Finding Ulysses

Residents of the Trumansburg Fire District (which includes the Village of Trumansburg, Town of Ulysses and parts of the Towns of Covert and Hector) have recently received or should shortly receive a mailing from the Village of Trumansburg regarding an important upcoming public hearing to discuss the possibility of billing for EMS services on a per call basis.  Up to this point, the EMS service has been funded through taxes of the various municipalities it serves.  The letter describes the process of the appoinment of an EMS Task Force, their report and recommendation, the referendum that turned out never to be, and the public hearing.  This public hearing is an important opportunity to make your voice heard regarding the possibility of moving to a system of billing-for-services for the EMS/Ambulance portion of the Trumansburg Fire Department.

When: Wednesday, June 18, at 7pm
Where:  Trumansburg Elementary School Auditorium.

If you have not received this letter yet, you can find the link for a pdf on the main page of the Village of Trumansburg web site.  What seems to be lacking at that site as of yet is a copy of the report of the EMS Task Force.  Fortunately, I picked up a copy at the May Village Meeting, and scanned it to pdf, so you can read it here.

My understanding is that no taxes are expected to decrease with the advent of billing for EMS services, but the revenues from these bills would be directed back to the EMS budget.  I think we have to ask some hard questions at this point regarding the consequenses of such a plan.  I’d like to see more community engagement on this issue.  I’m hoping some of that discussion can happen here. 

Tomorrow, Monday, June 4th, at 7:00 PM, there will be a joint public hearing of the Trumansburg Village Board and the Ulysses Town Board to discuss the proposed annexation of two lots owned by William Auble on Seneca Road, west of route 96, into the Village of Trumansburg.

You wouldn’t know this, though, by looking at the official governmental web sites of the Village of Trumansburg and the Town of Ulysses. There is nothing on either site that indicates that this meeting is taking place at all. The Village government calendar shows that there will be no public meetings on June 4. The Town of Ulysses web site shows nothing either.

There was an article in the Ithaca Journal which mentions the June 4th meeting, but there is nothing published about the meeting in the most recent issue of the Free Press, Trumansburg’s paper of record - not a calendar listing, and not a public notice.

I got word of tomorrow’s meeting through a phone call from another village resident, and from an email sent by another resident, Dorothy Vanderbilt. The body of that email reads,

Dear Fellow Trumansburg residents,
I just found out last night about an annexation meeting regarding development of property along route 96 just past the fire station (proposed strip mall from what I’ve been told). I have to admit I do not know many details but I plan to read the attached Annexation document (PDF) and attend the meeting next Monday, June 4, 7:00 PM in the H.S. auditorium. I hope you all can attend as well! It is my opinion–and I hope many of you agree– that this type of development will further degrade Trumansburg!

SPREAD THE WORD!

Attached to that email are two electronic documents: A Microsoft Word version of the legal notice you see below, and a PDF version of the petition submitted by William J. Auble. That petition shows that the document was submitted to both Tammy Morse, Trumansburg Village Clerk, and Marsha Georgia, Ulysses Town Clerk. Please look at the documents yourself.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a petition pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 17, has been received by the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses, Tompkins County, New York and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Trumansburg, Tompkins County, New York, for the annexation of the following described territory situated in the Town of Ulysses to the Village of Trumansburg: William J. Auble owner/petitioner Tax Parcel # 11.-2-7.1 consisting of 38.56 acres fronting in part on Route 96 and Tax Parcel # 11.-2-4 (Trailer Park) consisting of 59 acres, 4380 West Seneca Road.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that on the 4th day of JUNE 2007, at 7 p.m. of that day, a joint hearing upon such petition will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Trumansburg, at the Trumansburg High School Auditorium, Main Street, Trumansburg, New York. At such time and place all persons interested in the matter may be heard. Objections based on any of the grounds set forth in General Municipal Law Section 705 (1) (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall, in addition to oral testimony thereon, be submitted in writing.

By Order of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Trumansburg
Village Clerk
Tammy Morse

Notice is hereby given? To who?

The Microsoft version of the document shows that the legal notice you see above was created on May 10, 2007 at 8:58 AM, and was printed out at the same time.

Where did Dorothy Vanderbilt get these documents? They’re not available for download on either the Trumansburg or Ulysses web sites.

Has there been a politically-motivated selective release of these documents by a member of the Ulysses Town Board or Trumansburg Village Board, or a member of the supporting staff? How come the Trumansburg Free Press didn’t get the legal notification in time to publish last week, but Dorothy Vanderbilt did? Why didn’t Tammy Morse or Marsha Georgia make the petition available to the public online?

I have many questions about the selective publicity for the annexation meeting tomorrow, and very few answers. One thing, however, is crystal clear: The interaction between the Town of Ulysses and the Village of Trumansburg on the one hand and the public and local media on the other hand is not functioning adequately. Maybe it’s the fault of the board members. Maybe it’s the fault of the clerks. Maybe it’s the fault of the media. Maybe we in the public just aren’t showing enough interest to provoke adequate notice of public meetings. I don’t know who’s to blame, but wherever the problem lies, it needs to be fixed as soon as possible.

The issue of the annexation of William Auble’s properties is too important to let these public hearings go without adequate publicity in time for residents to plan to attend. Personally, I won’t be able to attend, as I’ll be on business in Texas on Monday.

The annexation needs to be carefully considered partially because it’s being requested by Bill Auble, who, as I understand it, is no longer a Ulysses resident. Auble has also written some rather rude things about Trumansburg in a letter to the Free Press. Among other things, Mr. Auble claimed that people in Trumansburg don’t know each other or wave to each other on the street anymore. That’s a ridiculous claim, as I know scads of people already here in the village, and have only lived here two years. I wave to plenty of people on the street, and they almost always wave back, or stop and have a conversation. Trumansburg is a very friendly place, and how would Mr. Auble know otherwise, given that he doesn’t even live here any more?

Local legend has it that, when he didn’t get his way in the past, Mr. Auble spitefully set up a pig farm on the property he now wants to be annexed, with school buses buried in the ground, in order to create a literal stink in Trumansburg, along with an eyesore. I don’t know if this story is true, given that I didn’t live here at the time. If the story is true, Trumansburg ought to be very careful in dealing with such a person.

In his petition, William Auble says that the annexation of his property would enable “economic development” and “would allow for the creation of jobs and the availability of needed goods and services”. How? If Auble does not plan commercial development of the property, how would the annexation provide jobs and needed goods and services? I haven’t seen any proof that a strip mall is in the planning, but I can see how Dorothy Vanderbilt would come to suspect as much.

