WAYS AND MEANS
COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, January 27,
2026 @ 10:00 a.m.
Matthew Brassard, Chairperson
JoePete Wilson, Vice-Chairperson
Chairman Brassard called this Ways and Means
committee meeting to order at 10:00 am with the following Supervisors in
attendance: Clayton Barber, Matthew Brassard, Chris Clark, Timothy Follos,
Kenneth Hughes, Mary Lamphear, Tracie McGill, Steve McNally, Clayton Menser,
James O’Bryan, Timothy Pierce, Richard Preston, Cathleen Reusser, Matthew
Stanley, Davina Thurston, Michael Tyler, Joe Pete Wilson and Meg Wood. was
absent.
Department Heads present: James Dougan, Josh
Favro, Judy Garrison, Roy Holzer, Mary McGowan, Dan Manning and Mike
Mascarenas.
BRASSARD: It’s 10 o’clock. We’ll call this ways and means to order,
stand for the salute to the flag. Okay,
we’ll start with roll call Judy. We have
no guests, so we’ll go right into resolutions.
PUBLIC
SAFETY
Monday,
January 12, 2026
Chairman
– K. Hughes Vice-Chairman – D.
Thurston
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO PURCHASE
RADIO EQUIPMENT FROM BEARCOM FOR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO USE FOR
MT. DEFIANCE BASE STATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00, WITH FUNDS TO
COME FROM SICG 23 GRANT. Hughes, Stanley
2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO GO OUT TO
BID FOR A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE LOW BAND RADIO SYSTEM IN THE EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM BUDGETED FUNDS. Tyler, Thurston
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Monday, January
12, 2026
Chairman
– M. Stanley Vice-Chairman – K. Hughes
3. RESOLUTION
APPOINTING MATTHEW BRASSARD TO THE LAKE CHAMPLAIN.LAKE GEORGE REGIONAL PLANNING
BOARD FOR A 3-YEAR TERM, WHICH WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2028. Stanley, Reusser
4. RESOLUTION
APPOINTING BERNARD LERKEES AND TIMOTHY PIERCE TO THE ESSEX COUNTY SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD.
Clark, Tyler
HUMAN SERVICES
Monday,
January 12, 2026
Chairman – D.
Thurston Vice-Chairman - C. Reusser
NO
RESOLUTIONS
DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
Tuesday,
January 20, 2026
Chairman
– C. Barber Vice–Chairman – C. Clark
5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DEDUCT CHANGE ORDER WITH ALPINE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC., IN THE AMOUNT OF ($25,139.55) FOR THE HURRICANE ROAD OVER
SPRUCE HILL BROOK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF KEENE,
WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM BUDGETED/CULVERT NY FUNDS AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY CHAIRMAN OR COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER. Thurston, Barber
BRASSARD: Discussion? Like Mr. Mascarenas
said we normally don’t get money back so that’s a good thing. All in favor, opposed – carried.
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO BID THE
BRADFORD HILL ROAD OVER PUTNAM CREEK AND THE DOCK STREET OVER MILL BROOK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE TOWNS OF CROWN POINT AND MORIAH WITH FUNDS
TO COME FROM BRIDGE NY/BUDGETED FUNDS. Wilson, Tyler
7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT A NYSDOT ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY ACTION PLAN GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,021,250.00 FOR COUNTY ROUTE 7 (LINCOLN POND ROAD SECTION), LOCATED
IN THE TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN OR
COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE CONTACTS. Wood, Reusser
8. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTACT AMENDMENT WITH H&T
ENGINEERING, PLLC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,800.00 TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES INCLUDING FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE
PARKING LOT AND SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE REAR OF THE FORMER
PROBATION BUILDING, WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM BUDGETED FUNDS AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN OR COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
AMENDMENT. Barber, Tyler
9. RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES AND LOCATIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE DAY EVENTS FOR 2026. O’Bryan, Reusser
10. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$7,839.20 TO AKEY TRACTOR, LLC., FOR A 23 HORSEPOWER HUSQVARNA Z460 ZERO TURN
MOWER WITH 60” MOWING DECK WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM BUDGETED FUNDS AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN OR COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID PURCHASING
ORDER. Thurston, Barber
11. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO AWARD A
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $105,000.00 TO AUBERTINE AND CURRIER ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & LAND
SURVEYORS, PLLC FOR THE FORMER FRONTIER TOWN PARTIAL BUILDING RESTORATION
PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF NORTH HUDSON, WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM RESTORE
NY/BUDGETED FUNDS AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN OR COUNTY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTACT. Clark, Pierce
12. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS IN DPW CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,300,000.00 FOR THE JULY 2024 STORMS, FEMA DISASTER NUMBER 4825 (HURRICANE
DEBBIE). Barber, Reusser
13. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT INCREASING REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,501.65 - INSURANCE RECOVERY BUS #33.
