[00:00:03]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH OFFICE OF THE TOWN BOARD 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607 Tel: 914-989-1525 Fax: 914-993-1541 https://greenburghny.com/485/Watch-Live-Board-Meetings ]
TO OUR, UM, MEETING OUR WORK SESSION.TODAY IS MARCH 10TH, WE'LL LIVE AT FIVE 30.
AND THE FIRST ITEM IS OUR FORENSIC REPORT.
AND, UM, WE'LL START WITH THE MEETING, UM, WITH OUR, UH, RECEIVER OF TEXAS.
DOES HE NEED TO, DOES HE NEED TO REPEAT OR WERE WE ABLE TO PICK IT UP? YEAH, YOUR MICROPHONE.
SO, PAUL, IF YOU COULD JUST DO A QUICK REPEAT SO EVERYONE KNOWS 'CAUSE IT WAS, YOUR MIC WASN'T ON.
WELCOME TO OUR GREENBERG TOWN BOARD WORK SESSION.
TODAY IS MARCH 10TH, RIGHT AFTER FIVE 30.
AND WE HAVE OUR RECEIVER OF TAXES HERE.
AND WE'RE GONNA BE DOING A FOLLOW UP WITH OUR FORENSIC, UM, UM, REPORT DEALING WITH THE TAX DEPARTMENT.
SO, IN THE REPORT, THERE WERE TWO INCIDENTS THAT WERE MINE, THAT WERE ACTUALLY, IT WAS MISCOMMUNICATION FROM THE ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTANT AND MY OFFICE, THE FORMER ACCOUNTANT IN MY OFFICE.
SO IT WAS TWO BOUNCE CHECKS THAT WERE MISSED.
AND AS SOON AS JONATHAN FOUND THEM, I CONTACTED THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE HOMEOWNER SENT THEM THE CHECKS AND THEY WERE TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT AWAY.
I JUST, SO JUST FOR ME, AND YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS ASK THE SAME QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PROCESS? SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND WHAT THINGS, IF A BOUNCE CHECK, IF A CHECK WAS RETURNED.
NO, JUST, OH, AN OVER OVERALL, SOMEBODY PAYS THEIR TAXES, IT GOES INTO A LOCKBOX, I GUESS, OR SOMETHING, OR THROUGH MY OFFICE.
EITHER WAY IT GOES TO THE BANK.
SO SAY YOU PAY YOUR CHECKS APRIL 5TH, THE CHECK BOUNCES, RIGHT? APRIL 12TH IT COMES BACK TO MY OFFICE.
IF IT COMES BACK AGAIN, WE REOPEN IT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND WE CHARGE A $20 RETURN CHECK FEE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? REOPENED? REOPEN ME.
MEANING, WELL, WE REDEPOSIT THE FIRST TIME.
SO WE DO NOT, WE JUST REDEPOSIT THE CHECK.
SO IT STILL LOOKS PAID UNTIL THAT CHECK.
AND BECAUSE ONCE YOU READ THE, ONCE I READ DEPOSIT, MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE PAID.
BUT IF IT DOES COME BACK, THEN I REOPEN THE PAYMENT.
NOW IT'S BACK OPEN AND THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW CHECK.
BUT LET'S SAY IT COMES BACK, LET'S SAY IT'S THE JANUARY BILL MM-HMM
SO IF THE CHECK, SAY YOU WRITE THE CHECK JANUARY 30TH RIGHT.
AND IT BOUNCES FEBRUARY 3RD, THAT'S AUTOMATIC REOPEN.
'CAUSE WE ARE IN THE NEXT MONTH WITH THE PENALTIES.
SO WHEN IT REOPEN MEANS IT'S NOT MARKED AS PAID ANYMORE.
BUT IF IT BOUNCES WITHIN THE SAME MONTH, JANUARY 20TH, AND YOU GET A CHECK BACK, UM, IT'S NOT MARKED.
IT'S NOT BARKED AS A BAD CHECK YET.
SO IF HE COMES BACK ON THE 30TH MM-HMM
WHAT HAPPENS IF I ON THE READ DEPOSIT AND IT BOUNCE AGAIN? THAT'S REOPEN.
THEY HAVE TO, I'M CHARGING HIM THE PENALTIES YOU CHARGE.
IF THE CHECK IT BOUNCES WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH, THE FOLLOWING MONTH, THAT'S WHEN I CHARGE PENALTIES.
'CAUSE THERE ARE NO PENALTIES IN THE CURRENT.
SO IF IT BOUNCES, IT BOUNCES AT THE THIRD WEEK OF JANUARY.
SO IT'S BOUNCED THE SECOND TIME, BUT IT'S IN THE THIRD WEEK OF JANUARY.
WHAT HAPPENS? THE PAYMENT IS REOPENED.
SO NOW IT'S, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW PAYMENT.
'CAUSE WE'RE IN THE SAME MONTH, WE HAVE A $20 RETURN CHECK FEE.
THAT'S WHAT, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CHARGED.
AND HOW ARE THEY INFORMED THAT THEIR CHECK HAS BOUNCED AND THEY HAVE TO BY LETTER.
WE SEND THEM A LETTER IN THE MAIL ALONG WITH THEIR CHECK, WE SEND IT BACK TO THEM LETTING THEM KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'RE CURRENTLY OWED.
AND THE ONLINE PAYMENTS, I SEND THEM AN EMAIL.
SO THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE BOUNCE CHECKS? THOSE ARE THE CHECKS THAT GO TO THE BANK.
SO NOW ON THE FIRST BOUNCE CHECK IN JANUARY MM-HMM
NOW WHAT IF THEY NEVER PAY? YOU'RE, YOU, YOU HAVEN'T REOPENED IT.
WHAT, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IF THEY DON'T PAY THE, THE TAXES THAT YEAR? NO, NO, NO.
SO I GET THE CHECK, I PAY THE TAX.
IT BOUNCES, RIGHT? I RED DEPOSIT IT.
IF IT BOUNCES AGAIN, THEN IT, THE PAY, THE TAX IS BACK OPEN.
THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT PAYMENT.
SO THAT COULDN'T EVEN HAPPEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
THAT'S, AND, AND, AND THEN IT'S, SO IT'S OPEN.
SO THE BOOKS RE REFLECT NO PAYMENT.
SO WHY IN THE REPORT DOES IT SAY THAT IT DIDN'T REFLECT THAT THEY WERE PAID? THEY THEY WERE NOT PAID.
I WASN'T EXACTLY SURE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE AUDITOR, SHE ASKED ME ABOUT THE TWO THAT I WAS SAYING.
ONE WAS THE BOUNCE CHECK THAT, BUT THE, THE TWO WAS THE, TO CHECKS THAT THE ACCOUNTANT DIDN'T NOTIFY ME OF.
AND THAT OTHER PART WHERE THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE
[00:05:01]
PENALTIES, I DON'T KNOW.THERE ARE NO PENALTIES IN THE SAME MONTH THAT THE TAXES DUE IN APRIL AND THE CHECK BOUNCES IN APRIL AND IT BOUNCES TWICE IN APRIL.
THERE ARE NO PENALTIES TO CHARGE.
WE ARE STILL IN THE MONTH OF APRIL.
SHE ANSWERED MY QUESTION BECAUSE I WANTED THE CLARITY.
I JUST WANNA KNOW IF THE CONTROLLER'S ON SHE, SHE'S ON, SHE'S RIGHT.
SO ONLY IF IT BOUNCES AT THE END OF THE MONTH, WHICH THEN CARRIES OVER TO THE FOLLOWING MONTH, YOU THEN CHARGE PENALTIES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY PAID LATE.
IF YOU PAY ON JANUARY 31ST AND YOUR CHECK BOUNCES, IT'S GOING TO BOUNCE IN FEBRUARY, THAT'S AUTOMATIC REOPENED.
AND YOU HAVE TO PAY THE TIP, THE PENALTY.
SO, SO IT'S NOT A 30 DAY PERIOD, IT'S BY MONTH.
IT'S WITHIN THAT MONTH PERIOD.
I WANNA BE CLEAR ALL, I'M SORRY.
I DON'T KNOW IF I, I THINK YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
WELL, SO IN THE REPORT, IT DID TALK ABOUT A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE COMP CONTROLLER'S OFFICE AND YOUR OFFICE.
AND IT SEEMED LIKE THAT HAD BEEN RESOLVED.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S PERSPECTIVE AND YOURS, YOU'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
THAT WAS TAKING W LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS THE FORMER, UM, ACCOUNTANT, CONTROLLER.
THE ACCOUNTANT IS THE ONE WHO DID NOT GIVE ME THE INFORMATION THAT THE CHECKS HAD BOUNCED.
THE ACCOUNTANT BEING OUR, OUR CURRENT STAFF ACCOUNTANT? NO, THE, THE PRIOR TO THE FORMER ACCOUNTANT.
LET'S, THE FORMER ACCOUNTANT WAS DISMISSED.
BUT IT ALSO HAPPENED LAST YEAR, RIGHT? MM.
NO, IT DIDN'T, UH, IN 2023, I, I JUST LOOKED INTO THAT AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN 24.
WELL, COULDN'T HAVE LAST YEAR.
JUST PRIOR FOR WHEN? NO, THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE, FOR THE, FOR THE TIME THAT THIS REPORT COVERS.
IT'S DURING THAT DURATION OF TIME.
THERE WAS NO INCIDENTS AFTER THAT.
SO, KIMBERLY, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT, UH, VENITA IS EXCEPTIONAL PUBLIC SERVANT
NO, I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY, WE DON'T HAVE TO ONLY FIND FAULT WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING, YOU KNOW, HERE, I, I JUST REALLY, I KNOW FROM SPEAKING TO CONSTITUENTS THAT PEOPLE FEEL YOU'RE EFFICIENT.
UM, UH, YOU'RE VERY, VERY RESPONSIVE.
I'M, YOU KNOW, THRILLED THAT YOU'RE THE RECEIVER AND YOU KNOW, I WISH THAT EVERYBODY IN GOVERNMENT WAS LIKE YOU.
SO, I, I, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, AGAIN, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO JUST CRITICIZE AND CRITICIZE AND CRITICIZE OUR STAFF.
OH, PAUL, HE'S CRITICIZING THANK YOU.
IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO CRITICIZES STAFF, IT'S YOU.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IN THE REPORT, IT SAYS, AS A RESULT, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT PRIOR DISHONOR TAX PAYMENTS WE'RE NEVER ACTUALLY COLLECTED.
I BUT MAY BE NOTATED AS BEING PAID IN THE TAX SYSTEM.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T, WHEN I READ THAT, I, I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THAT.
THE ONLY THING, WHEN I SPOKE TO HER, SHE ASKED ME ABOUT THOSE TWO, THE ONE BOUNCE CHECK, WHICH A CHECK.
AND THE OTHER WAS A ONLINE PAYMENT.
AND IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHY THEY WERE NOT REOPENED IS BECAUSE IT WAS OUR FAULT.
WE DID NOT NOTIFY THE HOMEOWNERS THAT THEIR CHECK BOUNCED.
SO THAT'S WHY I GAVE THEM AMPLE TIME TO SEND IN THE PAYMENT.
AND THEY SUBMITTED PAYMENT RIGHT AWAY.
SO WHAT'S DEFINED AS AMPLE TIME? UM, I SENT IT.
IS THAT IN LIKE A NUMBER DAYS? NO, I GAVE THEM LIKE A WEEK BECAUSE THIS TAX WAS WAY PAST DUE.
SO THEY HAD TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THE CHECK DIDN'T CLEAR.
SO THAT'S WHY I SAID UPON RECEIPT OF THIS, AND THEN I GAVE 'EM A DATE, MAYBE THREE DAYS, YOU KNOW, SO FIVE DAYS AND THEY SUBMITTED PAYMENT RIGHT AWAY.
SO IS IS YOUR PROCESS, YOU KNOW, ON YOUR WEBSITE, WHEREAS IF A CHECK WAS RETURNED $20 FEE AND YOU KNOW, IF NOTHING IS DONE, YOU WILL BE, IF IF THAT CHECK IS RECEIVED IN THAT MONTH PERIOD AND IT HAS AND IT'S RETURNED AFTER THAT MONTH, YOU'RE GONNA BE CHARGED THAT FEE.
RIGHT? AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT.
IF, IF THE CHECK BOUNCES IN THAT SAME, IN THAT MONTH AND THEN, AND THEN IT, IF THAT CHECK BOUNCES IN THAT MONTH AND YOU GET NOTIFIED AND YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONTH, YOU'RE GONNA GET A FEE, YOU'RE GONNA GET THE $20 FEE AND THEN THE LATE FEE, WHICHEVER THE PENALTIES ARE CORRECT.
AND THAT COULD BE MADE UP OF LAY FEE, LATE FEE.
LIKE THEY GO PRETTY MUCH BY MONTH.
AND THEN, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU, IF A CHECK IS RETURNED TO US TOWN OF GREENBURG AND IT'S EARLY IN THE MONTH AND IT, AND THEY MAY CLEAN, THEY MAY CLEAN ON GOOD ON THEIR PAYMENT.
THEY WON'T BE CHARGED, THEY WON'T BE CHARGED A LATE FEE.
HOWEVER, WILL THEY BE CHARGED A CHECK FEE? A RETURN CHECK FEE? NO.
THEY ONLY ARE CHARGED A $20 CHECK, RETURN CHECK FEE IF THE CHECK BOUNCES THE SECOND TIME.
OH, SO THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE NOT, THE
[00:10:01]
FIRST TIME IS JUST A READ DEPOSIT.I JUST SUBMITTED BACK TO THE BANK AS IF THEY'RE PAYING FOR THE FIRST TIME.
DOES THE BANK CHARGE US THE RETURN FEE THE FIRST TIME? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.
THAT WOULD BE THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.
AND IS IT THE SAME THING THAT APPLIES FOR JA FOR SEPTEMBER FOR THE SCHOOL TAX, FOR EXAMPLE? SAME.
APRIL, SEPTEMBER, AND JANUARY.
SO YOU GIVE THEM, AS LONG AS IT'S IN SEPTEMBER, THEY CAN BOUNCE THE CHECK AND AS LONG AS THEY GIVE YOU A GOOD CHECK IN SEPTEMBER, THERE'S NO PENALTY.
BUT IF THEY DON'T, UM, I GUESS I'M, I I'M NOT FINDING, I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS STATEMENT IS IN HERE.
I, UH, WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND DATA, YOU KNOW, SO, RIGHT.
WELL YEAH, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, SHE ONLY SPOKE TO ME ABOUT THOSE, THOSE I WHO WHO, WHICH SHE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'M SORRY? THE WHO? THE AUDITOR.
WHO? OH, THE AUDITOR TOLD THE AUDITOR.
UM, YEAH, THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT SHE SPOKE TO ME ABOUT.
SO IM NOT SURE, CAN YOU READ THIS STATEMENT KIMBERLY, TO ME AGAIN, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT PRIOR DISHONORED TAX PAYMENTS WERE NEVER ACTUALLY COLLECTED, BUT MAY BE NOTATED AS BEING PAID IN THE TAX SYSTEM.
SO WHEN THE CHECK BOUNCES AND OR IT'S, IT'S RETURNED.
AND YOU SAID THAT ORIGINALLY YOU DON'T REVERSE IT OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
WHAT PROCESSES DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO ENSURE, SAY IT BOUNCES A SECOND TIME, THAT THAT PAYMENT DOESN'T STAY APPLIED TOWARDS THE TAX RECEIVABLE? BECAUSE ONCE THE CHECK IS RETURNED TO US, WE REOPENED THE PAYMENT AND CONTACT THE HOMEOWNER TO LET THEM KNOW THEIR TECH CHECK BOUNCE AGAIN.
AND NOW YOU OWE 20 ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT.
BUT I, SO, OKAY, SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION, KIMBERLY.
SO DOES IT, WHEN DOES IT, IT DOESN'T GET REOPENED TO THE SECOND UNTIL THE SECOND ONE? YES.
SO IF I BOUNCE, OKAY, SO I BOUNCE THE FIRST, SO THE FIRST YEAH.
AFTER IT BOUNCES THE FIRST TIME, I'M STILL ACTING LIKE YOU SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A SECOND TRY.
NOT ME PERSONALLY, IT'S THE TOWN.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALWAYS DONE.
SO WE GIVE IN GOOD FAITH, LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, GIVE 'EM GOOD FAITH.
AND I READ DEPOSIT AND LIKE I SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME IT GOES THROUGH.
BUT IF IT DOES COME BACK A SECOND TIME, WE REOPEN IT, CHARGE YOU THE $20 IF IT'S STILL IN THE SAME MONTH OR CHARGE YOU THE $20 AND THE WHATEVER THE INTEREST IS, IF IT'S IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH.
SO I'M JUST GONNA, HOLD ON, KIM.
SO WHEN THEY, SO HOW DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A LIST? IS THERE AN INDICATOR AND A SYSTEM TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS A RETURN CHECK? AND WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GO AND LOOK AT AND RUN A REPORT AGAIN TO SEE WE HAD AN OUTSTANDING CHECK HERE.
LIKE, 'CAUSE I'M NOT, I FEEL LIKE YOU CAN MISS THAT.
'CAUSE IF WE'RE NOT REOPENING IT AND THEY DON'T LIKE HOW, TURN THAT, OKAY.
MY DEPUTY, MY DEPUTY AND MYSELF, WE HANDLE THEM AND WE KEEP COPIES.
SHE KEEPS COPIES OF EVERYTHING RIGHT ON HER DESK.
SO WE CHECK THEM AND THEN AGAIN, ONCE THE CHECK BOUNCES, IF IT BOUNCES A SECOND TIME, IT GOES TO THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CHECKS GO.
AND THEN THE ACCOUNTANT BRINGS THEM DOWNSTAIRS TO US.
SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY REOPENED.
SO AS LONG AS THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE GIVES ME THE CHECKS OR NOTIFIES ME THAT THE CHECKS BOUNCED, WE REOPEN THE PAYMENTS.
SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T GET DIRECT NOTIFICATION.
YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM CONTROL'S.
BUT HOW ARE YOU, I GUESS I'M STILL, I, I'M SORRY.
YOU KNOW, I'M IN, I'M, I'M KIND, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
SO PROCESS WISE, I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD ALMOST MAY, YOU MAY BE ABLE, YOU MIGHT MISS A PAYMENT.
RIGHT? WHY? BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, SAY, IF THE COMPTROLLER DOESN'T BRING DOWN THAT RETURN CHECK AND YOU HAVEN'T REOPENED THAT CASE, HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE THAT GINA RE GINA ISSUED A SECOND CHECK, I GUESS IS RIGHT.
IF THE, IF THE CHECK IS RETURNED A SECOND TIME AND THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE DOESN'T NOTIFY ME.
SO THAT COULD BE THE ONLY THING'S THAT'S, THAT'S, SO THAT'S MY POINT'S.
