Board of Trustees

Village of Walden Board of Trustees Regular Meeting May 6, 2025 Mayor Pearson called the regular meeting of the Village of Walden Board of Trustees to order at 6:30pm. On roll call the following were: Mayor: Becky Pearson Present: Deputy Mayor Lynn Thompson Trustees Gerald Mishk Bill Taylor Liz Kyle Ralph Garrison, Jr Cheryl Baker Absent: Also Present: John Revella, Village Manager Marisa Kraus, Village Clerk Dominic Cordisco, Village Attorney Chief D’Elicio introduced Jacob Nogrady as a new Full Time Police Officer Village Manager’s Report • Continue to update the DEC and EFC on our progress for funding for the grant for the sewer plant upgrades. Keep pushing those forward • Went over vehicle list and pricing with the DPW Superintendent to make sure that all those vehicles lined up that are approved in the budget and getting pricing for our vehicles that was requested as well • Went over potential candidates with the Police Chief for vacancy being filled • Went over payroll and journal entries with Finance Department along with meetings in regards to personnel issues • Went over programming and capital with the Rec Coordinator and some staffing as well • Work with special counsel on police personnel matter, which we'll discuss in exec • Finished the budget since last meeting. It was adopted • Went through ordering with the Clerk and departments to make sure everything is lined up • Went over grants and special details with Police Chief • Followed up with DOT on a couple matters around the village including some issues that were raised by a resident on Lustig Court. Waiting to hear back from the resident engineer on that • Discussed sewer rates with the engineer, they will be able assist us with that matter going forward • Went over property maintenance concerns with the Building Inspector • Conference with RBT about AFRs and the Treasurer is following up with the comptroller as well 1  • Voucher review and resident concerns about billing issues for the year end • Rec Department, indoor pickle ball still going on, after school and teen center. Tennis is starting, summer camp filling up very quickly. They did seasonal plantings and assisted at the Arbor Day event • Building Department issued 24 new permits, 6 violations, 5 stop work orders and 1 CO report and 1 fire and safety inspection. Also, updated the completion of 76-80 West Main Street demolition and 117 Orchard and had been assisting Zoning and Planning Boards • Clerk’s been updating Facebook and website, communication on FOILs with myself and attorney, processing requests and certifications, working with IT consultant on e-mail and phone updates. Working on minutes • Finance Department did the budget as well, went over rates, the AFR. They also are coordinating the assistant that the board hired with reconciliations, vouchers and Edmunds programming • Public works been maintaining vehicles, pressing sludge, cleaning stations, responding to resident concerns. Water Department did 32 mark outs, replaced 35 meters and did 3 inspections. Also has confirmed a contractor to assist in the water repair of 144 West Main Street, tomorrow 8AM and then lining up the contractor for water repair at 75 Maple Street as well since the residents did not comply with the request for work. They’ve been trying to clear tree stumps as they can, there’s gas lines on some they have to skip. Going over capital with myself. They prepped the range for the Police Department. Assisted with Arbor Day. Working on inventory and repairing catch basins • Police Department, staffing is going well. A couple more spots to fill up. They did respond to and had 523 blotters, 5 arrests, 147 traffic stops, 55 tickets issued, 5 MVAs and 21 parking tickets Trustee Garrison: Can we make sure that you follow up with the engineer on the Lustig Court issue? I know you sent an email and waiting on a response. Can you follow up? Manager Revella: I did that today. Trustee Baker: With the 76-80, glad to see that they were able to get that demolished. I did notice, there is a section and I don't know if it's right next to the old building or if it's the building next door where there is a jagged part of the roof that is sticking out that’s exposed with nails and wood. Is that remnants of the building was taken down or is that the building next door? Manager Revella: Not sure exactly. Will check on it. Deputy Mayor Thompson: You talked about following through on things. Has there been any more mention of the crosswalk by the post office? Manager Revella: No. Not since the last correspondence. Deputy Mayor Thompson: What about the parking lot sign for Maple Street? Have we heard anything more about that? Manager Revella: From the same person. Deputy Mayor Thompson: Can we follow up on that? 2 Manager Revella: Yes. Deputy Mayor Thompson: You might know, but that same area of sidewalk over there. It's really in bad shape by the post office. There's actually rebar sticking out now. That needs some attention. We see cars out there all the time now. Patrol cars, watching for speeding. I see them all the time. I read this report and I'm assuming he can't do everything all at once but I really didn't see much mention of Walnut Street. Which residents complain about all the time. Wait Street. 208 and 52. But I did see significant mention of Coldenham Road and some other locations. Manager Revella: They've been trying to rotate and they've been focusing on a certain area for over a week or 2 and then going to the next area. They've been on 208 this past week coming from Jacobowitz office. Deputy Mayor Thompson: Those areas are always what people complain about. The Clerk 's report, there's a big bold letter that she's still waiting for paperwork from Village Board Members. I’m a guilty 1. I’m working on it. I’ll have that for you, my dear Marisa. Anyone else on the board? Not turned in their bio’s. The Clerk cannot get our page done without that information, so come on my fellow colleagues, let's go. Mayor Pearson: Yes, and also your ethics have to be turned in as of April 30th so hopefully your ethics forms have been filled out and put in. Trustee Baker: Just following up on Lynn, *inaudible* remember from before about updating the municipal parking signs and the board had voted to have them updated. The individual that had approached you about the Maple Street, was that the only 1 or is he looking to get a grant for all of them? Manager Revella: There wasn’t a focus on 1, so I'm hopeful that it's for more than 1. Mayor Pearson: John, you did mention 144 West Main Street, they're doing that this week? Manager Revella: Tomorrow at 8AM. Mayor Pearson: And 75 Maple? Manager Revella: No. We're hoping that the contractor has time this week but we have a contractor ready to do it. Approval of Minutes – April 15, 2025 Deputy Mayor Thompson made a motion to approve the April 15, 2025 minutes. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. 6 ayes. 1 abstention (Trustee Kyle). Motion carried. Public Comment None Park Use Request – Alcohol Waiver - Gernand Trustee Garrison made a motion to approve the park use request for alcohol waiver. Seconded by Trustee Baker. All ayes. Motion carried. Code Review - Discussion Mayor Pearson: We put this in your box around budget and Marisa put it back in and emailed 3 everybody as well so hopefully everyone got it. What I thought we would do is run through this pretty quickly because we've been through this before with 1 of the former boards and nothing ever got finished and nothing transpired from that. Let’s go through this. Just so the public knows, this was started probably 3 years ago and it kind of went by the wayside and no one ever finished and moved it forward. I thought we would start over. There has been more discussion on these items already. The past attorney put something together for us on what we've been through. We gave that to the board. We went through 1 thru 38. There's a lot that is for future use. We’re going to start with number one. Does anybody have any other changes? It's legislative intent. Everybody fine with that one. We go up to number 5. Chapter 5 is procedures, article 1, special meetings. Anybody have any questions, thoughts on that? I had a couple comments. It says do we need to define written notice of the term appears in 5-1? We discussed last time and the board never made a decision. Never really decided whether we needed to do that and what the attorney suggested is to specifically define how notice of a special meeting is given. I would say I'm for that and we should probably move that forward as well. Let me just ask, will our new attorney be finalizing that and giving us what we feel is appropriate? Attorney Cordisco: Yes, I'm looking forward to this discussion because once we have direction from the board, the next step is we prepare an introductory local law that would make these changes and that way the board can consider it and in the normal course of business as with any other local law, *inaudible* public hearing and then you might be ready to adopt it or modify. Mayor Pearson: So, right now you're thinking maybe just go what Mr. Donovan said unless the board wants to