From: Russell [mailto:prussel2@rochester.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:14 AM
To: Havens, Michael
Subject: I am not protesting the cancellation of "Grease"
Dear Mr. Havens,

I want you to know that there are parents that are not protesting the cancellation of "Grease" as the middle school musical. When it was presented as a possibility at the TCA Friends of Music meeting I voiced some concern. The consensus was that the school version would be fine - not like the movie at all. I was encouraged by that thought, but I still planned to read the script personally before I decided to let my 8th grade son be in it. I haven't had a chance to do that yet. I sincerely hoped I would not have to deny him the opportunity to be in it. (He has been looking forward to this year's musical since last year!) A friend of mine has a 6th grade daughter who also wanted to be in "Grease". In anticipation they watched the movie just a couple nights ago and her daughter's main comment was that she did not like that the girl became "bad" at the end and it was considered a good thing. If this is still the message in the cleaned up school version and if it cannot be altered, then it is wise to refrain.

It would be very sad, however, if this means there will be no musical at all. My son was in the last two musicals and I helped on several committees and got to observe what went on a lot. What an opportunity it is for our children! They sharpened their skills in acting, singing and dancing not to mention time management, teamwork, relationship building and many other areas! And had fun along the way. This is worth any extra effort that needs to be made to be sure we continue having a middle school musical.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Pat Russell
 
 
 

 
 
For Friday's letter to Board
 
 
Please note comments from Melissa Lawson regarding a recent State Comptroller's audit.
thanks
Keith Henry
WFLBOCES
 
 
 
>>> "Melissa Lawson" <mlawson@genevacsd.org> 10/31/05 11:23 AM >>>
I would be happy to. I'd like to be able to relay to you that it was a positive experience; but it was not.
 
I had a team of 3 visits, and they were here about 10-12 weeks, but there were weeks when only one or even no one was here. They said they budgeted 40 man hours for the audit.
 
They spent a lot of time reviewing our policy manual and interviewing administrators and directors. There were many questions relating to technology, and we had BOCES EduTech come down and chat with them.
 
They spent a lot of time understanding the accounting system, actually running dummy transactions through it, and understanding the rights and permissions granted to everyone.
 
Fixed assets were a big issue, relative to tracing items from the inventory to their physical presence; including calculators.
 
Administrative payouts upon retirement and termination was a focus area.
 
Traditional transaction testing for payroll, accounts payable and food service inventories.
 
None of the auditors had any school district experience or knowledge.
They did not have an audit program to work from. They were very guarded about potential areas of comment. I have a sense the report that will be issued will be very critical.
 
Melissa Lawson
Assistant Superintendent, Geneva City Schools
649 S. Exchange St.,Geneva, NY 14456
Phone: 315/781-0400 ~ Fax: 315/781-4128
Email: mlawson@genevacsd.org
 
 
 

 
 
 

Re:   Contract progress
Last evening your contract team completed its third session on developing our new contract. Last night’s focus was benefits. We considered a number of ideas and have assigned a subcommittee to turn those ideas into a first draft for the team to consider next week. Meetings have been scheduled for November 9^th, November 16th, November 30^th, and December 14^th. If all goes well we would like to bring a new contract for you to consider by Christmas.

 
Wayne County Education Coalition Meeting Reminder - Monday Nov 14th - 7:00 p.m. KM Davies Company.
 
Attached are the talking points and minutes of the last meeting.
 
