Town Board Meeting

I am going to call I am going to call to order the town board meeting of July 2nd, 2026. Would you all please join me for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Miss Mar, would you please do roll call?

Supervisor Sheldon

here.

Councilman Cahill

here.

Councilwoman Wright,

I here I. [laughter]

Councilman Hunter

here. Councilman Wagner

here.

Attorney for the town Taylor

here.

All right. Up first is the open to the floor. Uh we do not have a very large list, so we will allow the full five minutes today. Um you will see me at four minutes waving my hand like a lunatic. As a wrap-up, um there I will if I do not make eye contact with you, I'll just let you know you're at four. Um but you will be asked to move on and finish up your sentence at 5. uh you remember you are speaking to the board not the audience. I would also ask that the audience refrain from gestures, noise and and just respect the speaker. We may not agree with everything everybody has to say but they have a right to say it. Um threatening statements will not be tolerated and may involve you being removed from the meeting. Uh so without further ado, up first is Chris Naka.

I have a quick question.

Oh absolutely. So, I don't have the full policy in front of me, but typically members of the audience that go to speak at the uh at the podium, um are they allowed to personally disparage a member of the board? Uh Kyle, that is a question for you as I brought it up a few weeks ago.

Can can the the individual speakers

Yes,

they they can say what they want. I do not plan on disparaging anybody. [laughter]

It's just a general

are welcome to to say as long as there's nothing offensive or profane.

Perfect. But

yeah, when we went over the stuff in the order meeting, if no profanity, no statement and nothing threatening, a threatening statement will be an immediate stoppage.

Okay. Thank you. I just want to clarify.

Absolutely.

All right, Chris. Uh I'm about to start your timer, but please go ahead.

Good afternoon, everybody. Christopher Naka, 1065 Shoecraft Road. Um, I kind of go um to this podium not really ever knowing what I'm going to speak about and um luckily the officer um not his right hand for tonight's meeting does come in a lot. So um I almost chased him down when I walked out of there just to kind of ask them even though I kind of got a sense of what it was, you know, if we could snap our fingers tomorrow and solve this problem, what would you decide? And it seems like they want to build a building or possibly renovate a building. I don't know if that's been discussed at all. Um it seems like a shelter in Webster is kind of perfect for the aesthetic of Webster. It's um a lot of the people that grow up in towns like this that develop an affinity for animals. And um I don't know if volunteer rates are going down. I don't know if this is a question for Kyle and what the legality of having volunteers working for kind of a governmental

branch of the taking care of these animals. I don't know if that complicates things. Um I had kind of uh shouted out who who owns Wraid. I I know that they did Spirit Halloween one year. Um I don't know if maybe that's a potential location. And maybe a remodel would be something a little bit cheaper than building a new building. Um, and if it was right on the main thoroughfare like that, maybe it it'd lend itself to being a for-profit business a little bit easier. Just sheer amount of people driving by um for emergency vehicles and stuff. It's a nice parking lot for looping around. Anyway, maybe that's not a possibility, but um I feel like the people of Webster, if they knew that these things were going on, I agree with the few people that had mentioned I don't think that the majority of Webster residents know that we're having this problem. And um I I have faith in them that if we if you know, we all do our due diligence to spread awareness about the problem, I have faith that we'll step up and figure it out. and I have faith in you guys for figuring out the best solution that makes the most sense for Webster. I love you. That's all I have to say.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Um, up next is, and I'm sorry, uh, Dave, I will mispronounce your last name, but uh, Ros Rasamas

Rasm.

Rasmmanson. Sorry. I know I respond to your emails and I keep saying, "Okay, I gotta get this. I'm gonna get this. I'm gonna get this. [laughter] Hi everyone. [clears throat] My name is David Rasmuson. I'm an attorney. I'm representing my son and daughter-in-law, Daniel [clears throat] and Kelly Rasmuson. They live on Lake Road right across the street, practically a stones throw, and I I I could even throw it as far as it is. Um from the proposed Verizon facility. Um I'm very pleased that the court is going the route of of of having an independent review um of the Verizon proposal. The comment tonight last [clears throat] month there seemed to be some discussion about requiring an additional set of review for for accumulation of independent data and our position is that that should be required. The review is only as good as the data. So to do a review without doing some kind of independent testing or independent data seems to be less than less than the entire job. So it's

our our position we would urge the board to go along with the contract. We very we're very pleased and we support that but also require the extra step of having some independent data accumulated as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Up next, Sean Hannah. Good evening everybody. Thank you very much for uh listening once again. Uh I was I actually came here to speak about the uh gas reclamation uh project but uh the last speaker um jog my memory. Uh I've been uh contacted by a number of folks in connection with the Verizon cell towers, not only about the one on Lake Road by County Line, uh but also the one off of 250. And I would just respectfully ask this board to uh I'm not going to I'm not going to go into specifics because I don't have time to talk about two different projects, but please listen to the people who are here to speak on that and the people who reach out to you uh outside of this meeting. Um that it hasn't always happened. Uh for the last several months, I've been here representing uh neighbors uh who have come to the board

uh complaining about the proposed solar uh panel development project. And uh I told you that if you didn't listen to them, uh there was going to be a lawsuit. Most of you didn't listen to them. There was a lawsuit. Now the town has some legal problems. So please don't make that mistake again with the cell towers. Listen to the people uh and do what you can to help them. Now, with respect to the gas reclamation project, don't we all wish that we could take projections, bring them to the bank, and deposit them into our checking account or bring them to Wegman's and buy groceries with projections? That would be wonderful because the gas reclamation project is full of projections, lots of them. The notion that we're going to get paid uh for the grant, that's a projection. Customers for for the gas, that's a projection. The rates that those customers would pay a projection the cost of building the buildings very very much [snorts] a projection. But you know what is not a projection? Webster's debt. We have $120 million of debt. Every one of those dollars is very very real. And it's going to get worse because we have additional projects in the pipeline like pump houses, pump stations that we are

going to have to build. And we're gonna have to we're gonna have to reckon with that. Do you know what Parington's debt is? Zero. They have a little bit of they have a little bit of debt in the sewer department that they have a dedicated funding source for. Uh but nothing outside of the sewer department. They have no debt. This is a project that we cannot afford. We can't even afford to talk about it. As we're standing here talking tonight, we have a contract whereby we are paying very expensive folks to design a project that we can't afford to build. Does that make sense to any businessman in this room? Maybe to one [laughter] the uh

and don't even get me started on the RG& contract. Has anyone who has who supports this project, has any one of you actually read the RG& contract? Every every imaginable risk is assigned to the town of Webster. If any of these people were my were my law clients, I would physically tackle them before I would allow them to sign this contract. We shouldn't do it on behalf of the town. In town government there are in all government really there really two kinds of people. One group of people says it's not my money I can do anything I want with it. The other group of people says it's not my money I can't do anything I want with it. You have to decide which group you belong to. I I think we'll find out soon. Thank you.

Thank you Sean. Thank you.

All right. Up next we have Peter Elder. Hello, Peter Elder, 59 Dunning Avenue, Village of Webster. Um, first I just want to start out. We are in the we are just about getting to the 4th of July. So, I want to wish you all a happy 250th. Um, this is one of those kind of eras that we're lucky to be in. Like, we are alive at the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So, I've had the incredible privilege of being around Webster politics for well over 30 years. So, it gives me a kind of an interesting perspective and I have had the pleasure of working with a variety of supervisors. And though I think sometimes it's not good to address social media at a town board meeting, I I couldn't let it go. I have to tell you, I couldn't let it go. I've owed Ron Nesbbit for 30 years. 30 years. I knew Kathy Thomas before him. And I have to tell you, I have never been so offended as what was going on with the comments that were happening online. These these these baseless accusations, these these

these disgusting things that were being said about a guy who had been involved in politics in this town. Do you know how long Ron Desbet was involved in the politics of this town? Do you know what kind of changes he made? Do you know what kind of leadership he brought? and then to dismerge his reputation online and then to corral in Kathy Thomas who herself was a visionary at the time who I felt lucky to be around when I first got involved in politics and I'm using the word disgusting because it was reading those posts reading those comments I just could not believe what was being said let me let me be sure all of you I was there only good things happened we transitioned from one supervisor to the other because one decided not to run again. But I'm telling you, you want to find two people who have some great character, who stood for this town, who fought for this town, those were two people that did it. And the person who maligned them should be ashamed of themselves. You know, sometimes sorry is not enough. And I'm going to tell you right now, those words will always be out there. They'll always be out there. They should have never been there in the first place.