change. Attorney Cordisco: I think that he's providing an outline here for things that you can change. Certainly, he's done initial work on this. I didn’t look to recreate it. Mayor Pearson: Okay, as long as the board is fine with how it reads. Manager Revella: Just to make sure, you want to go forward to draft a local law with those provisions. Mayor Pearson: Why can’t we just put down and bring it back to the board before the local law? Unless everybody’s fine with how this is written and you're going to say how to be written, as suggested. If you're going to put it down in legal terms, then that’s what you're looking for. Attorney Cordisco: I think the easiest way to move forward would be to use a draft local law. That way you have in front of you. Rather than create separate documents. *Consensus of the Board* Mayor Pearson: At one time, they talked about 2 Trustees being able to set a meeting, the Mayor can also set a special meeting. Everybody still fine with that? All: Yes. Mayor Pearson: Flip over on page 2, special meeting of the Board of Trustees other than regular scheduled board meetings. It also says that in our law already so I'm not sure why it would be changing that. *read memo* everybody’s fine with all that? All: Yes. 4 Mayor Pearson: *read memo reading chapter 9* says that the Chief of Police shall issue appearance tickets for alleged violations and among other things for chapter 94. So, that goes into other chapters. I think we left it really for each department pretty much do their appearances. Unless you want to change something. Trustee Kyle: It’s saying the Chief of Police shall issue appearance tickets but then it's in conflict with another section because that section says that any Police Officer can issue the appearance ticket not just the Chief of Police. Mayor Pearson: His suggestion is to do this. If the board wishes to continue the same, that appearance tickets across department boundaries, that we review each particular code. Should we wait to do that part or do that now? Attorney Cordisco: I think that you probably broadly want to allow departments to issue appearance tickets for potential violations within their area of codes, such as Code Enforcement Officer or others. What I would suggest is in the draft local law that's how I'll write it and then you can consider it. Mayor Pearson: We also have a Village Manager that can also do that. There’s a lot of places that do not have, unless the board doesn't want to have the Village Manager doing those appearance tickets. Attorney Cordisco: If authorized by the law, my suggestion would be to allow Police Officers directly issue the appearance tickets so your Chief is not being fully overburdened. Mayor Pearson: And the Building Department, the Building Inspector and/or Code Enforcement Officer. Okay, everybody’s okay with that? All: Yes. Mayor Pearson: Can we include a definition of appearance ticket? That was 1 question last time. Chapter 13 is Architectural Review Board. I know there's been discussion on this before about whether we should have a board, not have a board. The comprehensive plan, we talked about that as well. The board last time said to leave it with the Planning Board. It depends on how this board feels. You know how hard it is to get people to sit on boards. That’s an issue. Deputy Mayor Thompson: Wasn’t there discussion that the Building Inspector can be the architectural review person? Mayor Pearson: Yes, because some things that have to go to the Planning Board. Unless it’s a site plan, they don't have to go to the Planning Board. They can go and say that they want to do this paint color. But everything is coming to the Planning Board. Are we changing that or not changing it? Deputy Mayor Thompson: That’s what I’m asking because I've been to a Planning Board meeting where they had that discussion and it was at comp plan as well. Manager Revella: The comp plan, talked about the minutia matters. That the Building Inspector can prove those without going to the architecture review board. Those matters which may not conform or they want to have something that's not compliant, they would go for architectural review. 5 Mayor Pearson: This is where I have an issue, we have design guidelines that nobody really knows what they are. I know we talked about comp plan coming up again on the 29th, can we just review that again? Make sure we have everything in place for that if we're going to allow the Building Inspector instead of the Planning Board to do the colors and the signs. Deputy Mayor Thompson: So, you mean wait on this. Mayor Pearson: No, he could still put something together and if we need to change afterwards, it’s just a draft so we can always add or subtract. Just know that some people will still want an architectural review. Planning Board was kind of iffy because they said things are coming to us that we don’t always need to see. That the Building Department can do those issues. So, people that were paying to come before the Planning Board may not have had to do. Maybe we need to make a policy of who goes before the Planning Board. Manager Revella: I think more important they still pay the permit for whatever it is, the fee for review. But they would have to waste time waiting for the architectural review to meet to be able to get the approval. Mayor Pearson: I think we need to have some guidelines of colors. It goes by historic colors but some of those historic colors are bright orange. So, it's really depending on if they want to be more specific. But we can talk about that after. Trustee Taylor: What is the issue? Mayor Pearson: The issue is that the Planning Board sometimes says that things come before them that may not have to come before them for paint colors or signs. Deputy Mayor Thompson: There are already guidelines in place and as long as the Building Inspector is aware of those guidelines, he should be able to take care of that if he desires to take care of that to expedite the process because Planning Board meets once a month. Mayor Pearson: I agree. Deputy Mayor Thompson: But you just made it sound like you want to change the guidelines. Mayor Pearson: I want to look at the guidelines. I'm just talking about paint colors. I'm a decorator so I think about paint. I think about what things are gonna look like here. Some of the paint colors, because all they said was historic paint colors is what you can use. Do we want to be more specific than that or do we care that the Building Inspector is gonna pick a bright orange and say it’s okay, it's fine, it's in the historic colors. Do we want to be more specific than that? That's my question and that's part of the guidelines that we can talk about later. It’s not going to be tonight. Trustee Taylor: Do we really want to get involved in the color palette? He said that he has the guidelines already that he can follow. If they don't meet the guidelines then they end up having to go to the committee. Trustee Kyle: I don't think it would hurt to review them, if they haven't been reviewed in a while. Mayor Pearson: The comp plan is reviewing it. That’s their job as well. We will go through with the comp plan. John, please put that on the list. Don't lose that list. Thank you. Tell me who has to go before the Planning Board for architecture review now. For color, signs... 6 Building Inspector Wallner: Many, every month. Anytime there is any change to a sign at all goes to the ARB. Mayor Pearson: What about paint colors of buildings? Building Inspector Wallner: Present a full color rendering of the proposed sign and then the architectural review board. Mayor Pearson: Okay is it only Main Street or is it all buildings? Building Inspector Wallner: All. Mayor Pearson: So, the new Custard Stand color was approved by Planning Board? Building Inspector Wallner: Yes. Trustee Kyle: We could have that go straight through him instead of going to the board. Mayor Pearson: We could. How do you feel about that, Rob? Building Inspector Wallner: I think there's a lot of things that spend a lot of their time that doesn’t need to be spent. 1 of the things that I’ve done in the past, if they weren't going to meet or somebody couldn't get on schedule, I did it by e-mail. Sent it to all the members and they would give me feedback. In my opinion, that’s a good checks and balances. Mayor Pearson: The question is architectural review board stays with the Planning Board or it does not stay with the Planning Board? Trustee Kyle: I think it would be easier to just give him the authority to make those decisions and then not have the Architectural Review Board. Trustee Garrison: He does it every day, why not? Trustee Baker: I agree. Trustee Mishk: If it’s handled now and been working, why change it? Deputy Mayor Thompson: Rob had expressed an interest in doing it to help expedite the process with people coming before the Planning Board. The Planning Board was happy to relinquish that task to the Building Inspector. So, I'm okay if we change it. Trustee Garrison: I think he does it everyday, this is what his job is. Trustee Taylor: Absolutely. We're talking about the minutia. This process that we're going through is to create the changes necessary to extradite the processes. Mayor Pearson: So, we do not have a board anymore. It will be the architectural colors and that will be the Building Inspector and not the board. Though we know board associated with that. Trustee Taylor: Right. If he has an issue, he's going to push that to the board. 