I THINK THE POINT, I THINK THE POINT FOR ME, FOR ME AND JUST, I'M JUST SPEAKING ON MY POINT, LIKE THERE SHOULD MAYBE, MAYBE WHEN YOU GET THAT RETURN THAT YOU HAVE A LIST.
AND I THINK YOU JUST SAID THAT YOUR DEPUTY, I GUESS HAS A TICKLER OR SOMETHING AND THEN THAT'S, I GUESS THAT TICKLER IS REVIEW JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID CROSS OFF.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
SO LET'S SAY THEY GIVE IT TO YOU A MONTH LATER, WHEN YOU DO REOPEN IT, DO THEY GET THE INTEREST IN PENALTIES? ABSOLUTELY.
AS IF THEY DIDN'T PAY IT ALL ABS.
AND IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH, IF IT'S REOPENED AND THEY PAY IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH, THEY PAY PENALTIES.
NEVER DO THEY NOT PAY PENALTIES WHEN THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.
SO IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE FORMER ACCOUNTANT AND EVENTUALLY YOU GOT NOTIFIED WE WERE NOT OUT ANY INTEREST IN PENALTIES BECAUSE YOU REOPENED IT AND THEY WERE CHARGED GOING BACK TO JANUARY.
NO, I DID NOT CHARGE THEM PENALTY.
WHAT THE, THE THESE ON THESE TWO THAT WERE FOUND? WELL THE ON I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING YOUR THE PROCESS PROCESS AND IN A NORMAL SITU SITUATION, YES, THEY WOULD BE REOPENED AND THEY WOULD BE CHARGED ALL THE INTEREST AND PENALTY LY.
SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FOR THESE TWO? BECAUSE WE NEVER NOTIFIED
[00:15:01]
THE HOMEOWNER THAT THE CHECK VOUCHER.SO SHE'S TAKING THE FAULT ON HER DEPARTMENT AND NOT, AND NOT, YES.
EVEN THOUGH THE COMPTROLLERS DID NOT NOTIFY ME, SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO NOTIFY HOME.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT TWO CHECKS.
DOESN'T, DOESN'T A BUT DOESN'T A BANK NOTIFY SOMEBODY WHEN YOU BOUNCE A CHECK? PROBABLY THE HOMEOWNER.
BUT WOULDN'T THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, SO OUR RECEIPTS WOULD BE OFF.
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RECONCILE BETWEEN OUR LEDGER AND THE RECEIVER OF TAX.
AND I THINK WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT IS THAT FROM AN ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE MISSING THAT ENTRY ON THE SIDE OF THE RECEIVER OF TAX WHERE THE PAYMENT IS APPLIED.
IT SHOULD BE REVERSED OUT AND THEN REAPPLIED LIKE IT IS ON OUR BOOKS.
SO IS THERE A WAY FOR YOU TO IMPLEMENT, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A WAY FOR YOU TO IMPLEMENT WHAT KIMBERLY IS SUGGESTING? SO REOPEN THE PAYMENT THE FIRST TIME, IN OTHER WORDS? NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.
KIMBERLY, WHAT? SO WHEN THE CHECK BOUNCES, YOU WOULD REVERSE THE PAYMENT.
YOU WOULD REMOVE THE PAYMENT THAT'S APPLIED TOWARDS, UH, THE OPEN RECEIVABLE EVEN THE FIRST TIME.
BUT WE ALLOW, RIGHT? WE GIVE, I COULD, BUT WE ALLOWED THEM TO.
WE, I MEAN WE REDEPOSIT SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT CHECK'S GONNA CLEAR THE SECOND TIME.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
BUT WHAT BENITA SAID, BUT WHAT NITA SAID IS THAT TYPICALLY THEY DO CLEAR THE SECOND TIME, THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.
TYPICALLY THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION.
IT'S LIKE A GRACE PERIOD IT SEEMS LIKE.
YEAH, BUT ITS A GRACE PERIOD WHERE THE BOOKS MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE THE PERSON PAID WHEN THEY DIDN'T.
SO WHAT I THINK THE CONTROLLER IS SAYING IS AS SOON AS THAT CHECK BOUNCED MM-HMM
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED OUT AND OKAY, YOU HAVEN'T PAID.
AND IF YOU DO PAY, OKAY, GREAT.
MM-HMM
BUT IT'S CLEANER IN TERMS OF, I UNDERSTAND.
HOWEVER, RECONCILIATION, OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.
SO ME PERSONALLY, I'VE NEVER DONE A BATCH FOR BOUNCE CHECKS OR RETURN RE THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE.
YOU UNDERSTAND? WE, MY CHECKS ARE DONE IN A BATCH.
I MEAN MY, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? SO WE PULL UP THE ACCOUNT NUMBER, WE SUBMIT AND WE PAY THE TAX AND WE DO THIS.
SO WE HAVE HOWEVER MANY CHECKS.
YOU HAVE A HUNDRED CHECKS ON YOUR, AND THAT'S WHAT'S SUBMITTED.
SO THE BATCH REPORT, WHICH SHOWS EVERYONE'S PAYMENT IN THERE MM-HMM
THAT'S, AND THAT'S FOR A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.
FOR, FOR THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SEVERAL BADS IN DAYS.
SO FOR THIS ONE, SO FOR ME TO REOPEN THIS PAYMENT WHEN THE CHECK BOUNCES AND, AND THEN WHAT? BUT THERE'S NO GUARD.
I THINK, I THINK WE ARE, WE ARE FROM OUR RE RESPECT AGAIN, I'LL SPEAK FOR ME, BUT IF Y'ALL AGREE, SAY IT.
I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S NO GUARDRAIL THERE.
SO WHAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COMPTROLLER IS ONCE THAT CHECK, ONCE THAT CHECK IS BOUNCED, I KNOW YOU'RE REPOSING.
SO HONESTLY THAT CHECK HASN'T BEEN PAID YET.
SO NOW WE'RE, AND I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE, I HEAR BOTH SIDES NOW.
YOU'RE REVERSING IT OUT UNTIL THAT CHECK IS WHOLE, UNTIL THAT PAYMENT COMES IN AND IT'S CLEAR.
BUT HOLD ON ANITA, I'VE GOT YOU
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS THAT IF WE, ONCE WE DEPOSIT IT TO ONCE THAT SECOND DEPOSIT, THAT'S WHEN WE, THAT'S WHEN THE PENALTIES, AND THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING STARTS WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS.
SO YOU'RE GIVING A, THAT GRACE PERIOD IS THAT REDEPOSIT.
BUT WHAT KIMBERLY IS SAYING IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN BETWEEN THERE TO SAY THAT THAT CHECK DID NOT, THAT THAT CHECK DID NOT CLEAR THE FIRST TIME.
AND IF IT GETS MISSED, THAT MEANS, HOLD ON.
IF IT GETS MISSED, THAT MEANS IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS AS IT BEING PAID.
THAT'S HOW I RECEIVED, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD THIS NOW.
BUT BETWEEN IF I MISSED ANYTHING, PLEASE.
BUT BETWEEN MYSELF, MY DEPUTY, AND JONATHAN, JONATHAN, THE ACCOUNTANT IN THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, THE COMPTROLLER.
SO BETWEEN YOUR OFFICE AND THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, WE'RE OFFICE ON TOP OF THESE BOUNCE CHECKS.
'CAUSE EVEN IF, IF IT SOMETHING DOES GET MISSED, JONATHAN WILL SEND THE EMAIL AND SAY, WHAT ABOUT THIS? AND I'LL SAY, OH, WE HAVE IT DOWNSTAIRS, OR WE DIDN'T DO IT YET, OR WHICHEVER.
SO WE HAVE GREAT COMMUNICATION.
SOMEBODY PAYS ON JANUARY 2ND, THE CHECK BOUNCES SOMEBODY, THEY SELL THEIR HOUSE TITLE SEARCH COMES IN ON JANUARY 15TH.
IS IT GONNA LOOK LIKE THEY PAID THEIR TAXES? YES.
RIGHT? THIS IS WHY I THINK, OKAY, KIMBERLY IS SAYING IT'S MUCH CLEANER THAT IF A CHECK BOUNCES ON THAT FIRST BOUNCE, REVERSE IT OR WHATEVER, WHAT WAS YOUR TERM? OKAY.
KIMBERLY, TO ME, IN MY OFFICE, DO THE WAY KIMBERLY WANTS ME TO DO IT, THE PAYMENTS WILL.
IF I'M NOT SURE WHAT WILL HAPPEN, I'LL GIVE IT A TRY.
I, BUT WHAT I LIKE THAT CONCERNS.
WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS? I, I LIKE THE WAY I'M DOING IT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
IF WE KEEP RECORD OF THE CHECKS THAT
[00:20:01]
WE ARE RED DEPOSITING, WHAT IS GETTING LOST? WELL, JUST GAVE FRANCIS, THAT'S, THAT'S FRANCIS.WHEN IS THAT GONNA HAPPEN? THAT SOMEONE'S GONNA BOUNCE A CHECK AND THEN SELL THEIR HOUSE? THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
IT COULD BE IN THE PROCESS OF LISTEN IF THEY, PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAVE HEARD THIS DISCUSSION.
OKAY, WELL, I WANNA SAY IT RIGHT.
ME BEING IN THE, AS THE RECEIVER FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, RIGHT? AND ME BEING WORKING IN THE TAX OFFICE FOR THE PAST 27 YEARS, THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.
JUST LIKE THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED.
THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN GREAT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MY OFFICE AND THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.
BUT THESE THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPEN WIND UP IN A FORENSIC REPORT.
IT WAS NOT, IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE, I MEAN ALL WE, I THINK WE DIDN'T NOTIFY ME.
I THINK ALL WE'RE SAYING, SAYING IS THAT AS SOON AS A CHECK BOUNCES THE FIRST TIME YOU SHOULD MAKE IT INDI IT SHOULD INDICATE THEY DID NOT PAY THEIR TAXES.
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH HEY, SOMEBODY DOING TITLE SEARCHES OR WHATEVER.
UM, AND THEN IF THEY PAY IT, GREAT AND IF THEY DON'T, IT'S GONNA STAY IN THE SYSTEM AS UNPAID.
IS THERE SOME WAY THAT WE CAN PUT A TICK OF THAT FIRST TIME IT BOUNCES? SO THIS IS MINOR.
YOU WANNA KEEP IT OPEN AND GIVE THAT PERSON A SECOND CHANCE BY PUTTING IT IN AGAIN.
THERE COULD BE A SLIP BETWEEN THE CUP AND A AND THE LIP JUST AS FRANCIS REF.
THAT COULD BE SO, AND BUT IT IS, IT DOES MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND INDICATE THAT IT'S NOT PAID.
AND THEN YOU HAVE TO INDICATE ONCE IT DOES CLEAR AFTER THE SECOND TIME THAT IT IS PAID AGAIN.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN AT LEAST INDICATE OR HIGHLIGHT MAYBE THAT UNPAID CHECK? I MEAN IT IS STILL A STEP, AN EXTRA STEP AND THEN CLEAR IT.
WHETHER IT'S HIGHLIGHTING IT, IT'S NOT MY OFFICE THAT HAS THE ISSUE WITH THE CHECK.
SHE'S THE ONE WHO HAVING AN ISSUE.
BUT IT, IT, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FORENSICS FORENSIC, YOU LOGGING FORENSIC REPORT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A FORENSIC REPORT THAT SAID THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
SO WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS NOT CAST ASPERSIONS ON YOU OR THE CONTROLLER AND ACCOUNTANTS PAST AND PRESENT IT.
IT IT'S, BUT IT IS A, A SYSTEM THAT MAYBE CAN BE IMPROVED.
CAN YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND COME UP WITH A SUGGESTION FOR US THAT WOULD MAKE YOU MOST COMFORTABLE, KIMBERLY COMFORTABLE AND US COMFORTABLE.
THAT WOULD BE, UM, PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING OF NOW.
I GUESS LIKE ANOTHER CATEGORY OR SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU LOG IT OBVIOUSLY, BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S LIKE THIS GRAY AREA, IT'S NEITHER PAID NOR IS IT NOT PAID.
RIGHT? THAT'S JUST LIKE WHEN I'M SUBMITTING THE CHECK, THROWING YOUR CAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, GET ON DEBT, SAME THING.
I'M ACCEPTING THAT CHECK IN GOOD FAITH THAT IT'S GOING TO CASH, IT'S GOING TO CLEAR.
AND IT'S JUST, I DO IT THE SAME TIME.
I MEAN, SAME THING FOR THE SECOND TIME.
I GUESS WE'LL TRY TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
UNDERSTANDING EVERY, EVERY, EVERY SIDE.
THE REASON WHY I HAVE A QUESTION IS BECAUSE WHAT, UM, THE RECEIVER'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT THOSE CHECKS WERE OUTLIERS AND THAT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN 20 YEARS.
AND WHAT COUNCILMAN SHEEN IS EXPLAINING THAT THERE JUST MAY BE ANOTHER OUTLIER THAT THAT HAPPENS.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHY LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY? CORRECT.
HOWEVER, UH, FROM THE RECEIVER'S STANDPOINT, WHEN SHE'S SAYING, I DO NOT KNOW THAT CHECK IS BOUNCED UNLESS IT COMES FROM THE RECEIVER CONTROL.
WHAT A CONTROLLER, THERE'S NO OTHER MECHANISM.
SO AM I, AM I THAT'S WHAT THE MECHANISM THAT YOU WANNA IMPLEMENT IS GETTING THE, UH, CHECK INFORMATION TO VENITA.
THE GAP IS BETWEEN THE NOTICE OF THE CHECK BOUNCING AND THE CHECK NOTICE GETTING TO THE RECEIVER.
THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THE GAP IS.
IT'S NOT BETWEEN, UM, HER REVERSING THE CHECK.
SHE CAN'T REVERSE THE CHECK IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE CHECK BOUNCED.
WE, WE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US MISUNDERSTOOD.
THAT'S NOT, NOT THE PART THAT WASN'T, THAT'S NOT THE PART, THAT PART IS UNDERSTOOD.
IT'S THE PART THAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CHECK BOUNCES THE FIRST TIME AND IT'S NOT BEING, AND IT'S SEEN AS PAID.
'CAUSE IT'S BOUND UNDERSTOOD TO
[00:25:01]
THE, TO THE PUBLIC ON THE COMPUTER.IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PAID, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN PAID.
AND BECAUSE WHAT THIS INDICATES IS THAT THERE WERE 587 ACCOUNTS WITH AN AGGREGATE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF 29,300, UH, 20.
WHATCHA TALKING ABOUT? ISN'T THAT NO, YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT SO KIMBERLY, YOU WERE ABLE TO RECONCILE CASH UH, FOR ONE YEAR? YES.
EVERYTHING'S RECONCILED FOR 2025.
WE WENT BACK AND DID REDID THAT.
AND THEN, UH, WE HAD SOMEBODY COME IN AND LOOK AT 2023.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
AND YOU SAID SOMEBODY CAME IN AND LOOKED AT, UH, 2020, UH, FOUR THREE.
YOU HAD SOMEBODY COME IN AND LOOK AT 2023.
WELL, THE AUDITS WOULD'VE LOOKED AT 2023 AND 2024.
IS THERE A REASON WE DIDN'T GO BACK 20 AND 21? OR I GUESS THE AUDITORS WERE EXPECTED TO DO THAT, RIGHT? UM, IN SPEAKING TO OUR ANNUAL AUDITOR, THEY DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO GO BACK ANY FURTHER.
BUT I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE FORENSIC REPORT.
UM, I'VE BEEN, UM, LOOKING FOR A COP, UH, YOU KNOW, IN RECENT WEEKS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ON MONEY THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO THE COURTS THAT WASN'T, WASN'T, YOU CAN'T JUST TURN OFF THE AUDIO.
WAS HE? WHAT'S THAT NICE PRESENTATION THERE.
YOU JUST NEEDED THE WHOLE ROOM.
OKAY, SO, SO YOU MUST HAVE TWO MICROPHONES FEEDING AT, SO WHAT'S THIS? THAT'S HIS PRESENTATION.
SO DO YOU HAVE IT ON HERE? C DO YOU HAVE AUDIO ON ON THIS? THIS ISN'T CONNECTED TO ZOOM.
COULD IT HAVE BEEN ANY OF OUR ONLINE? NO, WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE MICS, THE, THE, THE REAL TALENT OF A ZOOM.
A LOT OF PEOPLE, UM, LIKE 24 PEOPLE IN A ROOM ALL WITH ZOOM IS ONLY ONE CAN HAVE WHAT YOU WANT.
OH, I I CAN'T SHARE SOMETHING ELSE IF I NEED TO LATER ON, BUT NOT WITH SOUND.
DO YOU WANT TO SHUT THIS OFF? NO.
DO YOU HAVE SOUND ON YOUR AUDIO ON YOUR, UH, MOVIE? THE PRESENTATION IS GONNA PLAY THROUGH THE HDMI AND I BELIEVE IT WILL PLAY THROUGH THE ZOOM AS WELL.
I'M, I'M OFF ON ZOOM HERE, SO I'M GOOD.
YEAH, BUT IF PEOPLE ARE ON ZOOM, WE WANT 'EM TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
GARY, THERE'S SOMETHING WITH YOUR COMPUTER.
SO I JUST SAID YOU WANNA DO A TEXT? YOU SURE ONE OF THOSE TWO DON'T HAVE.
I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION BEFORE.
IS KIMBERLY STILL ON? I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT.
ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE FOR ME? ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT I HAVE? I CAN'T,
[00:30:01]
I CAN'T REALLY HEAR.OKAY, SO I HAD, I HAD A QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS SINCE WE HAD THE FORENSIC, UM, AUDIT, EVERYBODY'S BEEN FOCUSING ON HOW $39.4 MILLION WAS REDUCED FROM THE, THE COURTHOUSE.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THE TOWN BOARD TO, UM, PASS A RESOLUTION, UM, UM, DESIGNATING CERTAIN UNASSIGNED GENERAL FUND BALANCES ASSIGNED TO FUND BALANCE.
UM, UH, WE PASSED A RESOLUTION ON APRIL 12TH, 2023.
IT SAYS, WHEREAS THE GOVERNMENTAL STANDARD ACCOUNTING BOARD HAS ISSUED STATEMENT NUMBER 54 ESTABLISHING A HIERARCHY CLARIFYING CONSTRAINTS THAT GOVERN HOW A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CAN USE AMOUNTS REPORTED AS FUND BALANCE.
WHEREAS THE GREENBERG TOWN BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AN OPERATING POSITION AND FUND BALANCE POLICY ACKNOWLEDGING ITS AUTHORITY, UM, TO, UH, COMMIT, SIGN, OR EVALUATE EXISTING FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATIONS AND IDENTIFY THE INTENDED USES OF COMMITTED OR ASSIGNED FUNDS.
