[00:00:07] CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING NUMBER 11, JULY 16, 2026. CLERK, TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR LORIGO. LEGISLATOR TODARO. HERE. LEGISLATORS. I'M SORRY. CHAIR ST. JEAN TARD. HERE. LEGISLATOR DUPRE. PRESENT. LEGISLATOR VINAL? HERE. CHAIR MEYERS IS ABSENT AS EX OFFICIO. MEMBER. QUORUM. PRESENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEMS ONE THROUGH NINE ARE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM 10 THROUGH 18 ARE ACTIONABLE. ITEM 10, COMMUNICATION 14E4. THIS IS EC COURT BUILDING. WE HAVE TRACY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. TRACY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND GOOD MORNING, LEGISLATORS. LONG AWAITED. ONE HERE. I'M HERE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE BODY REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH LUPINI CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ERIE COUNTY COURT BUILDING EXTERIOR REPAIR AND WATERPROOFING PROJECT. THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE FACADE ASSEMBLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF 25 DELAWARE, AN INSTALLATION OF EFA SYSTEM, WHICH IS AN EXTERNAL EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SYSTEM THAT IS FAILING. WINDOW REPLACEMENT IS NOT INCLUDED. HOWEVER, ALL OTHER PANELS WITHIN THE BAYS BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS WILL BE REPLACED ON THE WEST FACADE. ADDITIONAL REHABILITATION WILL OCCUR AS IT IS DISCOVERED DURING THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE PANELS. THIS WILL BE A PHASED PROJECT WITH A PROJECTED TIMELINE OF 500 DAYS. I'M REQUESTING TO AWARD THIS CONTRACT TO LAPINI CONSTRUCTION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,251,542.18, WHICH INCLUDES A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY FUND OF $1,477,266.18. ALSO, I'M SEEKING YOUR AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR BOTH OUR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TESTING AND OUR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS TERM TERM AGREEMENT WITH WATTS ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES, RESPECTIVELY, BOTH IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000. AND I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS ONE. THERE'S A LOT OF FUNDING SOURCES THAT I'VE KIND OF COLLECTED TOGETHER TO FUND THIS PROJECT. IT'S BEEN REALLY HARD GETTING THIS ONE OFF THE ROAD. IT EVENTUALLY WAS ORIGINALLY WAS $20 MILLION. SO WE HAD TO KNOCK BACK THE SCOPE AND KIND OF GO A MORE ECONOMICAL ROUTE. ALSO, ONE. ONE THING OF NOTE, JUST IN THE EFFORT OF TRANSPARENCY, I AM TAKING $1.7 MILLION FROM THE ORIGINAL ANTICIPATED AMBULANCE HQ FUNDING. OKAY. BECAUSE I FOUGHT FOR IT REALLY HARD. I REALLY HAD TO PUSH BECAUSE THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIFE SAFETY ISSUES IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US THE BREAKDOWN OF ALL THE FUNDING SOURCES? I KNOW YOU'RE PULLING FROM DIFFERENT THINGS. YOU FOUGHT FOR SOME FUNDING TO COME THROUGH SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE EVERYTHING'S COMING FROM. TRACY? ABSOLUTELY. BASICALLY I'M CLEANING UP SOME ACCOUNTS FROM ALL THE WAY FROM 2021 FOR PRESERVATION OF COUNTY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL PROJECT FOR THE 25 DELAWARE EXTERIOR PROJECT. 23 MONEY FROM THE PRESERVATION OF COUNTY BUILDINGS THAT EMS, AMBULANCE HQ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT I MENTIONED AND THEN COUNTY WIDE ROOF FROM 24 AND 26. AND YOU MENTIONED THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE COST SO MUCH MORE BUT YOU FOUND A WAY TO KIND OF DECREASE ALMOST ABOUT 50%. A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 50%. WELL IT INVOLVED, ORIGINALLY INVOLVED THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND ALL WORK WAS GONNA HAVE TO BE DONE AFTER HOURS. SO THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY LABOR WENT THROUGH THE ROOF, YOU KNOW, SO WE DIDN'T INTERRUPT THE COURT SYSTEM. THIS IS GONNA REQUIRE EXTENSIVE COOPERATION FROM THE UNIFIED COURTS AND JUDGE MARTOJI HAS BEEN GREAT. SO I'M EXCITED TO GET THIS ONE OFF THE GROUND. ON THE QUESTION LEGISLATOR GREENE THEN LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL RIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL. YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A QUESTION THERE ABOUT OTHER ANTICIPATED COSTS DOWN THE LINE WITH THIS. DO YOU SEE ADDITIONAL MONIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME. YOU KNOW, AGAIN YOU OPEN IT UP, YOU DON'T KNOW. SO I KNOW IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU GET IN. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REALISTIC MOVING FORWARD IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WITH THIS? WELL, WE, WE'RE WELL AWARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO UNCOVER SOME STUFF. SO IN THE, IN THE, THE CONTRACT THERE'S WE, WE IDENTIFY THEM AS SMALL, MEDIUM AND MAJOR REPAIRS. THERE'S A PRICE PER UNIT. WE ANTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A NICE HEALTHY CONTINGENCY IN THERE. I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO BURN THROUGH THAT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF NEEDING MORE ONCE THEY UNCOVER IT, WHICH I HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY FOR ANY FUNDING. BUT I DO THINK THERE MAY BE MORE JUST BASED ON WHAT THEY UNCOVERED BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH UNKNOWN. DO YOU THINK THE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE NEEDED? I MEAN OBVIOUSLY AT SOME POINT, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH, THE SEALS ARE ALL IN PLACE AND THEY, YOU KNOW, [00:05:01] NOW'S THE TIME TO DO IT BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO DO IT. SO THEY ANTICIPATE THE WINDOWS LAST THING AS LONG THAT EFA SYSTEM THEY'LL TELL US IT'LL LAST 30 YEARS BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GUARANTEE THAT OBVIOUSLY WITH THE UNKNOWN CONDITIONS IN THE BUILDING AND WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND STRUCTURAL STEEL THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO WORK ON TO ADHERE THIS PRODUCT, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT LIKE THE COLUMNS STAY, ALL THE WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN GOES. EXCEPT THE WINDOWS STAY. THANK YOU. LEGISLATOE LORIGO. I WAS WONDERING. SO MANY PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT THIS. OTHER LAWYERS ASK ME ABOUT WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DO SOMETHING. BUT AS FAR AS. SINCE THE SCAFFOLDING HAS BEEN UP, HAVE ANY OTHER THINGS FALLEN DOWN OR WAS IT JUST THAT ORIGINAL TIME AND NOTHING SINCE THEN? NO, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A FEW THINGS THAT HAVE FALLEN DOWN. MOST ARE SMALL. YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL. THERE WAS A LARGE PIECE THAT I ACTUALLY FOUND AND BROUGHT TO MY BOSS'S OFFICE AT THE TIME WHEN IT FIRST STARTED WITH THE COUNTY. AND IT WAS. THAT'S WHAT INSPIRED THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION THAT GOT THE SCAFFOLD PUT UP. BUT WE'VE DONE SOME WORK TO THE SCAFFOLD TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE HARDIER AND KEPT UP ON THE FENCING. BUT ADDITIONAL PIECES HAVE FALLEN. IT'S DEFINITELY DOING ITS PURPOSE. IT'S PROTECTING THE PUBLIC, WALKING UNDER IT. YEAH, I JUST. CAUSE LIKE $9 MILLION IS SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT. ALL THE SOURCES OF FUNDING ARE ALL FROM THE COUNTY. THEY'RE NOT FROM ANYONE ELSE, RIGHT? CORRECT. I DID APPROACH THE STATE AND TRIED TO GET THEM TO HELP FUND IT AND THEY WOULDN'T DO IT. IS THERE ANY. DID ANY OTHER. I KNOW YOU ORIGINALLY TRIED OTHER IDEAS LIKE YOU HAD WITH THE. THE GUY WAS GOING TO DO THE CEILING, LIKE PUT A CEILING COAT THING ON IT AND SOMEONE ELSE WAS GOING TO DO THIS AND THAT. YEAH, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE FROM A PRODUCT KIND OF LIKE FLEX SEAL ALL THE WAY TO NETTING IT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, NETTING IT WOULD COSTS ABOUT $300,000 AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A DOUBLE. PRETTY BAD LOOK. THAT WASN'T PREFERRED TO PROCEED WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THREE LAYERS OF NETTING OVER THE ENTIRE BUILDING FACADE. THE FLEX SEAL SORT OF IDEA. IT WOULD HOLD POCKETS OF IT AS IT DETERIORATED. AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO GO UP WHERE THE POCKETS WERE AND REPAIR THAT. THAT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. THE ORIGINAL WAS A COMPLETE TEAR OFF WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING IN REPLACEMENT. THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO HIGH IN THE BEGINNING. THEN SOME. I MEAN, LIKE. BECAUSE WE HAD A LITTLE. I MEAN, IF IT'S. IS IT. WHAT PART WAS FALLING DOWN? LIKE THE. THE. IT'S. IT'S THE CONCRETE THAT'S ABOVE AND BELOW THE WINDOWS. THAT'S WHERE. AND THERE'S GAPS IN THERE AND WATER INTRUSION. SO THIS IS TO OPEN THAT UP AND IT'S A MULTI LAYER SYSTEM WE'RE PUTTING IN. YOU KNOW THERE'S AN AIR AND VAPOR BARRIER. THEN THE. THE WATERPROOFING INSULATION SUB BASE FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH IS THE CLOSE TO WE COULD GET TO MATCHING. IT'S THAT LIGHT GREEN COLOR. DARK GREEN COLOR. IS THERE BEEN ANYBODY LIKE LOOKING AT TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO RECOUP FROM THE BUILDERS WAS LIKE LIKE NO INSURANCE COVERS LIKE THE WORK PRODUCT BUT IT COVERS DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT TO THE WORK PRODUCT. LIKE ON DOWNTOWN THERE'S LIKE THE DOORS LEAKED. YOU COULDN'T GET RECOVERY FOR THE DOORS LEAKING BUT WE GOT RECOVERY FOR ALL THE DAMAGE TO EVERYTHING ELSE. LIKE WHAT ABOUT AS FAR AS WHO PUT IT AND THAT STRIKE STARTS FROM WHEN THAT THING HAPPENS. LIKE WHAT ABOUT SEEKING RECOUPMENT FROM IF IT WAS BECAUSE LIKE I. WE ALWAYS CALLED THIS THE NEW COURTHOUSE AND THIS. THIS IS THE OLD COURTHOUSE. THAT'S THE NEW HOUSE. SO IF IT'S DETERIORATING. WAS THERE ANYTHING LOOKED AT TO SEE IF IT WAS FROM THE LIKE THAT THERE WAS A. THERE WAS A CONSTRUCTION DEFECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE VIEWED AS A CONSTRUCTION DEFECT. I THINK IT'S WEAR AND TEAR ON THE BUILDING ON THE TWO WEATHERED SIDES SOUTH AND WEST. AND GOING BACK ON THE BUILDER THAT WAS 60S. SO THE BUILDER WHAT THE BUILDING. THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THE 60S SO I DON'T THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO GO BACK ON ANY BUILDER ON THAT QUALITY OF WORK. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANKS. BEAUTIFUL. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATURE TODARO? SECOND BY LEGISLATURE DUPRE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11, COMMUNICATION 14E5. THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BRIDGE PROJECT. KAREN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. WE ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO OUR EXISTING CONTRACT WITH CHA CONSULTANTS FOR OUR ON CALL EMERGENCY BRIDGE AND CULVERT DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT. THE ORIGINAL TWO YEAR CONTRACT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THIS HONORABLE BODY IN 2023 AND WAS EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS IN 2025. THIS AMENDMENT IS JUST TO ADD ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE FOURTH AND FINAL YEAR OF THE CONTRACT TERM. THIS CONTRACT ADDRESSES EMERGENCY CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOTED BY OUR. OUR BIANNUAL INSPECTIONS THAT OCCUR ON OUR STRUCTURES OR OUR DISTRICT MAINTENANCE REPORTS OR CITIZEN REPORTS. FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU KNOW WE HAD ONE BRIDGE WHERE THERE WAS A WING WALL COLLAPSE AND IT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND KEEP THE TRAFFIC FLOWING OVER THE STRUCTURE. AND SO THIS IS THE MONEY THAT WE USE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE ISSUES THAT COME UP ON AN ON CALL BASIS. THANK YOU. [00:10:04] ON THE QUESTION, NO. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR TODARO. SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE ALL MY TODAY, SO WE'RE GONNA PLAY IT BACK AGAIN. ITEM NUMBER 12, COMMUNICATION 14E6. THIS IS FOR KAREN TO SPEAK ON. GO AHEAD, KAREN. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUESTING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH GREENE MAN P. PETERSON INCORPORATED GPI FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE REHAB OF THE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM ON RAPIDS ROAD. THIS IS NEAR THE BRIDGE OVER TONAWANDA CREEK AND IT WAS SELECTED THROUGH OUR COUNTY RFP CONSULTANT PROCESS. THIS PROJECT IS TO ADDRESS THE DESIGN TO REHABILITATE THE RETAINING WALL IN THAT AREA. THIS WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY, YEARS AGO AND LACKS THE APPROPRIATE UNDER DRAIN SYSTEM TO KEEP WATER FROM GOING BEHIND WHICH HAS CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. SO IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY. THIS FUNDING, LIKE I SAID, IS FOR DESIGN. DESIGN WOULD BE COMPLETE BY NEXT YEAR AND THIS WOULD BE BID OUT AT THE END OF 2027 FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2028. THANK YOU ON THE QUESTION. LEGISLATOR GREENE . THANK YOU. SO RIGHT NOW THE ORIGINAL DESIGN LASTED 30 YEARS. ARE WE ANTICIPATING THIS WILL LAST ANOTHER 30 WITH THESE OR PROBABLY LONGER. SO THIS OKAY? YEAH. I THINK WHAT THEY HAD DISCOVERED IN THE RECORD DRAWINGS IS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT UNDERGROUND SYSTEM BEHIND IT. OKAY. WITH IT BEING BUILT THE RIGHT WING, IT SHOULD LAST MUCH LONGER. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ALL SET. MOTION TO APPROVE BY LESTER TODARO. SECOND BY LESTER DUPRE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THEN WE HAVE ITEM 13, COMMUNICATION 14E7. THIS IS A BRIDGE PROJECT AND WE HAVE KAREN AGAIN TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. THIS IS THE PROJECT IN TOWNS OF EVANS. YEP. SO THE NEXT THREE RESOLUTIONS I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON ARE ALL GOING TO BE BRIDGES WITH SIMILAR TYPE REQUESTS THAT ARE AWARDED THROUGH THE BRIDGE NEW YORK AWARD FUNDING. WE ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE DENNIS ROAD PROJECT. THIS IS A BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER LITTLE SISTER CREEK IN THE TOWN OF EVANS WITH GREENE MAN PETERSON INCORPORATED AGAIN. AND THIS WOULD BE BID IN LATE AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL AHEAD OF THE RECESS FOR CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN IN 2027 WITH OUR BRIDGES. IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT WE DO OUR BIDDING IN THE FALL SO THAT ANY MATERIALS THAT NEED TO BE PREFABRICATED OR STRUCTURAL STEEL THAT NEEDS TO BE ORDERED CAN BE DONE SO AND READY FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE SPRING. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SHUT DOWN A BRIDGE AND WE WANT TO GET IT OPEN BEFORE THE WINTERTIME. SO WE, WE TRY TO STICK TO THAT SCHEDULE TO GET THESE BID OUT AND THE CONTRACTS AWARDED EARLY FALL SO THAT IT CAN MEET THE TIMELINES FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR. AND KAREN, IF I'M CORRECT, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN LOCK DOWN A DECENT PRICE BECAUSE IF WE WAIT UNTIL WE COME BACK AND IT'LL BE MORE EXPENSIVE NEXT YEAR AND THEN IT WILL ALSO PUSH THE TIMELINE, POTENTIALLY A YEAR. OKAY. ON THE QUESTION, NO. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR DUPRE. SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR TODARO. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, KAREN. BACK TO BACK, WE HAVE ITEM 14, COMMUNICATION 14E8, ANOTHER BRIDGE PROJECT. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND SPEAKING ABOUT THAT ONE. SO WE'RE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO ANOTHER SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ABOVE NOTED PROJECT, WHICH IS OUR MARSHFIELD ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH TO CLEAR CREEK. THIS IS IN THE TOWN OF NORTH COLLINS. AGAIN, ANOTHER BRIDGE NEW YORK REPLACEMENT PROJECT THAT WE ARE HOPING TO BID END OF AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER. OPEN THE BIDS END OF AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER ON WHY WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THIS. NOW, THIS BRIDGE IS ANOTHER OLD STRUCTURE OF OURS. IT HAS, IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN AN ARCH BRIDGE, BUT IT HAS A. A STEEL LINER SO THAT THAT IS DETERIORATING AND COMPROMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BRIDGE. AND WE ARE PLANNING TO REPLACE THAT WITH CONSTRUCTION FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT GETTING MOVING ON IT THIS YEAR. THE CONTRACT ON THE QUESTION, NO. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATURE DUPRE. SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR TODARO. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. I FEEL LIKE OPRAH. YOU GET A BRIDGE, YOU GET A BRIDGE, YOU GET A BRIDGE. EVERYONE GETS A BRIDGE. ITEM NUMBER 15, [00:15:05] COMMUNICATION 14E9, ONCE AGAIN, A BRIDGE PROJECT. THIS IS ANOTHER BRIDGE NEW YORK APPROVED PROJECT. WE ARE REQUESTING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS PROJECT AND ALSO REQUESTING OBVIOUSLY FOR THE AWARD FOR THE BID, WHICH IS GOING TO BE AT THE END OF AUGUST FOR THIS PROJECT. PROJECT. THIS IS EAST EDEN ROAD OVER HAMPTON BROOK IN THE TOWN OF EDEN. IT'S AT ECKERT AND EAST EDEN ROAD. THIS STRUCTURE IS A PRECAST CONCRETE FRAME THAT NEEDS TO BE FABRICATED OVER THE WINTER TO BE READY TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION NEXT YEAR. AND WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE APPROVAL FOR THIS SO THAT WE CAN MEET THE TIMELINE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION. AND 2027 ON THE QUESTION, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR DUPRE SECOND BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 16, COMMUNICATION 14E10. THIS IS ACTUALLY TRACY'S ITEM, SO TRACY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN THIS RESOLUTION YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S A. THIS RESOLUTION COMES WITH AN APOLOGY FOR ME ORIGINALLY WHEN WE SUBMIT SUBMITTED IT. I. I BELIEVE I MIXED UP THE DATES OF THE BID BECAUSE I NOW HAVE RESULTS FOR THIS WHICH ARE BEING CIRCULATED AS WE SPEAK VIA EMAIL. BUT SO I'M NOT ASKING TO. FOR THAT AMOUNT IN THERE. SO I BELIEVE I'LL BE ASKING TO AMEND AND AWARD TODAY. I THINK THAT'S THE PROCESS. SO YOU NEED TO AMEND THE AWARD. SO HOW MUCH ARE YOU ASKING FOR? OKAY, I'M REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION IN THIS CONTRACT TO AWARD IT TO IPL. AND THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT IS $537 THE BID AND TO ESTABLISH A 63,000 CONTINGENCY FUND. SO THE TOTAL WILL BE $600,000. LIKE I SAID, THE BUDGET DIRECTOR WAS WORKING ON A REVISED RESOLUTION THAT WAS BEING CIRCULATED AS WE SPEAK. SO I'M NOT SURE THE PROCESS OF THAT. BUT. SO. SO WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US AND USUALLY WE WANT TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US WITH THE AMENDMENT. UNLESS WE HAVE STAFF HAS. DO WE HAVE THE COPY FOR THE AMENDMENT? WE DO NOT. IT. IT JUST HAPPENED THIS MORNING. I FORWARDED THE. OLIVIA WAS SENT THE THING RIGHT. LITERALLY AS WE STARTED. I FORWARDED THAT EMAIL TO BOTH CHIEFS OF STAFF. THEN I ALSO SENT IT TO YOU AND TESS ABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO. WELL, I WAS HERE 15 MINUTES AGO. I COMPLETELY AGREE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE DEFINITELY HAS IT AND WE CAN PRINT IT IF WE WANT TO SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT. SO YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO. IF THERE'S. IF THERE'S. POSSIBLE. CAN WE HAVE ONE STAFFER PRINT IT OUT? WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO BEFORE YOU CONTINUE SPEAKING ON THAT, WE WILL REVISIT THAT ITEM. WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE END OF THE AGENDA AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK. SO LET'S WAIT UNTIL. DO THAT. UNTIL EVERYONE RECEIVES IT. TRACY'S. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM 17. ITEM 17, COMMUNICATION 14E11. KAREN IS BACK TO YOU. THIS IS NOT A BRIDGE. IT'S NOT A BRIDGE. UNFORTUNATELY, NOT A BRIDGE. BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY ONE THAT'S HAD A LOT OF ATTENTION OVER THE YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER FOR OUR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH CATCO FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE SLOPE STABILIZATION OF TREVOR ROAD. TREVOR ROAD HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS DUE TO EMBANKMENT ISSUES. ROAD FAILURE. WE CAME TO NEAR COMPLETION OF IT AND THEN HAD TO LET IT SIT AND STABILIZE. CAME TO NEAR COMPLETION AGAIN, AND WE'RE GETTING READY TO FINISH PAVING. THE PLAN WAS TO DO PAVING THIS YEAR AND HAVE EVERYTHING GOOD TO GO. WE HAD SOME SEVERE STORMS IN EARLY SPRING, WHICH CAUSED SOME FURTHER DAMAGE, REQUIRING MORE WORK TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. SO AS A COST SAVINGS, WHILE WE STILL HAD THAT CONTRACT STILL OPEN WITH CATCO AND THEY WERE STILL ABLE TO MOBILIZE TO COME AND COMPLETE THE PAVING, WE HAD THEM DO THESE REPAIRS. AND THE PLAN IS TO GET THAT FINISHED, GET PAVING DONE, AND BE FINISHED WITH TREVIT ONCE AND FOR ALL. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A QUESTION ON THE QUESTION FOR THIS? NO. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR TODARO, SECOND BY LEGISLATOR DUPRE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FOR THAT ITEM. SO WE HAVE ITEM 18, COMMUNICATION 14E12. AND THIS IS ALSO. KAREN. THIS IS REGARDING THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. KAREN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH OKENO CORPORATION AND A CONTRACT WITH SUIT COAT TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT CONTINGENCY. THIS IS FOR OUR OVERLAY B. AS FAR AS OUR ROAD PROGRAM GOES, EVERY YEAR WE HAVE ENGINEERING OVERLAYS FOR ROAD WORK IN DIFFERENT AREAS. OVERLAY B INCLUDES NORTH FOREST AND ALSO INCLUDES. SO IT'S NORTH FOREST FROM DODGE ROAD TO MAPLE ROAD IN THE TOWN OF AMHERST AND THEN BOWEN ROAD FROM RICE TO BUFFALO STREET [00:20:02] IN THE TOWN OF ALMA. THEY'RE READY TO ROLL AND GET MOVING WITH THIS PROJECT. WE ARE NEARING COMPLETION OF OVER OVERLAY A. SO OVERLAY B WOULD BE STARTING IN AUGUST AND WRAPPING UP THIS FALL ON THOSE TWO ROADS. ALL RIGHT. ON THE QUESTION ON THE NORTH FOREST IS THIS, WHEN THEY DO THE SLOPE STABILIZATION AND THE RECONSTRUCTION, LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE, AS YOU KNOW, THEY WERE COMPLAINING THAT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE WALKING ON THAT AREA AND THERE'S NOTHING ENOUGH SPACE AND IT'S DANGEROUS AND ALL THIS. IS IT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO HAVE WHAT'S. IS THERE CONTINGENCIES ON THAT? SO THAT'S A SEPARATE PROJECT. THIS IS FOR OVERLAY B FOR THE PAVING RESURFACING OF NORTH FOREST. I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE. THE FEMA PROJECT TO FIX THE ROAD SLIDE. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROJECT. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR THE. FOR THE PAVING FOR THE WHOLE STRETCH OF NORTH FOREST. THAT OTHER ONE WOULD BE A SEPARATE PROJECT THAT HASN'T OCCURRED YET. WE HAVEN'T BEEN OVER HERE FOR. OKAY. SO SLOPE STABLE. OH, SLOPE STABILIZATION PART IS FOR THE. IS THAT FOR THE OWENS ROAD? NOT THIS ROAD, THIS ONE. IT SAYS ON THE THING, IT SAYS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER. THIS IS 17, RIGHT? OH, NO, I'M NUMBER 18. YOU'RE THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. THE OVERLAY. YES. SO FOR THE OVERLAY, IS IT JUST THE ROAD? IT'S NOT LIKE, PART. YEP, THIS IS OVERLAY B, WHICH IS THE RESURFACING OF NORTH FOREST AND ALSO BOWEN ROAD IN THE TOWN OF ALMA. THE SLOPE STABILIZATION WAS FOR TREVIT THE PREVIOUS. OKAY, BUT I MEAN, AS FAR AS, LIKE, THE PEOPLE. LIKE, THERE'S WALKING. LIKE, PEOPLE CALL AND SAY THERE'S KIDS WALKING THERE, THERE'S GROWNUPS WALKING THERE, AND THE EDGES ARE SO NARROW THAT THEY. I MEAN, IS IT. HOW FAR OUT IS IT GOING TO GO? BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THERE, RIGHT? NO, THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS INCLUDED IN OVERLAY B. THOSE WOULD BE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TOWN TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS. AND I DON'T. I'M NOT AWARE OF THEM PURSUING SIDEWALKS THERE. OKAY. THIS ISN'T THE SECTION THAT COPA WANTED TO HAVE YOU GUYS DO THE UNDERLAY AND THEN HE WOULD DO THE SIDEWALKS. THIS ISN'T THAT SECTION OF NORTH FOREST. CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART? COPA WAS WANTING TO HAVE, LIKE, YOU GUYS DO THE UNDERLAY. LIKE THE DITCHES. LIKE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE DITCHES OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, THE AREA NEXT TO THE. THE ROAD. AND WHO WAS THAT? I'M SORRY? CULPA. BRIAN COPA. OH, CULPA. YES. YEAH, WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANY SIDEWALKS IN THERE. I THINK THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, BASED ON HIGHWAY LAW, THE SIDEWALKS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TOWN UNLESS THEY'RE INCLUDED IN A FEDERAL AID PROJECT. SO SIDEWALKS WOULDN'T BE PART OF THIS CONTRACT. WOULD THIS CONTRACT MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO DO IT LATER? IF THEY. IF THE TOWN CHOOSES TO, THEN THEY COULD WORK. WORK WITH OUR DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, GET A PERMIT TO INSTALL AND WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. WOULD THERE BE ANY BENEFIT TO DOING IT NOW FOR THE TOWN, OR IS IT UNRELATED? PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE IF THEY WERE PAYING FOR IT AND CONTRACTING IT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY, YOU KNOW, COST SAVINGS. I MEAN, CONCRETE'S GETTING MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE EVERY YEAR. SO SEPARATELY, IT'S ALWAYS CHEAPER TO DO IT SOONER. BUT I GET ONE MORE QUESTION. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS ONION'S. THIS FIRE CHIEF WAS STATING THAT WHEN THEY REDID YOUNG'S ROAD FOR THE COUNTY ROAD SOUTH OF MAIN STREET, THERE'S THAT. HE SAID THAT FOR. SOMEHOW OR OTHER, IT DOESN'T COME UP RIGHT. AND FIRE TRUCKS ARE NOT GOING TO THE RIGHT SPOT. SO HE WANTED TO KNOW IF THEY COULD CHANGE THE NAME OF IT TO SOUTH YOUNGS ROAD. SO IT'S CLEARLY DEMARCATED AS A SEPARATE STREET THAN, YOU KNOW, THE END. HE SAID HE TALKED TO SOMEBODY ABOUT IT, BUT THE PERSON SAID TO TALK. TALK TO THE LEGISLATOR TO DO THAT. SO THEY'RE LOOKING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ROAD. JUST THAT SECTION LIKE THE SOUTH OF YOUNG, SOUTH OF MAIN STREET TO BE CHANGED TO SOUTHEAST. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR YOU, BUT I'M SURE OUR TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEER WOULD HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. JUST FOR PURPOSES. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE WHEN THEY'RE IN RESPONSE DOING STUFF LIKE THAT. YEAH, I'LL TALK TO HER AND SEE IF THAT'S. I WOULDN'T WANT TO RULE IT OUT. I MEAN I THINK IF THERE'S SOMETHING WHERE IT'S ADDING US OUT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE. MAYBE, MAYBE THEY SAID TO TALK TO THE. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. THE LEGISLATURE HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE. SO I SAW HIM ON THE PARADE AND HE'S LIKE, COULD YOU MAKE THAT CHANGE? IT'S LIKE, OKAY, I KNOW. YEAH. IT MIGHT HAVE TO COME AS REQUESTS OR RESOLUTION. SO I MEAN AS A STANDARD, OUR TRAFFIC SAFETY. [ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ] ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THE ENERGY ENVIRONMENT MEETING. NUMBER 2012 CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. LEGISLATOR TODARO. HE'S. HE'S IN THE MEN'S ROOM. HE'LL BE BACK. HE'S IN. CHAIR BERNY. SOUNDS GOOD, RIGHT. LEGISLATOR GILMOUR ST. JEAN TARD CHAIR MEYER IS NOT PRESENT. QUORUM PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, YOU GOT. FRANK'S HERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING [00:25:01] TO GO TO. WE'RE GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS. ITEMS NOT. EXCUSE ME. 1 THROUGH 9 ARE TABLED. ITEMS 11 THROUGH 13 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEMS 10 AND 14 THROUGH 20 ARE ACTIONABLE. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO OUR ACTIONABLE ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 10, BOARD OF MANAGERS. MY DEAR FRIEND JOE. HOW ARE YOU, BUDDY? WE GOT A BUSY DAY TODAY. THANK YOU, MY DEAR FRIEND. ALL RIGHT, WHAT DO WE HAVE, JOE? WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS WE NEED CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FOR THE SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER ONE IN FIVE BOARD OF MANAGERS. WE HAD RECENTLY TWO LONG TIME DIVISION SEWERAGE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES THAT RETIRED AND THEY SERVE AS SECRETARIES ON THOSE BOARDS. SO WE'D LIKE TO REPLACE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH OUR TWO CURRENT EMPLOYEES. IT WOULD BE DANIEL WIERZBA PURSUED DISTRICT NUMBER ONE AND CHRISTOPHER FUME FOR SUIT THROUGH DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE. OKAY. ON THE QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? WE'RE CARRIED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ON TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER 14. MARK ROUNDTREE. MARK, GOOD TO SEE YOU. GOOD TO SEE YOU, TOO. WHAT DO WE HAVE, MARK? THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. TODAY WE'RE SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE ECIDA ILDC TO FACILITATE THE RELOCATION OF THE RAILROAD ON THE FORMER BETHLEHEM STEEL SITE. THE RAILROAD, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ROUTE 5, PRESENTS A BARRIER TO ACCESS AND BLOCKS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN A PHASE 2 AREA SOUTH OF SMOKES CREEK. IF TRAINS ARE PRESENT, ACCESS TO THE SITE IS NOT POSSIBLE, LEADING TO BACKUPS ON ROUTE THE RAIL WOULD BE RELOCATED ABOUT 1500FT FEET WEST, CREATING A MODERN RAIL YARD WITH MULTIMODAL POSSIBILITIES, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT SELLING POINT FOR DEVELOPMENT. FOLLOWING THE RELOCATION OF THE RAILROAD, THE ILDC WILL FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR COMPANIES TO CREATE A NEW TAX BASE AND JOBS FOR THE COUNTY. DEP AND ECID WERE ABLE TO SECURE 6.5 MILLION IN GRANT FUNDING FROM THE STATE TO FACILITATE THIS PROJECT. THE COUNTY FUNDING WILL SERVICE THE REQUIRED MATCH FOR THE GRANTS. PRETTY BIG PROJECT, HUH? YEAH. WOW. ON THE QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM 15. BACK TO YOU, JOE. BUFFALO SEWER. SO, SEWER DISTRICTS NUMBER ONE AND FOUR, OR. WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY FOR TREATMENT SERVICES. THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE EARLY 1970S. SO EACH YEAR WE BUDGET IN THE INDIVIDUAL SEWER DISTRICTS, ACCOUNTS FOR BSA CONTRACTUAL SERVICES. RECEIVED OUR BILLS THIS YEAR AND THEY INCREASED WELL ABOVE 20%, WHICH WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE. WE HAD COORDINATED WITH BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY LAST YEAR, AND BASED UPON THE INFORMATION WE HAD AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, WE ANTICIPATED 10% INCREASES. SO THAT LEFT US QUITE SHORT. SO WE COORDINATED WITH THE SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER ONE AND FOUR BOARDS LAST MONTH DURING THEIR REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS AND CAME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER FOR CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS TO ADDRESS THAT SHORTFALL. SO YOU'RE PROBABLY ASKING, OKAY, WHAT ABOUT NEXT YEAR? SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE MECHANISMS THAT CREATED THIS INCREASE FROM BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY AND THEY HAVE GIVEN US BETTER INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO PROJECT WHAT THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE. AND SO IN THE. AND WE'VE ALREADY PRESENTED 20, 27 BUDGETS TO SEWER DISTRICT 1 AND 4 BOARDS. AND, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON THAT INFORMATION FROM BSA, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE GOOD PROJECTIONS FOR NEXT YEAR TO MITIGATE AGAINST THIS OCCURRING AGAIN. SO IT WASN'T AN ERROR. NO, WE, WE WENT THROUGH IT IN QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL. OKAY. THE ISSUE ENDS UP BEING THAT WE, WE HAD TALKED WITH BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH MASSIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. AND WE ASKED THEM, YOU KNOW, WHAT ADDITIONAL DEBT THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING ON IN THIS CURRENT YEAR. AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TAKING ON SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS. BUT THEY ALREADY HAD BUDGET. THEY HAD ALREADY BUDGETED IN THEIR ANNUAL BUDGET. THEY BUDGETED 6.7% INCREASES. SO WE SAID, OKAY, WE'LL GO WITH 10 JUST TO KIND OF BE PROTECTIVE. THE ISSUE IS THAT WE PAY ON ACTUAL EXPENSES IN A FISCAL YEAR NOT BASED UPON THEIR BUDGETS. AND THEY HAD USED THEIR OWN CAPITAL RESERVES TO CASH FUND PROJECTS INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH LONG TERM DEBT. AND WHAT THAT MEANT IS BECAUSE WE PAY ON A PROPORTION OF THOSE ACTUAL EXPENSES, THEY HAD CASH OUT THE DOOR [00:30:01] IMMEDIATELY AND THEN IT HIT OUR BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. AND THAT'S DETAILED. AND THOSE AMOUNTS ARE DETAILED HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE LETTER. IT'S A GOOD MOVE ON THEIR PART. RIGHT. WE PAID THE BILL. LEGISLATIVE QUESTION. AND JOE, AND THE NEWS RECENTLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ON THE BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY PUTTING IN A, I THINK IT WAS A HOLDING TANK, SOMETHING TO PREVENT THE OVERFLOW OF SEWAGE INTO THE BLACKROCK CANAL. YEAH. DOES THAT AFFECT US AT ALL THE COUNTY? SO IT, IT SHOULD NOT. AND SO THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IN PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY, WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO PAY TOWARDS THE COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM THAT WE UTILIZE. SO AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, OF COURSE, ALL OUR FLOWS COME TO TREATMENT PLANT. AND YOU KNOW, SO ANYTHING THAT'S DONE AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, WE PAY A PROPORTIONAL SHARE. THERE'S ALSO THE PIPELINE THAT CONNECTS FROM, YOU KNOW, AT THE CITY LINE WHERE WE, WHERE WE DISCHARGE INTO THEIR SYSTEM ALL THE WAY TO THE TREATMENT PLANT, WE WOULD PAY TOWARDS THAT. THAT IS FURTHER NORTH FROM WHERE OUR PIPELINES EXIST. AND HENCE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS. BUT THAT'S ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, WE'VE SAT DOWN WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SAID TO THEM, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO, TO HAVE A BETTER DIALOGUE WITH BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY ON WHAT THEY'RE DEEMING ARE ELIGIBLE COSTS VERSUS WHAT, WHAT. WHAT WE DEEM ARE ELIGIBLE COSTS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT. BUT BASED UPON THE BASIC INFORMATION I HAVE ON THAT PARTICULAR INITIATIVE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD IMPACT US, BUT MORE TO COME. THANK YOU. HE BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SHARED SERVICES FOR THE TREATMENT AND COUNTYWIDE THAT GO THROUGH THE CITY YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. A LOT OF THE SUBURBS COME THROUGH THE CITY. I THINK THEY COME THROUGH US AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THE CITY. YEP. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT THE LEGISLATURE BROUGHT UP. YEP. ALL RIGHT, AGREED. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? WORD CARRIED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 16. WE'RE STILL WITH YOU, JOE. WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS ANOTHER CAPITAL RESERVE TRANSFER. THIS IS $2 MILLION TO ALLOW US TO PERFORM CURED IN PLACE PIPELINING IN SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER ONE. WE'VE IDENTIFIED ROUGHLY ABOUT 51,000FT OF PIPE THAT WE WANT TO DO AS PART OF A CONSOLIDATED PROGRAM IN THAT PARTICULAR SEWER DISTRICT. AND AGAIN, TALKING WITH DISTRICT 1 BOARD OF MANAGERS, WE THOUGHT USING OUR CAPITAL RESERVES FOR THIS PURPOSE WAS A GOOD USE OF THOSE FUNDS. SO. BUT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE NEED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL. OKAY. ON THE QUESTION, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. JOE, WE'RE MOVING ALONG HERE. ITEM NUMBER 17. YEP. WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE CENTRAL REGION COLLECTIONS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTUALLY. HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CULTURE USE SOON. AND WE NOW HAVE DEEMED THE WORK COMPLETE BY THE CONTRACTORS OUTSIDE OF PUNCH LIST. AND SO IN HERE WE HAVE THE FINAL ACCOUNTING AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, AN UPDATE ON THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS THAT ARE UTILIZED FOR THIS PROJECT. SO IT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH CLOSEOUT WITH THE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. GREAT. ON THE QUESTION, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? WE'RE CARRIED. ITEM NUMBER 18. I THINK IT'S THE LAST ONE. I THINK YOU THINK IT IS. FOR YOU, JOE, THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING. BUT DON'T GO ANYWHERE, JOE. YOU NEVER KNOW. I'LL STICK AROUND. THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT CAME UP DURING THE MID YEAR BUDGET HEARING WHICH IS SERVICING STEUBEN FOODS AND I'VE MENTIONED THAT WE ISSUED A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO FOR THE ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH UPGRADES THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THEM INTO THE FUTURE. ALONG ALSO WITH MOOG CORPORATION, EARLIER THIS YEAR WE ISSUED THAT REQUEST PROPOSALS. THREE MEMBERS OF DIVISION SEWAGE MANAGEMENT ALONG WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH MOOG AND STEUBEN FOODS REVIEWED THOSE PROPOSALS. WE THEN ALSO CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITH GHD CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THIS WORK. THE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED IN THERE, INCLUDING THE COST AND EVERYTHING GOES ALONG WITH THAT. SO THE WAY THAT THIS IS STRUCTURED, WE HAVE A $500,000 GRANT FROM NEW YORK STATE, EMPIRE STATE [00:35:02] DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE $300,000 EACH FROM MOGAN'S TWO BENT FOODS. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 1.1 MILLION OF THE FUNDING. THIS IS ACTUALLY A TOTAL OF ABOUT $2.8 MILLION FOR THE SERVICES. SO THE WAY THAT THE ENGINEERING AGREEMENTS COULD BE SET UP IS WE HAVE FUNDING UP TO 1.1 MILLION, AND THE INSURANCE WILL HAVE TO PUT THE PENCILS DOWN AT THAT POINT. BUT THE WAY THAT WE'RE STRUCTURING THIS PROJECT IS THAT AFTER THE FIRST TASK, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO THEN APPLY TO THE FAST NEW YORK PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THOSE SERVICES AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IT STRUCTURED AS WELL IN THIS WAY WHERE IT PROVIDES US THE FLEXIBILITY TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE SAME ENGINEER THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROJECT, BUT PROVIDES THAT PROTECTIONS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO PAST THAT $1.1 MILLION THAT WE HAVE PRESENTLY AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING. SO AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NO COUNTY DOLLARS INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR INITIATIVE. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. ON THE QUESTION, ARE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE MOTION. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANKS, JOEL. ITEM NUMBER 19, WE'RE ON. LOOK WHO'S HERE. LOOK WHO'S HERE. LOOK WHO'S HERE. YOU'VE WAITED SO PATIENTLY. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. JOEL BRINGS A LOT OF WORK TO US EVERY. EVERY SESSION. AND HE DOES A LOT OF WORK. BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, HE DOES VERY LITTLE NORTH. HE'S STARTING TO AGGRAVATE ME A LITTLE BIT. SPEND A LOT OF MONEY. SAL, WHAT DO YOU GOT FOR US? THANKS FOR HAVING ME. FIRST THING IS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR OUR SENECA BLUFFS NATURAL HABITAT GREENE INFRASTRUCTURE PARKING LOT PROJECT WITH A NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER, JUST OVER 1.2 MILLION. OBVIOUSLY, FUNDING IS ALL IN PLACE. BIDS ARE SET TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK. WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS APPROVAL BEFORE RECESS TO KEEP THIS PROJECT MOVING. QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SECONDLY. YEP. ITEM 20. YEP. THIS IS TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT DPW HAS WITH WENDELL COMPANIES FOR DEC ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE TO INCLUDE FUNDING SOURCES FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT SO THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH A FUEL ISLAND AT WILLOWDALE PARK. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? WE'RE ADJOURNED. [HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ] GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. HELD IN HUMAN SERVICE MEETING NUMBER 11. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR LORIGO HERE. TODARO. HERE. DUPRE. HERE. BARGNESI. HERE. VINAL. HERE. CHAIR MEYERS IS (INAUDIBLE). ZEX OFFICIO QUORUMS PRESENT. THANK YOU. ITEMS ONE THROUGH FIVE ARE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM SEVEN IS RECEIVED AND FILED. AND WE HAVE ITEM SIX THAT IS ACTIONABLE. ITEM SIX, COMMUNICATION. 14E28 APPOINTMENTS TO THE LANGUAGE ACCESS BOARD. WE HAVE DIRECTOR MCLAREN HERE TO SPEAK. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR. THANK YOU HONORABLE BODY, FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE TODAY. I'M SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE LANGUAGE ACCESS BOARD. I JUST HAD A QUESTION WITH THIS LANGUAGE ACCESS BOARD. I KNOW WE PASSED THIS LAW. I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO. AND THERE'S A DEADLINE FOR 2028. WHERE DO WE STAND WITH. BECAUSE THIS IS. IF WE'RE JUST CREATING THE BOARD NOW, I GUESS. WHERE ARE WE AT IN TERMS OF THE DEADLINES AND ARE WE GOING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW? YES, THE GOAL IS TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. LOCAL LAW NUMBER FIVE OF 2024. I BELIEVE WE ARE RIGHT IN THE TIMELINE THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS BOARD ACCESSIBLE WITH THE CONFIRMATION. SO WE ARE ON TRACK WITH THAT PLAN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [PUBLIC SAFETY ] GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO MEETING NUMBER 10 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. YES, SIR. LEGISLATOR GREENE . TADARO DUPRE. PRESENT. CHAIR GILMOUR. HERE. SHOIAN? HERE. CHAIR MYERS. PRESENT. EX OFFICIAL MEMBER. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT ON PAGE ONE. ITEMS ONE [00:40:01] THROUGH THREE WILL BE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY. SHARE ITEM NUMBER FOUR WILL BE RECEIVED AND FILED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM 5 WILL BE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ONTO PAGE TWO. ITEM NUMBER SIX WILL BE RECEIVED AND FILED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WILL BE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER NINE WILL BE RECEIVED AND FILED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. AND NUMBER EIGHT IS OUR ONLY ACTUAL, OUR ONLY ACTIONABLE ITEM. WHO'S SPEAKING? WHERE'S YOURS? GOOD MORNING. SERGEANT ED KRIPAL WITH THE ERIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2025 STONE GARDEN GRANT. THIS GRANT IS USED TO HELP SUPPORT THE SUSTAINMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. ALONG WITH LOCAL PARTNERS. IT ALSO PROVIDES INCREASED MANPOWER TO HELP COMBAT NARCOTICS AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING ALONG THE U.S. AND CANADIAN BORDER. ON THE QUESTION. SO IS THIS THE EMPOWER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ONE? OH, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT. GOOD, LAWRENCE. THANK YOU. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, AARON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. SO THIS IS CONCERNING THE RESOLUTION ABOUT THE OPERATION STONE GARDEN GRANT. SO AS I WAS READING THROUGH IT, THE RESOLUTION STATE THAT THE FUND IS IN THOUSAND TWO INTENDED TO INCREASE SECURITY ALONG THE NORTHERN BORDER. AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I WAS KIND OF. I WAS WONDERING WHY THE MUNICIPALITIES SUCH AS HAMBURG AND LANCASTER ARE INCLUDED AS THEY ARE NOT BORDER COMMUNITIES. YOU KNOW, WHAT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THESE MUNICIPALITIES AND HOW WILL THEY DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS BORDER SECURITY GRANT? TOWN OF HAMBURG IS ON THE WATER. THEY HAVE A BOAT, LANCASTER. I'M NOT SURE I'D BE BETWEEN THEM AND BORDER PATROL AND HOW THEY ASSIST THEM. FURTHER, WITH THIS GRANT AND THE MONEY, DOES THE GRANT CREATE ANY NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR ANY COUNTY? NEW OBLIGATIONS? YES. NO. WE'VE BEEN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, I BELIEVE, SINCE 2005, US AND OUR LOCAL DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN IN THIS GRANT. AND WHEN THIS GRANT EXPIRES, WILL THE COUNTY NEED TO CONTINUE FUNDING ON ANY POSITIONS OR PROGRAMS? NO. THERE'S NO MATCH EITHER WITH THIS GRANT. THANK YOU, LINDSAY. THANK YOU. IS THIS WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE? LIKE CURRENTLY? YES. SO WE HAD. WE HAD THE GRANT LAST YEAR. CORRECT. THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION TILL THE NEXT YEAR. IT'S A YEAR BY YEAR THING. OKAY, THANK YOU. I DIDN'T KNOW. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? MOTION APPROVED. MOTION APPROVED. PROPER SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, GUYS. APPRECIATE COMING IN. THANK YOU. PROPER. MOTION ADJOURNED. PROPER SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? THE OPPOSED? WE STAND? YEAH. [FINANCE & MANAGEMENT ] WELCOME TO MEETING NUMBER NINE OF THE FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR GREENE . LEGISLATOR MILLS. LEGISLATOR BARGNESI. HERE. CHAIR KOOSHOIAN. HERE. LEGISLATOR VINAL. PRESENT. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. HASN'T THIS MEETING. HAS THIS COMMITTEE MET ENOUGH THIS WEEK? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE WARMED UP, JOHN. THAT'S ALL. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 WILL BE TABLED ALONG WITH ITEMS 6 THROUGH 12, WHICH ARE ALSO TABLED. ITEMS 13 THROUGH 19 ARE TABLED. ITEM 20 IS GOING TO BE TABLED, BUT THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THE LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE PARTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. THAT'S SCHEDULED ON JUNE 21ST AT 6:15PM ITEMS 21 THROUGH 27 ARE TABLED. ITEM 28 IS TABLED. ITEMS 29 AND 30 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 31 IS TABLED. ITEM 32 WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO. ALONG WITH ITEM 33. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT, TOO. ITEM 34 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 36 AND 37 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 35 FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICES AND LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT. WE HAVE BRIAN BRAY HERE TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE. HOW ARE YOU, COMMISSIONER? GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS FOR US TO RENEW OUR CONTRACT FOR OUR LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. ERIE COUNTY USES AN ONLINE LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RATHER THAN DO IN PERSON TRAININGS IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY. THE EXISTING CONTRACT EXPIRED AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO ISSUE AN RFP. WE ISSUED AN RFP AND THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER WAS RANKED THE HIGHEST. IT WAS THE LOWEST AT THE LOWEST COST AND RANKED THE SECOND HIGHEST AMONG THE QUALITATIVE REVIEW. SO WE'RE ASKING TO RENEW THIS, THIS CONTRACT. THE INCREASE OF THE CONTRACT IS GOING FROM $45,000 TO $52,000. IT WAS $45,000 FOR THE LAST SIX [00:45:02] YEARS AND IT'LL BE INCREASING IF APPROVED FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS. ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION APPROVED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR MILLS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION'S APPROVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO RETURN TO GET MY ITEM NUMBER HERE. WE'RE GOING TO RETURN TO ITEM NUMBER 32 FROM THE MINORITY CAUCUS AUTHORIZING A 100% REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ON THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF SERIOUSLY DISABLED VETERANS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO DISCUSS THE ITEM? I THINK MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. FINBAR IS HERE TO DISCUSS IT. GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE ERIC FINBAR HERE. AND YOU'RE CHAIR OF THE ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT OF ERIE COUNTY ASSESSORS, AND I'M THE ASSESSOR IN WEST SENECA AND LANCASTER. THANK YOU. AND DID YOU HAVE A STATEMENT REGARDING THIS? I DO. AS FAR AS THE VETERANS EXEMPTION, I MEAN, WEST SENECA AND LANCASTER ARE PROBABLY TWO OF THE LARGEST TOWNS OTHER THAN AMHERST AND CHEETAWAGA. IN WEST SENECA, THERE'S 247 VETERANS. PROBABLY ABOUT HALF OF THOSE WILL QUALIFY. SO I MEAN, THE TAX BURDEN THAT SHIFTS IS NOT HUGE. YOU'RE TALKING LIKE 30 TO $40 IN TAXES. LANCASTER, THERE'S 155, WHICH IS PROBABLY ABOUT 75 TO 80 QUALIFY. SO IT'S EVEN SMALLER. SO I MEAN, THE ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THIS. IT'S A GREAT THING FOR THE VETERANS. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU GIVE THOSE NUMBERS, THOSE ARE VETERANS WHO OWN HOMES. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT OWN HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY AT 100%. THE THING THAT WE DON'T KNOW IS RIGHT NOW YOU CAN ADD UP TO 100% BY HAVING A BUNCH OF SMALL DISABILITIES. THE NEW LAW STATES YOU HAVE TO BE PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABLED, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. SO NOT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WILL QUALIFY. OKAY, SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. IT'S STILL NOT HUGE, BUT PROBABLY HALF OF THESE PEOPLE WILL QUALIFY. THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS? LEGISLATOR BY NANCY WHEN YOU CONSIDER A VETERAN 100% DISABLED, THEY ARE UNABLE TO WORK. THAT IS WHERE THE PERMANENT TOTAL COMES IN. SO THAT'S WHERE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT RATINGS. YOU CAN BE 100%, WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A BUNCH OF SMALL, SMALL DISABILITIES ADD UP TO 100, WHICH YOU'LL STILL GET THE OLD EXEMPTION, BUT YOU WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE NEW ONE BECAUSE THAT YOU HAVE TO BE PERMANENT IN TOTAL, WHICH THEN YOU'D BE. YES, UNEMPLOYABLE. SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE THEN AT THAT POINT THE, THE PEOPLE THAT ONLY ADD UP TO 100 WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE. IS THAT. THAT'S UP TO THE ASSESSORS TO DETERMINE THAT. SO WHEN THEY APPLY. YES, BECAUSE IF A VETERAN SAYS I'M 100% DISABLED ON THE FORM, THERE'S A QUESTION THAT SAYS ARE YOU CONSIDERED PERMANENT TOTAL. AND IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION. RIGHT. BUT IF, BUT NO. ON THE FORM FROM THE VETERANS. FROM THE VETERANS. FROM THE VETERANS, THERE'S FOUR LINES. IT SAYS THEIR RATING, HOW MUCH THEY GET PER MONTH. AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU PERMANENT IN TOTAL? YES OR NO. AND UNEMPLOYABLE, YES OR NO. SO THEY CAN'T GET THE PERMANENT IN TOTAL BY ADDING UP THIS. ALL THE SMALL ONES. CORRECT. THEY DON'T GET THAT. IT'S A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION. GOT IT, GOT IT. RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT AT ALL. NO, NO, THAT'S DETERMINED BY THE VA. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS VERIFY ONCE IT'S APPROVED OR NOT, IT'S GOING TO BE TOWN, COUNTY, SCHOOL, I'LL HAVE TO OPT IN. AND THEN WE WOULD JUST SEND OUT LETTERS TO EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE ON FILE THAT'S 100% ASKING THEM TO COME IN AND RE. VERIFY THEIR DEBT OR THEIR PERCENTAGE. THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR VINAL. I HAD TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS THE. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY THAT THERE COULD BE GRADATIONS SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS LIKE 50% DISABLED, THEY COULD GET A 50% REDUCTION? NO, THIS IS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE 100%, THIS STATUTE. BUT I MEAN, THE NEW STATUTE IS FOR 100% ONLY. THERE IS CURRENTLY AN EXEMPTION THAT YOU GET HALF OF YOUR DISABILITY RATING. SO IF SOMEONE HAS A 50% RATING, THEY'RE RECEIVING A 25% DISCOUNT CURRENTLY. AND THEN THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THAT. THAT. OKAY. AND SO THE ONES WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THE SMALL NUMBER ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE JUST. THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME, SOME REAL TAX RELIEF, THAT SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL GET FULL TAX RELIEF. CORRECT. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT IN HERE THAT THERE'S THE, THE SECTION ABOUT THE LGBT VETERAN. EXPLAIN THAT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS LANGUAGE IS TO MAKE IT SO THAT TOTALLY DISABLED LGBT VETERANS CAN GET IT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS [00:50:02] TO DO WITH THE HONORABLE DISCHARGE, WHERE I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE STATE BACK ON. SO ON THAT PORTION THAT IT'S SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO BE. THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE DISCHARGE OTHER THAN BAD CONDUCT OR DISHONORABLE. SO IN THE PAST, DID THEY GET MEDICAL OR OTHER OR GENERAL DISCHARGE OR SOMETHING? WELL, MEDICAL IS OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S. THAT'S HONORABLE. YOU JUST CAN'T BE DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED. BUT WHY FOR LGBT IS THE DIFFERENCE? I'M UNAWARE OF THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR. CLARIFICATION ON THE STATE. I HAVEN'T COME ACROSS THAT WHERE SOMEONE HAS A DISABILITY BECAUSE OF THAT. NOT BECAUSE OF THAT. IT JUST SAYS A DISCHARGED LGBT VETERAN. IT SAYS THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED OR YOU HAVE TO BE EITHER. IT JUST AS A DIFFERENT STATEMENT FOR THEM. IT SAYS TO BE ELIGIBLE, A VETERAN MUST HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED OR MUST HAVE A QUALIFYING CONDITION OR IT MUST BE A DISCHARGE. LGBT, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT HONORABLE. DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE. SO I BELIEVE THAT IT'S PEOPLE THAT TAKE A DISCHARGE FOR ANOTHER REASON, BUT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED HONORABLE. IT'S NOT A MEDICAL OR IT'S NOT DISHONORABLE OTHER THAN CONDUCT OR DISHONORABLE FROM THE SERVICE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY. WHY WOULD THEY HIGHLIGHT. IS IT. WAS IT BECAUSE IN SOME PORTION OF TIME THAT BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS GAY THEY GOT A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE? I DO NOT KNOW. I DID NOT WRITE IT. I MEAN, JUST WHAT I'M. JUST WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DISCHARGED SOMEONE BECAUSE OF LGBTQ STATUS, THEY WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A VETERAN UNDER NEW YORK STATE'S TAX LAW. CORRECT. IT'S NOT A DISHONORABLE WORK IN THAT PERSON'S FAVOR WHEN MAYBE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT, IF I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT DID THEY USE TO DISCHARGE PEOPLE THAT WERE GAY DISHONORABLY AND THAT THEY'RE STILL EXCLUDED UNDER THIS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROTECTED AGAINST. THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. SO THEY. IF THEY HAVE A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, THEN THEY. BECAUSE I THINK AT ONE TIME THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT HAVE DISCHARGED PEOPLE AND THEN THEY'RE HONORING THAT DISCHARGE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY, THEY STILL WON'T BE QUALIFIED FOR THIS AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW. SO ALL THAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS THERE WILL BE LETTERS FROM THE STATE THAT WILL BE GIVEN OUT FROM THE VA SO PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND APPLY, AND IT'LL HAVE THE YES OR NO QUESTION. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO HAVE IS THAT DESIGNATION. I'M NOT LOOKING INTO. YOU'RE NOT MAKING THE DETERMINATION? NO, IT'S NOT MY. THOSE ARE NOT MY DETERMINATIONS. THAT'S ALL STUFF THAT HAPPENS AT THE VETS. WE'RE JUST ASKING PEOPLE TO RE VERIFY THEIR DISABILITY. LEGISLATOR I CAN AS A SPONSOR OF THIS LOCAL LAW, I CAN HELP ADDRESS THAT. THIS IS STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE TO OPT INTO THE PROGRAM. I DO BELIEVE LEGISLATURE VINAL THAT IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS INCLUDED IN CASE OF ANY SORT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DISCHARGE BASED ON SEXUALITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THIS IS STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INCLUDING EVERYBODY THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE BASED ON THAT DISABILITY. IT'S REALLY FOCUSING ON THE HONORABLE DISCHARGE. BUT THIS IS REQUIRED FROM THE STATE THAT WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE IT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY. SO IT'S A COVERAGE, NOT AN EXCLUSIVE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IF IT'S. THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE BEING EXCLUDED ARE ANY OF. I JUST TURNED OFF BECAUSE I HAD THAT ECHO. BUT WHAT I JUST WONDER IF IT SHOULD SAY EVEN IF OR SOMETHING ABOUT IS THAT THE EXACT LANGUAGE AS OPPOSED TO ONLY IF IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE LGBT WAS THE ONLY REASON THEY HAD A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE. I THINK WE'RE COVERED IN THE WAY IT DISCUSSES THE HONORABLE DISCHARGE. AND THIS IS LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOU KNOW, ISSUE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH YOU KNOW, THE SECTION OF LAW FROM THE STATE. SO BUT ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU ERIC, FOR COMING IN. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS IMPORTANT WHENEVER WE'RE DISCUSSING EXEMPTIONS THAT WE HEAR FROM THE ASSESSORS BECAUSE WHILE THIS IS A GOOD THING AND I'M PROUD TO SPONSOR IT, AN EXEMPTION CAN SHIFT TAX BURDEN TO OTHER. SO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T GETTING INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE OVERLY SHIFTING TAX BURDEN TO OTHER PEOPLE. THIS IS A. IT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN TWO OF THE LARGEST TOWNS THAT YOU'RE SHIFTING TAX BURDEN. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT. WOULD YOU HAVE A BALLPARK OR DEAL? HOW MANY VETERANS ARE 100 SEALED COUNTY WIDE COUNTY. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK OUT. WE HAVE 247 IN WEST SENECA. [00:55:01] RIGHT. 155 LANCASTER. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO TOWNS THAT I REPRESENT. I DID REACH OUT TO THE COUNTY. YEAH. SO IF YOU THE 250 IF YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY THE BIG FOUR OR FIVE COMMUNITY COMMUNITIES. IT'S REALLY NOT A LARGE NUMBER. I DO KNOW FROM PAST YEARS WHEN WE GET TO WEST SIDE. RIGHT, RIGHT. YEAH. MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. ANYWAYS. SO. BUT ANYWAYS THANK YOU FOR COMING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU OFFER, YOU KNOW, YOUR EXPERTISE. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT TOWN SUPERVISORS, I KNOW YOU ONLY HAVE WEST SENECA AND LANCASTER. ARE THEY IN FAVOR OF THIS? OKAY. HAVE THEY PASSED IT? OKAY. LEGISLATOR GREENE 'S GOING TO TAKE THIS HOME. SO ANECDOTALLY I DID ACTUALLY RUN INTO A VETERAN THAT WAS 100% DISABLED ABOUT MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO AND FOUR YEARS AGO THAT WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS SORT OF THING. HE HADN'T ACTUALLY APPLIED IN THE PAST. HE WAS 100% DISABLED. BUT JUST TO BRING A FACE TO THE TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS IN HIS SITUATION, HE HAD DONE A LOT OF RETROFITTING TO HIS HOUSE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS DISABILITY. RAMPS, WIDENING OF DOORS. AND SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS, THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED THIS TAX BREAK TO KIND OF VERY OFTEN KEEP HOUSES THAT ARE CUSTOMIZED TO THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS. IS THIS WHAT WE'RE SEEING ELSEWHERE AS WELL? ITEM UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS ON JUNE 21ST AT 6 O'CLOCK. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON ITEM 33 FROM LEGISLATOR ST. JEAN TARD, THE COUNTY OF ERIE FLEET MANAGEMENT AND MOTOR VEHICLE USE POLICY THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED. WE ALSO INVITED, I KNOW WE DID INVITE ANY DEPARTMENT HEAD THAT WANTED TO COME IN IF THEY HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE POLICY. POLICY. I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE SHOWED UP FOR THAT. SO WE WERE NOT. ASSUME THERE ARE NO ISSUES. WE WERE NOT INVITED. JUST SAY NO. WELL, YOU'RE HERE. I AM. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE POLICY? LIKE YOU THE MOST RIGHT NOW. MIKE. CHEWING NO, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE, THE POLICY WAS A LABOR OF LOVE, MOSTLY WITH LEGISLATOR TAISHA ST. JEAN TARD. AND IT TOOK QUITE A WHILE TO PIECE THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WAS, THAT WAS DONE. WE DID LISTEN TO ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT HERE BY EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATOR VINAL. BUT IT WAS, IT WAS QUITE A WHILE. AND I JUST WANT TO COMMEND HONESTLY, TYISHA FOR AND HER STAFF FOR IT'S A BIG POLICY AND IT'S A LOT OF WORK. AND JUST IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, SANDY'S NOT HERE, SO THAT'S GOOD. I THINK NOTHING'S EVER GOING TO BE PERFECT. BUT LIKE LEGISLATOR GREENE SAID ON THE BILL SWEEP POLICY, WE CAN'T LET PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD. AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD POLICY AND I THINK THIS WILL ALWAYS BE HERE TO BE TWEAKED IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK YOU NEED TO, NO MATTER WHO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE IS. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE POLICIES WORK. SO THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP. THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR ST. JEAN TARD. THANK YOU, CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FROM THE FLEET SUBCOMMITTEE AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WERE WILLING TO WORK WITH ME AS I DECIDED TO DRAFT THIS POLICY. THE BIGGEST PART OF WRITING THIS POLICY WAS COLLABORATION AND TO INCREASE REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. THE LAST FLEET POLICY THAT WAS UPDATED WAS IN 2017. WE'RE IN 2026 AND THERE WAS A LOT OF AREAS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS UPDATED FOR THIS BODY, SUCH AS REPORTING. I KNOW THAT'S BIG FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING EYES ON IT. WITH THE AUDIT THAT CAME OUT, A LOT OF US HAD QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AND FOR US, I THOUGHT THE BEST PROCESS MOVING FORWARD IS HAVING SOMETHING THAT IS A WORKING DOCUMENT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S TRULY UPDATED, THAT HAS TRANSPARENCY, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL OUR EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLE COUNTY [01:00:01] VEHICLES TO HAVE A GUIDE. AND THIS IS WHAT IT DOES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE ACROSS THE AISLE TO HOPEFULLY GET THIS PASSED. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK. AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE IN THE PAST, POLICIES THAT I PUT FORWARD, IT'S ALL ABOUT FIXING THINGS. THIS IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO FIX EVERYTHING, BUT WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS A LEGISLATURE TO COME BACK AND FIX THINGS AND IMPROVE THINGS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS DOCUMENT IMPROVES A LOT OF THINGS. I DO WANT TO THANK RUTH, WHO WAS MY INTERN BACK THERE, WHO DID TONS OF RESEARCH ON DIFFERENT COUNTIES AND REALLY HELPED US REVAMP. AND THEN TESS, WHO TOOK A LOT OF TIME AS I WROTE IT AND SHE FIXED IT. I LIKE TO SAY SHE'S THE FIXER. SHE REALLY LOOKED AT IT AND WE WORKED AS A TEAM TO ENSURE THAT THIS POLICY IS AS FAIR TO EVERYONE. AND THAT'S THE GOAL. HAVE A FAIR POLICY THAT IS NOT ONLY GOING TO WORK FOR OUR COUNTY AND FOR THE DEPARTMENTS WHO ACTUALLY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT IT. AND I CAN SAY CONFIDENTLY THAT ONE OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, DPW, THEY WERE AT THE TABLE MULTIPLE TIMES BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A LARGE SIZE FLEET. SO HAVING THEIR BLESSING IN A LOT OF THINGS MADE THIS POLICY TO ME EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING DIALOGUE WITH ANYBODY REGARDING IT. THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR TODARO. AND I WANT TO THANK BOTH JORDAN AND TYISHA FOR THE IMPETUS OF FINALIZING THE FLEET REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS WHICH WERE FILED YESTERDAY. AND THIS POLICY IS ONE OF THE FIVE PARTS OF THE WHAT WE'RE ASSIGNED WITH IT. AND ONE OF IT IS. AND IN THAT REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, I JUST WENT THROUGH ALL THE PROOF THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US AND FAIRLY STATE THE GOOD AND THE BAD AND GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO DO CORRECTIONS BEFORE ANY FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE ISSUE IS THAT MAKING THIS POLICY IT HAS THAT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO BE ON CALL 24 7. THAT IS ONE OF THE. IT'S A NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT REASON FOR HAVING ASSIGNMENT OF A VEHICLE. THERE HAS TO BE A BENEFIT OF A TAXPAYER. IT CAN'T BE A GIFT. SO I DID GO THROUGH THERE'S SOME THAT DEFINITELY DON'T QUALIFY. THE SHERIFF DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTATION. NOT ONE FORM WAS GIVEN BY THE SHERIFF OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF A FORM THAT REALLY JUSTIFIED THE TAKE HOME VEHICLES. SO EITHER IT'S ILLEGAL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED OF NEW YORK STATE. IT'S ACTUALLY A CRIME TO GIVE A GIFT OF PUBLIC GOODS TO AN INDIVIDUAL. AND THAT'S WHETHER A SUPERVISOR TELLS YOU IT'S OKAY OR NOT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT YOU CAN'T GIVE A GIFT. IT'S AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S A CRIME. PEOPLE GET EVEN PUT IN THERE. PEOPLE GET, IF THEY INAPPROPRIATELY OR EVEN THINK THEY'RE DOING APPROPRIATELY GIVE SOMEONE $350 OF HEAP BENEFITS THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY FIRED AND THEY'RE PROSECUTED. THIS IS GIVING PEOPLE GIFTS OF VEHICLES WORTH A LOT MORE THAN THAT. SO THE THING IS IS THAT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IS WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AND TO SEE IF LIKE FOR EXAMPLE THE FLEET MANAGER DEFINITELY NEVER CAME IN. NEVER WHEN HE CAME IN TO TESTIFY WE DIDN'T HAVE IT. AND THEN THERE WERE A FEW TIMES WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME IN AND WHATEVER IT WAS MISCOMMUNICATION, HE DIDN'T COME IN BUT. AND THEN HE WAS ON VACATION. BUT HIS STATED REASONS 100% DON'T QUALIFY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S HE ONLY LIVES A MILE FROM WORK. HE HAS NEVER USED IT 247 LIKE AT ANY TIME AFTER WORKING HOURS. AND HE HAS NO EQUIPMENT WHATSOEVER ON IT. SO THERE'S NOBODY THAT'S LOOKING AT THE FORMS TO JUSTIFY THAT. SO THIS IS A PIECE OF IT AND GIVING BETTER INFORMATION TO THE EMPLOYER ABOUT USE. BUT STILL IT'S UP TO US IN IT. I PUT IN IT. THERE'S ALSO A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN OVERSEEING IT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE I THINK IN PART BUDGET. SO THE CATEGORIES THAT ARE IN THAT AREA ARE THAT THE BUDGETING HAS TO BE CHANGED SO THAT WE'RE NOT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN AND WE'RE NOT BAMBOOZLED WHERE THE NUMBER OF FLEET CARS GOES UP SO MUCH THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED. THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAS TO BE CHANGED. WE CAN'T GET CARTE BLANCHE. THE BIDDING PROCESS HAS TO BE CHANGED. THAT WE CAN'T BID ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS FOR SOMEONE TO PROVIDE ALL OUR FLEET VEHICLES WHEN CARS ARE CHANGING IN PRICE ALL THROUGH THE YEAR. SO ALL THOSE THINGS AND THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING TO BE DONE ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WRONGFULLY GIVEN IT. AND SO THE IDEA OF THAT AUDIT AND REPORT AND FINDINGS IS TO GIVE SORT OF A SOMEWHAT A GRACE PERIOD TO PEOPLE TO SINCERELY LOOK AT DO YOU QUALIFY? AND IT KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. DO YOU QUALIFY TO GIVE A THING? IT'S NOT JUST CANDY OUT OF A VENDING MACHINE. IT'S MONEY, IT'S LIABILITY AND SO FORTH. SO THIS IS LIKE ONE FIFTH [01:05:02] OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF IT, WHICH SHE WENT FORWARD AND DID AND GOT IT FINALIZED. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DO THE OTHER PARTS. SO THESE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THERE. AND THEN I WANTED TO SUBMIT A RESOLUTION TO SAY THAT AFTER THEY'VE HAD TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND SEE IF THEY'RE COMPORTING WITH IT, WHICH THERE'S DEFINITELY IN SOME INSTANCES THAT THE SHERIFF IS NOT COMPORTING WITH IT AS FAR AS FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE'S DEFINITELY INDICATION THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO SEE IF THEY'RE COMPORTING WITH IT AND ALSO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. SO IF ONE JUST HAVE THIS DONE, I'M GOING TO ASKING TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ONCE THEY PROVIDE PROVIDE THE ACTUAL SHEETS OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS A CAR SO THAT WE CAN SEE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN 100% THAT SELF POLICING HAS NOT WORKED. IT'S NOT WORKED IN THE SHERIFF'S AND IT'S NOT WORKED AT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING OUR ROLE IN THIS AND TO CONTINUE WITH IT. SO THAT'S WHY I APPRECIATE HER DOING IT AND I APPRECIATE JORDAN GETTING IT SO THAT WE FINISHED THE ORIGINAL REPORT SAID THAT YESTERDAY. SO IT WAS DONE BEFORE TODAY AS YOU REQUESTED. AND IT'S DONE SO THAT THIS WAY IT'S NOT HANGING OVER HEADS. AND NOW SOME WORK IS PUSHED BACK TO THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. SO I PUT IN THERE TO ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CIRCULATE IT OR I WILL IF SHE'S NOT, IF SHE WON'T BUT THEY TO CIRCULATE TO DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE IT'S. WE CAN'T NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT IT, WE CAN'T OVERLOOK IT. BEFORE WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, MAYBE OUR OWN FAULT, BUT NOW WE DO KNOW ABOUT IT. AND IF WE KNOW THAT GIFTS ARE BEING GIVEN INAPPROPRIATELY WE CAN'T DO NOTHING ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND I'M NOT SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. I'M NECESSARILY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD IF IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, A 350 HEAT BILL, THEY'D BE PROSECUTED ALREADY WHEN TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A 50, $50,000 VEHICLE, WE SOMEHOW FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD GIVE PEOPLE A PASS. SO ANYWAY, BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT I ASK YOU TO ALL READ THAT AND THEN I ASKED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO REALLY, YOU KNOW, MINDFULLY LOOK AT IT AND TO REVIEW THE ONES THAT ARE GIVEN TO SEE IF THEY QUALIFY. I ALSO DID, DID HAVE TO INCLUDE A SHOUT OUT TO KAREN HOKE AND FEAL FOR THEIRS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR VEHICLES IS PERFECTLY ACCOUNTED FOR. AND ALSO YOU'LL NOTE THAT THEIR VEHICLES INCLUDE FROM 17, 2017 ON, THEY AREN'T ALL VEHICLES PURCHASED IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. SO IT'S, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY AND NOT LET THIS GO AND REALIZE THAT THERE'S LIABILITY. AND WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THERE HAVE TO BE SOMETHING WHERE SOMEBODY GETS A DWI LIKE THE FLEET MANAGER FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND IMMEDIATELY GETS ANOTHER VEHICLE. IT'S SOMEBODY GETS A DWI OF A DETECTIVE AND AFTER SITTING SEVEN CARS AND IMMEDIATELY GETS ANOTHER VEHICLE. SO WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT ASPECT. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT THE REPORT'S ABOUT. LEGISLATOR LORIGO ALSO, THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. LEGISLATOR I THINK IT'S GREAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THESE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IT SOMEHOW AND UPDATE IT AND DEAL WITH IT. MY QUESTION IS FOR THIS FLEET MANAGEMENT POLICY, WOULD IT APPLY TO INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED OFFICIALS? SO IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, LEGISLATOR LORIGO, BUT SECTION 8.6 I BELIEVE TALKS ABOUT WHAT, WHO APPLIES TO WHAT AND WITH THE INDEPENDENT ELECTED OFFICIALS, SO THEY'RE REQUIRED TO COMPLY BUT THEY'RE ALSO ABLE TO ADD, AS YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE THE SHERIFF, HE HAS AN ATTORNEY THAT'S GOING TO BE DRAFTING THINGS AND THEY HAVE EXTRA RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THEY WANT TO ABIDE BY. SO THEY ARE USING THIS AS A, I WOULD SAY AS A GUIDE AND THEY CAN ADD MORE TO IT FOR THEIR DEPARTMENT, SIMILAR TO THE DA WHEN HE CAME IN HE SAID THAT HE REALLY FOCUSED ON USING OUR POLICY AS A GUIDE BUT THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ON WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS POLICY, THIS POLICY REALLY IS MORE ABOUT INCREASING RAPPORT AND IT TALKS ABOUT ACCESS FOR 24 HOUR VEHICLES, WHICH TALKS ABOUT EMERGENCY VEHICLES. SO IT WORKS FOR THOSE DEPARTMENTS. I BELIEVE THAT WITH HAVING IT SO FAIR UNDER DIFFERENT AND HAVING THINGS DEFINED IN THE BEGINNING COUPLE PAGES HAS THE PURPOSE AND WHO'S AUTHORIZED. SO IT WILL ALLOW ANY DEPARTMENT TO FUNCTIONALLY USE IT. IN ADDITION, WHEN I WAS EMAILING OTHER DEPARTMENTS, I ASKED, WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THIS POLICY? A LOT OF THAT FEEDBACK WAS ADDED IN. OKAY, GREAT. SO LIKE I THINK OF COMMISSIONER GEARY AND I KNOW WHEN HE CAME IN, YOU KNOW HE HAS A BETTER HANDLING OF IT. SO HE WAS, HE WAS AT THE TABLE. OKAY, GREAT. HE, HIM AND JOE WERE BOTH AT THE TABLE. WE HAD VARIOUS MEETINGS OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS. SO THIS POLICY IS NOT GOING TO HINDER. BECAUSE I REMEMBER WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION. IT'S NOT GOING TO HINDER THEIR TO THE JOB. IF ANYTHING, [01:10:01] THERE WAS A LOT OF SECTIONS THAT WERE ADDED, SUCH AS THE UBER SECTION, THE LYFT SECTION, THE ASSIGNMENTS. SO THOSE WERE MORE DEFINED COMPARED TO THE 2017 POLICY. THAT WAS VERY BROAD. IF YOU READ THAT POLICY, AS YOU NOTICED, THERE WERE A LOT OF LOOPHOLES AND YOU COULD HAVE INTERPRETED SOMETHING AND I COULD HAVE INTERPRETED SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WHERE THIS POLICY, I WOULD SAY, IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. OKAY, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I KNOW THE SHERIFF DID HAVE LIKE A NATIONWIDE PROFESSIONAL COME IN THAT WE SPEND MONEY ON MAKING SURE THAT WE DRAFT THAT POLICY. AND LIKE WE SAID WHEN WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION, I CERTAINLY AM NOT GOING TO CLAIM TO KNOW MORE THAN THIS COMPANY THAT OR THIS LAW FIRM THAT DRAFTS FLEET POLICIES FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS NATIONWIDE AND ARE SUCCESSFUL. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN STILL USE THAT POLICY. AND THIS WOULD JUST SO THEY WOULD ADD. SO THE WAY REESE, THEY'RE ABLE TO ADD IT IN. AS YOU CONTINUE NOTE, WHEN THE SHERIFF CAME IN, HE EVEN SAID THIS POLICY THAT HE CLOCKED IN, HAD A LOT OF MISTAKES THAT HE WANTED TO REVISIT. IT WAS A DRAFT. SO WHEN HE SEES THIS POLICY, HOPEFULLY THIS BODY MOVES IT FORWARD. HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADD IN WHAT THAT PRIVATE ENTITY WAS CREATING. AND I LIKE TO MAKE THE JOKE THAT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I HAD ATTORNEYS LOOK AT IT AND I, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT FLEET, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S ACROSS THE BOARD AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNOW, KNOW WHAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IS HAVING A STARTING DOCUMENT. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN WE HAVE NEW HIRES, NO MATTER WHAT DEPARTMENT ACROSS ERIE COUNTY, THEY RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT. AND IT REALLY TALKS ABOUT EVEN THE USE OF IT. SO FOR US TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT IS PROPERLY UPDATED, IT GIVES THIS BODY MORE TEETH. AND LATER ON IF WE SEE THAT WE NEED TO REFORM THIS OR WE WANT TO AUDIT AGAIN, WE HAVE THAT ABILITY. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, I. I APPRECIATE IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW IT'S. WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN OUR LANE OF THE LEGISLATURE. YOU KNOW, WE INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN SET THEIR OWN POLICY FOR THEIR OFFICE AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW THEN PEOPLE AND A LOT OF THE POLICIES LEGISLATOR, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN HERE. I THINK WE ALL WOULD AGREE LENS IS IMPORTANT. WE ALL AGREE THAT SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS VEHICLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSIBILITIES. AND I THINK WHAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT, IT HANDLES ALL THOSE AREAS. AND BASED ON WORKING WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THEY REALLY FOCUSED ON USING WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS DOCUMENT WAS AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AND AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. DID YOU CONSULT WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF SENIOR SERVICES, COMMISSIONER HOCH AS WELL? I DID NOT. BUT I HAD THE CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE COUNTY EXEC AT THE TABLE. I HAD THE ATTORNEYS, I HAD BUDGET, I HAD DPW, I HAD JORDAN WHO WOULD HAVE GOT IT TO HIM. SO PEOPLE ARE WELL AWARE OF IT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THIS HAS BEEN FILED FOR A WHILE. SO IF THERE WAS ANY ISSUES, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE CONTACTED ME AT THIS TIME. BUT I WILL. WHAT I WILL SAY IS I WILL TAKE THAT BACK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES. I ONLY ASKED JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE COMMISSIONER HOEK TOOK A LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE OF THE JORDAN. YOU MIGHT. YOU CAN CHIME IN FOR SECTION 9.8 GRANT FUNDED OR EXTERNALLY FUNDED VEHICLES SHALL REMAIN UNDER THE POLICY I KNOW WE GIVE. WE TRANSFER SENIOR VANS AT TIMES AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE TRANSFER A VAN TO THE TOWN OF AMHERST, IT'S NOT STILL LIKE THAT, THAT IT IS THEN OUT OF THIS PROGRAM. SO I WOULD JUST. I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HE SAW IT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S ALL I CAN ASK THAT. YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY OF THOSE THINGS. AND TAYSHIA WAS RIGHT. I MEAN THIS IS ALL THOROUGHLY VETTED THROUGH LEGAL AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT COULD SOMEONE HAVE FORGOTTEN INSTANCE LIKE THAT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. BUT I'LL DOUBLE CHECK FOR THAT BECAUSE WE AGREE WE DO NOT WANT TO STOP THAT. YEAH, RIGHT. THAT WAS MY ONLY THING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR GREENE THANK YOU LEGISLATOR. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. THIS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK WORK, PRETTY IN DEPTH DETAILS HERE. SO I'M TRYING TO ABSORB IT ALL. AND WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST DISCUSSION HERE AT ONE POINT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPUTY WITH LIKE A TAKE HOME VEHICLE AS HE'S ON HIS WAY HOME CAN STOP AND YOU KNOW, GRAB A MILK AND EGGS. AND FROM MY STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KIND OF PERSONALIZE THINGS MAYBE WITH OUR OWN, OUR OWN DRIVING PATTERNS AND WHERE WE GO WITHIN OUR OWN DISTRICTS. AND FOR ME WORKING DOWNTOWN BUFFALO, GOING OUT TO CLARENCE, I GET OFF THE THRUWAY, I'VE GOT ALDI, I'VE GOT YOU KNOW, WALMART RIGHT ON TRANSIT ROAD AND THEN I DRIVE MY FIVE MILES TO MY HOUSE. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, ANY DEPUTY THAT WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR DRIVING PATTERN, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO STOP AT THE STORE AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING ALL THE WAY TO THEIR HOUSE, GETTING THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLE AND THEN USING, YOU KNOW, I MEAN LITERALLY THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY HOME. IS THAT ADDRESSED IN ANY CAPACITY HERE [01:15:01] ON WHETHER THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY NOW OR SO? PERSONAL USE IS NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT. SO WHAT IS IN THIS DOCUMENT? IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT SECTION 3, 3.1, IT TALKS ABOUT VEHICLE USE, VEHICLE USE IS VERY DETAILED WHERE VEHICLE, COUNTY VEHICLES ARE ASSIGNED TO, TO DEPARTMENTS TO SUPPORT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT. SO WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS PERSONAL USE AND THIS IS, I THINK LEGISLATOR LORIGO MENTIONED CAN PEOPLE ADD ON. NOW WE ALL KNOW THAT FOR THE PERSONAL USE THAT PART THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO REALLY IS THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND I WOULD SAY HE EVEN SAID HE WOULD HAVE TO FINE TUNE THAT SECTION. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO ADD ON. BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THAT SECTION, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND IT. WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN HERE IS V VEHICLE USE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT PASSENGERS, COUNTY VEHICLES, RIDING SHARES WHAT'S PROHIBITED, WHAT'S NOT. SO THAT'S MORE OF THE FOCUS HERE. YEAH, I DON'T WANT THEM, YOU KNOW, GOING HOME AND THEN TAKING THEIR VEHICLE SHOPPING. BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, AGAIN WE'RE TRACKING THESE VEHICLES, WE BE ABLE TO SEE THEM GO HOME AND THEN AFTER HOURS TAKING THE VEHICLE OUT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. BUT IF IT'S LITERALLY ON THEIR WAY HOME, THAT SEEMS LIKE WE CAN TRACK IT. AND AGAIN, SO, SO THAT SECTION, WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS PERSONAL USE AND IT'S NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT. WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH I AGREE THERE, THAT WAS A BIG TOUCHING POINT. TO BE FAIR. THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST AREAS CONVERSATION WISE FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WHO'S OBVIOUSLY AN INDEPENDENT ELECTED. I DECIDED WHEN MY TEAM DECIDED TO FOCUS ON MORE THE VEHICLE USE BECAUSE THIS IS FOR COUNTY VEHICLES THAT ARE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES WHO USUALLY USE IT. RIGHT. FOR THEIR JOBS, EVERY DAY, THEIR OPERATIONAL JOBS. SO THAT SECTION IS JUST NOT IN THIS. IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT SECTION IN, I WILL WELCOME IT. IF YOU. IF THAT'S THE APPETITE OF THE BODY. BUT AT THIS TIME, I REALLY WANTED TO KEEP THIS POLICY STRICTLY FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE CONSTANTLY USING OUR COUNTY VEHICLES FOR OPERATIONAL USE. AND, AND AGAIN, IF THEY'RE EVEN, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SHERIFF, IF SOMEBODY WHO'S WORKING, YOU KNOW, PARKS DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, THEY GO ON A LUNCH BREAK, YOU KNOW, AND THEY STOP AT A, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, I WANT COMMON SENSE TO PREVAIL OVER TRYING TO MAKE THE PERFECT, YOU KNOW, SCENARIO HERE. AND I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, JUST. THAT'S. THAT'S ONE WITH ME. I WANT COMMON SENSE TO PREVAIL. AND I THINK LESLIE, AGREE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT SECTION THREE, IT'S VERY MUCH COMMON SENSE. IT'S WRITTEN ON 3.1. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THERE'S NO PERSONAL ERRANDS. THEY'RE NOT PRIVATE ACTIVITIES, NO COUNTY PURPOSE. OUT OF COUNTY PURPOSE, LIKE DURING YOUR WORK TIME. RIGHT. IF YOU'RE OUT IN THE FIELD, LET'S USE A PARK INDIVIDUAL WHO WORKS AT PARKS. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE DRIVING BY WENDY'S, THAT'S TO GRAB SOMETHING. OKAY. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL USE, LIKE HOW IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THIS IS NOT FOR THAT SECTION. LIKE, THAT SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS REALLY FOR A COUNTY WIDE FLEET MANAGEMENT ASPECT. SO IT'S VERY MUCH FOCUSED ON THAT. I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. YOU KNOW, SO ME, YOU KNOW, I USED TO DRIVE A MAIL TRUCK BACK IN THE DAY AND YEAH, YEAH, I GET A LOT OF DIFFERENT JOBS AND WORK. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT IN AMHERST. I'D VERY OFTEN STOP AT WEGMANS OR TOPS TO GET LUNCH BECAUSE A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER PLACES THAT. SO IF A COUNTY EMPLOYEE UNDER THIS, THIS WOULD NOT PROHIBIT THEM. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT GOING. I'M GONNA MAKE THE JOKE. AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TJ MAXX TO GO SHOPPING DURING COUNTY TIME AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NOT ONLY BEING CLOCKED IN AND USING A VEHICLE AND GOING OUTSIDE SHOPPING, I THINK THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE REALLY NOT FOLLOWING ANY OF THE POLICY. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IS MORE OF THE DIRECTION OF THIS POLICY REALLY TRYING TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY. THERE'S REPORTING, THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY. SO THEY CAN'T JUST TAKE IT JUST TO TAKE IT. EVEN THOUGH I LOVE T.J. MAXX, IF I, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A COUNTY VEHICLE, I CAN'T JUST GO THERE BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO GO THERE DURING THE WORKDAY. AND THAT'S VERY CLEAR IN THIS POLICY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU LEGISLATOR VINAL, BACK TO YOU. THE ONE THING THAT'S LIKE WE'RE CONFLATING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IS LIKE ONE IS THAT A VEHICLE IS EITHER AN ALL OUT GIFT IF IT'S NOT EVEN FOR ANY PURPOSE OF THE COUNTY. AND USUALLY DRIVING TO AND FROM WORK IS 100% PERSONAL. OKAY. AND THEN YOU HAVE COUNTY VEHICLES THAT ARE USED THAT YOU HAVE TO DISTINGUISH PERSONAL USE, NON PERSONAL. AND THEN YOU'RE TAXED ON THE PERSONAL USE AS A FRINGE BENEFIT. OKAY. INCLUDING TRANSPORTING [01:20:01] TO AND FROM. THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES THAT TRANSPORTING TO AND FROM HOUSE IS CONSIDERED DE MINIMIS USE. BUT IT HAS TO BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT CAN'T BE PEACE OFFICERS, PRISON GUARDS, DAS OR OTHER THINGS. AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE, THE ONLY WAY, IF SOMEBODY'S LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY TAX ON THAT VEHICLE EVEN THOUGH THEY BRING IT HOME, BECAUSE THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS TO BE A PLACE A PERSON WHO CAN EXECUTE A WARRANT, DO AN ARREST, NOT A CITIZEN'S ARREST, BUT AN ARREST, A POLICE OFFICER ARREST AND BE ON CALL 24 HOURS. LIKE A REAL SQUAD CAR. SO FOR THOSE PEOPLE, THAT SECTION WAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING LIKE, JUST LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE TAX FREE FOR COMING TO. AND FOUR, NO OTHER, NO OTHER PEOPLE ARE. AND THEY, THE ONES EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO PAY TAX ON THE VALUE OF THE TRANSPORTING TO AND FROM, WHICH HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING IN ALL CASES. BUT FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY ADDED THAT FOR LIKE A REAL SQUAD CAR, NOT FOR SOMEONE WHO WORKS THE, AT PRISON, WHO, WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT. NOT FOR A DA BUT THEY CAN STOP, HE WANTS THEM TO STOP ON THE WAY HOME. THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE DE MINIMIS, WHICH I THINK IS FAIR. BUT FOR OTHER, OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHEN THEY'RE ON THE WAY HOME, THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING CHARGED FOR THAT. THAT'S NOT PART OF THEIR USAGE. SO IF THEY, IT'S NOT, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT AT ALL. BUT FOR THE TO AND FROM THEY ARE, THEY GET CHARGED ON THAT. SO OTHERWISE. SO PART OF IT IS LIKE YOU CAN'T GIVE AWAY THE CAR FOR USE ALL THE TIME. THAT'S A GIFT, OKAY? SO THAT'S WHY IT'S TAXED. SO IT'S LIKE THREE THINGS. ONE IS LIKE THE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COUNTY PURPOSE FOR TAKE HOME VEHICLE AND IT MAY BE LIKE SAY THE FLEET GUY, HIS RECORD SHOWED THAT HE HAS NO COUNTY PURPOSE AT ALL. OKAY. BUT MAYBE IT WAS FILLED OUT WRONG. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GIVE HIM THE GRACE PERIOD TO REDO IT. AND THEN YOU GOT THE POLICE OFFICER WHO'S A REAL POLICE, LIKE A REAL GUY, A ROAD PATROL GUY. HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED AT ALL ON IT. OKAY. AND THEN YOU GOT EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED IN PART FOR IT AS A FRINGE BENEFIT. BENEFIT. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S THE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. YEAH. YOU GOT SOMETHING? LEGISLATOR MILLS. SHOOT. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE A FINE DOCUMENT, BUT I JUST RECEIVED IT TODAY, SO HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SORT THROUGH IT. BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, AND MAYBE IT'S IN THIS DOCUMENT, SO PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT'S IN HERE ALREADY. WHAT BUGGED ME FOR ALMOST ALL MY LIFE IS WHEN I GO BY A 711 OR I GO BY A RESTAURANT AND I MAYBE SEE THREE OR FOUR COUNTY TRUCKS THERE. DOES THIS PROHIBIT EMPLOYEES FROM GOING TO A RESTAURANT IN A GROUP? THANK YOU, MINORITY LEADER. AND I APOLOGIZE. YOU JUST RECEIVED IT. BUT I GUESS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USE, I WOULD REFER EVERYONE TO GO BACK TO THAT SECTION AND I'LL READ THAT 3.1. SPECIFICALLY, COUNTY VEHICLES ARE ASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENTS TO SUPPORT OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT. THEY SHALL NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL ERRANDS, PRIVATE ACTIVITIES OR ANY NON COUNTY PURPOSE, INCLUDING DURING THE DAY OF THEIR WORK SHIFT. SO I KNOW THAT IS AN ISSUE. SO I WOULD SAY FOR THIS POLICY, IT'S GOING TO PREVENT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IF IT'S DONE RIGHT. I'M HOPING THAT PEOPLE WILL OBEY FROM THIS POLICY BECAUSE AS A LEGISLATURE, THIS IS OUR POWER TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ABUSING THAT SYSTEM. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS A SECTION WHERE WE HAVE OVERSIGHT TOO, AND THAT SECTION IS SECTION NINE. SO IF THERE IS ABUSE, WE HAVE THE TEETH TO MAKE SURE THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE VEHICLES. SO THERE IS SOME OVERSIGHT THERE. SO MY GOAL IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE COUNTY VEHICLES TO USE RESPONSIBLY AND USE IT FOR THEIR JOB AND THEIR JOB ONLY. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I'M GOING TO TABLE THIS ONE FOR TODAY. ALL RIGHT, WE ALL SAID WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR TODAY. AND WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SECOND BY LEGISLATOR GREENE . ALL IN FAVOR? UNANIMOUS. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.