7 Mayor Pearson: Should we say that? That if he wants confirmation that he would be referring to the board. Dominic, do you need anything else on that? Attorney Cordisco: I think I have enough to write about. Mayor Pearson: Okay, we're up to 14, 15, 16, 17. Trustee Kyle: I've got a question on 17. Mayor Pearson: Did we ever have an assessor here? Manager Revella: Yes. I don’t know what year though. Mayor Pearson: This law was put in in 1993. So. We must have had it before 1993. Just wondered. Moving on to chapter 22. It says here about article 19am can we put that in that part of 22? Attorney Cordisco: 1 of the challenges with that is that if there's any amendments that happened at state level and you've included it. Potentially have inconsistencies. I would leave it as is. Mayor Pearson: Perfect, thank you. Chapter 31. Defense and indemnification. It also says former employees. All former employees are also listed in that? How far back does that go for former employees? Manager Revella: If you are completing the duties of your position, as an employee. Not like you were fired a year ago and then you commit a crime. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I read it as if they did something and they left us and then something came of it after they left. Is there a statute of limitations? Mayor Pearson: Is there a time frame? Attorney Cordisco: There is a potential for claims that be brought against the village for something that involved an employee or allegedly involved an employing after they've left service. That could be any number of reasons. Could have retired, change jobs or terminated or whatever, but there is statute of limitations on different types of claims that can be brought against the village. For instance, there's some kind of 1983 action in federal court, there are the potential longer term. These things can happen actually in terms of *inaudible* it could happen years after action is taken. So, in that situation, I assume, that you would want to ensure that your former employee is also being covered for it to have defense and indemnification of something as long as it was within their specific scope of duties. Mayor Pearson: Chapter 38. Ethics. It was changed a while back that anyone would be able to bring an ethics something against an employee or something in the village. A former board changed that. 20 years ago anybody could bring something forward and they have to go to the Ethics Board. Now it's just employees can bring employees to the Ethics Board. Just seeing how you guys feel about that. Manager Revella: Employees or Board Members. Not the Planning and Zoning Board. They’re not employees. 8 Mayor Pearson: That was at 1 time, it was anyone had an issue with somebody, when they saw something happening, they were using a car and going somewhere with the car they shouldn't be with and they could bring in a charge. How you feel about that? Trustee Baker: I'm of the mindset that prior way that it was. I think anybody should be able to bring up an ethics concern if they wanted to. I don’t think it should just be village employees or board members. I think the community has a stake in saying things and if you see something wrong they should be able to report that and bring that up. Mayor Pearson: I'm just throwing it out there. It doesn't mean this is what I believe. So, you have a Village Manager or somebody. You can go to the Village Manager and say this is happening what are you going to do about it? A village resident can do that now or they can come to the mayor. They can come to you and say that. Then our job or his job is to go further and say why is this happening? But then somebody has to do the ethics part. The public can bring things to you. Then you can be the person that follows through with it. It just depends on how you feel about that. Trustee Baker: That's like putting a middleman in as opposed the direct person. Trustee Kyle: I was gonna say that if a resident knew about something unethical that was happening that the other board members didn't, but they can go to another board member and that board member can bring it up. That's why there is an entire board. It's not like a dictatorship. If they know about misconduct by 1 person, they can go to any of the other board members. Trustee Baker: Again, to me that seems like middleman that a person should be able to oblige. *Overlapping of conversation* Mayor Pearson: Have we had that prior? Manager Revella: I think I've seen 6 since I've been here. It will come from an official or employee. They weren’t all complaints from official or employee. It was that someone made one to one of them. Mayor Pearson: I guess it does work, Cheryl. Trustee Mishk: I remember when I was on the board back between 13 and 17, we actually empowered the Ethics Board to have subpoena power. I don’t know if that's still in effect. Quite frankly, I think that is the ethics boards job to investigate a complaint whether it be from us. Doesn't have to be an official thing you can just look into it and generate investigation but I really think that a resident should be able to make at least an inquiry of whether it is a violation of ethics laws. Then with the Ethic Board, you take it from there and if they have to bring it to the Village Board then they bring it to the Village Board. Mayor Pearson: You are saying okay for the resident. Trustee Mishk: I'm not saying full blown complaint. They can make an inquiry whether it is a violation and they can point out what they're talking about to the Ethics Board. Trustee Kyle: Like via e-mail? They send something in? Trustee Mishk: Yeah. I think it can be done with anything because a lot of people are afraid of coming forward unless they know there's actually something wrong. They're afraid of retribution. 9 So, I personally believe they should be able to send something to the Ethics Board, whether just being an inquiry and then the Ethics Board can initiate investigation. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I'm not sure. I see both sides of the argument. I would hate to have the Ethics Board bombarded by unhappy village residents just because they're unhappy village residents. There are legitimate ethics violations and then there's people that perhaps don't like an employee, don't like someone on the board. I could see it going on and on and being an incredible headache. So, I don't know. I do think people should have the right to voice their displeasure or question certain activities that are going on in the village. I do agree with that. But I almost think there should be a channel. I don't know how involved the Ethics Board should be with every single alleged issue that should come to them. I'm not sure. I have to think about this. Mayor Pearson: Also, the Ethics Board really doesn't have power so they really can't fire somebody. They're just there to give guidance to the board and say maybe this is what we should do. Write a letter to the board and say maybe you might want to check on that. Trustee Mishk: If the Ethics Board gets the complaint from a resident, taxpayer, they can always, if they don't feel that there's enough there or they don’t have the capability to investigate, can always refer it to the Village Manager. Trustee Kyle: I do see a village resident, if they didn't know who on the board was friends with each other and is this person gonna cover for this person if they bring it up to 1 board member. I can see the conflict there because you just never know. Then it gets brushed under the table. I can see that being an issue. Trustee Garrison: I’m in the middle, too. Like Lynn said, I think it's something I definitely have to think about it a longer because I do not foresee a lot of people coming in here and looking to the Ethics Board as taxpayers. But I also think that at any time it could just really get overwhelming. It's hard, it's definitely something I have to think about a little more. Trustee Taylor: I think it's inherent and our responsibility. We have roughly 7000 employers in the village. I think it's our responsibility to promote that comfort level. I think we get hung up on the word ethics. Any and all issues raised by village residents, they should feel comfortable speaking to any member of this board and I think it's our responsibility to look at that issue and if we think that it's something significant that needs to be addressed then we need to collectively discuss that defer it to the manager. Mayor Pearson: Let's do this, let’s stop before 38, take it back home for the next meeting and start with 38. Put your thoughts together, how you're going to feel about that and start at 38. Does that work for everybody? All: Yes. 52 Walker St *Trustee Garrison stepped down form the dais* Mayor Pearson: The last time we were together with this, Mr. Donovan put a resolution together. Depends on how the board feels about that. We have a new board, so there might be new ideas, new thoughts and comments. Everybody got the information. Everybody kind of knows the situation, what was going on, the paper street, the yards, the neighbors, the pieces of property. I'm going to open it up to this board and see what they have to say. 10 Trustee Baker: It's also the issue of the fees. Mayor Pearson: Correct. Those fees are owed no matter what, because when people go before the Zoning/Planning Board, whether you get approved or not, those fees have to be paid no matter what. To me, that should have already been paid and it’s not. Yes, that isn't part of the resolution but to me they should already be paid because that's what happens. You want to go in front of the Zoning Board you pay those fees. In regard to the property itself, I do have concerns with landlocked property. I do feel that it would cause a problem for the neighbor next door with losing access to their section of the garage there. I don’t know if it is legally permissible and maybe the attorney can answer for me. Can it be required that the properties have to be joined before it releases granted? Attorney Cordisco: 1 of the things that Dave put in this resolution was that Mr. Lustig would have to show that the adjoining properties would not being negatively affected by having the right *inaudible* as a result of this replication of the offer of dedication. You could go further and say that you have to show that it's the right of access to anything any landlocked parcels through that property. As I understand it, I defer to Mr. Lustig as to what he prepared. To my understanding is that there is some commonality ownership with another parcel that is adjacent to 52 Walker. This is an entirely discretionary action that the Village Board may or may not want to entertain. On 1 side, you have this property, the whole history, as I understand it and of course I'm just coming into this now, but the whole idea quick claiming the deed to yourself for property that you don't own. Quick claim deed is like the lowest form of deeds. It's basically saying I don't know what I own, but whatever I own, I'm selling to you. But that's like in the normal course of things. If you're buying a house and I was representing you, I would never suggest that you accept a quick claim deed because there's no guarantees associated with it. But in this situation, what we have is someone who quick claimed the property that 3rd Street, paper street, from themselves to themselves. Just so that they can record that deed in the County Clerk’s office. Mr. Lustig has purchased that lot and being created at the County Clerk’s office but it's still subject to this offer of dedication that was made 1904. In any event, like I said, this is discretionary action from the board and so any reasonable requests that you may have associated with it, I would say are reasonable and appropriate. Showing that any adjoining properties have rights of access to make sure that they don't become landlocked is absolutely reasonable request that you could make and oppose as part of the condition of any revocation. It’s an odd situation because you're not actually selling this property. The property was offered to the village. Had you accepted it and then it became an accepted piece of property and the village owned it, but then never go to street on it, for instance. You could sell it. But you don't own it because it was never accepted by the village but they have this kind of legal constraint that's hanging over the top of this property because it was offered to the village but the village never accepted it. Basically, rejecting the offer, 121 years later. Trustee Baker: As an additional requirement going to what you thought of selling the property, is it unreasonable and how much would the village be able to request as a fee to release that right to the paper street. Attorney Cordisco: That might be a subject that you might want to consider discussing in executive session. Trustee Baker: Going back to fees, in my thought, should they not be paid first before we even entertain removing any interest to the paper street as part of that? Attorney Cordisco: It would be a reasonable request. I think if that's something that the board wants to communicate to Mr. Lustig, you’re welcome to do so. 11 Trustee Taylor: I think it's apparent that we have 3 new board members here and a new attorney. I think it warrants further discussion so there's complete understanding what the paper street meaning is and what impact it's going to have by pencil whipping this revocation, saying okay we're done. It definitely warrants further discussion, I think for the privilege of the 3 new board members that are here. And I think that's where I sit on the situation. I have received several phone calls, couple of emails, concerns expressed by village residents, some near the surrounding areas, some not. I don't think we're ready to render that decision until you have further discussion and everybody on this board is up to speed. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I would like further discussion only with the attorney. But that being said, I do agree that the Zoning Board bill should be paid in full. I would like to see proof of merging the landlock address as 3rd Street into Walker Street before anything is considered. And if this does take place, no variances. If something's going to be built after all this takes place it's got to be conforming. That's what I feel without knowing any additional information. Just what I've read, what I've listened to coming to previous board meetings. I don’t have a problem with us releasing it but I think they're just has to be some stipulations. Trustee Mishk: I received some communications from neighbors today and I really didn't know that much about it so I would need more information and what's special about it before I can make that decision. Mayor Pearson: I think we should go into attorney-client this evening as well to talk about some of Cheryl’s thoughts that she was talking about. Ray would you like to say anything? Ray Lustig: I have been through this few times, Zoning Boards, here. To me it's much simpler then what the board is making it. When the whole west side was just big farm field, way before the racetrack, long time ago, back in 1904. First Street wasn’t even a street at that point. You had North Montgomery and maybe a couple buildings there. At that time, I'm not exactly certain of incorporating the village *inaudible* but they mapped out what the possibilities of what would be neighborhoods. And as part of that they had First and Second and Third Street. Third Street had always remained paper. 121 years later it's still just a piece of land. It's clear that the village has no plan on putting in a street and using it as a street to go between Center Street and Walker Street. On the Center Street side, it's now a parking lot. It is pretty much considered private property of the person who deeded it to himself exactly as on my side of Walker Street. For example, when you say access to a shed that happens to be there, well the owner of that shed is the person that sold me my property. I kind of question the validity of saying access to my shed is impossible when the person that owned that shed is the person that sold me the property. Most importantly, I would think that the village would want to maximize utilization of that property. Put a house on it. Accordingly, from getting the 1k or whatever it is taxes that I've been paying on in it, they could get 15k in taxes per year. I’m sure the school would appreciate that. I'm sure the Town of Montgomery would appreciate that and of course the taxpayers in Walden would appreciate that. That’s the most important thing. That is the fiduciary responsibility of the board. To take advantage of the opportunities of legitimately raising funds where possible. The attorney made the opinion before, something about purchasing the land. Excuse me, I purchased the land already. I paid good funds in the 3rd party transaction on this land to purchase that property from the owner. How he acquired it? It’s not even my concern. I pay taxes on that property. So, to say that I owe the village money, to me kind of baffling. Furthermore, the assessor and the Villager Building Inspector have deemed that property to be a building lot before I bought that piece of property from the adjacent neighbor. I met with Mr. Stickles and we discussed exactly the parameters of building a house there. Mr. Stickles said yes, it’s a buildable lot. I got a builder who made me an offer. He wanted a 2-foot variance. I signed over the variance application and let him take it away to the Zoning Board. All of a sudden, rather than opining on the zoning issue, they attack the deed and of course the deed was attacked 12 because of the village’s interest. I withdrew the application and the attorney had dumped 2k dollars worth of investigations at the direction of a Zoning Board member and implying that they didn't know if it was a building lot or not. The title was clouded as a result of the village’s interest for the ability or option to build a street there, which will never happen. If I were you, I would say how can we maximize the revenues for the village? Clearly, build a house. It's a 50-foot piece of property by like 183 feet long. Twice as much land as many of the houses in Walden. To bring up the other adjacent piece of property, which I owned before I owned the Walker Street, paper street. It was landlocked. I had gone to the town assessor and she immediately dropped assessments. No problem. I sat on that piece of property, what the heck I figured you never know and sure enough, Walker Street came along and now I own 2 adjacent properties. I will suggest that if the Village Board says that we will not relinquish the right. You can’t build on Walker Street. Which would fit in perfect. The neighborhood, small conservative house there would be no problem. If you are worried about the landlocked piece of property which my wife owns, I suggest that if the paper street and Walker is not developed. It should be used as access to the property that my wife could build a house on her property. Getting back to that original 1904 map, that piece of property in between the backyards of the people on Walker Street and in the backyards of people on Center Street, was built there for a building lot had 3rd Street been developed. 