Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-20- Town Board Minutes The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Mary Ann Barr 2021 Town Board Regular Meeting Monday 20 November 2023 at 6:00PM MINUTES PRESENT: Katharine Hunter Joel Gagnon Paul Hansen Pat Woodworth Leslie Connors (present via Zoom) OTHER ATTENDEES: Recording Secretary Cindy Katz (Deputy Clerk) Town Planner Greg Hutnik Town Bookkeeper/Highway Sec Laura Shawley This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. (1) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was opened at 6:12 p.m., delayed due to technical difficulties. (2) AGENDA REVIEW The following were added to the agenda at meeting start: ● CDBG Housing Rehab Authorization --Self ● Consider Moving Town Board Meetings to First and Third Mondays ● Schedule Interviews if Needed for Open Positions Section 9.4 Consider Approving MOU Between Danby Fire District and the Town for Water District Shared Use of Generator and Office Space was removed from the agenda because the Town did not yet have the documents. (3) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ronda Roaring spoke over Zoom. She had looked over the list from the planner about zoning tweaks and she recommends that the Town Board take it seriously. She has comments regarding that list and Supervisor Gagnon suggested she submit them via writing for review. Ted Crane spoke over Zoom. He commented on the proposed time change for Town Board meetings in 2024. He made several comments about the current proposed noise law regarding its importance and methods used for measuring sound. He also agrees that the Planner's list of zoning tweaks was interesting and worth looking into. Janice Adelman, current Town Clerk, spoke in-person as follows: "First, I want to offer my congratulations to the re-elected members of the board and the highway superintendent, as well as to the first-time elected officials, including the new town clerk. I also want to take this opportunity to voice my disillusion with the political process. To be honest, this does not feel like how democracy was intended to work. Unless the way it was intended is to keep power amongst a select few while running out any and all other voices, even those who believe in the same equitable, conservationist, and progressive practices that you do. I noted with a bit of bewilderment during campaigning, the signs shouting, “Danby Democrats Work For You”. This is a lie and I will tell you why. Four of the five of you—Joel, Leslie, Katharine, and Pat—have shown exactly how you work for the benefit of yourselves and not the residents. I learned this first-hand when I worked with you all (note that the clerk doesn’t work for the board) in the first two and a half years of my service. We all had an excellent working relationship as colleagues who work together. Under your—the board’s—approval and encouragement, I assisted in many town improvements, from cosmetic to systematic. Then, for reasons I still haven’t wrapped my head around, you began to treat me as a subordinate that you could push around and force to do things the way you wanted them to be done when the things I was doing were my responsibility and not yours. When I stood my ground, you began telling me that the things I had been entrusted with were not actually my job. So it is especially difficult to now hear you discussing how exciting it is that the newly elected clerk is coming in with “computer software experience“ and that she will take the lead in the website and newsletter dissemination. What’s worse it that now that you have this new person—that you hand-picked—ready to come in and take my place, you are earmarking an extra $20,000 to potentially pay her for the things that I was asked to do, but not paid any extra for. She will be paid to maintain the work that I did, all while you refused to raise my salary to a livable wage. I remember the early discussions of bringing the newsletter in-house. Pat, you said you would like to use the beautiful template I had created. Indeed, I did create the newsletter template that is currently in use, and initially helped you with fixing the formatting and typos. I also created the website from scratch when our previous web provider would not allow migration of our own data from their server to a new server. Though I have all of the materials from the old website, what I received from the previous host is merely a folder of thousands of files. Everything, of course, didn’t make it from the old to the new website. Not because I don’t have access to it, but because the old website file system is unusable, and organizing large amounts of documents is always difficult and bumpy. All of us who have worked with websites know that it is like laundry—always needing to run another load even after you’ve just done it. And now you want to go through another transition again (not just with the clerk) but by moving from our current online cloud drive where documents on the town website currently live, to another, more expensive cloud drive that will require updating all the links in the website’s document library. There will be broken links for quite a while, I’m sure. I am deeply hurt and saddened by the sequence of events that has led to my ousting as Town Clerk. Not because I do not believe in democracy but because I believe that democracy has failed here. Just consider the confusion around the Danby primary in which there was only one contested race — for Town Clerk— and for which the challenger that you coaxed into running withdrew, belatedly so that her name remained on the primary ballot. Danby has a total of 1500 registered democrats, of which 5.7% voted in the June primary. 