Town Board Meeting

Okay, it's 7:30. I am going to announce the city council meeting on September 3, 2026 . Please stand 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 like to speak? Here is the manager Shel. This is Councilor Cahill. This is Councilor Hunter. This is Councilor Wagner. City Attorney Demarco is present. Thank you. Good. We will start with our open section for everyone. I remind you that you are speaking before the council. Please address the board, not the audience. Public comments are limited to 5 minutes to keep the meeting moving forward. At the fourth minute, I will wave my hand and remember that you are at four, as a symbol of completion. Questions will be answered tonight, but if you leave your information with the town clerk, we will be happy to get back to you. Uh, please respect the speaker. They may say something you disagree with, but they have every right to say it, and threatening statements will not be tolerated. First, we have Vivian. Good

evening everyone. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight . My name is Vivian Stark, and I am a brain cancer survivor. I was diagnosed with brain cancer when I was only 7 years old. I had brain surgery, then I went through more than a year of treatment. After the treatment was over, I finally rang the bell. But the bell rang didn't mean that everything I had been through had suddenly ended. I am grateful for the path I have taken. But I still face challenges today, particularly difficulties processing information and expressing my thoughts in words. Sometimes it takes me a little longer to figure out how I feel about something and find the right way to express it. That is partly why I am standing here tonight. As I age, I also grow in my faith and learn what it means to live as a Christian young woman. My faith has become an important part of who I am and the values I try to live by. One of the things that was challenging for me was going to school every day

and constantly seeing LGBTQ pride messages around me. I remember getting off the bus one day and seeing teachers wearing pride t-shirts and chalk writing on the sidewalks. It was unpleasant for me because I didn't encounter such a phenomenon every now and then . This is something I have experienced repeatedly in the place I go to study every day . I understand that other people have different beliefs than I do, and I'm not asking anyone to change who they are or what they personally believe. I believe that everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect. But I also believe that respect should extend to students like me, whose religious beliefs may differ. I am not asking my school to promote my beliefs over anyone else's. I ask that my beliefs be given the same consideration and attention. School should be a place where every student can come to learn without feeling that one set of personal beliefs or values is promoted over another. I believe that

every student deserves to come to school knowing that they belong, that they will be treated with respect, and that having different beliefs does not make their voice less important. Thank you for listening to me and allowing me to share my perspective tonight . Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next is Mark Stock. Well, I don't know how you would put it. Good evening, members of the city council, and thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight . My name is Mark Stock. I am a combat veteran and a proud resident of the city of Webster. Last time I stood before you, I spoke about the importance of trust and equal treatment of all residents. Tonight I would like to expand on this by talking about what I believe every good leader needs. Modesty. I believe that humility is one of the most important qualities a leader can have. This does not mean a lack of confidence or a fear of standing behind a decision. It means realizing that no matter how much experience we have or how strongly we believe in something , there may still be something we haven't considered. Throughout all the leadership positions I have held in my life, I have come to realize that some of the best decisions are made through a willingness to question one's own thinking before expecting others to accept it. This doesn't

mean you should question every decision you make. It simply means being open to the possibility that someone else might see something differently than you, especially when they themselves have felt the impact of the decision differently than you. I think what happened at our last meeting is a very good example of this. After my speech, another resident came forward and explained how some members of the LGBTQ+ community reacted to the flag removal. He talked about how his removal shows that they no longer belong to this community. While I may see this role of government differently, I believe the concern he expressed is very important because it demonstrates what I have been trying to express since I first came to this council. When a government decides to recognize a particular group by displaying its symbol, it also creates expectations about that recognition. Once this expectation is established, removing this symbol later can understandably feel to some people as if something is being taken away from them. But I think that's why we have to look at what really started the situation. The split did not arise simply by taking down the flag. The government put itself in this position when the decision was initially made to raise a flag representing one specific group. From that moment on, both the raising and, ultimately,