3rd Street was never developed. That lot of land was never developed. Theoretically, if you say no, we can't build on Walker Street, I will investigate and see about building a house on that landlocked piece of property, which is no longer landlocked by virtue of the village not relinquishing, of that property deemed empty piece of property. Truthfully, in a positive environment, where people want the best. Would say, hey, it's a no brainer. Do it. However, for some reason everybody's worried about different, you had a letter from a neighbor today. Well, I got a call from a neighbor today. 1 of the people that I offered to sell behind their house, I’m talking about the landlocked piece of property. I went to the neighbor, Mr. Murray's, his backyard they said I will give you the property immediately behind your property and you're backyard will be twice as big. The people next door, I was told today will absolutely most probably buy the land in their backyard. They'd be happy and I would probably be renumerated for only that property and paying taxes on it for the last 20 years. And in the meantime, it frees up Walker Street. That, of course, they have to subdivide it or somehow parcel off where I can give 1/3 of that lot to 1 house, 1/3 to the other house, keep 1/3 for the Walker Street house that could be built. Trustee Kyle: Have you gotten offers for that property? Ray Lustig: Yes, I have. I just got an offer for all 3 properties. However, the same people that made their offer today, were the same people that made my life miserable and bad mouthed me horribly since the first zoning meeting. I’m not thrilled. What I would like to do is, truthfully, I want to combine the properties. Build a house there and have that person that owns that house own the whole lot of land. That's what I would effectively do. And it’s in your hands. I'm saying the thing is right now, there zero redeeming value to that land. You were receiving tax payments and you were wrongfully receiving tax payments for it. I forgot 1 other item. Last year, I went to the town assessor and I explained situation. I submitted the application through late last year. This year I did not. That is the town assessor who understands the scenario extremely well. Lowered my assessment to dirt. Mayor Pearson: So, it’s not a building lot now. Ray Lustig: It's not being taxed as a building lot now, until the board decides to let it be a building lot. Then, of course, if the house is built, you would be collecting 15k maybe a year. Otherwise, you will collect scratch. Instead of being a lose-lose situation. Let's make it a win-win situation. Mayor Pearson: I'm speaking for myself. Some of the people who have not been on the board, so we're trying to give them time to catch up and I understand reading it, hearing it, is very different 13 than just reading off paper. But I think what I'm hearing, what the board would like to do is know that you're going to pay your bill. Have that paid before the board makes a decision. You owe the money for the Zoning Board. Anybody that goes before the Planning/Zoning Board pays their bill whether they like the turnout or not. Some people get voted down, some get voted yes. That’s how I’m feeling. I’m not going to speak for other people on the board. I think what I'm hearing also is possibly merging the lot. If you’re going to do that, great. Probably all 4 merging that lot, but they may not do anything until they know you are merging it so that there is not landlocked piece of property, unless you sell it. I didn't know you were going to possibly sell it. You said someone put the letter in, I didn't get a letter from anybody today. I think that part of the issue is, that you said it's buildable a lot, it's not a buildable lot but I'm saying if it's 50 by 150 then it's a residential, it's in R5 neighborhood. That is a buildable lot. But you're going to be staying within the variances of that. The board doesn't want to encroach on the neighbors. If you want to build a house, build it the size the lot accommodates. That is what I think what I'm hearing from the board. That's my opinion. That's my thoughts on it and I think that if things get paid up and things happen and you see that happening I think the board may have a different light of what’s happening. I don't know, I can't speak for everybody. I just know how I feel about it so. Attorney Cordisco: Mr. Lustig, when you purchased 52 Walker Street, did you receive title insurance for that? Ray Lustig: No. I think they opined on it but I didn’t get it. Attorney Cordisco: You got a title report, presumably it said that the title was uninsurable because of the nature that quick claim deed but you still purchased it anyway. 1 thing you may want to do is check with your title insurer. The 1 that did the title report, that did not insure the property and whether or not you can make it insurable title is if you merge the 2 lots and the Village Board revoked the offer of dedication. They may change their position. Ray Lustig: Merging the property may be functionally impossible. Unless I perfected the title. Through a lot of research and legal advice, people do quick claims all the time between mommy and daddy and the houses. Quick claims are all the time. Happens all the time. Here, buy my property for a dollar. In this particular situation, if the village removes their encumbrance, which is in the form of an interest that hasn't been exercised in 120 years. The property almost defaults to the fee simple. Absolutely. Because there is no other interest in that property, unless a neighbor makes the claim. But that's my problem. Attorney Cordisco: *inaudible* could merge that property with the landlocked parcel. You have to play this out. If the Village Board revokes the offer of dedication with whatever conditions the board establishes and you satisfy those conditions and then build a house on this property you still have to sell it. And whoever is buying it, is going to want to have insurable title so they know that they have the right to live in that house that they’re buying. So, I think you still have title issues to resolve and I think that you may want to talk with the company that did the original title report for you, prior to you purchasing the property. Whether or not this would be resolved if the Village Board revokes the offer of dedication. Mayor Pearson: If things are going to move forward, you kind of know how the board feels about thing, so we're going to go into executive session about the rest of that. We're going to come back again next meeting because most people want to talk about it for the new people who don't know the whole history and you gave a lot of, thank you. I think that we should stop right where we are right now. You think about what the attorney said to you. We will discuss it here. We'll come back at the next meeting, the board might have more information, but my take on it is that I don't think relinquishing this property until we know what the plan and how it rolls out is going to be. Whether 14 your fees are paid that you owe. I think that it's still part of going before the Zoning Board. We will see you at the next meeting. Tax Warrant Mayor Pearson: We just got this today. I talked to John about it because I just go this and I didn't read it. Manager Revella: The tax warrant for the general fund is the actual taxes that you approved at the meeting on the 28th for the budget. Mayor Pearson: John did you go over this. Manager Revella: I did. The numbers match the budget numbers and what is outstanding in Edmunds. This is necessary for the county in order to get our bills printed in time. Trustee Kyle made a motion to approve tax warrant for 2025-2026. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Thompson. Mayor Pearson: My discussion is that I'm not going to wait for the last... anything that comes before me I'm not going to discuss until the next meeting. People need to get their work done and get it to us in time. When we get the book, we should have the information. All ayes. Motion carried. Fee Schedule Trustee Kyle: If it says annual, does that mean if it’s worked on past the 1 year mark? Mayor Pearson: We're looking at the Building Department and she's looking at storable non- electric, $75 that's highlighted. That says annual. She wants to know what that means. Trustee Kyle: Is that while it's being constructed or worked on? Manager Revella: It’s annual for the storage of a pool. Every time you put it up. *Trustee Baker read a statement proposing waiving the fire & safety inspection & sprinkler fee* Trustee Kyle: Can you give me an example of what a miscellaneous residential, I'm just trying to get an idea of what would fall under that. Building Inspector Wallner: It would be impossible to categorize and all of the permit fees are based on how many inspections are required for a particular project. I’ve researched neighboring municipalities extensively to come up with the fee schedule 2 years ago. Based on if a project, average takes 3 inspections at $75 each inspection, I think that's a fair and reasonable fee for the admin expense and for us getting in the vehicle going out doing an inspection and the paperwork that’s associated with it. Mayor Pearson: She's talking about miscellaneous residential. What does that mean? Building Inspector Wallner: Some oddball project that might be governed by the uniform code and isn't necessarily windows or a door or something like that. 15 Trustee Garrison: I don't think that we can remove the fee for fire and safety. When you look at it, most of the buildings owned in the business district are not owned by the businesses. And the ones that are, have been here for so long they understand. I work in insurance and I don't want to see anything come back on the village if we stop doing fire and safety inspections and there’s an issue. Trustee Baker: I’m not saying stop doing the inspections. I'm saying not charging fees. We pay a lot in taxes. Taxes should include something. I'm saying, not charging a fee. I'm not saying don't do inspections. Trustee Garrison: I agree, except this fee keeps them in check to know that it needs to be done because there's times they have to go back and reinspect and then go back and reinspect and go back and reinspect. So, why is it fair for 1 person to pay the same as somebody else but that other person is doing everything the right way? The reason the fee is there so that they get it done and get it done right. In my opinion. I’m sure there’s places that they have to inspect multiple times. And there's places that they only have to inspect 1 time. Mayor Pearson: Cheryl, let me ask you, you’re talking about just businesses. You know there's. apartments above a lot of these businesses. So, are you singling out the businesses that don't have to pay for it? Are you talking about the apartments above as well? Trustee Baker: Yes, because where do you think those fees end up trickling down to? And people are already being forced out of the village. You can only hit the pot so many times. Mayor Pearson: So then all the taxpayers are paying for these apartment buildings and these businesses do not have to pay a fee? You have other multifamily houses that are not associated with businesses that have to pay, so how do you differentiate between a business, a business for apartments and just apartments? Trustee Baker: You wouldn’t charge a fee for either of them. Being a landlord is a business. *Discussion between Trustee Baker and Mayor Pearson* Trustee Mishk: As far as some of the fees here for the building permits, I think they've gone up quite a bit on these new schedules. 1 of the things that I really find appalling is a lot of times the construction there's delays and what's going on, whether its weather, infringes on the availability of the contractors to be there in time. Personally, I've suffered this last year and was 3 days behind and I had to get a whole new building permit to finish the job and it was finished by the end of the week. So, I think that's a little bit outrageous to get another permit. I can see paying a small fee to extend it. I can't see getting a whole new permit, especially at these rates. The Building Department here, since I've been here and I've done a few projects myself in the village, it’s always been based on the cost of the job. I understand the reason why Building Inspectors come up with these fees, because people tend *inaudible*. They also believe that as Building Inspector, he should be able to know if somebody is underpricing a job and to price it accordingly. Another thing that I see that I think is a little crazy is the stop work order. I understand it's always been 3 times the amount here in the village. To have it $250 or 3 times permit fees, whichever is greater, especially based on these new fees, it's always going to be greater than $250. I think that's a little bit crazy. As far as the fire and safety inspections, they really pertain to the apartments. After the tragedy occurred many years ago down in Newburgh where there was no fire and safety inspections, because they didn’t have people to do them. I think it was 2 or 3 families that died as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. I think they're necessary. That's why the state demands them and for the people that are here just have 2 family houses, if they occupy 1 part of that house, they’re not subject to those inspections. It's only for the multi-dwellings. When I was judged here, I saw a lot of violations come in. People 16 completely ignored it. Walden Estates, ignored it. How many apartments down there? 50-60 apartments. That's a lot of apartments to inspect and that takes a lot of time and that's why I don't think $65 once every 2 years for somebody that's collecting that much rent is too much to pay. Trustee Baker: I 's not unreasonable that the village create a little flexibility to entice people to come here. I'm not saying not have the inspections. Trustee Mishk: You can correct me if I’m wrong, but the sprinkler systems, most of these building predate the requirements for the sprinkler systems. So, that requires *inaudible*. I know of 1 building that recently got renovated and now had to install a sprinkler system. I don’t know how many others, maybe 10 tops. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I don’t have a problem with the fee schedule at all. Everything 's going up. I know from when I was the liaison to the Building Department. Sometimes the Building Inspector has to go back to numerous times. It’s a lot of time for the employee. It’s a lot of paperwork. It's a lot of regulations. I don't have a problem with it. I do have a question, what is a hot work permit? Building Inspector Wallner: Welding. Deputy Mayor Thompson: Why, because I can't imagine there's too many of these in the village. Why is a geothermal close loop heat pump $550? Manager Revella: Should be more probably. Building Inspector Wallner: It’s expensive to install as well. That was a fee that was actually a remnant from my predecessor. Deputy Mayor Thompson: That number just jumped out at me off the page. That is a huge number. Building Inspector Wallner: I've never had anyone apply for that since I’ve been here. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I can appreciate Cheryl’s argument and her concern for the business owners. I think that's a necessary part of having the business, is to have fire and safety inspections. And as Ralph said a lot of our businesses are renting their property. So, their landlord is in the business of being a landlord to make money and part of the landlord is to make sure that the building is safe. I get it, you want the inspections done with no fee or reduced fee but then as the mayor is saying somebody's have to pay for that. *Discussion between Trustee Baker and Trustee Garrison* Trustee Taylor: I don’t have a problem with the fees. I'm never going to advocate a safety inspection punitive. I am not convinced that if that fee did not exist businesses will be pouring in to the village. You're never going to convince me of that. When it comes to a safety inspection, if the gentleman has to go out 4 times, which happens a lot. I agree with my fellow Trustees. That's business. You enter into a business, that goes along with it. I am not looking to make a safety inspection a proverbial carrot to entice business owners, when there are other issues that would be more enticing for business owners not having to pay $75 for safety and inspections. You'll never convince that that is a proverbial carrot that is going to make us a boomtown. 