Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Okay, we have two matters under open session. The first matter is matters surrounding the tentative 2026 budget, and we will have Diapola come on up, our financial administrator, and Brittany Miller, who worked feverishly on this budget with us.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. We just presented the budget earlier in our special town board meeting. So now we have it, and we're going to get a more thorough look at it with the help of Jeanette and Brittany. Okay. So I'm just going to go through a presentation on the 2026 budget. Some of the highlights of the budget, all taxing districts, including highways, street lighting, sewer, and water, are all budgeted within the tax cap. The only exception, as you know, is the general fund. The 2026 budget is the general fund. The 2026 general fund tentative budget exceeds the 2025 general fund adopted budget by 4.3 million. The townwide 2026 tentative budget is 4.63% over the cap. So the townwide budget reflects the general fund, the highway fund, and the street lighting fund because all residents contribute to those three funds. The townwide tax increase for property valued at 735,000 is approximately 75 cents per day. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Residential waste costs increases less than 30 cents a month or a penny per day. So we have a five-year contract with Kaluchi Carding. So it's the same amount for the five years which was phenomenal. It was a great contractual deal with them. So the good thing is residential waste costs really won't go up by much. The only thing they go up by is a little bit of the housing and how we call them equivalent units, single family, multi-family, that kind of thing. So there's different ways of doing it. So there's different equivalent units, which is the same thing that basically is assessed value for property taxes. It's just called equivalent units for residential waste. Total appropriations for the town operating fund in 2026 are $112.7 million, which is an increase of $3.2 million over last year.

And then this is just a chart that breaks down the increases. You can see PD salaries is the highest increase. That's the $1.8 million. That's all contractual, so there's really nothing we can do about that. New York State retirement is second highest. That includes PD. Retirement rate increases of $1.1 million and non-PD of $200,000. Again, majority is PD. The retirement rates are highest for police officers rather than non-PD. But the retirement rates go up drastically every year. Just kind of one of those things that's, as the supervisor mentioned, out of our control. Much of this is out of our control. And we're already piercing the cap with probably the first item alone, just the PD salary increases, to be honest. So very difficult, impossible to stay within the cap just because of contractual increases and New York State retirement, health insurance. Yes. And we're increasing debt for some renovations over at Justice Court for $286,000 next year. But that's pretty much the largest increases. On the next page, we're pretty much just segregating it out between PD versus non-PD. As we mentioned, the $1.8 million salaries and related payroll taxes for PD versus $545,000 for non-PD. Retirement rate increases. It's due to rate increases but also salaries. Those are contractual increases. So it's a combination of both, really, for $1.1 million for PD and then $246,000 for non-PD. Health insurance, NYSHIP, only $98,000 increase for PD. So PD gets an insurance buyback, and that's why you see that's not as high as non-PD. Non-PD health insurance increases are $338,000. But PD actually has the option to take a buyback. If their spouse has insurance already, and the buyback is a nice rate for police officers. So they tend to take that if they can. And it saves the town money, which is a great thing at the end of the day. And then debt service is the only other item on the non-PD. And then the last page just basically shows a pie chart of the tax breakout by the taxing districts. So, of course, as the supervisor mentioned, the school and library. And taxes has the largest percentage, which is approximately 54.63%. That could go up because, again, we're only estimating a 2% increase. But most will probably pierce the cap, is my guess. It's very difficult to stay within that 2%. So it's just an estimate on our part. The town is at 26.53%. And then all of the other districts, fire districts, highway, et cetera, they're all relatively small compared to the rest. I just think it's very interesting. How the town is always looked at as the responsible party for this entire budget. And I really want the public to be very well aware that more than half. They double our taxes. The school and the library double what we are charging for taxes for people, right? Yeah. And I just want the public aware that you can vote and you should vote in May. Because that's when school board elections and budgets are all being considered. So everyone thinks, oh, vote in November. If you don't like a budget or if you like a budget, vote in May in the school districts. To make sure that your voice is heard on where the school is spending the money. Because it's not right to consider this the town's responsibility for all of the taxes. We're not responsible for this. I think people think we're responsible because it's our tax bill that's generated. So we combine it all onto our tax bill for the residents. And we're responsible to collect it. And then send them off to the... It's a separate district. So we collect it for all the districts. We take our own in and code them to each fund the way they need to be. And then we also send their dollars out to the fire district, the schools, and the libraries as we collect them. I think that's a Suffolk County thing. So Suffolk County makes everybody whole at the end of the day for those taxes that aren't paid. I