[0:00] [Music]

[0:05] connecting city council committee

[0:06] meeting for Monday August 5th

[0:09] 2024 the first committee is Public

[0:12] Safety I'd like to call Public Safety

[0:14] the order we have one item on the agenda

[0:15] tonight that is the standardize the

[0:18] specifications for PPE or turnout gear

[0:20] Chief know

[0:41] good evening

[0:44] everyone okay so here this evening um

[0:49] Sam I just thinked specs that you get

[0:51] them I did very good so the request this

[0:55] evening is that um we are asking that

[0:59] our turn out gear that's the protective

[1:01] gear we wear pants and uh jacket be

[1:06] standardized our specs to be the the

[1:09] gear that we buy we currently purchase

[1:12] them from globe in the last 20 to 30

[1:16] years that we've purchased this gear and

[1:18] over that time we've made adjustments

[1:21] depending on you know where we are in in

[1:24] our fire department our pockets are

[1:27] designed a certain way for tools for

[1:29] community ation uh and it becomes very

[1:32] important that everybody has that same

[1:34] gear everybody has the same layer of

[1:37] protection and we've had very good

[1:40] dealings with globe the issue has come

[1:43] up when Globe has removed themselves

[1:46] from the state contract list they no

[1:48] longer participate in state contracts

[1:51] and that's their decision it wasn't

[1:52] anything that they did and they were

[1:55] removed so we've been discussing it with

[1:59] purchasing

[2:00] and purchasing suggested that the best

[2:03] route that we could go is to standardize

[2:05] the gear and then you put it up the bit

[2:09] chances

[2:10] are um there there may be certain things

[2:13] that only Globe does and that would kind

[2:16] of preclude them

[2:17] into you know into fulfill we're

[2:21] more concerned with maintaining the STS

[2:26] doesn't have to be from GL can be from

[2:28] whoever but we don't want the specs to

[2:30] be

[2:31] deviated so I've submitted the specs to

[2:35] 22

[2:36] Pages um for you to review and as an

[2:41] aside Globe is always very competitive

[2:44] most times being the uh cheapest bid or

[2:48] the lowest bid I should

[2:50] say thank you uh questions or

[2:54] comments at this point in time we

[2:56] haven't you said to sent that the 22

[2:58] guide recently this afternoon yes so we um Council doesn't have have that

[3:03] opportunity to look at that yet right so

[3:05] your request of us is to review that and

[3:08] then U make a decision sure all right so

[3:12] and so they're not on the state list are

[3:14] you trying are they um the only ones

[3:17] that provide what you're asked looking

[3:19] for well some of the things they do are

[3:23] privary so they would be the only ones

[3:25] to provide those aspects okay be it a

[3:28] technique be it a certain material

[3:30] there's not a lot of that but there are

[3:32] some of that sprinkled within the U the

[3:38] specs any other questions or

[3:41] comments refer to the member of the c um

[3:44] so just to clarify further so if

[3:48] we agree to these being the specs which

[3:51] I would support obviously taking your

[3:52] recommendation so if

[3:55] glow changes what they want to in other

[3:58] words it's not that we're agreeing to

[4:01] for the future we're just we're agreeing

[4:02] to these specifications yes okay not

[4:05] asking for them to be a sole source if

[4:08] that's the way that I'm being advised by

[4:11] Council then I'm good with that my end

[4:14] goal is that these turnouts be the ones

[4:16] that we've been purchasing gotcha thank

[4:18] you just wanted to clarify Mr thing is

[4:22] we can't go perspects that are solely

[4:25] written around one vendor you

[4:27] can't put out criteria IA for a Chevy

[4:31] engine where you need something that's

[4:34] in a certain horsepower range Ford may

[4:37] have it somebody else may have it so

[4:40] that as long as anything is you're

[4:42] saying some this is proprietary but

[4:45] there has to be an ability

[4:47] for other vendors to bid on this absent

[4:52] going out for a so Source where they

[4:55] have some unique product or feature that

[4:58] makes them

[5:00] stand out and be more advantageous for

[5:02] what we

[5:04] want I understand that our dealings

[5:08] maybe not so much with turnouts when we

[5:10] talk about bigger items like

[5:12] apparatus um and those specs are you

[5:15] know multiple Pages if not hundreds and

[5:19] so a lot of times or sometimes it's been

[5:21] our experience someone would bid it

[5:24] saying oh yeah we'll follow those specs

[5:26] and then when they start building it

[5:27] they don't and they can't

[5:30] and then we end up with a a product that

[5:32] would not really couldn't be pleased

[5:34] with so that's why we're asking that

[5:37] these specs be accepted and I understand

[5:40] your point Mr Mayor about proprietary

[5:44] items Mr so if I'm understanding

[5:47] correctly um the request is is based on

[5:51] obviously uh your experience and and

[5:53] that of of p is that we want to have a

[5:57] certain standard of suit we're not

[5:58] talking about necessary necessarily a

[6:01] particular vendor but this particular

[6:02] vendor hasn't been to meet the needs

[6:04] historically so what we're saying now is

[6:06] that we're going to standardize this

[6:08] give other vendors an opportunity to

[6:10] meet this standard but really the

[6:12] standard of the suit is what we're

[6:13] talking about um and it's necessary you

[6:15] know for the things that we only be able

[6:18] to consider that you guys understand

[6:19] about being out in the field right

[6:21] correct okay yeah definely support that

[6:24] any other questions or comments Mr sure

[6:27] is this spec coming directly from your department within your department

[6:32] say then I'm sorry this the

[6:33] specification is it coming directly from

[6:36] your department that's what we've

[6:37] developed over the years working with

[6:39] globe

[6:43] yes so Globe have develop St we've been

[6:47] working with them over the last 20 30

[6:50] years so for me this is all about safety

[6:53] of course we're in environments that are

[6:56] not attainable correct you're in

[6:58] environments that could be ° on the

[7:00] floor and I'm not being dramatic they be

[7:03] 1500° that's the ceiling though there's

[7:05] no room for you know I don't want to

[7:08] someone to come in and go yeah we follow

[7:10] that and it you know that's proprietary

[7:12] but our things is just as good and that

[7:15] we find out maybe it's not just good it

[7:18] safety for me and you guys know me well

[7:20] enough it is number one priority it's

[7:23] just that's my number one goal is to get

[7:25] everybody home just the way they can is

[7:28] no different and I'm a strong believer

[7:31] that these turnout gear that we have is