WAYNE COUNTY EDUCATION COALITION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2005  
The October 3, 2005 meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. at the Williamson Town Library.
Present were:
David Frohlich
Joyce Lyke
Sandi Keller
Bob Montemonaro
Ron Mendrick
Chuck Rothfuss
Tom Gillett
Eileen Sterchi
Brian Mayou
 
In Laurie's absence, Dave Frohlich opened the meeting with the following
discussion:
 
Fiscal Advisory Task Force: Dave reported that he had talked with County representatives about increasing the membership on the Task Force, but did not receive a positive reception. It was observed that Joe Marinelli of BOCES is on the Task Force and has stated to Coalition members that he will be a neutral party. It was noted that media reports had stated both the pros and the cons of the task force, noting on the one hand that it might be simply a way to validate the County's action allowing the Supervisors to duck their responsibility or it could be an opportunity for public involvement in the process.
The Coalition seeks some specifics about the change in the membership and the intent of the Task Force and expressed concern that Joe Marinelli be briefed on the Coalition's work and interests.
 
Talking Points: There were several topics discussed as possible "talking points" in connection with this issue.
Comparative Real Estate Taxes: Dave Frohlich suggested a comparison between aggregate real estate taxes in counties with substantial retail sales and aggregate real estate taxes in Wayne County. By aggregate real property taxes, Dave would include both school and County real property taxes. He estimated that where there are substantial retail sales, there should be substantial retail sales tax revenue, and that revenue should offset the need for property taxes. Therefore, where there are substantial retail sales, real property taxes likely would be lower than in counties without substantial retail sales.
Comparisons of Real Property Tax in Two-County Districts: Another comparison raised by Dave's discussion was the possibility of showing the impact of sharing sales tax on residential and business taxpayers by comparing real property taxes between taxpayers in the same school district where that school district spans two counties. For example, Clyde-Savannah draws residents from multiple counties, according to Bob Montemonaro as does Palmyra-Macedon and reportedly Red Creek.
Phelps-Clifton Springs also is in two counties and could be used for a comparison even though the schools are in Ontario County. The comparison would be between those taxpayers who live in a county that shares sales tax (Wayne) and those taxpayers who live in a county that does not share sales tax (Ontario, Cayuga).
Applying Dave's estimation, taxpayers in a county that shares sales tax probably would have more real property taxes, if other factors are equal (although they might not be equal). However, in any case, the law requires a deduction in the real property tax for those residents of a county that does share sales tax with the schools so the amount of tax paid would be less for those residents compared to residents who live in a county that does not share sales tax. Tom Gillett stated that he believed he had real property tax data on the various counties and he would send what he had over to Dave Frohlich for his review.
Another suggestion by Dave Frohlich was to review the County's budget.
Based on reports, he stated, it appeared that the County had been spending a large surplus over the past few years to meet operating expenses without raising revenue. As a result, the County had little debt, but its annual revenue does not meet its annual expenses and it is not clear how long the County can continue current operating expenses in excess of current revenue until the budget surplus is exhausted.
Another issue raised was whether the FAT membership is finalized and when its report would be ready.
Campaign for Sharing of Sales Tax: The County will be preparing a tentative budget for review by the County Supervisors. Last year, the County Supervisors were unable to adopt a final budget and the tentative budget became the final budget by law (with a separate vote on the sales tax to continue the sharing despite the tentative budget's proposal to end the sharing). The County should be preparing a tentative budget again for next year at this time, for adoption in November. There was discussion about organizing support to continue the sales tax sharing.
The first item of business is to identify the time frame for the County's budget, particularly the scheduled date for adoption of a tentative budget and the adoption of the final budget.
It was stated that it would be preferable to organize support for sales tax sharing to attempt to keep the sharing in the tentative budget.
Therefore a mailing prior to the adoption of the tentative budget would be important. However, it was also noted that there would be a great many mailings just prior to election day and a campaign on the sharing of the sales tax might get lost or be disregarded by many people.
Therefore, it was determined to learn when the tentative budget is scheduled to be adopted, and, if it is after election day, then to initiate the campaign in connection with the tentative budget the week after election day. However, if the tentative budget is scheduled to be adopted before election day, then the campaign would have to be advanced.
There are several elements to the campaign that were suggested. It was suggested that a letter writing campaign be initiated again with letters and information sent to the Supervisors from various parties. One source would be businesses and farmers, last year organized by Laurie.
Another group would be the unions, and one of the key unions volunteered to assist with that effort. Another suggested group was members of the Boards of Education and parents which would require information about the tentative budget and the deadline to be distributed to the boards at each district.
Last year, a mailing was prepared by Laurie to businesses and farmers as well as others with an explanation of the impact on them if the County took back the sales tax from the schools, and included a request to send a letter to the County Supervisors and a model letter. If that flyer and model letter could be updated, it could be used for all of the above groups. Other groups such as other unions could be asked to assist as well. Sandi volunteered to help stuff those letters for the mailings.
It was also suggested that several speakers should be identified to make a presentation at the Budget Committee and, subsequently, to the Supervisors as a whole.
Some of the updated talking points could be used for the letters and for the presentations. One point raised was that the County was not proposing to take five million dollars from the schools and decrease County taxes by the same amount, so property taxes in aggregate would increase, not be reduced or even remain the same. Without a reduction in the County taxes as a result of taking the five million, an offsetting increase in school property taxes would be a net increase in property taxes, hurting residents and especially businesses and farms.
Raising business and farm taxes hurts the effort to keep businesses in Wayne County. Therefore, businesses might write notes to the County Supervisors asking them to support us on the sales tax because ending the sharing would hurt us.
A draft of talking points was also presented from Bob, for review, comment and editing. This particular set of talking points was intended to be delivered to candidates, and would be e-mailed to Laurie for distribution among the members. It was also suggested that the various cost saving measures that schools have taken over the last few years be identified and listed to demonstrate what the schools have done to hold down their budgets. As part of that, or as a separate item, the increase in fuel costs could be addressed, which are driving additional cuts in schools even with no change in sales tax sharing.
Another idea was to again this year make a videotape of a businessperson and a farmer explaining why taking back the sales tax from the schools would hurt them.
It was agreed that volunteers would be needed to gear up all of these measures and others.
As to the brochure which would be distributed in the mailings, Chuck reported that he had made some suggested changes and that it was being finalized. Counting back from the date it might likely be needed, it was determined that we need a draft for review no later than October 17 so that it can be finalized and ready for distribution if an early mailing is needed.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m.
 

