[0:00] [Music]

[0:29] yeah

[0:32] [Music]

[1:58] he

[2:02] [Music]

[5:28] he

[5:30] [Music]

[5:58] yeah

[5:59] [Music]

[6:58] yeah

[6:59] [Music]

[8:28] he

[8:31] [Music]

[10:28] yeah

[10:29] [Music]

[11:57] he

[11:59] [Music]

[14:39] I'd like to call to order this

[14:40] connecting city council committee

[14:41] meeting for Monday October 16th 2023 and

[14:45] turn it over to Mr M for the finance

[14:48] committee thank you I would like to call

[14:50] the finance committee to order and the

[14:52] first item is a 2023 emergency vehicle

[14:55] uplift m point

[15:02] please you I am Sergeant Matt Point here

[15:06] on behalf of SKC PD and we're just

[15:09] looking for your permission to enter a

[15:11] contact with Auto Solutions to upit our

[15:13] vehicles they came in as the lowest

[15:15] bidder of two

[15:16] biders any questions I'm second all in

[15:21] favor I thank

[15:25] you is that simple

[15:29] the next item is increasing the maximum

[15:31] income from New York real real property

[15:33] tax

[15:35] exemption um Mr Williams yes thank you

[15:38] uh so excited to have this conversation

[15:41] back uh we have with us miss makoy who's

[15:44] bringing her findings as she was able to

[15:46] gather over the last month um definitely

[15:49] looking forward to uh reviewing that

[15:51] with the rest of you and discussing just

[15:52] how we can make sure we're providing the

[15:54] appropriate funds uh to our seniors in

[15:57] the in the community to make sure that

[15:59] with the recent increases we aren't

[16:01] inadvertently um excluding individuals

[16:04] that we do know should U meet these

[16:06] categories

[16:07] so and I believe you have some

[16:09] information to

[16:10] pass I ran through a couple of different

[16:13] scenarios and tried to

[16:16] sorry um just yeah there's four

[16:20] different four different pieces of

[16:27] paper

[16:44] [Applause]

[16:45] trying to

[16:49] help

[16:57] something

[17:01] okay let's

[17:05] [Applause]