[7:34] what works for us and I want to maintain

[7:38] that and it and it goes to you know we

[7:41] have our radios in this pocket and we

[7:43] have our descending devices in this

[7:45] pocket and cudes in this pocket and you

[7:48] say well is that really a big deal maybe

[7:50] the manufacturer says can't do it here

[7:52] for whatever reason and some of the

[7:53] reasons are like really okay no we can't

[7:57] that's fine but now if you have a fire C

[8:00] down and I know that my descending

[8:02] device is in my right pocket and my

[8:05] pants and his is on the other side that

[8:08] could cause some issues cause some

[8:10] uncertainty delay the operations of

[8:13] getting the person out does that happen

[8:16] all the time it doesn't but we have to

[8:18] plan for

[8:21] it what other departments do they serves

[8:24] you know I can't give you a list I can I

[8:27] can't do it right now but there are

[8:28] other municipalities throughout the

[8:31] country that do this and this was

[8:33] working with Finance they said that's

[8:36] the best way for you to go being that

[8:37] glo's no longer on state

[8:40] contct chief did you budget for this on

[8:42] the capital sorry the start no gears did

[8:45] you budget um it's on our regular budget

[8:48] regular

[8:49] budget so we we um sorry you had

[8:52] apparatus I think under

[8:54] capital for coming up this year yes this

[8:57] year we have uh mon monitors uh EKG

[9:01] monitors and CPR uh devices that we put

[9:06] on

[9:07] there thank you we'll come back to talk

[9:09] to you about that I'm

[9:13] sure uh Mr R no I I

[9:17] want I wanted to ask you mayor does that

[9:19] address your

[9:21] concern his explanation of of uh who

[9:25] what what are you asking of the council

[9:27] tonight to adopt our specs as they are

[9:31] now to to make that as the standard for

[9:34] our turnout

[9:36] care so when we put it out the bid these

[9:38] are the specs that have to be

[9:50] met I assumption would be we would just

[9:52] put that out to bid with those

[9:56] effects then it comes back to the

[9:58] council for approv

[10:00] of the award of the bid because it's no

[10:02] longer on state

[10:05] contract my concern right and we could

[10:08] have further discussion obviously my

[10:10] concern is right now we're paying

[10:12] approximately $4,000 for the set and

[10:15] someone comes in

[10:17] 3500 and as we look at that we're going

[10:19] no you're missing a couple of things

[10:22] that's going to be when I we just put

[10:23] the specs out in the viid going out it

[10:26] doesn't then go to the council before it

[10:28] goes out to bid

[10:31] right

[10:34] okay so Maring correctly Mr May you're

[10:36] saying you don't need to adopt a policy

[10:38] as long as you bid with those the

[10:40] council wants to say these are

[10:42] the specs but

[10:45] it's we going go down a path then be

[10:49] doing stuff

[10:51] forment two two steps as opposed to you

[10:55] know if it's on state contract we just

[10:57] pick the vendor out award the

[11:01] contract this prior of the department to

[11:04] put the specs together throughout to bid

[11:07] and then it comes back to the council

[11:10] for approval when they award the bit it

[11:14] has to be within budget and hence to

[11:15] meet those terms and

[11:19] conditions yeah if I'm interpreting it

[11:21] right then you proceed with the

[11:23] specifications as you identified within

[11:25] your department so it kind of absolves

[11:27] us absolves us us of having to wait on

[11:30] it anyway so so what happens if someone

[11:32] comes in with a lower bid and Council

[11:35] says why are you about purchasing these

[11:37] why aren't you purchasing the lower bid

[11:39] one well the council can do that they

[11:42] can ask the questions when it comes back

[11:44] but if it doesn't meet the specs it's

[11:47] not going to go to the council for

[11:50] approval okay Mr car I just want to say

[11:54] um regardless of how this you know we

[11:56] move forward I just want to say that um

[11:58] I think that's other members of the

[11:59] council I'll certainly speak for myself

[12:01] and saying that you know we trust um

[12:03] your judgment and understand why you

[12:07] know the very different calculations

[12:10] that have to be made to do something

[12:11] like this and to your point that

[12:13] scenario might not happen all the time

[12:15] but if it does happen one time it can

[12:17] cost somebody's life so I'm going to

[12:18] definitely defer to you and your

[12:20] expertise when it comes to that so you

[12:22] just have my full support and and

[12:23] putting specs out the way that you see

[12:25] for thank you Mr Mayor you feel that

[12:28] maybe it's not a need to to adopt it as

[12:32] a standard and we could have the same

[12:34] outcome the by awarding the bid the

[12:38] council will be adopting

[12:39] those

[12:45] standards okay once you go out to

[12:48] bid and so I understand your concerns

[12:52] but however if you put the specs out and

[12:54] someone doesn't meet the specs if even

[12:56] if they're a lower bid but they haven't

[12:58] met all the specifications it would not

[12:59] move forward to us anyway they would

[13:02] have to meet all of the specifications

[13:04] not just because they came in a little

[13:06] bit that be my hope I've seen it

[13:08] differently on at least one other

[13:10] occasion on an

[13:12] apparatus and that's a far bigger

[13:19] discussion so something came back to us

[13:22] and we it came to us to take a look at

[13:23] even though it didn't need the

[13:24] specification is what you're saying I'm

[13:26] I don't know if it was this us or

[13:28] another us

[13:30] whatever else it was at the

[13:34] time hope

[13:35] it yes that that did

[13:38] occur the apparatus is entirely

[13:41] different ball game in half million 3/4

[13:44] over a million dollar and there is

[13:49] advantages in terms of

[13:52] standardizing the apparatus the fact to

[13:54] say we'd like everything to be a

[13:57] Chevy Chevy doesn't make a lot of fire

[13:59] trucks but

[14:03] uh you get somebody who comes in with a

[14:06] bed says that

[14:09] they've got pumping capacity the aerial

[14:13] capacity horsepower whatever looking for

[14:16] but they're A4 million dollar less than

[14:21] what the mayor and the chief has

[14:23] recommended the council might approach

[14:25] it differently and go from

[14:29] American the France the Rosen B another

[14:33] vendor

[14:35] which then creates some issues with

[14:39] training and equipment or the chief talk

[14:41] about you want the

[14:43] standardization where it just allows

[14:45] operational efficiency in the

[14:48] field it's we we've been on uh our

[14:51] mission to have as many things standard