Fund Wayne County Schools with Sales Tax –
Not Higher Property Taxes
 

�   A 3% county sales tax was adopted by public referendum in 1966 with the direct assistance of our school districts that helped convince area property taxpayers that a consumption tax (sales tax) was a more equitable way to help fund schools and County government when compared to property taxes. To help reduce the burden of school taxes on property taxpayers (as advertised during promotion of the referendum), 1% of the new consumption tax (sales tax) revenues were committed to schools to help fund their programs. These sales tax revenues were divided among Wayne County’s schools based on student enrollment.

�   The county sales tax levy increased over the years to the current rate of 4.25%. Wayne County retail sales have increased over the years since 1966, greatly increasing the sales tax revenues.

�   However, the Wayne County Board of Supervisors violated the original agreement with area school districts in the 1991-92 school year, during a county budget crisis, by capping the share that school districts could receive at $5.4 million. This cap denied our schools the benefits of the increased retail sales since 1992 and provided a revenue windfall for County government.

�   Despite this grab of part of the school’s share, Wayne County currently faces another County budget crisis. Rather than make the reductions in budget and staff that our schools have made in response to these budget crises, the County Finance Committee has proposed to make null and void the 1966 agreement with area schools by taking all their sales tax revenue, ending any sharing with area school districts.

�   This proposal to grab the rest of the schools’ share of sales tax is a disturbing breach of the previous agreement with our school districts that truly would cause a financial disaster for our Wayne County school districts, property taxpayers, area farmers and business owners.

�   This proposal to “Rob Peter To Pay Paul” is a short-term cash infusion that would not address the long-term need to modernize and restructure Wayne County government any better than the 1991-1992 grab of sales tax revenue. It did not work then and it won’t work now.