Anyways, I had to say that because it's so important because we can't tolerate this anymore, ladies and gentlemen. We should not tolerate this. And I say that again being fully invested in this community since I was 19 years old. And I was privileged to know so many good people back then. I am privileged to know so many good people now. We can't allow these kind of things to occur. We have to call them out when they happen and we have to talk about what the good people have done that are good and we have to stand up to the lies. But again, I'll end saying happy 4th of July. [laughter]

Thanks, Peter. Happy 4th of July.

All right, up next is Kevin Lockhart.

Hi folks, Kevin Lockhart here from 100-2 KDER Park. Um, also the f Webster's first independent youth nominee.

Nope. You cannot say that that is election hearing, sir.

So, let's start at the beginning of this resolution because my number one concern is I always say when I come up here is the residents and their satisfaction and quality of life. And the biggest concern that I hear that I cross reference every decision by this board through is the spending. The spending is out of control. We need to cut the fat. This town loves to spend, spend, spend. As my colleague Sean says, the debt is $120 million and he it is totally out of control. We got to pay it down because Parenton doesn't have debt like this and we're we're going to surpass Parenton pretty soon in many other ways. But I want to make reference to the terms of the dog kennel project. The question for the dog kennel project is how much does the project cost to taxpayers per service unit? And I talked to Jen and I asked Jen, "What do you or I talked to John and Jen and I said,"What do you think the service unit is in terms of this deal?" And it seems fairly clear. I'd love to hear your feedback on this, but the dogs are the service are the service unit. So the cost per dog for this project, we have to figure out and make sure it makes sense when we return this idea to taxpayers so we're not making them pay for more bloat and more

fat to the budget. For resolution number four, consideration to approve purchase orders as submitted by the director of finance. The supplemental packet is not included. So the question is what are you buying and how much does it cost taxpayers? That's not clear and I think any spending needs by this board and by this town and by the administrators needs to be very closely scrutinized. Uh number six, resolution to accept uh the resignations of two members of the board of assessment review. Very curious. We are approaching assessments and there's two members of the assessment board that resigned. Would love more context on that. I can't hang around town hall all day long and you know hassle you guys for qu and gals to clarify all these questions that come up from time to time. I just can't be there all the time right now to keep a very close eye on everybody. But I have a feeling that we need a this town needs very very close uh scrutiny constantly. Resolution number eight I have a question about uh on its face love the way it sounds seesaw payments related to the renewable natural gas project for expenditures not yet incurred. Love that. Need more context on that to understand what is going on there. Obviously discussion happening by the

board not involving me. Love the way it sounds though. Resolution number nine. The question is does this climate action grant application require us to add more bloat to the budget? The practical effect being to spend money on plants. The return of taxpayers for a program that bypassed the town board and included a advisory group. Again, not appointed by the town board, but an advisory group. probably I have some questions about that, but sounds like a project that spends money and increases man-hour amounting to $1,950 per day is something that uh I have some concerns about and I don't think we should be engaged in any project that requires that we buy points to be considered. More wasteful spending. Resolution number 10, resolution to authorize Gino Connell and associates and town staff to submit an application for the consolidated funding application. uh smart growth community planning program requesting $150,000 for the 25 local match. Again, no resolution attach attached for context. The public can't review what is actually occurring behind the scenes here. My question being, what function does the contractor perform in this context? And why do you guys Okay. Why

do you guys need more money toward the comprehensive plan when we've already spent $150,000 on this plan? It the costs keep going up. I'm not seeing any results. I I really got to dig deeper into this. I trust that you guys are very closely scrutinizing this whole process. Like I always mention, we're paying for their gas to drive out to Webster. Okay. Unnecessary expenses. And when I look at the actual invoices and I review the long list of invoices from collers, it it's very vague. I don't know what the actual line budget items are. Also, I sent you guys the B banner permit application and the certificate of insurance for the Hometown Heroes project. Put banners up for the first time in Webster's history for the veteran project that the veterans want to do around town. And uh this is meant to be a privately funded copy sentence. It's meant to be privately funded. What I need you guys to do is just send over your certificate of application and the banner pyramid application to RG&. We're going to work on that together.

Up next is Monica G

and we're going to get that initiative uh going. Thanks so much. Before you start my timing, I want to know exactly what is meant by disparaging because what I when I state something, it's fact. I don't you know how it's taken. I don't know.

Uh I would I would just refrain from name calling or anything really dis like honestly just disparaging. Just keep decorum.

Okay.

Be kind.

Have I disparaged anybody in the past?

But we are starting the timer, Monica.

Okay. Once again, I want to premise with the with being a registered nonparty member. I vote my values and usually have a split ticket after reviewing thoroughly candidates running. I was surprised to find that we have a so-called reporter on town board reporting on the criminal actions of a candidate running for a supervisor's position this November. This can be found on the Councilman's Webster Now Facebook page. rather than reporting on efforts made by our present town supervisor, Alex, who has tried time and time again to pass policy that would benefit the residents of the town of Webster. And I might add, this council person ran as a Democrat on the same ticket as Alex. I didn't vote for this councilman. I voted for Jenny. She has values and ethics that I share with her. Once he was in office, it became clear how quickly he turned. He removed his cloak of deceit and was and has done his best to push against Alex and his efforts on behalf of the town of Webster and the and this person has been the deciding vote against advancing policy. Alex is running this November and this

person should be advocating for Alex and no one else if in fact

I am going to stop you from talking about the election.

Okay. Um okay. Well, this councilman has time to report on an adversary running against the current supervisor, but yet has not made time to have a community meeting, as far as I'm aware, nor did he attend the last library board meeting. I say that because I attended that meeting and the members were waiting for him. After a short time, the members on the li on the library board asked [cough] if anyone heard from him and all said no. Their meeting proceeded without him. This individual seems to have time management issues, setting his priorities, and awareness of identity. You are either a councilman representing your constituent or a reporter. Which is it? You are either a Democrat or Republican. Which are you? You can't be both. Your conduct is unbecoming of a town board member and questionable. And I do have the um there was a person that had written a beautiful statement on the show. We do not have to take submissions and your time is still running. Um, if you want to record,

if you want to leave it with the town clerk at the end, please feel free.

I'll share Josh with her.

Thank you.

Thank you, Monica. Up next, we have Emily Yang.