The proposed Water District 5 would be thwarted by the annexation deal, and that might be a good thing. Certainly, any Water District 5 proposal that depends upon the inclusion of people who already are receiving municipal water is not worthy of consideration.

However, members of the Village Board would do well to consider how this annexation will affect the balance of power in Trumansburg. How would the people living on Auble’s property vote in village elections? Would their votes be enough to change the political character of the village, and impact the lives of those currently living within village limits?

Before the annexation is accepted, all these questions should be asked, and answered, at Monday’s public hearing.

If you’re able to attend, leave your comments here and let me know how it goes.

In the zoning code for the Village of Trumansburg, there is an allowance of building for the sake of “gardens and accessory appurtences”.

I just looked in the dictionary, and I can’t find the word “appurtence”.

Can anyone tell me what a garden’s accessory appurtence is? I’ve been gardening for years, and I’ve never used an appurtence, as far as I know. Maybe that explains my troubles. Maybe I really need an appurtence.

If you’ve got an appurtence in your garden, how does it work for you? Does it require weeding, or mulch?

I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m a big fan of the web site of the Trumansburg Police Department. While not every bit of punctuation is perfect (I suspect mine isn’t either), the genuine personality evident in the creation of the site more than makes up for the tiny formal errors in the text. There’s the kind of friendly writing about the law on the site that feels fatherly without being condescending. All-in-all, the tone of the site reassures me that I can trust the Trumansburg Police to be basically reasonable.

One of my favorite parts of the site is the part that details local laws. In particular, I’m fond of the old laws admonishing us all to be orderly, which we’re told are found in old books bound in 1953, but are still valid:

“Article 6 Section 3 Breach of the Peace

No person shall conduct himself in a noisy, boisterous, rude, indecent, insulting or otherwise disorderly manner so as to annoy the public or disturb its peace and quiet.

Article 6 Section 4 Noise nuisance

No person shall use or cause to be used, any radio or other sound machine in such unreasonable loud volume as to disturb the peace and quiet of the public; or conduct himself in such loud noisy, or unseemly manner in his own premises after 11:00 pm as to unreasonably offend and interfere with the repose of neighbors or the public.”

Anyone have their repose interfered with recently? Been annoyed by someone else’s disorder?

I hope these laws don’t apply to my baby’s habit of squawking in in the middle of the night, or that patch in the front lawn that I missed while mowing this afternoon. Thanks for your patience, everyone.

It’s not something that even the most dedicated whitewater lover would think about now, but last March, an anonymous volunteer affiliated with the American Whitewater organization made note of some spots on Trumansburg Creek that would provide a nice ride, given the right conditions.

Trumansburg Creek is described as “a very interesting creek” having class IV to class V whitewater in the stretch between Trumansburg and route 89. Says the volunteer, as a result of an “an exploratory trip”,

“This is a very narrow, technical creek with a tiny drainage. Many of the drops are barely a boat wide. Plus, it’s in a narrow gorge with walls that aren’t super high, but are steep. Portaging is generally doable, but tricky. We also encountered one landowner who took offense to our scouting adjacent to his property. This is at a narrow drop into a little hole followed immediately by a 6 footer into a cauldron about 4 ft. wide. You’d be better off getting out on the right; away from the landowner and on the better side to scout or set safety. After this there are approximately 7 drops until Rt. 89.”

I wonder what the volunteer would have thought if he had returned last summer, when the water was running high and fast for almost the entire season. Would those have been considered the “right conditions”? I’d like to see someone from American Whitewater come back this year, and give us all a second opinion.

TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
12/13/05
Approved December 27th 2005

Present: Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members: Margot Chiuten,
David Means, and John Wertis, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun.

Excused: Rose Hilbert, Rod Porter, and Darien Simon.

Applicants: Rich Hayward representing Kim Lanphear
Joseph Hucko and Matthew Moore representing Washington St. Partners

A quorum is present at the meeting; Mr. Tyler called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm.

Minutes:

Mr. Tyler submitted revisions to the minutes of 11/29/05. Members reviewed the revisions. Mr. Wertis offered a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes. Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor – MOTION APPROVED.

Ulysses Square Subdivision

Mr. Rachun stated this parcel went from a business district, with the northernmost end of it being a residential district. Once the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005) change took place all of it with the exception of the actual building and parcel A directly north of the building on parcel B were zoned business; a corner of Parcel A is zoned as hamlet. The person who would like to purchase the property wanted to build a house on it but is unable because single family homes are not allowed in a business district.

Mr. Tyler asked if the parcel A is actually half hamlet and half business, he stated to the best of his knowledge this could not be done.

Mr. Hayward introduced himself; he is a Sales Associate with RE/MAX and represents
Kim Lanphear who currently owns the property. He also worked for Babcock and is very familiar with the property. He indicated on the map the parcels that were changed from business to residential in 1986-this led the corner of parcel A to being zoned as residential.

Mr. Rachun stated that they did not use lot lines to designate these zoning boundaries.
If you examine the Zoning Map property lines delineate the rest of the Town Ulysses. But in this particular case it is not, it is cut off from the back and the side. This is another item for the technical problems list.

Mr. Wertis asked what is actually being expected from this review. They cannot build residential in a business district; can the Planning Board make a zoning change.

Mr. Rachun stated this Board cannot do a zoning change it would be a Town Board issue; however based on the problems of the map it might be approachable due to the technical aspect.

Mr. Tyler clarified that the lot is currently one parcel. After reviewing the map he verified that there is underground gas and electric on all the parcels. He asked if there is public water-there is a public water supply. He noted there is no septic on parcel C. The map indicated a shared driveway between parcel B and C. He asked Mr. Rachun what the minimum frontage on a lot in this area.

Mr. Rachun stated that the minimum is 50 feet for a hamlet district.

Mr. Tyler asked whom the attorney working with the developer.

Mr. Hayward stated there is no developer because they have not closed on the property. The purchaser’s attorney is Anna Holmberg and the seller’s attorney is David Clark.

Mr. Tyler noted the shared drive between parcel B and C; creating a joint driveway creates legal complications. He questioned if it would not be smarter to have the driveway on one parcel and give the other parcel right of way. It is not an issue now but once it is sold off there could be issues to be dealt with. He questioned why they aren’t looking at a subdivision of parcel A and the rest of the land, why are they looking at B and C.

Mr. Hayward indicated Ms Lanphear has a land contract on parcel B.

Mr. Rachun noted that the large Babcock building is being sold currently on a land contract. It is being utilized as a used furniture retail space.

Mr. Tyler questioned if is a land contract what are they using as the lot lines. A land contract usually has a legal description – this map was updated on 11/10/05.