[14:54] in the fire service as possible it's

[14:57] taken us probably 10 maybe maybe 15

[15:00] years to standardize our apparatus so

[15:04] you can go to engine one you can go to

[15:05] engine four I can send any firefighter

[15:08] with either one of those blindfold them

[15:10] tell them to give me the whatever and

[15:13] they can go to that area and get me

[15:16] whatever because they're standard that

[15:18] is extremely important and so it's the

[15:21] same philosophy with the with the gear

[15:23] now if we can accomplish that with just

[15:26] having put it out the bed and not

[15:28] accepting anything that doesn't meet

[15:31] exactly even though it's lower I'm good

[15:34] with that so if you choose not to

[15:36] standardize

[15:38] it knowing that that's going to be our

[15:40] goal I'm good either

[15:43] way currently is uh the your the

[15:47] firefighters are using the mob for GL

[15:51] manufacturing are they tail individual

[15:53] to the firefighter or are they come in

[15:56] various sizes say again I'm sorry like

[15:57] are they measured by like firefighters

[16:00] measured and given the Year everybody SP

[16:03] so okay so it's very specific can it be

[16:05] used by someone else or that's their no

[16:09] it's it's assed to the yeah

[16:13] name what happen to that they turn it

[16:15] back in back and then then we'll use it

[16:19] for training new people so they're not

[16:22] um you know on the front line but they

[16:25] go to the academy and they beat it up

[16:27] they're you know they're crawling and

[16:29] they're climbing and they're falling and

[16:30] they're doing all that stuff but they're

[16:32] not subjected to that

[16:34] thermal um isue are there like what come

[16:37] with those like guarantees that you have

[16:39] with global manufacturing so you would

[16:41] want to maintain a relationship if if a

[16:44] suit is found defective or there's an

[16:46] issue with it that you would go back to

[16:48] them where if you have another vend that

[16:50] may be

[16:51] pratic well I I wouldn't think that'd be

[16:53] problematic if there was an issue I

[16:55] would think a reputable manufacturer is

[16:57] going to stand up for that but our

[16:59] relationship with globe has been

[17:01] longstanding we have a very good

[17:03] relationship and I think that plays into

[17:05] the price we get

[17:08] too but I think what what the mayor

[17:11] saying is correct is that if if you have

[17:14] the specific the specifications you want

[17:17] this and this only you know not um

[17:21] anything different than that then um

[17:23] putting it out to bid only accepting

[17:25] those bids that would um give those

[17:27] specifications as as long as we're not

[17:29] gearing those specifications only to one

[17:31] company and we're gearing specifications

[17:33] to the needs of the fire department

[17:36] correct so again we're following the um

[17:40] suggestion from Finance to do with this

[17:43] one Mr I just want to reer this is not a

[17:46] decision that we would be making or I

[17:48] think we should be making without you so

[17:50] I just want to kind of I mean I

[17:52] definitely you know want to make sure

[17:53] that you know you be reassured that any

[17:56] decision that we make would be obviously

[17:59] I appreciate your

[18:00] input not to throw anybody onto the bus

[18:03] but finances here have

[18:11] anything is there anything that I don't

[18:14] want to step out of procedures um would

[18:18] you like to come forward and

[18:21] explain did I explain it

[18:25] properly a little nervous

[18:28] so s in every yeah my name is Sarah I'm

[18:31] the purchasing supervisor and in every

[18:34] bid you have to have an equivalency

[18:36] Clause it has to be there it's mandatory

[18:40] so if another company puts in a bid and

[18:44] they say hey it's a great product but

[18:46] it's not Globe which they've been

[18:48] accustomed to and you know they've

[18:52] experienced with for years and years and

[18:55] uh but another company comes in he says

[18:57] it's great it's wonderful and it's

[18:59] $5,000 cheaper you're not going to it's

[19:03] not going to work because we have we

[19:05] can't be that detailed in our

[19:07] specifications you have to have that

[19:09] equivalency clause in

[19:14] there um so in order when we have that

[19:17] Clause you have to be able to accept

[19:20] other bits and you can't just put those

[19:23] specific specifications you can't

[19:25] exclude people if they meet the

[19:30] specifications at a lower

[19:32] cost it's just the

[19:35] law so that's why you bring it to

[19:37] council you have them standardize it we

[19:39] still put it out to bid but now the

[19:42] vendors that you choose from they have

[19:44] to be able to offer what you're

[19:45] requesting because we brought it to

[19:47] council and Council approved it and it

[19:50] was resolved and that's what we decided

[19:53] that was best for the fire department so

[19:55] if I'm hearing correctly you're saying

[19:57] that the fire department having

[19:59] standardize these specifications is it

[20:00] sufficient enough we have to validate at

[20:02] the council level correct okay so I'd

[20:05] say with hearing that new piece of

[20:06] information thank you excellent

[20:09] job you just save the

[20:12] day that's what I

[20:17] said okay I think that puts a new uh

[20:21] perspective on everything that we've

[20:23] just heard um so that it sounds like we

[20:26] have to pass this so I'm willing to move

[20:29] that we about the specification by all

[20:32] right thank you second second second all

[20:34] those in favor I thank

[20:42] you we did like A4 million budget a lot

[20:46] easier than

[20:47] that not really care other items that

[20:54] comef second all in favor

[20:59] I would like to call the finance

[21:00] committee to order and the first item is

[21:02] intergovernmental cooperation agreement

[21:05] give

[21:18] Lieutenant I experienc last couple of

[21:20] years anyways we've been awarded the um

[21:23] Gib Grant which is the

[21:27] gun involved violation of elimination uh

[21:31] Grant and that comes through the DCJS

[21:33] what we're asking for today is

[21:37] to accept the probation department at

[21:40] least partial of their funding um to pay

[21:43] for or help reimburse an employee there

[21:47] which is our anti violence coordinator

[21:50] and ultimately what we are asking for is

[21:53] the probation department of the county

[21:55] in conc to transfer $40,000

[21:59] to of their give Grant funds to the city

[22:02] to offset payroll cost for an employee

[22:04] the anti antiviolence coordinator uh

[22:08] theam requires no further funds and will

[22:10] be used to pay a portion of the salary

[22:12] of our existing anti violence

[22:16] coordinator question on this