�   The shift of taxes from a consumption tax (paid by all consumers) onto the backs of local property taxpayers is illogical in light of the current fiscal challenges of our state and local economy. Those without STAR exemptions -- our farmers and business owners -- especially will bear the brunt of this ill-advised tax shift. (Remember that farmlands and businesses do not receive STAR exemptions, only primary residences!)

�   Attempts to justify this grab incorrectly theorize that the NYS STAR program will defray the $5.4 million increase in school taxes by $1.4 million so that school property taxpayers would only see a $4 million increase. This justification sounds too good to be true, and is: it erroneously assumes that every one of the following 3 scenarios will occur simultaneously and at a 100% participation level:

That each of the 11 area schools would increase their property tax levies by 100% of the total amount of sales tax revenues lost by that district. This would add 6% to 15% on tax levies that already include substantial increases due to minimal state aid and rising fixed costs, PLUS

Back to top

That voters in all 11 school districts would vote to approve those budget increases that contain higher tax levies added as result of the loss of sales tax revenues, PLUS

That the Wayne County Board of Supervisors and

Back to top

That the Wayne County Board of Supervisors and all 15 town boards would vote to decrease County and town property-tax levies by 5.4 million. But, the County has already publicly stated that it will use the extra money for their operations, not to decrease to taxes. (The result would be a net INCREASE in property taxes.

�   It is obvious that none of these scenarios will actually occur to any significant extent. In reality, the rumored $1.4 million STAR savings will evaporate to a few thousand dollars at best, which will still leave our schools under funded by approximately $5 million and shift approximately $5 million of a consumption tax that everyone pays (sales tax) onto the backs of our County property taxpayers. The proposal to grab the school’s share represents an economic disaster for area businesses and farm interests, which will not have the benefit of STAR exemptions to offset the substantial increase in their property taxes.

�   Facts about Wayne County students:

Back to top

While Wayne County students have more handicapping conditions than neighboring counties, and

Back to top

Our students come to school from more impoverished homes than most neighboring counties, and

Back to top

Our students do better on the high school English Regents than all but one comparative county, and

Back to top

Our students do better on the high school Math Regents than any of the comparative counties, and

Back to top

More students stay in school and earn a diploma than all but one comparative counties, and

Back to top

More Wayne County students earn a Regents Diploma than all but one comparative county!
These successes show sales tax revenue shared with our schools gets results! Remember that by using sales tax revenues to help fund schools, every consumer helps pay for this excellence, not just property taxpayers.

�   Our school districts represent the most significant economic assets of the communities of Wayne County. No village or town in Wayne County could continue to thrive or prepare for future growth without quality local educational programs that compare favorably to those of the city or suburban districts in neighboring counties.

�   Our school districts are the very fabric of our way of life in our rural Wayne County communities. Please consider how you may assist the Wayne County Education Coalition in ensuring the continued excellence of Wayne County schools thereby securing the future of our children and our communities.

Back to top

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Brunner, Mr. Davis, Mr. Havens, Mr. Atseff, Mr. Switzer

Mr. Molino opened a public hearing to consider the proposed 2006 contract with the Ontario Volunteer Emergency Squad (O.V.E.S.) at 7:01 PM.

 
(Mr. Fillmore entered 7:02 PM)
 
Ms. Susan Uhl, representing O.V.E.S., presented a list of expected increased expenses for 2006. She reviewed the list and stated they are projecting an increase in expenses of $22,000.00 and their request for town funding for 2006 is $15,000.00. She announced they have three paramedics and three critical care members. There was a discussion on the increased expenses.
 
Mr. Brewer asked how the recruitment of new members was going and he asked if the new uniforms and pagers are for new members?
 
Ms. Uhl answered they are for new members.
 
Mr. Frank Adams, President of the O.V.E.S., explained how they would be phasing out old communication equipment and replacing it with newer technology. They will gradually replace and buy new pagers. He also talked about training, increased fuel costs and supplies.
 