Mr. Hayward stated he is unclear if it is an actual land contract or a rent to own contract.

Mr. Tyler noted that before the Board approves it he does not have a problem with parcel A but does see potential problems between B and C. But if the applicant does not want to do it there is nothing the Board can do.

Mr. Hayward asked if this would have a bearing on the subdivision.

Mr. Tyler indicated it would, if there is a contract the lines would have to correlate with what is on the map. He is pretty sure the land contract predated the map in front of the Planning Board.

Mr. Rachun offered that if the map were approved, the land contract would follow the lot lines. These are conforming lots according to the Zoning Ordinance. He has dealt with Ms Lanphear in the past and she is very on top of things and has probably thought this out.

Mr. Hayward questioned the difference between land contract and rent to own.

Mr. Tyler explained the differences.

Mr. Hayward stated that this is what they have in place. They are not concerned with the driveway issues. Ms. Lanphear has been adamant about retaining a portion of the parking lot and the driveway.

Mr. Tyler asked if any members had any other issues.

Ms. Chiuten asked for clarification regarding driveway width and future expansion.

Mr. Tyler offered the explanation of future growth.
Mr. Rachun offered that an updated map should be provided indicating the septic for parcel C should be submitted.

Mr. Hayward submitted a fax letter with drawing from the Tompkins County Environmental Health office-indicating placement of the septic on parcel C.

Mr. Tyler noted that TG Millers would not update the map per the Environmental Health Office; this needs to be done and noted in the comments section on the map by TG Miller.

Mr. Wertis asked if they could approve pending receipt of the updated map.
The issue of the driveway could also be addressed and reviewed by the owner/buyer.

Mr. Tyler stated this could be done. But he definitely feels a corrected map should be in place.

Mr. Means MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Wertis

WHEREAS, Rich Hayward representing Kim Lanphear, have requested approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the parcel known as Ulysses Square, Route 96, Trumansburg, NY from the Town of Ulysses Planning Board.

WHEREAS, the division between Parcel A and B, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board approves the MINOR SUBDIVISION as indicated on the map submitted this date 12/13/05 as prepared by TG Millers.

WHEREAS, the division between Parcel B and C, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board is to be approved conditioned upon receipt of an updated map done by the surveyor to reflect the septic location on the parcel C.
The Town of Ulysses Planning Board refers for reconsideration to the applicant and their attorney the dividing line between the parcel B and C in respect to the asphalt parking lot and driveway. This would be a shared driveway and parking lot and offer this could lead to legal complexities.

THEREFORE, be it resolved the Town of Ulysses Planning Board does hereby approve the application for a MINOR SUBDIVISION contingent on the following:

• Updated Surveyor map indicating septic on Parcel C
• Applicant/attorney review the dividing line creating a shared driveway
of Parcel B and C.

Mr. Tyler called the vote:
Ms. Chiuten aye
Mr. Means aye
Mr. Tyler aye
Mr. Wertis aye

ADOPTED
The Board presented their findings as follows:

1. It conforms to the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Tyler noted that Mr. Hayward should get the updated map back to Mr. Rachun before the end of the year, as he will no longer be on the Board as of December 31, 2005.

Ms Carlisle Peck asked if the resolution would be contingent on the minutes being approved. Since the next meeting may not be until January this could be problematic.

Mr. Rachun stated the minutes would have to be filed with the map when the County Clerk processes it.

Ms Carlisle Peck stated she could email the drafts to the members; they can make any corrections and give her approval by email. Once the Minutes have been approved she will email a copy to Mr. Hayward.

All members agreed this would be an effective way to manage this particular project due to mitigating factors.

Washington Street Partners

Mr. Tyler announced he would turn this portion of the meeting over to Mr. Means, as he is the designated Chairperson. He asked the applicants to introduce themselves.

Mr. Joe Hucko and Mr. Matthew Moore are the applicants representing Washington Street Partners. The project name is Trumansburg Commons.

Mr. Means stated the applicants had submitted the following documents earlier for the proposed Commons Project:

• 2 large sized revised Site Plans stamped by the architect.
• 9 complete packets of submissions for the Planning Board, each
packet comprised of 1 binder and 1 set of 11×17 inch illustrations.

The plan consists of only 1275 square foot retail building; there will be no gas pumps on the site. The engineers are completing the water quantity and quality section. They will have this and the accompanying diagrams ready for submission within the next few days.

Mr. Means noted they all have the newly submitted documents, he stated they all have to be careful and remember this is a new submittal and not compare to what went before this.

Mr. Tyler stated he would be interested in hearing why they are here, what was the impetus or the catalyst to bring them to this point.

Mr. Hucko said he would speculate that from a Planning Board perspective it would be an improvement. It is a reduction in building and the removal of the gas dispensing area.

Ms. Chiuten noted that there were changes in the driveway configuration. She asked what changed there and why.

Mr. Hucko and Mr. Moore presented a display of the site. Mr. Moore stated they shifted the main driveway to the North; this gave them a straight exit, and moving the driveway over to eliminate an issue with the swale.

Mr. Hucko stated some of this was driven by comments from DOT. They do not have the report from the plans presented here tonight.

Mr. Wertis noted the original was reversed. His recollection is the entrance to the northern most ends would be a one-way entrance; this was related to the fact that the cars would be making right hand turns. The grade off Route 96 is a steep grade.

Mr. Hucko replied there would be some revision however there would still be a grade to the entrance into the driveway.

Mr. Wertis stated the other side is more level to the road. With cars coming out of the double drive will spin their way out on a winter’s day.

Mr. Hucko stated they have enough room to bring the drive back and temper the grade back to a reasonable point.

Mr. Tyler stated if Mr. Auble is retaining land, if the lot he is retaining keeps the building as indicated on the plan then the setback would not be in compliance with current zoning.

Mr. Rachun indicated the Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 15 feet.

Mr. Hucko stated that he believed Mr. Auble has complied with removal of the encroaching portion of the building. There is a stipulation in the contract that does require he comply with any regulations to achieve the Site Plan approval.

Mr. Tyler stated that this should not come back to Mr. Rachun as a Code Enforcement issue. It should be part of the approval process, it is Mr. Auble’s property and he has authorized Washington Street Partners to act as their agent. He questioned if the Board had received the letter from Mr. Auble authorizing the applicants to act on his behalf.

Mr. Hucko stated he had to respectfully disagree with the Mr. Tyler’s position; Washington St. Partners are the applicants not Mr. Auble. If they pull their application then the approval goes with them. They are an equity stakeholder but virtue of the purchase contract; under no uncertain terms they are the applicants; not Mr. Auble, they are not his agent.