its removal had to carry a certain message, regardless of whether that message was intended that way or not. And that's what bothered me from the beginning. If a government decides to display the symbol of one group because it wants that group to know that it belongs to it , then we must also ask what happens when another group asks for the same recognition. We cannot create a principle that only works when we agree to this simple point. If a standard is set for one group , we must be willing to apply that same standard fairly to all. That's why I continue to believe the American flag is so important. We already have a symbol of state ownership that tells every resident about their belonging. The American flag does not represent one race, one religion, one political party, one sexual orientation, or one specific cause. He represents all of us. This is what I expressed when I first stood before the council, and everything that has happened since then has only confirmed for me the importance of this distinction. And I think there's a lesson in all of this about humility and leadership. Good intentions are important, but they don't always guarantee the outcome we hoped for. Sometimes a decision made with the aim of bringing people together can have consequences we never expected. Modesty means being willing to acknowledge this possibility before

making a decision and being willing to look honestly at the consequences afterward. This means being willing to ask yourself: is there anything I have n't considered? What precedent am I setting? And would I be comfortable applying the same standard if the circumstances were different? These questions do not weaken a leader or require him to abandon what he believes in. I believe they make this leadership stronger because they force us to look beyond our own intentions and consider how the decisions we make can affect all those we are entrusted to serve. For me, it's humility and leadership. Having the confidence to stand behind a decision, while also being willing to question whether there is something we have overlooked. And when someone sees something differently than we do, what we do next matters no less. That's what I'd like to continue this conversation about the next time I stand before you. Thank you for your time, your service to our community, and for allowing me to continue this conversation with you. God bless you. God bless the city of Webster and God bless America. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next, Dorothy Faith. Good evening. Uh, tonight I'd like to talk about the Webster

transportation infrastructure project . I believe that the City Council should not issue a negative declaration regarding the Webster transportation infrastructure project . The record must demonstrate, with a reasoned explanation, that the action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The EAF clearly identifies significant negative impacts, particularly on the expansion of Trioid Drive. Under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act , the lead agency must identify relevant areas of environmental concern, thoroughly review them, and provide a reasoned written explanation for its decision. A negative declaration is appropriate only when the lead agency can conclude, based on a complete environmental impact assessment form and supporting studies, that the action will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. If an action is likely to have one or more negative impacts, the right step is to make a positive declaration and prepare an environmental impact statement. This standard is especially important here because the city treated the Webster transportation infrastructure project as a single project. I believe that the significant impacts associated with the expansion of Toyota Drive will require more

detailed consideration and the preparation of a more detailed environmental impact statement . I believe that the prepared EAF will minimize many of the impacts on this part of the project. This part of the project does remove a significant wooded area that serves as a wildlife corridor. This is a small portion of the total land disturbed in this project , but it is not adjacent to the land that will be disturbed for the bolter expansion, and therefore should be considered separately. In addition, the culverts and diversions of the Mill Creek tributary are significant. This is already a compromised stream, and culverts have a significant impact on the environment. This is constantly changing the natural ecosystem. This contributes to an increase in water temperature downstream and hinders the natural self-purification process carried out by microorganisms, plants and soils along the natural tributary. Seeker requires institutions to consider the action as a whole, including cumulative impacts and impacts from related phases or related activities. EAF noted that the new and improved connections would not reach the level that would require a traffic light at the proposed intersection with 250 at

Toyota. This will put those using the Birdsong Trail at increased risk in the trail extension to the recreation center. Our comprehensive plan aims to reduce congestion by reducing curb cuts along the 404, and we should also consider the entrances to 250 from the same perspective. Phillips Road is already wide enough to accommodate all the necessary turn lanes and provides excellent access to the 104. Orchard Street handles traffic properly and has turn lanes and a traffic light to facilitate access to the 250. The city should evaluate whether a new connection is even necessary. If the full environmental assessment form does not meaningfully address the above issues, a negative declaration is not supported. For these reasons, the City Council should refuse to issue a negative declaration at this time. The Council has sufficient information regarding the Toyota-related portion of this transportation project to state that this portion of the project clearly meets the threshold for significant and adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the applicant needs a positive declaration and an environmental impact report . A positive declaration will not stop the project. It will ensure that alternatives,

mitigation measures, and public comments are considered before the city commits to an infrastructure program that could shape the corridor for decades. Thank you. Good. Next up is Bruce Winters. Good evening. I live at 20 Dunning Avenue in the village. I just have a quick question. Has the council taken any recent steps to legalize recreational marijuana in the city? We're not answering questions at this time, but no, I'll put that on the record. No, Webster disagrees, and we have no intention of raising this issue. Good. Um, my experience is ...uh, I'm a retired pharmacist. I have been working in Rochester since 1968. Before that, I was an officer in the U.S. Public Health Service, and I worked for two years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If and when this issue comes up for a vote again, I just want you to think about two questions. The first question: how will this improve the moral qualities of our