Ms. Uhl stated they will be a certified American Heart Association CPR instruction site. She also stated they are proud of their ALS service to the community.
 
Mr. Brewer asked if they have done a long-term review of their budget, keeping in mind third party billing, and do they project an ongoing need for $15,000.00 or do they anticipate their needs will increase or go down in the next three years?
 
Ms. Uhl stated their needs would probably be more in future years. They had 200 more calls in 2005 than the previous year and other expenses like fuel costs are going up. She stated their fiscal year is the calendar year.
 
Mr. Brewer asked them to a future workshop, after the fiscal first quarter, to review their future budget needs.
 
There was a discussion about ALS training, continuing education of members and active recruitment of new members. The O.V.E.S. is all volunteer members.
 
Mr. Molino thanked the O.V.E.S. for their dedication and time. He acknowledged the big commitment volunteer members make and all that they do for the community.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to close the public hearing at 7:10 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED  
 
Mr. Molino opened a public hearing to consider the proposed 2006 contract with Northeast Quadrant Advanced Life Support (NEQALS) at 7:10 PM. He stated their request for 2006 is $6,624.00, an increase of $1,481.00 from 2005.
 
Mr. Molino asked if there were any public comments? There were none.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to close the public hearing at 7:12 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 

Mr. Molino opened a public hearing to consider the proposed 2006 contract for fire and ambulance service with the Union Hill Volunteer Firemen’s Association at 7:12 PM.

 
Mr. Chris Bowen, Chairman of the Board of the Union Hill Fire Company, stated their request for 2006 is $90,000.00 up from $88,000.00 in 2005. The increase is due to inflation, fuel cost and increasing operating expenses.
 
Mr. Molino asked for public comments. There were no comments.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to close the public hearing at 7:13 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 

Mr. Molino waited and opened a public hearing to consider the proposed 2006 Ontario Fire District budget at 7:15 PM.

 
Mr. Jeffrey Garland, representing the Ontario Fire District, stated their request is for $47,231.00. The increase ($627.00) is for increases in fuel cost, utilities, office supplies and the cost of doing business.
 
Mr. Brewer asked Mr. Garland about the bonding for equipment and renovations to the Fire Hall.
 
Mr. Garland stated the truck will be paid off prior to the building debt and the building bond he thought would be paid off in eight to ten years.
 
Mr. Molino asked for comments from the public. There were none.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Camp, to close the public hearings at 7:17 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 
Mr. Molino waited then opened a public hearing to consider the proposed 2006 Ontario Rural Fire Protection District at 7:20 PM.
 
Mr. Garland spoke for the Rural Fire Protection District and he stated the reasons for the increase are the same as for the Fire District.
 
Mr. Brewer reviewed the difference between the Fire District and the Rural Fire Protection District. He noted the Ontario Fire District Commissioners are elected. There was a discussion on the budget, boundaries and the contract for services.
 
Mr. Brewer explained that in the Ontario Fire District and the Rural Fire Protection District there are two different governing boards, two sets of books and they have separate contracts and budgets. Union Hill provides Rural Fire and Ambulance services under one contract.
 
Mr. Molino asked for comments from the public. There were none.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to close the public hearing at 7:24 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 
Mr. Brewer thanked Mr. Bowen and Mr. Garland for attending the hearings and extended the Town Boards gratitude to both organizations. He stated appreciation for all the volunteer members for the services they have provided to the community.
 
Mr. Molino opened a public hearing to consider the 2006 proposed budgets for the General Fund, Highway, Library, Water, Sewer, Watershed Management Fund, Lighting District # 1 and Lighting District # 2 at 7:25 PM. He asked for public comment on the budgets.
 
Ms. Nadia Niniowsky, 7181 Furnace Road, stated she is a new resident of Ontario and she wondered how many town justices there are and what is their pay?
 