Clark, Thurston
PERSONNEL
Tuesday,
January 20, 2026
Chairman
– M. Wood Vice-Chairman – C. Reusser
14. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOME RULE REQUEST FOR ACTION ADOPTION
BY NEW YORK STATE SENATE OF SENATE BILL S-8482 AND ADOPTION BY NEW YORK
ASSEMBLY OF ASSEMBLY BILL A-9098, AMENDING SUBDIVISION 10 OF NEW YORK STATE TAX
LAW §1202-S, AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF ALL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM HOTEL/MOTEL
OCCUPANCY TAX GENERATED IN ESSEX COUNTY.
Tyler, Wood with Stanley, Preston opposed.
BRASSARD: Discussion?
STANLEY: I’m still opposed to
this. Moving the 5% max take for
administrative fees up to 10% I know we can take 5% like we’re doing now but it
leaves it open for money to be taken from the occupancy tax funds which should
be spent promoting this county. The extra 5% that could be there some day in
the future I think is a huge mistake. I think some of the language could be
better in these bills for the fact that this used to be in a separate fund and
now it’s going into the general fund I’m not a huge fan of that either. There
will be future boards that need to find places to save money and this is going
to be one spot that money can come from and I wholeheartedly disagree with this
resolution.
TYLER: We’ve been discussing this
for a while now and we’ve changed the language several times and we’ve always
heard, well, some future boards can do what they wanted well, I tell you what
ROOST can do different things with it too and just to hand over $7 million
dollars over to an organization without any oversight to me is pretty crazy.
HUGHES: I’m not here to argue your point I understand what you’re
saying. My question and my thought on
this is that I think the difference that we haven’t had that we do have now is
that there are actually some recipient agreements that we now enjoy we have not
enjoyed those before so there’s actual I don’t know if you call it legal
language Mr. Manning but there is codified language that now exists between the
county as the collector and the towns as the recipients that I feel strengthens
the responsibility of where that money goes and how this board can or can not
expend of divvy up that money to the towns so I actually feel okay with this
because of those agreements that decisions of this board just can’t be made
willy-dilly because they potentially void those agreements that exit with the
towns and that just can’t be done on whim either that’s just my opinion.
PRESTON: Yes, thanks for the
opportunity to speak on this. I speak on behalf of the residents of business
owners of the hotel/motel operators in North Elba. I don’t have a problem with the 2% I think
the contracts covers us well for the 2% it’s the 3% where there is
questions. Mr. Mascarenas and Mr. Manning
have done an excellent job explaining the statutory language but in of itself
the language is vague and can be open to interpretation so, I’m requesting that
the language is a little more stronger from a statutory standpoint and that
there is more clarity. My concern is not
with this board or this administration I have confidence in that but it’s those
who will follow us. This law will far outlast all of us and I’d like everybody
to re-read that law and look at it from a point of view can be interpreted a
different way, can the occupancy tax be spent on other things than development
and tourism but that’s it, thank you.
MENSER: You talked about the
reciprocal agreements that you have with different organizations and portions
of ROOST are those in writing and are they completely legal?