[clears throat]

Hi everyone. My name is Emily Emily Yang. I am um one of the members of color Webster Green. We are 130 plus members strong. We're very deeply committed to the uh idea for the climate action plan to add native plants to the roadsides. Um, putting in native plants restores helps restore local biodiversity, uh, puts food, shelter for local pollinators and other beneficial insects. Um, they are indeed lowmaintenance because they naturally grow here. They, you know, these are plants that have been growing here for thousands of years, you know, before before Columbus came. And um yeah, they they are well adapted to our climate to um any uh sort of drought. Now, yes, maybe the the first uh the first season that you put them in, they might be a little bit um sensitive, but for the ones that we're selecting, uh we believe they they require very little

maintenance. And if there is any maintenance involved, the our our group will be more than willing to gather volunteers to, you know, help out with uh whatever it is that we need. So, um I also wanted to mention that uh we we did mention this on uh speaking of social media, we we posted this on social media and uh we got a surprising number of 64 likes and loves and um I'll like maybe read out a few comments. So, one person said, "I can't attend but fully support this. Anything that moves us collectively towards these kinds of practices is wonderful." Now, the person said, "I can't attend, but fully support this. I would love to see us go in this direction." So, we would love it if we're able to um dedicate um we would love it if Webster moved towards this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh last up is our conservation board chair, Dennis Gorlick. Okay, thank you. I wasn't going to say anything, but I scribbled a bunch of my terrible handwriting on here. We'll see how that works. Uh Dennis Corlock, Tolbert's Trail. I'm the chair of the conservation board. And uh just one quick word about the kennel. I think that Chris actually uh before I talk about plants, Chris actually came up with an idea that's similar to what I was thinking. Uh since right now if we have to have dogs that we can't keep here and we have to put them someplace else, we have to pay a a fee, right? Uh if we build something, wouldn't we then be able to come up with a revenue stream from other municipalities who would have to pay a fee to house any of their over surplus animals here if we had room? So I'm not sure if that's a factor that might offset some of the cost in the uh long and short term. Okay. kennels. I didn't realize what a terrible problem it was seasonally, but obviously it's a big issue. Uh native plants. Thank you, Emily. That was that was uh Webster Green uh has been incredible in

terms of their basic of knowledge, but it it's interesting what's going on here. We have an unusual opportunity. There is a pilot grant program that came out and uh it looks like it was extended because the state essentially said, "We'd like to get more applications." Hey, municipalities, do you have an idea that could uh that could work with this pilot program? Um, so it's there was that opportunity that came up. At the same time, we had three events that came together that normally don't come together that provided this opportunity. Uh, the highway department was getting a lot of issues about cutting grass from our citizens. So if we can somehow take care of that excess growth problem, it helps the highway department and helps the citizens um and it also um it also kind of helps get something going that brings native plants that are low maintenance. So we've got three things coming together that's kind of unusual. Um I've been working a lot on native plants for my own backyard and two things. I was amazed that there are a lot of them that take a lot of care, but we actually just chose a few plants and we chose them because they only grow this high. They uh have different colors all three seasons and sometimes into the

winter and they survive whether it's wet, whether it's dry, whether it's hot, whether it's cold. Things like little blue stem grass, which are natives. And uh they don't have lovely flowers. They're beautiful, but they they're really hardy plants that grow really really well and with very little care. So, there are a lot of plants that do that. Uh, one thing that wasn't mentioned I just found out about is that um I believe the state highway department already does some seeding of certain areas and medians and highways and I believe they will provide um some of those seeds if uh if plants don't make sense. plants are good because they get established quickly. They actually take less care once they're in there because uh you don't have to grow them from seed and weeds so much. But there is a way to get seeds if that makes sense in certain areas that are designed for certain certain areas of uh of highways that would be perfect for this perhaps. We'll see. But there are a number of options that would be really well. Uh this also seems to be a fairly low investment for a possible way to save time and money from the highway department and keep a lot of customers uh pretty happy so they don't have a lot

of growth blocking their way when they pull out from certain intersections. Seems like a win-win situation to me. So I would certainly support it. And I know that uh um color Webster Green would be more than happy to help us uh with their background, their knowledge, and even some of their volunteers.

You are four minutes.

Thank you.

Four minutes.

Perfect.

Perfect. All right. With that, we will close the open to the floor. I thank you all for your words. Um before we move on to regular town business, I have the I am going to utilize my little bits of executive privilege uh to move agenda item 12, resolution to sees all payments related to the RNG project uh for expenditures not yet incurred up to number eight and push everything back at a council member's request. Um, and after that I uh would like to say that I have reviewed the minutes for the June 18th workshop and I would move that we approve them.

Second.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Hunter

I.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Councilwoman Wright

I.

Councilman Wagner

I.

I have also reviewed the minutes from the June 18th town board meeting. Uh, and I would move that we approve those minutes as well.

Second. Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Councilman Wagner.

I.

All right. Councilman Hunter, you had the honor.

I sure did. I reviewed the bills and found them to be um in order. So, I make a motion to approve the bills as submitted by the director of finance.

Second.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Supervisor Sheldon. I,

Councilman Cahill,

I,

Councilman Wagner,

I.

All right. I would move that we approve the prepaid warrant as submitted by the director of finance.

Second,

Supervisor Sheldon,

I.

Councilman Hunter,

I.

Councilman Cahill,

I.

Councilwoman Wright,

I. Councilman Wagner,

I. I would also move that we approve purchase orders as submitted by the director of finance.

Second.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Councilman Wagner.

I.

All right. Now we're getting into the good stuff. We have one of our lovely Phil permits. Um, this individual, Keith, correct me if I'm wrong, is looking to bring infill for a landscaping project.

Yes. So, this is um property owner at 430 Pellet Road. They are planning to do some landscaping um in their yard. In your packet, you should have received the um site plan itself where they plan on um plan on doing that fill. I also included a um figure um Ariel of the area as well just to give you a little better sense as to where they're they're planning on doing this work. Um and then as well as a letter of support or a memo of support with um our standard conditions really that go along with these bill permits. Um engineering has reviewed the application and is in support of it. Uh, like

is there a drawing or anything to put up on our screens or why our screens are black and I don't know. So's the screen.

See, if you go go old school like I do, you have a copy in your packet.

Put mine on my phone.

Do you want to see it? Was it was included in the packet of it was electronic.

Typically we

Jennifer, you want my copy?

It's it's it's fine. And it's just usually there's something on the screen or something on that screen. That's all just asking.

I mean, Keith, any things out of the ordinary or any problems or issues with this?

No, there are not. This is very, very standard, very typical of what a resident would come into the town to ask for.

Okay.

Yeah. I really appreciate the fact that you guys go through this and provide this to the board because it gives us additional information that we otherwise wouldn't know. So, thank you for that.

Yeah. Um, we do need to do a seeker for this. Um,

Jen, is there planning board person? Do you want to do an unlisted seeker or do you not remember the days of rattling it off the top of your head?

It's been a It's been a [laughter] little while. Do you have Is it unlisted or

It is unlisted. Uh, but I I can do it. Um, this

I can do it. I'll make a motion under the state environmental quality review act that the fill permit at 430 pellet road is an unlisted action.

Second.

It will not have significant impact

on the environment.

Not bad.

There we go.

Yeah.

Still second.

Yeah.

Okay.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Councilman Wagner. Hi.

All right, then I will move that we approve the fill permit for 430 Pellet Road.

Second,

Supervisor Sheldon.

I,

Councilman Cahill.

I,

Councilwoman Wright. I

resignations of uh, Hugh Lee and David Payne from our board of assessment for a while, but they submitted their formal resignations.

Accept the resignations [clears throat] of Hugh Lee and David Payne. I just want to say that David has been on the board for I believe over 20 years and is retiring and is going to go travel the the great United States. And um I I wish him well and he definitely has gone through a few different reval but I move to accept the resignations of Huey and effective July 1st 2026 leaving two 2028 and September 30th 2030 respectively. Cahillo.

Hi,

Councilman Hunter.

Hi,

Councilman. For anybody who is interested in participating in the board of especially in light of the upcoming revaluation project,

we do ask uh and Donna made it uh mentioned for anyone applying for some level of real estate knowledge for this position.

And do we have a projected time frame when that application will be online?

No, not yet.

Is it?

They only get activated during grievance time.

Okay, good. So, we've got So, we've got time. Yeah. And we have to review and interview the applicant. So I wouldn't I wouldn't

we also need uh sorry up next is about

I just have a question. Did we get paperwork?

Sure.

As the school resource officer comes out of you

out of your budget.

Well, we get we get paid for it.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You just said it comes out of you. It comes out of your budget. What's the question?

I know we've done this before, but is there a is there an agreement or something? I didn't see anything when I looked earlier today in the folder for this.