think it's easier for Suffolk County if it comes from one place rather than all different districts. So I think that's why they do it. I just want the public aware. I'm sorry. I just want the public aware that they're not accountable to us for their budget at all. Absolutely not. Yeah. I did speak with the assessors. Because ideally, I would really prefer for the residents to actually make out a check to the Riverhead Central School District for their taxes. So that they could see how much they're actually paying to the town as opposed to the school district. But you're right. They did tell me that that is a Suffolk County issue. But there are other counties in New York. You do that. Yeah. Trust me. I would rather just deal with our taxes. It's more work on my department to collect for everybody and then disperse them for everybody. But it is what it is for now. I also want to just say with the police department being a larger portion of our budget. How proud I am of the men and women in blue. But the chief has come here to multiple work sessions. Crime is down. Rates are down. But I think what's more. important to point out is that we have more officers available on the roads. We're responding to more aided cases. We've had more CPR saves and life savings actions from our men and women on the police force because they're becoming, with a higher number of officers, being able to respond quicker, more effectively. We're giving them the tools that they need, and they are truly saving lives, and that's the most important thing on this budget, and we never put a dollar on any life, and so it's just, I want people to know it's not just about crime. I'm proud of the crime statistics, but it's about what they are doing in the aided cases and when there's car accidents on Route 58 and they're redirecting traffic and saving lives, and very often on almost every ambulance call, our police department is the first ones on scene, and they're the ones that are beginning the life-saving actions, so I just want people to know it's more than just crime, so overall, this town is safer in a better place because of our police department in itself. I'm going to piggyback off of that and throw the ambulance and the fire department in there, too, because the number of aided cases as the town has grown, and also as the town residents have aged over time, there's generally more medical treatment needed as we get older, and we have quite a few retirement communities in the town, which is fantastic, but these services have grown exponentially with the number of calls. I mean, you're well aware how many calls RVAC goes out on in the course of a year. It's amazing. It's over 6,000. They're on course for over 6,000 responses this year. Absolutely amazing, and the incredible work they do and the lives that have been saved, like you said, between the police department and RVAC with the CPR saves, and we've recognized some of these saves. It's incredible. It's absolutely incredible, so those are things you really can't put a price tag on, and I'm very proud of that. And we had issues or perception issues of downtown being crime ridden, and it really wasn't so, but people perceived that, and we brought in a new administration in the police department. They've reassigned people and stepped up patrols in the downtown area, and not just the downtown area, but townwide they've stepped up patrols, but the downtown area, to get rid of that perception, it's really amazing. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mike? Mike? Mike? Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. Mike. stop into different businesses and say, hey, what's happening? You know, any issues, any problems, how's it going? And I get calls all the time on the thanks from the business owners indicating how much better they feel downtown. We were over in the Grand Jebel Park the other day looking at a possible site for fireworks for the 250th celebration of America, and it was just nice to see the number of people walking from the county center through Grand Jebel Park to come over and grab lunch or grab a bite to eat downtown and then walk back through. Years ago, you wouldn't see that foot traffic coming from the county center because it wasn't, you know, people didn't feel comfortable walking through there, and that's no longer the issue. I can personally attest to that. Working in that county center, I would have never walked through that park years ago. And it's a beautiful park. It's a safe park. It is. It absolutely is. And with all the artwork down there now and the art buildings and grounds, guys. And girls, they keep that place pristine, and we're very happy. We're very happy. But, you know, my point is these things come at a cost, and nobody wants to pay more taxes. Every one of us up here pays taxes in this town. So it's, you know, we have to pay them also, and the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. But there is a cost associated with doing business, and unfortunately it's everywhere today. That one bag of groceries that you pay, you know, we paid $40 for, you know, a couple years ago, is now maybe $60. And, you know, the price of a car has gone up. Everything, all the equipment, all the commodities, everything we use, the prices have gone up. And a lot of it, we can put some blame towards COVID. But we kind of hope after COVID ended that maybe things would come back down and settle down a little bit. And I think they have, to some degree, in some areas they have. But in the course of doing business, as I mean, you know, as a municipality, they have not. And hence, we are presenting a budget which we think is very fair, and there's no fat in this budget. I apologize to the people that, you know, we're all going to have to pay a little bit more. But 75 cents a day, you know, to some people that's going to be a big hit because people living on Social Security, we understand that. We get that. But, you know, short