[17:27] go

[17:31] you have

[17:54] enough

[17:57] yeah

[17:58] um okay so the things I just handed out

[18:01] I worked up some information today um

[18:03] the first thing I want to show you is um

[18:06] it is a table and it has at the top

[18:10] participant and income and then um yeah

[18:16] so that that's the first thing I'd like

[18:18] to take a look at and I actually think I

[18:20] may have been a

[18:22] away okay so this we took a look at all

[18:25] of the people who did not get um the

[18:27] exemption renewed this year because of

[18:30] income level um so this is a table with

[18:32] all that there were 84 people who

[18:34] applied who did not get uh the renewal

[18:36] this year so I and in in here I kind of

[18:39] set at what the current you know the

[18:42] what we have the current level but then

[18:45] what if we looked at different scenarios

[18:47] so say we raised it by $3,000 how many

[18:49] of these people would get would have

[18:51] gotten the exemption this year same

[18:53] thing went up to 45,000 which is the two

[18:55] scenarios that I'm going to pose to you

[18:58] um um as we talk through this uh so this

[19:01] is just there's a lot of um things that

[19:04] are not predictable um income every year

[19:06] for folks is is it's tough for us to say

[19:09] how many people might actually apply for

[19:11] the exemption and or qualify for it

[19:14] because uh you could have a oneoff year

[19:17] where you take money out of your

[19:18] retirement or for some you sell a house

[19:21] so that ends up going on the income tax

[19:23] return and we count that as income um so

[19:26] a lot of people like you'll see that the

[19:28] there's a wide range of income in here

[19:30] um from 35,000 up to 245,000

[19:34] um while I don't have the specific

[19:36] scenarios in it is likely one of those

[19:39] kind of things where somebody takes

[19:40] money out of something or they receive

[19:42] you know some kind of

[19:43] inheritance um so being able to predict

[19:46] going forward how many people that might

[19:48] affect or how many people might not

[19:50] qualify is is difficult so what I did um

[19:54] you can take a look at I I put in here

[19:56] also the current the current scale that

[19:58] we have and that's the one that it says

[20:00] at the top um less than

[20:03] 29,000 sorry I didn't say that's that's

[20:06] just what our current scale is what

[20:07] we've been using since

[20:09] 2009 um the first scenario that that I

[20:13] wanted to bring to your attention is the

[20:16] one that says less than

[20:17] 32,000 and that's the first um that's

[20:21] looking at you know was there a midpoint

[20:23] in the that scale of incomes um just

[20:27] taking a a shot at something um I put

[20:30] that together and then took a look at um

[20:35] you'll see in there that I have

[20:38] information about how many people would

[20:40] have qualified in each um category of

[20:43] the

[20:44] exemption and you know again not

[20:47] matching these people up to what their

[20:48] actual um assessed value is but I took

[20:51] $100,000 if their homes were assessed at

[20:54] $100,000 and you took a look at how many

[20:56] people would get each percentage off um

[21:00] looking at the scenario one if we were

[21:01] only to raise it up uh

[21:04] $3,000 then you you'd look at you know

[21:07] if it was $100,000 that everyone's house

[21:09] was you're looking at a total amount of

[21:12] taxes roughly just shy of $5,000 that we

[21:16] you know that would have not come into

[21:17] the city because of having the increase

[21:20] I used last year's tax rate because we

[21:22] don't know what the tax rate is this

[21:23] year um and but looked at the people

[21:28] that we denied this year for the

[21:29] exemption um did the same thing then

[21:32] with say we went up to 45,000 as the um

[21:37] it would be actually 37,000 would be the

[21:40] lowest amount um 45 would be the maximum

[21:43] uh limit and that was quite a

[21:45] significant difference um in looking at

[21:48] it would have been $199,200

[21:51] um in taxes and that's and this is just

[21:54] putting out there you know $100,000 as

[21:57] aess value versus you know it could

[21:59] range anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000

[22:02] and higher um so it's there is there is

[22:06] a financial impact the higher we go um

[22:10] the other idea is that if you stay on

[22:13] the lower end of a scale there's room

[22:15] for movement if social security goes up

[22:17] in the future um again like it did in

[22:20] 2021 it's really again it's really hard

[22:22] to predict how many people would um but

[22:25] we did see actually we saw a pretty sign

[22:28] ific reduction in the number of people

[22:29] that actually applied for the exemption

[22:31] um new applicants this year I'm sorry a

[22:34] reduction um reduction in the number of

[22:37] people who applied um this year versus I can't I you know I mean some some

