198
Asset Tag #5223
Asset Tag #6374
No Asset Tag
Asset Tag #5822
Asset Tag #5222
Asset Tag #6941
Asset Tag #6013
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
8:44 p.m.
___________________________
Danene M. Marr, Town Clerk
15
10-03-2024