I don't know if there's an agreement in the folder or not.

The online SharePoint. Is there an agreement for this, Kyle? Do you know?

I did not see one uploaded,

but is there like

Chief, in the past, has there been like a written agreement between us and the school?

It's in the drafted resolutions.

I have a copy.

It's just in the drafted resolutions, not in the

Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to see the drafted resolution real quick?

That would be great.

Yeah.

Yeah. Uh basically we sign an agreement every year. Uh so we have uh since the inception of the program

which I believe was like 2014 uh we've had an agreement with the school district where they pay 7 75% of the cost of the officers assigned to the school district. Uh including the uh backend cost. It's not just salary. Um it outlines the uh payment plan. It outlines the structure of the agreement where uh there are police officers acting in a in a police capacity, not uh school security guards. Uh it basically goes over all the terms and conditions uh that were set forth back in 2014.

Okay. So, do we have a is there somewhere the intermissal agreement with the school district? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to like get the deta is

maybe see have we ever had one in the past or is this standard procedure at this point? Well, I mean, it references one, so there's got to be

I'm pretty sure we have

We have them on file from prior years that I could pull them.

I mean, I think

Does it go with in the contracts?

Yeah.

I didn't hear the question. You're talking about the contract that we get every year or you talking about a separate agreement?

Well, this says there's an intermissible agreement with Webster School District for providing the two police officers. So, just

have have we seen that? Have we looked at Has it been updated?

I wasn't the chief when it got put in place. So, no, we do we do a contract every year.

Like, did the school prepare that? Did we prepare that?

Well, to Garrett's point, we should have something in writing and I am I am

Well, I mean, it's been around since before Chief was here, so

Yeah, but there's got to be something.

That's not Garrett's point. Nothing's been provided to me.

Yeah. I mean, do

you have a question about what the agreement is? I mean,

yeah. I mean, I think we just I mean, it's just good practice to review the terms and for us to to look at it and to to see it. And the fact that none of us know where it is, I think it's probably fine, but just from a governance standpoint, we should have a copy of it to be reviewed here and to be reviewed by Kyle.

You're you're you're absolutely correct.

I I guess I'm missing the point. So, we we have a contract that uh gets reviewed by legal every year that outlines the terms and conditions of the agreement we have with the school district. So, I I don't I'm not aware of a separate agreement outside of that.

No, Chief, the point that they're making is that the this year's contract has not yet been provided for review.

Okay.

Yeah. I mean, you know, so

if we're going to vote on something, we should have it in front of us to review prior to voting on it. And then legal should just review it even quickly. Is this time sensitive, chief, where if we table this till the next two weeks, it's going to cause a problem.

No, feel free to table it.

Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay.

Anybody?

No.

I make a motion to table this until

reschedule.

Sorry. I make a Thank I make a motion to reschedu this till Thursday, July 16th.

Second.

Councilman Wagner.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Hunter.

Hi.

All right. Up next, uh, renewable natural gas program. Uh, Rick Connealy. Uh, you head up to the podium, please. And thank you.

Yeah, you may also sit at the desk. I don't know. I just like seeing you stand. Wow. Um, now before we begin on this, I do have to ask the million-dollar question of we are receiving uh drawings, completed drawings from Navatus upon it. Say we were to cease all payments, we will be receiving completed drawings. Correct.

Correct.

And we will be receiving a a monetary amount back.

Correct.

If the drawings were complete, what was that money intended for? further discussion in design not on design but also further development of this project along with the other companies that they would be working with Rev MSG whoever or MSC. So

okay that's all I just I figured we

that's a very appropriate question and I'm I'm glad you asked it because I do knew know this was coming. So I pulled the last AIA building. It was dated 626. We authorized $348,000 to spend. Navatas to date, according to their billing, AIA billing dated 626, they build us 87,000. There's a remaining 261,000 yet to be build. And I did talk to Maryanne and apparently the June bill hasn't gone out yet, which I I'm a little confused because the number that was provided I think by Bob Whmer was that there was like 165,000 coming. So I just wanted to clarify that

it's been ceased and they have ceased work since they were given that directive.

The credit of theund

the drawings. Yes.

Something becomes more viable that we have to go back to them or

so yeah now owns the drawings. Correct.

Yes.

All right.

Comments, concerns. I mean, we're all going to speak to each other here at this point.

Um I know you and I have discussed this with other council members, too. There is still a lot of value to this project. It is worth discussing. Um there is a lot of risk and there is a lot of reward possibility too. So um please floor is yours.

I I'd be happy to. So I think I'm going to be in the minority and I recognize that and I think that that's okay and there should be room for debate and that should be allowed. Um because I think some people see this as a potential risk. Um I see this as we are literally burning money right now. Um, so there's two factors in that, you know, this is an opportunity for us to reuse that gas that we're burning into the environment right now as a revenue stream. Now, that's complicated and it's not always a guarantee, but we certainly have estimates that get us to a place where we can sell these credits off and give us some solid revenue income, which we desperately need to cover these capital projects that we talk about. But the other piece that we can't even really quantify and haven't within what we've had is the environmental impact of us not burning that gas into the environment is is a factor that should be considered in this project. Um I know there's concern about the RG& contract and I understand that. You know this is a project in which we are building the piping to allow that gas to flow into RG&. It's our equipment, our piping, our project. it would make sense that we would hold the liability for that and it's reasonable for us as council folks

to say is that a is that a risk that we want to take you know and determine one way or another that's allowed totally fine I think it's a risk that we've walked through I think Rick has done a great job working with Navatas and the engineering firms to talk through these concerns so that the quality of the gas is maintained so that we don't have liability concerns um but But I do think that there's just so much value in getting the revenue and adding to our current scenario and bolstering our partnerships with companies like Fairlife and potentially, you know, creating new relationships with different facilities elsewhere. So I I just think there's a lot of opportunity. Um I'm still in very much in favor for the project.

All right, Councilman Cahill. So, it's not a surprise to anyone on this board that I have not been advocating for this project since day one in that we're $120 million in debt and this is an optional project. It is not something that we have to do because other aspects of the town have gone neglected that we needed salt barn highway garage. We have Fossber pump station. So, I've been pretty vocal about that since day one. And I think it was probably two months we're into this project and you know we committed $348,000 to Navatas to you know give us the engineering drawings. Again I voted against that. Well then this showed up. Okay. This is a 39page contract with RG& which assumes all liability on the town of Webster. Okay. I mean all of it. They don't assume any liability. Even if they damaged their equipment on our property, we pay for it. If something happens downstream, we pay for it. We assume all liability. Our fiduciary responsibility,

in my opinion, is to you. Okay? Don't put liability on the residents of the town of Webster if we don't have to. But here's here's the kicker. Okay? We got this three months in. Guess where this contract is available right now and was three months ago on the RG& website. So would it be responsible for Navatas to present that to the board prior to voting on spending your money $348,000? I say yes, it would be so that we could have the discussions and the debate and present to the the residents of this town, hey, we might get this revenue. We might get these tax abatements, but we're going to have to spend $348,000 first and then we have an opportunity to listen to the residents what their opinion is of that. But that didn't happen. So, I'm going to vote no. All right. Um I look I I'm with Councilman Hunter in the minority. I do see the risks. There are risks. There are risks with any contract we have. Um

and our town attorney has done a great job of listing them out. Uh there are a lot of risks. The liabilities are there. They did everything they could to get to RG& to try and get them to compromise with us. We're not in a position to do it. I can wish all day that they would. um but they're not. It may give a little more assurances to the town. But I I really did look at this as risking looking at the risk versus the reward. And I would agree with Councilman Hunter that you know the revenue is there. Looking at our director of finances numbers despite the updated O andM costs, the the the the tax credits, everything. It's just this is a possibility for us to pay down our debt sooner and get to a point within 10 years that we could actively start to not have this level [cough] anymore. [clears throat] Um that that's just my opinion. Everybody is entitled to theirs. This is why this is a vote. This is why there are five of us and this is why um we are having this vote tonight is because there are a lot of risk. There are a lot of concerns and these are not easy decisions. And I appreciate everyone being able to voice what they want out of this. And there it's just I appreciate everyone at this point talking about it and having this discussion, but I still see the benefit, the economic benefit, the infrastructure

benefit, the long-term reduction of our debt benefit. I I still see the benefit of it. So, Councilwoman, right,

so you're voting

uh I would most likely still be in favor in the minority.