AND WHEREAS ASSIGNED FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATION REFLECTS AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS SELF-IMPOSED BY THE TOWN BOARD.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN BOARD HAS DETERMINED IT HAS SPECIFIC NEEDS THAT IT ELECTS TO FUND WITH PORTIONS OF THE GENERAL FUND ENDING FUND BALANCE.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HEREBY COMMITS TO UTILIZING PORTIONS OF ITS GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE AS INDICATED BY THE FUND, UM, CLASSIFICATION IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE RESERVE FOR A NEW COURTHOUSE IN AN AMOUNT OF $7,400,000.
NOW, I LOOKED, UM, I'VE BEEN TRYING FOR THE PAST, UM, MONTH, UH, TO FIND RESOLUTIONS DEALING WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF, UM, OF THE COURTHOUSE.
IF, UH, WE DIDN'T PASS A RESOLUTION, THAT MEANS THAT, UM, ONLY THE $7.4 MILLION IS NOT THE 39000000.4 IS WAS, WAS COMMITTED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE COURT.
SO I'M ASKING THE TOWN BOARD IF, UH, YOU HAVE COPIES OF ANY OTHER RESOLUTIONS DEALING WITH THE OTHER, UM, AMOUNTS BECAUSE, UM, IF YOU DON'T, THEN, UH, THE TOWN BOARD NEVER, UM, UH, COMMITTED TO, UM, THE NEVER COMMITTED TO, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, $39.4 MILLION FOR THE COURTHOUSE BECAUSE IT, THE MONEY WAS NOT, UM, UH, RESTRICTED FOR THAT PURPOSES.
SO I'M, I'M JUST ASKING FOR A COPY OF ANY, UM, OF THE RESOLUTIONS BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND IT.
SO YOU'LL NOTICE IN THAT RESOLUTION IT TALKS ABOUT GA SP AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE CONTROLLER WAS THAT THERE WERE NEW CSP IONS.
SO IT SEEMED LIKE WE HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE OF THE NEW GA SP RE RE UM, REGULATIONS.
BUT WHAT YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING IS WHY IN A BUDGET MESSAGE IN 2019, UH, 19, UH, 2019, DID YOU SAY WE WERE GOING TO BUILD UP A FUND FOR THE COURTHOUSE INITIALLY, $7 MILLION AND IT SAID RESERVE FOR COURTHOUSE.
AND THEN IN 2020 YOU BUILT IT AGAIN INTO THE, INTO THE BUDGET SAYING IN YOUR BUDGET MESSAGE, WE ARE SAVING THIS MONEY FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
IF THAT WAS NOT YOUR INTENT, THEN WHY DID YOU PUT IT INTO THE BUDGET THAT WAY? IF YOU DETERMINED, 'CAUSE I WAS ANTICIPATING YOU WERE GONNA SAY THIS.
IF YOU DETERMINED, HEY, THE TOWN BOARD'S NOT COMMITTED TO DOING THIS, WHY DID YOU PUT IT IN THE BUDGET AGAIN AND MAKE A BUDGET MESSAGE, SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE ANOTHER 12 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
AND IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE AND YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT WAS NECESSARY, WHY DID YOU DO IT AGAIN AND 2021, ANOTHER 12 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS? AND IF YOU WEREN'T SURE ABOUT THAT, WHY DID YOU DO IT AGAIN FOR $7.4 MILLION? WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE.
SO WHAT YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN IS WHY DID YOU PUT YOUR BUDGET MESSAGE, WHICH WE PUT INTO OUR BUDGET MESSAGE.
THIS TOWN COUNCIL HAS NEVER DONE A BUDGET MESSAGE IN ANY BUDGET PRIOR TO THIS YEAR.
BUT WE FELT WE HAD TO BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED, PARTICULARLY WITH THE COURTHOUSE.
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT BUDGET MESSAGE IS INCLUDED.
AND A LETTER THAT THIS TOWN COUNCIL SENT, SENT TO THE NEW YORK STATE CONTROLLER, UH, YESTERDAY, DELIVERED TODAY.
AND YOU HAVE A COPY, UM, ASKING FOR THE CONTROLLER NEW YORK STATE CONTROLLER TO GIVE US AN OPINION REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED REGARDING THE FORENSIC AUDIT.
'CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE FORENSIC AUDIT, OH NO, I'M SORRY.
THE FORENSIC REPORT IS A REPORT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GIVE OPINIONS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, AND IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS
[00:35:01]
NOW GOING THROUGH THE, THE, UH, REPORT WHEN WE FIRST WENT OUT, AND KIMBERLY, IF ANYTHING IS INCORRECT HERE, LET ME KNOW.WHEN WE FIRST WENT OUT, WE WENT DID AN RFP FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT AND OUR RESOLUTION WAS FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT.
BUT WE DID HAVE RESPONSES IF WE DIDN'T WANT AN OPINIONS AND WE JUST, THEY JUST WOULD UNCOVER FACTS SO FAR.
SO WE WANTED AN AUDIT, WHICH WOULD'VE HAD OPINIONS IN IT.
SO THE RE THE END RESULT WAS WE GOT A REPORT THAT DOESN'T HAVE OPINIONS, BUT IT STATES, HEY, THIS IS THE, THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND, THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET INDEPENDENT OPINION.
RIGHT? WE HAVE THE DATA NOW WE WANT AN INDEPENDENT OPINION.
SO WE HAVE ASKED THE NEW YORK STATE CONTROLLER TO GIVE US AN OPINION REGARDING THIS.
SO YOU MAY PICK OUT A RESOLUTION AND SAY, WHY DIDN'T WE DO IT BEFORE? AND FRANKLY, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND READ YOUR OWN BUDGET MESSAGES.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK VERY FAR.
'CAUSE WE PUT SCANS, NOT QUOTES, BUT SCANS OF YOUR BUDGET MESSAGES WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO, WE WERE GOING TO BUILD THIS, THIS NEST EGG OF MONEY SO THAT WHEN WE ACTUALLY DO BUILD THE COURTHOUSE, THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES TO DO IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE MONEY.
OKAY, WELL LET ME, UM, YOU KNOW, RESPOND.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M OF OPINION, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE AS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ASPECT OF THE BUDGET AS I AM.
YOU'RE THE LIAISON TO THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME, UM, HIGH AT LAND USE MEETINGS EVERY WEEK FOR HOURS THAT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND.
WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL LAND USE ISSUES WITH, WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS.
UM, YOU BASE, UH, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT ME INVOLVED.
YOU BASICALLY, UM, UH, YOU, YOU, THE TOWN BOARD DID APPROVE, UM, UH, THE BUDGET UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, YOU KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE BUDGET.
SO STOP, UM, STOP ACTING LIKE ONLY I'M RESPONSIBLE.
AND IF YOU, AND IF YOU THINK THAT I'M MISMANAGING THE BUDGET AND I DON'T THINK I AM, I'M VERY PLEASED WITH THE WAY, UH, I'VE BEEN A MANAGER, UH, THEN YOU SHOULD STEP DOWN AND QUIT, RESIGN FROM THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE BASICALLY YOU ARE AS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ASPECT OF THE BUDGET.
WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, EVERYBODY WHO'S ON THE BOARD HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND CAN'T FIND, UH, POINT THE BLAME DURING, UM, UH, THE TIME WE, UM, UH, REDUCED FUNDING, UM, UM, UH, FOR THE COURTS.
UM, WE MADE, WE ALL MADE A, A DECISION THAT, UH, THIS WAS A DIFFICULT TIME DURING THE YEAR.
IT WAS, UH, IT WAS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC PART OF IT.
THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE DYING.
THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DIED FROM, FROM COVID.
UH, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE OUT OF WORK.
IT WAS A VERY, VERY STRESSFUL TIME.
AND WE DECIDED, UM, THAT IT WOULD BE, WE HAD NO PLANS, ACTUAL PLANS FOR, FOR THE COURTHOUSE AT THAT, AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ANY FINAL, YOU KNOW, PLANS.
AND WE DECIDED TO TAKE MONEY THAT WAS NOT, UM, RESERVED BY RESOLUTION, REDUCE THE TAX RATE SO EVERYBODY IN THE TOWN WOULD, WOULD HAVE, UH, REDUCED TAXES THAT THEY COULD PAY, UM, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HELP THEM.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE TOOK THE MONEY OUT AND YOU VOTED FOR, FOR THE BUDGET.
ALSO, YOU KNEW THAT THERE WAS A TAX RATE REDUCTION.
SO CUT OUT THE CRAP AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF, OF ACT OF RES TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERY ACTION, UH, UH, THAT, THAT YOU MADE.
AND AGAIN, I HAVE A COPY OF ONE RESOLUTION.
THERE'S ONLY ONE RESOLUTION THAT THE TOWN BOARD APPROVED AND THAT WAS APPROVED ON, UH, APRIL 12TH, 2023 DEDICATING, UH, RESERVING ONLY $7.4 MILLION FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
THAT 7.4 MILLION IS STILL IN THE BUDGET.
WE HAVE NOT, UH, REDUCED THAT.
THE OTHER PARTS, IF YOU FELT STRONGLY ABOUT IT, YOU SHOULD HAVE.
AND YOU FELT THAT IT HAD TO BE USED FOR THE COURTHOUSE, WHICH YOU DID NOT AT THAT TIME BECAUSE YOU KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
YOU KNEW THAT, UH, AND YOU MADE A CONCERTED DECISION JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A RESOLUTION, WHICH YOU DIDN'T DO BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANNA DO IT BECAUSE AT THAT TIME IT WAS BETTER TO REDUCE TAXES, UH, RATHER THAN, UM, UH, KEEP IT IN AN ACCOUNT THAT WOULD JUST BE LYING
[00:40:01]
THERE WITH NO PLAN OF ACTION.AND WHEN WE DO, UM, UM, DO THE COURTHOUSE EVENTUALLY, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO FOR BOND.
THERE'LL BE, UH, WE WILL COME UP WITH A PLAN.
THERE'LL BE, UM, UH, BORROWING JUST LIKE WE DO FOR ALL, UH, MAJOR, UH, CAPITAL, UH, YOU KNOW, BUDGETS.
AND AGAIN, ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS TAKE OWNERSHIP.
IF, IF YOU COULD FIND ONE RESOLUTION DEALING WITH THE OTHER AMOUNTS, UM, THAT WOULD GET US PAID TO $39.4 MILLION, THEN I WILL SAY, I APOLOGIZE, BUT YOU CAN'T FIND IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER RESOLUTIONS THAT THE BOARD PASSED.
SO, SO YOU KNOW WHAT, I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE WITH THE $39.4 MILLION IS POLITICAL, YOU KNOW, IS POLITICAL AND YOU KNOW, BASICALLY CAMPAIGN SEASON TYPE OF WORK.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAME UP, WE, WE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BASICALLY ALL I'M SAYING.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU KEEP SAYING I VOTED FOR THE BUDGET.
WE ALL, I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU PAUL.
I LET YOU GO ON AND ON WITH ALL YOUR MISSTATEMENTS AND I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU.
I HAVE SAID EVERY TIME YOU COME UP WITH THIS, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE THE SAME, SAME ANSWERS.
EVERY TIME I VOTED FOR THE BUDGET, I ADMIT I VOTED FOR THE BUDGET.
I VOTED FOR THE BUDGET IN 2019 TO RESERVE.
IT'S YOUR WORDS, IT'S YOUR BUDGET RESERVE FOR COURTHOUSE MISLEADING US AND THE PUBLIC WHEN YOU HAD ACTUALLY NO INTENTION OF RESERVING THAT FOR THE COURTHOUSE, BUT YOU PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE IF YOU JUST PUT IN THERE SLUSH FUND, THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T HAVE ACCEPTED THAT.
BUT WE ALL KNOW WE NEED A COURTHOUSE, A RENOVATED COURT, A COURTHOUSE, OR A NEW ONE.
SO WHEN WE VOTED FOR THE BUDGET, YES, I VOTED FOR THE BUDGET AND IT SAID RESERVED FOR COURTHOUSE.
YOU SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT I SAID, OH NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, IN THE FOLLOW, WHATEVER YOU THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, OKAY, IF YOU DID IT IN 2019, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN OKAY.
IT LOOKED OH, BUT 2019 THERE WAS NO COVID, RIGHT? WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WAS SUCH A THING CALLED COVID.
AND YOU LET IT SLIP INTO FUND BALANCE AND YOU SAY RESERVE IT FOR LOWERING THE TAXES.
OH, YOU DID A LOT MORE THAN THAT.
WE HAD SO MUCH MONEY IN THE FUN BALANCE.
WE'RE NOT PASSING DOWN CARS ANYMORE.
'CAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH FUN BALANCE.
NEXT YOU GET TO 2020, WHICH IS BY THE WAY, IS THE YEAR OF THE PANDEMIC.
BUT THAT VOTE IS THAT, UH, VOTE IS TAKEN ON THE BUDGET IN 2019.
I'M SORRY, I THINK I GOT MY DATES BEFORE, BEFORE 2018 VOTED ON THE 2019 BUDGET.
2019 VOTED ON THE 2020 BUDGET.
AND THAT WAS 12 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.
AND WHAT DID YOU PUT IN YOUR BUDGET? YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CREATES THE BUDGET.
WE DON'T, IT SAYS RESERVED FOR COURTHOUSE.
YOU MAKE IT SEEM LIKE, HEY, YOU VOTED FOR THE BUDGET.
AND THE NEXT YEAR, WHICH IS NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID, WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE THAT LINE OUT AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT MONEY FOR TAXPAYERS.
THIS AFFECTS EVERY VILLAGE RESIDENT AS WELL.
12 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN THE HEIGHT OF COVID.
YOU DIDN'T SAY, OH, WE'RE GONNA PUT EXTRA MONEY IN HERE JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A REASON TO LET IT SLIDE INTO FUND BALANCE.
SHOW ME SOMETHING WHERE IT TELLS US THAT, HEY, SOMEHOW WE DIDN'T REALLY WANNA VOTE FOR THE RESERVE FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED FOR.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DECEIVED THE, THE TAX PAYERS LOOKING AT THE BUDGET INTO THINKING WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
AND THEN YOU DID IT IN THE NEXT YEAR OF 7.4.
SO THAT'S NOT 7.4 OUT OF 39.4.
SO LET'S NOT MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING THAT WE VOTED TO RESERVE ONLY $7.4 MILLION OUT OF 39.4.
THE ONLY AMOUNT IN THE BUDGET RESERVE FOR COURTHOUSE THAT YEAR WAS $7.4 MILLION.
WHERE DID THE OTHER $32 MILLION GO? YOU SAY IT WAS TO LOWER THE TAXES.
IF YOU LOOK, YOU'RE GONNA FIND THAT IT LOOKED LIKE WE HAD SUCH A HEALTHY FUND BALANCE FROM ALL SOURCES THAT HEY, WE ACTUALLY COULD USE THE MONEY TO REPLACE, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOME MORE YEARS OUT OF.
WE DID SIDEWALKS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
[00:45:01]
BUT YOU KEEP SAYING, OH, WE LOWERED THE TAXES BECAUSE OF COVID, BUT THAT'S NOT THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED.AND THAT'S WHEN WE WROTE TO THE, TO THE NEW YORK STATE CONTROLLER.
WE WANT THEM TO LOOK INTO AND THEY'LL DECIDE, THEY'LL MAKE AN OPINION.
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OPINION.
EACH ONE OF US VOTED TO DO THE FORENSIC AUDIT.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU TRY TO SLOW IT DOWN 'CAUSE YOU PROBABLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GONNA FIND.
AND THEN AFTER YOU COULDN'T SLOW IT DOWN ANYMORE, PROCEDURALLY USING YOUR RIGHTS TO HOLD THINGS OVER, WE'VE ACTUALLY PASSED IT AND WE HAD A FORENSIC AUDIT.
WHY? IF YOU STINK, YOU'RE SO CLEAN AND THAT I AM EQUALLY IMPLICATED ACCORDING TO YOU.
WHY IS IT THAT I, I WAS A PRIMARY AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER TO THE CONTROLLER.
DID YOU WANT AN OPINION FROM THE CONTROLLER? NO.
DID YOU WANT A FORENSIC AUDIT? NO.
YOU DIDN'T WANNA KNOW ANY OF THIS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN YOUR BUDGET FOR 2026, YOU WANTED THE TAX RATE TO BE BELOW 3%.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT OUR CONTROLLER SAID? SHE THINKS IT SHOULD BE 17% TO MAKE UP FOR SOME OF THE DEFICITS THAT WE HAVE.
AND YOU TOLD HER TO GO INTO HER OFFICE, SIT AT THE DESK UNTIL YOU GET A BELOW 3%.
AND OF COURSE, SINCE YOU ARE THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, I MAY BE LIAISON, BUT YOU ARE THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, RIGHT? MAIN PERSON INVOLVED WITH THE BUDGET.
SHE HAD TO COME UP WITH A BUDGET UNDER 3%.
HOW DO YOU DO THAT? GRAB FUND BALANCE, JUST LIKE YOU TOLD THE PRIOR CONTROLLER, I WANT A CERTAIN BUDGET OR, UH, A RATE INCREASE AND WHERE DO YOU GET IT FROM? YOU GET IT FROM FUND BALANCE.
AND THAT'S HOW WE HAVE DRAWN DOWN THE FUND BALANCE SO LOW.
BUT OUR NEW CONTROLLER, HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL, NOT GONNA PLAY GAMES, NOT GONNA SHIFT MONEY FROM FUND TO FUND TO FUND.
RIGHT? ALL OF A SUDDEN MONEY POPS UP IN THIS FUND AND OUT OF THAT FUND, SHE DOESN'T PLAY THOSE GAMES.
AND SO, BUT SHE GAVE YOU THE BUDGET YOU WANTED, RIGHT? BECAUSE SHE HAD TO.
'CAUSE YOU ARE THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.
SO YOU GOT THAT BUDGET UNDER 3%.
AND WHAT DID WE DO? WE DIDN'T WANT TO, BUT WE HAD TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND INCREASE THE RATE.
AND THAT WAS ONLY FOR THE A BUDGET, THE TOWN WIDE BUDGET.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THE B BUDGET YET, BUT THE B BUDGET, THE UNINCORPORATED AREA BUDGET, THEY'RE GONNA SEE ABOUT A 3% INCREASE.
THEY'RE GONNA BE SHOCKED THAT THE 3%, BUT IT'S NOTHING COMPARED WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH FUND BALANCE YOU WERE USING? WELL, LET ME SAY, FIRST OF ALL, EVERY DECISION RELATING TO THE USE OF FUND BALANCES MADE NOT BY ME, BUT BY EVERY MEMBER OF THE TOWN BOARD.
YOU CAN'T REDUCE I JUST NO, NO, NO, NO.
OKAY, SO I KNOW YOU, I KNOW YOU WANNA RESPOND AND I KNOW YOU WANNA RESPOND, HOWEVER, HIS PRESENTATION'S AN HOUR.
SO WE, AND WE ALSO HAVE PEOPLE WAITING.