[22:19] item go ahead so the anti-violence

[22:21] coordinator works for the police

[22:23] department or the probation department

[22:25] well that's a great question

[22:29] I I just want to pay her

[22:31] $40,000 to be honest it's more of

[22:34] cooperation the city

[22:37] payroll sounds like a great

[22:39] collaboration though I think it's it's

[22:40] good to have that collaboration that's

[22:42] right exactly um she's she's been very

[22:45] helpful to understand and so

[22:49] thanks any other a question seeing

[22:52] thenone we have a motion to move this

[22:54] item forward second all in favor I thank

[22:57] you the next item is a connect Police

[23:00] Department City Towing Service

[23:04] Lieutenant Miki yes thank you so the

[23:07] city of connect advertised proposals

[23:10] from interested parties and the capacity

[23:12] of Tow Motor Vehicles of varying sizes

[23:14] and in all weather conditions tow rates

[23:17] as set by current resolutions and

[23:20] ordinances ultimately the recommendation

[23:22] is uh for the city council to authorize

[23:25] the mayor or as designate to enter in a

[23:27] contract with ac2 recovery LLC and H&K

[23:31] Towing Inc uh to provide towing services

[23:34] to the city of conect for a 3year ter

[23:37] awarded contracts can be amended to

[23:39] reflect any changes in the toll

[23:44] rates open questions on this

[23:48] item just one go ahead please all right

[23:51] so um we had the RFP in front of us yes

[23:54] so I did um have a question about

[23:57] something with in within the

[24:02] RFP it says I saw here somewhere I

[24:06] highlighted it all right um so under

[24:10] Section 8 submission requirements items

[24:13] number 34 and 10 refer to the fact that

[24:17] uh any Towing of city-owned

[24:19] vehicles uh they will not whoever bids

[24:22] on this will not be reimbursed for that

[24:25] so I wasn't clear on

[24:29] how that calculation came about and what

[24:31] the impact has on any businesses that actually do

[24:35] that Sean I I want to bank on somebody I

[24:39] mean I could speak sort of anecdotally

[24:40] but I um if we you

[24:44] know the history

[24:48] Lieutenant so the way it's been I do

[24:50] have an inter understanding of the

[24:51] contract L of the request for proposal

[24:54] but uh we've been operating under a

[24:56] contract for the last three or four 4

[24:58] years uh and we've been operating off of

[25:01] that contract now granted it's been

[25:03] expired uh or I should say we've been

[25:06] out of contract for probably the last

[25:07] two or maybe 3 years um as it stands now

[25:13] depending I'm

[25:14] sorry are you speaking strictly of uh

[25:17] City Vehicles I'm speaking strictly of

[25:20] that City Vehicles not other vehicles

[25:22] obviously they charge for that but it

[25:24] says here that if they charge if they um

[25:27] so I was saying own vehicle then they

[25:31] cannot ask the city for reimbursement

[25:33] for their work right so that that's my

[25:35] question

[25:36] cuz uh that's just part of the agreement

[25:39] that we've been operating under for at

[25:41] least since 2018 I suspect probably uh

[25:44] much earlier than that as

[25:50] well well my concern with that is that

[25:53] it's a this is these are best basically

[25:56] small businesses and I'm not sure I mean

[25:58] I I need know the rationale behind that

[26:00] because and me looking at this it seems

[26:02] like then this is basically cutting into

[26:05] their profit and is there some way that

[26:07] they're

[26:07] being compensated some of on some other

[26:10] the level through this well I suspect

[26:13] again I this is my own suspicion is that

[26:16] we tell a fair amount of vehicles in the

[26:18] city so if you are one of two vendors

[26:22] really in the city you're probably going

[26:24] to get some some revenue generated that

[26:26] way probably much more so than if you

[26:29] hadn't been our

[26:31] contractor so I I think that's maybe

[26:33] just a

[26:35] small I want to say price to pay but it

[26:37] works in the city's favor um to do that

[26:40] now I I don't know how many times a year

[26:43] that happens um but again we're talking

[26:46] essentially police cars and small um

[26:50] small vehicles under 10,000

[26:54] lounds go ahead please but it sounds

[26:57] like that was just part of the

[26:59] negotiating of this um contract that they it sounds like the the the the

[27:06] bidder wanted to get the contract so

[27:08] they you know it's just a something that

[27:10] they agreed to

[27:13] no I'm I see in the RFP that means that

[27:17] we ask that that's what we have before I

[27:20] mean but somebody have a choice somebody

[27:22] a bidder would have the choice

[27:25] of so so I hear what what president P

[27:30] was saying so so because if this if I am

[27:33] a small business and obviously this

[27:35] contract is going to be important to me

[27:38] in order to operate my business

[27:41] then I might go and you know enter in

[27:46] but I think that so your point if I'm an

[27:48] owner and I got to send somebody out

[27:50] then I still have to pay that per

[27:52] there's still Co cost associated with

[27:54] that so as I'm kind of putting that

[27:56] together in my head I'm just thinking

[27:57] like okay what does that look like uh

[28:00] you know is that a cost of doing

[28:02] business with the city is that how

[28:04] that's considered a cost of doing

[28:05] business with the city that you have to City vehicles for free cuz I don't

[28:09] want

[28:11] H historically TOS have this contract

[28:14] his tow City vehicles at no charge and

[28:18] we hope that that is a very

[28:21] infrequent scenario but it does happen

[28:24] where a police car will break down or a

[28:26] vehicle's in an accident and to be

[28:32] tow Lieutenant did any of the biders

[28:34] made um reference to this uh this item

[28:37] or made objection to it no not for

[28:40] anything under 10,000 so again they've

[28:42] been operating this way since at least

[28:45] 2018 so really been kind of a standard

[28:49] um standard procedure at this

[28:53] point I'd say wanting to be responsive

[28:55] to the comments around the table is it

[28:57] EAS quantifiable just how many times

[29:00] we've used this the mayor's Point like

[29:01] if it's something that has been rely

[29:03] enforced I think it's kind of a new

[29:05] point but if it's something that's been

[29:07] trending upwards I think it is important

[29:09] for us to be considered of our small

[29:12] businesses again I can just speak sort

[29:14] of anecdotally i i i as sort of

[29:17] Technology gets better and you hope they

[29:19] break down less and drive your safer so if there is a trend I suspect

[29:23] we would be on a lower Trend uh though I couldn't say that right here now I you