citizens? The second question I want you to ask yourself is : what is the social value of this? Thank you . Thank you. Good. Last on our list is Monica G. from Birch Trail . Dennis and I toured the wastewater treatment plant and highly recommend everyone take the tour, including students of all ages. This is a wonderful station. We were lucky that Rick was present the day before his retirement to show us around. Another reason I'm speaking up, I think, is to remind the council and residents of Webster that we had the opportunity to propose a renewable natural gas project to collect and sell biogas from anaerobic reactors, which are apparently located at the water reclamation plant for wastewater treatment. Don't ask me to go into detail because I wouldn't be as clear as Rick was when he explained. Unfortunately, the project ended due to

contract issues with an external vendor. This would be a source of income for Webster. You may be wondering why I'm thinking this . During the tour, I noticed a flame burning at the top of a tall, pipe-shaped object and asked about it. They explained to me that the plant must utilize and burn excess gas. We had the opportunity to produce renewable natural gas, but if you recall, that resolution was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2. I remember that vote because I was here and I was surprised that it was defeated, even though it would have been good for both the environment and the city of Webster. After I heard and remembered the project and the hours spent by those responsible for it, all I saw were dollars being thrown into the burning flames, and all that time and energy was wasted. Voting against the renewable natural gas project was definitely uneconomic in the long run. The 3-2 vote was shortsighted and should have been discussed further with residents, because if we, the taxpayers, knew more about the program, I'm sure you would have heard from many in support of renewable natural gas. When making decisions, and this includes me when I make any, one needs to take personal feelings and/or views out of the equation and think about the future and the impact on

society, as well as what will benefit the city and residents in the long term. Nothing is final except what is written on the tombstone and epitaph. I ask the council to reconsider the renewable natural gas project and request a change of vote to five to zero. Thank you for your time. I am sincerely grateful to you for allowing me to stand here before you made this serious request. Thank you. Okay, that's all on the list, but I noticed a few people were late. Does anyone else want to stand up and speak? Speak once. Speak twice. Accepted. Okay, let's go. Let's move on to the usual city affairs. Uh, you may notice that we only have a seminar for the minutes on the agenda . Uh, that's because we needed our resident attorney to speak on a few changes. Uh, while he's on vacation. So the draft minutes will be posted online, and we will vote to formally approve the minutes at the next meeting . But for now, I have reviewed the minutes of the August 20th seminar and I propose that the minutes be approved. Secondly. Leader Sheldon. I.

Councilman Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. I. Councilor Wagner. I. Okay. Mr. Councilor Wagner, do you have the honor of this month or this one ? Yes. I was transferred this month. Swap with Jennifer. I approve all bills submitted by the Director of Finance and make a motion to approve the bills as submitted. Second. Councilman Wagner. I. Councilman Cahill. I. Chief Sheldon. I. Councilman Hunter. I. Okay. I also propose to approve the prepaid order submitted by the Director of Finance. Second. Leader Sheldon. I. Councilman Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. I. Councilor Wagner. I. I also propose to approve the purchase orders submitted by the Director of Finance. Second. Leader Sheldon. I. Councilman Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. I. Councilor Wagner. I. I would like to propose approving the budget reallocations presented by the Director of Finance. Second. Warden Sheldon. I. Councilman Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. I, Councilor Wagner. I would like to propose approving the budget amendments

presented by the Director of Finance. Very financially difficult. We always get them first. Yes. The same thing every time. Warden Sheldon. I. Councilman Wagner. I. Councilman Cahill. I. Councilman Hunter. Good. Next comes a discussion of issuing a finder's declaration for the Webster transportation infrastructure project . Uh, City Engineer Keith Mortimer got a few questions earlier this afternoon. Cat, could you touch them now? To that end, I would say we received them this afternoon around 5:00 PM. We haven't, um, we haven't had a chance to finish our answers to the questions. I will add my apologies. I thought I sent this on Tuesday. So when no one responded by five today, I checked and found it in my draft. So sorry about that. Good. It was entirely my fault. And I thought you would answer sooner, and then I thought, "Oh my God." Yes. Yes, we would answer. Right. For this I apologize. Yes. So, we...I'm not able to, um, fully answer, um, these questions right now. Should we move this? Yeah, I