Then you need to say yes, right?

We have not we have not made a motion. We're not. But again, you guys may have things that

John got ahead of the game with

Okay, I'm sorry. He didn't [laughter] know. So, I thought we were at that point. I was one person who was in favor of this surprisingly because of the tax credit and because it was going to pay for itself and the revenue opportunity. Um, but the RG& contract was alarming. uh they they do have the same contract with other municipalities. So that that even though it was concerning, I would say, okay, well, they have this contract with other municipalities who have these projects. So, I maybe more set the RG& contract aside, but when there was an issue at another municipality, that became a problem. And when the maintenance cost became $100,000 versus $15,000 and when you look at the projection for this, there is a possibility of losing $22 million over the course of I I don't know what it was, the 20 years. 20 years.

Yeah. If we did not receive a tax credit, and if we don't receive the tax credit, it would be significantly more.

But there's the there's the revenue risk and the operating cost risk that is contributing to that $22 million loss. So, I I just like as much as I want this to be a winner, voting yes on a project that could be a $22 million loss when we're already in a debt for other projects that we have to do. It It's very difficult for me to sit here and vote yes, that I'm willing to accept that risk on behalf of Webster taxpayers. I don't know. I wouldn't want to take that risk as as a Webster taxpayer. I'm very excited and I'm happy that we're using 47% of that gas within the wastewater treatment plant today. So, it's not all going to waste. So for the other 53% taking on a project that has a lot of there are a lot of assumptions in this project and one of the assumptions is it's going to cost $9 million and I think with all of the projects that I've ever been involved in for my two and a

half years on the board nothing cost what the original cost of the project was. So it could be multiple millions of dollars more than $9 million. So there there are too many moving parts to sit here and and and say that it's it's the right time and and the right thing to do. So, yeah, it would be great if the moon and stars aligned, but I I have concerns that, you know, there there's risk in uh in in a $10,000 match for planting some flowers. I think I'd be willing to take that risk. I'm not willing to take a $22 million risk on taxpayer

on the taxpayers's dime. Jennifer, thank you for bringing up the the increase in operating cost from 15,000 to 100,000. I I neglected to mention that.

Yeah, the operating costs rise quite substantially.

I mean, you know, for me, this is just sad for for Webster. Like I think we got to look at this realistic. We had a $68 million grant or not grant tax credit we could have possibly gotten from the government. Now, we got to preface that just because we get it and we apply for it. We still might not get it, right? Right.

But we had $68 million and in over a year we kind of almost ran we almost we're also running out of time because we only have until like August to make a decision if we want to kick the can down the road. And the fact that in a year we didn't even get to the finish line to know if this could really make money because we don't even know right now. Yeah, this might lose us $200 million. This might make us $1,000 a year. We're still pretty far away from actually knowing that. We have limited projections right now. Correct.

And we have several costs that we don't have, which is part of the problem of once again, even the RG& contract.

You know, there's many costs in the RGN contract that they haven't given to us yet. And per RG&, well, when you say you're going to do this, we'll let you know those additional costs. So, how do we as a town budget? Are those additional costs a grand? Are they 200,000? And and that's part of the problem with RG of like, yeah, Navatas could have told us sooner and we compared to all the other utility companies in New York. RG has the most one-sided contract for these agreements out of all of them,

which just sucks for us as a town. Like, yeah, we can't choose to work with another utility provider that says, "Hey, we're willing to share some of this burden and share some of the cost." John, to your point with RG, if their guy shows up drunk, drives in a machine, and breaks it, we're gonna have to pay for that unless we can prove negligent, which is hard to do. At least some of these other utility companies will say, "Yeah, if my guy shows up drunk, and he drives in your machine, we will pay for that because he was our guy that was drunk."

But I think it comes back to two, like I wish we could have in a time machine gone back and evaluated with the insert of time other alternatives because that's part of the other problem here. Now it's July 2nd. We've got till maybe the end of August. And even if we say, "Okay, RG is a no-go for liability and costs. Could we do something else with this gas, Nick, to your point, besides just burning it off?" Great. Let's evaluate those. But now we're July 2nd.

Yeah. And that's where like you know goes on the prior board for Navatasing us down this path and for us when we got in to be like hey once we knew the argi contract was a problem back in January February do we spend some more time thinking about alternatives and what could be um and that's part of the problem you know it goes on navatas too of like once again even if we try want to go forward they're so far behind even 30 days ago the information we need to get this done between contracts for the gas with other suppliers. We got to review those. We got to negotiate those, you know, and Navatas has been very salesy with us. Like they keep saying there's a revenue guarantee, but it's really not a revenue guarantee. It's really just a gas quality guarantee with about a million disclaimers that they've kind of been upfront when we pushed them of like you're never actually going to like we're never going to pay it out. So, and you know, in a perfect world, like it would have been great if we could have found a use for this with these federal tax credits or some alternative,

but one of the biggest problems is we only have until like the end of August to do that. And we don't even have time right now to evaluate the RG& project with everything we still need from Navatas with how far behind they are. And I think, you know, I think Navatas did a really good job of, you know, it's their job to push this through because they're a salesman. and they want to make money. I get that. And their job is to push us to say, "Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it." I know your favorite word, progressive disclosure, of like, "Oh, it'll be fine. It'll be fine." And they want to compress our timetable. And we've got to push back and say, "No, no, I don't want you to compress our timetable. I want to look and evaluate this because we're doing this not with our money, but the resident's money." And that's important. And there's just

there's just not enough information to see a way that this can be financially viable for us with how much is unknown or do we even have the time to figure this out because the last thing we want to do is on a project of this size rush it in 30 days and be like, "Oh, we still want to do this and we're going to somehow like wrap up this long list of pieces left in 30 days between negotiating gas contracts, RG& third party suppliers, Navatas, etc." And then I think in terms of RG& like you know that's their stance. They don't want to uh play ball. You know the reply to us on the comments was essentially no we're not willing to negotiate anything. Right.

And once again like it stacked against us. We didn't have the time and then we're in a place with RG who's the least favorable utility provider to work with of all of them.

That's very true. And

and it's it's a it's an unfortunate situation that we couldn't make this work. And that's all of our roles in the prior one of like not To your point, John, Navatas knew RG's contract was this one-sided. Yeah.

Like if it's on their website and within a couple hours I can find the web the contracts for all the other utility providers in New York, I'm sure a utility provider that covers the entire Northeast.

Well, I put I put my summary in in an email that was sent out by the supervisor and um he did put his position which he has reiterated again today um with respect to this RG specifically RG contract. and and you know I'll repeat what I put in an email and I'm not speaking for you and I'm not speaking for you. My position is that is the most fiscally irresponsible position to take with taxpayer money given the liability laid out in those 39 pages.

I just want everybody to remember that there should be room for disagreement. So we all have opinions and that's what we are. you know, we're a grouping of five different individuals who are going to make a vote on your opinion, and that's healthy. That's appropriate.

Yeah. And and and that's true. And and as so everyone is aware, the vote is not to go forward with anything. Tonight is to cease all payments, basically end the project right here. And then, correct, John? This was your

Yeah. like bait, not like

my question is to the the the uh our town attorney is will will this resolution the verbiage in this resolution effectively kill this project? We're done.