[29:29] know just going off of what I'm

[29:32] thinking one two a

[29:37] month I just you know just keeping in

[29:39] mind the the current uh resolutions

[29:42] regarding tow is the contractor May

[29:45] charge a rate up to

[29:46] $160 with an additional $35 fee paid to

[29:50] the city of SKC so they can charge up to

[29:53] $160 for current resolution on this for

[29:57] this type of operation so um

[30:02] that's a private tow if we asked them to

[30:05] tow it's

[30:06] $260 so you know without getting into

[30:10] the minds of those who put in

[30:13] proposals they're looking you know

[30:14] that's something they keep in mind they

[30:16] say okay right how many toes does the

[30:20] city have versus how many toes does the

[30:22] city ordered to have on on other types

[30:24] of vehicles so gu just go ahead I'd like

[30:28] to speak from experience my previous

[30:29] role was in the Traffic Division we had

[30:31] a longstanding relationship with the two

[30:34] cont a toe companies that were entering

[30:37] or would like to enter in agreement with

[30:39] um that's never been brought up as a

[30:41] source of contention I would say that if

[30:43] we were to potentially lower those

[30:45] standards would we attract other biders

[30:46] that may not be as qualified uh and

[30:49] maybe would be this would open up

[30:52] perhaps a whole can of worms I can say

[30:54] with certainty now that the two uh bids

[30:58] that we have are excellent agencies

[31:00] they're responsive uh they come

[31:02] essentially in all all weather uh I

[31:05] would hate to compromise anything that

[31:06] we have with those two um and that's

[31:10] just again just from my own

[31:14] experience so if uh if one of the

[31:16] potential contractors because I know so

[31:18] we've been dealing with the same

[31:19] contractors for a number of years so if

[31:23] one of the potential contractors or both

[31:25] of them said hey um I feel like for

[31:28] whatever reason maybe because it's

[31:29] starting to eat more and more to the

[31:31] bottom line to say when this RP pain

[31:34] comes out says or came out says you know

[31:37] this is this has become a hardship for

[31:38] me how how was that hand would that be

[31:41] handled and then we can I would have to

[31:43] defer to Sean would that be a

[31:45] contractual change or would that be a

[31:46] change in the

[31:50] RF hey Sean

[31:53] if the question was if down the road or

[31:57] even now when the contractor was

[31:59] uncomfortable with towing a city vehicle

[32:02] for free how could they change that down

[32:04] the road that that is that separate from

[32:06] the RP would that be more contractual

[32:08] you know the council we can do here

[32:09] tonight just to you know help move

[32:11] things along is then accept the two

[32:14] recommended proposals and the uh RFP

[32:17] does allow us into contract negotiations

[32:19] with those twoo so if there those issues

[32:22] then we can come back with the final

[32:23] contract draft for your review we can

[32:27] just move the for then we can have

[32:29] discussions with the uh the two selected

[32:33] uh vendors and then have further

[32:34] discussions because the RFP already

[32:36] allows for that and maybe that's the

[32:38] best way to

[32:40] go so RFP go out as is right and then

[32:44] when it comes down no the I'm sorry Mr M go ahead please so you're

[32:49] saying let the r let us go into contract

[32:51] based on this RFP the RFP they've

[32:54] already submitted their proposals based

[32:56] on this RFP mm the RFP allows us to go

[33:01] in contract with any respondents whose

[33:03] qualif qualifications conforms with and

[33:05] meets the specs by the city which we've

[33:08] put before you okay so we

[33:11] can accept those uh accept those

[33:14] respondents and then we can enter into

[33:16] contract uh negotiations if the city

[33:18] council so wishes pursu to the terms of

[33:20] the

[33:23] RFP that's how we so we can just move it

[33:26] forward and then have the contract

[33:28] follow behind and then you review the

[33:30] proposed

[33:31] contract so with that said then the

[33:33] recommendation to the council here that

[33:35] we need to change it to enter into a

[33:38] contract negot negotiations contract

[33:41] negotiation go ahead the contract

[33:44] negotiations are with the mayor if the

[33:46] council doesn't you no but no I mean if

[33:49] there's any concerns you wish to

[33:51] incorporate into the negotiations we can do that right here and now and

[33:56] then obviously mayor will be authorized

[33:59] to sign the contract at a at a later

[34:01] date if you so wish to take a look at

[34:03] what the terms and conditions

[34:06] are but I just just just move the the

[34:09] process okay we've selected these two

[34:11] let's have contract

[34:13] negotiations and and it says uh when's

[34:16] in the best interest in Su to do so we

[34:18] can have negotiations with the

[34:20] respondents and uh and move from there

[34:25] with that said should we have a draft I

[34:26] mean draft of a contract to look over we

[34:30] can do that we can we can do that as

[34:32] there's no we did receive this evening

[34:35] but that was more a sample okay so we

[34:37] kind of like if we can have a draft of

[34:39] both of the two um company well the same

[34:43] we'll have a sample just framework draft

[34:46] a draft just a SLE I think that would be

[34:48] the best way forward to have a draft and

[34:50] let us review it and kind of move