86 people out of 1500. For comparison, in 2021, 422 of 1483 voted in just the contested highway superintendent race. Or 28% of registered democrats. Because this year, the town clerk challenger had withdrawn and nothing else was contested in Danby, I erroneously believed that the primary was a waste of taxpayers’ time and money. You seem to have taken advantage of this, because the challenger you coaxed into running who then withdrew from the race, won the primary by six votes. This wasn’t the will of the Danby Democrats by any stretch of the imagination. This was the will of the Town Board who benefited from my naiveté. Cut to the general election where my name is nowhere to be found on the ballot. Despite this, I received around 30% of the votes as a write-in candidate. While disappointing that it was not enough to keep my position, I am proud that I had such strong support. Especially given that even people who knew that I’d lost the primary were still surprised that my name was nowhere to be found on the ballot. If that’s the case, how many of the people who voted for the newly-elected clerk thought that was me? I do not believe this process of elections was fair or just. As I’m sure you are aware with the outpouring of support I have received, I don’t believe that you’ve been working in the best interest of the residents, but in your own interests, because you no longer want to work with me. I’m still not sure why—because you are threatened by my competence? By my intelligence? By my skills and my dedication? By my drive to improve how the town operates? Or is it because of my conviction to stand up for myself and for what is right among the employees and people who are in town hall day in and day out. From the support I received as a write-in, I know that most Danby residents appreciate the work I did for them and I am sorry that I could not have served them longer. I have always been ready and willing to work with you. And I did. Handling things that you asked me to do: the website, the print newsletter template, the emailed newsletters. And much more. In my concluding thoughts, I wish to offer sincere thanks to Joel, for maintaining a somewhat collegial relationship with me during this time, as well as to Katharine, who tried to reconcile and make amends. I thank you both for your attempts. I do have to say that Leslie and Pat, I feel that you treated me with an incredible amount of disrespect and I hope you take these comments to heart as you move forward and work WITH the next town clerk rather than punishing her in your attempts to get her to work FOR you. Pat, you not only gave me the silent treatment rather than coming to me with any problems you might have had with my work, but you also were condescending and downright mean in board meeting after board meeting. Leslie, you publicly called me “not a team player” and accused me of intentionally withholding information from the board. You demeaned the work I presented to the board with every opportunity you had at every board meeting. These are not effective ways to lead or work collaboratively. Despite the Danby Democrats slogan, I think these four people have shown exactly how they do not work for the residents, but instead work to maintain their perceived power in this town. Those of us in elected positions are here to serve the residents—The ones who enjoyed coming to town hall and interacting with me. The ones who appreciated and complimented me on the changes I brought to the town’s online—and even in- person—presence. You have successfully ousted a highly competent, highly skilled, and well-liked person. One that was supporting her family and setting an example for her two young daughters as a public official. I hope that you on the board and in the Danby Democrats are proud of what you’ve done and happy with the result." -- Submitted for the record Garry Huddle, Town Justice, spoke over Zoom: He expressed his shock over the changes between the last two drafts of the proposed noise ordinance. How could the Town Attorney have added so much? He also commented on a campaign sign that was sitting in Town Hall for a week which he felt was inappropriate and had moved. Town Board Member Connors wondered if he could check the cameras to see who left it there. Kevin Feeney spoke in person: Well that was fun. But really, that was fun. When I went to bed on election night I was kind of disappointed with the results and annoyed by the antics of some folks, and I thought I might wake up feeling bummed out. But instead I woke up with a smile on my lips, and a song in my heart. We did really well! Compared to all the other towns with contested races, we were far and away the most competitive. I thought you'd beat us two to one and instead it was close. And I enjoyed it. I'm a shy guy, and going out and talking to people is not my strong suit. But all the people I talked to were lovely and gracious, even the ones not inclined our way. All in all, I'm more in love with Danby now than I was when I started. I don't consider this to have been a waste of time and effort at all, but rather the first steps of a journey, or perhaps a quest. To the incumbents, I congratulate you on your victory, and your flexibility. I haven't seen people stoop this low since the limbo craze of the 70's. Your disinformation and social media warfare kung-fu is superior! And the flying monkeys on Facebook, man those folks are bark at the moon crazy! Vicious attacks on Facebook? Ugly whispering campaigns? False