17 Trustee Baker: I'm not saying it's gonna make it a boomtown. I'm saying it's making a step to show that the village is willing to work with the businesses. It's just not the fire and safety inspections, you have the engineering with the sprinkler and the fire escapes. There are other additional fees that are tied into that. It’s not unreasonable to give them a crumb to work with them. I really don’t understand the digging in the heels, the I will not work with you or even consider a part of it. With what’s paid in taxes, that fee could be considered a part of it. I don’t think it’s right to punish the good. We have many good ones. We have low ones. Any community unfortunately does. Part of the reason is that the rents are high that a lot of people aren’t considering. Trustee Taylor: That fee is not punitive. That's fee that goes along with owning the business. It's called due diligence. Trustee Kyle: 1 more quick question, there is fencing and I just noticed that the fence had 1 standard price, but then garages, decks, they go by square footage. Fencing it doesn't matter the square footage? Building Inspector Wallner: Yeah. There's really only 1 inspection involved with that. It's going out and make sure that they put it on the property line or where they said they're going to put it. Trustee Kyle: Retaining walls, if it's underneath 24 inches they don’t need a permit. Building Inspector Wallner: Correct. Trustee Garrison made a motion to approve fee schedules. Seconded by Trustee Taylor. 6 ayes 1 nay (Trustee Baker). Motion carried. Public Comment Dennis Wageman: I said that I was going to be here tonight. I wasn’t prepared to go into what I need to go into and I say that because I was here before and I found out can't address this anymore without having a handout and I don't have that handout because I don't have the computer or the printer set up. I’ll be back next meeting with that. I did put in this request to have a water meter payment fee waived. That was denied today about 2 o'clock. That's another reason I didn’t have the presentation papers I wanted. I'd like to give this to board. Manager Revella: Just want to clarify, the fee was partially denied and partially waived. Dennis Wageman: That’s getting into big issue because of what I want to get in to next week when I start talking about this and I have the law, that supposedly was the basis for the billing department statement on the water bill. Trustee Kyle: Did we put the information about this on a bill before it was charged? And it was charged for the following bill. Manager Revella: Correct. First you had a public hearing for the local law. It was announced to the world. Trustee Kyle: Yes, and we talked about it in several meetings. It was on the previous bill saying your next bill will be charged. So, anyone that got a water bill, had that information on that bill. Manager Revella: There was also inserts when the law was passed. In 2019 or 2020 about the update. 18 Dennis Wageman: Correct. Now the question there is, does everybody read everything on their water bill? I really don't want to get into this now. Mayor Pearson: Okay, we’ll read this and talk about it next meeting. Dennis Wageman: This whole top paragraph in blue, is very damning to me. I don't know how to really get out of this. Because it all goes back to when the billing department told me that I was basically a liar. The situation is I don't know how to kind of remedy that I'd be willing to take a lie detector test. I have no other option. You can ask me 20 questions. That would basically prove I am not lying about not knowing about this situation. I don't know how else to do it. I'm willing to do it. What I’m gonna do is, I gotta get a copy of *inaudible* the law. I don't even really know if it was intended to be a law. It seemed to be more of an addition. If you were found to refuse to put the water meter in or you neglect it. I don't know neglect, the term means. To me it means to the billing department, it meant because I didn't know about this. I neglected it. Basically the day I found out about it, I made arrangements. It was done in a short period of time. 1 thing to keep in mind when you read this, a Supreme Court decision comes in on almost this exact same thing, how much damage was done to the welfare of the general public? That's the standard that Supreme Court said. Then you realize exactly what it says if this program was started back in 2017 and it's still going on. How much damage did I do? Again, I didn't know about it. Keep in mind, I'm willing to take that lie detector test. How much more damage did I do to the welfare of the general public than the guy that did it 4 days before me? And he knew about it. With my next handout, when you have essentially have the law in front of you and what the billing department put on the bill. You'll see the difference. Mayor Pearson: Could you do me a favor? Can you get that to us for our book when you get it? Give it to the Clerk when you get it. She puts the book together the Friday before the meeting. Is that possible to get them to the Clerk so we'll have it in our book? Dennis Wageman: Yeah, it's only 2 sheets. Will definitely do that. Dennis Wageman: My rejection was based on the circumstances. The question is, are all the circumstances listed in the first paragraph or are there other circumstances? Mayor Pearson: Okay, we'll look that. Janine Dickenson: I have received a letter in the mail for a violation for my garbage cans. I wanted to say first, I've lived in Walden my whole life. That being said I've never had an issue before with my garbage. It's really not followed in Walden. The code probably should be looked at again and maybe adjusted. I'm familiar with some of you, not all of you. If you look at all the areas coming into the Walden, like from Wallkill, 208, Squire Village, it’s a nightmare. I took pictures. We all have eyes. Every single solitary house on 208, there are garbage cans were visible. I'm not saying they look terrible. I'm saying visible. Going down to the Thruway Market, all their garbage is visible. I live over on Second Street. Every house on Wait Street. I go to MPB church Sunday, when we're leaving church, all the houses on that block. Again I'm not saying that they're dirty. Their garbage is visible. What I have noticed is, we got this back in March, and I did put my garbage cans temporarily into my backyard. They just can't stay there. I have a little parcel and my grill is there and I can’t grill next to my garbage can. People tend to put garbage cans out. We have basically all day Monday, because people put their garbage out for Tuesday. All day Tuesday, all day Wednesday. Basically looking at Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I took tons and tons of pictures on Sunday and you’d be surprised how many people actually have their garbage out. Maybe the rules should be changed more on that you need to put your garbage back on your property and keep it clean. I take pride in my house. I change my outside decorations for different 19 holidays. There's always plants. My garbage cans aren't offensive. Just like most of the people, that you can see from driving. If they’re kept neatly and they're kept clean. Manager Revella: Just so the board is aware, this was a reaction, somebody made a complaint to the Building Department. The Building Department is not out actively violating for garbage cans at this time unless the board wants to change their position. Janine Dickenson: Our next door neighbor. Honestly where that stemmed from, she has lived there forever. She came to me a while ago and said your fence is leaning on my fence. Said that the people that lived there before, were friendly and would push it up. *inaudible* and next thing you know, I have this. *Discussion of pictures handed out by resident and overlapping of conversations* Mayor Pearson: It stemmed from a complaint. The Building Inspector didn’t come. Listen, I’m all about putting your cans in the backyard. I’m for fining everybody. Janine Dickenson: Not everyone's property is built to drag your hands down a bumpy yard. The townhouses can't do. That’s the first thing you see coming into town. Mayor Pearson: It was not just done because they came to some section, you had a violation that somebody complained about. That's where the issue is coming from. Janine Dickenson: Absolutely. My point is when I called the Inspector and I said if I just move them up like everyone else am I good? He told me no. Not one part of your garbage can be visible including your lid. And that's why I'm here. If we are going to implement that for me, everyone else in the village has to follow that. Mayor Pearson: I’m going to agree with you 100%. Janine Dickenson: I’m going to put my garbage back further up my driveway like everyone else. So, when I get my next notice, all my neighbors better get one too. Obviously, it’s not something you follow. So, stop targeting me. I keep my house very clean inside and out. Mary Ellen Matise: Let’s talk about water protection because I think that is the next topic that the mayor wants to start working on after code revision. And I don't even want to talk about garbage. Imagine my surprise when I was driving past East Walden today and JOhn J Lease put up a sign on 11 acre parcel that's behind the A1 porta potty. Across from our wells, directly across from our wells with the feeder stream that comes through this parcel. That was rezoned industrial while we weren't looking. How do you like that? I’m going to give this stuff to John. August 2004, I started addressing the issue of an aquifer overlay district. Addressed it to *inaudible*. October 2004, the same plea to Susan Cockburn. Obviously, they know nothing has been done in that direction except that currently there are 2 monitoring projects going on that the town applied for and accepted money from the DEC. 1 is to monitor the Tin Brook in 2 locations and 1 was because of concern about Amazon packing plant and the other 1 was up near Newburgh Winwater. The second project is underway where they are looking for trying to assess possible sources of pollution. So, they accepted a big grant from the DEC that's going to tell us potential problem spots all around the town. In order to receive those grants, the town had to apply for it and then they had to accept them. But then this past September they passed Local Law 5, rezoning 11 acres that has no access to 52 except over another parcel, industrial. After we got it changed during the comprehensive plan process away from industrial. And all of us snoozed in September when they approved this and they didn't know they already had 2 monitoring grants that they were conducting. 