[34:52] forward based on what is in that dra

[34:55] okay but in the in the in the short term

[34:59] a resolution just accepting these two as the qualifications and then

[35:03] authorizing uh at a you negotiations to

[35:06] go forward is that is that

[35:09] agreeable in other words we're not we're

[35:11] just saying yes they they've met the

[35:14] requirements and we're going to have

[35:15] further discussions

[35:17] with goad please yes I mean we've

[35:20] already received these bids these

[35:22] companies out of their own choice are

[35:24] bidding based on this RFP so again I

[35:27] mean it is a free market in the in the

[35:29] United States that isue and they have

[35:33] determined that this is okay with them

[35:35] these companies and we are you know in

[35:39] the best interest of the city uh meing

[35:42] to move forward so I I you know maybe

[35:45] next year or next time we have to do

[35:48] this um we look at it again

[35:51] but we can't control the companies could

[35:54] have decided not to put in vids if they

[35:57] didn't like the the terms of this

[35:59] RFP right again I think we're just

[36:02] asking that we move forward the RFP is

[36:04] out so there's still contracts we can

[36:08] discussions and then all we're asking is

[36:10] to go

[36:12] forward interesting I'm move to go

[36:17] forward have we done this in the past

[36:19] where we adopted RFP or we just go

[36:21] straight into the contract and the

[36:23] contract before the council the council

[36:24] review the contract make Amendment if

[36:26] there's any and then move forward

[36:28] authoriz we're just moving this forward

[36:30] because there's two vendors proposal

[36:33] this way we can have those discussions

[36:36] this way and you've also indicated some

[36:39] concerns and they may have some concerns

[36:42] so I think we should just go right into

[36:43] the draft and have the draft and then

[36:44] move

[36:45] forward I

[36:48] mean why why this and then the draft

[36:54] contract I'm just suggesting that we we

[36:58] could do it in two weeks but I'm saying

[37:01] this way we these are the two we've

[37:02] selected there's a contract on meeting

[37:06] of the mins in two weeks we'll have the

[37:07] draft contract for you all to review and

[37:10] then do a final resolution but at least

[37:12] this way we can move it forward there

[37:15] these are the vendors that we're going

[37:16] to be that's this the resolution is to

[37:20] for the mayor to enter into a contract

[37:21] but I think the the chairman wishes to

[37:24] no but I think we we're authorizing the

[37:26] mayor so to enter into a contract

[37:28] correct we don't even we don't know what

[37:30] the contract is so we can send you the

[37:32] draft so that's why I'm asking if we can

[37:34] ask the draft review the draft and move

[37:36] forward we don't even need to adopt this

[37:37] we go straight into the contract and

[37:39] move forward with the recommendation

[37:42] from the police department and Port they

[37:44] are recommending that we select AC

[37:46] Towing and HK we just need the draft

[37:49] contract and move

[37:51] follow and that what Mr suggesting so

[37:55] you want to do that Monday night I mean

[37:56] we can provide

[37:58] before I willing to to to me okay we can

[38:02] do that too before

[38:04] Monday do I think that that's the way

[38:07] forward I don't I can't recall that we

[38:09] did

[38:10] this on the Cil here okay that we move

[38:14] something separate from contract or RFP

[38:16] then contract let's stick to what we've

[38:18] been doing contract before the console

[38:20] we review make Amendment if there's any

[38:22] move

[38:23] forward so can we get that draft the two

[38:27] draft

[38:28] well do have a sample sample contract

[38:31] and send it out to the comp what do you

[38:32] mean sample in other words the framework

[38:34] of the comp not with the names in it yet

[38:36] because this is just you know if they're

[38:39] this way it's open for you to add any

[38:41] terms and conditions that you so wish no

[38:45] you you selected to

[38:48] company what I'm saying is is that if

[38:50] there's any terms and conditions you

[38:52] want to add you can oh but you want the

[38:54] names of yeah yeah we we we power up it

[38:56] to companies so everything should be

[38:58] added there and if we as a council have

[39:00] changes we'll we'll send back those

[39:02] changes okay and if there's no changes

[39:04] then we'll adopt

[39:07] it go ahead please the only thing that I

[39:09] would ask is because my concern was

[39:11] about whether this cost is impacting the

[39:13] small businesses so if if if is there a

[39:17] way that we can get the information that

[39:19] I that isn't impacting them

[39:21] somehow in terms of us you know what the

[39:24] cost is to the businesses to to to be

[39:27] doing that work without being

[39:31] compensated yeah we can certainly run a

[39:33] report and we can call we can um analyze

[39:36] how many times they tow our vehicle sure

[39:39] we do that all

[39:41] right I would be

[39:44] that that would be my only

[39:48] yes finance committee are we good with

[39:50] that so we're going to have

[39:54] to recess

[39:58] and finance committee

[40:01] Monday just you just move forward and

[40:05] just and then just forward with the

[40:08] resolution send the contract and if if

[40:10] it's not to your liking just pull the

[40:12] item from the agenda and then I'll come

[40:14] back if

[40:19] [Music]