police reports of altercations at the polling place? Made-up reports of a man with a gun? Seriously? This is how you govern? These are your followers? That's how desperate you are to cling to power? Have you no shame? No system can operate properly without negative feedback, and that's all we ever aspired to do. In meetings, via emails, face to face when possible. But you have a vision, even if it doesn't match that of your constituents. And you've been using your position to put it into place, no matter whom it damages. And so the feedback got stronger, and so you began to limit how it would be heard. And so, what avenue was left except to run against you? And that's not something any of us wanted to do, but you closed down all the other routes to coming to consensus. I don't want to take your job away from you. I just want you to listen and heed your constituents. When nearly half of them vote to kick you to the curb on a first try, that's what they call a strong sign. When nearly half of your constituents want to remove you, and I can't tell you the number of folks who said "We need a change" when I knocked on their doors, you're not governing. You're ruling over them. You might want to give that some thought. This very nearly turned out differently. 7.5 points. For a campaign that was thrown together at the last minute, financed on a shoe string, that started late and made every rookie mistake in the book, we came damned close. With all of those disadvantages, we very nearly won. Can you imagine if we take all we've learned and bring our "A" game next time? Can you understand what that is telling you about how the people perceive what you are doing? Take this as a friendly lesson. Open up the processes. Make decisions with input from all the sides. Include all sides on the committees. Try to reach consensus whenever possible and carve out exemptions when you can't. Realize that you're not the only ones with a vision. Each of us has come to our beautiful corner of the world to work out our own vision of how to live. Foster that. Govern, don't rule. --Submitted for the record Rogan Moore spoke in person: This current noise law is very broad and vague. He is against any noise law in general. No one is physically injured by noise and there are only a few instances where such a thing could be needed. (4) CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence was submitted or reviewed. (5) ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made. (6) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS County Legislature Representative Dan Klein gave his report over Zoom: ● The county passed its budget with a 2% increase in the tax levy, although this was not the outcome he had wanted. ● They continue to work on finding a way to give every address in the county broadband internet access. They are currently sorting through bids from various service providers. ● The pilot rapid medical response system is still being fleshed out. The program is a response to the decline in volunteer emergency services and seeks to address slow response times and overburdened emergency teams throughout the county by having more local teams available. There was some discussion between Klein and Supervisor Gagnon on how the need for this program is recognized, but it is not yet clear how or who will pay for it after the initial pilot program is complete. Highway Superintendent Keith Shipman Keith Shipman was not present but Laura Shawley, Highway Secretary, reported that Highway is currently gearing up for winter. Chips reports are all in now and $280k should be coming in December. (7) MEETING MINUTES Oct 18th MOTION: Motion to pass Resolution 221 of 2023 approving Town Board meeting minutes from Oct 18 2023. Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Hansen. The motion passed. In favor: Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Abstain: Connors (8) WARRENT ABSTRACT 23 OF 2023 General Fund Vouchers for $39,482.48 Highway Fund Vouchers for $44,056.99 Water Fund Vouchers for $ 242.05 MOTION to Pass Resolution 222 of 2023 approving the General Fund Abstract 23 for vouchers 365-376 in the amount of $39,482.48. Woodworth moves, Hansen seconds There was a short discussion on the purchase of an air filter in the Town Clerk office The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon MOTION to Pass Resolution 223 of 2023 approving the Highway Fund vouchers 226-235 of Abstract 23 in the amount of $44,056.99. Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Hansen The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon MOTION to Pass Resolution 224 of 2023 approving the Water Fund voucher 37 of abstract 23 in the amount of $242.05 Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Gagnon The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon (9) BUSINESS Review of Attorney-Crafted Draft Noise Law Woodworth believes the current proposal needs a lot of work. She would like to hear directly what other towns have done and how that played out once the laws were enacted. She stated that the State Police do not enforce local laws, but the County Sheriff does. She stated it is easier on them if they do not have multiple complex laws from various towns. She thinks the serious work will not be able to get started until January. Hansen asked Hunter how this current proposal, which seems very complex to him, compares to the original law. Hunter was unsure, stated there is a long history here from before their time on the board. She does think this law has "way too many things in it" and gave the example of snowblower use. She is also