Yes. As it relates to RG specific

the only other thing I want to say with respect to this and to the point that you just made um Nick is that this this contract's 39 pages. It's available. Everybody can get a copy of it or you can go to their website and download this and make make make your own decision, [clears throat] formulate your own opinion based on the facts.

It's it's even less about the the risk of the RG& contract. Just the so many variables and sitting here saying a project that's going to lose $22 million is a viable thing to do or lose a million dollars a year. I mean, a million dollars a year is a lot of money to lose. And and that's the piece that I'm just caught up on, right? And I know that there is an upside as well, but it's just that's not a gamble I'm willing to take with

100%.

So, Kyle, with this wording, does this include will this work with Navatas and MSC? I think they'll probably just

Yes. All all third party vendors associated with the project. So it's a resolution to cease the work performed by those third party vendors

and to resend authorization of payment for work that has not yet been performed.

Okay. And yeah, I think I agree like you know disagreeing and talk about stuff is is part of our job up here and you know tying back you know at least something we did right was we stairstepped the MSSE contract of

we broke that into phases so at least our exposure there is limited to they didn't quite finish phase one so we have to spend all that money with them you know but that's why we kind of do those things. Kyle, the only question I have related to payments is I know I had talked about I got a copy of the AAA dated 626. I believe Maryanne is waiting for another one. Is that correct, Rick?

Yes, you stated that before.

Yeah. Okay. I just want to clarify that because the are this um resolution doesn't quantify as far as money goes.

It doesn't. It's just you're you're receiving authorization for payment of work that has not yet been performed. So, if it's been performed to date, then it would still be authorized for payment.

Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. And I maintain that, you know, this isn't a we're going to move forward. I would just maintain that I still support us doing the factf finding mission of what it will be. But Councilman, this is your motion.

So, one other question. Um, if we stop this project, who's going to take point and work with Navatas to minimize their difficulties and maximize what we get back? And Rick, I imagine we're going to try and use some of this money minimize and maximize what

like I imagine Navatas because you know Bob's already said from Navatas that oh once we sign up for the full 380 we were fully committed

you know what I'm I'm sorry I think we need Navatus here because there's been a lot of disparaging comments about them they gave us a number they're done they ceased it as soon as you guys said to stop all they've stopped I think they've been pretty honest and forward about that so I don't know what you're in

in a prior email Rick he said it was a lumps it was a performance contract

161 161,000 I believe.

Yeah, he had a prior email where

say the number again.

Um but Rick, will you are you going to take point on that?

165474.

Okay. Okay.

That's what they're standing by.

All right. Are you going to take point on working with them as and find other ways to use the contingency money for the plant?

Yeah, we've already done that in front of the board. And this is this was from client savings, not from

Okay. Sorry. So from client will there be other use of the client savings that we can use in the plant?

Yeah, but that's separate from this. I'm just wondering as part of this.

Yeah. And we've done that. I came in front of you to use contingency. We're going to try to continue to get projects done that we pulled out when we value engineered, but yes, we're going to continue to do that.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. Councilman, your motion.

So, I'll make the motion to immediately seesaw work performed by third party vendors related to the town of Webster RNG project and to resend authoriz authorization for payment of work that has not yet been performed. It's my motion.

Second.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Supervisor Sheldon.

Nay.

Councilman Hunter.

Nay.

Councilman Wagner.

I.

All right. Moving on. All right. Verizon. Um Josh, you had some stuff you wanted to address with the board for those of you who are not fully aware. Um there are the two proposed cell towers. Um and we have it in our agreements that we can and in the town code that we can attire hire a third-party outside engineer to test the validity of this. Um now there were some discussions of other services but Josh you had reached out and I would like you to be able to uh speak to that a little bit more right now.

Sure. Um so we did reach out to approximately 10 um consulting firms that specialize in this sort of thing. We did receive only one response back. Um the contract that was proposed with the scope of work was presented two weeks ago to the board and some additional questions came up in regards to the potential for adding additional testing. Um, [clears throat] since that time, the town has received a letter from Verizon indicating that they do not believe the additional um, drive testing is necessary and indicated that they are not willing to pay for that additional expense. Um, so I had some subsequent uh, communications with Mr. Johnson to kind of get a better sense of his um practice and what his thoughts were on this additional testing. And basically the recommendation tonight is to move forward with the original scope of work and if there are any um ambiguities or

um conflicting uh test results from the third party analysis at that time he would make a recommendation for these additional tests. Um, we are running up against a a tight time frame at this point. This this matter has been uh rescheduled three times and we're running up against the shot clock. So, in speaking with Kyle in conversations with the consultant, um that is our recommendation to proceed tonight with the original scope of work. let us get a preliminary report back and then come to the decision whether or not additional testing is needed

and it would [clears throat] be at the town's expense. Thought

you were done.

Could you just describe what is drive testing? Well, my understanding of it is that they actually physically um run independent measurements at certain areas throughout the search area using specialized equipment and basically measuring signal levels and strength data.

Oh,

so an important part with that, John, drive testing can only be done on roads,

right?

So, you can't go in like neighborhoods, fields, like houses. And that's kind of one of the the balancing acts with this of and that's why you know looking into it. The court's still more favorable ultimately this is about like can we legally oppose this project. The courts favor what's called propagation testing which is the statistical analysis of the maps they've done online because they they supposedly got a lot better. Once again, that's the court's view, you know, and drive testing can be a decent supplement, but it's hard to use drive testing to be their sole grounds to reject this because once again, they're going to come back and say, listen, if their propagation map said at the corner of Imperial and whatever, it's 96 decimals and the drive testing shows it's 90 like on today, Verizon's going to say, well, it's so hot out today, the heat, the humidity, that doesn't necessarily quantify that as a significant difference if that's one data point. So it sounds like in some of the legal research, you know, we go this first step and if the consultant when they review the data finds gaps or emissions or problems in the propagation testing, he would then say, "Okay, we want to do drive testing on these specific spots as a way to cross check because it sounds like it's very hard of like it's not an exact science because

it's not like they're it's measuring temperature where it's static and constant. You're mentioning frequencies from these different antennas at different times which are impacted by so much.

So it sounds like this is the best path forward.

I think a lot of people do their own drive testing when especially in Webster the amount of areas the the calls are dropping are

Yeah.

So

but that sounds like you know from leading the research and ultimately like if our goal is to make the best decision for residents,

right? And the and the court stance is once again we like propagation testing as our our first rule of evidence and then we'll get to drive if you can clear that hurdle.

This is the path we go to. You know Josh, you talk about timing. What caused this to come off the agenda last minute for the first June board meeting?

I believe that um we wanted to have an escrow account established for the funds.

Okay.

To be received from Verizon, which has since been addressed.

Okay. Um, I know that slowed it down.

Was there was there an estimated cost to have this additional testing done that Verizon said they're not going to pay for?

We did not receive an official quote. Um, I have an unofficial range off the record. Um, we were hoping to get an actual estimate from the Virginia based firm that Mr. Johnson utilizes and unfortunately they weren't able to get it to us before tonight, but um it it was explained to me that it would be in the $3 to $4,000 range.

Yeah. So, not not terrible, but we just got to make sure it's going to be useful.

Yes.

With it. And I think, you know, we're Josh, I think you did a great job with Mr. Johnson. He seems like he's very on top of this. He's very articulate. He goes into the little detail we need because this is so nuanced. It's not like any of us knew this before we started this.

Correct.

What propagation testing was and drive testing and the court cases that matter,

right?

So, he seems like a very good resource at least to have that he's

he he seems like he's well on top of this.

Yes. He's already absent having a contract, he's already started some preliminary review and he's indicated that if um if approved tonight, he could get us a preliminary report within four weeks.

Great. And then just to circle back something from last time, um, and Josh, you can probably get my memory right or I can look it up. One of the challenges we face though is is legally we're only allowed access to really what's in Verizon's report that we can't get true data from them just through the way the laws work in the state, right? That's one of the challenges.