Mr. Tyler noted that they are acting as his agent because they are applying for something that relates to his land.

Mr. Hucko stated that if they purchase this property, and Mr. Auble encroaches onto their property, he does not want it to be this approval’s process problem. It should be the Town’s issue with the property owner.

Mr. Tyler stated he disagreed; you are creating a subdivision and if it creates a non-conforming lot then it will not be allowed under the subdivision. Mr. Auble can obtain a variance but it would have to be done before subdivision approval is granted.

Mr. Wertis asked if the property should be subdivided. Mr. Auble would have to submit the subdivision plan while Washington Street Partners submit the Site Plan.

Mr. Hucko noted that it was their legal interpretation that a legal subdivision was not necessary-therefore they were purchasing a parcel of land that did not require any formal approval. He does not know if the game has changed-they were cognizant of the Planning Board right to build approval, but not for the transfer of the piece of real estate.

Mr. Rachun clarified that the Town Attorney had advised the Board they had to review all applications under the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005). The current ordinance does require a simple subdivision, which this would be. Since, it is on a collector road so it has to have formal approval by the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko asked what additional information would have to be submitted for the subdivision.

Mr. Rachun stated he could not speak on behalf of the Planning Board; but once the Site Plan is approved subdivision approval would be a condition to be met. Then the applicant would have the subdivision application prepared and come before the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko stated they were working under the former ordinance; what is the simple subdivision process.

Mr. Rachun answered under the prior ordinance he had reviewed them. The new ordinance states since it is on a collector road the subdivision has to be reviewed by the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko stated he would like to have the subdivision process approved as part of the Site Plan review.

Mr. Rachun stated there is a formal application for subdivision. The subdivision map must show the whole property- it will need to show all utilities, septic and buildings that exist, not just the parcel Washington Street Partners intends to develop.

Mr. Tyler stated very candidly that the subdivision process would be Mr. Auble’s.
He is the property owner; he cannot sell the land to the applicant until it is subdivided.

Mr. Hucko stated he does not understand this; the subdivision is contingent on their exercising the purchase contract.

Ms. Chiuten noted that he could assign this over to the applicants.

Mr. Tyler stated that if the setback on the building on the land Mr. Auble is retaining were to close to the line; the decision would impact him. He will have to remove it or he will have to get a variance.

Mr. Rachun stated he would not likely get a variance, as it was known he is creating a non-conforming lot.

Ms Chiuten stated what they have done in other municipalities is to present the preliminary plat. This occurs the same time as Site Plan approval; the information is almost always the same. The filing of the final subdivision plat is the last things to happen-they have acted as the agents on behalf of the property owner. The Site Plan approval is contingent on the subdivision meeting all the requirements of setback, etc. Then the burden is back on them, they get final Site Plan approval once the subdivision is approved.

Mr. Tyler stated the person who owns the land has the authority and power to subdivide, if they are working as the agent that is fine, but a contract vendee cannot do this.

Mr. Hucko stated he is not a lawyer, but he has to respectfully disagree but if they get to the same end line he will do it however they want. But, if they never take possession of the property it does not matter.

Mr. Wertis stated it could be considered as a parallel track. But the subdivision would have to come under Mr. Auble’s signature as the property owner.

Mr. Rachun agreed it would have to, as he owns the land.

Mr. Hucko stated if they are the applicants and they never take title to the property
the application goes away.

Mr. Wertis stated then the subdivision application would also go away.

Mr. Tyler noted by analogy the cases of environmental audits. The audit is done, if something is found it is the owner’s responsibility to fix it. The applicant can really be detrimental to the owner if a problem shows up-the owner has to fix it, often a considerable expense.

Mr. Rachun noted that a Site Plan can be approved on contingency; but a subdivision cannot be approved on contingency. The contingency would be when the subdivision application comes in -the subdivision is done in a way that is conforming to the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Hucko noted they could have the subdivision plat in tomorrow. They are running out of time and they recognize they have been the delaying factor. But until today they were not cognizant of the subdivision process. So, they would like to expedite the process as much as possible.

Mr. Rachun noted that this is a new application and it does require being reviewed under the new ordinance.

Mr. Tyler noted that if they do their homework on the Site Plan, the subdivision approval would be fairly easy. The Site Plan is their major project, the subdivision is a minor subdivision and the answers you provide during Site Plan would come up in subdivision. However, a non-conforming plot cannot be the result of a subdivision. The building as indicated on the maps would create a non-conforming lot due to the setback requirement.

Mr. Means asked where the Board would like to go from here, do they feel this is a complete packet. If not what additional information is needed.

The meeting continued with discussions related to the items that the members felt were needed. Multiple questions were directed to the applicants and were answered. The conclusion of the discussion resulted with additional information needed as follows:

• Complete grading plans-pre construction and post construction.
• Fencing around the dumpsters as well as the pond
• Building dimensions and elevations
• Building materials
• Sidewalks and asphalt - what materials would be used.
• Curbing-no indication if there is curbing
• Copies of correspondence from DOT and DEC

The Town Attorney advised Mr. Rachun that the Planning Board should not deem an application complete/incomplete based on another agency’s determination. He suggested whether or not DOT or DEC have submitted their findings, the Board may want this information, but cannot rule the application incomplete if it has not been received.

Mr. Tyler asked when the consultant engineer information would be available. He is currently working on a case in which the public has requested this information be provided; the Public Hearing has been adjourned upon receipt of the consultant.

Mr. Rachun stated the information has been forwarded to the consultant. As the new information is received from the applicants this will be sent to the consultant as well. Mr. Moore and Mr. Hucko brought the check to cover the consultant charges with them this evening. The payment was given to the Town Board.

Mr. Tyler asked when the engineers would have the results back to the Board.

Mr. Rachun stated they already have it in hand; it should be a couple weeks. But at this point in time his impression is the application is incomplete.

Mr. Tyler stated that once the application is deemed complete they could turn the engineer loose and set the Public Hearing within a few weeks. With this time frame they would have the engineer’s report to review for the Public Hearing.

Mr. Hucko stated it was their impression that the engineer had been turned loose subject to payment of the fee. They will prepare the additional items requested and augment the submission as items are received into their offices. They are hopeful that they can run concurrently (the submittal to the Board and the engineer).

Mr. Tyler stated he wanted to make one comment, it is the third time he has mentioned it,
the tab in the submittal does not designate owner’s authorization for Washington St. Partners
to submit the subdivision application. He does not understand their reluctance to speak with Mr. Auble but the document submitted is not going “to fly” as authorization.

Mr. Rachun stated there is a formal application for subdivision; the letter specifically states the owner would like to subdivide their property.

Mr. Hucko replied it is not reluctance, he feels they do comply, but will do whatever is necessary to receive approval. He trusts they can get the subdivision application from Mr. Rachun,
and they will come back with the application. He asked if they could get the Site Plan and the Subdivision together.

Mr. Chiuten noted that they could review a preliminary plat and if the Site Plan changes then the Subdivision would also change. The preliminary would have the needed information; it would be informational only and subject to final Subdivision approval. The Site Plan would be contingent upon Subdivision approval.

Mr. Hucko stated he still did not understand. Can they run these coterminous so that
Site Plan and Subdivision are approved at the same time.

Mr. Tyler replied no-they would be two different procedures. It might be possible to get them done in the same night.

Mr. Hucko requested respectfully to not have to come back and have to initiate the subdivision process.

Mr. Tyler replied the subdivision process usually is done quickly. They reviewed and approved a minor subdivision prior to meeting with Washington Street Partners this evening.

Mr. Hucko noted he had heard the procedure and was hopeful his plans would be approved as well.

Mr. Rachun informed Mr. Hucko he needed to be very careful on the subdivision that it is parcel A; parcel A is the whole parcel. They will be coming in with a subdivision of parcel A and everything on parcel A has to be shown. The buildings, driveway, utilities, etc. he is still concerned over the building that is being left on the property. It will not be a conforming lot and he does not want to have to deal with this situation as a future issue with this owner.

Ms Chiuten noted that it should not be an issue, if it is not fixed then the Site Plan would not be approved and it would not be negotiable.

Mr. Rachun stated it would be forming an illegal lot and they could not get a variance to allow this building to remain as is.

Mr. Means if any members had additional comments.

Mr. Wertis asked when the next meeting would be.

A review of the calendar and information requested from the consultant and applicant would bring the next meeting to be January 3, 2006 at 7:30 pm. Members agreed this would work, Mr. Rachun will inform the secretary if additional information is received and/or new applications are received. The members agreed that the quorum needs to be maintained due to losing one member as of December 31st, 2005. The following was suggested to maintain efficient meetings:

Ms Carlisle Peck will request all members contact her directly prior to the meeting.
If attendance issues arise and we cannot maintain quorum it would be futile to hold the meeting; all members are urged to attend and communicate if they CANNOT to the secretary via one of the following methods: email rjcp019@aol.com or
Home Phone 387-3347 or
Work Phone 273-4166 or
Cell phone number emailed to them individually.

If an attendance issue happens, decision to cancel the meeting will be made upon consulting with the members.

Mr. Tyler asked Mr. Rachun if the Town Board had received any applications for appointment.
of a new Planning Board member.

Mr. Rachun replied they had not.

Mr. Tyler made the MOTION to appoint Mr. Means as Acting Chairperson, SECONDED
By Ms. Chiuten.

Ms Chiuten AYE
Mr. Means Abstained
Mr. Tyler AYE
Mr. Wertis AYE

Ms Chiuten made MOTION to adjourn, Mr. Tyler SECONDED, and meeting adjourned
at 9:28 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Robin Carlisle Peck
12/27/05

VILLAGE OF TRUMANSBURG
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
12/12/2005

APPROVED 1/9/06

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor John Levine, Trustees Mary Bouchard, John Hrubos, and David Filiberto. Trustee Rose Hilbert was excused.
CITIZENS & OFFICERS PRESENT: DPW Supervisor Bruce Vann, Code Enforcement Officer Doug Austic, Zoning Officer Deanna Kline, MSP Assistant Susan Henninger, Police Chief Tom Ferretti, Bob Brown, Rich Hayward, and Steve Ferrari of the Trumansburg Free Press.
RECORDING MINUTES: Clerk Treasurer Carolyn Bennett and Deputy Treasurer Tammy Morse.
The Regular Board Meeting was held in the Main Meeting Room of the Village Hall at 56 East Main Street in Trumansburg, New York.

Mayor Levine called the Meeting to order at 7:07 pm.

Item No. 1 – REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS
DPW/Water Sewer – DPW Supervisor Bruce Vann
In addition to routine duties, DPW Supervisor Vann reported the DPW spent a great deal of time picking up leaves and addressing other seasonal chores including gathering and storing garbage cans and benches along Main Street. The DPW also installed new lighting in the Village Office. Clerk Treasurer Bennett noted the lights are much better and brighter.

In the Water Department, Vann reported conducting routine monitoring and maintenance duties and installed one new service on Washington Street. Vann reported he also met with the Construction Manager for the Big M’s addition project with regards to planning out the water service for the addition. The Water Tank Project continues to progress. The electrical work was completed very satisfactorily and Hunt’s will be conducting the final inspection of the work in the near future. As far as demolition of the old water tank, Vann reported he spoke to Statewide Aquastore last week and they hope to come check on the status of the ground with hopes to return by the first of the year. Vann noted that he offered to keep the ground clear to facilitate freezing. On a very good note, Cingular Wireless has decided to leave its utility shelter and the Village may do with it what we will. Vann noted he and Engineer Jimmie Joe Carl agree the shelter is probably too big to use at the Frontenac well site, but it might come in handy to house the valves and pumps associated with the anticipated interconnection with the Ulysses water system.

In the Sewer Department, Vann reported the DEC has authorized land application of pressed sludge from the Sewer Plant, so the sludge press can be started up as soon as final

site work is completed. Mayor Levine requested the cellular antennas from the old tank, when it is demolished. Vann stated he will have to discuss this with the demolition contractor as he is not sure what they plan to do with the antennas.

Vann stated he also wants to discuss a parking/snow removal/safety hazard issue at the intersection of Old Main and Washington Streets. Customers of Heads Up and the other business at this location have been parking on the opposite side of Old Main blocking the view of the stop sign and also parking in a spot where the shoulder is not adequate to allow cars to pull fully off the street. Mayor Levine suggested telling the owner of the Ladies Workout Express to have her customers park elsewhere. The Board, Police Chief Ferretti and DPW Supervisor Vann discussed. DPW Commissioner Hrubos suggested the DPW erect “no parking here to corner” signs on the downhill side of Old Main Street between Bradley and Washington Streets and also encourage parking only on the uphill side.

Police Department – Police Chief Tom Ferretti
Police Chief Tom Ferretti reported he has submitted a reimbursement request for Buckle-Up-New York. It appears the Village will receive about $2,600.

Officers Peter Walker and David Correa have submitted letters of resignation.