[22:43] thoughts were that we came off of a

[22:44] 2-year period where we had extended

[22:46] everyone's exemptions because of coid um

[22:50] so maybe there were people that forgot

[22:52] or you know

[22:54] decided for whatever reason didn't apply

[22:57] um but

[22:58] um so I can't you know again those those

[23:01] things that are kind of not predictable

[23:03] for the

[23:06] future um but you know as you as you

[23:09] raise the limit up you get more and more

[23:12] people who are in those that that

[23:14] bracket of

[23:15] 50% um and so that's you know even even

[23:19] those some those like 40

[23:21] 45 um there's a lot in there too it's

[23:25] the best way I could predict any kind of

[23:27] financial impact uh the city is doing it

[23:30] like that um using the the last year's

[23:33] tax

[23:39] rate please so I just I just want to be

[23:41] clear so on the chart that starts with

[23:44] the

[23:45] 3556

[23:47] M this is you said the number of people

[23:50] so there's 84 people that these are

[23:54] 84 individual people who applied okay

[23:57] and were denied the exemption because of

[24:00] the income level okay and then just but

[24:03] on this other sheet and we're denied let

[24:06] me just write that down yes and the

[24:08] other one no the other one this one

[24:11] that's 48

[24:13] households I added it up quickly but um

[24:16] okay and it it does correspond to so

[24:19] this first section this first one that I

[24:21] gave you it corresponds with the

[24:23] highlighting that you see so the first

[24:25] one the highlighting is um those are the

[24:28] number of people who would have so there

[24:30] would have been

[24:31] 29 that would qualify for under the

[24:34] first scenario if we raised it only by

[24:37] 3,000 okay um and then the same thing

[24:41] there were there would be 50 people um

[24:43] if it

[24:44] was hopefully my numbers were not too

[24:47] far off um there would be 50 people that

[24:50] would would qualify if it was raised up

[24:52] to 45 as opposed to gotcha gotcha okay

[25:00] yep and then

[25:03] 50 Mr M so then 57 people if was raised

[25:08] up to if it was raised up to like the

[25:10] top and I didn't I didn't run that

[25:12] because I just I I don't think that

[25:14] that's a wise option um to go that that

[25:18] High um plus I think in our last

[25:19] discussion it does it was really geared

[25:23] towards some of those downstate places

[25:25] where um incomes are higher just the

[25:27] total over all income is higher for so

[25:30] thanks John go ahead please do you have

[25:33] any idea of obviously you won't be able

[25:36] to calculate but the number of people

[25:38] who will be entering

[25:40] into um the

[25:43] exemptions in the next year or so how

[25:45] many additional people I it's it's

[25:48] really like I said it's hard to predict

[25:50] because we've got we've got but you

[25:52] could get a total amount and I

[25:54] understand you can't figure out how many

[25:56] would actually go for it I understand

[25:59] but do we know how many total would be

[26:02] coming into the availability of applying

[26:05] for the exemption I I mean it would be a

[26:08] matter of knowing who's going to turn 65

[26:10] in the next year because that's the threshold for this to number

[26:14] one to be able to apply at all is to be

[26:16] 65 and then number two they have to

[26:19] provide us with their 2022 income tax

[26:21] return um for us to take a look at what

[26:24] the income level is so you know I think

[26:27] me let me take a look at this

[26:30] um we had 229 people not renew the

[26:33] exemption um or property was transferred

[26:36] so they didn't have the opportunity um

[26:38] and we only

[26:41] had 68 new people apply this past

[26:44] year um and that's you know we do send

[26:47] out renewal notices to everyone who

[26:49] currently has the exemption um so we can

[26:52] you know predict that but any any new

[26:55] folks um coming in we can't really

[26:57] predict that

[26:58] well how many people get the exemption

[27:01] now one way or the other there's there's

[27:03] probably a thousand households right now

[27:07] um that get the the senior lwi income

[27:09] exemption now we're also talking this is also for disability senior or

[27:14] excuse me disabled and low income um

[27:16] that's that's a little bit more

[27:18] consistent

[27:20] um that one is and so that would affect

[27:23] the two

[27:26] um

[27:29] so would it be fair to say a good

[27:31] estimate would it be anywhere from 65 to

[27:33] let's say 130 140 people new people

[27:37] flying sure you know I mean that's yeah

[27:40] I think you could go with that

[27:42] range um just given the number that we

[27:44] had this year um now we do have people

[27:48] that have you know any for anybody who

[27:50] had the exemption before may not have

[27:52] received it this year they would likely

[27:54] come back to us and apply and I know

[27:56] there are several instances of that um

[27:58] because we had conversations with folks

[27:59] last year

[28:05] so so definitely thank you for gathering

[28:08] this information I think it's safe to

[28:10] say that we we all are in agreement that

[28:12] raising it to the maximum $50,000 is an

[28:14] OP or recommended option that you're

[28:17] clearly stating uh definitely taken into

[28:19] consideration that the city hasn't risen

[28:21] these exemptions in quite a quite a bit

[28:23] of time

[28:25] um so I guess and get a a pulse of where

[28:29] the entire council is where individuals

[28:30] like to elect to what they're leaning

[28:33] towards or have time to um all over all

[28:36] the data that is a lot of

[28:38] numbers yeah and I I mean I can run

[28:40] other scenario I just those were two

[28:41] that I happened to um one that I had

[28:45] done and then um in speaking with Mr

[28:46] Williams um I ran another one today just

[28:49] to take a look at it

[28:52] so but I'm happy to you know we need to

[28:55] come back do it or whatever

[29:00] go ahead so so I guess my thought is

[29:02] around like you know you know if you

[29:05] know we raise it then you know how do

[29:08] we have you know what's the mechanism to

[29:10] capture people who haden't been able to

[29:13] um doe to you know do to the changeing

[29:16] how do we you know what are the

[29:17] mechanisms to um make sure that they're

[29:19] aware because I think I mean we

[29:21] certainly we've we've done legal notices

[29:23] before we can put something in the

[29:24] newspaper to advertise it I mean I think

[29:26] it we've we've gotten a fair number of

[29:28] calls um to our office like because of

[29:31] hearing it on the news and and um people

[29:34] asking wanting to know what the limit is

[29:35] and you know what and so you know I have

[29:38] said to people kind of on hold until

[29:40] decisions are made but um so I think the

[29:42] word is out there but there's certainly

[29:45] um I think it would be tough you we do a

[29:48] mass mailing and probably not worth the

[29:51] cost of doing it um but but at least

[29:53] spreading the word and letting people

[29:55] know and um in various

[29:58] um Outlets Facebook social media but you said that you guys kind mail out now

[30:04] for time for people to quote unquote

[30:06] recertify I don't know if that's it's just for the folks who currently

[30:09] have it it's it's to so they and that

[30:11] would we could do that to that list

[30:14] right yeah absolutely oh yeah for thank

[30:18] you go ahead please could you just re

[30:20] clarify again um your thought on why we

[30:23] saw the reduction in the number of

[30:25] people that applied um in 2023 I know

[30:28] you mentioned it but I just wanted sure

[30:30] um I hear it again I think I mean I

[30:32] think Co so for the past 2 years because

[30:36] of um state law and and um changes with

[30:40] Co stuff we were able to just extend the

[30:43] exemption folks okay so you know and

[30:47] that that probably also you know I don't

[30:50] want to say it hurt us a little bit but

[30:52] when we got to the point of looking at

[30:53] people's income this year there was

[30:56] quite a difference between what they had

[30:58] last submitted to us and then what they

[31:00] submitted this year which is why there

[31:02] were a lot of people that didn't get the

[31:03] exemption or that you know um and I

[31:07] think some of that is also probably

[31:09] because people just weren't thinking

[31:10] about it because for two years in a row

[31:12] we didn't require them

[31:14] to um we just kept them at the same

[31:16] level that they had been

[31:19] at thank

[31:20] [Music]

[31:24] you any questions

[31:27] so what is the time frame if you when we

[31:29] want to do this that we need to make a

[31:31] final decision sure um we've got until

[31:33] March 1st so we've got a while we won't we will accept applications up

[31:38] until March 1st and we generally don't

[31:39] review anything until after that point

[31:42] so there's there's definitely a lot of

[31:44] time doesn't doesn't have to be a

[31:45] decision that um is made right away so

[31:49] it's just a go ahead Mr this is

[31:52] currently codified in the city code

[31:54] section

[31:55] 2341 um so if the council's inclined to

[31:59] change this have to be a call for public

[32:01] hearing um to amend the code okay thank

[32:11] you yeah M March 1st that's that's

[32:14] really the that um I would want to say

[32:17] that's probably a good deadline

[32:20] okay okay yeah in

[32:22] earli yeah I was going to speak to that

[32:24] point I definitely want to respect

[32:26] people's ability to to dissect this

[32:28] information slightly further I would

[32:29] feel comfortable maybe bringing it back

[32:32] in another two weeks I I think taking

[32:34] advantage of the time we have now to to

[32:36] Mr Golden's Point um processing through

[32:38] the adjustment to the city code and then

[32:41] having it all solidified by on March 1st

[32:44] um getting it off the our thought

[32:45] process so you can focus on some other

[32:50] things so if if we're planning on moving

[32:52] this forward why don't we call for the

[32:54] public hearing and utilize the time

[32:57] frame the public hearing will be in 4

[32:59] weeks

[33:01] time but now will give us enough um time

[33:04] to review what we have in front of us

[33:06] here then come

[33:07] back to process it out three weeks on

[33:10] the public hearing three weeks 3

[33:13] weeks so that will be enough time so I'd

[33:16] say as long as everyone's in agreement

[33:17] that we're going to be adjusting this in

[33:18] some shape or form so I think that would

[33:21] be fair allowing us the time to leverage

[33:24] both timelines and then going back in

[33:26] two weeks and adjusting what and

[33:29] not go ahead please think before we move

[33:32] forward on a public hearing we need to

[33:34] have the additional scenarios in place

[33:37] especially with the

[33:38] additional uh people who would be

[33:41] participating in the program so we know

[33:44] a roughly good appr proximization of the

[33:47] costs and we also need a plan on how

[33:49] we're going to pay for it before we talk

[33:51] about a public heory because people

[33:53] should know how that's going to be done

[33:57] can you get those numers in two weeks or

[33:59] CL

[34:00] us um I the par the applicants

[34:03] participant I mean I can't predict who's

[34:06] going to that's the I can tell you how

[34:08] many people we have already who have

[34:09] applied I can tell you how many people

[34:11] we have who are going to be renewing but

[34:16] you know I don't know how many of those

[34:17] folks are going to be selling their

[34:18] house or moving moving out of the area

[34:21] or you know I mean it's so it's just

[34:23] it's one of those things that you know I

[34:26] don't I don't even know how I would tell

[34:27] who's turning 65 in the next year well

[34:30] we have that information and we could

[34:32] get a range from 65 to say 130 140 just

[34:37] to give us a range of what the cost

[34:39] would be I mean it might take a little

[34:41] time to get the the individuals who uh

[34:45] would be turning 65 but I think it's

[34:47] worth having the numbers before we move

[34:50] forward so people can understand who's

[34:53] eligible what they might get and how

[34:55] it's going to be paid for

[34:59] I'm going to ask is that something you

[35:00] can get from your office that M PA is

[35:02] asking

[35:04] for um I I can't get the who's over or

[35:07] who's turning 65 um but like the other

[35:10] number there's there's some you know I

[35:11] can tell you how many people are

[35:13] expected to renew um and I can you know

[35:16] I can see if I can go back over the

[35:19] course of I don't I don't know know if

[35:21] we had that information before Co to see

[35:24] how many people we had um applying

[35:26] during that time see what the

[35:28] fluctuation and numbers were over the

[35:29] course of um a couple of years go ahead

[35:33] please we can get the ages from the

[35:35] county on the real property tax data

[35:38] looking at who's going to be turning 65

[35:40] from the property

[35:43] owners sorry that's that's one piece to

[35:45] it that that would be your yeah no it

[35:48] would be that would be the worst case

[35:50] scenario all the people who turned 65

[35:52] apply best case scenario is you know a

[35:54] quarter of those people actually are

[35:56] income qual qualified but it's good to

[35:58] know the the numbers yeah espe the year

[36:02] after go ahead and I I don't think that

[36:04] we need to rush if we have until March

[36:06] 1st as well I think the ability to be

[36:08] able to absorb gather data Etc um I I

[36:13] just don't think that we have to move

[36:16] quickly with the public hearing yeah but

[36:18] I'm not sure how much more information

[36:20] um M Michael R can give us at this point

[36:23] in time I mean I can you know looking at

[36:28] um if we had some sort of I mean I can

[36:31] you know take anywhere between the the

[36:33] you know 50 and say we had 100 more

[36:37] people apply this

[36:38] year um you know just looking at what

[36:41] the that Financial impact would would be

[36:43] again if it was $100,000 assessed value

[36:46] of a home um you know what is the what's

[36:49] the bigger picture look like um it would

[36:53] be you know similar to what I had run

[36:54] for these two scenarios

[37:00] Mr M if we could just have people

[37:02] articulate exactly what they would like

[37:03] to see and then give I would say give

[37:05] her a month though two weeks is a little

[37:07] short for all the information and if we

[37:10] could just give her a month to be able

[37:11] to do that since we do have to March 1st

[37:13] which I don't anticipate we will need

[37:14] until that time um and then we could

[37:17] move forward and you know do the public

[37:18] hearing and all of that sounds

[37:21] good I don't want to rush her through

[37:23] this process Mr will okay that oh

[37:27] consider okay you good okay so can we um

[37:30] can you follow up with a list of the

[37:32] things that is needed okay additional

[37:35] information is needed so that

[37:37] we and I'll see if I can get it I I mean

[37:40] I'll talk to some other assessors to see

[37:42] because I know that there're not there's

[37:44] not a lot of people looking into this

[37:46] but there are a couple now because they

[37:48] heard that that SK AC is looking into it

[37:50] so um I'll see if there's you know not

[37:54] maybe I'm not able to wrap my head

[37:56] around another way to predict some of

[37:59] that I was going to say for I'm able to

[38:01] gather any of that information we'll

[38:03] update the

[38:05] councel so do we need everyone who if I

[38:08] don't know if she was able to capture

[38:09] all the conversation that we just having

[38:11] and what they want so if we could ask

[38:12] everyone whatever it is they're looking

[38:14] for to email that those questions either

[38:16] you or Miss myu so we would know um

[38:19] which what miss m I would need to U be

[38:22] looking at okay okay yes that' be great

[38:27] thank you for thank you appre thank

[38:32] you okay the next item is allocation of

[38:35] 750,000 in Offa funding 1930 nor B

[38:40] Street palum Station Miss for yes as you

[38:44] know the initially we um allocated ARA

[38:49] funds to stack a Association to uh for

[38:53] the pump station however because it's

[38:55] not it's a city building we could not do

[38:58] that and so therefore we we sended those

[39:00] funds um back to the city to the ARA

[39:03] funds uh I would like for us to to

[39:06] reallocate them to the project knowing

[39:09] that the city is going to take care of

[39:10] it so that's that's all this is probably

[39:13] something we should have talked about

[39:14] when we res sended but we already uh I

[39:16] know that some work has already been

[39:17] done in addition to that so I just want

[39:19] to reallocate those funds back to the

[39:22] project to make sure that the project

[39:23] gets done even though it has to be done

[39:25] by the city

[39:29] any any

[39:30] questions just as council president

[39:33] points out some money has been used for

[39:35] exterior work so the number wouldn't be

[39:37] 750,000 and I don't have the exact

[39:41] number of what has been allocated for

[39:44] that it's not a huge amount of money but

[39:47] something everybody agreed to and

[39:48] something that uh the work was a

[39:51] necessity that had to be done mhm go

[39:55] ahead please May or wouldn't we just

[39:57] take that out of the

[39:58] 750 yes that's so whatever the and it's

[40:02] how to make the accounting cleaner to

[40:06] put a number in there of whatever the

[40:08] remaining funds are to say this is going

[40:11] to be used

[40:12] for so it's the 750 minus what we spent

[40:17] and then that dollar amount will go

[40:19] forward for the what would be hopefully

[40:22] primarily

[40:23] interior okay so you just don't want it

[40:25] one package the interior out exterior

[40:28] 750 you want to you would like to break

[40:29] it

[40:34] out easier for the accountant

[40:38] to in my mind if it was 750 for the

[40:40] project whether we did exterior or

[40:43] interior than it's just 750 and when

[40:45] it's when we spent it we've spent it

[40:47] even though we've already spent it I I

[40:49] knew that too I know that too well I

[40:52] should say we've encumbered it I don't

[40:53] know if we've actually expended so so so

[40:56] I just want to make sure that the

[40:57] project has what we originally intended

[40:59] to allocate towards

[41:02] it any other questions so then wouldn't

[41:06] it be 750 minus whatever has been

[41:09] spent well we have to do it for

[41:12] allocation but if the money's already

[41:14] been spent hasn't been spent it's been

[41:16] incumbered well we don't know he just

[41:18] said I apologize I don't

[41:20] know come I mean it might be zero in

[41:24] which case it's 750

[41:26] because um because we didn't um spend it

[41:30] we they took out the line item and now

[41:32] we have to recreate the line item so I

[41:35] understand that we don't know if it's

[41:37] spent any yet it's been encumbered has

[41:40] it been spent yet Mr

[41:43] uh so let's all right if it's been spent

[41:45] then we can change that number if it

[41:47] hasn't been spent and it's only been

[41:49] encumbered then we could just leave it

[41:51] at 750 and again because we res sended

[41:54] it we had to remove it as a wine item

[41:56] and now we have to put it back as a line

[41:57] item yes that's correct

[42:01] M any other discussion may have a motion

[42:04] to move this move second I'll second it

[42:07] all in favor all thank you the next item

[42:10] is the lease purchase agreement for the

[42:12] fire

[42:13] department you going take this all right

[42:16] thank

[42:23] you okay so we've uh done before with

[42:26] our fire department trucks uh we're

[42:28] looking for one replacement AEL and two

[42:31] pumper trucks and we're looking uh to

[42:34] get it's actually a sourcewell contract

[42:36] for Le uh lease purchase um we're

[42:40] looking to use an escro discount finance

[42:42] an option would would save the city

[42:44] around

[42:45] $290,000 um if we do um move forward

[42:49] with this the vehicle will be received

[42:51] by uh fourth quarter of 2025 uh or uh

[42:55] first quarter of 2026 six uh we

[42:57] recommend the city council approve this

[42:59] contract with leasing to

[43:04] Inc any questions move it second all in

[43:07] favor I thank you any other business of

[43:10] for finance to Second all in favor I

[43:13] thank

[43:14] you we're now call to order Public

[43:16] Safety Committee we have one item on the

[43:19] agenda

[43:21] tonight all right so correction uh the

[43:23] first item on the discussion will be

[43:25] moved to the following week uh just not

[43:28] having the uh personel to actually brief

[43:30] it this C is there specific questions on

[43:33] that that I could

[43:37] answer so so I would say uh based on

[43:40] this discussion uh I had with uh

[43:43] Mr uh with that the with our engineer

[43:47] Chris Wallen excuse me and John Kio

[43:49] there have been steps already taking

[43:51] place with this project and specific

[43:53] also wanted to have some uh updates regarding what's been been

[43:58] taking

[44:00] place it's really been under review

[44:03] since 2013 when B Boulevard was

[44:08] upgraded and some of the traffic

[44:11] patterns again have changed uh the

[44:14] casino came online more activities

[44:16] downtown so it's something that we're

[44:18] continually looking at then it becomes

[44:21] just adding that turn lane or the I

[44:25] shouldn't say the the internally is

[44:26] already there it's just adding the

[44:28] signal for the actual Lane uh but there

[44:32] are implications where it would Stack Up

[44:35] traffic depending on the timing and how

[44:38] you interface it with other

[44:41] uh traffic control devices primarily the

[44:44] one at Liberty in

[44:49] Erie and we're going to be in a better

[44:51] position to manage these going forward

[44:54] always we've added more fiber

[44:57] connections to ones downtown upgrated

[45:01] the ones around City

[45:02] Hall uh so as this all goes in place

[45:06] that uh hopefully the uh flow of traffic

[45:09] is going to be smoother and more

[45:11] efficient just going

[45:13] forward right thank you Mr Mayor I for

[45:16] the people listening giving proper

[45:18] context uh this agenda item was just

[45:20] address comments we heard from our

[45:22] previous city council meeting uh where

[45:24] an individual was speaking about some of

[45:26] the frustrations and also safety

[45:27] concerns with respect to Turning uh near

[45:30] Iran Union uh definitely I I appreciate

[45:33] the the work that's been done up to this

[45:35] point and I think this is honestly just

[45:37] an opportunity to just educate and just

[45:39] re identify the work that's been going

[45:40] on um but to the communities this may

[45:43] they had no idea or I think having a

[45:45] followup is appropriate to just let them

[45:47] know what's been going on at the present

[45:49] time I would still like to hear from Mr

[45:52] Wen and Mr

[45:53] coo just on and some of it I would hope

[45:58] maybe that they could put together a

[45:59] little bit more than just this one

[46:01] intersection because there are other uh

[46:05] call points of interest sometimes if you

[46:07] always get a green light you think

[46:09] everything's fine if you get a red light

[46:11] uh you're not quite as happy so how do

[46:14] we uh get that message out that again we

[46:17] want things to flow smooth and safe and

[46:19] uh uh also The Pedestrian Crossings are

[46:23] a key component of redeveloping

[46:26] uh the whole traffic pattern but that

[46:29] has the effect of slowing down vehicle

[46:32] traffic when you're doing greater time

[46:34] for pedestrian

[46:36] Crossings and I think you also had a

[46:39] really good point earlier where it's not

[46:40] as simple as just putting in a

[46:41] correction because there's a a reaction

[46:44] or the Rippling effect also so were

[46:47] there any other questions or

[46:49] comments right so I'm going to re have

[46:52] this on the agenda for another two weeks

[46:55] all right next item on the agenda is the

[46:57] nomination of Mr Keith St John to the

[46:59] civilian police review board and that'll

[47:00] be discussed by Miss Patrick thank you

[47:02] um so we had all received an email from

[47:05] the chair of the civilian police review

[47:06] board city council has the opportunity

[47:08] to have someone serve on the civilian

[47:10] police review board and that seat has

[47:12] been vacant since March of uh

[47:15] 2023 um Mr St John's bio and resin was

[47:20] shared with you he is an attorney he has

[47:23] an extensive legal background as well as

[47:26] um background in governmental Affairs um

[47:29] he's also been very active in our city

[47:32] um both in The Stockade neighborhood and

[47:34] now um he lives he uh where he resides

[47:37] now as well in terms of um his his

[47:40] involvement in that neighborhood

[47:42] association as well um so he has

[47:45] expressed interest in the um in the seat

[47:48] um and I just think he's a he's an

[47:50] excellent candidate primarily because of

[47:52] his legal background so I wanted to

[47:54] bring him forward for

[47:57] discussion uh I would say um seeing no

[48:00] other applicants I think it's important

[48:01] to make sure the Fe re board can have

[48:03] quorums that they can discuss the

[48:05] complaints that they're seeing and I

[48:07] think anytime you find a volunteer

[48:08] that's willing and able to provide their

[48:10] time and energy towards these types of

[48:12] efforts is uh important um so any other

[48:15] questions or comments um no I'm fine

[48:17] with this uh this um candidate I just

[48:20] want to remind people that we had we

[48:21] said in our legislation that we will

[48:23] have a uh plus an alternate so we still

[48:27] have a person that we could um and I

[48:29] know there were a couple people that

[48:31] they haven't submitt the resume that

[48:32] have said they were interested in being

[48:34] an alternate so I just want to remind

[48:35] you that we also need an alternate for

[48:37] this position and um it's equally

[48:40] important that as Mr Williams has said

[48:42] that um we make sure we have enough

[48:43] people um there's a person who just had

[48:46] to leave the board because of their

[48:48] employment so want to make sure that

[48:50] they have the opportunity to um to make

[48:52] sure they had to cancel their last

[48:53] meeting as a result of that so so want

[48:56] to make sure that we get enough people

[48:58] on the board so they can hold a

[49:00] meeting does anybody have any questions

[49:02] or Ive this second second oh oh I can

[49:08] second sorry

[49:11] no the board is down uh and you want

[49:14] this to move uh quickly as opposed to

[49:17] waiting we have a an off Monday too so

[49:21] it's not two weeks some of these things

[49:22] become three weeks if this is the

[49:26] consensus from the council I'll do a

[49:29] letter to you

[49:30] tomorrow the process is has come to me

[49:33] then I send it back to the council and

[49:35] you confirm it uh that I'd send the

[49:39] letter to you so that you could act on

[49:41] it in the affirmative on basis for the

[49:46] following Monday and actually make the

[49:49] appointment you know effective that day

[49:51] or you know whenever the clerk sends it

[49:53] over me the next day and we sign it if

[49:56] you want that or if you want it held

[49:58] just to go

[49:59] the two cycles down on the

[50:03] road my opinion is that we don't hold it

[50:06] just because as I uh just said that we

[50:08] they just had to cancel a meeting

[50:09] because they didn't have a quum so if we

[50:11] can get as many people on board to make

[50:13] sure that they have a qu are able to

[50:15] meet I think it's very

[50:21] important I'll send a letter to you

[50:23] tomorrow that can be incorporated P for

[50:27] next

[50:29] mon

[50:33] perfect no

[50:35] objections no no

[50:37] objection okay so are there any other

[50:39] items that call before the Public Safety

[50:41] Committee hearing can

[50:48] I those in favor hi hi any other items

[50:52] of Public Safety Committee uh can I a

[50:54] motion for so second in

[50:58] favor thank you um I'd like to call the

[51:01] order City development and planning we

[51:02] have three items on the agenda the first

[51:05] one was arpa contract updates but I

[51:07] don't see Miss Carver here tonight so

[51:10] I'm not

[51:11] sure uh

[51:13] exactly how that happened so I'll just

[51:16] have to give her a call tomorrow and we

[51:18] can have a discussion and make sure that

[51:19] it's on for the next time um item number

[51:23] two excuse me could we if we could get

[51:26] the um spreadsheet updated when she

[51:28] comes spre you know as we were doing

[51:31] before sure rather than just sort of

[51:34] furiously writing okay thanks I make

[51:39] sure okay the next item um is amending

[51:44] section 24818 of the city code to

[51:47] designate J Street from Liberty Street

[51:49] to Union Street a two-way street there

[51:50] was a public hearing on October

[51:53] 10th we had no speakers

[51:55] so at this point in time I would need a

[51:58] motion to move that forward so move

[52:00] second all in favor thank you and item

[52:05] number three reminder presentation of

[52:06] the hearts Family Cleaners CR and

[52:10] 1023 Mr T yes uh s family will be

[52:14] present next Monday presid resolution

[52:18] okay thank you no actions taken we just

[52:20] want to remind you thank you there's no

[52:23] other business to come before City

[52:24] development planning I'll ask for motion

[52:26] to adjourn so Mo second all in favor

[52:29] we're adjourn thank you next item on the

[52:32] agenda is the claims committee so I'd

[52:34] like to open claims um we have one item

[52:36] on the agenda Miguel Pama versus the

[52:38] city of SKC and we need to um go into

[52:41] executive session for that so i' like a

[52:44] motion for executive session so and a

[52:47] second okay all in favor I okay we're in

[52:50] second session the public

[52:53] have

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, October 16, 2023

Transcript