[40:21] necessary yeah I I I would rather see

[40:24] let's U recess so Monday evening

[40:28] five well you want to do the rest of the

[40:30] items first no no no I'm just saying

[40:32] that at the end we'll recess if you're

[40:34] okay with that we can discuss it at the

[40:36] end at 5:30 Monday

[40:41] M are you good with that yes okay all

[40:45] right thank you very good thank you you

[40:48] help from us no

[40:49] problem the next item is the

[40:52] Y WCA for critical repair contract

[40:56] Amendment

[41:04] good evening city council mayor it's hot

[41:06] in here it's very hot in here we have to

[41:10] turn off the air so people can be heard

[41:12] I know I'm sorry all

[41:14] right um today we have the department of

[41:18] development and planning received a

[41:20] request from our sub and the YWCA in

[41:23] regards to arle funding they are looking

[41:26] to modify budget from the allocation

[41:29] they received for critical um repairs um

[41:32] today we have the CEO come here to

[41:34] answer any questions in regards to those

[41:36] changes I did submit the letter um to

[41:38] the council for review so Kim is here

[41:40] with her team kayb from the thank you Alexandria hi everybody good

[41:47] to see you all again once again um this

[41:49] is Kyla she is our grant coordinator

[41:52] writer extraordinaire I'm Kim I'm the

[41:54] CEO at the YW we'll take very few

[41:56] minutes of of your time and ky's going

[41:58] to start are you good here we go hi

[42:01] everyone so back in Fall of 2021 we

[42:04] received the Ora Grant from the city uh

[42:06] for critical Capital needs at our main

[42:08] site at 44 Washington Avenue this grant

[42:10] was for

[42:15] $364,900 so far with $358,900

[42:27] to the larger need for affordable

[42:29] housing in um skan County our original

[42:32] Grant the budget covered replacing the

[42:35] windows at 44 Washington Avenue uh

[42:38] rebuilding the front steps fixing the

[42:40] dra drainage pits and getting a new

[42:42] water

[42:44] main so um as Kyla said our biggest

[42:47] priority is our Harbor House project

[42:49] just so you know we've been working on

[42:51] that project since 2017 the project took

[42:54] kind a new scope um for those of you who

[42:56] have been here that along with us um we

[42:58] had it in three phases one being the

[43:02] building the new building um being

[43:04] created behind us and then our current

[43:07] building built in

[43:09] 1929 um being renovated and now we've

[43:12] added an additional third phase which is

[43:13] moving our Early Learning Center which

[43:15] is not part of this request um and so we

[43:19] with those two things happening and now

[43:21] finally coming to fruition in Spring of

[43:23] 2025 all the dollars close to $47

[43:26] million

[43:27] already um we are hoping to go under

[43:30] construction let's say March so what we

[43:33] would like to use these dollars for is

[43:35] to support that Harbor House project um

[43:38] and so Kyla is going to go on to the

[43:40] next section and we're almost done so

[43:43] the bud budget modification we are

[43:45] hoping to spend $98,000 of the full

[43:48] Budget on the water main replacement

[43:51] this is part of the project that's

[43:52] already underway we're in the final um

[43:54] steps of finalizing the contractor

[43:57] selection we request that the remaining

[43:59] $266,400

[44:27] um for which funds are most needed most

[44:30] dire um and we uh without a doubt are

[44:34] confident that we will expend all arpa

[44:37] funds by the June 30th 2026 deadline so

[44:41] to round it all up we sorry oh sorry not

[44:47] try to give space we are using the funds

[44:49] as we requested them initially in

[44:52] 2021 um we were awarded them at the end

[44:55] of 2021 and now we're almost four years

[44:58] from that so as you can see the project

[45:00] has taken some different iterations but

[45:02] we are ready but we needed to have a

[45:04] little bit more flexibility so that's

[45:06] really what we're coming to the council

[45:07] for is a little additional flexibility

[45:09] in regards to spending the dollars on

[45:12] areas in the building um most of them

[45:16] the same areas Windows front steps well

[45:19] the front steps are done but the

[45:20] drainage pits the water main um just to

[45:23] make sure that we are not overstepping

[45:25] the use of the ARA funds and that's

[45:27] really why we're here tonight so thank

[45:28] you for your time does anyone have

[45:30] questions how much did you say for the

[45:32] water me

[45:34] $98,000 okay here have

[45:37] 62,000 that was four years ago yes yes

[45:41] we now that we have the new bids and

[45:43] this was the lowest um eligible bid that

[45:46] we received just again demonstrating how

[45:48] much construction costs have we have

[45:50] that in letter dat to July 10th yes and

[45:53] we we went to bid um just the weeks

[45:56] after that letter was written that

[45:59] letter I believe also includes Nava's

[46:01] house as part of the the project we

[46:03] decided to put before the council

[46:05] everything for Harbor House because that

[46:07] way it is specifically at the exact same

[46:10] site that the original AR funds were

[46:11] requested

[46:13] for go ahead please so so we have here

[46:17] what the original scope um was

[46:20] for what happens to all of these things

[46:22] that that you wanted the money for

[46:24] they're wrapped into the larger $47

[46:26] million project so we're not going to

[46:28] replace windows right now at the

[46:30] beginning of the project now that we are

[46:33] getting our $47 million a part of that

[46:36] is the window project um so it's just

[46:39] the the software cost at the beginning

[46:41] of doing site prep that is is more

[46:44] integral I mean we didn't know that at

[46:46] the time in

[46:47] 2021

[46:49] so go ahead please so so what I'm

[46:52] understanding is that the initial scope

[46:54] of work that you want wanted to get done

[46:57] will still be we still will be getting

[46:59] done it's just a different pot of pot of

[47:02] money okay all right okay yes when we

[47:05] first wrote the grant essentially these

[47:07] were Standalone projects not wrapped

[47:08] into the larger scope now we're just

[47:10] hoping for the flexibility with the

[47:12] larger Capital stack to to um really

[47:15] wrap it in

[47:20] that did we did we not change this um

[47:23] one time the the requirement initially

[47:27] you asked us to do was 365,000 was to do

[47:32] certain project and then you came to us

[47:35] and ask us to change the the allocation

[47:38] to the Early Learning Center but it was

[47:41] outside of the city and so it was denied

[47:43] right am I correct in saying that

[47:45] correct it didn't actually um they

[47:47] wanted to move that money to the Early

[47:48] Learning Center it was in Rotterdam and

[47:50] from our prior experience we're not

[47:52] paying for things outside the city so

[47:55] didn't even get that not accept not AC

[47:59] so Mr M I do have um are you talking

[48:02] about this do you have

[48:05] it yeah go ahead so initially in in our

[48:10] resolution that we did in

[48:12] 2022 um this

[48:15] 364,000 for uh permanent housing for the

[48:18] 400 um single occup and units right and the repair of the building at 44 24