20 Deputy Mayor Thompson: I think part of that issue may be because the grant went in and we never got results on the water monitoring. Mary Ellen Matise: No, the issue is not that they didn’t get the results. The issue is that they didn't realize that they're contradicting themselves. They're not protecting water. And they are not protecting our water because it's right across from well 6. This is frightening with these people. The point that I’m going to make is, that land was industrial at 1 point. They built a railroad bridge over the Hudson in 1889. And they built the rail line through Maybrook. But then the bridge burned in 1974. The use for that land as industrial ended in 1974. There used to be a coal and lumber yard there. John Aaron bought that land from Todd which is the bed and breakfast on the corner. He bought that land from James Todd because he wanted a lumberyard there. Depended on the train. Train ceased completely in 1974. The land has been vacant since then. I think we need to put the town on notice that any impairment to our water, this is going to be the first parcel you’re going to look at. Payment of Audited Bills Trustee Mishk made a motion to approved payment of audited bills. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. All ayes. Motion carried. Miscellaneous Comments from the Board of Trustees Trustee Garrison: Be safe out there. Memorial weekend coming up, I know we have a meeting being before that. I know the village is doing something for Memorial Day. If you can make it out, make it out. Everybody be safe, be weary. Weather’s getting nice, people are out later, when you're driving through town, please drive slowly. Trustee Taylor: Once again, as long as I am seeing this elevated exposure, the Police Department is in fact out there. Congratulations to the new officer that we met this evening. Had an opportunity to attend Arbor Day, which was very nicely done. A lot of participation by the school. I think everybody enjoyed the day. Also, went to the spring festival. A lot of new vendors came. I tried to make the rounds, hit all of them and thank them for being there. Great displays. I just put some pictures up of it. Very successful, other than the weather, it was terrible that day. Attended the breakfast at the Fire Department that was also well done. Last but not least commend the Fire Department that responded to Bank Street. Tremendous job by all involved, first responders and it was obviously a catastrophic event. I did see the young lady, who works at Stewarts’, she's very appreciative of the outreach from the village. I asked her how she was doing, husband was doing, children were doing. Thanks to the community for reaching out, there were some folks that were devastated. And great job by all involved including the Mayor who jumped all over it got the names, sizes of the kids, published that information and if you go down you can still see stuff is still pouring in. Job well done. Deputy Mayor Thompson: I got a message from a village resident, I asked him if he would like to come here this evening, said no. I asked if he’d like his name given for his question, he said no. This gentleman wanted to know has the village ever considered a municipal bond sale that could raise funds to purchase some of the derelict properties and revitalize? The village and bondholders would profit and would help grow the village and beautify it. Manager Revella: We'll see if we’re legally allowed to do that in the village. That’s a lawyer question Deputy Mayor Thompson: I would also like to say Arbor Day was really nice. It was very heartwarming to see the Millspaugh family present, including their matriarch. They were absolutely 21 thrilled that we've made so much progress on the park. Of course they still want the boat launch. The tree in memory of Mr. Millspaugh was very touching. They were very touched and it was a very nice day. The kids were well behaved. Everybody seemed to have fun and it's really very refreshing to see the Police Department engaging with all of our community activities. It looks like the young people in the community are feeling comfortable approaching the Police Officers. Which that type of community is what we need. Cheryl Baker and I went to the dinner at the Episcopal Church. We go to look at the winning peeps display. That thing was amazing. It was a very nice dinner for the veterans. They're going to have another 1 before Memorial Day. I think it’s the weekend before Memorial Day, they’re going to have another 1 of their bbq’s and they invite the whole community. Mayor Pearson: Just a reminder, the Memorial Day parade, May 26th, from VFW and from the Legion. Line up is 9:30 by the Veterans Park and walk up the street. I got a beautiful thank you note from Walden Elementary School, to the Village of Walden signed by all the 3rd grade. Really cute. We got this in the mail today, Knights of Columbus is celebrating the Holy name of Mary Assumption, 89 Union Street, Sunday, May 18th at 2pm. Posted some information from the county for a youth program this summer. We put that on the website and Facebook. So, if anybody wants employment from the county it seems like a really nice program that they're doing this year from the Youth Department. History Walking Tour was the Thursday after Arbor Day. Another Walden Elementary program. straight Mary Ellen does part of it. Arbor Day was really nice. It was just a great day. It’s been almost 20 years doing that. I would really love to thank the community for their outpouring and overwhelming dedication to people in this village for clothes and food and money and gift cards. It’s okay to stop this minute on clothes because some people don't have any places to put them. But they will take cash and gift cards. Brenda Adams is collecting them still. The PD decibel meters, are we going to order those this year because we put that law in. Just a thought. ARPA funds. I keep getting that e-mail on ARPA funds all the time. Deputy Mayor Thompson: The Town of Montgomery community gardens still has plots available. If anyone is interested, please contact the Town of Montgomery. You can look on their website, there’s more information. Executive Session - Employment History of Particular Person, Collective Bargaining Negotiations for PBA, Attorney-Client Deputy Mayor Thompson made a motion employment history of particular person, collective bargaining negotiations for PBA and attorney-client. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. All ayes. Motion carried. Reconvene Trustee Kyle made a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees. Seconded by Trustee Baker. All ayes. Motion carried. 22  Village of Walden Board of Trustees Regular Meeting May 6, 2025 Motions & Resolutions Approval of Minutes – April 15, 2025 Deputy Mayor Thompson made a motion to approve April 15, 2025 minutes. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. 6 ayes. 1 abstention (Trustee Kyle). Motion carried. Park Use Request – Alcohol Waiver - Gernand Trustee Garrison made a motion to approve the park use request for alcohol waiver. Seconded by Trustee Baker. All ayes. Motion carried. Tax Warrant Trustee Kyle made a motion to approve tax warrant for 2025-2026. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Thompson. All ayes. Motion carried. Fee Schedule Trustee Garrison made a motion to approve fee schedules. Seconded by Trustee Taylor. 6 ayes 1 nay(Trustee Baker). Motion carried. Payment of Audited Bills Trustee Mishk made a motion to approved payment of audited bills. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. All ayes. Motion carried. Executive Session - Employment History of Particular Person, Collective Bargaining Negotiations for PBA, Attorney-Client Deputy Mayor Thompson made a motion employment history of particular person, collective bargaining negotiations for PBA and attorney-client. Seconded by Trustee Garrison. All ayes. Motion carried. Reconvene Trustee Kyle made a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees. Seconded by Trustee Baker. All ayes. Motion carried. 23