DON'T PAUL, PAUL JUST I'M ON YOUR, I'M LISTENING TO YOU.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE KNOW MY COMMENT'S GONNA BE FIVE, THREE MINUTES.
NO, I DON'T, WE CAN'T AFFORD FIVE MINUTES.
OKAY, WELL I'M GONNA BE THREE MINUTES.
GARY, YOU'RE WASTING TIME RIGHT NOW.
GARY, IS THERE ANY, I'M GONNA, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT IT CAN BE RE BECAUSE I KNOW YES, THE BOARD JUST LISTENS TO THE WHOLE THING AND THEN DOESN'T INTERRUPT.
OKAY, SO WE JUST WANT LET JUST, OKAY, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
GARY, LET NOBODY WE NO, NO, NO, BECAUSE BASICALLY I'M NOT GONNA GET, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LISTEN.
NO, I'M GONNA REMEMBER I RESPONDED TO YOU.
I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU AND THEN I RESPONDED I'M NOT GONNA BE OKAY.
FIRST OF ALL, THE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE BUDGET, THE FINAL DOCUMENT OF ALL THE BUDGETS WE APPROVED, WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD.
TOWN BOARD BY LAW HAS A STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ANY PROPOSED BUDGET THAT I PROPOSE.
AND YOU, AND THE FACT IS, IF YOU ALWAYS, EVERY TAX REDUCTION THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS OR FLAT BUDGET, EVERY BOARD MEMBER HAS TO TAKE A HUNDRED PERCENT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE YOU MADE A DECISION.
I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROPOSE A BUDGET BY OCTOBER 30TH, WHICH I DO THEN THE BOARD HAS UNTIL DECEMBER 20TH TO APPROVE OR REJECT THE BUDGET.
SO YOU CAN'T BLAME ME WHEN EVERYBODY HERE IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
SECOND, UH, THING IS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT THE,
[00:50:01]
UH, THE, THE COURT, THE DEDICATED FUNDS FOR THE, FOR, UH, FOR THE COURTHOUSE USE, UH, THE BY STATE LAW, THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD DO IF WE WANT TO, UH, RESERVE FUNDS FOR, UH, FOR THE COURTHOUSE, WE HAVE TO PASS A RESOLUTION.NOW, YOU BASICALLY ARE, UM, UH, THE LIAISON TO THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.
CAN I, WAIT, WAIT, LEMME SAY PAUL.
PAUL, YOU'RE JUST REPEATING WHAT YOU SAID ALREADY.
NO, BECAUSE I'M REPEATING WHAT YOU SAID.
I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THE BOARD TRYING TO ME OUT AND BASICALLY NO ONE SHUT YOU DOWN TRYING TO CENSOR MY COMMENTS.
LISTEN, SO I'M SAYING I'M FINISHING IT.
SO, SO BASICALLY ALL YOU WANNA REPEAT AGAIN WHAT YOU ALREADY SAID.
ALL, ALL I AM SAYING RIGHT NOW IS THAT, UH, THERE'S, THAT WE PASSED A RESOLUTION FOR, UH, IT'S BASICALLY BE RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN BOARD OF GREENBURG HEREBY COMMITS TO UTILIZE IN PORTIONS OF ITS GENERAL FUND, UM, ENDING BALANCE AS INDICATED BY THE SIGNED FUND BALANCE, UH, CLASSIFICATION IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE RESERVE FOR A NEW COURTHOUSE IN THE SI AMOUNT OF $7,400,000.
THAT MEANS, UNLESS YOU COULD SHOW ME ANY OTHER RESOLUTION, THAT MEANS EVERY, THAT, THAT THE, THE INTENT OF THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD AND, AND EVERYBODY WAS NOT TO RESERVE THE FULL $39.4 MILLION FOR, UM, FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
SO THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW.
I'M SO MUCH, WE, I DIDN'T DO, WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG BY REDUCING THE MONEY AND IF ANYBODY ON THE BOARD FELT THAT $39.4 MILLION WAS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY WANTED THAT FUNDS, THEY SHOULD HAVE, WE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW WE DID IT ONCE.
SO WE COULD HAVE DONE IT FOR THE OTHER AMOUNTS.
OKAY? SO I'M SAYING THE WHOLE THING THAT YOU'RE MAKING IN FUND BALANCE IS ALL, IS ALL POLITICAL AND IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT HAS, IT'S NOT BASED ON MISMANAGEMENT OR WHATEVER YOU'RE, YOU'RE, IT'S A POLITICAL, UM, STATEMENT THAT HAS NO VALIDITY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PASS A RESOLUTION, UM, UH, UH, UH, DEDICATING, UH, ANY OF THE OTHER FUNDS FOR, FOR, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE REALITY NEXT, NEXT WEEK WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE REALITY NEXT.
WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE REALITY NEXT WEEK, BUT RIGHT NOW WE REALLY, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, 45 MINUTES WE TALK ABOUT GETTING WORK DONE.
AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SO, OKAY, SO YES AND YES, AND, AND I'M SURE THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL'S GONNA GO ON RECORD TO THAT.
WE VOTED WHAT WE, WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK.
GARRETT, I'M GONNA PASS THEM BACK ON TO YOU.
HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY WE CAN TEMPER OUR COMMENTS TO THE END SINCE WE LOST 45 MINUTES.
UM, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, SO, GARY, GO AHEAD.
AND, UH, I HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT'S PRERECORDED.
I CAN'T THANK TERRENCE BROSNAN AND SAM ENOUGH FOR THE ASSISTANCE THERE.
UH, WE'LL BE PLAYING IT IN A MOMENT, UH, IN LIGHT OF THE SCHEDULED TO START AT 5 40, 45 AT SIX 30.
IT MAY MAKE SENSE, LIKE YOU SAY, TO START THE WHOLE THING IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT IT IS ABOUT CHAPTER 2 85, THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE TOWN.
I GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE, SO I HOPE IT'S HELPFUL.
IT'S A RECORDED VIDEO FOR THE TOWN BOARD.
IT'S, I THINK IT, HOPE IT'S HELPFUL FOR RESIDENTS.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, OH, IF YOU WANNA SIT HERE AND I CAN SLIDE OVER, BUT IT DOES LEND ITSELF TO, HELLO, I'M GARY QUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION.
THE FOCUS OF THIS PRESENTATION IS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 85 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS RELATED AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD.
I'VE STRUCTURED THE PRESENTATION TO BOTH THE TOWN BOARD WHO HAS AN EXCELLENT BACKGROUND ON THESE TOPICS, BUT ALSO FOR OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE MUCH LESS OR LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP AND HOW THESE REGULATORY DOCUMENTS IMPACT THE TOWN ACCORDINGLY.
PRIOR TO DIVING INTO THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOWN'S GEOGRAPHY, THE LAND USE PATTERNS, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, I WILL OFTEN REFER TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG THAT NEED TO MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
THE TOWN ENTIRE OR TOWN, INCLUDING ITS SIX VILLAGES TECHNICALLY AND COLLECTIVELY ARE THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
HOWEVER, WHEN I REFER TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, I'M REFERRING ONLY TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG.
UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG IS THE TOWN, NOT INCLUDING ITS SIX VILLAGES AND THE FOCUS OF THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
HERE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG IN GREEN SO THAT THIS AREA STANDS OUT FROM HERE ON OUT.
WHEN I REFER TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG OR THE TOWN, I'M FOCUSING ON UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG, THE AREA IN GREEN.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS ITS OWN DISTINCT ZONING MAP AND ZONING REGULATIONS, AS DO THE TOWNS, VILLAGES, AND AS DO THE CITIES AND TOWNS THAT BORDER THE TOWN.
ANOTHER DISTINCTION TO NOTE IS THAT THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS VERY LIMITED ACTUAL PROPERTIES WITH A GREENBURG
[00:55:01]
MAILING ADDRESS, WHICH CAN MAKE IT CONFUSING TO A NEW RESIDENT.PROPERTIES IN THE TOWN HAVE NUMEROUS POST OFFICE ADDRESSES, WHICH ARE NOW DISPLAYED.
THEY INCLUDE LEY, DOBBS FERRY, ELMSFORD HASTINGS, VERY HARD TO HEAR.
IRVINGTON, SCARSDALE, TERRYTOWN
THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS A POPULATION OF 46,863 RESIDENTS AND IS COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 18 SQUARE MILES.
THAT'S THE LARGEST TOWN IN TERMS OF POPULATION IN WESTCHESTER AND FIFTH LARGEST OF THE 45 MUNICIPALITIES IN THE COUNTY, TRAILING ONLY THE HIGH DENSITY CITIES OF YONKERS, NEW ROCHELLE, MOUNT VERNON, AND WHITE PLAINS.
AND AGAIN, THE TOWN'S POPULATION OF 46,863 DOES NOT INCLUDE ITS VILLAGES.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE LAND USE AND ZONING PATTERNS IN THE TOWN.
APPROXIMATELY 75% OF THE TOWN'S LAND AREA IS ZONED AS ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS SHOWN HERE.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL OF THIS LAND AREA CONTAINS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AS THESE ZONING DISTRICTS PERMIT AND CONTAIN A WIDER RANGE OF USES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.
RECREATIONAL USES SUCH AS GOLF COURSES, DAY CAMPS, AND PUBLIC PARKS.
BUT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ARE THE PRIMARY PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE IN THESE DISTRICTS.
APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE HOUSING UNITS IN THE TOWN ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH GENERALLY RANGE IN SIZE FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO AN ACRE OR MORE.
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS COMPRISE THE REMAINDER OF THE TOWN'S DWELLING UNITS AND ARE COMPRISED OF CONDOMINIUM COOPERATIVE AND MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE TOWN WITH LARGER CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE USES IN HARTSDALE FAIRVIEW AND EDGEMONT PORTIONS OF THE TOWN.
MOST OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE NO AGE RESTRICTIONS, BUT THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SENIOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS.
NUMEROUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS CLOSE TO 800 ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THESE USES WITH A WIDE RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES, WHETHER TOWNHOUSE STYLE, DENSE, MULTI-LEVEL BUILDINGS OF THREE TO EIGHT STORIES OR GARDEN APARTMENTS, ET CETERA.
THE TOWN HAS SEVERAL MIXED USE CORRIDORS, WHICH PRIMARILY ARE LOCATED ON THE THREE NEW YORK STATE OWNED ROADWAYS, SAWMILL RIVER ROAD, CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, AND TARRYTOWN WHITE PLAINS ROAD.
THESE CORRIDORS ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE MAP WITH ROUTE NINE A OR SAWMILL RIVER ROAD FOCUSED NORTH OF I 2 87 IN THE VILLAGE OF ELMSFORD.
THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SECTIONS OF ROUTE ONE 19 WHITE PLAINS ROAD, WHICH HAS A SIGNIFICANT OFFICE BUILDING SECTOR IN THE TARRYTOWN PORTION OF THE TOWN AND TERRYTOWN ROAD SPANNING FROM THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS BORDER TO THE GREENBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY, CENTRAL PARK AVENUE OR ROUTE 100 SPANS THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS BORDER TO THE BORDER WITH THE CITY OF YONKERS.
THESE CORRIDORS ALL HAVE A GOOD MIX OF USES AND HAVE THEIR OWN DISTINCT ZONING PATTERNS, WHICH WE WILL SOON DISCUSS.
THE EAST HARSDALE AVENUE CORRIDOR IS THE TOWN'S ONE CENTER WITH MAIN STREET LIKE CHARACTERISTICS BEYOND LINEAR CORRIDORS OF MIXED USE.
THERE ARE POCKETS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE TYPICALLY AT PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS ON STATE ROADS SUCH AS THE WEST HARTSDALE AVENUE AND DOBBS FERRY ROAD INTERSECTION, GRASSLANDS ROAD AND NORWOOD ROAD ALONG VIRGINIA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE VILLAGE OF ELMSFORD ON SAWMILL RIVER ROAD.
FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, TWO CLUSTERS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO NOTE ARE THE MIXED USE AREAS CONTAINING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICE PARKS AND FLEX SPACE IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE TOWN SHOWN HERE ON BOTH SIDES OF SAWMILL RIVER ROAD, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CLUSTER OF INDUSTRIAL USES, WAREHOUSING, CORPORATE OFFICES, AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ANCHORED BY REGENERON.
THIS PORTION OF THE TOWN IS THE LARGEST EMPLOYMENT SECTION AND CONTAINS THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
A SMALLER BUT ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
OFFICE PARK AND INDUSTRIAL FLEX AND SPACE SECTOR EXISTS IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE TOWN SOUTH OF THE VILLAGE OF ALEY ON BOTH SIDES OF SAWMILL RIVER ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF LAWRENCE DRIVE.
GREENBURG IS A DYNAMIC PLACE AND I'VE ONLY COVERED SOME BASIC LAND USE PATTERNS WHEN YOU FACTOR THE NUMEROUS POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES IN THE TOWN, SUCH AS THE PRESENCE OF 1200 ACRES OF PARKLAND AND RELATED OPEN SPACE PROXIMITY TO THREE METRO NORTH STATIONS, TWO MAJOR RECREATION PATHS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE EMPIRE STATE TRAIL, ACCESS TO AN EXCELLENT BUS NETWORK, DIVERSE HOUSING RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES, THE PRESENCE OF WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND EXCELLENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
SUPERB PRIVATE RECREATION OPTIONS.
AND THEN YOU OVERLAY THAT WITH CHALLENGES SUCH AS THE PROXIMITY OF MAJOR STATE HIGHWAYS, WHICH HAVE BISECTED SOME NEIGHBORHOODS SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES.
THE PRESENCE OF AREAS PRONE TO FLOODING, AREAS PRONE TO TRAFFIC AND THE VARIOUS NEEDS OF RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES BECOMES EVIDENT HOW DYNAMIC OF A PLACE IT IS TO PLAN FOR.
THIS MAP HERE GIVES A SENSE OF HOW DIVERSE THE TOWN IS AS EACH COLOR COVERS A GENERAL LAND USE,
[01:00:01]
WHICH PAINTS A MUCH DIFFERENT PICTURE THAN THE MAP I DISPLAYED PRIOR, WHICH SHOWS A MAJORITY OF THE TOWN AS A UNIFORM ONE FAMILY DISTRICT, AND THE REMAINDER, A COLLECTION OF MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL MIXED USES.THE TOWN ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATE HOW AND TO WHAT INTENSITY LAND USE IS USED IN THE TOWN AND ARE THE FOCUS OF THIS PRESENTATION.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO CONTINUE TO FACILITATE LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN TOWN, ADAPT TO CHANGES IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES, MINIMIZE VACANCIES, IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS, AND IMPROVE CONDITIONS FOR THOSE SEEKING TO INVEST IN THE TOWN WHILE ADHERING TO BEST PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND ENHANCING SAFETY.
THE CHANGES I WILL BE COVERING ARE ALSO INTENDED TO BE IN CONCERT WITH THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD IN 2016 AND IS A POLICY DOCUMENT THAT GUIDES DECISIONS SPANNING BUDGET, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND A VARIETY OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES FOR PARKS, TRANSPORTATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOWN FACILITIES, AND OTHERS.
THE PLAN IS A MULTI-YEAR ROADMAP ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
EACH CHAPTER OF THE PLAN HAS NARRATIVE MAPPING.
GRAPHICS CONCLUDES WITH A SERIES OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES.
A MAJOR ASPECT OF THE PLAN IS WITH RESPECT TO LAND USE, WHICH WE TOUCHED UPON PRIOR.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS WAYS TO IMPLEMENT LAND USE POLICIES BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE PRIMARY WAY TO DO THAT IS BY UPDATES TO THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORNAMENTS.
A PORTION OF THE TOWN ZONING MAP IS NOW DISPLAYED AND ASSIGNS A ZONING DISTRICT TO EVERY ONE OF THE TOWN'S OVER 15,000 INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TYPICALLY RUN ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF A ROAD OR ALONG THE PERIMETER OF A PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
THE TOWN PRESENTLY HAS 31 ZONING DISTRICTS AND TWO OVERLAY DISTRICTS GENERALLY FALLING INTO THESE CATEGORIES.
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
EVERY ZONING DISTRICT IS FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE OR CHAPTER 2 85.
CHAPTER 2 85 IS A CLOSE TO 300 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT LISTS THE USES PERMITTED IN EACH DISTRICT AND IDENTIFIES INTENSITY CONTROLS OR WHAT WE REFER TO AS LOT IN BULK CRITERIA.
EXAMPLES INCLUDE SETBACKS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, ET CETERA.
2 85 CONTAINS A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF DEFINITIONS.
DETAILS, WHICH BOARDS HAVE APPROVAL OVER CERTAIN USES, LISTS PURPOSES AND INTENT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND LAYS OUT PROCEDURAL PROTOCOL FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.
THIS CHAPTER REGULATES HOW AND WHICH TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COME INTO THE TOWN.
IMPLEMENTATION IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE TOWN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS AND VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE FORMAT OF CHAPTER 2 85 UPDATES ARE IN TRACK CHANGE AND COLOR SO THAT READERS CAN VERY CLEARLY SEE WHAT IS UPDATED.
ON SOME PAGES, THERE ARE FEW OR NO CHANGES.
OTHER SECTIONS CONTAIN ENTIRELY NEW LANGUAGE.
STRIKETHROUGH INDICATES REMOVAL OF LANGUAGE.
UNDERLINE IS WHEN NEW OR UPDATED LANGUAGES TO REMAIN.
BOTH THE STRIKETHROUGH AND CLEAN VERSION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL READERS.
THE SCREEN DEPICTS THIS FORMAT AND SHOWS THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO NEW ZONING DISTRICTS UNDERLINED IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.
YOU SEE THE M 30 HIGH-RISE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT AND THE TR TERRYTOWN ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT.
WE ALSO SEE THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORD IMPACT FROM THE CA DISTRICT AND STRIKE THROUGH AND ELIMINATION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL ZONE.
WE'LL NOW TRANSITION TO THE ZONING MAP IN CHAPTER 2 85 UPDATES.
TO BEGIN, WE'LL START WITH A FEW SUBSTANTIVE BUT MORE EDITING TYPE UPDATES.
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REPETITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCES, 300 PLUS PAGES, AND WITH SUCH REPETITION THERE IS ALWAYS THE RISK OF INCONSISTENCIES.
THE ORDINANCE WAS EVALUATED TO FIND WAYS THAT IT COULD BE MORE CONCISE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME CONSISTENT WHERE APPROPRIATE.
SOME EXAMPLES ARE PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES, WHICH ARE LENGTHY AND STATED OVER 10 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.
UPON CLOSE INSPECTION, THERE WERE IDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES IN TERMS OF THIS PROCEDURE, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL PERMIT PROCEDURES ARE.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF REPETITION WITHOUT CONSISTENCY PROPOSED IS A NEW SECTION 2 85, 36 0.1 COVERING SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL PERMIT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS, AND SPECIAL PERMIT GENERAL USE STANDARDS IN THE DOZENS OF LOCATIONS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT PRESENTLY HAVE THESE SECTIONS.
