Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. If we could all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilwoman Waski, would you mind leading us? Yes, Supervisor. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Councilwoman Waski. Okay. Okay. First item we have on the open session today is with Rich Zuckerman, Esquire, and it's matters surrounding a CSEA grievance hearing, and it will be with Council Howard. With Zuckerman. Okay. Do we defer to Council Zuckerman? Thank you. Good morning, everybody. So we're here today because the CSEA filed an appeal of the denial of some grievances. There's one that's in front of the board today. I'm sure that the town attorney has walked you through this. Okay. If I say anything now that is inconsistent with what he told you, whatever he said goes. Because it's an appeal, the CSEA goes first. They will present to all of you their arguments and information about why they think that their grievance should be sustained by the board. We will provide you with information as to why we think you should sustain the denial of the grievance, in other words, reject the grievance. Historically, there have only been a handful, a handful of town board grievance hearings. They've usually been waived. I think the last one that I participated in probably goes back to the 90s. I think that was the last one. And the way that worked, whatever it's worth today, is the parties made their presentations. The board just listened. There was no interaction. There was no cross-examination or anything like that. It was very informal. And then the board took everything under advisement, which is a lawyer way of saying, we'll think about it. And then sometime between now and I think 20 days from now, you all consider the grievance with the town attorney as your advisor. And then he will work with you to prepare a decision as to whether you're going to sustain the grievance or deny it. That gets issued to the parties. If the union likes it, that's the end of it. If the union doesn't like it, they have the right and that obligation to go to arbitration. Can I just ask a protocol question? Because often when we talk about union contracts issues and so forth, it's executive session. So can you just clarify for the public why we're specifically doing this in open session? Councilman, I don't have an answer as to why we're doing it in public as opposed to executive. My opinion was not sought about that. But what I will tell you is that it can be in public session. The contract does not require that it be in executive session. I suspect the town attorney might tell you that a grievance appeal is not one of the listed items that can be done in executive session. That's probably why it's in public session. But I defer to him again with regard to his opinion. No, that is accurate. Accurate in my assessment. It didn't qualify as one of the matters that can be referred to executive session. Okay. That's all. Okay. CSEA, are you ready? I don't know if I have the, do I get the, do I have an option to? I don't know. I don't know. Do I object to that? I don't have any problem doing this. So I'm going to begin. So our grievance is filed. Simply put a grievance that I am Gretchen Penn, labor relations specialist for the CSEA. I will be the spokesperson at this step of the grievance process. The following step should or if we go there is handled by CSEA counsel. So an attorney will do the binding arbitration step of this. So in my position, I look at the black and white language of a contract. And that is the simple definition of a grievance was, or if we believe it was violated. So in front of you, you have our filing of the flex time article. So that is for the record. Okay. Submission's full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full that language that's in the contract, it reads, all full-time employee and his or her department head, upon their mutual consent, as well as the approval of the town supervisor and CSCA president or their designees, may flex the employee's work hours within the employee's defined work week, provided that the impact upon the town is cost neutral. So the grievance is filed because on or about April and ongoing, the town issued a different, not the contractual process of applying for being approved. So the time is approved for and having flex time, simply put. So thank you. That's it? Sure. I didn't want to step on your toes. No, no, no, that's good. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council people, that summary of what is before you is not exactly appropriate. It's not the full, or maybe it's too full of a picture. So we're here today, like we've discussed, because there's been an appeal of three class action grievances, two of which have already been sustained by the town. So the only one that's before you today has to do with, in summary, how can and when can a flex agreement be terminated? Okay? So what you are charged with doing here is the appellate body is interpreting the contract as it is written. Okay. So you have clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear to see whether on its face it's been violated by what the town has or has not done. Here as Ms. Penn mentioned we're looking at Article 3 Section 2C which is flex time and that provision talks only about how or why we can enter into a flex agreement. It does not address termination. What does address termination however is the flex agreement itself. That document was appended to the union's grievances and when you take a look at it and I have copies here for you if you want to look at it but if not I will spare you the extra papers. But when you take a look at it, it shows you that among