MASCARENAS: Yes sir so every town
we put those in place last year a five-year contract. Mr. Manning will tell you that is as far as
we can go out in terms of the law and how that works. I think it was a good
faith effort to show intent. I certainly understand some of the board’s
reservations about future boards no board, any decision that is made today
can’t hold the future board to a rule we committed yesterday. Now a law is certainly a little more
difficult as you’ve seen there’s a process that we work through here the board
last year presented this as you see it and now it’s coming back to have another
look to say is this right? Is this what
you want? The only thing I would say in
terms of adding to that is the STR world is a little bit unknown right
now. I told you back in November that I
was fine with the 5% that we could of change that, we brought that up then,
that’s plenty for what you’re currently asking us to do now. Recent conversations that this board had as
little as a couple of weeks ago started bringing up Deckard and enforcement and
looking at standardizing laws that’s a way bigger ask, that’s a way bigger ask
so if all of a sudden a year from now I’ve got to hire seven or eight people to
run around towns looking at 2200 STR’s that’s a little different animal in
terms of how do we pay for that and how do we get that out? I’m not sure that that’s what it will come to
but those conversations have started, things evolve. We never could have
anticipated that when this law was written it would start at $1 million dollars
that’s what it was now there are several factors that lead to that we added an
additional 2% which was several million dollars but these STR’s have just
exploded and that’s where we sit at the $7.5 million dollars today as this fund
develops now the great debate is should the people that get those funds
automatically by what they take in for tax or should money be tied to
operations like we do every other so when we look at property tax, when we look
at sales tax as our main drivers of revenue, anybody who sat in budget workshops
see that we task individuals in front of us with doing the best job they can at
a cost that is responsible to the Essex County taxpayer and then we come up
with an allocation that presents that long term and I think that’s what this
law does. This law at least puts us in a position where you kind of can look at
those operations, question those operations and make decisions about the
future. Is it always going to be us
sitting in these chairs’ folks? Heck no
it’s not I agree with you wholeheartedly in terms of that and I understand
where you have concern but to assume that we are going to know better twenty
years from now than the people sitting in your chairs and my chair is probably
not appropriate.
THURSTON: I have a question in
regards to Mr. Preston’s concern about the way it’s written being vague, how do
you feel about that from a legal standpoint?
MANNING: So I’m just the scripter
I do what I’m told so, is it vague I mean there could be an interpretation that
it might have some wiggle room the counter to that would be I suppose, that
however you use these monies in the future you’re still going to have a rule
with this board and North Elba has the lion’s share of the weighted vote so if
there is some hanky-panky I should use a different word, there’s never any
hanky-panky so if North Elba should object to then they would be able to use
the power of those votes but I was asked to draft it this way I could have
drafted it many other ways. What I did use is the verbiage contained in a lot
of the laws that are already out there under §1202-S and those laws as I said
before, 75% of them just plopped it into the general fund with no strings
attached this one does say that it’s as the discretion of the board to use for
tourism development and economic development so I can do anything the board
wishes but we did draft this in August it was run through and sent to the
legislature, they have drafted the bills now it’s back on our desks to okay, if
you should change this then we have to begin the process all over.
TYLER: Yeah, we’ve discussed this and just some recent activity on the
Federal and State level no matter what you draft it’s up to interpretation and
if you’re a Democrat or a Republican you interpretate it two different ways so
we can play this game forever I still firmly believe that we need to have some
control over that money as years past we had no control and the money went to
crazy stuff, there was some things that this money was spent on in Lake Placid
that had nothing to do with tourism or any of that stuff so if you’re looking
to find a better interpretation of it that’s not vague, you’re going to be hard
pressed.
WOOD: Thank you. I agree with just about everything that has
been said here I just want us to remember that we’re all probably in our towns
working through the weeds and decisions that were made twenty years ago that
seemed absolutely appropriate at that time and don’t seem all appropriate
now. I know I’m doing that. We can’t, as Mike said, we can’t know what’s coming
along. We had a little bit of a conversation about the short-term rental this
was in our town it has become a very big deal as I think it has with most other
towns and to know that perhaps some of that extra money in the future could be
used to help the towns and the county consolidate some kind of program to
manage this I know were putting our short-term rentals on hold to see what the
county is doing. I think we just need to trust the people who will be willing
to serve here in a couple years to do this with what they can with what they
are handed. That’s basically it.
