RESOLUTION TO RESET PUBLIC HEARING FOR FIRE COMPANY AGREEMENT

The WHEREAS clauses acknowledge that the original April 24, 2025 hearing lacked adequate public notice, and the resolution directs the Village Clerk to publish notice in the 'Village Newspaper.' Village Law §4-412(9)(b) governs public hearings for fire service contracts with incorporated fire companies, but the corpus provided does not include the full text of that subdivision. Consider having counsel confirm: (1) the precise advance-notice period required (e.g., number of days before the hearing), (2) whether publication in the 'Village Newspaper' is the sole or a sufficient notice vehicle, and (3) whether any additional posting or mailing requirements apply. Failure to comply precisely with statutory notice requirements for the rescheduled hearing could reproduce the original defect.

The resolution reschedules the hearing but does not explicitly address what, if anything, occurred at or as a result of the April 24 hearing that was improperly noticed. If any votes or actions were taken at or following the April 24 hearing in reliance on a hearing that did not meet the statutory requirement, those actions may be of questionable validity. Village Law §4-412(9)(b) makes the public hearing a prerequisite to contracting for fire services; consider whether counsel should confirm that no downstream steps were taken that would need to be unwound.

General Municipal Law §103 generally requires competitive bidding for municipal contracts above statutory thresholds. Contracts for fire protection services with incorporated fire companies have sometimes been treated as exempt from competitive bidding on the grounds that they involve a unique public safety function, but this is fact-specific. Consider having counsel confirm whether the contemplated Red Hook Fire Company Agreement requires a bid process or falls within a recognized exemption, to avoid any future challenge under GML §51.

The RESOLVED clause directs the Village Clerk to 'publish notice in the Village Newspaper' but does not state a deadline for publication or the required lead time. If Village Law §4-412(9)(b) or the Village's own procedural rules require notice a specific number of days before the hearing (e.g., five or ten days), the omission of a publication deadline in the resolution creates a risk that the Clerk may publish too late. A supplemental directive or a follow-up confirmation that notice was timely published should be documented in the Board minutes.

WHEREAS clause 3 states only that the hearing 'was not adequately public noticed' without specifying the defect (e.g., insufficient lead time, wrong publication, failure to post). A more specific finding in the record would help demonstrate that the Board understood and corrected the precise deficiency, and would provide a cleaner record if the validity of the eventual agreement is ever challenged. This is a record-keeping consideration rather than a legal defect in the rescheduling resolution itself.