THE UPDATE NOW REFERS ONE TIME TO THIS NEW SECTION, WHICH IS CONSISTENT AND CONCISE.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL MORE EXAMPLES LIKE THIS, AND I MUST THANK RESIDENT RAZR FOR ASSISTING THE TOWN WITH GUIDANCE IN THIS RESPECT.
A MORE STYLISTIC UPDATE IS THE ORDERING OF USES FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT.
PROPOSED IS A STANDARDIZED FLOW OF A PERMITTED USES B PLANNING BOARD.
[01:05:01]
USES C TOWN BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT USES AND D ACCESSORY USES.THIS IS NEW AND ELIMINATES THE STAGGERED ORDER OF USES THAT IS PRESENTLY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FROM ZONE TO ZONE.
IN TERMS OF BOARD JURISDICTION, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OR ZBA HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS THE APPROVAL BOARD FOR SPECIAL PERMITS, NOT BECAUSE THAT BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO EVALUATE THESE APPLICATIONS, BUT MORE SO DUE TO EFFICIENCY.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES WHERE IN ADDITION TO A SPECIAL PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS NEEDED FROM THE TOWN OR PLANNING BOARD.
IN THOSE INSTANCES, IT IS VERY INEFFICIENT TO ADD ANOTHER BOARD TO THE PROCESS.
THEREFORE, SPECIAL PERMITS, WHICH WERE ALREADY PREDOMINANTLY THE JURISDICTION OF THE TOWN AND PLANNING BOARD WILL NOW EXCLUSIVELY BE WITH THOSE BOARDS.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WOULD STILL BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS IF AREA OF VARIANCES OR USE VARIANCE WAS NEEDED.
THE FOCUS OF THIS SECTION IS HOUSING.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRESENTLY MANDATES THAT 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS IN PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS BE RENTED OR SOLD AT A REDUCED RATE TO INCOME ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS BASED ON WESTCHESTER COUNTY AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
THIS PROVISION HAS FACILITATED NUMEROUS UNITS IN THE TOWN AND THE TOWN HAS BEEN A LEADER IN THIS RESPECT.
HOWEVER, IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED.
THESE INCLUDE EXPANDING THIS 10% REQUIREMENT TO THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND THE NEWLY PROPOSED M 30 DISTRICT.
WITH THESE UPDATES, ALL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE TOWN WILL REQUIRE 10% OF WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS.
THE FOUR CORNERS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS A SEPARATE ZONING PROCESS, BUT IT IS NOTED THAT THAT DISTRICT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE 10% WHEN APPROVED.
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT UPDATE IS THE ELIMINATION OF THE TERM AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REPLACEMENT WITH THREE TIERS OF WORKFORCE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.
PRESENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEFINED AS REDUCED RATE HOUSING UNITS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE TO THOSE THAT DO NOT EXCEED 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME OR A MI.
THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE CREATION OF THREE WORKFORCE HOUSING TIERS THAT ARE CAPPED AT 60%, 70%, AND 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME OR A BLENDED AVERAGE OF 65%.
THE EFFECT OF THIS IS BEST DESCRIBED WITH AN EXAMPLE.
FOR A 100 UNIT MULTIFAMILY BUILDING THERE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE 10 SETASIDE UNITS.
UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, ALL 10 UNITS WOULD BE RENTED TO THOSE AT OR CLOSE TO 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 136,000 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.
UNDER THE PROPOSED CHAPTER 2 85 CHANGES, FOUR UNITS WOULD BE RENTED TO THOSE ELIGIBLE UP TO 80% A MI, WHICH AGAIN IS 136,000.
THREE UNITS WOULD BE UP TO 70%.
A MI OR 119,003 UNITS WOULD BE UP TO 60% A MI OR 102,000.
THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGE IS TO FACILITATE HOUSING UNITS TO A BROADER RANGE OF AFFORDABILITY.
FOCUS IN THIS SECTION IS THE M 30 DISTRICT.
I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE M 30 DISTRICT AS A NEWLY PROPOSED DISTRICT AS PART OF THE CHAPTER 2 85 UPDATES.
THE TOWN'S MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS SPAN THE M SIX DISTRICT, WHICH PERMITS THE LOWEST HEIGHTS IN UNIT DENSITIES UP TO THE M1 74 DISTRICT, WHICH PERMITS THE LARGEST HEIGHTS IN UNIT DENSITIES.
THE CREATION OF AN M 30 HIGH RISE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS A PART OF THE CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENTS AND WOULD INCLUDE A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AS WELL.
THIS NEW DISTRICT PROVIDES HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES THAT GENERALLY RANGE BETWEEN THOSE OF THE EXISTING M 25 AND M1 74 DISTRICT.
THE M 30 DISTRICT REQUIRES LOT AREA OF 1500 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT AND WOULD PERMIT UP TO A FIVE STORY 60 FOOT HIGH BUILDING IF APPROVED.
THE ZONING MAP WOULD BE UPDATED AS FOLLOWS, WITH THE M 30 DISTRICT INSERTED INTO THE ROSTER OF ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE TOWN, THERE ARE TWO LOCATIONS IN THE TOWN WHERE THE M 30 DISTRICT IS PROPOSED AT 9,100 MANHATTAN AVENUE AND 33 OAK STREET.
A REZONED TO THE M 30 DISTRICT WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT UR DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY NUMBER 12.211.
FUTURE USE OF THE M 30 DISTRICT ELSEWHERE IN THE TOWN WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TOWN BOARD APPROVAL AND ONLY BE PERMITTED IN LOCATIONS DEEMED BY THE TOWN BOARD TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WILL NOW TRANSITION TO THE PROPOSED TR OR TERRYTOWN ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT SIMILAR TO THE M 30 DISTRICT.
THIS IS A NEWLY PROPOSED DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WOULD ALSO RESULT IN AN UPDATE
[01:10:01]
TO THE ZONING MAP.FOR CONTEXT, THE EXAMPLE OF THE CREATION OF THE CA CENTRAL AVENUE MIXED USE DISTRICT IS HELPFUL.
PRIOR TO 1980, THE TOWN'S CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR ROUGHLY TWO MILES IN LENGTH AND SPANNING THE HARTSDALE AND SCARSDALE OR EDGEMONT PORTIONS OF THE TOWN WAS A SERIES OF MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONING DISTRICTS.
HERE WE SEE AT LEAST SIX DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
IN 1980, THE ENTIRE CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR WAS REZONED INTO A CONSOLIDATED CA CENTRAL AVENUE MIXED USE DISTRICT PROVIDING UNIFORM REGULATIONS GOVERNING USES, PERMITTED AND INTENSITIES OF THOSE USES ALLOWED WHEN THE TOWN BOARD ADDED CHILD DAYCARE AS A SPECIAL PERMIT USE IN THE CA DISTRICT IN 2017.
BECAUSE IT IS A UNIFIED DISTRICT, ONE AMENDMENT WAS NEEDED TO DO SO AS OPPOSED TO REVIEWING AND MODIFYING SIX OR MORE DISTRICTS AS WOULD'VE BEEN NECESSARY PRE CA DISTRICT.
THE USE WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE BOARD THROUGHOUT THE QUARTER, AND SINCE THAT APPROVAL, MULTIPLE CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS WERE APPROVED ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE IN BOTH THE EDGEMONT AND HARTSDALE PORTIONS OF CENTRAL AVENUE FILLING VACANCIES, CREATING JOBS, AND A NEEDED SERVICE FOR RESIDENTS.
WE WILL NOW EXTRAPOLATE THIS CONCEPT TO ROUTE ONE 19, FOCUSING ON THE TERRYTOWN ROAD CORRIDOR FROM THE BORDER WITH THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS TO THE GREENBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY.
SHOWN HERE ARE EIGHT EXISTING INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE 1.4 MILE CORRIDOR.
WHAT IS PROPOSED IS A CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THESE DISTRICTS INTO ONE UNIFIED NEW ZONING DISTRICT KNOWN AS THE TR TERRYTOWN ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT.
THIS DISTRICT PROVIDES A UNIFORM SET OF REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF USE AND LOT AND BULK STANDARDS.
THE TR DISTRICT WAS INSPIRED PRIMARILY FROM THE CA CENTRAL AVENUE DISTRICT AND THE DS DESIGN SHOPPING DISTRICT AND ADAPTED TO THIS TERRYTOWN ROAD CORRIDOR.
THE GOAL OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE A GOOD VARIETY OF USES PROMOTING A COHESIVE CORRIDOR THAT ALSO COMPLIMENTS THE ADJACENT FAIRVIEW AND FULTON PARK RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
RECALL FROM THE PRIOR MAPPING THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE CORRIDOR IS EXISTING URBAN RENEWAL.
THE TR DISTRICT REPLACES ALL OF THESE LOTS AND WOULD RESULT IN THE FULL REMOVAL OF THE ANTIQUATED UR DISTRICT DESIGNATION POLICIES, 12.2 0.14 THROUGH SIX OF THE COMP PLAN, CALL FOR A REVIEW, A REVIEW OF PERMITTED USES TO ENSURE USE CORRIDORS AND CALLS FOR CONSISTENT LOT AND BULK CRITERIA, THINGS LIKE SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIOS IN THE MIXED USE CORRIDORS.
THE TR DISTRICT IS A FULFILLMENT OF THESE POLICIES.
DISPLAYED IS A SNAPSHOT OF SOME OF THE EXISTING USES IN THIS CORRIDOR SPECIFYING WHETHER THEY ARE PRESENTLY PERMITTED, SPECIAL PERMIT, OR NONCONFORMING USES.
BASED ON THE VARIETY OF ZONES THAT EXIST, THIS COMPOSITION OF USES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO AN INTERESTING AND VIBRANT ROUTE ONE 19 CORRIDOR PROVIDING SERVICES AND EMPLOYMENT.
WE NOW COMPARE HOW THOSE USES WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE NEW TR DISTRICT.
NOTEWORTHY IS THAT THE USES ARE VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED IN TERMS OF USE CATEGORY.
THAT IS BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THE TR DISTRICT IS NOT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFY THE CHARACTER OF THE CORRIDOR, BUT RATHER TO ADD SOME LIMITED ADDITIONAL USES TO BROADEN THE OPTIONS TO OWNERS IN THE EVENT VACANCIES ARRIVE WHILE ELIMINATING A FEW USES, WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE REMOVED AS PERMITTED USE WOULD BE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND A FEW INDUSTRIAL USES AND ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS.
THE FEW EXISTING GAS STATIONS AND CAR WASH ALONG THE CORRIDOR ARE PRESENTLY NOT PERMITTED, USES AND WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE TR DISTRICT.
CONVERSELY, THE TR DISTRICT WOULD PERMIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS IS PERMITTED IN THE CA DISTRICT WITH A TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
THE TR DISTRICT WOULD ALSO ALLOW ADULT DAY CARE, USES PRIVATE EVENT SPACES, RETAIL SPACES, RETAIL, CANNABIS, AND CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS.
ON JANUARY 30TH, 2026, I MET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS FROM THE POTENTIAL TR DISTRICT VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AND PRESENTED THIS PROPOSAL.
THE FEEDBACK WAS GENERALLY POSITIVE WITH SOME EMAIL FOLLOW-UP FROM SOME OWNERS RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITTED AND SPECIAL PERMIT USES.
THOSE SAME OWNERS WILL BE ENGAGED THROUGHOUT THE 2 85 REVIEW PROCESS BY THE TOWN, A PROCESS WHICH WILL BE EXPANDED ON AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION.
TO RECAP, THE CREATION OF A TR DISTRICT IS PROPOSED TO MAINTAIN A GOOD BALANCED MIX OF USES IN THIS PORTION OF THE TOWN'S ROUTE ONE 19 CORRIDOR, ELIMINATE THE UR DISTRICT AND BE CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
[01:15:03]
WE'VE NOW REFERENCED URBAN RENEWAL A FEW TIMES PRIOR, BUT I'D LIKE TO GIVE MORE CONTEXT.URBAN RENEWAL WAS A FEDERAL PROGRAM FROM APPROXIMATELY 1949 THROUGH 1973 THAT IMPACTED CITIES AND COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
IN WESTCHESTER, URBAN RENEWAL RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO ITS CITIES, INCLUDING WHITE PLAINS, BUT ALSO HAD MAJOR INFLUENCE LOCALLY IN PLACES LIKE ARDSLEY AND THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
THE PROGRAM WHILE OFTEN IDENTIFYING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A GOAL HAD THE EFFECT OF MODIFYING THE LAYOUT OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, OFTEN CONDEMNING AREAS LEADING TO DEMOLITION AND MORE AUTOCENTRIC TYPE DEVELOPMENT IN GREENBURG IN URBAN RENEWAL COMMISSION WAS ACTIVE IN 1959 AND DISCUSSED PLANS FOR OVER 152 ACRES IN FAIRVIEW AND MANHATTAN PARK.
MAJOR URBAN RENEWAL LEGACY IN THE TOWN INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF I 2 87, THE DEMOLITION OF AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF MANHATTAN AVENUE AND THE LOCATION WHERE CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER SITS, WHERE YOU CAN SEE IN THE AERIAL TRADITIONAL STREET GRID ACROSS THE CENTER.
URBAN RENEWAL ALSO LED TO FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS RELATED TO THE MANHATTAN BROOK.
AS THE PROGRAM WAS CEASED IN 1973 NATIONALLY, THE EXISTING REMAINING UR DISTRICTS IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG ARE SIMPLY ANTIQUATED.
THERE ARE NO LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO URBAN RENEWAL ZONE PROPERTIES, AND WHEN COMBINED WITH THE SEVERAL OF THE OVERALL NEGATIVE LEGACY CONNOTATIONS OF THE PROGRAM, TERMS LIKE REDLINING, SLUMS, WHICH HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THESE AREAS IN THE TOWN, THE REZONING PROPOSALS OF THE TERRYTOWN ROAD DISTRICT AND M 30 DISTRICT, WHICH WILL FULLY REMOVE THE UR DISTRICT IN THE TOWN ARE CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 12.211 OF THE PLAN.
THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS A TREMENDOUS VARIETY OF EXCITING RESTAURANTS.
IF YOU ASK ME WHAT MY FAVORITE PLACE IS, IT'S TOUGH TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT CHANGES EVERY WEEK.
FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE, THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY HAS EVOLVED SIGNIFICANTLY BASED ON TECHNOLOGY AND USER PREFERENCES.
MOST DINING AND TAKEOUT ESTABLISHMENTS ARE WITHIN THE TOWN'S MIXED USE CORRIDORS, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY ALL ARE GENERALLY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SO THERE IS BALANCE IN PERMITTING THE GREAT VARIETY WE HAVE IN THE TOWN WHILE MAINTAINING COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER USES.
CHANGES PROPOSED FOR CHAPTER 2 85 FOR THIS CATEGORY OF USES.
STRIVE FOR CONSISTENCY WHERE APPLICABLE, PROVIDE FOR UPDATED DEFINITIONS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE TOWN'S RESTAURANTS WHILE BALANCING IMPACTS.
SOME KEY UPDATES ARE AS FOLLOWS, RETAINING THE INCIDENTAL DINING CLASSIFICATION.
INCIDENTAL DINING ACCOUNTS FOR TAKEOUT ESTABLISHMENTS WITH NO DRIVE-THROUGH AND CONTAIN EIGHT SEATS OR LESS.
THE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT IS RETAINED FOR THIS USE WHILE NOT RESTRICTING IT TO ONLY PIZZERIAS, DELIS AND BAKERIES AS THE CODE PRESENTLY DOES.
RESTAURANTS ARE PRESENTLY DEFINED AS EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH NINE SEATS OR MORE.
PROPOSED UPDATES ARE TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION FOR RESTAURANTS BY REMOVAL OF THE REFERENCE TO NEEDING A WAITER OR WAITRESS RETAINING THE SPECIAL PERMIT CLASSIFICATION AND CLARIFYING THAT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE THOSE WITHOUT A DRIVE-THROUGH.
LASTLY, THE AMENDMENTS CALL FOR A REMOVAL OF THE TERM QUICK SERVICE, FAST FOOD, AND THE REPLACEMENT WITH A NEWLY DEFINED CATEGORY.
DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENT IN THIS CATEGORY ARE ALL EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS PROPOSED WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW.
THE USE WOULD REMAIN A SPECIAL PERMIT USE WITH ONE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT PER 35 SQUARE FEET AND RETAIN THE SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF A MINIMUM 2000 LINEAR FEET.
IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY, THIS USE, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN THE CA CENTRAL AVENUE DISTRICT IS NOW PROPOSED TO HAVE AN 80,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM, AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TR AND DS DISTRICTS.
I'LL NEXT FOCUS ON A LAND USE TOPIC THAT SOME MAY NOT HAVE EXPECTED.
THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS PRESENTLY PROHIBITED IN THE TOWN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ON FARMLAND.
THE AMENDMENTS IF APPROVED, WOULD ALLOW THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS BUT NOT ROOSTERS ON LOTS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR GREATER SUBJECT TO A PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AN ADHERENCE TO A HOST OF SETBACK, MAXIMUM LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, FENCING REQUIREMENTS, AND OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE CONSIDERATIONS, KEEPING OF CHICKENS WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE.
MANY COMMUNITIES SUCCESSFULLY ALLOW THESE USES AS ACCESSORY TO HOMES, INCLUDING A COMMUNITY WHERE I RESIDE.
MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH SOMEONE WHO MAINTAINS CHICKENS THREE HOMES FROM WHERE I LIVE IS THAT IT IS A QUIET, WELL KEPT, BARELY NOTICEABLE USE, WHICH I KNOW MY
[01:20:01]
NEIGHBORS ENJOY.THEREFORE, I PERSONALLY HAVE NO REASON TO OBJECT.
THE TOWN BOARD PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED A LOCAL LAW PERMITTING RETAIL RECREATIONAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES IN THE PD OR PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE TOWN.
THIS DISTRICT IS IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE TOWN, AND SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE LOCAL LAW, NO PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN MADE.
INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH USE ALONG ROUTE ONE 19, ROUTE NINE A AND THE CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDORS.
UPON REACHING OUT TO OTHER ADJACENT COMMUNITIES TO GET A SENSE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH APPROVED USES IN SIMILAR CORRIDORS TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY NUISANCE EXPERIENCES OR SAFETY CONCERNS, I DID REACH OUT AND I RECEIVED NO SUCH CONCERNS.
THESE USES ARE HEAVILY REGULATED, MEANING NO ONE UNDER THE AGE OF 21 ENTERS.
IN ADDITION, THE USES ARE REGULATED IN A WAY SO AS NOT TO BE DISTASTEFUL FROM AN AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE NOR MARKETED TO YOUTH.