of laying 15 people off, which I would never do unless we absolutely had to. That would decrease services. Right. Oh, 100%. Because we are not overstaffed in any department by any means. As a matter of fact, our department heads are always asking for more, and we just have to justify what we can and what we can't do. And I think we did a good job of that with this budget. And to the town workers, I also just want to apologize. I mean, there are workers that deserved a merit increase. No doubt. Absolutely no doubt. But we just had to cut back somewhere, and that was one of the areas that we did. So I apologize, but please keep up your good work ethic because we're very proud of all of our town employees. And keep your fingers crossed maybe another year or two, things might be better economically and everything else, and, you know, hopefully then we can do what we have to do. I'd like to piggyback on what you're saying. So for the last, I would say, 10, 12, 15 years, people in Riverhead have been calling for more police, more police. This board has stepped up and heard their calls and got more police. And I want the residents to understand how the state's involved in this by passing bail reform and cashless bail. It used to be, and Supervisor, you would know this better than anybody, but I have spoken to a number. I've spoken to a number of the captain, lieutenants. Now when you make an arrest, it's four hours. So you're off the street for four hours. Who's paying for that? You know, the taxpayers are paying for that. The state should be paying for that. They passed the rule. But again, this board had the courage to answer the call that was a loud call for more police, and there's more police. And you see them now all over the place. Not just downtown. They're all over the place. There's also been a large amount of grants that we've received. So we're not just putting more men and women on the payroll and yearning to the expense to it. I mean, the equipment that we've given and the cameras done through grants and for vehicles and cars and equipment that we've received grant money for as well. We're doing everything we can to keep those increased costs down through the means of grant money. We've been very successful. So the police department has done a great job. I would like to commend the chief and the captain for actually, looking for grants proactively. And the chief has done a phenomenal job of monitoring overtime for PD. I think last 24 we blew the budget like big time for overtime. But the chief is really monitoring and really balancing, doing a great balancing act, making sure we're staying within the budget but doing the right thing for the town residents as well. So he's doing a great job of that. I ditto that. I mean, he is, he really has stepped up the department in so many ways. Thank you. He's proactive. It was very refreshing. Yeah, it was very proactive. And it was very refreshing to have a change. And we appreciate that for sure. If I could add something too, just talking about the police. It's wonderful to see. I was in Western Suffolk and nothing against the Suffolk County Police Department. But our police presence here is phenomenal. And it's for, it's not so much for crime. What's great about it is maintaining law and order. Any public events we have, any festivals anywhere, they're out checking traffic in the streets. They're just mingling around. It's giving everybody the perception of safety and well-being. And that's what you want in the town. This isn't always just stopping crime. It's also making everyone feel very comfortable and reassured that they've got our backs. And I think that's a phenomenal attribute to this police department that I never felt in Western Suffolk. We added two school resource officers too. That's right. And that's huge. I mean, sadly to say. And it's in our budget, not the school's budget. Well, it's in both. We split it. We split it with them. They're picking up portions. Right. We're paying for half. They're paying for half. But you know, you almost can't turn the news on any night and not see of some horrific act that happened, whether it's at churches or schools or places of employment. And my kids are all grown. But my grandkids are all grown. My grandkids are in the school district. And for a parent or a grandparent to feel more comfortable having police in the school, it's very important. It's very important. And I hope someday we can get a school resource officer in every one of our school buildings. Right now they're in the high school and the middle school. But eventually we'd like to see them down the line in all of the school buildings. But these things all cost money, you know. So you've got to balance it. And you've got to balance it. You've got to balance what you think is right. And I think we did a very good job with this budget in doing that and being able to maintain the things that we have without adding a lot more to the budget because we certainly did not here. Or do you have, I know you just got the whole package presented to you, but are there any specific things you want to talk about or ask myself or Jeanette about? I would like to say that I was very happy to be included again this year in discussing the budget. I'm very happy. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. I'm very moved. crumbled. The balloon's going to pop. And that happened last year. And with what you had to work with, I think the residents need to realize that, like you stated, Supervisor, that we also pay taxes, each one of us. We don't want our taxes going up either. So thank you for the job that you did on this. I appreciate that. Thank the board. Thank my entire board for your work. I want to add one more thing. When the residents, when you see people out on the highway, when you see town workers, wave to them because we pay a lower rate than a lot of surrounding towns. So these people are truly dedicated to what they do.