Mr. Fillmore reviewed the budget for the justice staff and their wages. He stated there are two elected judges, a full-time clerk, part-time clerk and one bailiff.
 
Mr. Richard Clark, 2501 Lake Road, stated he estimates there is a one-half million-dollar increase in the general fund revenues this year then last year. He asked where that increase came from?
 
Mr. Molino stated the 2005 revenues are significantly more than the estimated amounts in the 2005 budget. He noted the biggest increases were in interest rates, sales tax and mortgage tax revenue.
 
Mr. Clark asked specifically about $300,000.00 in the revenue account. He asked if that revenue was from a pilot payment?
 
Mr. Brewer answered yes, the 1081 lieu of taxes, revenue increase is over $300,000.00. The total amount in A 1081 is $317,400.00 up from $7,000.00 in 2005. The increase in revenue is for the Constellation pilot payment and the other smaller pilot payments that the town receives. There was a discussion on other revenue projections in the 2006 budget.
 
Mr. James Switzer, 1291 Centennial Drive, asked if the pilot revenue was split out in just the highway and general budgets?
 
Mr. Brewer answered, yes. He explained how the pilot payment was split out in the budget.
 
Mr. Switzer asked why there was no figure under fines and forfeitures revenue for dog fines?
 
Mr. Molino suggested the court revenues were all lumped in one code, he wasn’t sure.
 
Mr. Switzer asked why the mortgage tax revenue for 2006 was flat? And he asked how much has been received year to date for 2005 mortgage tax revenue?
 
Mr. Molino stated the mortgage tax revenue estimate for 2006 is the same as 2005. He stated he felt interest rates were increasing and housing sales may have leveled out.
 
Mr. Switzer asked, in equalization and assessment revenue from state aid, if the $19,000.00 in the budget was used to keep the equalization rate the same and he asked when will the next assessment revalue be scheduled?
 
Mr. Molino stated the last one was done in 2005 and a complete revaluation would probably not be done until 2007 or 2008.
 
Mr. Clark asked how much was being used from fund balance to lower the taxes? And he asked how much would be left in fund balance after taking one million dollars out?
 
Mr. Molino stated $800,000 was for the landfill. He estimated the remaining fund balance would be well over one and one-half to two million dollars.
 
Mr. Brewer stated the Accounting Supervisor projected three months ago that, assuming all revenue and expenses come in as budgeted, she believes at year-end fund balance will be just under two million dollars. He reviewed what the fund balance might be based on different situations. He also explained funding the landfill project and how other variables could affect the final fund balance number.
 
Mr. Clark stated he doesn’t believe it is prudent to use one million dollars every year from fund balance to reduce taxes, and he stated he feels that could deplete the fund.
 
Mr. Brewer gave an analysis of the 2005 budget and 2006 preliminary budget. He gave a detailed explanation for the changes in the two budgets. He said in summary, if adopted as presented in the preliminary budget, the total general tax rate is $2.63, up sixteen cents from 2005.
 
Mrs. Cora Stavalone, 6749 Ontario Center Road, asked if the $800,000.00 figure was the final figure for the Landfill Closure Project?
 
Mr. Molino stated no, that was the amount set-aside for work to be done this year. That money is still in the 2005 budget for the Landfill Project, it hasn’t been spent. He stated the town has no idea what the NYS Department of Conservation (DEC) will mandate the town to do. He talked about the proposed project, a timeline and he projected cost for the project could be five to six million dollars.
 
Mrs. Stavalone asked where would the money come from for the Landfill Project?
 
Mr. Molino stated it would have to be bonded and paid back over a long period of time.
 
Mr. Brewer reviewed work the town has already completed on the project; he talked about testing, engineering and budgeting for the expense of closing the landfill. He suggested several financing scenarios that the Town Board has considered and he added there are a lot of “what ifs” having to do with the project. He stated the landfill is a big deal financially for the town.
 