other ways that this can be terminated. Notwithstanding the above, a department head or employee shall have a mutual right to terminate the agreement upon 50% of the total. Now I'll emphasize that it's a mutual right. The department head or the employee, either one, can terminate this as long as we give 15 days written notice. No need for a reason, no need for a why, a who, a what, a when other than the 15 days. And that is what happened here. Although to be fair to the CSEA when the initial denials were issued the letter was off by a day. So those letters were rescinded and new ones were issued. So that's a good thing. So that's a good thing. So that's a good thing. The 25 days notice was issued and new ones were issued in July. July 7 of this year. Which they provide 15 days notice which expired yesterday. Now the scope of what we're dealing with here involves as far as we are aware of two people because there were originally three denials. One of which was rescinded entirely and the other two were not. And those are the letters that were reissued. Without getting hyper technical from a procedural standpoint. The original grievance. grievance itself is moot. It's no longer applicable because when we rescinded those letters that were initially issued and did not terminate the flex agreements, there was no more grievance there. That the letters were reissued in July should have triggered, but did not within the time frame provided in the contract, another grievance, and we don't have one. So respectfully, I think it should be denied on the basis of it being moot in the first place, but even if it was not moot, it is not a violation of the contract language, which only addresses how do we enter into a flex agreement. I am going to not respond, not because I agree or disagree, but I do disagree. I will leave. It up to our attorneys at the next step should we end up there. Okay. Thank you. Both sides are completed? Yes, sir. Okay. I would say the hearing is now over. Very good. Good day. Thank you very much for coming in. Appreciate it. We will reserve our opinion at this point in time, and we will discuss, and we will come up with a decision within the next 20 days. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Good to see you all. You too. Okay. Next item we have on open session is the The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The ! The they are and what we want to move them up to. Does everyone have a copy? I have plenty of copies if not. I don't have a copy of the code and I have this. I have that but I don't have that. These are the applicable sections you have with the changes. We have 301. Just add 320 penalties for offenses. 289. No side plan. 231. So we'll go from there. So 301 has not been updated since 1989. A little bit older than me. So based on the rate of inflation, based on what we're seeing for the 301 level offenses, it's mostly site plan but also another important subsection under 301 is it addresses illegal rentals. When it goes from one family to two or more families, they usually in conjunction with the no rental permit, they'll get hit with a 301 charge. So we want to see that move up so that it'll be a nice supplement to the fines that we're already collecting on no rental permit. So for example, if someone got a $3,000 fine for a no rental permit, then we could supplement with this with another $1,000 or so. So right now, the fine schedule under 301 since 1989, is $0 minimum and $1,000 maximum. So what I'd like to see and also get your feedback from if I should go a little bit higher, but also keeping in the understanding that we want to have some sort of range for those who do the right thing and by the time they get there for arraignment, they have all their permits in. So right now, I was looking at setting the minimum fine to $500 and the maximum to $5,000. So if anyone wants to... Just explain, in terms of no site plan, is this for commercial establishments, a building like in something which is already operating and just never submitted anything? Just clarify. So if they could be operating already and not doing that, that would be where we would go more toward the $5,000 range because that's kind of balancing the intent of the defendant. Could somebody have a building, like a CO for a property, but still no site plan? Or you would never get a CO unless you had a site plan? I would hope that there would be no CO issued if there was no site plan. Okay. So it's just somebody moving into a building, basically refurbishing it, setting up shop and opening up, right? Yeah. Clarify exactly what we're talking about in terms of the fine of what they've done. Yeah. So they would be charged under 301 and they would also have the no building permit, no CO. So those can all supplement each other and come... you know, come back with a more robust fine because it's multiple charges. So those usually go hand in hand. Okay. Thank you. For me, since it hasn't been changed since 1989, you know, and I understand the adjustment on inflation as it pertains to the fine, but then I also look at the labor involved and I would like to see that minimum at $1,000. Okay. We can do that. I agree. All right. So we'll... I'll agree to that. We'll do one to five so that there's, you know, wiggle room for, you know, based on how many adjournments we have and how quickly they do put their applications in. I think the minimum of $1,000 is good just because of the safety aspect. So if you're telling me that you don't have a site plan, that means that you've never had a fire marshal or anybody else walk your premises. Right. I agree with that. All right. So we can... I don't know what the next one... is, but we can move on to that.