I just wanted to, you mentioned before about the officers having to spend four hours on an arrest. A lot of that's tied into things that now the state requires, which they've passed down to the district attorney's office, that they then pass down to the police department. So when you say four hours for an arrest, that's a simple, basic, petit larceny arrest. Where in the past, I mean, you'd be done in an hour, hour and 15 minutes, hour and a half tops with a simple petit larceny arrest. But now, because of requirements that they've made, you have to pay a lower rate than a lot of surrounding towns. So I think that's a really good point. So the authorities have to provide paperwork, the arresting officer has to provide paperwork over to the district attorney's office. District attorney's office has to look at that paperwork and approve and make sure that the additional forms are there that they require. And the district attorney's office is short-handed. So the officer can send it over, but they may not have somebody available right away, which we all understand how everybody's working, doing more with less. So it might sit for a while. So now that officer has the right to do that. Right. officer is off the street for that whole time period because he's got to be with his or her prisoner and it lengthened the process. It's a shame that's what it's come to, but that's another reason we also needed to beef up the police department where our guys, our men and women are spending more time processing a prisoner than they ever had to do before. Yeah, and I think it's important that people really focus on their state elections because the state has done this and I can say with certainty it was Governor Mario Cuomo who caused this. And I'm not bashing, this is policy that he brought to the state and Hochul has kept it there. Very true. Okay, I know you guys are going to want to have time to look through this also and continue on. And we have a question. We have a second matter on for open session before we will go to executive session. Thank you ladies very much. Great job. I appreciate all the help with this budget. You guys were fantastic. Second matter we have up is matter surrounding an amendment to Chapter 263. It's the rental code and that will be with Councillor Howard and Senior Investigator Downs. Come on up. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning everybody. Good morning. Good morning. Okay. So the purpose of this revision before you is to strengthen the town's ability to enforce the prohibition on transient rentals. Those are our rentals that are, you know, rented under 29 days. These revisions will close loopholes that have made enforcement difficult in the past by clarifying evidentiary standards, strict rules, and regulations. The final amendment is that the amendment will allow the authorities to !

I mean the problems that we're experiencing prosecuting these cases in court. And with respect to that, I'd like to turn it over to Eric. You can kind of mention some of those due process issues that we're experiencing. Thank you. Yeah, so this isn't really anything that I probably haven't discussed with all of you and also at work sessions or town board meetings before. The way that the code is currently drafted and the way that the judges over in justice court treat these violations, it almost makes it impossible to prosecute unless you have a direct buy, almost like purchasing. It's like a drug. Right, at least I'm looking at the cover. If you have a cash transaction with testimony to, you know, say I contacted so-and-so, so-and-so is the owner of 123 Main Street. I paid. I paid them $600. They let me stay there for one night. And, you know, without that, it becomes difficult. When you have tenants who are coming in and renting for three nights or something and they're coming in from the city or they're coming in from New Jersey or they're coming in from North Carolina, right, you know, it's not necessarily something they want to get involved in. And even just getting an affidavit from them that's sworn isn't enough in a criminal prosecution because the... the defendant has the right to cross-examine statements against them. And so that's what sort of gets us into this situation where the judges are not satisfied with the proof that we're coming into court with currently. So this will close some of those gaps and helps strengthen the town's ability to proceed on these by creating presumptions of transient rental, creating in the code, presumptions relative to the online ads. And when someone gets a rental permit, having them affirmatively acknowledge that they aren't, that they are aware of our prohibition against transient rentals. And hopefully the judges will be more satisfied with that level of proof. And then previously we could revoke rental permits. And there... there are provisions in the code that allow for an immediate stay of the revocation if the person wants to appeal it to the town board. This code provision proposes to change that and shift those appeals to the zoning board of appeals because they are... technically they are our appeals board. And so it keeps consistent sort of separation of powers type issues where you're the ones legislating and creating the code. And then they're reviewing appeals in specific instances. And I think Rich also is proposing to include civil penalties in this to strengthen our ability to go with a civil... civil penalties in Supreme Court on these types of violations. And I think with that Rich is going to break down in detail a little bit more about the various... Yeah. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. Code. 263.4D. It adds a cross-reference to 263.20 and 263.21. Affirming violations may be proven via direct evidence or presumption. This supports legal sufficiency of indirect evidence. Why we are making this change is just as Eric discussed. Courts were dismissing cases without tenant testimony. That's kind of hard to get when you go into these places. We're trying to get the tenant to testify in court. Even if you get the tenant's information and they're from out of state, subpoenaing them to come back to Riverhead Justice Court is almost impossible. Very problematic. They don't have to abide by out-of-state subpoenas. Correct. So jumping into our amendment number two, 263.5G. This requires the applicant to sign a certification, as Eric also discussed, affirming and understanding our ban on transient rentals. So as soon as the applicant comes in, they're aware of the situation. We have that now in the code that they have to sign an affidavit acknowledging the fact that they understand our prohibition on transient rentals. Amendment number three, 263.15B. It's automatic revocation if a violation of 263.D is found. So that gives us a, that's the discretionary affidavit option for the first-time offenders. It aligns with enforcement observed transient rental use. And why we did it is it's a strong deterrent. A strong deterrent was needed since warnings alone, you know, weren't effective. So it does give us the ability, if we do find a transient rental, we will be able to have that ability to reinstate the permit from our standpoint with the owner signing an affidavit stating that they would, you know, they were caught, they're not going to do it again. We give them that one. We give them that one chance. It's discretionary on our part though, depending on the situation. You'll find them at that point? Yes. Okay. Yes. They're issued a Justice Court ticket. Absolutely. Yeah. All right. So amendment number four, it ships the appeal authority from the town board to the zoning board of appeals. Initially, when this, when chapter 263 was amended, I think in 2006, the Reverend I think the Reverend moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. Actually moved it. multiple factors for presuming illegal transient rental use. And those factors are very important. Nightly pricing of short booking calendars. Online advertising without required permit numbers. So if you're going to advertise, you've got to put your permit number on the advertisement. Go ahead. I like that. Good idea. So motor vehicle records or observation of reoccurring different license plates. Can I just ask you, who's going to be monitoring that? Our department, code enforcement. You know, observation of unrelated groups or occupants rotating in and out for periods of fewer than 29 days. Keep in mind, this is all just presumptive evidence section. This is just something that we could use as a tool to prove that there is a transient, rental situation happening. Reoccurring trash or refuse output inconsistent with a basic single family household. Presumptions are rebuttable in these cases only by clear and convincing evidence and apply in Justice Court, Supreme Court, and Zoning Board of Appeals. So why we did this? It expands the range of objective criteria. Criteria investigators can use, making it harder for violators to hide behind platform anonymity or short-term turnover patterns. That's the most important part of this change. So Rich, I have a question. So when this is passed, which I think this is good. You went over with this with me the other day and I really liked this. Yeah. Will an EVA. Yeah. Will an EVA. Will an email go out to all the residents that, anybody that has a rental right now, so they're aware of this? Well, we're going to probably tackle that from the application standpoint. So when they come in, they have to sign that affidavit. We'll include all of this on their affidavit so that they're aware of the new code. The reason why I ask that is because having been walking around, walking in the neighborhoods, people have concerns about the new code. People have concerns about it. That's why I'm wondering if there's anything we can do prior. Yeah. Maybe when you send out the renewal notices. Yeah, sure. We can, because we're doing, we're doing the rental permits themselves are a year long at this point. So when, when they come up for renewal, we could include a notice there. Yeah. And then if we get a notice of complaint on something, we can generate the notice of complaint and include a separate notice about transient renting too. Yeah. That's a great point. I like that. That's good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Moving forward. Amendment number six, I think we were on. Bans the advertising of rentals under 29 days. This is another important tool for us. It requires, like I said, a rental permit on all ads. It triggers platform takedown obligations. It catches violations at the listing stage. So, you know, those websites that are advertising for rentals. So, you know, if you go to the website, you know, the Airbnb's, the VRBO's, and the other ones out there. You know, it stops illegal activity before rentals occur at the ad stage. So that was 263.22. 263.23. Civil enforcement and remedies. We authorized the rentals. We authorized the rentals. We authorized civil fines, injunctions, listing removal orders. It codifies mandatory permit revocation after confirmed transient use. Enables joint severability liability for owners, agents, and platforms. It fills the gap where criminal prosecution is impractical. Why? Why? Civil enforcement is faster and more flexible than criminal. Criminal prosecution. Can I ask a question? Sure. With this one about authorizing civil fines, injunctions, listing removal orders. Who's tasked with that responsibility? How does that happen? Listing the removal orders? I think it would have to come from the town attorney's office. A letter to the website advertiser with a copy of our law. I think we did something similar with regard to the lithium ion batteries. What would that be contempt if they don't? Remove the listing when we required it as a fine or penalty? I don't know if it's a firm or not. I was curious. Yeah. The judge can demand. It would be contempt until a judge issues an order directing them to take it down. If we were to order that and our penalties and they don't abide by that, would then we go to court against the advertising or the listing service? I'm wondering how that works. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. That would be what would be proposed. Okay. So can we notify the same way we did with the batteries, right? So now you can't even ship them into the state. Can we notify the various listing services of this code and let them know that they're in violation if they list? Are we going to do that? Absolutely. That's what we're talking about. Okay. That's what ... And what's the fine for them? That should be really ... I think we were 20,000 with ... You can go into the fine section. I believe it's 60,000. I think we're at 20,000. I think we're at 20,000. I believe it's 60,000. It's got to be a hefty fine. I believe the fines are in there. They're in there on page nine of your presentation. Yeah. It's ... I think we're with like 20,000 against Amazon if they shipped or Wal-Mart or any of those online shippers coming in from another state. Would it be civil fines of up to 5,000 per violation per day? What? What? per day civil enforcement section we taking the fines out of the code while we're doing this so that they can just be revised by resolutions here the finds the fines always have to be set in the town code he said him by resolution they'll like to set fees by resolution but not fines fines have to be defined in the town every time because the person who potentially violated the code has to be on notice they need to be able to see law that they could have looked up that would have told them what the penalty was okay well I'm in favor of in terms of the listing agents getting a much different fine it's 5,000 a day so it's 5,000 every day it's still up that's that's a pretty substantial fine I think if we do it that way if you're happy I mean I just know I am happy with it I think I think 5,000 per days I mean if we find that it's not working as we find that it's not working as deterrent then we would come back and suggest that maybe we increase it but right I think 5,000 a day is pretty significant and this is you know there's a lot of single individuals that are multiple offenders that own multiple properties multiple areas and that have done it right in front of us so I appreciate you taking the time the effort to you know figure this out and rewrite this so that we can go after these people I mean Creek Road is in Wading River has been a disaster for years and they advertise right in front of us and you've taken great strides to work on them and to strengthen things but I think this is going to help that overall that particular area is a lot of people that are in the area that are dealing with it it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's Yeah. And generally speaking, most of the time you see these in nice little suburban areas and residents that are right next door and, you know, Airbnbs might be, you know, great in some areas, but in those residential areas, we're getting a lot of complaints about them because of the different influx of people going in and out of these places. Transient people, I'll say it. You don't know whether or not someone is a registered sex offender, quite frankly. You live in a residential neighborhood. You're on a nice street with all families around. Somebody keeps renting their home out to God knows who. It could be someone like that, and you won't know. Yeah. So, I mean, we got a couple more left. We got Amendment 8, which is the platform takedown enforcement. Five-day window to remove flagged illegal listings. Non-compliant platform. Five thousand a day. Sort of modeled off of New York City, California enforcement best practices when I did some research on this. I went over the why. We'll go to Amendment 9, mandatory permit revocation for transient use. Requires an automatic one-year bar on re-permitting following a confirmed violation of transit. And the reason for that is because the permit holder is not eligible for the permit holder under the ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! that whether they be board members of those LLCs or associations that's a great question I probably gonna defer to Eric on that because it's sort of legal question regarding Eric yeah did you hold that they're getting separate permits problem because it's sort of against the property owner I mean the property itself we'd have to we have to draft the code to make that clear that it great encompasses all properties rented so if we can somehow add that to this you're doing a great job you know I just want to know like the particular players you know when you violated the law I'm using waiting river as an example and you're doing the same thing as James port and saying oh this is new I didn't know you do know you're in court for one side of the town I want to make sure that that all of the is because we know it's the same players repetitively yeah yeah so we could we could include that in certification they signed on application for the permit okay that transient rental any one units that they have permits for could result in revocation of permits for all good to be put in the application process so when they're filling out an application with rental permit there should be a question says have you ever been found guilty of any violations from this code and list them and they would have to put that on their application right away it fairly it to do that would be a false application so they'd have to when they putting it at yes like I was found guilty of this there's this other places within the town similar to it like that that's it that's a good way to capture a name that could be associated with three or four else's many of the answers no it wouldn't in our business in the funeral industry that's we we always you know we have to renew our permits it it's any of the officers members funeral director anybody that has been ever in the neighborhood would have to list it at that time. So that's the way that the state captures it. I think we've got to do it on a local level where during the application process, they would have to state, and if they're not telling the truth and they were found on it, the application is denied, and now there's another offense committed for a false claim. Yeah, okay. What if they don't have a rental permit at all? Well, they'd be in violation of not having a rental permit, first and foremost, and secondly, we can also violate them for the transient rental if that's what we find. So, yeah, there'd be two separate distinct violations at that point. But then what is the fee that they have to pay if they're found without having a rental permit? That's under, well, it could be one or two. I think we have civil penalties and we have regular Supreme Court, Justice Court penalties. So it defines. The penalties are the same because this section deals with all. These penalty sections deal with the entirety of 263. So the fines for.