Mrs. Stavalone asked how long has the town known about the landfill closure and she asked why something hadn’t been done?
 
Mr. Molino gave a history of what has been done in the past and this year. The town has complied with what the DEC has asked us to do.
 
There was a long discussion on the landfill.
 
Mr. Switzer asked if there were other considerations to reduce the proposed tax rate?
 
There was a discussion on ways to reduce the proposed 2006 tax rate. One proposal the town board is considering is to reduce the 2006 budget by $93,000.00 for a project for siding and a new roof for the town hall. This could be accomplished by using the increased and unexpected interest and other increased revenues from the 2005 budget or by using a combination of the library/town hall addition and renovation capital project remaining funds and the HR1 (town hall/library reserve fund). If the project could be paid for other than what is proposed in the preliminary budget proposal, the 2006 tax rate could go down by about eighteen cents.
 
There was further discussion on the preliminary tax rate and changes that could be made before the final budget is adopted at the November 14^th town board meeting.
 
Mr. Switzer asked if there was an appropriation in the 2006 budget for the proposed Community Center?
 
Mr. Brewer stated there is $60,000.00 in the general fund. There was a brief discussion on the Community Center funding, capital project and grants.
 
Mr. Craig Litt, 1042 Ridge Road, stated the conversation on the landfill makes it sound like Ontario is a victim to the DEC. He asked what could we do to get the DEC to respond and give direction to what has to be done.
 
Mr. Brewer stated he doesn’t believe it would be in our best interest to be aggressive with the DEC. There was another long discussion on what could or could not happen with the Landfill Closure Project.
 
Mr. Slocum stated he doesn’t believe we are sitting back and doing nothing. He reviewed what his department and the town has done to date at the landfill.
 
Mr. Jason Ruffell, 1953 Kenyon Road, asked about the test results from the landfill as compared to other towns.
 
Mr. Brewer and Mr. Molino recalled what they could from the 1991 and 2004 tests and stated the results have gotten better not worst. They suggested those questions could best be answered by the town’s engineering firm, MRB Group.
 
Mr. Molino asked the Library to give their 2006 budget presentation.
 
Mrs. Nancy Obaid, Library Assistant, reviewed the 2006 Library budget request. She stated they are asking for $204,916.00 from the town. She reviewed other revenue sources and she stated they tried to be as responsible as they could but because of increased expenses and the new addition their contractual budget is up 2.8%. She sited personnel and retirement cost and the new Library system cost as part of the reason for a budget increase. Mrs. Obaid stated the Library tries to give the services to the community that they want and the Library is very appreciative of the town’s support.
 
Mrs. Obaid invited everyone to the 1^st Annual Brew Ha Ha, a children’s Halloween event they are co-hosting on October 29^th.
 
Mrs. Obaid introduced the Library Director Karina Churchill, the Library Board Trustees present at the meeting: Mr. Floyd Welker, Mr. Jim Davies, Mr. Dave Rauen and Mr. Bob Steele.
 
Mr. Brewer explained how the Library’s portion of the pilot payment was handled in the Library budget and how it was advertised in the budget article in the Mr. Brewer explained how the Library’s portion of the pilot payment was handled in the Library budget and how it was advertised in the budget article in the Wayne County Mail. He thanked Mrs. Obaid and Ms. Churchill and the members of the Library Board of Trustees for attending and he stated the town appreciates their efforts to make the Library a better place for the residents.
 
Mr. Molino asked for comments on the highway, water, sewer, watershed management, lighting district budgets. There were no further comments.
 
A motion was made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Camp, to close the public hearings at 8:12 PM. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 
Comments from the Public – Mr. Slocum reported on what his department is doing to conserve fuel and energy. He explained how he uses used oil to run a waste oil heater. In the past, when his employees were on a break or lunch during snow plowing season, the snow plows would have to be left running so that they wouldn’t ice up. Now he pulls the trucks into the highway garage and they can turn off the trucks and use the waste oil heater to keep the truck warm and ready to go. Some of the recycled oil he uses comes from the spring and fall cleanup and most of it comes from doing oil changes on town vehicles. He stated a snowplow or one of his heavy vehicle uses up to 40 quarts of oil for one oil change. That oil is recycled through the furnace and is a huge saving in his department.
 