Yes. Um, there are is some proprietary information that I don't believe Verizon would be willing to turn over. Um there are other third-party sources again at an additional expense to do a third-party propagation map rather than review and analyze the ones prepared by Verizon.

Um that is also another option and that would be an additional 5,000 in expense. But that's one of the challenges in this of like our ability to double check stuff because it's so technically nuanced is literally limited by the lobbying they've already done for this. It's not a very level playing field because it's so technical and they they've done their work to get here.

Yes, it is very very specialized technical work. Well, if we can get the information and get it into the hands of, you know, the expert and provide additional information to our residents.

Yes. And

in my opinion, that's the direction we should initially go.

I just want to confirm. Um, so the the board did receive a letter from a resident that laid out about four or five very pertinent questions. Um, Mr. Johnson graciously took the time to elaborate and that was also provided to uh the board members with some additional context under which circumstances he would recommend additional testing after the preliminary analysis is complete.

Yeah, I think I got that this.

Yeah, I saw that. You know, once again, why we're lucky because he's very much thorough and like articulate and like

really gets in the weed. He wasn't just kind of like passively like, oh, you know, you're fine. know like he really got engineering into like each of those questions.

Yes.

Yes. I I learned a lot. Well, then any other questions before we

I I don't have any other questions.

Well, then

I Yeah, I got nothing but I can't make the motion. So,

I make a motion then to uh authorize the supervisor to site an agreement with William P. Johnson, RF engineering consultant, to provide an independent third-party review and analysis of the two proposed Verizon cell towers, the cost of which will be reimbursed by Verizon Wireless.

Second,

Councilman Wagner,

I.

Councilman Cahill,

I,

Supervisor Sheldon,

I,

Councilwoman Wright,

I, Councilman Hunter,

I.

All right, so we are finally moving forward with that. Great. Um, up next we are from our workshop earlier, the Monroe County Community Climate Action Fund Pilot Program Grants. Um, do we have any further questions for Maria Der before we discuss possible matches?

I don't Counciloman Hunter anything.

I appreciate you putting that together, Maria, and recognizing the short timeline. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I do have one question because, you know, say we go with a short match. Can we be verified that it won't go above that? We'll just pull back from some of the areas identified.

Yeah.

In order to meet it. So, whatever we approve is the budget and that it will not exceed that.

That's always the case. Okay. Yeah.

So, are you going to put a not to exceed amount in there? 10,000.

Is that is that already would not to exceed be already be included with our match or would we need to have that in the land? I mean, if you want to put in not to exceed, you certainly can, but it shouldn't it should be the match portion.

Can we make this There's a Kyle question. Can we make this contingent on reviewing the budget

as well? Because we're kind of like we're trying to rush and we're trying to there, but we don't know what it like it's just a lot of like weird moving pieces because you kind of mentioned the budget's not done. So, we approve the the match and then like

Yeah, the application is not done yet. It's due July 8th.

Yep. But even the budget of like who's it,

right?

But the budget's based on what amount we would potentially agree to to match. So the budget comes down to what are we going to decide? Do we want to put $7,500 as our the amount to give extra match so that we can maximize our return and maximize the points on the grant.

And then what would

and then the budget would be built around that amount. And for the all these do we know for all these properties how much it would cost to put plants at all of them? Would that be would if we approve $20,000 would that cover plants at all these properties or would $10,000 cover just all do like you know we got to pick a number but trying to figure out how much does that number cover of these I think there's eight properties. Seven. Seven. That was close. Seven. But like do we know like what it cost about per property

at this time? No.

Okay.

I guess there's a difference between the cost of the project and the cost of the match because isn't isn't there because the cost could be I don't know the cost can be

30

$30,000 could be 20. It could be

a not to exceed amount in here.

Yeah. And to your point, I'm happy to put a not to exceed amount in reason. There's no reason not to.

We have to also include what our match percentage is going to be, 50 or 75. Correct.

Correct. That's the part.

So, I'm not in favor of 75 for a point. That's just my opinion. Um, and I know it's your your your timeline is short. I don't know why. Um, but the more information and I appreciate all everything you did. I had some questions for you the other day

and I appreciate everything that you've done with respect to this and and and the uh and the grants as a whole. It's just more beneficial. I'm sure you're, you know, you would agree the more information that you can provide to the board from from a monetary standpoint, it's it's always beneficial, you know, from a decision-making standpoint because there's some people that are very fiscally conservative that look at these numbers and other numbers um that if the more information we have from a dollar standpoint, the better it is for us. Well, I also think John, just like a little more information ahead of time, I met a resident earlier who's who's gone now. He mentioned he came tonight because he he saw the f post on Facebook.

Yeah.

And I'm like, when did you see the post on Facebook? He's like four o'clock. I'm like, well, I didn't learn about this until 5. Like, you know, so like, okay, at least the residents knew at 4, but we knew later. Now we're trying to figure it's just I understand the time crunch.

No, I I I agree wholeheartedly. There's been a number of resolutions that have gotten voted voted down because we didn't have the immer the information with enough time to do a proper evaluation. And that's what we're trying to get away from.

Yeah.

The more information as early as possible that the board can get, the board members can get, [snorts] the better the decision- making process is going to be.

So, we got the the

which I I'm going to interrupt real quick. Ideally, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I prefer to have a full plan ready. I actually prefer to have the application pretty much ready to hit send.

Yep.

Before I come to you for a resolution.

You do 100%. I agree 100% with what you're saying. I am casting no blame on you whatsoever. You're you're doing the best.

There's actually no one to blame for this. Honestly, it's a pilot program. It was announced at the end of May. We had a we attended a virtual workshop about it. The original due date was June 18th for projects applications and we decided as a group not to do it.

Okay.

But because of the opening and how it aligned with an actual board meeting because the June 18th one, it didn't align with anything to get any kind of approvals. So sometimes in the grant world you do have to act fast and you do have to sometimes fly by the seat of your pants which is what happened with a few other prior grants in the past and we've made them happen and we did and we submitted and you know hope we're still hoping for the best but it does sometimes occur and I would hope that the board with our track record of grants would I don't want to say recognize, but I do mean recognize that we are stewards of our finances when it comes to grants. the amount of state paperwork that I have to do to show that we're fiscally responsible with the grant money, where it went, how what penny was spent to the it's unreal the amount of paperwork that I do for any grant. So,

no, it I agree with you 100% and and you do do a very good job and because some of the questions I was asking you were, you know, from a fiscal standpoint and I was getting I was a little confused as to how these different departments they how they all that that trans those transactions take place. and you very simply explained to me there's a budget line item and it gets charged to that budget line item. So, you know, your knowledge and expertise in these grants is significant and an asset to the town 100%.

Um, and I understand that you had a difficult time from a timeline standpoint. I'm just want to make the point that we have to make the decision to vote one way or another. More information of that flat of that fact and your history um with presentations show that. So, thank you for that.

No. And I I do want to point out that Maria, we did uh when the grant got extended, we did discuss it and I asked if you still wanted to proceed on the short time frame.

Yeah.

And do you still feel that this is a worthwhile grant because you've put in a lot of work? still think that it would a lot of citizens would be ecstatic that this is happening. They wouldn't be looking out their windows at tall grass. They wouldn't be driving by roadsides thinking that Webster is unkempt because we haven't mowed properly. It would solve a lot of dissatisfaction that I'm receiving on the phone.

Well, that's good to know. And I think just, you know, even a little retrospect, a little communication could have went a long ways of like, hey, we're going to do this. Hey board, we're going to grant for the climate the community action for planting, you know, because even like today like until the gentleman told me like, oh, okay, this is we were kind of wondering like what it was for was just a generic thing or or overall. But I mean I agree with you like we try and do the best we can in a difficult time frame but just a little communication can help because now we're all trying to like learn about this live and you see the confusion it's

causing aesthetically I agree 100% Maria

so

it it'll solve a lot of problems.