baffled as to why Guy [the Town Attorney] added in what he did, and she thinks this law should not deal with issues related to music festivals/special permits. She gave a bit of background on the working group they had recently and how difficult it was to come to any real agreement. Audience Member Steve Selin commented that the feedback was hurting his ears and he offered to help fix it with the sound system. Given the go-ahead, he then did so. Supervisor Gagnon explained that he believes there are a few things that they could agree on now that they could remove from the law, and that would simplify the law and bring it closer to something that would be acceptable. Hunter was concerned that doing that would take a lot of time. Hansen did not want to do that and thought we need to decide first what the purpose of the document is. Supervisor Gagnon stated they know what their purpose is and that it is to have something that the County Sheriff could use to deal with unreasonable noise. Hansen suggested they return to the shorter document because they just need something simple and Supervisor Gagnon stated that this is what he told the attorney that the board wanted, and yet the attorney added in a lot of new stuff. Hunter reiterated that the Sheriff would like to have something simple so they don't have to spend a lot of time reviewing the individual needs of each town. She doesn't want to work with this law because it is so long and complex. Hansen also objected to Gagnon's suggestion because to him going through it is a tacit agreement with the law; he would, however, work with the earlier, shorter law. Resident Warren Cross offered that since he coalesced the law the first time, he is happy to work with Guy and then bring it back to the Town Board so they don't have to do all that work themselves. Woodworth repeated that it would be useful if they could contact directly some of the references and resources they used previously to see how the law ended up impacting those places in practice. She offered to do it. Supervisor Gagnon repeated he wanted to go through the law and pull out the things they didn't want. Hunter didn't want the meeting to be all about the noise law and said if he could do it in five minutes, do it. Woodworth noted that comments like this are good to have in writing. Gagnon went through a list of parts of the noise law that he felt were unwanted: ● Remove decibel reference ● Snowblower use needs revisiting ● Discharge of firearms provisions should not imply it is only permitted during hunting season ● Only "permit fire-work displays? The Town doesn't regulate fireworks, so who permits that? ● The prohibition of large parties needs changing; we don't want to blanket prohibit weddings, private parties etc. ● Private property and audibility standards are problematic. ● Incomplete list of prohibited things includes many things that we do not intend (for example: playing musical instruments). He suggested new wording for that paragraph which mirrored language in the state law. ● Again, the use of the word "audible" in various capacities ● Permitting procedure was not intended to be in this law, although it may make sense in a different law. ● Delete section 7 that holds land-owner responsible for actions of tenant ● Section 8: Remove language related to Special Event Permits in Section B, and all of C and E ● Delete Section 9 and 10 because they relate to Special Event Permits He speculated that once all of that is removed, there might be something to work with there. He can share it with Warren Cross. Hunter clarified that there is a perception among residents that the Town Board tries to pass laws very quickly but this is clearly not the case seeing as how long this law is taking. She stressed that the Town Board is trying to treat this very sensitively and that there are, in fact, people who are in situations that can become harmful and bad, and the purpose of this law is to address that. She knows many folks do not want the law but there are others that do and may not speak up about it. They are doing their best to be reasonable. Garry Huddle asked if she was in the working group, which she was, and he wondered why they can't give what came out of that in August to the attorney and have that be the law. He could have "lived with that." She reiterated that what the Town Attorney gave back to them after the previous draft also came as a shock to them. Supervisor Gagnon suggested a plan to authorize Warren Cross to consult with the Town Attorney in an attempt to reconcile the differences between the two most recent versions. MOTION to Pass Resolution 225 of 2023 authorizing Warren Cross to consult with the Town Attorney in order to reconcile the two latest versions of the Noise Law drafts and come up with something closer to what was initially submitted. Moved by Gagnon Hansen reiterated his desire to discuss their purpose here, which needs to be to come up with the simplest document possible that will allow the Sheriff to respond. Should not be a document complicated to be legal, should not be something that is designed to convict people. Connors expressed her difficulty understanding via Zoom. She felt tempted to have Warren ask Guy what was wrong with that they came up with last time?The current document is too long. Seconded by Hunter DISCUSSION: Resident Steve Selin, who arrived late to the meeting due to confusion over start time, wished to take his Privelge of the Floor. He was on the working group but was surprised by how the process happened and a new law was proposed without his knowing. Maybe he was out