REUSSER: This legislation serves
to correct as Ms. Wood said decisions that were made many years ago, it has
stood the muster of this body and I support going forward as written. This situation with STR’s is not unfamiliar
to the gentlemen from Lake Placid but for some of us like here in Elizabethtown
is what I have is what I’ve got so unaware of what we can do about it at the
town level and does that work with the county’s so I think people are in a
state of a change but the basis of this discussion that legislation should go
forward as written.
MANNING: I just want to add one thing it does say, for the purposes of
economic development and tourism promotion so it lays those out.
MASACARENAS: Yeah so basically just so you know when it comes in the old
way, it did come into general fund just so everybody knows and then it was put
into a tourism fund that’s how we collected it all is through that. It’s really almost identical in terms of how
we are going to handle the accounting is that way, it’s going to come in to
general it’s then going to be pushed into the same fund it is today we are not
going to change account numbers, we’re not going to do any of that then it’s
going to be the first say, 60% then 3-2 going to go to ROOST minus the 5% and
then the remaining 2% is driven with the formula based on STR’s 40% and then
that is going to be pushed out to towns so we’re not changing anything in the
way we perform today that’s not going to happen.
THURSTON: I do support this simply because the way it was written before
was against county’s procurement policy so for that reason alone I support it
and against the state policy too but I do think it’s a good law, my question
for Mr. Manning was just to see if it really was truly open to interpretation
and as he pointed out everything is open to interpretation and the only thing
we can do is the best that we feel is right for Essex County and I believe this
is.
MANNING: It does say the money is
to be used for the purposes of economic development, tourism promotion so it
earmarks it for that purpose.
THURSTON: Thank you.
WILSON: Thank you. So I think the way I’ve been looking at this
there’s two important pieces of it, oversight by the county legislature, county
manager, county attorney, the treasurer’s office that’s a key piece of this
that money has got to be, we are raising it under our authority and there has
to be clear oversight but what goes hand and hand with that is that the tourism
economy is what is important here it’s not ROOST, it’s not Lake Placid it’s the
tourism economy no matter how far you are from Lake Placid you still benefit
from sales tax, it underwrites your – it reduces your property tax burden and
that’s what we should be focusing on not personalities, not you know, the
things that change very frequently we need to have a statue here that gives us
appropriate oversight and makes sure to focus on strengthening the tourism
economy and that means promote and that means doing the destination management
stuff so those are the two issues I am focused on and if Mr. Preston has
concerns about are we doing the second one I think we should listen to that
because that benefits us all directly and we need to protect that and if Mr.
Preston thinks we should table this and have this discussion about whatever
pieces you’ve identified I would be fine with that it takes time but I think
the point Ms. Wood was making about we can’t predict everything but we can do our
best fixing things we are facing.
CLARK: Well, I remember
procurement policy and we discussed that in lengthy detail and I also remember
Mr. Stanley asking the county to help with regulation on the STR’s not too long
ago and that’s going to cost something so I think going to 10% is a smart move;
bodies cost money and Mr. Mascarenas is going to have to hire somebody not one,
but many it seems like kind of a no brainer to continue this. My thoughts.
BRASSARD: Any further discussion?
STANLEY: So, everybody throws out
ROOST, ROOST money, ROOST this, ROOST that, that was the original conversation
that came with this. The original language said, the Essex County Visitors
Bureau is where we would contract with to spend this money.
THURSTON: Lake Placid Visitors Bureau.
STANLEY: Thank you. So, by saying
that that’s what the original intent of dealing with this. The other thing we all said is that we’ve
never been in control. We’ve always been in control. That’s where the money was
supposed to go but we had to sign a contract with them at any point in time we
could have not signed a contract and that money would stay with the county and
I’m going to tell you that you hold all the power and always have held all the
power. When it comes to the 10% keep in
mind when this was down to what we were talking about a million or two million
dollars of occupancy tax money at 5% that was under $100,000, now we are
talking that the county can obtain up to $750,000 now I don’t think we are
going to need seven or eight people to manage this money and when we go from 5%
to 10% the only places that money is coming out of anybody’s pocket is each
town that is contracting to get that money so we like the money that we are
getting from the occupancy tax it’s going to be cut if we go to 10%.