Next is matters surrounding change in fines for chapter 289-29 Waitland. Okay. So this one has not been amended since 2001, so a little bit better, but still coming up on a 25-year anniversary. So these, you know, we know the costs that go into repairing the roads when overweight trucks are, you know, wearing and tearing on them. We know the cost of enforcement when these, you know, putting signage up, having PD go out, all of those things. So right now it's up again, the floor's at zero here. It's zero to 100 for the first offense, zero to 250 for second, and zero to 500 for third. So it's pretty apparent that those need to be refreshed. So just as a starting point, you know, I kind of just doubled all of them. Well, I doubled, I, no I didn't, I... Five times. So I don't know if that's something that we want to keep as how I put them, or if we have any input on... Again, I'm going to, I'm going to advocate for the first one to be 1,000. Okay. The second one to be 2,000. And the third one to be 3,000. And only because we know the cost of, you know, when we have to put asphalt down. Right. And what's involved. And it's, this is, we need to get up to speed with not, you know, with the, what the cost, what the real costs are. Okay. This also, this also helps with the, the situation on Young's Avenue. Absolutely. With the trucks, you know, going the wrong way up there and driving on the local roads where they don't belong. And I totally agree. It has to be enough. It can't be a cost of doing business. Right. Right. You know, I mean, it has to be a cost to the business. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Yeah. It's not really saying that the first fine is $1,000. It's up to $1,000. Correct. So the judge is leaving them for a judge's discretion. Right. Well, yes. Yeah, but how do we, okay, so the judge could determine that at zero. Sure. Can we have a not less than? Can we, yeah, can we do not? We could do a range. Can we do not less than $1,000? You know, just get in the severity. Not less than $500 to $1,000. $500 to $1,000. Okay. I'll go with that. I mean, I see in the fall during our pumpkin season on Connick Bay Boulevard, you have your party buses that are, that are, you know, using the boulevard to deter the traffic on Main Street, and Connick Bay Boulevard was not built for that kind of traffic to be on the road. Now, there's too many small bridges with culverts underneath them that weren't built to withstand that kind of weight. Yeah. Council, I would ask that to be applied to all three steps. Right. You know, so even on the second offense, that then on the second offense, it should be... $1,000 to $2,000? Yeah. And then $2,000 to $4,000. So each offense should be... $2,000 to $2,000. So each offense should be the maximum, starting at the maximum of the previous offense. Okay. Got it. I do have a silly question, though. What happens, like, if you have a furniture delivery truck that's coming into the area? That's the exception in the code and V&T laws for local deliveries. Okay. Yeah. So they would have to show their proof of... Their bill of lading. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Yeah, where they're going. Right. Last, but certainly not least, we want to move on. We want to move on to 231. Okay. Next item up is matters surrounding change in fines for Chapter 231 dash 66, the fire marshal. Now, we have very recently refreshed this, but not the fines. We just, what was it, about a month, month and a half ago, we did that exception to make one of the misdemeanors a violation so that the fire marshals would get more credit on the dispositions. So, technically, this section has been refreshed this year, but not for the fines. They have a pretty good fine schedule right now, 250 to 2500, but as I mentioned last week in the last work session, I think and you know, I believe everyone in this town would think that the fire marshal offenses are, you know, we got to balance that the dangerousness factor and the risk. You know, you know, storage of fireworks, for example, things like that. Um, you know, although they although individuals could be charged criminally, it's it's important to have a deterrent on the town side as well. So, um, I was just gonna double it for 500 to 5000 based on our last few minutes of conversation. I'm gonna imagine that we want to do 1000 to 5000. Can you just clarify? As it says, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. I thought on some of the fire marshals things that we were, I just want to because I don't see the prior code to what it's referring to. I thought on some of the fire codes that some of them were not in fact a misdemeanor and were like fines would be directly to landlord or homeowner. So we only have one, uh, one that's not going to be a misdemeanor anymore. That was the, I believe is 230 155. Are you talking about civil penalties or yeah, just it says that I just don't see when it says any person shall violate the provisions of this chapter. So I thought there were special certain provisions within the chapter that were not in fact misdemeanors. So that's I believe we put that in section D. Um, shall be guilty of a violation level offense. That's where we added the section D. Um, it's still punishable by imprisonment. All of that stuff. But that's what we added recently. Um, anyone that violates 231 8 or 231 25 um, will get the benefit of the violation level in as opposed to the misdemeanor. Council pilot. Can I just ask you a question with regard to the CPL or the penal law? Are there requirements statutorily as to what a maximum and minimum can be? Are we within those? So you mean for the justice court? Yeah, I have yet to find an exact amount. Um, so the most I've seen in our code or in other codes are, I believe, 8,000, possibly 10,000. Yeah, South Hampton has one that's 10,000. Yeah. So but I cannot find, uh, anything written of what what the ceiling really is. But keep looking for the minimum, like what what you absolutely cannot charge right below or above. I was just curious if there's anything. Okay. Victoria, can you give some more context? I mean, you mentioned fireworks. One of the things, uh, give me some context on something that would take more than one trip to a location or they'd be on location for X amount of time. Because I don't have the code, you know, to So you just want an example of a situation? Yeah, because I idea that