Would you be in would you be more in fa you'd be more in favor [clears throat] for the minimum match then not just for a point?

Correct. I I would accept that and I would agree that that would probably be the best course of action.

And the minimum match was

$5,000. So we would not be exceeding $5,000 out of pocket.

So the resolution

total of the budget would be 15,000.

Correct.

So the resolution would be to approve an application for funding of $10,000 with a match of 50%.

Emory, does this give Jean enough time to to do that in a week? Um, I'm actually doing this application because it's a smaller application.

Okay. So, does that give you enough time to physically?

Yep.

Okay.

All right. Um, any other questions? Then I will move that we uh authorize town staff to submit an application for the Monroe County Community Climate Action Fund Pilot Program Grant requesting $10,000 with a $5,000 local match.

Second. Supervisor Sheldon.

I,

Councilman Hunter,

I.

Councilman Cahill,

I.

Councilwoman Wright,

I.

Councilman Wagner,

I.

All right. Um, up next, uh, anotherly grant from our workshop last week. Um, looking towards, uh, applying under the consolidated, sorry, Maria, what is CFA? Consolidated

consolidated funding application.

Funding application. That's it. um for what would be the next phase of our comprehensive plan, which would be the zoning portion. Now, Josh, I just have to ask before you get in. Um the $150,000 that you're requesting in the grant, is that [snorts] in your budget for next year?

It is.

So, if we do not get the grants, it would be out of pocket.

Correct.

Okay. Um is there anything else you'd like to speak to this before we open for questions? I would just like to say if the board wants to move forward with this, we would recommend um that the town the required local match be in inind staff contributions rather than cash because this will be a heavily uh involved effort with staff. So we might as well utilize our existing resources rather than expending funds.

Great.

Which is great to hear. Thank you. Mhm.

Would we need to state the uh local match as in kind in the resolution that we make? Kyle,

yes, I'd recommend doing that.

Yeah.

Okay. Anybody have any further questions for Josh?

I was going that's the question I was going to ask. So, thanks Josh.

Josh, do you have a budget of where you plan to spend the 150? Because I know Jennifer brought up last time using Bridget and Luke to do some of the communication styles and things. So, have you given more thought to how we're going to use that 150? Well, again 150 is an estimate of the maximum of what I believe an effort like this will be. Um I did get clarification that any communications done in house as long as we include um communication staff in our proposed budget that could count towards the uh inind staff contribution. Um the the majority of the funds I would assume would go to a professional consulting firm that would assist us throughout the process.

And when you say assist, do you mean assist in drafting the new zoning codes or assist in like scheduling a workshop to get resident input?

There would be a very large um community feedback component to this that that would certainly be something that the consultants would assist us with. Um obviously they'd have to whoever it may be um get up to speed in whatever the adopted comprehensive plan is um to have a full understanding of how to align the code with the plan. Um but again I think a lot of the known issues with our code are known by the staff that are charged with administering it every day. So I think that you know a lot of the nuts and bolts of what gets changed or tweaked or proposed would be coming from in-house. Um but we do want to utilize professional firms that you know have done this across the country are familiar with how to do things best practices etc. So,

and but it's so it's like the balancing act of using the funds for those workshops or using or using those funds to write the zoning changes like is

I see combination of both.

Is it is the town planning to do some rewriting of the zoning and code changes yourself?

We have a running list of of things that need to be changed. So, we would be working very closely with uh whoever we ultimately hire. And this is like a novice question on my side, but like internally to the town, do we have people that can write those changes or is that like writing those zone changes need to be done by an attorney or somebody? I don't know the answer to that, so I'm just asking.

Well, yeah, there would certainly be a legal component at the table.

Correct. Historically, in drafting any code change, it's been a collaborative effort between the respective department and and whoever the attorney at the time is.

Right. So would that be

the department heads or whatever department the the the uh code is coming out of they're going to know really the nuance of it and what they're what they want to achieve and then you know legal can just help kind of articulate that and get it into a clear

so is is Kyle would you be involved in this drafting some of these changes is that

I think that would have be up for discussion um when that time comes around I think the project itself is going to have to be scoped out you know how much time is involved Um, I think it's premature to say whether or not I person

like the town attorney sometimes could be

I mean historically when Josh's department wanted to make some changes to the code I worked with uh him and and Maria and on uh drafting those changes but this is you know going to be a much larger scale than that. So the project is going to have to be scoped out and then

figure out um you know who's going to be performing each of those tasks. So Josh, does the grant require a detailed budget for the 150,000 or is it more just you're going to use

Yes. No, we have to submit as part of the application. We do have to submit a budget. They provide us with the standard format of major categories and yes, we have to propose how we want to utilize those funds.

So you'll include the town attorney and the communications department, I'm assuming. Correct. And that part of that budget submitt.

Yes.

Okay. When will the budget be done?

Um well the budget has to be done prior to the deadline of submission which is July

30th. Um we have an internal deadline of next week to get most of our material to Gene O'Connell and Associates. Um there's a couple vacations coming up before the end of the month. So we want to kind of have everything um nailed down well in advance of the 30th. Okay. I think just we just had to be the max the ink kind and make the best use of the 150. If there's going to be a legal component, try and leverage that because it's a higher dollar value and then leverage our marketing team because they're already on staff,

right?

Like you know the rewriting the zoning code sounds like the most complex part of this.

It can tend to [clears throat] be very complicated.

So that's just my two cents. The more we can use this 150 for that,

right?

The better.

The better. Okay.

I would agree with that. Yeah.

Thanks, Sh.

Thank you.

All right. With that, I would like to move that we authorize Gene O'Connell and Associates and Town staff to submit an application for the consolidated funding application New York State uh DOS Smart Growth Community Planning Program Grant requesting $150,000 with a 25% local match done in kind.

Second. Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Cahill.

Hi,

Councilman Hunter.

Hi,

Councilman Wagner.

Hi.

All right, last one, the most important and most pressing one. Um, the parks department is just looking to reclassify one of their positions, but Jen, you are liazison. Do you want to speak any more to this? I know.

Yeah, we had a conversation. We had our preliminary budget discussion for parks and recreation and one of the things that came up was the need for additional and improved cleaning at the recreation facility. So, uh there is an outsourced agreement where a company and I don't what's the name?

Snappy.

Snappy. I knew it was an S. Snappy comes in at night and does all of the cleaning. And there's a part-time person on staff during the day that leaves at 1:00, but that leaves between 1 and 9:00, which is tends to be the busiest time for the recreation facility and there's a lot of traffic through there and things tend to get a little

gross,

I guess. Yeah. Out of order and and needs additional cleaning. This position was already in the budget.

Um, but it it I guess until now hasn't been leveraged or hasn't been utilized. Um, but that that being said, there has been a pretty substantial increase in the membership at parks and recreation. And so I think it's important that you know we have a a clean and welcoming facility. So So with that, if there's no other questions,

this is just a reclassify.

Okay. Yeah. This is just a It was previously a laborer.

Yes. So this the motion is to reclassify one part-time laborer position into a part-time cleaner position at Parks and Recreation. And clearly that's what this is all about.

That's your motion. I'll second it.

Okay. I guess John wants to leave,

but but he can't because we're we're going into executive session, I believe. [laughter]

Yes. Correct.

He's got nowhere to go. Jennifer, he's got nowhere to go.

So, your motion. Your second.

His second. Okay. Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Supervisor Sheldon. Hi.

Councilman Hunter.

Hi.

Councilman Wagner.

I. With that, I am going to move to invite uh go into executive session in uh based on 105F for human resources uh talk. I would like to invite uh the board uh attorney to the town, Tyle Kaylor, uh Denine Maher, town clerk, and chief of police Dennis Colemire.

Yes.

Hi, Chief.

I This should be quick. So, we hope Thank you all for coming out and have a happy 4th of July and 250th.

I need a second.

Second.

All in favor? I