MANNING: Just from my point of
view and for clarity’s sake the way the law is currently written we are
mandated to give 95% of the money to ROOST.
This issue arose three or four times during our tenure here in the last
twenty years. I first brought it up and got hit on the head like a whack a mole
and I got the message don’t deal with it. I brought it up it, the second time
the same thing and the third time is where we are at now but in the interim
when it was brought up the second time I believe and Mike can correct me if I’m
wrong the contract was a compromise ROOST decided to say, okay the contract and
ask for the additional 2% was a compromise so that money could be filtered to
the county and the towns because the way the statue is written ROOST held all
the marbles 95% of that money was to go to ROOST so how could be we get any
money from ROOST and we got that money because there were negotiations and
there was a contract and I believe that was flawlessly done so I don’t think
there was any contention there but if there were, ROOST could have alleged no,
we are not giving you any money we are keeping 95% then there would be a
lawsuit then probably this would happen just to digress a little bit, there is
three components of the new law basically the first and most important is all
the money doesn’t go to ROOST it goes to the county to be used by the county
for economic development promotion of tourism those two issues and that’s in it
that’s what it is supposed to be used for so it doesn’t go to ROOST but it goes
to the county. The fact that we are asking that it go to the general fund, it
says go into the general fund to be segregated into a separate fund for tourism
and economic development that’s what the original law said except it was goofy
in that it said, to be deposited into the treasury to be in a segregated
account so it’s the same thing except I used the word, general fund because
that’s what is almost ambiguously used throughout all the other 62 counties in
that legislation general fund. A note I
want to just make is in many, many of them they are just put in the general
fund they didn’t say it had to be used for tourism, they are not to be used for
anything it said it can be used for anyone a great majority of them so I think
this is a good compromise the money goes into the general fund to be put into a
special tourism promotion, development and economic fund to be used it says, to
be used for the purposes of economic development tourism and promotion so
that’s solid and then the county does has the digression on how that’s used but
it’s my understanding and personal opinion that ROOST is doing a good job, they
are well embedded in the communities, they know the players, they know where to
get their money, they know where the problems are, they’ve got the
infrastructure I don’t see anything happening to ROOST honestly the only thing
I ever see that might happen is let’s say STR’s hit the road and we never see
them again, highly unlikely, your revenues are going to go down so then you’re
going to have to make some determinations on how you’re going use those
revenues from ROOST and ROOST likewise is going to have to make some
determinations as well if we’re going from $7.5 million to $2 million there’s
going to have to be some. Conversely on
the other end of the spectrum if you’re going to or STR’s balloon or for some
reason we increase the tax and you’re getting $25 million dollars a year then
of course you’re not going to give $25 million dollars to ROOST because they
don’t need $25 million dollars, you’re also going to budget, you’ll consider it
and we’ll give them their money then you’ll use the rest of that money for
tourism and promotion elsewhere or you may say to ROOST off shoot, whatever
here’s some more money for doing this specific project.
TYLER: Real quick, I will just let
you know where my frustrations lie. When
I first came on this board ten years ago I was told by county leadership we
can’t get a budget from ROOST so I called up over there and said let us see a
budget well, you should have seen the show I saw there and I never saw a budget
well, they send you something they send you bits and pieces. I never knew what
the salaries were going to be over there or anything and this county board
didn’t know that either so I think this is a good thing that would bring things
out in the open and we have more control just like all the other committees we
deal with so to rehash this and keep going back when we already have it done –
I think it’s a great plan that Dan has drawn up and we should move ahead. Thank
you.
BRASSARD: Any further discussion?