FISCAL EXPERIENCE WAS SHARED WITH ME FROM ANOTHER COMMUNITY, AND THE EXAMPLE THERE WAS 15,000 OF LOCAL TAXATION IN A THREE MONTH PERIOD.
CHAPTER 2 85 INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF THE CA DISTRICT, THE DS DESIGN SHOPPING DISTRICT, THE CB CLOSED BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND IS PREVIOUSLY NOTED THE TR TERRYTOWN ROAD DISTRICT.
THE SAME COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS THAT THE TOWN PRESENTLY HAS FOR THE PD DISTRICT ARE PROPOSED FOR THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL DISTRICTS.
THE FOUR ADDITIONAL DISTRICTS ARE PREDOMINANTLY LOCATED ON ROUTE ONE 19 CENTRAL AVENUE AND SAWMILL RIVER ROAD.
MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE UPDATED THEIR PARKING STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT SITES ARE NOT OVER PARKED AS THE IMPACT OF EXCESSIVE UNUSED ASPHALT HAS A COST, WHETHER IT IS REDUCED AESTHETICS OR CONTRIBUTIONS OF ADDITIONAL STORMWATER RUNOFF.
SOME COMMUNITIES ARE ACTUALLY INTRODUCING OFF STREET PARKING MAXIMUMS TO PROTECT AGAINST THE POTENTIAL FOR OVER PARKING.
ALTERNATIVELY, REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS IS ANOTHER UPDATE A COMMUNITY CAN MAKE.
IN GENERAL, THE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 85 DO NOT PROPOSE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OF THIS NATURE.
HOWEVER, THE UPDATES DO PROVIDE THE TOWNS BOARDS WITH BETTER FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE POSITIVE IMPACT WHERE AND WHEN DEEMED APPROPRIATE.
I'LL START WITH LAND BANKING REFERS TO A PROCESS WHERE AN APPLICANT SHOWS ON A SITE PLAN, AN AREA WHERE IT CAN BUILD EXTRA PARKING TO BOTH MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO WHERE IT CAN ACTUALLY BE CONSTRUCTED IF NEEDED.
HOWEVER, THE INTENT IS NOT TO BUILD THE EXTRA PARKING AND PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING IN THE EVENT THAT THE REMAINING PARKING FUNCTIONS WELL WITHOUT THE EXTRA BUILT OUT SPACES.
THIS CONCEPT HAS OCCURRED IN THE TOWN AS IT HAS BEEN AFFECTED EITHER THROUGH A SHARED PARKING REDUCTION PROCESS OR THROUGH AREA VARIANCE PROCESSES.
HOWEVER, THE TERM LAND BANK PARKING WAS NOT DEFINED OR MENTIONED IN CHAPTER 2 85 UNTIL NOW, AS IT IS A PART OF THE DEFINITIONS AND UPDATED IN SECTION 2 85 38 ENTITLED OFF STREET PARKING.
THE UPDATE GIVES THE BOARDS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE LAND BANK PARKING SPACES WHILE HAVING THEM COUNT TOWARD THE TOTAL OVERALL COUNT.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, IN THE TOWN, SPACES APPROVED IN THIS MANNER ARE TYPICALLY NOT EVER BUILT AS THE PARKING HAS FUNCTIONED FINE AND THE RESULT HAS BEEN MORE GREEN SPACE AND LESS STRESS ON STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.
OTHER PARKING UPDATES ALSO INCLUDED IN THESE CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENTS, AND SPECIFICALLY IN CHAPTER 2 85 38, INCLUDE CLARIFICATION THAT QUEUED PARKING SPACES CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARKING UNIT COUNT, MAKING IT PERMISSIBLE TO PROPOSE COMPACT PARKING SPACES IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS BEYOND SOLELY THE OB OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT AND FOCUSING ON THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE MIXED USE CORRIDORS.
LASTLY, THE BOARDS WILL HAVE GREATER DISCRETION TO LOWER PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS WHERE MULTIMODAL TRANSIT OPTIONS EXIST, SUCH AS SIDEWALKS AND BUS STOPS.
THAT'S A COMPONENT OF THE OFF STREET PARKING SECTION OF THE CODE.
THE NEXT AREA OF FOCUS IS WITH RESPECT TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS OR EV STATIONS.
EV CHARGING STATIONS ARE NEEDED FOR MUNICIPAL FLEETS AS WELL AS FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC.
PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED HEREIN, EV STATIONS WERE NOT MENTIONED IN CHAPTER 2 85.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOWN HAS NOT APPROVED THESE USES.
THEY HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN NUMEROUS WAYS IN THE TOWN AS CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY USES, WHETHER AT ONE'S RESIDENCE FOR PERSONAL USE OR
[01:25:01]
AS A FEW SPACES WITHIN AN OFFICE BUILDING OR SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT.THE TOWN SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE, OR SEEC AS PART OF ITS EXCELLENT WORK RECOGNIZED THIS GAP IN THE CODE AND WORKED FOR OVER A YEAR WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF CDNC, DEPUTY AARON SCHMIDT AND CRAFTED A COMPREHENSIVE EV LOCAL LAW, WHICH IS INCORPORATED INTO THE CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENTS AS NEW SECTION 2 85, 37 0.3.
THIS SECTION MEMORIALIZES A SERIES OF BEST PRACTICES FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE RELATED TO FUTURE INSTALLATION OF EV STATIONS IN THE TOWN.
THE SECTION ALSO INSTITUTES LOGICAL THRESHOLDS FOR REQUIRING SITE PLAN OR SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL FOR LARGER GROUPINGS OF EV STATIONS WHILE FACILITATING AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR SMALLER SCALE INSTALLATIONS.
THE SECTION ALSO ADDRESSES A USE, WHICH HAS BEEN INQUIRED ABOUT IN THE TOWN THAT IS NOT PRESENTLY PERMITTED.
THERE IS A MARKET AND NEED FOR SMALL COMMERCIAL CHARGING SITES, WHICH HAVE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE CHARGING STATIONS AS THE PRIMARY USES, WHICH CAN HAVE AN ACCESSORY RETAIL COMPONENT ALMOST AKIN TO A GAS STATION WITH A SMALL CONVENIENCE COMPONENT, BUT IN PLACE OF GAS PUMPS, INDIVIDUAL FAST CHARGING LEVEL THREE CHARGERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
THIS USE IS DEFINED AS AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING HUB AND WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN APPLICABLE MIXED USE DISTRICTS IN THE TOWN.
THE OVERALL SECTION ADDRESSES AESTHETICS, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, SETBACKS, EQUIPMENT PROTECTION, AND OTHERS.
LASTLY, THE SECTION REQUIRES A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PARKING SPACES TO BE RETROFITTED TO HAVE EV STATIONS WHERE NONE EXIST.
THE NEWLY PROPOSED EV CHARGING SECTION IS HIGHLY CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT IS ADDRESSED IN CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENTS IS BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS OR BESS.
UNLIKE EV STATIONS, THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE DOES COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATE.
BES AS A LOCAL LAW WAS APPROVED IN 2021.
AS OF TODAY, THE TOWN HAS APPROVED AT LEAST FOUR COMMERCIAL BEST SYSTEMS, TWO OF WHICH ARE INSTALLED IN OFFICE PARKS AND TWO THAT ARE APPROVED IN COMMERCIAL SITES YET TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
MINOR INCREMENTAL UPDATES ARE NOW PROPOSED AND INCLUDE A SMALL INCREASE IN THE KILOWATT HOURS PERMITTED TO ACCOUNT FOR RECENT TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES.
SIMILARLY, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE CABINETS FOR BESS ARE INCREASED FROM 10 FEET TO 12 FEET AS THIS IS A MORE STANDARD HEIGHT.
AND LASTLY, TREE REPLACEMENT VALUES HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED TO ENSURE THAT NEW TREE REPLACEMENT IS MAX MAXIMIZED IN CONNECTIONS WITH THESE SITES.
BOTH THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ARE DISTRICTS THAT GIVE THE TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT ALTERNATE SITE LAYOUTS AND DIFFERENT MIXES OF USES TO BETTER CONSERVE OPEN SPACE AND PROVIDE FOR MORE VARIETY IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES.
SOME MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED HERE ARE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE CD OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEN REDUCING LOT SIZES TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS NOT TO BE INCREASED FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONING.
THE CD OVERLAY IS ALSO CLARIFIED TO NOTE THAT SETBACKS AND OTHER BULK REQUIREMENTS CAN BE REDUCED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE NATURAL FEATURES AS OPPOSED TO THE LIMITED SET OF REDUCTIONS PRESENTLY OFFERED FOR THE PUD OR PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
WE ALREADY NOTE THAT THE 10% WORKFORCE HOUSING MANDATE WAS INCORPORATED.
ADDITIONAL UPDATES INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT TO MEMORIALIZE USE AND LOT BULK REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE ENFORCED BY BOTH THE TOWN BOARD AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
HEIGHT MINIMUMS IN THE PUD DISTRICT ARE ALSO UPDATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT ALLOWANCES FOR SELF STORAGE USES IN THE LIMITED OFFICE BUILDING, OUR LOB DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE IB DISTRICTS.
THE USE IS PROPOSED TO BE A SPECIAL PERMIT USE WHERE PRESENTLY THE USE IS A PERMITTED USE.
THIS GIVES THE TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD MORE DISCRETION OVER THE SITING OF THESE PROPOSALS.
THE CA DISTRICT REFERENCED PRIOR IS A MAJOR TWO MILE MIXED USE CORRIDOR SPANNING THE HARTSDALE AND EDGEMONT PORTIONS OF THE TOWN.
MODIFICATIONS IN THIS DISTRICT INCLUDE UPDATING THE STATEMENT AND PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT TO REFLECT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, SUPPORTED
[01:30:01]
UPDATES, INCLUDING REFERENCES TO COMPLETE STREETS.COMPLETE STREETS IS A CONCEPT ALSO INTRODUCED INTO 2 85, AND IN THE DEFINITIONS TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF MULTIPLE MODES OF TRANSIT BEYOND JUST VEHICLES SUCH AS PEDESTRIAN BUS RIDER.
BICYCLING SAFETY IN THE CA DISTRICT DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS REPLACED THE FORMER QUICK SERVICE FAST FOOD DESIGNATION WITH A NOW PROPOSED 80,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM, WHERE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE EXISTED PRIOR.
VERY SPECIFIC RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF MIXED USE OFFICE COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, GIVING PROPERTY OWNERS GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO MARKET CONDITIONS.
THESE MODIFICATIONS ARE GENERALLY MIRRORED IN THE TERRYTOWN ROAD DISTRICT, WHICH WAS NOTED PRIOR IN THE CLOSED BUSINESS OR CB DISTRICT.
RESTAURANTS ARE NOW PROPOSED AS A SPECIAL PERMIT USE WHERE PRIOR THEY WERE DEEMED A PERMITTED USE, WHICH PROVIDES THE PLANNING BOARD MORE DISCRETION IN THE SITING AND LAYOUT OF THESE PROPOSALS.
THE CB DISTRICT DOES ALLOW LIMITED USE OF MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITH A RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN THE SAME BUILDING.
THE RELATED REGULATIONS IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED TO MANDATE THAT MIXED USE BUILDINGS OF THIS FORM SHALL NOT FRONT ADJACENT TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS.
THE TOWN OF GREENBURG IS A LEADER IN TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
WHETHER THE RESOURCE IS CONSIDERED TREES, STEEP SLOPES, WETLANDS OR WATER COURSES ROCK OUT CROPPINGS, AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO CHIPPING AND BLASTING, A SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED UPDATE TO CHAPTER 2 85.
IN THIS RESPECT IS THE INTRODUCTION OF A MECHANISM TO REGULATE STEEP SLOPE AND WETLAND WATERCOURSE BUFFER IMPACTS SPECIFICALLY ON MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS LOW FLOOR AREA ALLOWANCES FOR THESE USES.
THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED UPDATE IS SET UP TO LOWER THIS FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWANCE ON THESE SITES ONLY WHEN DISTURBANCES ARE PROPOSED WITHIN A STEEP SLOPE OR WETLAND RESOURCE, THE FORMULA PROPOSED IS THEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT WHICH EXISTS FOR ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THIS IS AN ADDED PROTECTION FOR THESE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES THAT DOES NOT PRESENTLY EXIST.
FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE, SEVERAL UPDATES ARE PROPOSED THAT ALIGN WITH UPDATES TO THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES, ALL WITH THE GOAL OF ENHANCING SAFETY.
THESE INCLUDE UPDATES TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS, AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
THESE UPDATES CAN BE FOUND IN SECTIONS 2 85 44 THROUGH 2 85 46.
FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE, CHAPTER 2 85 HAS BEEN UPDATED TO PERMIT A SECOND KITCHEN WITHIN HOUSING UNITS BY BUILDING PERMIT AFTER EXHIBITING COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE.
THIS UPDATE IS INTENDED TO BENEFIT FAMILIES THAT HAVE CONDUCIVE LIVING SPACES FOR A SECOND KITCHEN, BUT DOES NOT ENABLE A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH ARE DISTINCT USES WITH MORE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE.
AT PRESENT, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IS AN ONGOING LOCAL LAW THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS PRESENTLY REVIEWING.
CHAPTER 2 85 REVISIONS ALSO INCLUDE AN UPDATED DEFINITION OF FAMILY, WHICH IS INTENDED TO COMPLIMENT THE FORTHCOMING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCAL LAW.
BEFORE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRESENTATION, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DETAIL THE PROCESS OF THE CHAPTER 2 85 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.
FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT A WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR SUPPORT, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS OR OTHER RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY MANAGERS, BUSINESSES, CIVIC ASSOCIATION GROUPS, THE PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD, CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET CETERA.
ALL WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THESE SUCCESS OF THESE CHANGES FROM A FORMAL PERSPECTIVE BY CODE AND AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, THE TOWN BOARD MUST REFER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND INTERESTED IN INVOLVED AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT I PREVIOUSLY NOTED.
BEYOND THAT NOTIFICATION AND SOLICITATION FOR COMMENTS, THERE WILL BE A VERY DELIBERATE AND BROAD SET OF OUTREACH STRATEGY, WHICH INCLUDE TOWN STAFF ATTENDANCE AT PLANNING BOARD Z-B-A-C-A-C, HISTORIC BOARD MEETINGS, AND AT THOSE MEETINGS WE'LL PRESENT LISTEN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.
TOWN STAFF ATTENDANCE AT CIVIC ASSOCIATION MEETINGS WILL DO THE SAME THING.
THE PREPARATION OF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND OTHER SIMILAR, SIMILAR FEEDBACK LOOP STRATEGIES WILL ALSO BE EMPLOYED.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS FULL EXPECTATION THAT THE CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENTS
[01:35:01]
WILL IMPROVE BASED ON STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.WHILE STAFF HAVE WORKED AS HARD AS POSSIBLE TO BE COMPREHENSIVE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL LEAD TO IMPROVEMENTS.
THE TOWN BOARD AS IS SEEN IN OTHER PROCESSES, WILL BE PRESENTED WITH RESIDENT INPUT AND WE'LL HEAR RESIDENT INPUT DIRECTLY.
AND AS THE TOWN BOARD IS THE SOLE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER THE AMENDMENTS TOWN STAFF WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE TOWN BOARD TO BE AS RESPONSIVE AS POSSIBLE TO STAKEHOLDER INPUT.
THE CHANGES ARE NOT ENVISIONED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AS THE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK LOOP IS ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR OVER SEVERAL MONTHS WITH POTENTIAL ADOPTION NOT ANTICIPATED UNTIL THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2026 AT THE EARLIEST.
IN CONCLUSION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ULTIMATE ADOPTION OF THE CHAPTER 2 85 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS WILL NOT LEAD TO SWEEPING CHANGES IN THE TOWN, BUT WILL MORE LIKELY LEAD TO SMALLER INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT RESULT IN IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT.
ENHANCED SAFETY THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, MORE HOUSING OPTIONS AND A CONTINUATION OF THE TOWN IS A GREAT PLACE TO INVEST.
THE REASON THAT THERE ARE NOT MORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN VISION THROUGH THE CHAPTER 2 85 PROCESS IS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A POLICY GUIDE GENERALLY DID NOT CALL FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE TOWN.
IN MANY RE MANY RESPECTS, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFIRM THE LAND USE PATTERNS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS THAT EXIST AND THAT RESIDENTS ENJOY.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MORE SIGNIFICANT PLANNING UPDATES ARE NOT HAPPENING.
THE FOUR CORNERS MIXED USE INITIATIVE BEING ONE EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A SEPARATE AND ONGOING PROCESS THAT WAS BASED ON AND CONTINUES WITH MUCH COMMUNITY INPUT.
IT ALSO DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOWN IS NOT THINKING ABOUT OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING INITIATIVES SUCH AS HOW TO PLAN FOR THE EVOLVING NATURE OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THAT IN THE OB DISTRICT IN THE TOWN, OR THE ROUTE NINE A CORRIDOR SOUTH OF THE VILLAGE OF ARDSLEY IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AREA IN THE TOWN THAT CAN BE SUBJECT TO UPDATED PLANNING REVIEW AS SOME SIGNIFICANT VACANCIES EXIST.
THESE ARE GOOD DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL OCCUR WITH A SIMILAR GOAL OF MAKING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TOWN.
THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING TO THIS PRESENTATION, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE TOWN BOARD AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE, THOROUGH.
YEAH, I FELT LIKE I WAS IN FIFTH GRADE IN THE AUDITORIUM WATCHING ONE OF THOSE SCIENCE MOVIES.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? OF COURSE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S VERY, VERY DETAILED AND THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ASPECTS OF IT THAT I REALLY LIKE 'CAUSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M NOT, YOU KNOW? SURE.
WELL, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, UM, TO, UM, DO THINGS, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE.
COULD SOME OF THESE CHANGES BE APPROVED SEPARATELY? UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THINGS THAT EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, WOULD WANT, AND THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL AND WE MAY NOT WANT TO ADOPT IT, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ONE STROKE.
I MEAN, THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THE TOWN BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER IT FEELS IS MOST APPROPRIATE.
AND WE'LL HELP GUIDE YOU IF, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOME EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE CODE REALLY CALLS FOR IT TO BE LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, A SIX TO NINE MONTH PERIOD.
WE'LL BE RECEPTIVE TO THAT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT IN GENERAL.
MY INTUITION IS THAT IT'S BEST DONE AS A COLLECTIVE.
SEE, THAT'S WHERE, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.
WE'RE GONNA, WHEN WE HEAR FROM RESIDENTS, UH, I IMAGINE THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS YOU WANT TO GO IN A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
SO, BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT I REALLY THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS WAS AN OUR PRESENTATION, AND IT'S GONNA BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO DIGEST IT.
UM, AND TO BASICALLY REFLECT ON EVERYTHING.
I MEAN, TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEE, AND WE'RE, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AREN'T.
