The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed local law 5 -2023 amending Chapter 128: Taxation at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.
PRESENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Erin Enouen
Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Supervisor Michael Baden
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

ABSENT:
Councilman Adam Paddock

Supervisor Baden opened the meeting and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Shirley Avery: there is nothing in the proposed law that helps renters. 25-30 % of members are renters or live with family. KAFAS lifetime membership is 10 years and we listed 20 years. I am concerned about retirees from fire service and rescue squad.

Peter Nelson: as Company # 1 Chief I want to Thank you for considering this and urge the Board to adopt it. This is going to help with recruitment and retention of membership. The Fire Departments life membership is 20 years. The Accord Fire District will be adopting a uniform life category from property owners. There is also a $ 200.00 credit that active members can receive when filing income tax.

John Dunning: I just want to Ditto what Peter stated, we are already starting to see the benefit of this exemption. We have old members coming back as drivers. I’ve been a fireman for 31 years and now serve as a commissioner. On the fire district level, we are also adopting this exemption. This is a great starting point.

Gerry Fornino: I have been the Town Emergency Management Coordinator for the past 15 years now unfortunately I don’t qualify for this exemption. To touch on the renters I have a renter that attended 3 structure fires in one day and doesn’t have 2 years of service in, yet he wouldn’t qualify. This is a great beginning, but we need to look at volunteerism more.

Charles Nerko: The Town supported funding an Ambulance District and KAFAS now has a hybrid squad. The Towns investment in a 24/7 365 days a year ready to respond to every call allowed for us to be 100% response rate. I commend the Town Board for looking at emergency services, volunteers provide extraordinary benefit to the Town. We have highly trained volunteers that know the area and have good local knowledge. This exemption may not be enough for renters and maybe other potential ways for discounts in Town.

David Linscott: I think this is a great start. EMS always seems to come up short and I also think we need to go to higher government.

Supervisor Baden stated that the Board has done all that NYS has allowed us to do. The 20-year lifetime membership came from NYS Real Property we cannot change it. For those that don’t own they can still apply for the $ 200.00 tax exemption.

CLOSURE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Resolution # 170-2023:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town Board closes the public hearing on proposed local law 5-2023 at 6:56pm
4-0, Motion carried, Paddock absent
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK
The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed local law X -2023 amending Code of Ethics at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.
PRESENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Erin Enouen
Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Supervisor Michael Baden
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

ABSENT:
Councilman Adam Paddock
PUBLIC COMMENT:

Bea Haugen-Depuy: Changing this at this level of government I think, I don’t disagree with the $ 75, I think that is a great idea, but I think changing this direct or indirect. It seems like you’re looking to hire someone currently in one of the Departments that person who’s in a relationship with the Supervisor of that department or the head of that department and I think it’s already been proven by the town that this type of thing does not work when you have someone who is involved and they are the Supervisor of an employee. Often things go unnoticed on purpose to the point that another employee got fired. I don’t feel the second part of the law should change in any way, it has been proven that someone in a relationship with an employee who is their subordinate does not think well there is a conflict of interest all the time to the point that there was a big problem on the one job. I’m speaking of that I am not mentioning the problem but my the point that a third party like I said got involved and as a whistleblower that person was let go. I don’t want to see this happen to the Town again. I think you are setting a precedent. If you are in a relationship I don’t care if it is direct or indirect supervision. Do not change this section, you’re opening yourself up to the same fiasco you had in the other situation and it’s very bad for the Town. The Town is lucky the third-party whistleblower didn’t sue the pants off the Town.
Sam Zurofsky: I have serious concerns about the proposed changes in the Ethics Law. The first thing is I’m concerned just about the substance. The original ethics law was designed to prevent conflicts of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest, disparate treatment, the appearance of disparate treatment, hostile work environments or the appearance of a hostile work environment and I think if you look at ethics laws throughout the state in small towns research will show that this provision is universally applauded and held out as an important provision to local ethics laws, and the reason why I think this is the wisdom of this is why the law is written because it is impossible to think of having a situation where you have either a direct or indirect relationship between people in a personal relationship whether they’re siblings, spouses, dating, a parent or child. It’s impossible to think of a situation where you can have a sustained employment situation where there would never be even the appearance that one of those people is going to be special, then further concerns is the appearance of the board appearing unethical here. Here we have a situation that was mentioned at the last meeting that the reason for this amendment is on the table is because of a town position opening. When you talk about conflicts of interest and ethics, what you’re saying is you cannot have the appearance of special treatment being given to someone to achieve something just for them. We have the Town Board seeing a situation where this is precluded in the ethics law and then a few weeks later immediately amending one line, the ethics law to hire a specific person? That just smells bad, and I’m bothered by that. If it was found that the ethics law caused hiring challenges for the Town then maybe but here we have targeted to change one word to presumably higher one specific person and that on its own doesn’t appear ethical. The Town Board above all other boards has an obligation to avoid the appearance. I’m not sure about the change proposed would even have an effect, I know how some of the town departments are structured and it’s hard for me to believe direct and indirect supervisor would make the change.
Gerry Fornino: I was approached at a time in a political position where two relatives came to me for support and I made it clear at that time that it would never happen. In fact, stood by that theory when I was asked to run for Town justice and I refused because my wife was on the Town Board. What happens when you open that up? It can lead to real problems. I had a work situation where a person didn’t work for that supervisor but was married to that supervisor and I could tell you I observed that relationship that was the normal scuttlebutt as to why somebody didn’t have to work Christmas Eve and somebody didn’t have to do this and somebody didn’t have to do that and it was pretty obvious.
Sue Bruck: I think it is very important that when we are talking about ethics that we keep as many protections in place and not remove because it is a matter of integrity and we want to be able to be looked at in a public way appropriately. Removing unnecessary protections doesn’t make a lot of sense and I strongly urge the board not to remove those protections.
Rebecca Collins-Brooks: I am against increasing the dollar amount of any kind of gift in spite of what the state limit is. I’m not really sure why our town officials should be receiving any kind of gift for whatever reason. I hosted two board members at our farm to discuss the zoning changes that might have impact on large parcels of land and when they left we offered beef and both Town Board member politely declined and when they both left my husband and I both said how much integrity that showed and we had an enormous amount of respect for them. It’s $ 25.00 now, isn’t that enough? Buy a candle. We also oppose any kind of familial relationships in town workings that is highly inappropriate and I fully agree with the other speakers, this is just ludicrous consideration for our small town.
Holly: I agree that any changes with this law seems like a bad idea for transparency and integrity of democratic process. It is best to save any negative appearances in Town.

CLOSURE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Resolution # 171-2023:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman

Aye: 3 nay: 1- Enouen abstain: 0 motion carried
Paddock- absent

The Town Board closes the public hearing on proposed local law x-2023 at 7:14pm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK