[9:51] [Music]

[11:09] around this

[11:14] all right i'd like to false awards

[11:15] legacy council committee meeting for

[11:17] monday february 7th 2022

[11:20] the first uh committee of public safety

[11:23] so i'd like to call the public safety

[11:24] committee to order we have one agenda

[11:26] item that is the 2022 new york state

[11:29] stock dwi plan grant and i'll be

[11:31] presented by

[11:33] ac

[11:34] good evening everybody

[11:36] here before for acceptance of our new

[11:38] york state uwi uh enforcement grant it's

[11:40] an annual grant we get based upon a

[11:42] formula the state uses please don't ask

[11:44] me a question about the foremost i

[11:45] really don't know they they notify us

[11:47] each year also do special enforcement so

[11:49] it's obviously very serious these are

[11:51] bad portions that go out there as well

[11:53] as they have a um

[11:55] this right here

[11:57] high visibility controls which are

[11:59] important because those are ones that we

[12:00] do around

[12:01] super bowl sunday so far holidays

[12:03] certain holidays just to try to minimize

[12:06] any people that might be you know

[12:07] drinking and trying it so

[12:10] hook up two different categories sixteen

[12:12] thousand thirty eye controls and the

[12:14] rest for high visibility so

[12:16] any questions potentially

[12:18] any questions from our council members

[12:27] is there any other business to fall

[12:28] before the public safety committee

[12:31] if not i'm getting a motion to adjourn

[12:34] so

[12:34] second how's your favorite

[12:51] sorry about that working together i'd

[12:53] like to call to order city development

[12:54] and planning we have 12 items on the

[12:56] agenda the first item is uh release of

[12:58] easement mayor mccarthy

[13:01] thank you madam president uh first item

[13:04] deals with uh

[13:06] commonly referred to as the wedgeway

[13:08] building it's been a point of

[13:10] controversy for a number of uh

[13:13] years

[13:14] and uh

[13:16] the team at metroplex has been working

[13:18] on a number of scenarios

[13:20] and there is a easement that really has

[13:23] been uh so

[13:25] for all practical purposes no longer

[13:27] needed

[13:28] their city has now turn over to ray

[13:30] gillin

[13:31] to go into some of the details would you

[13:34] like to come up here sure

[13:36] see you on camera

[13:37] that's good i have a face for radio

[13:39] though

[13:41] thank you

[13:42] we're trying to position the wedgeway

[13:43] building for development we've had a

[13:45] great step forward with the city

[13:47] historic commission

[13:48] enthusiastically and unanimously move

[13:51] forward to the state historic office a

[13:53] recommendation that'd be listed on the

[13:54] state historic register

[13:56] the mayor was advocating for that and

[13:59] it's going to be on considerable

[14:01] placement on the historic register by

[14:03] the state on march 10th

[14:04] so that was an important step to ready

[14:06] the building for development

[14:08] tonight we're asking your support for

[14:10] another important step is there there's

[14:11] an easement on the building that dates

[14:14] back to 1928

[14:16] on the little parking area next to the

[14:17] building

[14:19] and um we've worked with colvin chris

[14:21] wallin the mayor

[14:23] it's no longer needed by the city

[14:25] literally dates 1928.

[14:27] uh we need to clean it up because anyone

[14:29] who wants to come in and redevelop this

[14:30] building

[14:31] the bank will say oh what about this

[14:33] easement if they'll cause this problem

[14:35] so the city no longer needs it there are

[14:37] no city utilities in the easement when

[14:40] every boulevard got built all utilities

[14:42] underneath the road are new so there's

[14:44] no need for this easement

[14:46] and getting rid of it

[14:48] it's another step small step but very

[14:50] important step to redeveloping

[14:52] the wedgeway building at the cornerstone

[14:54] year

[14:56] any questions

[15:00] it's not nothing to say a motion

[15:02] second all those in favor aye aye

[15:05] thank you all right thank you

[15:08] next item on the agenda is to authorize

[15:10] the mayor to enter supplemental

[15:12] agreement number one in the new york

[15:13] state department of conversation for the

[15:15] pedestrian safety action plan mr wallace

[15:32] so this is a supplemental agreement we

[15:34] actually uh passed this as a

[15:37] committee

[15:38] about two cycles ago however there was

[15:40] an error with it and we thought it would

[15:42] be easier just to redo it again the

[15:45] error was is that the

[15:47] city share the local share was not

[15:49] included on the draft that i had

[15:52] so if you were to turn to

[15:54] um i don't know how to say page three

[15:57] of the handout there is a local pair

[15:59] um it looks like this yep the back right

[16:02] here

[16:03] um where it says 100 nps that's 6 16 8

[16:06] 49 that is a local share that we're

[16:10] going to be uh

[16:12] splitting with metroplex as we move

[16:13] forward

[16:14] as this project the psat is also

[16:16] involved with

[16:18] the city turning j street two-way

[16:21] by the post office and doing some other

[16:23] things that were outside the scope but

[16:24] we thought it would be better to do the

[16:26] project than one

[16:27] so we're going to be doing

[16:29] the federal project as one project

[16:31] trying to accomplish some goals and now

[16:33] that's reflected on

[16:36] so

[16:37] this wasn't on the report so we've

[16:38] already identified where this ship will

[16:39] be in the budget we've already budgeted

[16:41] yes yep this is we're using for this

[16:43] money so every year we either use chips

[16:45] money which is a state allocation or we

[16:47] use road improvement money which was in

[16:49] the budget so we use a combination of

[16:51] that to do these type of infrastructure

[16:52] projects so there is no new budgeted

[16:55] items needed to go this was already

[16:56] incorporated into a bunch of things do

[16:58] you know what um what percentage the

[16:59] metroplex would pay yeah i believe there

[17:01] are around 200 000 of this i have to

[17:03] check up there for the for the j-street

[17:05] portion of it i've been working with

[17:06] jamie on that

[17:08] okay okay other questions council

[17:10] members

[17:12] all right it's not possible to entertain

[17:14] a motion

[17:15] second almost in

[17:16] favor okay the next time is to authorize

[17:20] the issuance of a revocable permit

[17:21] number 664 to j3 properties llc

[17:25] so this is

[17:28] a revocable permit 132 gay streak which

[17:32] you will see a picture of here

[17:35] open

[17:36] the door

[17:39] it is for a

[17:42] awning

[17:42] on the awning type in there before

[17:44] they'd like to

[17:46] [Music]

[17:55] are there any questions

[17:58] second

[18:04] the next item on the agenda is uh to

[18:06] declare the city council as lead agency

[18:09] for a seeker state and golf course at

[18:11] rio p jackson

[18:13] dia

[18:15] and mr epstein

[18:18] good evening everyone um the department

[18:21] of development received a request from

[18:22] spinel properties to change the zoning

[18:24] of two parcels

[18:26] from our free multi-family residential

[18:28] to the c5 business history

[18:31] um this has this this site includes

[18:33] approximately 54.6 acres that live

[18:36] within the city and it has another 62

[18:39] acres that are in the town of rotterdam

[18:41] so it splits between the two

[18:42] municipalities

[18:44] the proposed

[18:46] zoning change from the current zoning in

[18:49] the cities portion is from r3 to the c5

[18:52] and this allows for various uses um 64

[18:55] different uses that are defined in the

[18:57] code i think we gave you some

[18:59] information about what those potential

[19:00] uses could be

[19:04] and the the directly adjacent um to the

[19:07] parcels here is the r3 multi-family the

[19:10] r1 single family

[19:12] and r101 family residential within the

[19:14] town of rotterdam

[19:16] there hasn't been a specific use

[19:18] identified for the property

[19:22] and access to the site is made via

[19:24] jackson avenue which is a residential

[19:25] street um that begins on the corner of

[19:27] lawton albany street

[19:29] so this is really it's on here for

[19:31] discussion

[19:32] we

[19:33] understand that this could open up a

[19:35] potential for a variety of retail and

[19:37] office uses has the potential to

[19:39] increase the tax revenue and local

[19:41] employment in the city and it could be a

[19:43] catalyst for the revitalization in the

[19:45] woodlawn neighborhood

[19:46] but we also need to be you know

[19:49] able to effectively evaluate the

[19:51] proposal

[19:52] based on

[19:54] the the intended use

[19:56] so our recommendation is to just we

[19:58] wanted to bring this forward

[20:00] and

[20:01] start the discussion but we also

[20:04] understand that more information might

[20:06] be needed before an action is taken

[20:10] president

[20:11] internal discussions we thought that

[20:13] bringing to the council

[20:15] again for review and the council at some

[20:18] point would have to deal with a zoning

[20:19] change one way or the other but the

[20:22] normal pro

[20:23] process would the council refer to the

[20:25] planning commission the planning

[20:26] commission

[20:27] reviews it sends back a recommendation

[20:30] to

[20:31] the council and then the council can act

[20:35] but is in no means bound by what the

[20:38] planning commission has recommended this

[20:41] was the uh his outline that there's

[20:43] still a lot of questions about

[20:46] this proposal

[20:50] and

[20:51] i think probably at this point the best

[20:54] way would you work with mr coldin

[20:56] and if you're so inclined and the rest

[20:58] of the council selling client would be

[21:00] to draft a letter or some correspondence

[21:04] with the proposed developer

[21:06] outlining uh some of the areas where

[21:09] we'd like more information

[21:12] work with them to put that information

[21:13] together and then to be able to come

[21:15] back with a

[21:16] firmer proposal and again the

[21:19] first step would be

[21:20] doing

[21:21] a lead agency for seeker but that also

[21:24] trips an eis

[21:26] review

[21:28] which

[21:29] there's a lot of questions on that

[21:31] traffic

[21:32] uh water and sewer

[21:35] uh other environmental issues that would

[21:37] come up that are still

[21:39] very vague in this in under the c5

[21:42] proposal i personally feel that it opens

[21:45] up too many options

[21:47] that

[21:48] would have negative

[21:50] connotations

[21:52] for

[21:53] some of the adjacent property owners in

[21:55] that area of the city as a whole an

[21:58] absent that being able to be narrowed

[22:00] down into something that i think would

[22:02] be more acceptable

[22:03] uh i think we should just move in a

[22:05] slower manner and a little bit more

[22:07] cautiously approach it

[22:09] i have to i tend to agree with that i

[22:11] didn't look through all the information

[22:12] that was sent and there is no specific

[22:14] use at this point and we actually talked

[22:16] about this in the pmc a couple of weeks

[22:18] ago and in order to actually move it to

[22:20] the planning committee they need to know

[22:21] what's being planned and that is not has

[22:23] not been outlined in here so i would

[22:25] have to agree that we would um to send a

[22:27] letter to you know

[22:28] to ask for additional information

[22:30] um i think that would be uh we want to

[22:32] go cautiously

[22:34] rather than move forward in direction

[22:36] that we then can't um you know retract

[22:38] uh something and at this point in time

[22:40] the neighborhood also i've heard from

[22:42] the neighborhood that they have concerns

[22:44] about what's going to be there so we

[22:45] need to be able to be in a position to

[22:46] be very specific and answering to our

[22:48] residents to say what's going to happen

[22:50] in that particular neighborhood and we

[22:52] don't have that at this point in time so

[22:54] i think we definitely should um do that

[22:56] but i i welcome certainly uh input from

[22:58] other council members and their views on

[23:00] this

[23:02] mr um

[23:04] no no i i have to agree with you

[23:06] i both uh

[23:07] party and doing this let's hold it let's

[23:09] get all information together before we

[23:10] do anything

[23:12] because i want to mention the

[23:13] neighborhood and the resident needs to

[23:15] know

[23:15] what is the intended use

[23:17] and what is going to be placed there

[23:20] we just can't disapprove something we

[23:21] have to have a blanket uh

[23:24] you know and then all of a sudden uh

[23:26] things are being built there and we have

[23:28] no say and control what is going there

[23:31] so i agree with that

[23:32] anyone else

[23:35] so what we'll do with this agenda item

[23:37] and we don't have to move anything and

[23:38] actually the other two that come after

[23:39] it

[23:40] we wouldn't have to do anything we just

[23:41] um put together the letter to send to

[23:43] the developer asking outlining the

[23:45] questions that we have regarding this i

[23:47] don't know if other council members had

[23:48] an opportunity to look through because

[23:49] there was a lot of information that was

[23:51] provided but take the opportunity to

[23:53] look through any questions that you want

[23:54] to have answered we can make sure we um

[23:57] put forth in that letter so a

[24:00] question just so are we going to are we

[24:02] going to i'm as put but you put that

[24:04] letter together are we going to talk

[24:06] with the residents of the area to see if

[24:08] they have any questions that they wanted

[24:09] to get answered specifically from my my

[24:12] understanding is that there is a meeting

[24:14] with they've called the neighborhood

[24:16] meeting on march 2nd

[24:17] and they want questions answered which

[24:19] we don't have answers to right now so

[24:21] between now and then maybe we will have

[24:23] answers but i still think we should you

[24:24] know we would they would go home with

[24:26] their meeting and appear invited

[24:28] we would be there um and that's a good

[24:30] actually a good point to say any

[24:32] questions that they have maybe and we

[24:33] can format in the letter um so now this

[24:36] is the public document um they should be

[24:37] able to review it as well

[24:39] and president mr cohen thank you um

[24:43] one of the things that we had an

[24:46] opportunity to speak obviously with mrs

[24:48] mrofstein and other folks in development

[24:50] as well as marion mccarthy

[24:53] we really need to take a look at what

[24:54] the most intensive use of

[24:56] the proper with the most intensive use

[24:59] under the proposed zoning change would be

[25:01] um and see how that corresponds with you

[25:04] know not just a comprehensive plan uh

[25:06] that the city has but also uh as missy

[25:09] mentioned um and mayor mccarthy

[25:10] mentioned the um the environmental

[25:12] impact um there are certain things that

[25:15] were submitted in the application that

[25:17] you know it's obviously a really good

[25:18] step forward in terms of what was

[25:20] submitted but there's some follow-up

[25:21] that's needed as you indicated um so mr

[25:25] and i we're going to

[25:27] kind of

[25:28] chat tomorrow about recommendations for

[25:31] the city council because the city

[25:32] council at some point would act as lead

[25:34] agency

[25:36] for

[25:37] follow-up with the developer

[25:40] and we did provide some of those notes

[25:45] all right well so then we'll just be

[25:46] working with corporation capital and the

[25:47] department of developers formulate that

[25:49] left

[25:51] thank you thank you very much and so

[25:53] that means the other two items on the

[25:54] agenda which are also related to this we

[25:56] will not be taking any action on those

[25:58] either

[25:59] all right

[26:00] okay i think i think you do have another

[26:03] one thank you

[26:04] so um so we're skipping right to

[26:07] item number eight um

[26:14] just a reminder for the public hearing

[26:16] on the south at barrett uh

[26:19] which will be february 14th january 14th

[26:22] yeah absolutely

[26:24] okay and the next item is jerry barrell

[26:27] harp funding allocation in here

[26:30] um so we've got a rebuilding plan

[26:32] underway for a splash pad area

[26:34] basketball court including improvements

[26:36] in jerry brooke park

[26:38] outreach for the development of the plan

[26:41] indicated that lighting was a priority

[26:43] for area residents to increase the

[26:44] visibility and safety

[26:46] but the lighting is currently outside of

[26:48] the budget that we have for the park so

[26:51] we did um we did propose an application

[26:54] as part of the arc of funding and it was

[26:56] for 120 000

[26:58] members to install student internal

[27:00] lighting to complement the current

[27:02] redevelopment of the park

[27:04] um

[27:05] so we are asking just because of the

[27:07] timeline of the project

[27:09] um we're kind of in the design phase now

[27:12] and we're hoping to move to construction

[27:14] you know by the summer um so we are we were requesting that we could

[27:19] utilize

[27:20] um

[27:21] the funding from the american rescue

[27:24] plan to

[27:26] supplement the current grant we have to

[27:29] uh to move the

[27:31] project

[27:33] all forward

[27:33] could you tell us a little bit more

[27:34] about the practical world and others so

[27:36] there's going to be about four hundred

[27:38] thousand advantages that would be

[27:39] additional 120. correct so could you

[27:40] just kind of give a quick overview of

[27:42] what the

[27:43] yeah so um so the park improvements it

[27:46] was initiated by a grant that was

[27:48] proposed to the office of parks and

[27:50] historic preservation so it's a state

[27:52] grant that we have for 205 000

[27:55] we also have supplemental funding which

[27:57] we're going to put forward to accept

[27:59] from the county for 200 000

[28:01] um and then the lighting um is kind of

[28:04] in addition to that

[28:06] um so it was something that we we hoped

[28:08] we could move forward through arpa um

[28:10] but i know that that process is still

[28:12] being determined um but we're just

[28:14] bringing it forward um with the

[28:16] understanding that it's a project that's

[28:18] underway and it's something that we're

[28:19] trying to get done this year

[28:21] um and so that was really where the

[28:23] request came from

[28:27] so um

[28:28] my first concern was um my first thought

[28:30] was looking at this is that we you know

[28:32] we said we're developing a plan we put

[28:34] out applications et cetera but now we're

[28:36] starting to spend down when at the last

[28:38] meeting uh mr ferrari said we were 12

[28:40] million at that time so i do have

[28:43] concerns that you know that we're

[28:44] spending down and when we get through

[28:45] our process where we're actually

[28:47] um going to be

[28:49] looking at applications and funding

[28:50] applications we're spending down

[28:52] spending out and it's less money it

[28:53] seems like most of the money is gone um

[28:56] to city projects the other question i

[28:58] have for you actually is that um

[29:00] so this is street lighting that we're

[29:02] talking about and it's also internal to

[29:04] the park so around the court and

[29:07] along some of the pathways that are

[29:09] internal to the park so my question

[29:11] would be why wouldn't this um qualify

[29:13] for smart cities since its lighting and

[29:16] part of the smart city lighting is

[29:17] putting leds around why this isn't

[29:20] something that we could be we could out

[29:21] um from that

[29:24] it's we could look at that again most of

[29:27] the one has been on actual streets

[29:30] uh in the fixtures going

[29:33] uh on the conversion of the coker

[29:35] headlights then most of the money we've

[29:37] spent more recently

[29:40] is

[29:40] in lane fiber so that we have the

[29:43] network to connect these devices and

[29:46] sensors

[29:47] so i mean there's we set aside a few

[29:51] million so is there a 120 dollars that

[29:53] we i know that we did part uh lights in

[29:55] hill horse park so to me it makes sense

[29:58] if we're if we're doing

[30:00] smart uh city lighting all over the city

[30:02] that this is just something that just

[30:03] makes sense that we would and this is

[30:05] lighting that we would be able to um use

[30:07] those funds as opposed to um using our

[30:10] phones

[30:11] so

[30:12] you know that's that's my thought that

[30:14] we would try to use some of that fun and

[30:16] these lights that were not my

[30:18] understanding is that they would just be

[30:19] standard fixtures and not have any of

[30:22] the

[30:24] acoustic or

[30:26] optical sensors

[30:28] on them

[30:29] so

[30:30] are you saying that in that case that

[30:32] funding can't be spent

[30:34] i'd saying it can't be spent but it's

[30:36] not under the area where we're going to

[30:38] get the most impact out of those dollars

[30:42] but if it's possible because you know

[30:44] again i know there's led lights that

[30:46] have been already you know put in part

[30:47] of the city without the analyticals as

[30:49] part of it and it just to me um makes

[30:52] sense that we would you know use smart

[30:54] city

[30:55] funding for this and not continue to

[30:57] spend down on the argos so

[30:59] all the leds that we put in

[31:02] are part of the mesh network

[31:04] for the national grid

[31:07] that

[31:08] part of the package this type of

[31:10] lighting would not

[31:11] [Music]

[31:13] be part of that but

[31:17] i'd like to know the cost differential

[31:19] between having the standard kind of

[31:21] lighting that we would be putting into

[31:22] parks

[31:23] versus the lighting that we

[31:27] are the led sensor lighting lights that

[31:30] we're putting in

[31:31] i don't know if we can price these for

[31:34] any of those fixtures

[31:36] uh

[31:38] you know and sometimes it has to do with

[31:40] just i think the electrical connection

[31:42] like to where the lighting is going

[31:43] that's what a lot of the cost tends to

[31:45] be

[31:46] you know i would say for jerry grill

[31:48] since they're internal to the park you

[31:49] have to get the power there

[31:51] and that's going to be some of your

[31:52] costs and then of course the fixtures as

[31:54] well

[31:55] but right now it's not we haven't moved

[31:58] forward we don't have the design yet

[32:00] because you know we're waiting to see

[32:02] where we can um

[32:03] get the funding from but um

[32:07] but yeah i understand that there's a

[32:09] lot of decisions that are you know

[32:12] in front of everyone and

[32:13] we're just trying to do our best to

[32:16] you know pair things

[32:18] um most effectively so

[32:21] i guess i'm just trying to do you think

[32:23] that it would be more than 120 000

[32:26] to move from the standard lighting

[32:28] to the smart cities lighting

[32:31] i don't know i i'm not sure

[32:34] um the estimate came from you know the

[32:36] design team as like a

[32:38] just a general estimate we didn't

[32:40] anticipate we would exceed that amount

[32:42] yeah um

[32:43] but but again it's not fully designed

[32:45] because

[32:46] yeah so but we could that's something we

[32:48] could we could look into and

[32:50] you know

[32:51] see what that difference is

[32:54] mr toro good evening thank you

[32:57] um my concern is um you know by the time

[33:00] we get our committee in in place um it's

[33:02] gonna be maybe past summer i don't know

[33:05] but it's well it's it's gonna be a

[33:07] process and here you know the kids are

[33:09] going to be out residents are going to

[33:11] be out in the park with no lighting and

[33:12] it's something that needs to move

[33:13] forward and move ahead so that that's my

[33:16] only concern

[33:17] no i i share that i just i'm just

[33:19] talking about where the funding can come

[33:20] from right i mean to come now right

[33:26] yes mrs williams uh so mr can you just

[33:28] confirm was there a formal

[33:30] request fund for this project submitted

[33:32] prior to the end of the deadline yes

[33:34] there was a break so i would have to

[33:35] agree with

[33:36] council president porterfield that we've

[33:38] made promises to the community that we

[33:40] would stand up this committee and allow

[33:43] them the opportunity to voice their

[33:44] opinions regarding the expenditure of

[33:46] this arkham money so i don't think it's

[33:47] necessarily the council saying no but

[33:50] it's just that if the city would choose

[33:52] to move forward with this project doing

[33:54] that collaboratively so i think we do

[33:56] owe a responsibility to ensure that

[33:58] outside of the lost revenue monies that

[34:01] we put forth to the city and outside of

[34:04] expedient purchases to support some of

[34:06] our

[34:06] ems services uh that we should maintain

[34:09] the bulk of that funding for them to be

[34:11] able to make the decisions that they

[34:13] see best for the city

[34:17] so

[34:18] yeah i have a question so am i

[34:20] understanding correctly that we did use

[34:22] this uh

[34:23] money for lighting in another park

[34:24] before

[34:25] there was some smart the mayor could

[34:27] probably speak to that more about the

[34:28] lighting that went into hillhurst

[34:31] sorry sure i was talking i was inquiring

[34:33] about the money that was spent um in

[34:36] hillhurst park to do the lighting and we

[34:38] tapped into this uh to smart cities

[34:40] money to do that

[34:42] some of the

[34:43] features on that are smart city lighting

[34:45] the other ones are put in by national

[34:47] grid

[34:48] under the rev demonstration project

[34:51] the replacement of the

[34:53] cobra light fixtures that were there

[35:00] mr palmini yeah i think it's time to

[35:02] move forward with this we've heard from

[35:04] years from residents that live in the

[35:06] area that the lighting is a concern

[35:09] delaying it doesn't help anything

[35:12] um

[35:13] it'll be delayed at least a month if not

[35:15] two

[35:16] more likely closer to two

[35:19] and residents

[35:21] that live in that area

[35:23] are

[35:24] by far

[35:26] very well

[35:27] in favor of the lights so i think it's

[35:30] time to move forward get the lights done

[35:33] that way we're not encroaching too far

[35:35] in the summer

[35:36] and then the safety issue

[35:38] hopefully

[35:40] gets taken care of and it also becomes a

[35:43] better environment for the kids that are

[35:45] using it

[35:47] we talk about investing in our neighborhoods and our parks all

[35:50] the time investing our youth

[35:52] this is an opportunity we're talking 120

[35:55] 000

[35:56] we've heard about this issue for years

[35:59] let's move forward

[36:04] oh sure so so what are we saying due to

[36:07] because we're still in the process of

[36:08] kind of putting together um

[36:10] the committees around our money

[36:13] would it be

[36:14] it you know it doesn't seem like that

[36:15] using the smart city money uh would

[36:18] allow us to

[36:19] you know expedite the process and get it

[36:21] done faster

[36:22] is that what we're saying well the smart

[36:24] city money is there already there so no

[36:27] if we do we have to redesign the

[36:29] lighting yeah we'd have to have

[36:30] different lights like the reason why i

[36:32] brought the request i'm sorry i totally

[36:35] respect and understand the process

[36:36] that's underway you know for the the

[36:39] reason i brought the request forward was

[36:41] just because

[36:42] um i know this is a you know it's a

[36:44] project that has a lot of support and

[36:46] we're just trying to fill in the gaps

[36:48] that we have in the funding we don't

[36:49] want to have to value engineer you know

[36:51] things out and that was really what was

[36:53] behind it but like i said i do

[36:55] understand that you have a process that

[36:56] you're trying to

[36:58] you know and trying to look at the

[36:59] different funding sources um it's just

[37:02] this particular project is kind of

[37:03] underway right now um so that's why we

[37:06] brought it forward

[37:10] around getting this done so my question

[37:12] is more like okay if there's a pot of

[37:14] money that is existing that we could

[37:15] type in to do it and get it done and it

[37:17] won't um compromise the integrity of the

[37:20] our process is is that kind of a win-win

[37:24] so i'm trying to get feet up and down

[37:26] please

[37:28] is all that

[37:30] money allocated

[37:31] for

[37:32] [Music]

[37:34] i'm not

[37:35] sure just what

[37:36] is left in terms of what we've

[37:38] committed for laying the fiber and other

[37:41] components

[37:43] we can

[37:44] review that and give you a number

[37:45] tomorrow

[37:46] well um so for me i wouldn't want to

[37:49] move the sport until we knew that i just

[37:51] i feel very strongly that we should try

[37:53] to use it um so if it needs more of a

[37:56] breakdown and we talk about the design

[37:58] and all that all that information is

[38:00] important to me

[38:01] and it's equally important too that as

[38:03] you said something was done in hillhurst

[38:05] and why we can't do something similar in

[38:06] jerry burrell or around jerry burrell i

[38:08] need a lot of clarity around why we

[38:10] can't use smart city funding for

[38:12] lighting when that's what it's for so

[38:15] um and you know i appreciate what you're

[38:16] trying to do moving forward and all of

[38:18] that the lights and jerry burrell

[38:20] were cobrahead fixtures

[38:23] that we paid a fixture charge for

[38:29] part of the rep demonstration project

[38:31] was all those cobrahead lights in the

[38:34] city have been replaced with led

[38:36] fixtures so those were ones in

[38:39] jerry burrell park and they were

[38:41] replaced just the same way we placed the

[38:44] ones out on the streets

[38:47] and when were they replaced

[38:50] i think you were at the press conference

[38:52] when they

[38:55] don't remember the day but that was

[38:58] the crew went up and took the fixture

[39:00] down and

[39:02] replaced it

[39:03] that was still first

[39:05] yeah i was there for that for hillary

[39:06] clinton

[39:09] these are the ones on the street

[39:12] right are replaced these are ones that

[39:14] will be in the park

[39:16] and they're going to be more of a

[39:17] decorative feature

[39:19] than

[39:22] the overhead cobra lights well this says

[39:25] street lighting and internal lighting

[39:26] actually so

[39:28] the um i don't i don't know what the

[39:30] final design or the scope is where

[39:32] though yeah i think

[39:34] we're going to take the opportunity to

[39:35] look at what's existing

[39:37] look at what's needed internal to the

[39:39] park and if there is any additional you

[39:41] know street lighting that

[39:43] is needed in the design that we would we

[39:45] would include those but again it was it

[39:47] was a preliminary thing i think um the

[39:49] design console

[39:51] said a estimate of nine new fixtures you

[39:54] know

[39:55] but but again we'd have to really look

[39:57] at what's there and that would be part

[39:59] of the you know the review so it really

[40:01] was an estimate um

[40:04] based on

[40:04] a projected need but still have to do

[40:07] some more to figure out what exactly is

[40:08] needed

[40:11] anybody so i i would like to actually

[40:14] see the design i know that we're doing

[40:15] other things there and i've been part of

[40:16] those meetings and i respect the fact

[40:18] that you know the community that i

[40:20] happen to live in that community so all

[40:21] that's fine i just want to make sure

[40:23] that we do two things that we make sure

[40:25] that how much what exactly that we need

[40:28] first and foremost and then secondly if

[40:29] we could find funding even if it's not

[40:31] all from these smart cities that we can

[40:34] see if there's other ways to fund it so

[40:35] that we're trying to keep as much money

[40:38] in the arpa funds as possible

[40:41] so yes ms patrick well i do have a

[40:43] concern that if we wait first of all you

[40:45] brought it to us tonight there must have

[40:47] been a reason that you thought that we

[40:48] needed an insurgency in terms of the

[40:50] rest of the splat i mean having looked

[40:52] at the park extensively last summer

[40:55] clearly the splash park had i mean this

[40:58] stuff needs to be fixed for these kids

[41:00] it's it's it's you know i was over there

[41:03] when there was a camping session and it

[41:05] was kind of like what are we doing like

[41:07] we shouldn't even be

[41:08] letting the kids

[41:10] you know we're giving them like not a

[41:11] good situation here so let's upgrade the

[41:14] park so

[41:15] are you saying you're coming here

[41:17] tonight

[41:19] instead of waiting

[41:20] does that affect the rest of the project

[41:22] which i thought was almost close to

[41:25] trying to um you know get the splash pad

[41:27] get the other stuff done it's just that

[41:30] originally the lighting it wasn't part

[41:32] of the scope of work because we didn't

[41:33] have the funding to do it that was the

[41:34] reason why we put in the request for our

[41:36] because we said hey maybe we can you

[41:38] know get some of this funding to add

[41:40] this

[41:41] amenity you know which is we know is

[41:43] needed um and and so that that's really

[41:46] you know um the reason for bringing it

[41:48] forward tonight is just because the

[41:50] design is underway and if you know i

[41:52] know with orchard park when we ordered

[41:54] the lights it was like a three-month run

[41:55] time exactly so that was really just

[41:57] where it was coming from um

[41:59] not trying to undermine the the article

[42:01] process but just trying to say we

[42:03] feel that this is a community-supported

[42:05] project

[42:06] right exactly it definitely is a

[42:08] community supporting project and we've

[42:10] heard that loud and clear and i think if

[42:12] we wait

[42:14] we could run into a situation where

[42:17] um

[42:19] if it goes you know we want to make sure

[42:21] that the park is safe especially come

[42:23] summer when children will be

[42:26] i shouldn't just say children i mean

[42:27] obviously the basketball courts etc i

[42:29] mean that's not just kids but we need we

[42:31] need that safety factor of the lights

[42:34] don't forget that if we if we hold it

[42:37] what happens if it doesn't get approved

[42:38] during the opera process

[42:41] which is also a risk well

[42:43] i like that we know that the community

[42:44] wants the lights in the park i mean i

[42:46] think

[42:47] we're doing involved with all of us

[42:49] so

[42:50] but let me just let me just say that um

[42:52] the project is not as close as you're

[42:54] indicating it's not and we started with

[42:56] a splash pad a couple of years ago

[42:58] things happen and actually some of the funding that was for that splash pad

[43:02] then got moved someplace else so there

[43:04] was so that happened as well so that's

[43:07] part of the reason we have a deficit

[43:08] right now because the the project just

[43:10] to move forward as quickly as it um

[43:12] wanted to and so my understanding is

[43:15] that design

[43:16] as miss diaz just said the design is not

[43:18] even done for the legs it wasn't

[43:19] originally a part of it so it's not as

[43:21] close as that and we're all concerned

[43:24] about safety i understand that but i

[43:26] just wanted to to refocus this to say

[43:28] yes we want the lights is there other

[43:30] ways we can help fund this as well so we

[43:32] can maintain as much arpa funding as

[43:34] possible that's really

[43:37] not denying about the safety or any of

[43:38] that but can we talk about some other

[43:40] ways to try to get some funding look at

[43:42] the design what does it mean how much if

[43:44] any of it at all can be used um from

[43:46] smart city money anyway

[43:48] and maybe it wouldn't be as much so

[43:51] um and for i'm sorry mr mr farley had

[43:54] your hand up yeah and i'm just i'm just

[43:56] wondering if i'm asking the same

[43:57] question a different way here

[43:58] so so um so are we saying that um the

[44:02] possibility of using smart city money

[44:04] will delay the process or why would that

[44:07] make it longer wouldn't that make it

[44:09] faster no no

[44:11] i think miss patrick is saying that we

[44:12] need to do this right now otherwise that

[44:14] will delay the project and that means

[44:15] using the ark of funding

[44:17] but we could potentially use another

[44:20] source of funding well mr mayor mr

[44:22] ferrari have said that we we have to

[44:24] look and see what's left so

[44:26] we just need to find out if what what

[44:29] we're proposing um falls in the

[44:31] parameters of smart city and if so then we can move and how much we can

[44:40] that's what i that's what i see how long

[44:42] i mean where are we with the design

[44:44] phase

[44:45] well they're moving into like

[44:46] construction documents and i've said

[44:48] like

[44:48] even though i was very clear we're not

[44:51] we can't confirm the money for the

[44:53] lighting but we are going to have it

[44:55] designed

[44:56] either way because eventually we want to

[44:57] get the lighting funded and we just

[45:00] you know

[45:01] with lead times and everything just we

[45:04] hope to do it with everything else but

[45:05] right and it makes sense to do it with

[45:07] everything else um so where are we with

[45:09] the design so would we know in two weeks

[45:11] would you be able to tell us where we

[45:13] are

[45:14] not you as a designer would that be

[45:16] ready if we came back into which he said

[45:17] okay here's the design this is exactly

[45:19] what we need for smart this is exactly

[45:21] how much lighting i'm not okay i'm not

[45:23] i'd have to confirm with the consultant

[45:25] on it might not i could probably get

[45:27] more information than what i have now

[45:29] around a clear

[45:31] scope of what the lighting would be but

[45:32] in two weeks

[45:34] yeah

[45:34] that's that'll i would like to move

[45:36] forward on this

[45:37] um for us to get that information but um

[45:40] we have two other committee members so

[45:43] your input part of me because i have a

[45:45] little power

[45:46] i said my design my goal is just to to

[45:49] hold on to this to get the information

[45:50] come back in two weeks before we move

[45:52] forward

[45:53] to see if we can get some funding from

[45:54] smart cities to uh you know to help with

[45:57] this particular thing and not use as

[45:59] much art for funding

[46:02] yeah i'm going to agree i have to agree

[46:04] with that

[46:05] [Music]

[46:07] so could you come back to us in two

[46:08] weeks with that and you know in the

[46:09] meantime you and i can tell um you know

[46:12] if there's any questions or

[46:14] other things

[46:15] that we may have that the council may

[46:16] have

[46:17] and and council members i you know um

[46:20] welcome you if you have questions just

[46:22] send an email you can send the email to

[46:24] myself to mistia

[46:25] um to the mayor and mayor i would ask

[46:27] that if we could just look at if there's

[46:29] any funding at all that we could use

[46:30] towards smart cities to supplement this and meet somewhere in

[46:34] the middle on that

[46:38] all right thank you we'll see you two

[46:39] weeks i think

[46:43] all right

[46:45] okay the rest of the items on the agenda

[46:47] are for um

[46:49] executive inspection so i need a motion

[46:51] to reset

[46:52] so second all those in favor all right

[46:54] we're

[46:59] finance committee the first item is

[47:01] accept 200 000 in funding from the

[47:03] disconnected from schenectady country

[47:05] for jerry carrell arc improvement

[47:08] mr um this is kind of what i i mentioned

[47:11] the connectivity county legislature has

[47:13] authorized two hundred thousand funding

[47:15] to be allocated through the improvements

[47:16] to jerry brown park um this complements

[47:18] the funding that we have through the

[47:20] states of 205-417

[47:23] so this is just a resolution from the

[47:25] city council authorizing the acceptance

[47:27] of the funds and the amount not to

[47:28] exceed 200 000

[47:30] um in authorization of the mayor and

[47:32] order doesn't need to enter an agreement

[47:36] any questions concerns

[47:39] may have a motion

[47:42] one second

[47:43] all in favor

[47:45] the next item is 2022 hot emergency

[47:49] solution grant

[47:53] [Music]

[47:59] and it's a request from bethesda house

[48:01] to

[48:02] um

[48:03] to

[48:04] remove rapid re-housing program funds of

[48:07] 19 216 to the homeless prevention

[48:10] program

[48:12] um so we're requesting this contract

[48:14] amendment and authorizing the mayor or

[48:16] as doesn't need to effectuate this with

[48:18] bethesda

[48:27] the next item is calling for public

[48:29] hearing to amend the 20 21 22 annual

[48:32] action plan is yes

[48:35] so um here we have we're requesting the

[48:39] reallocation of some unexpended cdbg

[48:42] funds that we had in the 21

[48:44] 2021 to 2022 annual action plans in the

[48:47] public works category

[48:49] so we're looking to reallocate 250 000

[48:52] which will require a substantial

[48:54] amendment to the annual action plan and

[48:57] a 30-day comment public comment period

[49:00] and public hearings

[49:02] so we're looking to use these funds for

[49:05] city park improvements

[49:07] and this would include

[49:09] um but we don't want to build it to

[49:12] the current plans being developed for

[49:13] jerry bell park

[49:16] and also

[49:17] the fitness

[49:19] facility that's proposed for orchard

[49:21] park that's through

[49:22] a grant with mvp healthcare

[49:25] so we would like to

[49:27] hold a public hearing

[49:29] on the february 28th to amend the action

[49:32] plan and

[49:33] also

[49:36] basically just reallocate this 250 000

[49:39] of unexpended funds to city park

[49:42] improvements

[49:45] any questions let's support a field i

[49:46] have a question so um i noticed that you

[49:48] did say jerry berlin in another part so

[49:50] and over 250 thousand dollars do you

[49:53] have any idea how much you would want to

[49:54] allocate to your car i just don't

[49:56] understand at all so um

[50:00] i believe in

[50:02] americans i think

[50:06] we know that there's a lot of work

[50:07] that's needed you know in the parks and

[50:09] essentially we had some unexpended funds

[50:12] through delayed projects and the snap

[50:14] program which there weren't foreclosures

[50:16] i understand that i just want to know

[50:18] between the 250 do you know how much you

[50:20] have you have you had talked about how

[50:22] much would go to this part how much

[50:23] would build another right that was my

[50:24] question so i believe the fitness court

[50:26] is 115. the correct mvp is 50 000.

[50:31] this court and the local match is

[50:32] approximately 115.

[50:35] 50 000 from the nbp is the grant and the

[50:38] local match

[50:39] is approximately 115. does that include

[50:42] pouring the slab

[50:45] i don't that does include pouring inside

[50:52] and that's for mvp okay all right so i

[50:54] have the answer

[50:56] thank you

[50:57] for um that is in and that's for the

[51:00] fitness for the fitness okay go ahead

[51:03] all right thank you

[51:04] and we still have it just so you know we

[51:06] still have a deficit in the in the

[51:08] jerry's world budget

[51:10] that is aside from the lighting that we

[51:12] would intend to um use the cdbg funding

[51:15] for

[51:16] um so it's it's

[51:18] if um

[51:19] you know because i'll just say

[51:21] originally i thought maybe we could just

[51:23] use the cdbg from the lighting but then

[51:25] the project would still

[51:27] fall short in some other areas

[51:31] and the other aspect of that is

[51:34] just construction costs have been

[51:37] incrementing up so some of the

[51:38] assumptions and these numbers were made

[51:40] a couple of years ago

[51:42] in the reality when they go up

[51:44] for actual bids now they're coming in

[51:47] higher than what we hoped

[52:02] all

[52:09] the next item is 2021 budget

[52:11] reallocation retro payment first you

[52:13] enter agreement between the city of

[52:15] schenectady and firefighter local 28 mr

[52:18] ferrari

[52:19] banner president city council mayor

[52:22] uh as you remember back in october of

[52:24] 2021 uh resolution 2021-15 the city of

[52:28] schenectady and uh

[52:30] labor had a labor agreement with the

[52:31] city's connectivity firefighters local

[52:34] 28.

[52:35] uh within that contract uh uh it

[52:38] contained a retroactive payments back to

[52:40] 2019 2020 and 2021.

[52:44] uh the city we did not uh

[52:47] we did not appropriate this settlement

[52:49] in that 2021 budget because we didn't

[52:51] know uh

[52:53] when it was going to be completed so

[52:56] in accordance with the government uh

[52:58] county governmental accounting standards

[53:00] that we need to charge this uh

[53:02] and disclose it in the 2021 fiscal year

[53:05] um these retro payments uh uh were

[53:08] recently disbursed and uh

[53:10] and we're asking the the recommendation

[53:13] of the attached accounts to be

[53:15] appropriated uh the total amount of that

[53:18] is one million two hundred sixty three

[53:20] thousand eight hundred ninety one

[53:21] dollars and thirty cents

[53:23] uh we remember we're recommending using

[53:25] uh uh our our funding loss and general

[53:28] reserve

[53:29] revenue springs

[53:32] any questions

[53:34] i have a motion

[53:37] second

[53:38] all in favor

[53:40] the next item is a 2022 budget

[53:42] reallocation payment personal agreement

[53:44] between the city of connecticuty and

[53:46] firefighter local 28th mr ferrari so at

[53:49] the same resolution and the same uh

[53:51] labor agreement uh when we did these

[53:53] retro payments these were all paid in

[53:55] 2022. so uh when we did make those

[53:58] payments in 2022 uh there was uh a

[54:02] cost of fica and medicare and pension

[54:04] payments so we're looking uh for the

[54:07] total cost uh if you see through with

[54:09] the

[54:10] detachment uh the total comes to 568

[54:13] thousand one hundred nineteen dollars

[54:15] and uh uh because uh we're using pension

[54:18] uh money so we're going to ask to be uh

[54:22] reappropriated using the general fund

[54:24] reserves

[54:25] [Music]

[54:26] any questions

[54:28] a little bit second all in favor aye

[54:32] thank you

[54:33] any other businesses for finance

[54:36] all in favor

[54:42] health and recreation um we have just

[54:45] one item on the agenda and that is a

[54:47] ceremony ceremonial resolution um and so

[54:50] i'll turn the floor over to missport

[54:52] so february is american heart month and

[54:54] so

[54:55] um you know we often do ceremony

[54:57] resolutions to bring attention to

[54:59] certain diseases or someone special did

[55:02] something so i think it's important that

[55:04] we do this and you know heart health is

[55:05] something that um

[55:07] many americans like as one out of four

[55:09] um don't even know they haven't one of

[55:11] four deaths in the american united

[55:13] states because so i think it's an

[55:14] opportunity to bring this forward and

[55:17] also to um also women

[55:20] suffer from heart disease more so than

[55:22] men

[55:23] so i think it's important that we just

[55:25] bring it forward and talk about

[55:26] examining our health habits and so i

[55:27] just would like to have a ceremony

[55:30] resolution presented to that

[55:32] any questions

[55:54] thank you okay i'd like to call the

[55:57] government operations committee to order

[55:59] we have two items two agenda items

[56:02] uh the first of which is around our

[56:03] procurement policy and i will turn it

[56:05] over to an advertising reporter

[56:08] thank you um so we have we discussed

[56:11] this about four weeks ago and at the

[56:13] time that we discussed it

[56:15] and actually let me just be clear mr

[56:16] mutavero's name could be next in my name

[56:18] here not on the previous one

[56:20] um

[56:22] so at that time we talked about the fact

[56:24] that we um didn't have any real

[56:26] reference to our mbwbe in there and our

[56:29] procurement policy only referred to it

[56:31] in the um footnotes

[56:32] and so we want we talked about the fact

[56:34] that we need to have mr gardner here to

[56:36] give us some information and also to

[56:38] talk about inserting language actually

[56:40] in the procurement policy

[56:42] so all of you um mr garner would you

[56:45] like to come forward so did every

[56:47] council member get a copy of what you

[56:48] send out

[56:50] yeah it's in the back it's all right

[56:51] here okay

[56:52] so

[56:53] go ahead

[56:54] okay so again thank you for that

[56:58] coming for you um again we'll be asking

[57:00] for this is a review of the

[57:03] original confined uh

[57:06] security policy that was passed back in

[57:08] 2020

[57:10] and with the understanding that we will

[57:11] review that from time to time and

[57:13] modified

[57:14] not created as necessary this request

[57:17] here we're asking to

[57:19] raise the uh mwe uh

[57:23] compliance on contracting uh

[57:25] opportunities over a hundred thousand

[57:27] from

[57:28] eleven point five percent uh mvp and

[57:31] eleven point five percent wb up to

[57:33] fifteen percent east a total of thirty

[57:36] percent which is in line with the system

[57:38] that was the state

[57:50] which was consistent with the

[57:52] modification of keeping that alignment

[57:54] will be going from

[57:57] seven percent but nbe which is the work

[57:59] for 12 percent but nbe and

[58:04] women was bringing the workforce goals

[58:06] and getting to

[58:12] [Music]

[58:21] elaborate on section three public works

[58:22] uh construction contract exceeding three

[58:24] hundred thousand that's what we're

[58:26] proposing

[58:28] okay so again back in 2020 we talked

[58:31] about the cap on

[58:35] justin's project having uh kept a

[58:38] minimum of

[58:40] 250 thousand dollars today on the uh any

[58:43] public works project within the city

[58:46] and we're asking to raise that to 300

[58:56] [Music]

[59:01] so what is the benefits the city will

[59:03] receive by doing that you would expand

[59:06] the crew so you have more smaller firms

[59:08] opportunity to bid

[59:10] on public work projects

[59:21] um so this is different from what we

[59:23] approved in

[59:24] 2020 i thought that when we talked about

[59:26] it a couple of weeks ago we were pretty

[59:28] much just trying to make sure that the

[59:30] policy

[59:31] that we were seeing

[59:33] reflected what we had agreed on

[59:35] in 2020 but

[59:37] now we're changing this is actually to

[59:39] change the 2020 policy

[59:41] that's okay i guess i thought we were

[59:43] doing something different

[59:44] no at the end of that conversation

[59:46] awesome

[59:48] and then that actually we said and you

[59:51] were in agreement that we should look at

[59:52] how the mwbe was a part of it because it

[59:55] wasn't there before

[59:56] we did have that conversation when we

[59:58] discussed this four weeks ago when we

[59:59] weren't ready to come back in two weeks

[1:00:01] we didn't have the information okay i

[1:00:02] guess i thought that we discussed making

[1:00:05] sure that what we were doing was in line

[1:00:07] with what we had done all that work on

[1:00:09] in 2020 yes you're correct

[1:00:11] we review the documents and we bring it

[1:00:14] up to date and today's uh whatever is

[1:00:16] out there

[1:00:17] 10 000. i'm moving the mwbe

[1:00:20] um

[1:00:21] 11.5 so 50 50

[1:00:24] on the work force gold

[1:00:27] to 20 those are the only changes to this

[1:00:30] mwb document that we have looked at two

[1:00:32] years ago and those were changes going

[1:00:35] into the

[1:00:36] this year

[1:00:39] that we're

[1:00:41] do you have any proposing with the um oh

[1:00:43] something like me

[1:00:47] ms patrick did you have concerns about

[1:00:48] them no it's just not what i thought we

[1:00:50] were discussing tonight i thought we

[1:00:51] were

[1:00:52] i i thought we were discussing something

[1:00:54] different so

[1:00:57] i trust mr garden

[1:00:59] recommendation

[1:01:03] as he knows

[1:01:14] in 2020 when it was adopted the last

[1:01:16] time by resolution um there were two

[1:01:19] separate resolutions right there was one

[1:01:21] for the purchasing policy and then uh

[1:01:23] essentially like a lack of better word a

[1:01:25] sister resolution approving

[1:01:27] the mwb policy

[1:01:31] you know it's obviously up to the

[1:01:32] council i see them as being two separate

[1:01:34] policies because it gives more

[1:01:35] flexibility because the mwb policy may

[1:01:38] be one that you

[1:01:39] um

[1:01:40] you go back to in 2023 presumably maybe

[1:01:43] to to reevaluate

[1:01:45] the purchasing policy is one that is

[1:01:47] good for two years

[1:01:48] so if the council is going to entertain

[1:01:50] a resolution or entertain a legislative

[1:01:53] request to pass a resolution i would

[1:01:56] do it

[1:01:57] two separate alleged requests and two

[1:01:59] separate resolutions

[1:02:02] we had we had two set of documents the

[1:02:04] last time was the section three policy

[1:02:06] at the end of the year was that combines

[1:02:08] one sister resolution i didn't

[1:02:11] i don't well as far as i know there's

[1:02:13] only one in terms of the energy and mwb

[1:02:15] and workforce goals here

[1:02:17] um is there a separate

[1:02:19] document

[1:02:20] outside of that here yeah there was a

[1:02:22] section no no but in terms of what's

[1:02:24] being presented today

[1:02:25] right so yes

[1:02:27] that's what i'd say right so you know my

[1:02:29] recommendation would be um if you're

[1:02:32] going to do it pass one for a

[1:02:34] legislative request item for

[1:02:36] the purchasing policy and the separate

[1:02:39] one for the 2022 mwb work and workforce

[1:02:41] goals okay

[1:02:45] so to follow up on them

[1:02:46] that so when we talked to the last time

[1:02:48] was we you can mention the fact that

[1:02:51] there's a footnote about mwbe and we'll

[1:02:53] talk about actually putting the whatever

[1:02:55] that footnote refers to at least some

[1:02:57] specific language that says do this as

[1:02:59] opposed to uh counting on someone to

[1:03:02] look at the footnote and then do it

[1:03:04] do you not use it

[1:03:06] well at the end right no and i

[1:03:08] understand that um obviously the mwb

[1:03:11] workforce goals are just that their

[1:03:13] goals

[1:03:13] right whereas the change to um

[1:03:16] increasing the uh public works contracts

[1:03:19] to 300 000 is you know that's that's

[1:03:21] firm

[1:03:22] so i see it you know one is something we

[1:03:25] aspire to do and the other is

[1:03:27] a hard number that is going to be in the

[1:03:30] purchasing policy and sure we do refer

[1:03:32] to the

[1:03:33] mwb uh and work and workforce uh

[1:03:37] goals

[1:03:38] um in the but again that's up to the

[1:03:40] council

[1:03:42] you know i'm just making my

[1:03:43] recommendation because these are for 20 20 excuse me for 2022 whereas the

[1:03:49] purchasing policy is a two-year policy

[1:03:55] you brought the discussion on i do have

[1:03:57] another question so

[1:04:00] um

[1:04:00] the other um part of it so anything that

[1:04:03] um is under

[1:04:05] what is the level of contracts that you

[1:04:07] save so it's 35 000 under this are those

[1:04:10] goals apply to that

[1:04:13] so all right so um the other thing that

[1:04:16] uh

[1:04:17] that i think is important that so that

[1:04:18] we're trying to meet our goals if we

[1:04:20] include those contracts as well i think

[1:04:23] would be beneficial are you part of

[1:04:24] those discussions now if it's under that

[1:04:26] amount or is it a hundred thousand over

[1:04:28] right

[1:04:29] so that might be helpful in us returning

[1:04:31] our goals if we look at the contracts

[1:04:32] that are under um

[1:04:34] 35 000 because maybe we're meeting them

[1:04:36] and we just it's just because it's not

[1:04:38] calculated in that we would um be able

[1:04:41] to meet those goals so i would like to

[1:04:42] be able to see those contacts as well

[1:04:44] that's something that mr gardner would

[1:04:46] have

[1:04:47] input in to make sure he helps to

[1:04:50] identify mwbes

[1:04:53] so that they could you know avail

[1:04:54] themselves to those opportunities as

[1:04:56] well

[1:04:59] i have a question so how did we is that

[1:05:02] like kind of like this

[1:05:04] how do we reach that threshold for a

[1:05:05] hundred thousand four

[1:05:09] how do we get to that threshold to decide you know what

[1:05:13] comes before you and what does

[1:05:16] that thing come out on the

[1:05:18] worst contract yes so episodes we're

[1:05:21] talking about um you know you're saying

[1:05:23] that there's some unconscious that

[1:05:24] because they don't rise to a certain

[1:05:26] level they don't they don't come before

[1:05:27] you correct

[1:05:29] and and that that threshold was what they'll be like purchasing uh

[1:05:35] you know contact somebody doing um

[1:05:37] you know snokeline for example or

[1:05:39] repairing the windows you know things

[1:05:41] like that okay and

[1:05:43] you're suggesting um

[1:05:45] that all those all contracts um go

[1:05:47] through ron's office for to see if we

[1:05:50] could help meet our wp eagles

[1:05:54] and

[1:05:54] the other

[1:05:56] thing i'd like to see is this also only

[1:05:57] talks about this

[1:05:59] in the um procurement process it always

[1:06:01] talks about goods

[1:06:03] um it's whatever is

[1:06:05] so i would like to see services as well

[1:06:07] um be a part of that yes

[1:06:10] yeah services are there services at

[1:06:12] first or part of our computer policy

[1:06:14] yeah

[1:06:15] i'm gonna have to read through that

[1:06:16] again i didn't see that so i wanted to

[1:06:17] make sure that services with goods and

[1:06:19] services and that just says

[1:06:21] okay

[1:06:26] so just just follow up make sure that

[1:06:28] you're safe here so mid sports are you

[1:06:30] asking that instead of having a footnote

[1:06:33] let us insert

[1:06:35] that section into the policy so

[1:06:38] whatever that footnote refers to and i'm

[1:06:40] not talking about have it extensive but

[1:06:42] so that people are as they're reading

[1:06:44] through they're not overlooking it and

[1:06:46] just passing on that you know just make

[1:06:48] it clear that mwp mwde participation is

[1:06:51] something

[1:06:52] you know that that they need to consider

[1:06:54] when we're talking about um preparing

[1:06:56] for the city

[1:06:58] [Music]

[1:07:01] i i i um

[1:07:03] i don't want to draft something that is

[1:07:05] not the council's intention obviously if

[1:07:07] you were to pass

[1:07:08] you know the legislative request um i

[1:07:10] don't know if this language that um

[1:07:12] you know

[1:07:14] in preparing a resolution i'd like to

[1:07:16] you know ideally to be language that

[1:07:18] reflects accurately what the city

[1:07:20] council or the committee passes tonight

[1:07:22] if it doesn't in fact pass anything

[1:07:24] um so i i don't want to misrepresent

[1:07:27] what is actually passed if something

[1:07:29] does pass

[1:07:34] any other questions around this

[1:07:39] that's cool you had a request

[1:07:50] is not in and i just want to

[1:07:52] just so you know the um i at the last

[1:07:54] meeting i asked what i asked for again

[1:07:56] today just so we could see

[1:07:58] the um contracts that had been um

[1:08:01] had been left in the past i think it was

[1:08:03] 18 months just so we can see if we were

[1:08:05] even hitting the goals even

[1:08:07] unintentionally and there was things

[1:08:08] under 35 000 but um there i wasn't you

[1:08:11] know i haven't gotten those at this

[1:08:13] point in time

[1:08:14] because ultimately if we can do it by

[1:08:16] using it over all the contracts that we

[1:08:18] did that would just be

[1:08:19] in my mind better for the city to see

[1:08:22] that we're reaching those goals

[1:08:29] any further questions or discussions

[1:08:31] around them

[1:08:33] so are you looking at us moving power in

[1:08:35] terms but

[1:08:37] or do you want to hold off and catch her

[1:08:39] well i'd like to be able to see that

[1:08:40] documentation first um just to see where

[1:08:43] we are with that

[1:08:44] um

[1:08:46] and i don't know if we can do that

[1:08:48] between now and then and i mean i guess

[1:08:50] my bigger question is is that something

[1:08:51] we're willing to consider that mr um mr

[1:08:54] gardner be

[1:08:55] you know involved in that process as

[1:08:57] well

[1:08:59] i mean

[1:09:00] i i you know to

[1:09:02] can't speak to mr carter's no capacity

[1:09:05] right now to do that but i think if we

[1:09:06] do have the capacity i think that that sounds like a

[1:09:09] good practice um

[1:09:11] anybody else thinks about that and if so

[1:09:13] we're saying that maybe we um

[1:09:16] hold off on this and kind of revisit

[1:09:18] after we get some more information seems

[1:09:19] like that's where we're going

[1:09:21] well i don't i would like to see us be able

[1:09:25] to look at that so but other counselling

[1:09:28] yeah i don't have a problem with that

[1:09:31] but then we can also work at inserting

[1:09:33] the two sections that you wanted to see

[1:09:35] in this policy where the work for force

[1:09:37] have you have in the

[1:09:38] requirement section so a two section

[1:09:40] needs to be added into the policy well

[1:09:42] mr coleman is saying that he doesn't

[1:09:44] think it

[1:09:45] i'm not saying that at all i'm not

[1:09:47] saying that i'll it's you know it's

[1:09:49] obviously within the constant

[1:09:50] prerogative to

[1:09:52] put it into the purchasing policy and

[1:09:53] what it deems you know fit

[1:09:56] i just don't want to create language

[1:09:58] that doesn't accurately reflect what the

[1:10:00] council would like obviously

[1:10:03] it seems like we'll be as we're having

[1:10:05] more information obviously when we work

[1:10:06] on the corporation council in order to

[1:10:08] make sure that we're putting forth

[1:10:10] accurately describes what we're trying

[1:10:11] to do here

[1:10:12] right

[1:10:14] okay so there's a definitely what

[1:10:17] two weeks we're saying

[1:10:19] okay

[1:10:23] next on the agenda is

[1:10:26] the discussion on ole miss broadcasting

[1:10:28] um

[1:10:30] thank you uh so as we all know the

[1:10:34] problem with the broadcasting of the

[1:10:36] meeting still remains an issue

[1:10:39] particularly the audio

[1:10:41] the last

[1:10:42] time we talked about this was about a

[1:10:44] month ago

[1:10:46] checked in with the zeb from osm

[1:10:50] in the mayor's office

[1:10:51] unfortunately the two haven't been able

[1:10:53] to

[1:10:54] really

[1:10:56] get together and put something before

[1:11:00] but just wanted to make sure that we

[1:11:02] keep this on on the agenda to make sure

[1:11:05] that we actually do address this

[1:11:07] and at some point get it fixed so people

[1:11:10] can't

[1:11:11] actually hear what we have to say

[1:11:13] i don't know did you want to add

[1:11:15] anything um i don't really have anything

[1:11:18] to add just i know that um

[1:11:21] tell everybody

[1:11:22] that it would make a lot of people happy

[1:11:24] that watch it at home to be able to hear

[1:11:25] it clearly

[1:11:27] and and see it a lot better

[1:11:30] we do the best we can with what we have

[1:11:33] but

[1:11:34] frankly some love is deteriorating it's

[1:11:37] older um this would put us in a really

[1:11:40] good place

[1:11:41] visually and audio

[1:11:44] to really bring the council meetings

[1:11:45] home and archive

[1:11:48] forever

[1:11:49] um

[1:11:53] [Music]

[1:12:02] [Applause]

[1:12:07] behind there how loud it is to adjust

[1:12:09] that so that would give the sam or

[1:12:10] somebody

[1:12:12] audio controls to uh to turn it down or

[1:12:14] up if something's not awful

[1:12:17] in the chambers separate from the

[1:12:19] recording so there's little things like

[1:12:21] that that would uh certainly help the

[1:12:23] production quality of the meetings

[1:12:26] but i'm happy to answer your questions

[1:12:28] all right so

[1:12:29] we used to have

[1:12:34] speak for that foreign those cordless

[1:12:36] mics uh just started dropping off two of

[1:12:39] them don't work at all now um and then

[1:12:42] the eos

[1:12:43] gentleman tom told me that they are

[1:12:45] running on frequencies that we're not

[1:12:47] even allowed to run out

[1:12:49] um there's a digital equivalent now of

[1:12:52] those that were a lot better

[1:12:56] and

[1:12:57] yeah so that's why we're not using those

[1:12:59] anymore

[1:13:00] they're just they're just

[1:13:02] dated

[1:13:09] would this be an opportunity to kind of

[1:13:11] partner with someone like um our uh

[1:13:13] our

[1:13:14] community partners like around

[1:13:17] who are doing board meetings right now

[1:13:18] who don't seem to have the same issues

[1:13:20] like if they're willing to do that like

[1:13:21] maybe our school district or accounting

[1:13:23] even to try to see if we can partner

[1:13:25] with them around

[1:13:26] accessing the same type of technology

[1:13:28] that they're using

[1:13:29] um

[1:13:38] it's just different and quite frankly

[1:13:41] um

[1:13:47] they do a great job um

[1:13:50] but our needs are a little different we

[1:13:52] have a

[1:13:53] different room i mean this is an older

[1:13:55] building and there's just little things

[1:13:56] like that

[1:13:58] fighting against like little audio

[1:14:00] noises that with the the hum and the

[1:14:02] lights and that just eats the mic and

[1:14:05] this would um

[1:14:07] take care of all those issues

[1:14:11] but it's good

[1:14:20] so

[1:14:21] um

[1:14:22] i actually i did mention this too mr

[1:14:24] fellow brothers followed so at this

[1:14:26] point in time um

[1:14:28] how

[1:14:29] i mean

[1:14:30] how long would it take or what is the

[1:14:31] process i think maybe maybe that being a

[1:14:34] question for the mayor but um because i

[1:14:36] thought at least if we could have chores

[1:14:38] of somebody but

[1:14:39] um the feedback is that we shouldn't

[1:14:41] entertain expense that we you know

[1:14:45] that we're just spending money because

[1:14:46] we have to upgrade but at this point

[1:14:48] time we're using one mic and i've still

[1:14:50] even with the one like that my one of

[1:14:52] the feedback that i'm getting is that

[1:14:54] it's still not good quality so much for

[1:14:56] the um

[1:14:58] for the public so

[1:15:01] what are your thoughts on

[1:15:03] what we are where we are right now

[1:15:05] um

[1:15:06] i mean this with the proposal i mean

[1:15:08] it's a top it's a top to bottom kind of

[1:15:10] thing it would take care of all those

[1:15:11] problems i mean honestly i

[1:15:14] um i looked at every

[1:15:16] you know item and i asked tom a bunch of

[1:15:19] questions on each other so i understand

[1:15:20] what intersects with one

[1:15:23] and it all

[1:15:24] kind of just sounds great i mean

[1:15:27] it really is a

[1:15:30] top-down approach

[1:15:32] to it

[1:15:33] you know

[1:15:34] i mean i could get different proposals

[1:15:37] from different uh but it would you know

[1:15:41] take

[1:15:42] some more weeks and right now

[1:15:44] the equipment is just frank i mean we

[1:15:46] have no cordless mics

[1:15:49] and there's other issues as well with

[1:15:53] these links on table and and little

[1:15:55] things like that that just need to be

[1:15:57] upgraded

[1:15:59] in my opinion

[1:16:02] well i think if we're not

[1:16:04] people can't hear you know then it's

[1:16:07] really kind of defeating the purpose of

[1:16:09] what we're trying to do so i appreciate

[1:16:11] your thoughts on that mr murderer

[1:16:13] yeah thank you

[1:16:15] i think all of us in this room here can

[1:16:17] attest that we have received our fair

[1:16:19] share of complaints

[1:16:20] from the public in terms of argue in

[1:16:22] terms of the likely i think this is

[1:16:24] something that we should

[1:16:26] do

[1:16:27] we should we should proceed

[1:16:29] with this and move out to

[1:16:32] get the mayor authority to um go ahead

[1:16:34] and get this contract and get this

[1:16:36] equipments in

[1:16:37] and uh you know rehab the whole place

[1:16:39] and get the

[1:16:40] it working properly so that the resident

[1:16:43] can

[1:16:45] look and hear

[1:16:47] think that's something that we should do

[1:16:49] um there's no hole but there shouldn't

[1:16:51] be no hold back on this server at this

[1:16:52] point in time let's select the

[1:16:55] defender and we'll power

[1:16:57] and get this equipment installed

[1:17:01] uh so i also think it's worth noting and

[1:17:03] before i state that i want to say thank

[1:17:04] you for all the work that you're doing i

[1:17:06] know you definitely mentioned there are

[1:17:07] some system issues that you're trying to

[1:17:09] navigate and i'll definitely see you in

[1:17:10] here uh

[1:17:12] trying to get it functional um so

[1:17:14] you know i noticed that

[1:17:16] but in regards to us offering this

[1:17:18] service or an option for people to view

[1:17:20] these meetings from home i think we're

[1:17:21] going to offer this we need to make sure

[1:17:23] it's at a certain level and standard

[1:17:25] that allows them to be able to view our

[1:17:26] meetings or we need to adjust how we

[1:17:29] offer this if at all so definitely

[1:17:32] i appreciate this discussion item being

[1:17:34] on the agenda again tonight but i think

[1:17:36] we need to place a greater

[1:17:39] emphasis on this because again i think

[1:17:41] our residents or visitors who are

[1:17:43] viewing these meetings

[1:17:45] they owe us a certain quality and if

[1:17:47] we're not able to meet those

[1:17:48] expectations we should just uh

[1:17:51] remove it

[1:17:52] sooner

[1:17:53] [Music]

[1:17:55] so

[1:17:56] largely agree but i think there's

[1:17:59] information

[1:18:02] that

[1:18:03] we if we want to continue down this road

[1:18:07] we need to discuss an executive session

[1:18:10] regarding some other options

[1:18:14] and

[1:18:15] look and hear all that information

[1:18:17] before

[1:18:18] we proceed with any sort of action

[1:18:20] because

[1:18:22] i think it's information that

[1:18:24] is needed to be heard

[1:18:26] and it's important information to have

[1:18:29] yes we want to have quality

[1:18:33] transmission of our meetings

[1:18:36] but we also need to make sure we're

[1:18:39] using our money

[1:18:41] efficiently and effectively and also

[1:18:43] have the information so i think if we do

[1:18:46] want to

[1:18:47] continue down that road it should be a

[1:18:49] discussion

[1:18:50] and executive session

[1:18:55] i knew the thoughts were on that

[1:18:59] and so can i just show some clarity

[1:19:01] around that so it would be regarding

[1:19:02] contracts then yes your contract oh

[1:19:05] but to mr palomini's point the

[1:19:08] relationship between the city and open

[1:19:10] stage media evolved with the last

[1:19:13] negotiations with the franchise

[1:19:16] agreement with

[1:19:17] what was then time warner it's now

[1:19:21] charter and

[1:19:23] simultaneously with verizon so they are

[1:19:27] the designated

[1:19:29] peg

[1:19:30] operator of

[1:19:32] pegtv is

[1:19:33] public access education and government

[1:19:37] and so those contracts the franchise

[1:19:40] agreements have expired

[1:19:42] and we have not entered into

[1:19:47] negotiations to renew those there's been

[1:19:50] some changes at the federal level

[1:19:52] there's discussions at the state level

[1:19:55] and it's a uh what i call a dynamic

[1:19:58] process

[1:19:58] [Music]

[1:19:59] and that's

[1:20:01] some of the things that were

[1:20:02] in the city's advantage a little over 10

[1:20:05] years ago

[1:20:07] are not there today

[1:20:14] all right

[1:20:15] so please

[1:20:17] have we budgeted

[1:20:22] 50 something thousand dollars no no so

[1:20:24] we would have to find the money

[1:20:26] there's no request in the clerk's budget

[1:20:28] this year for

[1:20:30] any upgrade of

[1:20:34] the support system share that equipment

[1:20:36] with us

[1:20:37] no

[1:20:39] i'm trying to get some maybe some

[1:20:41] dollars

[1:20:43] you'll try it

[1:20:47] okay you need further discussion on the

[1:20:49] matter

[1:20:50] is there any more business what's more

[1:20:52] here so we're moving this into executive

[1:20:54] session continue discussion if you want

[1:20:57] to uh yes we should please let's do that

[1:21:00] all right sometimes it's executive

[1:21:02] session

[1:21:05] everything else is everything else is

[1:21:07] executive session

[1:21:08] so you just need to um you can just go

[1:21:11] in

[1:21:12] we could go in right

[1:21:26] uh

[1:21:29] recess

[1:21:30] second

[1:21:31] all in favor

[1:21:34] okay

[1:21:35] now do i open close your eyes

[1:21:38] okay i'd like to uh open the claims um

[1:21:42] and with that i will entertain a motion

[1:21:45] they need to go into executive session

[1:21:49] and if i get a second

[1:21:51] okay um all in favor

[1:21:54] okay

[1:22:01] oh

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, February 7, 2022

Transcript