SO THIS PROBABLY WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAND USE MEETINGS OVER MONTHS.
SO YOU, THERE'S SOME PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHO HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAN OTHER.
DID YOU WANNA CLARIFY THAT? GARETH? BUT, BUT, BUT, NO, BUT, BUT ALL I, BUT ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK THAT WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM REFERRING IT TO THE, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, I HAVE NO PROBLEM, UM, YOU KNOW, TO, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVING, STARTING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS, UH, BREAK IT DOWN INTO BITE-SIZE, UM, ISSUES, UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIFIC ITEMS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO DO ONE THING, DISCUSS IT, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS, THEN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, ISSUE, HAVE DISCUSSIONS, PUBLIC INPUT, BECAUSE THEN WE WILL, THEN IT'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE RAMMED, UM, AND RUSHED, AND PEOPLE
[01:40:01]
WILL FEEL THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BASICALLY, UH, REALLY BEING THOROUGH IN OUR ANALYSIS.SO I WANNA THANK YOU AGAIN, GARRETT, UM, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
I KNOW YOU SPENT HOURS UPON HOURS.
I KNOW THIS WAS NOT AN EASY TASK.
UM, AND THE TEAM THAT YOU USED TO HELP YOU PUT THIS ALL TOGETHER, SO THANK YOU TO THEM AS WELL.
UM, I WANNA THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE PROCESS THAT YOU OUTLINED AS IT RELATES TO HOW THIS IS GONNA GO, AS IT RELATES TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND STUFF, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE WILL HEAR FROM RESIDENTS TO GET AN, AN IDEA WHERE EVERYONE'S FEELING ABOUT EVERYTHING.
THAT WAS EVERYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED.
UM, I THINK YOU AND I, I BELIEVE YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS OUTSIDE OF LAND USE MEETINGS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR, I BELIEVE WE SPOKE YESTERDAY WITH REGARDING THIS AND THAT AS WE PRESENT THAT WE WOULD DO CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, SO WELL NOT CHAPTER BY SECTION BY SECTION AS IT RELATES TO TOPIC TO MAKE IT EASIER SO EVERYONE IS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE CHANGES AND THE NEW ADDITIONS TO THIS CODE IS.
SO AGAIN, MY COMMENT IS JUST TO REALLY THANK YOU AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT THAT SCHEDULE'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
UM, SO EVERYONE CAN COME IN AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S AWARE OF THE DIFFERENT TOPICS THAT'S GONNA BE DISCUSSED.
GINA, WAS THIS EVER DISCUSSED AT LAND USE MEETINGS? IT WAS NOT, NEVER NOTHING.
WE TALKED, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE DONE.
SO I JUST, SO LET'S JUST BE VERY CLEAR, PAUL, 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE OBSESSED WITH THIS LAND USE GROUP, OBSESSED WITH, BECAUSE YOU WANT ATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS.
IT IS NOT INTENT, IT'S NOT ATTEMPT, IT'S NOT, IT IS NOT, IT IS A LIE.
IT IS NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT IT.
SO LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU, LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU, PAUL.
AGAIN, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT, IT'S A LIE'S.
SO, GARRETT, COMMISSIONER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION, LIZ GARRITY, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR, AMANDA, AMANDA MAGANA, DE FIRST DEPUTY, DEPUTY FIRST DEPUTY OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND MY SET, MYSELF SAT NOT LAND USE MEETING AND WENT TEDIOUSLY THROUGH THE CODE, TEDIOUSLY THROUGH THE CODE.
THAT WAS NOT THE LAND USE MEETING.
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS TOWN BOARD DO A LOT OF WORK TO KEEP THIS TOWN GOING.
THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SO LONG IS TROUBLING.
AND TO THINK THAT, OH, THIS, YOU CAN'T DO THIS KIND OF STUFF AT A LAND USE MEETING WITH SO MANY PEOPLE.
SO YOU GET SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED, WHO KNOW THE CODE, AND YOU SIT DOWN AND YOU WORK THROUGH THINGS.
I THINK WHEN YOU HEAR, HEARD THE PRESENTATION, WHICH WAS EXCELLENTLY DONE AND PUT TOGETHER, AND WAS IT TERRANCE WHO DID IT? OR SAM.
UM, TERRANCE, PRIMARILY TO SAM AS WELL.
AND TO SAY, LET'S TAKE THIS PIECE OUT.
IT'S LIKE SAYING, LOOK AT THIS BEAUTIFUL QUILT, BUT WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS SECTION OUT.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS BEAUTIFUL, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE CONTROVERSY OVER SOME OF THE THINGS IN HERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MOSAIC WHERE WE'RE LOOKING COMPREHENSIVELY AT THE TOWN UNINCORPORATED AREA.
AND TO IMMEDIATELY SAY, LET'S PICK OUT WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE PICKED OUT.
WELL, OKAY, THEN WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE UR DISTRICT? DO WE LEAVE THAT UNTIL WE DO SOMETHING ELSE? AND I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE INTELLIGENT RESIDENTS THAT MAYBE THE, THE WORK SESSIONS OR THE OUTREACH MEETINGS CAN PICK SECTIONS OF THIS AT A TIME.
DOESN'T HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIT THEM WITH THE WHOLE PRESENTATION, BUT MAYBE YOU DO WANT TO, AT LEAST THE FIRST TIME, THIS IS GONNA TAKE A WHILE.
THERE'S NO DOUBT THIS IS GONNA TAKE A WHILE.
BUT TO HEAR THAT AND SAY, WELL, CAN WE JUST DO, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT AS TO THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF WHAT HE'S ASKING.
I I HAVE A QUESTION OR STATEMENT.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATED GARRETT AND I, I THINK WE SPENT TWO HOURS ON A ZOOM GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
IT WAS ALL VERY, YOU KNOW, VERY INTRICATE.
SO DID YOU HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AS WELL? DID YOU I'VE SPOKEN TO GARRETT.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON WHO'S WATCHING THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS OVERWHELMING INFORMATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOWN.
THEY ALREADY SAID, I THINK GINA ALREADY SAID, WAIT, NO, NO, NO, NO.
GINA ALREADY SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO IT IN, IN CHAPTERS, IN TOPICS.
AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, UM, WHEN WE FINALLY ADOPT SOMETHING, I, I, I THINK
[01:45:01]
WE SHOULD BE ADOPT.I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS A, A WHOLE.
UM, I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT EACH ASPECT AND THE THINGS THAT WE, LIKE, WE COULD ADOPT SOONER THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, NOT ABOUT WHAT WE LIKE, IT'S ABOUT WHAT RESIDENTS WE COME BACK AS EXAMPLE WE ABOUT.
I DON'T WANNA THINK THE TOWN MAKING THAT DECISION.
THESE STATIONS, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH EVERYBODY BASICALLY LIKES.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.
I REMEMBER WHEN ERIC ZINGER TALKED ABOUT, OH, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S EXCELLENT.
SO I FEEL THAT IF WE COULD DO, UM, THREE TIMES THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, WE COULD GET THAT ON THE BOOKS THREE TIMES SOONER, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GONNA BE AS MUCH, YOU KNOW, CONTROVERSY OVER IT.
IF WE, IF THERE'S THINGS IN TERMS OF SUSTAINABILITY OR, UH, YOU KNOW, GREEN INITIATIVES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE PROBABLY COULD ADOPT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, VERY SOON.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY TURN OUT THAT, UM, UH, IF WE DO IT THAT WAY, WE COULD START, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE VARIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THERE'LL BE PUBLIC FOCUS, PUBLIC WILL FAIL THAT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE THAT THERE.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF INPUT, A LOT OF PARTICIPATION.
AND, UH, THEN THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL THINGS WILL TAKE A LITTLE, UH, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE LONGER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FOREVER PROCESS.
I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER, ANYONE BOARD MEMBER HAS, SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS THAN USED FROM ANYBODY ELSE.
IF I MAY, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M AS AN EQUAL.
AND EVERY ONE OF US ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
NOBODY HAS MORE POWER OR LESS POWER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.
NO ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING WITH THAT.
IT WAS THAT COMMENT FORUM SAID WASTED LAND USE.
WASN'T, WELL, YOU JUST SAID YOU, YOU'VE BEEN KNOW.
NO, THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THE CHAPTER TO UPDATE THE CHAPTER.
BUT IT'S OKAY IF I MAY, IF, BECAUSE I I HAVE NOT THAT WE CONTINUE TO SAY I, FIRST OF ALL, UM, FIRST OF ALL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO, UH, COUNCILMAN, SHE, AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE A JOKE.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE WHEN I, OKAY.
SECOND OF ALL, GARRETT, THANK YOU.
THAT WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND COGENT PRESENTATION.
IT WAS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND VERY CLEAR.
AND I THANK TERENCE AND SAM FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DID TO HELP THAT PRESENTATION.
SECOND OF ALL, I BELIEVE THAT GARRETT WAS VERY THOROUGH, AND HE SPENT TIME WITH EACH ONE OF US, INCLUDING YOU, I WOULD IMAGINE.
UM, HE MADE A PRESENTATION TO EACH ONE OF US SEPARATELY, AND THAT WAS NOT A LAND USE MEETING.
I HAVEN'T BEEN TO A LAND USE MEETING BECAUSE, WELL, YOU KNOW WHY.
SO I THINK THAT TO FIRST OF ALL, CAST DISPERSIONS AND ACCUSATIONS AND, AND TRY TO CHANGE THE, THE DIRECTION OF THIS, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE, AND IT'S, IT'S AN OVERHAUL, WHICH TO ME TO WILL BE PRESENTED IN A, IN, IN, AS, AS GARRETT SAID, TO EACH USE GROUP, WHETHER IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AFFECTED, THE BOARDS AND, AND, AND, UM, THE, THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE AN INTEGRAL PARDON, HE CLEARLY EXPLAIN, EXPLAINED THAT.
SO I THINK TO START PICKING IT APART EVEN FURTHER AND TO TRY TO BREAK IT UP CREATES A REAL ISSUE.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT GARRETT HAS SHOWN HOW SMART HE IS AND, AND CLEAR HE IS AND DIRECTED HE IS.
I REALLY DON'T QUESTION THAT AT ALL.
WELL, UH, UH, ELLEN, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS, WE KNOW THAT IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET ANYTHING APPROVED.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE A DU LEGISLATION FOR LIKE A YEAR, AND SO FAR WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN A CONSENSUS.
SO WHAT I'M THINKING, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THERE'S ASPECTS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT I THINK ARE EXCELLENT, THAT ARE NOT GONNA BE CONTROVERSIAL.
AND I THINK WE COULD APPROVED, UH, RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
NO, WE NEED TO HAVE THE, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS.
NO, NO, BUT NO, I'M SAYING RIGHT.
BUT I'M SAYING IF WE BROKE, IF WE BROKE IT DOWN, THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE TO YOUR PROCESS.
WHY DON'T YOU, WHY DON'T WE, WHY DON'T, THAT'S THE PROCESS.
I THINK WE'RE ALL, I THINK, SO WHY DON'T WE DO THIS BECAUSE AN INTEREST OF TIME, AND THANK YOU AGAIN.
I THINK EVERYONE HAS THANKED YOU 80 TIMES, BUT IT'S WELL DESERVED.
BUT I THINK NOW, I THINK, WHY DON'T YOU COME BACK WITH US AND IT'S AN EMAIL OF YOUR PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
YOU OUTLINED ON THE, YOU OUTLINED ON THE SCREEN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE MEETING WITH SPECIFIC, UM, SPECIFIC GROUPS, DIFFERENT TOWN STAFF AND EVERYTHING.
IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US AN OUTLINE TO SAY, TOWN BOARD, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE AND EVERYBODY WEIGHS IN ON IT.
[01:50:01]
ASK A QUESTION.COULD, UH, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO LIKE POST LIKE SOMETHING IN WRITING, UH, THAT WE COULD PUT ON THE WEBSITE AND THEN START, SO THIS WAY THE COMMUNITY BASICALLY KNOWS EXACTLY, UM, THE HIGHLIGHTS, YOU KNOW, LIKE DO LIKE A SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS OF, UM, OF EVERYTHING.
THIS VIDEO RIGHT HERE IS 44 MINUTES OF THAT.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ONCE THE TOWN BOARD, WE HAVE, THERE'S A RESOLUTION TOMORROW, I BELIEVE IT'S CD ONE, RIGHT? UH, THAT IS TO DECLARE LEAD AGENCY INTENT AND THEN REFER NOT ONLY TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT TO REFER TO ALL INTERESTED AND INVOLVED AGENCY ZONING BOARD CAC.
UM, SO THERE WILL BE A VERY DELIBERATE ROLLOUT STRATEGY THAT WILL INCLUDE E-BLAST.
I WANNA WORK WITH YOU ON A GREAT E-BLAST.
IT WILL INCLUDE A LINK TO THIS VIDEO.
IT'S GONNA INCLUDE LINKS TO THE DOCUMENTS.
UH, IT'S GONNA HAVE THE HIGHLIGHTS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE, UM, WHAT THOSE HIGHLIGHTS ARE IN EACH CHAPTER.
AND AS I MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO, WE'RE GONNA MEET WITH CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS.
I'LL GO TO CGCA MEETINGS AND UH, I WILL, I HAVE TO MEET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AGAIN ON ROUTE ONE 19.
WHAT I MENTIONED THERE WAS JUST A START, YOU KNOW, BUT, SO THERE'S GONNA BE A VERY DELIBERATE AND BROAD OUTREACH STRATEGY.
AND TO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT, UM, PULLING THINGS OUT.
I MEAN, I I, I'M GONNA BE VERY TRY AND BE AS PERCEPTIVE AS POSSIBLE TO SEE WHERE I'M SENSING RED FLAGS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND AT I'M, YOU CAN'T HIDE RED FLAGS OUR COMMUNITY.
THEY COME OUT AND THEY, THEY'LL, THEY'LL LET YOU KNOW HOW THEY FEEL, BUT I'LL BE LISTENING AND I WANNA BE AWARE OF THAT.
AND IF MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING IN HERE THAT, RIGHT.
SOME THAT NEEDS TO ABSOLUTELY COME OUT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
UM, BUT TO THE GOAL IS DEFINITELY GENERAL PROCESS.
THIS IS ORGANIC PROCESS AS PRESENT IT AND HE GETS FEEDBACK THAT WILL, THAT WILL GUIDE US.
YOU KNOW, I INDICATED, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEM REFERRING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO START THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S GOOD.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT, UM, IF WE REALLY WANT TO GET SOMETHING ACCOMPLISHED THAT WE'RE BETTER OFF, UH, DOING IT, YOU KNOW, BREAKING IT DOWN, UM, AND NOT DOING IT AS A ENTIRE DOCUMENT, BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE OVERWHELMING FOR PEOPLE TO, UH, ALREADY SAID THAT A REVIEW.
SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE WAY I'M PROBABLY GONNA KEEP PUSHING.
BUT I'M SORRY, BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET, WE NEED TO DO THE AGENDA REVIEW.
VERY QUICKLY BEFORE YOU GO, WE'RE HOLDING OVER, UH, THE HEARING, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SALE.
EIGHTH, I BELIEVE IS THE DATE.
NOW WITH THE, WE HAD ASKED, UM, WE HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE A MEETING WITH, UH, MR. APRIL WITH THE BUILDING.
GARRETT RESPONDED ABOUT THAT ALREADY.
NO, I'M JUST SAYING, UH, THAT MR. MURDO, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVES
NOBODY WANTS TO SACRIFICE SAFETY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, I THINK THAT IF WE HAD THE MEETING IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING, WE COULD COME UP WITH A SCHEDULE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, FINALIZE THIS.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THE BUSINESS.
THERE'S NOTHING, WE DON'T NEED TO DEBATE IT.
SO WE DO HAVE THAT MEETING PRESET ALREADY.
FOR WHAT DAY? THE 18TH? IT'S A WEEK FROM MARCH 18.
SO JUST TO THE TOWN, TOWN BOARD, UM, LIAISON REPORTS.
OH, ARE WE STARTING THE AGENDA REVIEW? I THOUGHT WE, I THOUGHT THAT'S THE PART THAT WE WAS IN.
'CAUSE WE MENTIONED THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I WAS JUST THANK, CURIOUS.
WELL JUST GONNA LET, I'LL STICK AROUND IN CASE THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, RELATING TO TB ONE, RELATING TO VINCE TOY.
JUST GO FROM THE, IF WE CAN JUST GO FROM THE, FROM THE START, FROM START, FROM THE TOP, AND THEN WE CAN JUST GO DOWN.
SO, UM, THE FIRST THING I SEE IS MAYBE WE NEED MORE DETAIL FOR THE, UM, MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR, UM, YEAH, I HAVE THAT.
YOU GIVE THAT, YOU'LL DO THAT.
THIS WAS THE PERSON, PAUL, THAT YOU HAD SCHEDULED, RESCHEDULED.
WE DIDN'T DO IT LAST TIME, DID WE? NO, WE DID.
DID WE? NO, BECAUSE WE HAD, I DIDN'T TENURE BOARD.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS, NO, THAT WAS THE BEFORE.
REMEMBER WE HAD, WE HAD THE, UM, HISTORY MONTH.
WE HAD THE BACK HISTORY MONTH PROGRAM.
LIAISON REPORTS, YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
[01:55:01]
UH, AND THEN LISA, TOWN CLERK.SO WE, SO WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE.
I REALLY THINK THIS WAS REALLY HELPFUL LAST TIME.
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT AFTER THE MEETING, BUT THE TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, LIGHTNING ROUND I THINK WORKS REALLY WELL.
AS YOU KNOW, UH, RESIDENTS HAVE SPOKE, UM, A LOT WITH REGARDS TO NOT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK BEFORE A LONG MEETING AND HAVING TO STAY AROUND FOR A LONG MEETING.
SO I REALLY THINK THAT THIS TWO MINUTE, UM, LIGHTNING ROUND REALLY WORKS WELL.
AND, AND JUST TO FURTHER EXPLAIN IT, IF YOU'VE DECIDED TO SPEAK IN THE TWO MINUTE ROUND TO GET THROUGH AND OUT OF HERE EARLY, WE RESPECT THAT.
UM, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN COME BACK AND TALK FOR FIVE MINUTES OR EVEN THREE MINUTES DURING THE NEXT ROUND.
PLEASE CHOOSE ONE, ADD TO FIVE MINUTES.
THERE'S ONLY ONE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ONE PUBLIC COMMENT PER PERSON, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO NOW IT SAYS EITHER PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN IT SAYS, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT TWO MINUTES AND THEN IT SAYS PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A SUBJECT FOR, UM, PUBLIC HEARING.
'CAUSE THAT WAS ALSO WHEN WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE.
SO NOW YOU CAN PUT DOWN WHICH ONE YOU'RE SPEAKING AT.
SO NOW, SO NOW YOU WOULD KNOW WHICH SUBJECT WITH THE COLUMN UP FOR EACH ONE.