Car-Deer accidents remain quite prevalent. The Police Department has received a few inquiries about bow-hunting in the Village. The Village Ordinance forbids use of firearms, which according to Webster’s Dictionary include bows and arrows. Chief Ferretti stated while he would like to be rid of some of the deer in the Village he would not be comfortable allowing bow-hunting because arrows can fly long distances.

A couple groups of teens have come in for information on a variety of topics including safe driving and alcohol awareness. Chief Ferretti noted one of the Department’s learning tools is a pair of glasses that simulates one’s vision in various stages of intoxication, and invited anyone who is interested to come by and try them on.

Trustee Hrubos asked Chief Ferretti if a major ongoing investigation he reported on a couple of months ago has concluded. Ferretti answered no, it’s still ongoing.

Fire Department
Mayor Levine noted a report submitted by Fire Chief Jason Fulton.

Zoning Office – Zoning Officer Deanna Kline
Zoning Officer Kline reported a fairly quiet month, with just nine calls. The B.Z.A. heard two area variance requests, both of which were approved. Unfortunately, the Planning Board Member who had agreed to bring a draft Site Plan Review Law to the meeting was sick, so that work was postponed until Thursday. Mayor Levine asked if a draft will be available by January. Kline answered she is not sure. Trustee Hrubos asked her to distribute copies to the Board once the draft has been prepared.

Code Enforcement Office – Code Enforcement Officer Doug Austic
Code Enforcement Officer Doug Austic reported issuing one building permit, for a new duplex, with a total estimated construction cost of $185,000 and for which he collected $325 in fees.

Clerk Treasurer’s Office – Clerk Treasurer Carolyn Bennett
Clerk Treasurer Carolyn Bennett reported the Clerk Treasurer’s Office collected a total of $87,747.27. Most of this, a total of $71,000, was the third quarter sales tax and the bi-annual mortgage tax disbursement $5,567.20.

Bennett reported she has gathered a great deal of information about Health Insurance after receiving notice of a large rate increase, and stated she would like to look into another plan that was identified by Trustee Hrubos. After brief discussion, Trustee Hrubos offered to forward information about his company’s new plan to Bennett.

Bennett also reported the Pitney Bowes representative stopped by and the lease on the current postage meter is nearly up. For about $16 more per month, we can lease a newer model that will be easier to maintain and which includes an integrated weighing option. Bennett requested permission to lease the upgraded machine. Deputy Treasurer Tammy Morse added that the upgrade is likely to be required in the near future and that the integrated scale will allow packages up to ten pounds to be weighed in-house, whereas the current scale only accomodates packages weighing up to two pounds.

Bennett also reported Ameripride’s representative came in and advised the Office that the monthly charges for Ameripride’s carpet services will more or less double as of January 1st. Bennett stated she would like to look into alternative providers.

Deputy Treasurer Morse is preparing for the changeover to Paychex and will distribute packets of direct deposit forms and withholding forms with this week’s payroll.

Bennett concluded by reporting she will be away on vacation in early January and will therefore not have reports ready in time for the next Board Meeting and that Deputy Clerk Karin Lanning will be having hand surgery on December 16th and hopes to be back by the 28th.

Item No. 2 – REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Youth Commissioner Mary Bouchard
Commissioner Bouchard reported the Youth Commission met last week. One thing that was discussed is the fact that the County has proposed a budget for the Youth Commission and she would like to approve the budget now. Apparently, in the past the Village Board has not approved its portion of the Budget in advance of April, when our regular budget is approved, however, the County begins spending this money in January and they have always believed that the budget is approved. Bouchard stated she thinks it might be a good thing to formally approve the budget and noted it’s not a huge amount of money. Bouchard also noted there is some confusion about how it works because there’s a chunk of money, about $20,000, that the Village pays in, but we get about $17,000 back. Clerk Treasurer Bennett stated the County only pays perhaps $380. Doug Austic stated the Village doesn’t pay it’s share out in cash, either, but by paying for the Summer Recreation Program at a cost of about $17,000. Bouchard stated we pay out approximately $53,000 and get about $38,000 back, for a difference of about $17,000. Bouchard distributed copies of the proposed Youth Commission budget and requested a resolution approving it as proposed. Brief discussion ensued. A MOTION by Trustee Bouchard to authorize the expenditure of $20,649 for youth services, as proposed in a budget worksheet prepared by Karen Coleman of the Tompkins County Youth Board on September 8, 2005.
Unanimously Approved

Commissioner Bouchard also distributed an annual Evaluation Report prepared by Linda Schoffel, the Coordinator of Tompkins County Rural Youth Services. R.Y.S. provides a variety of youth services in the schools. Bouchard discussed a couple of the programs offered through R.Y.S., including the FOCUS program. The students in the FOCUS Program were responsible for deciding how to allocate United Way funding. There will be a grant award celebration on January 24th at the Presbyterian Church to officially acknowledge and celebrate the receipt of this money.

Police Commissioner David Filiberto
Commissioner Filiberto noted at the last monthly meeting he introduced a new business item of revising the sorely outdated noise ordinance. He has since researched sample noise ordinances in New York State and found there are two basic types. One type leaves enforcement up to the discretion of the responding Officer and the other sets decibel-level noise limits. This would necessitate purchasing a decibel meter at an estimated cost of $540 for a full kit. Discussion ensued between Police Chief Ferretti and the Board. Trustee Hrubos asked if such an ordinance would be enforced by responding to complaints or by patrolling for violations. Trustee Filiberto stated Police Officers would probably be dispatched in response to complaints. Trustee Hrubos asked if the Police Department has the capacity to enforce a revised noise ordinance, and Police Chief Ferretti answered yes and described how the ordinance could be enforced. The group discussed potential fines and the consensus favored $250. Mayor Levine asked about the Police Department’s current practices for handling noise complaints, and Police Chief Ferretti explained they try to mediate all complaints. After further discussion, the Board asked Commissioner Filiberto to draft a proposed law and distribute it to the rest of the Board for review. The Board also agreed to decide whether or not a decibel meter will be needed once the law is enacted.

Item No. 3 – REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Main Street Project
[As typed by MSP Assistant Susan Henninger]
DOT/CONSTRUCTION UPDATE: This month continues to be spent on readying the PS&E’s for their final submission to NYSDOT.

