Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Resolutions And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewis County board approves consent packet including $2.5M in claims, special prosecutor and composting pilot
Summary
The board approved a consent packet of resolutions and several separately pulled measures: auditing claims totaling $2,499,646.21; a special prosecutor agreement for an upcoming trial; a composting pilot contract award; and resolutions opposing expanded NYPA authority and urging the governor to oppose the HEAT Act.
The Lewis County Board of Legislators approved a consent packet of resolutions and voted on several separately pulled measures during its meeting.
The board audited and allowed claims totaling $2,499,646.21 (resolution 83). A legislator noted a conflict of interest and recused themself before the roll call; the motion passed on a recorded vote with one abstention noted in the transcript. The board also approved a special‑prosecutor legal services agreement for a single case (resolution 86) after staff explained the District Attorney’s trial schedule required outside assignment.
Other actions approved in separate roll calls included: - A resolution opposing legislation that would grant the New York Power Authority additional authority to own renewable energy projects in the state (resolution 90). Board members discussed circulating the resolution to towns and other municipalities for signature. - A resolution urging the governor to oppose the New York HEAT Act during the 2025 budget process (resolution 91). - A resolution awarding a contract to Dela Terra LLC for a Lewis County composting pilot project (resolution 93); board members discussed outreach to potential food‑pickup partners such as grocery stores and restaurants. - A resolution authorizing amended distribution amounts under a New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services grant (resolution 94); a legislator recused themself because part of the grant is allocated to assigned counsel whom they oversee.
A separate compensation plan amendment to create a codes‑office position (resolution 84) prompted debate; some legislators said they did not want to increase county headcount and voted against creation of a permanent new position, while others supported a short‑term addition if an external candidate were required. That resolution passed after recorded votes and recorded opposition.
The items the board pulled for separate votes were discussed individually before being approved. The meeting concluded with a motion to enter executive session on potential personnel action.
Ending: The board completed its agenda items and moved to executive session for a personnel matter; no final personnel action was reported in the public portion of the meeting.
