Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Honeoye Falls trustees approve Local Law No. 2, rescinding prior levy-override
Summary
The Village of Honeoye Falls Board of Trustees adopted Local Law No. 2 on April 7, 2026, repealing Local Law No. 1 and removing the village's override of the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law 3‑c; the motion passed unanimously.
Get email alerts on the Local Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Honeoye Falls, N.Y. — The Village of Honeoye Falls Board of Trustees adopted Local Law No. 2 of 2026 during its April 7 meeting, a measure that repeals Local Law No. 1 of 2026 and removes the village’s override of the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law 3‑c.
The public hearing on the proposal opened at 6:00 p.m., and Clerk‑Treasurer Kerry Hoffman read the published notice outlining the change: "PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that there has been presented to the Board of Trustees ... a local law which is proposed to repeal LL#1 2026 and repeal the override of the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law 3‑c." Trustee Dan Harris moved to keep the hearing open briefly and Trustee Will Wagner seconded; that procedural motion carried unanimously.
After briefly keeping the hearing open and then closing it at 6:11 p.m., Trustee Virginia Floss moved to approve Local Law No. 2, Trustee Dan Harris seconded, and the board voted AYE (Mayor Milne, Trustees Harris, Floss and Wagner). The meeting minutes record the motion as carried and the local law adopted.
The law’s text and the public notice were available at the Village Office, according to documents read into the record. The meeting minutes do not record additional public commentary about the substance of the law; the transcript records the statutory reference to General Municipal Law 3‑c but does not include further legal analysis in the discussion.
The board proceeded immediately to the budget public hearing following the local‑law vote and took no additional action on Local Law No. 2 at that meeting.