of the loop? He thinks they may need to try again with a working group. Hunter doesn't agree. She believes they gave the group a good chance and feels like whatever they do someone will be unhappy. The problem is that they gave a version that many were OK with and Guy "went wild with it." Connors wonders if they could understand what the potential impacts of the previous version were and why Guy did what he did with it. Resident Kevin Feeney spoke, saying that the working group was trying to prevent neighbor vs neighbor issues arising and how the attorney dropped out almost all of the exemptions they had come up with. This made the new law very unpalatable to them. He stressed the importance of not racing, and the Town Board repeated they are not racing. He wondered about who these people are that want the law passed, and said he would like the working group reformed. Connors stated she was not in the working group, but she understands that once they got to the end, some said they don't want ANY of this, and also they do not want a law at all. That makes working with them very difficult because they need something for the few people who have had issues. She would like to understand if the version they sent to Guy can be used with a few legal changes made to it. She does not want to return to the working group. Cross stated he is happy to review it all with the attorney, he knows the intention, and he wants to be sure it can be adjudicated and that the state will accept it. The Board discussed whether or not to allow additional audience comment now, since it is a Board discussion and decided not. Gagnon said that he hadn't noticed that the attorney-produced latest version doesn't have the exemptions that the working group came up with, but that Warren has those from the version before to bring up with the attorney. They decided to vote and not call on audience with raised hands. The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Review of Planner's List of Potential Zoning Tweaks Planner Hutnik approached mic. He explained how he has now been in this position for three months. The Town Board had asked him to review the recently passed Zoning Law with "fresh eyes" and bring them any tweaks he believes may be worthwhile. He has done this and is now reporting what he has come up with. He started with what he referred to as "needed amendments." This includes: ● The mostly administrative task of incorporating text from the Cannabis Retail Local Law, passed this year, into the law since it hasn't been done yet ● The more involved task, noted by the Town Attorney, of amending the mobile home and park requirements so that it reflects the [State] Executive Law ● The more substantial task, noted by past town planners, of updating subdivision regulations as there are incorrect references. Supervisor Gagnon and Planner Hutnik discussed if that work could be done in conjunction with other needed work. Next Planner Hutnik discussed other tasks that would help streamline the law and advance the goals of Danby. ● He read the suggestion to "allow existing structures in all zone districts to be rehabilitated for other allowed uses in those zone districts without having to meet all zoning requirements (e.g. setbacks) and without having to go through Site Plan Review by the Planning Board if the use typically requires Site Plan approval. There could be a caveat built in that could trigger Site Plan Review by the Planning Board , such as if additions of X% are proposed or the site is disturbed by X or more acres. II recommend additions of 50% or more or site disturbance of one (1) acre of more trigger Site Plan Review." He is proposing this as a way to remove the burden and expenses sometimes added for residents in instances where there is no change or minimal disturbances to the site but the use is different. He gave the recent example of a daycare on Muzzy Road. Instead of Site Plan Review, the applicants could instead just work directly with the Planner and with Code Enforcement to ensure compliance. Already there is a threshold set by the state that would be triggered if environmental review were needed which would send the application to the Planning Board. Hansen commented that this sounds similar to how they used to do it. Supervisor Gagnon reviewed what the purpose of the Site Plan Review was in the Hamlet area and in other areas. Hutnik said the next step is to write up proposed edits and see how it looks, sit down with Steve Cortright in Code, and discuss. He had been looking through a "Hamlet lens" in making this suggestion, with an eye for folks who are rehabilitating older buildings and could maybe do so with "in-house" assistance as opposed to a board. He reiterated about the business proposed on Muzzy and the Site Plan Review that would be needed. The Board discussed when review is needed and when it is not, and Planner Hutnik stated that he believes the suggestions he is giving will further the goals of the town. Woodworth suggested he draft something for them to look at. ● Planner Hutnik suggested looking at bullet point three [under "Priority Amendments"] which relates to easing set-backs requirements in the Hamlet zone for already- existing houses. They discussed the reasoning behind the set-back requirements as a way to create a "walkable" hamlet area, how many people have built houses in the back of their property, and the circumstances under which compliance with the set-backs may be difficult. Hansen wondered if these limitations were harsh on individuals, and wondered if maybe all the side -walks and trees needed to be in place