So the first offense is $2,000, not exceeding $3,000. The second offense is $3,000, not exceeding $4,000. And the third offense is $4,000, no more than $6,000 for the third offense. That's our Justice Court. So we're going to have to pay for the penalties. But that's not changing. I just put that in here so that, you know, you can refer to it. But that's not part of this revision. Only the underlying sections in the copies that you have are part of the revision. But the civil penalty section, which they also could be subject to, is the $5,000 per day. Yeah. Good. Excellent work. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Nice job. Thank you. A lot of information together here. Yeah. The little icons you have on there. Oh, yeah. Thank you. I think it just makes it easier to follow it. Yeah. To go through. Yeah. I just request we make those two little amendments. I think that may capture even more of the consistent people that are violating it throughout multiple places within the town. Yeah. I'll discuss it with Eric and we'll come up with a good place for it. And. Yeah. I would also like to. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'd like to see the police. I'd like to see the police. I'd like to see the police. Yeah. I'm guessing it's for Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. where subsection C it says in the case of persons, associations, firms or corporations owning or managing multiple dwelling units within the town of Riverhead. Second, third, and any subsequent violations charged you're under shall not be exclusive to a particular dwelling unit, shall encompass all dwelling units owned or managed by such persons, associations, firms or corporations within the town. But it should be put on the application process if they have been found in violation it's the European red flag and then if you research and go I'm not sure and then you find out that that they have been and they didn't put it on their application there should be a fine for that as well. I think since it's in there we don't we don't have any as a policy procedure put it into the application process as is right now. Thank you. You could put it as simply as you put this whole thing with the application and they have to sign it saying they've read it and reviewed it before they get the application or before they go. Submit the application. Yeah. That's great. Are you okay with, is everybody okay with bringing the fines up a thousand dollars? Like if I look on page nine on number one it's not less than two thousand not exceeding three thousand. What what is the what is the highest the court can go though I think that's a question. Is there a limit in Justice Court that we can't exceed? Well it's a town code violation so we can go we can go higher but I would like to make sure that we're not going to go higher than that. I would like to make sure that we're not going to go higher than that. I would like to make sure that we're not going to go higher than that. I would like to make sure that we're not going to go higher than that. I would like to make sure that we're not going to go higher than that. mentioned we most recently increased these fines in December of 2024 we're talking about operations that are really you know that are making a lot of money number one and again and that you know and when I look at some of the fines in Southampton they're they're up there that's up to the board I would like to see him go up a thousand but I can certainly pull up Southampton's code and try to do a little comparison and see what they're where they're at ourselves I mean look at all the resources it takes you rich you guys are driving back and forth then you're on it for days and sometimes weeks and months so what's how do you advertise $2,000 into that time I certainly don't have a problem increasing fines because follow the law doesn't affect you some cases it's just a cost of doing business for some of these LLC exactly my point I don't I want it to be a cost to the business not a cost of doing business because it's a cost of doing business to us they're gonna continually break the law that is not you know what do you know what are you getting out of this nothing you know I mean you got a lot of man I know it man hours into this and woman hours yes all right well certainly look at that yeah thank you guys thank you okay in a moment I'm gonna ask to close the open session and go into executive session and we will be discussing an executive session under contractual matters surrounding contractual agreement with New York State with Thomas and Testa will have matters surrounding contractual agreement with h2m and EFC with the depaula and Allen we have matters surrounding contractual agreement with the bid month with Howard and depaula under legal we have matters surrounding possible sale of real property with Kern under personnel we have matters surrounding terms and conditions of an employee with Howard so if I could have a motion to close open session and go into executive session second all in favor aye all opposed okay open session is closed have a good week everybody and we're gonna go into executive session thank you you