STANLEY: One last thing, I’m not
going to disagree with the language of the removing of the Lake Placid Essex
County Visitors Bureau should have come out of that language in that law. I’m
not disagreeing with that at all. We sit here and say that we went a round
about way of giving money back to the towns, it wasn’t a round about way. It was a contract with ROOST to give money to
the towns because the laws says the county shall contract with the Lake Placid
Essex County Visitors Bureau for the expenditure of net revenues. That’s
exactly what we did. Now, removing their name out of the law I’m in full
support of that because we should be able to say who we want to contract. I’m just saying we don’t need to make the other
changes to the law because it doesn’t affect anything other than changing the
way that things are now.
BRASSARD: Thank you. We have a
motion and a second?
GARRISON: Yes.
BRASSARD: Okay all in favor, aye, opposed – Mr. Stanley and Mr. Preston
are opposed.
15. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT
OF SENATE BILL S-6956 AND ASSEMBLY BILL A-8720 INCREASING THE EARNING
LIMITATIONS FOR RETIRED PERSONS IN THE POSITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE FROM ITS
CURRENT $35,000 LIMIT TO $50,000. Wood,
Lamphear
FINANCE/TAX
REDUCTION/MANDATE RELIEF
Tuesday,
January 20, 2026
Chairman – I.
Tyler Vice-Chairman – JP. Wilson
16.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTING OF
MONIES RECEIVED AND DISBURSED BY THE ESSEX COUNTY CLERK IN 2025; SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY LAW 406. Hughes, Wilson
MISCELLANEOUS
17. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING LONG TERM EMPLOYEES FOR THE MONTH OF
FEBRUARY. Brassard, unanimous
BRASSARD: And we have one from the floor Judy?
GARRISON: Yes, there is a copy on everyone’s desk.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TO APPOINT TWO MEMBERS OF THE ESSEX
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE LAND
BANK CORPORATION IN ESSEX COUNTY. Stanley, Hughes
BRASSARD: All in favor, opposed – carried. Anything else from the floor?
MANNING: I have just one thing from the floor. As many of you know my confidential secretary
administrative assistant Anne Maher will be retiring on the first of January so
I would like to ask a resolution of congratulations and appreciation to Anne E.
Maher upon her retirement of service with the Essex County Attorney’s
office. Anne has been and indispensable
part of our team up there for well over 27 years she hasn’t held any different
positions other than the County Attorney’s office and she been invaluable.
She’s been probably the lead on the tax foreclosure proceedings of all the
things we need to do, contracts, resolutions, purposing, scheduling and
basically insuring the efficient operation of the County Attorney’s office
regardless of what I had down.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS AND APPRECIATION TO ANNE E. MAHER
UPON HER RETIREMENT OF SERVICE WITH THE ESSEX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. Tyler, unanimous
MANNING: Okay if there are no other resolutions I would like to go into a
brief executive session to discuss legal advice with respect on how we’re going
to handle or continue to handle or the handling of back taxes with the respect
to purchases or transfers to landbanks and/or towns and municipalities.
BRASSARD: Motion by Mr. Tyler,
second by Mr. Barber. It is 10:36 a.m.
we are in executive session.
MASCARENAS: We would like to invite the Real Property Director and the
County Treasurer please.
THE COMMITTEE MOVED INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:36 A.M. TO DISCUSS
THE HANDLING OF BACK TAXES WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASES OR TRANSFERS TO LANDBANKS
AND/OR TOWNS OR MUNICIPALITIES
AND MOVED BACK INTO OPEN SESSION
AT 11:13 A.M.
BRASSARD: It’s 11:13 a.m. we are
out of executive session. No decisions
were made. Anything to come before the ways and means before we adjourn?
FALLOS: This is an idea we’ve been discussing in Wilmington for a few
years and I just want to bring to the whole board’s attention I didn’t think it
made sense to bring it up when we were discussing the occupancy tax law but at
some point the board may want to consider extending that occupancy tax to all
the campsite preservations that would be helpful for Wilmington and I think it
would be helpful for the County.
BRASSARD: Very good. It is something to look into definitely. 100% Anything else to move before the board?
HUGHES: There is a low- and medium-income housing task force we will
start in five minutes.
BRASSARD: If nothing else, we are adjourned.
As there was no further
discussion to come before this ways and means committee it was adjourned at
11:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Garrison, Clerk
Board of Supervisors