[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