RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING FEE SCHEDULE

The second RESOLVED clause makes the new tiered fee schedule 'effective retroactive to the beginning of this winter season,' and the third RESOLVED clause directs the Clerk to amend invoices already issued. Invoices previously issued were presumably calculated under the flat fee structure adopted by Resolution 46-2025 (December 8, 2025). Retroactively changing the amount owed on completed enforcement actions raises questions about whether property owners had adequate notice of the penalty structure at the time of their violation, and whether retroactive revision of already-issued invoices is within the Board's authority. Consider whether Village Code §165-4's authorization to 'charge the expense thereof against the property owner in the next tax assessment' limits the Village to charging the fee in effect at the time the Village performed the work, and whether counsel should review the due-process and statutory authority questions before the Clerk amends any outstanding invoices.

Resolution 46-2025 (December 8, 2025) established a flat fee structure by resolution; this resolution modifies it by adding an escalating offense-based tier. Where a fee schedule functions less as cost-recovery and more as a punitive escalating penalty (i.e., the third-offense rate is double the first-offense rate regardless of actual cost of service), it may more closely resemble a fine or civil penalty. Under Municipal Home Rule Law §10, villages may adopt local laws imposing fines and penalties, but a board resolution may not be the appropriate vehicle if the charge exceeds actual cost recovery. Consider whether counsel should evaluate whether the tiered structure requires enactment by local law rather than resolution, and whether Village Code §165-1 and §165-4 expressly authorize a graduated penalty structure.

WHEREAS clause 3 recites that Resolution 46-2025 (adopted December 8, 2025) set a flat fee of $4/linear foot and $1/linear foot for salting. The current resolution replaces that fee schedule with a tiered structure in which first-offense rates are lower than the rates set by 46-2025. The resolution does not formally recite that Resolution 46-2025 is rescinded or superseded. Depending on how Village Code and board rules treat conflicting resolutions, an express recission or amendment of 46-2025 may be needed to avoid ambiguity about which fee schedule applies. Consider whether the resolution text should include an explicit clause rescinding Resolution 46-2025, and whether the retroactive effective date interacts with the December 8 adoption date of 46-2025 in a way that creates a gap or overlap.

Village Code §165-4 directs that the expense be 'charged against the property owner in the next tax assessment.' Special assessments in New York villages can carry procedural prerequisites (notice, hearing, opportunity to object) depending on their nature and amount. Where retroactively revised invoices are subsequently converted into tax assessments, affected property owners may not have had an opportunity to contest the revised amount before it becomes a lien. Consider whether Village Law provisions governing special assessments require any notice or hearing process before amended invoices are certified to the tax roll, and whether counsel should advise on this point.

The third RESOLVED clause directs the Clerk to 'amend any invoices that have been issued to date' but does not specify: (a) which season-to-date enforcement actions are affected; (b) whether a first-offense invoice issued under the prior flat $4/linear foot rate should now be reduced to $2/linear foot; (c) what happens to any invoices already certified or pending certification to the tax roll. The absence of implementing criteria may place the Clerk in the position of making discretionary determinations that belong to the Board. Consider whether a supplemental administrative directive or further board resolution should specify the scope and methodology for invoice amendments.

The procedural record confirms mover (Maccarini), seconder (Smith), and unanimous vote, which satisfies basic Robert's Rules requirements. However, for a resolution that modifies previously issued invoices retroactively, a more robust record of the Board's reasoning — particularly regarding the retroactive date and its fiscal and legal rationale — would strengthen the resolution's defensibility if challenged. Consider whether meeting minutes should reflect any discussion of the legal basis for retroactivity and the expected fiscal impact of downward-revising first-offense invoices already issued under Resolution 46-2025.