BEFORE the homeowners were being limited. Planner Hutnik added that he believes removing the max set back will allow for more creativity in lot design. The Board also commented on: the awkwardness of having a house far back from the road but having to build a second unit twenty feet from the road (parcels can have up to four units on them); the fact that the speed limit and noise of the main highways are high, preventing a "small town" feel and making building close to the road undesirable. The Board discussed how to go about reviewing and making these suggested tweaks. Supervisor Gagnon stated there are two types of tweaks being discussed: easy ones which are also grouped together with amendments that are required, and then those that require more discussion. He proposed Planner Hutnik go ahead and work up the tweaks that are needed, and that they create a committee to discuss the others. Hunter requested the talk by residents in the back please take their conversation outside as it was distracting. Supervisor Gagnon queried board members for their preferences and mentioned that previous committees were comprised of Town Board plus interested members of Planning Board and BZA. Woodworth and Hansen suggested having Planner Hutnik take care of what he can first, and then they will sort through everything and see if a committee is needed for more work. MOTION: To pass Resolution 226 of 2023 requesting that Planner Hutnik take care of preparing the needed amendments himself, and bring the Town Board samples of modifications for the priority amendments. Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Hansen DISCUSSION: They will start with this and figure out what to do with what is left later. The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Supervisor Gagnon brought up when the other tweaks will be discussed. The Board discussed a timeline for when Planner Hutnik should have his work prepared and suggested in two meetings. Supervisor Gagnon was concerned about tabling and wants to make sure that those other tweaks do come back, and suggested having a committee working simultaneously. Woodworth wants to look at those other changes through the lens of the comprehensive plan. MOTION: To pass Resolution 227 of 2023 giving another twenty minutes to the meeting time since they had passed the two hour mark. Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Hunter The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Review Whether to Continue as a Living Wage Employer and the Budget Modifications Needed if So Supervisor noted that the living wage had jumped considerably, from $16.60/hour in 2023 to $18.45 /hour in 2024. There are three employees who make less than that wage and would be impacted. Bookkeeper Shawley reviewed the numbers for the board, noting the change in the budget would be minor. The employees are all very part-time and include: ● The man who shovels the snow (additional $150/year) ● Mary Anne- "Town Records Special Projects" ($700/year increase if she works all her budgeted hours, which she usually doesn't) ● Shawley's support person Joanna ($1300 increase if she works her full 20 hours/week, which is unlikely as she mostly just works as needed) Shawley thinks the amount is so small that it is not worth budget changes, as it is not even clear if these employees will work all the hours allotted to them. MOTION to Pass Resolution 228 of 2023 that the Town will Remain a Living Wage Employer Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Hansen The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Review CDBG Housing Rehab Authorization Supervisor Gagnon reviewed that there are two authorizations, for James Self, and for a heat pump as well as furnace for a previous applicant who was approved (Martha Taraszkiewicz). MOTION to Pass Resolution 228 of 2023 to Authorize the Two Projects to Proceed Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Connors DISCUSSION: Hansen asked if there are monetary amounts for these. Board Members explained they are covered by the grant. The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Consider Moving Town Board Meetings to First and Third Mondays The Board discussed various options for when the Town Board could meet in 2024. MOTION: to Pass Resolution 229 of 2023 to Hold Town Board Meetings on the First and Third Mondays of the Month Starting with the Second Meeting in January Moved by Woodworth, seconded by Hansen DISCUSSION: The Board discussed when to begin the new schedule, and ruled out meeting on the second and fourth Mondays due to billing cycle concerns. They elected to begin the new cycle starting with the second meeting of January. The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Schedule Interviews if Needed for Open Positions MOTION: To Pass Resolution 230 of 2023 to Schedule Board and Committee Interviews for the Second Meeting in December Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Hansen DISCUSSION: Connors asked that they decide who they will interview at the first meeting in December. The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Hansen, Hunter, Woodworth, Gagnon Hunter went back to the previous topic and wondered what time is better to start meetings for the town staff. They discussed the pros and cons of different times, and landed on keeping the time at 6 p.m. Just be certain to be clear in our communications that the other board and committee meetings typically begin at 7 p.m. They clarified the date of the first meeting in December (December 5). (10) ADJOURNMENT 8:33 p.m. meeting adjourned Cindy Katz --- Deputy Clerk