At this stage, there is only one outstanding issue remaining. This is the Right of Way Clearance certificate that needs to be signed and submitted by the Mayor. All of the temporary easements have been signed as have three of the five permanent easements. The Mason’s have sent a signed “letter of intent” to the Village and plan to sign their easement on 12/15 at their annual meeting. The Nottke/Teeter easement remains unsigned; however they have met with a member of the Advisory Committee and took a copy of the Right of Way documents for their attorney to review. There were also several questions regarding safety and location that the family has, which the Advisory Design group and C&S will try to answer over the next few days. The Board should consider how much time they would like to give the property owners to sign the form before they begin to consider other options. If the Nottke/Teeters are not willing to sign the Right of Way Easement form the following options would be available (in order of preference of C&S and the Advisory Committee).

1. C&S can redesign the Project to fit a 915 mm sidewalk around the guide rail end section without encroaching on the private property (Please refer to the PDF file that I sent you all last week). This reduced width sidewalk fits within the existing right-of-way and the village could decide to make this change and bid the project on this basis, subject to NYSDOT’s approval when they give the plans a final review prior to granting permission to advertise. If the owner later changes her mind and is willing to sign the easement before construction is completed, the full width 1.5 m sidewalk could be installed instead. If, for some reason DOT does not approve the revision that would obviously result in a significant delay to PS&E approval and other avenues would then need to be explored.

2. The Village can authorize C&S to review the existing guide rail design to see if shortening is justified. The charge for this review would be $550. The result may be that C&S would agree with the Region’s preliminary determination that the guide rail run cannot safely be shortened. If C&S thinks that it can be shortened to accommodate the full width sidewalk, they could then prepare and submit a letter with attached plan to the Region presenting design backup and a description of the proposed change; the additional fee for this would be $700 (total design fees about $1,250, more for any construction work). The difficulty with this choice is that it is not a guaranteed choice. After the review, DOT could ultimately reach a decision that the rail should not be shortened-then the Village would be back where we started from and a few more weeks behind schedule.

3. The remaining choice would be to have the property appraised and to negotiate with the family to accept a dollar value for the property. If negotiations were not successful than using the eminent domain process to acquire the property could be a possibility for the Village to consider.

Discussion ensued.

STREET LIGHT METERS:
Steve George called to let us know that, despite numerous phone calls, they have not been able to get NYSEG to allow the Village to use their poles to put the light meters on.
Based on this, C&S has had to incorporate three free standing meters (located throughout the Village) into Ad Alternate #1 at a cost of $2,700.00 ($900.00 each). The other problem with these meters is that they are not very attractive looking. MSP Clerk of the Works Doug Austic suggested having a meter on the Village Hall and running lines under the Street. Discussion ensued. DPW Supervisor Vann suggested placing meters on Village-owned properties.

Steve suggests that if anyone at the Village or on the Advisory Committee is able to contact NYSEG and try to get them to come up with another option that would be preferable.

PROJECT SCHEDULE:
At this time the Project is almost two months behind schedule.

The Village Board should also be taking into consideration the coordination that the water main and NYSEG gas line projects will need with the Main Street Project. Discussion ensued.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The Advisory Committee has met twice since the last Village Board meeting. Topics of discussion have included fund-raising needs for the Project, effective communication strategies for both inter-office and to the general public during the construction phase, and various other Village developments that could impact the Main Street Project.

The Advisory Committee members have recruited eight-ten community members who are interested in doing fund-raising for the street lights, blue stones, and other specific landscaping details. An initial meeting has been scheduled with this group for 12/14 at 7:00 PM at the Library; all are welcome to attend.

CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES:
In terms of securing construction administration and inspection services for the Main Street Project; John Levine called Hunt Engineers and canceled the previously scheduled 11/22 meeting. Since that time, several emails between the Mayor and Chuck Franzese have been exchanged to see if Hunt’s fees and the scope of services can be negotiated to match the Village’s $70,000 budget for construction administration. The roles of the Advisory Committee and the Village Board in the choice of a construction administrator for the Project need clarification. It is important to begin this process now so that there is a person or an engineering firm assigned and ready to go once the Project has received final approval. Mayor Levine reported he has received an email from Chuck Franzese stating a junior staff Inspector could work under Doug Austic, but noting this does not seem like something Austic would want to do. Discussion ensued.

Following the Comprehensive Plan Committee report, Bob Brown noted he asked for figures on how much the Main Street Project has cost the Village at the last meeting, and asked for those numbers. Clerk Treasurer Bennett reported the Village has spent $51,788.74 on general fund expenditures related to the Project, and has donated $193,453.55 to the Main Street Project. Trustee Bouchard stated these were monies the Village was obligated to put in as a condition of receiving the grant. Clerk Treasurer Bennett stated it is actually about $15,000 more than the official matching component of the grant. Brown asked if the Village has any idea of how much extra money will be

spent out of the general fund, and Bennett answered no, it’s hard to tell before bids come in.

Skate Park
Trustee Bouchard reported the Skate Park Committee has selected the water tank site as the site for the future skate park. This choice came after much thought and, although there is neighborhood opposition, the Committee and Trustee Bouchard agreed this is the best site. Trustee Bouchard stated there is a need and this is an available site and noted that many important improvements, including Juniper Manor and T.R.A. were met with extensive opposition but have proven to be an improvement to the community.

Trustee Bouchard noted there are grant monies available for skate park development, only some of which could be obtained by a municipality. She will research grant opportunities and start on application paperwork.

Parkitects has drafted a preliminary design for the Park. Bouchard presented the 3-D draft to the Board for review. Trustee Bouchard noted the design includes equipment for skateboarders at different levels of ability and the Board discussed briefly. Trustee Filiberto, as a former skateboarder, noted the half-pipe could probably be eliminated because it would only be useful to advanced skateboarders. Trustee Bouchard reported the Committee is still exploring the feasibility of using the Park off-season as an ice skating rink.

Bouchard asked if a resolution is needed to establish that the Skate Park will be at the water tower site. The Board’s consensus was it is sufficient to agree in principle to the use of the Halsey Street water tank site as a Skate Park, and having so noted, the Board so agreed in principle to the use of the Halsey Street Water Tank site as the site for the planned Skate Park.

Comprehensive Plan Committee
Trustee Filiberto reported he met with Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx in Ithaca on Friday and the County Planning Department subsequently submitted a revised proposed Plan of Work for the Comprehensive Plan. The revised Work Plan calls for a three-year process including a survey, an inventory/profile describing the Village’s characteristics and identifying key issues, a series of workshops, Assessment/Analysis to identify strengths, challenges and community values and then to draft a vision statement, goals and objectives, Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Program development, draft Plan development, SEQR, and Plan Finalization. Trustee Filiberto reported he inquired about how to get maximum public involvement. The County feels that public involvement is the most important factor in making a successful Comprehensive Plan, and the only way to have that is to have a committee that gets people to workshops and represents the people. Filiberto reported he currently has seven people signed up to be on the Committee and is looking for two more to serve on the Committee for a two year

commitment. The Committee currently consists of two Planning Board Members, two business owners, two citizens, and someone from the Ulysses Town Board; Filiberto noted he has sought to represent the broad spectrum of the population.