Mrs. Lori Furguson-Kenney, and her sister Mrs. Debra Furguson-Leaty, on behalf of the Business Improvement District (BID) committee, thanked the Town Board for their support through the BID process. She stated it has been a pleasure working with the Town Board to improve the downtown area and they’d just like to say thank you.
 
Mr. Molino asked for approval of the minutes of the October 10, 2005 town board meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to approve the minutes as presented. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED
 

Correspondence – The Town Clerk announced she received a letter of resignation from Serena Michels from the position of Deputy Town Clerk. She stated she would advertise that opening in her office.

Adjourn - A motion was made by Mr. Camp, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to adjourn at 8:38 PM for a budget workshop. 4 Ayes 0 Nays 1 Absent (Shears) MOTION CARRIED

Back to top

Back to top

Supervisor Guelli announced that there will be a meeting with the Ontario Town Board and

Wayne Central School Board on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 7:30 P.M. at the Walworth Town

Motion by Councilwoman Marini to declare the following equipment as surplus and to dispose of it

as appropriate: 4 computer hard drives, 6 monitors/speakers, 5 key boards, 3 mouses, 1 server, 1 fax

Back to top

Back to top

a portion of the cost, estimated to be $345,000. The Town must commit to paying an amount equal to the Grant, either in services or in cash. Those who benefit from the trunk line would pay the balance of the cost. The project could start in 2006. Councilman Maciuska stated that no action can be taken until the Town of Macedon has been advised, as per the Intermunicipal Agreement. Without Macedon’s approval there would be two sewer rates: one for Macedon and one for Walworth.

 
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS:
 Councilman Keyes offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by
 Councilman Maciuska to wit:
   BE IT RESOLVED that the Account Clerk be authorized to transfer the following:
   $ 330.00 from General Fund Balance to A1410.43 for payment of the annual
      E-Code maintenance fee
    1,600.00 from General Fund Balance to A6989.41 for payment of the
       Wilbert, Craft & Amsler property appraisals
    5,324.44 increase in line SS8130.24R, which will be transferred from Sewer Equip.
Reserve for payment of the final costs of the Stalker Road 80 KW Generator
    844.74 from Gananda Sidewalk Dist. Fund Balance to SM5410.41
        16.55 from Memorial Tree Fund Balance to CM4-7110.42
          6,411.03 from HG8340.410 Building Innovation Systems to HG8310.420
        2,741.00 from HG8340.410 Building Innovation Systems to HG8340.420
401.92 from DA5112.22 to DA5112.21.
 Roll call vote:  Supervisor Guelli  Aye
          Councilman Keyes  Aye
          Councilman Maciuska  Aye
          Councilwoman Marini Absent
         Councilman Yale  Aye
 Resolution adopted.
 
RECESS:
 Motion by Councilman Maciuska to have a short recess. Seconded by Councilman Yale.
 Time: 8:12 P.M.
 
RECONVENED:
 Supervisor Guelli reconvened the meeting at 8:27 P.M.
 
2006 BUDGET REVIEWED:
 The following changes were made:
   A1110.13: Rate: 14.00 hr.
   A1410.11: 34,458
   A1410.13: 1,392
   A1410.14: 2,000
   A1410.41: 2,300
   A4020.11: 667
   SS8130.13: 1,658
 
ADJOURNMENT:
 Motion by Councilman Maciuska to adjourn. Seconded by Councilman Keyes and
unanimously carried. Time: 8:45 P.M.
 
             Respectfully submitted,
 
             Marcia Englert, RMC
             Town Clerk

Back to top