SO REGARDING THE TOWN CLERKS, UM, ANNOUNCEMENTS MM-HMM
UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THEM LISTED, YOU KNOW? OH, OKAY.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THIS, DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY.
THAT WE JUST DO GREENBERG ORIENTED ANNOUNCEMENTS, LIKE THE COMMUNITY, NOT THE, LIKE, THERE'S SO MANY EVENTS GOING ON EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST STICK TO, I DON'T KNOW, HOWEVER IT FEELS.
NO, THEY SHOULD BE, THEY SHOULD BE RELATIVE TO TOWN OF GREENBURG.
TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG INCORPORATED.
AND NO COUNT GREENBURG, THE WHOLE TOWN.
MORE THAN THE GREEN, RIGHT? RIGHT.
Y KNOW WHAT EIGHT HIT IS, RIGHT? HUH? EIGHT HIT NO.
ELMSFORD, HASTINGS IRVINGTON, TERRYTOWN.
I WANNA KNOW IF, UM, THERE'S BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS RELATING TO, UH, THE ETHICS COMPLAINT RELATING TO, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN BOARD? YES, I HAVE.
BECAUSE THERE WAS A MOTION FOR RE ARGUMENT FROM THE COMPLAINANTS AND A LONG LIST OF CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH NEEDED TO BE REPLIED TO.
SO HOW MUCH WAS THAT? I CAN GET YOU TO TOTAL.
'CAUSE I, I THINK IT'S A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BUDGETS AND NOW IT'S $350,000 AND YOU SAID IT WAS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR, UM, AN ETHICS, YOU KNOW, COMPLAINT.
THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE A, AN OUTSIDE LAWYER, UH, DO THIS WHEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IF THEY FEEL THAT, UH, THERE'S AN ISSUE, THEY COULD SPEAK, UH, BEFORE THE ETHICS BOARD OR, OR, YOU KNOW, WE DWELL ON MY IS NOT US, IS WHY DON'T YOU TELL YOUR PEOPLE THAT THERE'S NO BASIS FOR ASKING FOR A RECON? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S FIRST OF ALL, EVERY CITIZEN WHO FILES A COMPLAINT COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
I DON'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, DIDN'T NOT TELL US.
BUT DIDN'T YOU BLAME US FOR THE MONEY? BUT IT'S NOT, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT OUR FAULT.
THEY WOULD NOT DO, I, I, FIRST OF ALL, THEY, I NEVER TELL PEOPLE, UH, CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
BUT I BASICALLY FEEL, BUT FRIVOLOUS.
BUT I BASICALLY, I BASICALLY BELIEVE THAT SPENDING 300, $350,000, PAUL, PLEASE DON'T ACT LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW THE BASIS OF IT.
PLEASE DO NOT ACT LIKE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASIS.
AND, AND, AND, AND THE TOWN AND THE TOWN ATTORNEY HAS EXPLAINED TO YOU, 350 IS A WASTE OF MONEY.
I THINK THAT, WELL, PARTS OF IT, THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY.
IT SAYS OVER HERE, THREE 50,000 TOTAL.
SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE WASTE OF MONEY? THE, THERE, THERE THE ONE, THE FACT THAT WE HIRED, UH, VINCE TOOMEY TO REPRESENT TOWN BOARD, UH, MEMBERS ON AN ETHICS CASE WHEN, WHEN BASICALLY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS COULD HAVE GONE TO THE ETHICS BOARD AND COMMENTED ON THEIR OWN, UH, THEY PROBABLY WOULD'VE GOTTEN THE, THEY MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME RESULTS.
AND I THINK WE WOULD'VE SAY JUST SOME CLARITY TO ATTORNEY.
IS THAT THE PROCESS, PLEASE? WELL, I, I THINK THIS IS TO ATTORNEY HEARD THE, TYPICALLY PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
UM, AND, AND I BELIEVE IN THE LAST YEAR YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL THREE TIMES.
WERE YOU NOT? THREE TIMES BEFORE THE ETHICS BOARD.
SO IT'S WHY DIDN'T YOU I DID NOT HAVE ANY OUTSIDE.
I NEVER ASKED ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY.
[02:00:01]
ME.THE TOWN ATTORNEY HAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE YOUR PEOPLE SAID WE MAY CALL HIM AS AN DON, AS YOUR, THE TOWN ATTORNEY MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE COUNSEL.
WE WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH HAVING THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
I WAS ALSO A, A PARTY TO THE ACTION AT TIME.
AND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF THAT'S RIGHT.
IT MADE HIM A PARTY TO THE ACTION SO THAT WE COULDN'T USE HIM.
BUT IT COST TAXPAYERS MONEY OVER HUNDRED THOUSAND.
AND BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE THE SAME SITUATION AND YOU CHOSE TO USE THE TOWN ATTORNEY THREE TIMES BEFORE THE ETHICS BOARD, RATHER THAN GOING TO YOURSELF UNREPRESENTED, AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM.
YOU WOULD'VE LOVED WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION.
THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ANY, ANY, THAT WAS TB ONE.
UM, WHEN WE HELD IT, WHEN I HELD IT OVER, WE WERE GONNA HAVE, UH, A HIGH LINK TECHNOLOGY GROUP AT, AT THE MEETING, UH, DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA PUT, PUT THAT ON, GAVE AN EXTREMELY DETAILED, I WANNA, I WANNA HAVE THAT.
NO, I WANNA HAVE THE, I I AM ASKING THAT, UH, THE HIGH LINK TECHNOLOGY GROUP, UM, UH, UM, HAVE A CHANCE TO, UM, YOU CHANGED, YOUR MIND CHANGED.
I'VE ASKED, I YESTERDAY YOU, YOU SORT OF RESCINDED THAT WHEN WE, WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT, HAVE DETAILED THE, THE REPORT.
DID YOU COMMENT THAT THAT WAS EXCELLENT? NO, BUT I'M, I'M, I JUST THINK THAT FOR ON THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THEM FOR 15 MINUTES.
UH, WE COULD DO IT TONIGHT IF THEY, SO WE'RE GONNA PAY THEM TONIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA PAY THEM TO COME IN.
HOW ARE WE GONNA GET THEM TO COME? NO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T AUTHORIZED IT.
THEY'RE, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE PEOPLE WE ARE OVER A HALF HOUR BEHIND, BEHIND SCHEDULE.
SO YOU POINT ME IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN VOTE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, UH, THAT WE SAW, PLEASE? THERE WERE SOME, YEAH, I HAVE, UM, OH, PAUL, DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO TB THREE? IT'S UP TO $400,000.
NO, I DON'T HAVE A SO THAT'S OUTSIDE COUNCIL, RIGHT? WELL, YEAH, THAT'S TO SAVE THE TOWN.
UM, BECAUSE IF FAIRMONT INCORPORATES IT'S GOING TO, UH, BE DEVASTATING TO, UH, THE TOWN.
IT'S OUTSIDE COUNCIL, RIGHT? IT'S OUTSIDE.
YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M, WELL THE, THE POINT BEING MADE THAT, BUT YOU KEEP MAKING A COMMENT ABOUT OUTSIDE THE USE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.
IS IT JUST, IS IT WE PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH ONES YOU PICK AND CHOOSE.
DON'T WANNA UTILIZE OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON, OKAY.
WITH CL TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, THOSE HEARINGS, UM, THAT'S THE SAME NIGHT.
DON'T WE HAVE, DON'T WE HAVE, UM, OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH THING ON THE FOLLOWING? ON THE FOLLOWING BOARD MEETING THE 25TH? WELL, WE WOULD START, WE WOULD START HOUR.
WE'LL START, WE WOULD START OUT AN HOUR EARLIER BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT'S A PROGRAM, RATHER.
C3, I COULD SAY IS VERY TIME SENSITIVE IF POSSIBLE.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT FORMALLY SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE BY THE TAXABLE STATUS DATE, WHICH IS MAY 1ST.
SO THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GARRETT.
ARE WE STILL HAVING THE A DU, UM, HEARING ON THE 25TH? I THOUGHT THAT WAS MOVED.
SO THAT'S A LOT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS IS ALL I'M SAYING.
AND I, AND I REALLY, YOU KNOW, I I THINK WITH THE ZONING CHANGES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT, YOU KNOW, HEARING WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT COULD, UM, COULD HAVE SOME IMPACT PERHAPS ON ADUS.
THAT'S GONNA BE A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS.
WE'RE NOT, I, I, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
THE VERY LENGTHY PROCESS OF THE COACHING, THAT'LL BE STILL READING
AND I WOULD SAY I THINK 2 85, IT'S REALLY SYNTHESIZED DOWN TO A FEW REMAINING ISSUES.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GONNA BE A LENGTHY PUBLIC HEARING.
NO, I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT THAT WHOLE PROCESS TO HOLD UP.
UM, SO DO WE WANT DO THE, THE, THE ONES THAT ARE TIME SENSITIVE FOR CL TWO, THREE, AND FOUR? WE HAVE TO, ALL OF THEM ARE TIME SENSITIVE.
JOE, I WAS REFERRING TO CL THREE.
I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE SENSITIVITY OF CL TWO AND CL FOUR.
I MEAN, BASED ON WHO WE'VE HAD COME IN FOR THOSE KINDS OF HEARINGS, IT COULD BE VERY LONG.
WELL, THE FIRE, THE, THE, THE, UM, AGREEMENTS FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES GENERALLY DON'T TAKE A LONG TIME.
CL THREE IS THE ONE THAT'S GONNA TAKE A LONG TIME.
WE HAVE TO, SO I BELIEVE THAT THE INTERESTED
[02:05:01]
PARTIES INVOLVED WOULD ALSO LIKE IT TO REMAIN ON, TO GET THAT THOSE, UH, REQUESTED.YEAH, THAT DEFINITELY HAS TO BE.
AND I DON'T SEE CL TWO BEING PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THOSE USUALLY QUICK.
UH, SO IT'S PRESET FOR THE 25TH.
IS THE LAND USE COMMITTEE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THE A DU? BECAUSE NO, PAUL, NOT, WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WE DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA GOING INTO THE LAND USE MEETING.
NO, I'M THEN ASKING THAT BE THAT NO DISCUSSIONS BE HELD, BE HELD ON THE A DU BECAUSE THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.
AND I THINK THAT THAT, AND NO ONE'S HOLDING, HAVING DISCUSSIONS ON, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANY DISCUSSIONS OF ADU POLICY, DECISION MADE MEMBERS.
THERE'S EVERYONE WHO'S LISTENING TO THE TOWN, TO THE TOWN SUPERVISOR.
THERE IS NO POLICY, THERE ARE NO POLICIES MADE AT LAND USE MEETING.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS TO TALK AND TO FIGURE OUT THINGS THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A, A FRUITFUL CONVERSATION.
FURTHER, THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN LAND USE AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.
THESE LAND USE MEETINGS, WHICH ARE JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEES MEETING TO COORDINATE STAFF, STAFF, STAFF, STAFF STAFF, EXCUSE ME, STAFF TO COORDINATE AND MAKE SURE THAT THINGS GET DONE SMOOTHLY FOR THE TOWN.
THEY HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE BUDGET AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.
WELL, BASICALLY IT'S A VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW.
ARE WE GOING NOT, WE'RE NOT PAUL, GET A DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN ISSUE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WORKING WELL, IT IS WORKING BECAUSE BASICALLY, UH, IT NOT WORKING BECAUSE EVERYBODY OKAY, ELLEN.
ELLEN, I, THERE'S NO REASON TWO.
THERE'S REASON WHY, UM, HOW MANY, HOW MANY VEHICLES? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
PO TWO, I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO, TO SEE WHAT THE PO TWO WAS.
IT'S ABOUT THE DI DODGE DURANGO DURANGO THAT THERE, HOW MANY? RIGHT.
I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WAS DOING AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE VEHICLES BECAUSE DURING THE STORM THERE WERE AN AWFUL LOT OF POLICE VEHICLES THAT WERE SNOWED IN AND NOT MOVED FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION.
DID WE REALLY NEED THEM? I MEAN, I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE NOW KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FUN BALANCE.
AND SO THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE TO KEEP BUYING MORE? AND IF SO, WHY? AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? HOW MANY HAVE INSURANCE? HOW MANY DON'T HAVE INSURANCE? HOW MANY ARE READY FOR AUCTION? UM, SO WHO I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THAT.
AS THE LIAISON TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND THEN PW ONE, UM, I WAS JUST, UM, AND THIS IS MY OWN IGNORANCE.
DOES THIS RELATE TO THE, UM, THE CORRECTIVE PLAN FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT, WHICH WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS'S THE ONE THAT THEY SENT US, WHICH YEAH, WHAT SENT US, WHEN I THINK WE EVEN ADDED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT.
THAT'S, AND IT'S ON DECISION PAGE TWO.
UM, THAT, THAT NO, NOT ABOUT THE CORRECTIVE PLAN FOR THE, IT IT'S NOT THE FULL CORRECTIVE PLAN.
IT'S THE WATER RATES MOVING FORWARD.
BUT IT DOESN'T DETAIL ALL OF WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN THE CORRECTIVE PLAN.
THIS WAS A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WOULD'VE OCCURRED EVEN WITHOUT A FORENSIC REPORT COMING OUT.
SO DO WE HAVE TO REVIEW THE CORRECTIVE PLAN BEFORE WE HAVE THIS HEARING? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE I THINK THE WATER DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE INFORMED US OF THAT.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT'S ALMOST LIKE WHAT WE HAD TO DO WITH THE 10% MM-HMM
THIS GETS US KICKSTARTED SO WE DON'T GET DEEPER IN THE HOLE.
UM, IF, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ABOUT.
BUT FOR THE CORRECTIVE PLAN, I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THAT CORRECTIVE PLAN.
IF WHOEVER HAS IT COULD SEND IT AROUND.
ARE THEY CONSIDERING THE COLLECT, UM, THE CORRECTIVE PLAN? THE CHART WITH THE FIVE YEARS OUT? 'CAUSE I REMEMBER I ASKED WOULD IT BE HIGHER, WOULD IT BE LOWER IF WE WOULD'VE DONE IT BEFORE? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR YOU.
YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THAT.
AND DIDN'T THEY SEND THAT TO US? THEY DID.
WELL, THEY PROJECTED IT FOR, I HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT, BUT I, I RECALL THEM SENDING, I DON'T THINK IT, I I THINK THEY TALKED ABOUT SENDING, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ACTUALLY SENT IT.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
ONE WAS FROM REF TEIS WHO GAVE THEIR PRESENTATION DURING RIGHT.
THAT'S IN REGARDS TO THE FIVE YEAR RATE PLAN UPDATE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO APPROVE TOMORROW NIGHT.
AND THEN THERE'S, I LIKELY, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE A SEPARATE CORRECTIVE PLAN FROM THE FORENSIC FOR THE ITEMS ADDRESSED IN THE FORENSIC REPORT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR BOTH BEFORE WE DO THIS TOMORROW NIGHT IS MY QUESTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE SO BECAUSE ALL THIS DOES IS GETS US TO THE RATE A RATE THAT IS MORE REASONABLE THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW.
SO THAT BY THE TIME WE APPROVE A CORRECTIVE PLAN, OKAY.
[02:10:01]
YOU.AND THE RECORD IS CLOSED ON THAT.
SO I BELIEVE THE WATER DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE SENT THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IF IT WAS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION.
AND CO ONE AND CO2 IS NOT AN ERROR.
THEY'RE IDENTICAL EXCEPT ONE IS THE CO ONE THAT THE SUPERVISOR HELD OVER AND THE OTHER IS THE OTHER ONE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ON.
UM, SO THEY DIDN'T MERGE THEM.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT ONE IS THE HELD OVER RESOLUTION, UM, THAT IT HANDLED INSURANCE AND, AND, UH, SOME SALARY ISSUES.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE ONE THAT WOULD'VE NORMALLY BEEN ON.
SO WE DON'T WANNA HAVE ANY MORE DETAIL THAT DISTINGUISHES ONE FROM THE OTHER.
WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ATTACHMENT, IT'LL SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENT CHANGES.
I JUST MEAN FOR THE PUBLIC OR SOMETHING.
DELVE INTO MAYBE IN CO ONE HELD OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
IT'S JUST, IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A WHAT
WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE A, YEAH, A DUPLICATION.
UM, GINA, WOULD YOU MIND ASKING WHICH TO FORWARD THE, THE WATER IN CASE OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS? IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS LAST, LAST MEETING.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE, I KNOW THAT'S WHY PAYING TOO MUCH MONEY, UH, AND GIVING PEOPLE TOO MANY SALARY INCREASES.
AND RIGHT NOW WE, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THE, UH, HEALTHCARE BUYOUTS.
IT'S CALLED THREE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE GETTING, UH, ARE GETTING $20,000 EACH ON TOP OF YOU SALARY.
WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, IT'S CHEAPER THAN ACTUALLY TAKING THE HEALTHCARE'S.
A AND YOU ARE CHARGING THE, THE TAXPAYERS, YOU SHOULD NOT BE TAKING, EXCUSE ME, PUBLIC SERVICE.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE, OF COURSE YOU'RE HAVING THE TAXPAYERS PAY $20,000 MORE THAN THEY HAVE TO FOR YOUR INSURANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE, AND, AND YOU BASICALLY, YOU HAVE ANOTHER INSURANCE, HEALTH INSURANCE IF YOU'RE GETTING TWO.
I YOU DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
YOU'RE ENTITLED TO NOT IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE TO BUY BECAUSE SHOULDN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
AND THAT THE TOWN BOARD, EACH MEMBER OF THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD VOLUNTARILY AGREE NOT TO ACCEPT THE $20,000 HEALTHCARE BUYOUT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TAKING WELL, YOU VOLUNTARILY, VOLUNTARILY AGREE NOT TO TAKE THE EXTRA 20,000 TO HAVE THE FULL INSURANCE WHEN YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO THE BUYOUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE OTHER INSURANCE.
YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER INSURANCE? NO, I HAVE, I'M TAKING THE, I'M SPENDING FULL TIME IN THIS JOB.
AND BASICALLY, UM, DOES YOUR SPOUSE HAVE INSURANCE? IS IT FAMILY PLAN? MY, MY SPOUSE IS ON MINE.
SO YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT, SO YOU HAVE TWO GOVERNMENT, YOU HAVE TWO.
I'M SAYING GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.
I'M SAYING YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD VOLUNTARILY, YOU COULD TAKE THE, NOT TAKE THE $20,000.
IT'S $20,000 MORE FOR WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S, IT'S, IT, IT'S BASICALLY AN EXAMPLE OF A MISUSE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, IN MY OPINION.
AND ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA? YES.
CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE EXECUTIVE UNLESS HE HAS ANOTHER CAMPAIGN ISSUE.
UM, ARE WE, CAN WE MOVE IT ON? CAN WE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING, UH, PERSONAL MATTERS INVOLVING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE ON VARIOUS MATTERS.