would help to understand these fines, especially the lower one. If that's enough. So the lower one, I mean, anything under 2 31, uh, you know, a lower one would be at no place of assembly permit that requires pretty minimal, uh, staff involvement. That's really, you know, putting in for the for the permit, having the fire marshal maybe go out there once and it's the simplest of Okay, what about 2 31 dash 8 or 2 31? Dash? Oh, we already did. 25. Yeah, there are those violations. Yeah, that's no place of assembly. And that's the, um, I can't think of what the other one is. But a lot of I mean, a fraction of these are, you know, just getting their permits in and having the fire marshals, you know, one visit and accept it. And a lot of them, as I think I mentioned in other meetings, you know, most people, they might not get their mail. And by the time they get their mail, they quickly apply for the permit. And by the time they're at a raiment, already done in the fire marshals will contact me and be like, you're good to go on this. You know, get the right thing. They just, you know, something was going on in their life or something. Um, so if this is if there are repeated vendor, does that? Well, that's where I would go closer to the $5,000 range. It would be kind of discretion between myself and what the judge would agree to for the sentence. Okay. Um, but yeah, I would like to keep it and of these, you know, to match the violation level. These look fine. I mean, for me, they look fine. Okay. No pun intended. So that's what I have. Um, I know myself and Councilman current are gonna, you know, kind of do these and three at a time waves and try and see if we can pick out and find more that haven't been refreshed in a while. Um, and we'll try and figure out a way to be able to locate these more efficiently so that we can look at them at the end of the year and make sure that inflation. Yeah. Thank you for the work. Very good. Yes. Thank you very much. I think also though that when you're increasing fines, I always think that like everything that we do in town hall needs to become more closer to self sustaining and just this year cost of us eventually, you know, we are currently working on on a plan to rebuild the court system. But you know, just the idea of employing judges, attorneys, court officers, you know, um, everyone within our legal department, like there's a cost of operations. So it's not just that we want to sit up here and want to be mean to people or take money, but best that you can to cover your costs to facilitate the entire process and the fire marshals covering a portion of their costs to go out to a site two, three times or whatever to make sure that somebody is in compliance. I think that's a good point. And that's a good thing to take from this is that these are fines, not fees. So fine. For people that violate the town code. Yeah. And this isn't affecting the taxpayer. This is for the nine times out of 10. They know they're violating. Yeah. So it's meant to be a deterrent as well. Right. And to piggyback on what the councilman is saying is that there's no reason why taxpayers who are not violating any of any of these codes are subsidizing the ones that are at with low fines. I agree. Yeah. Well, especially where the rentals are concerned because the landlords are making so much money and that little slap on the wrist does nothing. Yeah. Yeah. So we'll see you back here in 30 years when we go to the funds again. No, we're working at it. We think we have a system we're going to pass by Eric that may identify all the fines at once so it's an easy search. I think it should be a booklet every January that we just simply bust a living in to continue on. Yeah. We're doing that with every department including legal. Yep. Great. Excellent. Okay. That's good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, council. Thanks, Victoria. I really appreciate it. All right. I have a couple announcements before we finish up here. And first announcement is Saturday, July 26th beginning at the Peconic River is the annual paddle battle hosted by Long Island Aquarium and New York Marine Rescue Center. The races begin at 9 15 a.m. And that is along Heidi Bear Way back behind town right on the river. Second item Saturday night. We have a nine five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five [transcription gap] five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five And if it's even a small amount as successful as the Jamesport one was, which I'm sure it's going to be every bit as, it will be a home run. And I'm so glad that you put this together. Actually, Councilwoman Murray-Field. And the people. She's responsible. She's your committee, and you guys definitely had the, right, you started the whole thing. We started it, but now you're expanding it. And I think that that's wonderful. I'm very excited about it. And just to note, there's no alcohol at these. That's right. For some reason, people are misguided, and they get information from people who don't know what they're talking about when they put it up on their website. And I won't name the person, but, you know, if you're running for office, get your facts straight before you put something up. That's all I'm going to say. Right. There's no alcohol at the beach. And you do need a Riverhead parking permit, I mean, beach permit to park there. Yep. Recreational park. It's for our residents. Mm-hmm. Absolutely. And the third item is tomorrow. Friday, July 25th, it's expected to see temperatures in the 90s and maybe feel like 100. So once again, the Riverhead Senior Center will be open as a cooling center from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. So if you're in an area or you don't have air conditioning or fans and you want to get some relief, go on down to the Senior Center. It will be open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. And that's all I have right now on announcements. We are going to now close open session. And go into executive session to discuss under legal matters surrounding possible sale of real property. That will be with Kern, Hurley, and Thomas. So if I could, can I have a motion to close open session and go into executive session? So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. Open session is closed. We will go into executive session. And everybody, thanks for tuning in and have a wonderful weekend.

Thank you.