think I would say I would say, um, that there's nothing new, um, no, we're not here to introduce anything new. The status, the scope of the project remains the same as we discussed, um, within the first and second parts, on which we did not receive, um, any comments either from the public or from the board of directors itself. Uh, you know, tonight was supposed to be, you know, definitely the next step. Um, the documentation that we have before you, as you know, reflected above, is essentially a summary of where we are, no impacts have been identified, or minimal or small impacts have been identified, no impacts have been identified at all or small impacts have been identified. So we, um, you know, found that we didn't change any of those answers tonight. I mean, the most important thing for me is this last question, just to clarify, is the trail considered a park area that is subject to alienation or not? And this is quite a legal nuance, and I don't want to put you in an emergency situation. Of course. Right. So, you're right , and I don't have, and I don't have, and I do n't have, uh, the experience to fully answer that question. That's why I'm not

ready to answer this tonight. Yes. Hmm, I'm not even going to be subjective, and we have some information about this that allows us to believe that, um, continuing with a negative declaration would still be appropriate, but I ...you know, I can't answer that question for you right now . Unfortunately, we, you know, have come to this point tonight, and I know we would have gotten this answer for you. I agree that we would like to act accordingly. Hmm, I will say that this has some implications for the project schedule. You know, all these things work very linearly. So, you know, they affect the project schedule, and they actually affect whether the city will be reimbursed for the funds that we spent today through our grant. I know. I... Okay. I do n't deny it. As I said, I apologize for this glitch. But yeah, it's a very legal nuance that I think we want to get right before we... and I had a chance... Can you speak into the microphone? Oh, am I not close enough? No, they're like... Counselor Wagner pointed out that this is something that ...was not brought to my attention. I

had a brief opportunity to look at this... during a public hearing. It seems to me that, based on what has been stated, there is no need to address this issue so seriously if it is a very minor adjustment to the trail itself. And I was not familiar with the study, its essence, or its benefits. It seems to me that I would agree that this negative debt could be determined tonight without any impact on the resolution of the alienation issue. So, if time is of the essence and is of the essence , I don't think the decision tonight, um, regarding the negative deck, will in any way prejudice the decision that, um, not reviewing this alienation will lead to an irreversible situation. What happens if this is really a park area and we announce it, if we announce it tonight, just to play it off, and I apologize. What are the consequences? I don't think there are any problems if it's minor. Good. Using the same criteria as under the negative deck. Good. If it's more than that

, and I don't comment on it. Right. I didn't review it. I don't think there's a problem with the board of directors voting tonight on whether to issue a negative deck. Sure, if it's something else, but if it becomes a park area and we declare it negative and that makes it positive, do we cancel it, or what am I trying to understand? Yes, rephrase the question because I didn't understand. So if we just say it's a negative zone tonight... Yeah. And the trail is designated as a park area and is subject to alienation. I think so. OK. I think it's a park area because I think it's classified as a city or municipal park in some sense, but there seems to be a minor disturbance to this road, such as the trailer and trails being moved from its current route, and that's the extent of the disturbance. I do n't think that's a problem. OK. So, with that in mind , I would like to clarify that we worked with the Friends of Webster Trail on the trail. We officially met with them twice. We responded to their comments, and the trail project, the new

trail layout, actually received approval from the Friends of the Webster Trail, including the trail manager. So, within the framework of this project, we aim to place this trail in a way that preserves the character of the current trail. And really our goal is to improve the trail, which is better than what exists today, in terms of drainage. Essentially, to address issues on a more global scale on this section of trail, as opposed to those responsible for the trail adding drainage tiles as they see fit. We want to be more holistic about how we address drainage issues on this piece of property. Good. So, with all that said, if timing matters, especially with respect to potential reimbursement to the city, I think it's important for us to move forward with the vote tonight. And then one last question. So , for John, if we make a mistake tonight, how will that affect the timeline? I don't know what the timeframe is . I simply

pointed out that if time is of the essence, I don't see anything. What I'm reading is that the action or impact of a change in a state park leads to action, okay? And this needs to be considered in the Seeker case. As long as you review Seeker and follow the procedural steps to determine whether it is a negative declaration or not, you are fine. If we're wrong, I think there will be some action under Article 78 or something, which you know we'll have to consider in court, but I don't mean more than that, but honestly, that's probably the worst possible outcome because I think Article 78 would stop this. Yes. And, and you know, the comments from the trail stewards are just one factor. Yes. Yes. I mean, the council still has to decide for itself whether it is right, what level of influence. This, this, this, this is a significantly weighted factor, but it is one factor. Of course. And the grant is written in a way

that we can't segment, we can't pass, we avoid segmentation by including it rather than calling it a separate, ahem, project. Right. Yes. No. And I will say that it was a very in-depth review that we did with you guys in that presentation a few weeks ago. So, is this a type 1 or type 2 action? This is the first type. Type one. That's all. Good. Type two or type one? One. This is the first type. Good. Good. I mean, I'll agree with Keith and John. So I propose that we classify this as a Type 1 action, uh, we believe it has little or no impact on the environment according to the state environmental quality review , and I propose that we issue a negative declaration . And John, is that correct? Yes, that's the wording. Do you mean in terms of the wording in the petition? Yes, please. John, do you want to put yourself in your place? Sorry. Uh, we , the city, classify this as a type 2 action. Action of the first type. Thank you. Action of the first type. Uh, according

to the state environmental quality assessment, we found that the environmental impact is almost non-existent, so we will issue a negative declaration. Secondly. Warden Sheldon. I. Councilman Wagner I. Councilman Cahill. Greetings. Councilwoman Hunter. Greetings. Okay, Nicholas, this is a policewoman. Do you want to explain or do you want me to do it myself? Uh, of course. Just a brief summary. So , our police captain, the position was created by decision a few years ago. This position, uh, is non- union, and therefore did not have the same benefits, the longevity benefits, that a union position would have. So today's resolution is meant to mimic the benefits that would arise in a union, uh, so that we can incentivize our captain, who is potentially retiring next year, to stay with us, and any subsequent captain who moves forward, we will incentivize them to stay with us. So, this is the long-term planning of our police department. Um, the ability to retain qualified members of the leadership to, uh, keep our city safe,

honestly. Um, something, uh, we have our boss here. Um, so are there any additional questions? We can, of course, invite the boss or Kelsey. Um, but I think that's it , in short. No, I just want to thank the chief and the captain for your willingness to sit down with me and add some additional words, uh, to this. I appreciate it. Yes, I agree that additional clarifications to, uh, help. So, does anyone have any other questions about the contract review? No, I don't have one. Yes, Nicholas. Then I would suggest, uh , creating a resolution to authorize the chief to sign a benefits contract for Police Captain Mark Reed. Secondly. Councilman Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. Greetings. Warden Sheldon. Greetings. Councilman Wagner. Greetings. Good. And our assessment coordinator is not here. Therefore, I propose to approve the Dell monitor with asset tag 08071 for evaluation recycling. Second. Warden Sheldon. Ya. Councilor Hunter. I. Councilman Cahill. Greetings. Councilor Wagner. Me. Okay. Uh, before I ask, before we wrap up , are we going to do our rounds again at the end? Not today. No. In

July. You said we would return them on August 1st . So I'm just curious. It is September 3rd. When will they return? They did not participate in the meeting. We are not currently allowing them, as I mentioned earlier, due to staff complaints, and I will stop there. We have considered this matter and read the transcripts. We did not see any insults towards the staff. So can you at some point provide clarification or allow them to return or let the council know why you have removed them from public contact? This is not communication. Depriving yourself of communication with the public is talking to them - it's not communication. Absolutely. This is deprivation of communication with the public. There were complaints about two council members who mischaracterized people, and I'll stop there. At this point I would like , I think we need to address this issue with HR separately because if you say that and we review the transcripts, we won't see any evidence of it, you'll be left with a negative ambiguous statement. So I would like this issue to be addressed with the HR department. Good. You and I can meet with the HR department at your convenience, and I will be happy to do so. We will hold a closed session. Alex, I'm moving to go into closed session pursuant to Public Service Act 105. Uh, and to talk about personnel, I'd like to invite the City Council, our City Attorney, DeMarco, uh, Human Resources Director Kelsey Feeney, Police Captain Mark Reed, and Police Chief Dennis Colemire.

You need a friend here. The second reason is the staff. I supported this. Is that all? Section 105 staff. Okay. Leader Sheldon. Greetings. Councilor Cahill. Hello . Councilor Hunter. Greetings. Councilor Wagner. Greetings. Sorry.