The Board and Clerk Treasurer Bennett discussed the proposed Agreement for Comprehensive Plan development. Mayor Levine agreed to sign the agreement once the printing and copying fee table is received by the Clerk Treasurer’s Office and reviewed.

On a related note, the Village has been awarded the Pedestrian Walkability Study at no cost to the Village. Trustee Filiberto asked for a volunteer from the Board to interview consultants for the Walkability Study.

Item No. 4 – REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES
Town of Ulysses
Ulysses Town Supervisor Doug Austic stated the Town’s Attorney needs permission to speak to the Village’s Attorney about the Fire Protection Contract. Mayor Levine stated he spoke to the Village Attorney and is prepared to report on the results of this conversation and subsequent research. The Town’s Attorney is correct in the issue he brought up. Mayor Levine explained the Town and Village have a contract whereby the Village Fire Department provides fire protection to the Town of Ulysses, which contract refers to a joint fire district of the three Towns and the Village. The Ulysses Town Attorney pointed out, and NYCOM confirmed, that no such fire district exists, but rather each Town has its own fire district. Austic stated this was not the Town Attorney’s question, and requested permission for the Village Attorney to speak to the Town Attorney. Permission was so granted by Mayor Levine.

Item No. 5 – Resolution to Change to 4-Year Terms of Office for Mayor and Trustees
Mayor Levine noted he has a sample resolution to change the terms of office for Mayor and Trustees from two to four years, with elections to occur every even year. Mayor Levine explained the simplest way to do this will be to have the Mayor and Trustees elected in 2006 serve four-year terms, the Trustees elected in 2007 serve five-year terms and all future terms will be four-year terms. Discussion ensued, and the resolution was tabled until January 9th 2005 in order to allow for advance media coverage.

Item No. 6 – CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Tompkins County Assessment Re: Real Property Tax Exemptions
Acknowledged.

2006 Village Election Political Calendar
Acknowledged.

Letter Inviting Participation in Stormwater Working Group
Acknowledged.

Item No. 7 – APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS
After brief review, A MOTION by Trustee Bouchard to approve General Fund Abstract #7 totaling $13,849.66 was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Approved.

A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to approve Water Fund Abstract #7 totaling $3,518.77 was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Approved.

A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to approve Sewer Fund Abstract #7 totaling $7,350.09 was seconded by Trustee Bouchard.
Unanimously Approved.

Mayor Levine asked if DPW Supervisor Vann has read the email correspondence from Skip Davis stating his issue with the use of cold patch over the vault in front of his Main Street building. Vann answered he has not read the email but has secondhand knowledge of the situation; his understanding is Davis was unhappy with the cold patch and Silverline returned and put sand down and a mat was laid across the area in front of the entryway. Vann explained that cold patch really doesn’t harden well in this weather, it basically needs to be baked, but, unfortunately, this is the only alternative available at this point. The DPW will take extra care when plowing in that area so as not to tear the black top out. Mayor Levine stated he will get a copy of the correspondence to DPW Supervisor Vann. A MOTION by Trustee Bouchard to approve Main Street Capital Project Fund Abstract #7 totaling $11,828.00 was seconded by Trustee Hrubos.
Unanimously Approved.

A MOTION by Trustee Filiberto to approve Street Tree Fund Abstract #7 totaling $75.00 was seconded by Trustee Hrubos.
Unanimously Approved.

Item No. 8 – APPROVAL OF MONTHLY MINUTES – Regular Monthly Meeting – 11/14/2005 and Special Board Meeting – 11/15/2005
Trustee Bouchard asked that the final line of the Special Board Meeting minutes be amended to read that the meeting was “closed” instead of “adjourned”. Hearing no further amendments, A MOTION by Trustee Filiberto to approve the minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of 11/14/2005 as presented and the minutes of the Special Board Meeting of 11/15/2005 as amended was seconded by Trustee Bouchard.
Unanimously Approved.

Item No. 9 – OLD BUSINESS
Personnel Policy Revision
Trustee Bouchard stated she has made the minor changes and done the research that she had agreed to do after the working session in September. Bouchard briefly reviewed the changes, which include additional language about using up comp. time within the pay period and a reference to the Village’s Code of Ethics, which actually does exist and is supposed to be handed out to all new employees and officials. After brief further discussion, Trustee Hrubos made A MOTION to replace the current Personnel Policy with the revised Personnel Policy as drafted by Trustee Bouchard and former Trustee Janice Waller, which motion was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Adopted.

Mayor Levine added a note of thanks to Trustee Mary Bouchard and former Trustee Janice Waller for all their work in revising the Personnel Policy.

Clerk Treasurer Bennett asked how the new Policy will affect the two newest full-time employees. The Board agreed the probation periods for Deputy Treasurer Tammy Morse and DPW Laborer Jonathan Lanning will be shortened to 90 days.

Item No. 10 – NEW BUSINESS
Trustee Filiberto asked if the website could be updated with things such as a comments page, the Personnel Policy and other Village laws. Mayor Levine noted he has most if not all of the Zoning Laws on the website, can put the Personnel Policy online, and will see if he can come up with a sensible setup for a comments page.

Trustee Bouchard asked Mayor Levine to add a subsection for the Skate Park Committee and Mayor Levine agreed to do so.

Item No. 11 – EXECUTIVE SESSION
A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to adjourn to Executive Session for the purpose of addressing personnel matters was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Approved.

The Board adjourned to Executive Session at 9:13 pm.

A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to return to the Open Meeting was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Approved.

The Board returned to the Open Meeting at 9:38.

A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to increase DPW Laborer Jonathan Lanning’s pay rate to $11.50 per hour, effective December 12, 2005 was seconded by Trustee Filiberto.
Unanimously Approved.

A MOTION by Trustee Filiberto to increase Main Street Project Assistant Susan Henninger’s pay rate to $15.00 per hour, retroactive to December 1st 2005, until her position is no longer needed for the Project and with the understanding that the position shall consist of no more than 20 hours per week, was seconded by Trustee Bouchard.
Unanimously Approved.

Item No. 12 - ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, A MOTION by Trustee Hrubos to adjourn the meeting was seconded by Trustee Bouchard.
Unanimously Approved.

Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Carolyn Bennett
Clerk Treasurer