[48:27] Washton and this is still yes but the

[48:31] Harbor House is really is it really at

[48:34] 24 is it behind 44 Harbor House is the

[48:37] entire project now so it's the

[48:39] renovation of the current 1929 building

[48:42] and the establishment of the new

[48:44] building the funds that we're asking for

[48:46] you to reallocate or to be more flexible

[48:49] with are for that 44 Washington Avenue

[48:51] 1929 building and some of it for Harbor

[48:55] HS based on the entire project is called

[48:58] Harbor House it's just a project name

[49:00] yes Harbor House is two two phases so it

[49:02] includes the new development behind 44

[49:05] Washington Avenue but it's also the

[49:06] substantial Rehabilitation of the 44

[49:09] Washington Avenue affordable housing

[49:13] units let's move there go ahead because

[49:16] in in the originally in

[49:17] 2022 they're separate you have Harbor

[49:20] House which we gave $750,000 to and you

[49:23] call that something separate Harbor

[49:25] House and then the critical need

[49:27] was was separate so it was

[49:29] ited one B project so at that time it

[49:33] was a two-phase project that we were

[49:35] trying to get funded separately to do

[49:38] different funding streams since then

[49:40] we've put all of the funding together to

[49:42] do it in one phase being the renovation

[49:46] and the creation of the new building so

[49:48] it is all one phase of building going on

[49:52] and this is because of the tax credits

[49:54] that are available is that we are more

[49:57] competitive if we were to do it all in

[49:59] one stage

[50:00] lously thank you

[50:03] sure go ahead please uh thank you for

[50:06] the overview my one question is you said

[50:08] these new modifications for that

[50:11] allocated money you said they weren't

[50:12] wrapped into the larger project can you

[50:14] just explain why that we thought we were

[50:17] going to get funded a lot sooner for the

[50:19] larger project and so as we were waiting

[50:22] and waiting and waiting and now we're

[50:24] getting the funding there was just

[50:26] there's this overlap now because as

[50:28] xenolith who is our partner in the big

[50:31] project and they are the the contractors

[50:33] and the developers they're like we don't

[50:36] think we should do windows if we have to

[50:37] do a baitman yet repeat that again like

[50:41] why would we put in new windows if we

[50:42] have to do let a batement and as best as

[50:44] a batement like so we would actually be

[50:46] wasting the city's money if we did some

[50:48] of these projects first rather than

[50:51] doing it in the way that you know

[50:53] christic construction is saying we

[50:54] should do it so this has been a large

[50:56] process of conversation to make sure

[50:58] we're not wasting dollars by doing new

[51:01] windows and then all of a sudden we've

[51:03] got to rip those out because there's

[51:04] this best of behind them so does that

[51:06] expl yes sir sure in your U original ask

[51:11] in the application you you mentioned

[51:12] that you need immediate need for repairs

[51:15] are those falling into safety

[51:18] concerns and why why why not why not

[51:22] repair them with this

[51:23] money we we are but they need to be

[51:26] wrapped in into the larger project

[51:27] because there's steps that have to be

[51:29] taken like step one is not to put new

[51:30] windows in Step One is going to be to do

[51:32] a batement within the building because

[51:33] it's a 1929 building so there's a lot of

[51:36] asbest or lead that needs to be taken

[51:38] care of and then we'll move on like I am

[51:40] not a developer nor am I a construction

[51:43] contractor so they have asked us to

[51:45] request this reallocation in light of

[51:47] the entire larger project to make sure

[51:49] we're not wasting the city's dollars by

[51:52] doing something that seems a bit out of

[51:55] line with the process that should take

[51:57] place that's why I'm trying to get in

[51:59] terms of it was it was needed there for

[52:01] immediate repair so why not do it why

[52:04] wait until next year cuz we'd be ripping

[52:06] them out and wasting the dollars to do

[52:10] other things that need to be done around

[52:12] say the windows or the drain pits or and

[52:16] that's why the water man is the first

[52:17] thing we're doing CU that's kind of like

[52:18] a hard crost you need a good water main

[52:20] to be able to put in the number of units

[52:22] we're going to be putting in

[52:30] I just want a clarification you said who recommended that you well the

[52:34] construction company okay y like Chris

[52:37] say is our big contractor on the larger

[52:40] project the $47 million project so we we

[52:44] don't want to go put new windows in if

[52:45] they're going to come back and say well

[52:47] now we're going to rip those out because

[52:49] so you know we're we're trying to work

[52:51] with there's nine or 10 of us on this

[52:54] project team so so far none of this work

[52:57] has been done well the water main is

[53:00] under we've got the specs and we've got

[53:02] the drawings and we've s it out to bid

[53:05] and we've got an approval from the city

[53:08] for the bidder and they're coming on

[53:10] site this week to actually do a final

[53:12] walkth through so that's going to

[53:14] proceed imminently but the other areas

[53:17] are

[53:18] not and And to clarify that the timeline

[53:21] has changed because as we said we had to

[53:24] um pretty substantially change our

[53:26] strategy for the project at first it was

[53:28] two different phases and we were

[53:30] pursuing a different line of tax credits

[53:33] um which was deeply competitive and

[53:35] because we are in a historic district we

[53:37] were already ineligible because our

[53:39] costs were higher no matter what we we

[53:41] did so going toward this um new so from

[53:45] 9% to 4% 9% to 4% that is why the

[53:48] timeline has shifted but we are really

[53:50] confident now we have our Capital sta in

[53:52] order and we're ready to go in early

[53:54] spring 2025

[53:58] go ahead please I know you can never be

[54:00] 100% confident how confident are you

[54:01] that there are no other obstacles or

[54:03] barriers ahead or how much of that

[54:05] funding is completely align I don't even

[54:08] want to think about that but um I'm

[54:10] going to say 99% sure we've spoken with

[54:13] people at the state level who were in

[54:15] conversations with all of the different

[54:17] funding sources which you know isi

[54:20] dollars the 4% tax credit folks uh uh

[54:24] HH HFA all all of the letters so um and

[54:28] they're all saying this is a go so I

[54:31] have to say unless some catastrophic

[54:35] world event

[54:37] happens we are a

[54:39] go so that's kind of the follow up on

[54:42] his question so you you believe that all

[54:45] your money is going to be because you

[54:47] have a significant Gap the current Gap

[54:50] based on this this I don't know what

[54:51] you're looking at I'm looking at the

[54:52] letter that we said just the current Gap

[54:56] that

[54:58] that's so the the HCR funds that we are

[55:01] pursuing this is the final Capital stack

[55:03] that is the the tax credits that we were

[55:05] referring to we are essentially just in

[55:08] line we're in line with the 4% tax

[55:10] credit yes um we have to wait until we

[55:13] are first in Q essentially and and that

[55:17] is the remaining Gap there that we are

[55:19] referring to so when you go for a 4% tax

[55:22] credit the difference between 4% and 9%

[55:24] is that you get in a line for your

[55:26] project and we keep being told we are we

[55:29] are right there um meaning and they've

[55:32] given us the date they have given us the

[55:34] date of spring 2025 when we'll be ready

[55:36] Darren Scott from HCR has spoken with us

[55:39] and told us that so until our number

[55:42] comes up in the queue it's like waiting

[55:44] for a transplant we don't

[55:47] know right when it's going to happen but

[55:49] all of the powers that be are saying

[55:51] early spring be ready to go and we are

[55:55] proceeding with our developers and all

[55:57] of the I mean we meet weekly sometimes

[55:59] twice weekly with everybody on the team

[56:02] because we're we're going like like I I

[56:06] don't know what else I can do other than

[56:07] I would need to get a letter from HCR

[56:09] but 4% tax credits don't work that

[56:12] way anybody

[56:15] else go ahead please so you say pending

[56:18] from the city 1.5

[56:20] million

[56:22] home the the home funds we are

[56:24] reapplying for in order to um be better

[56:27] on the funding timeline with our home

[56:29] funds it was a timeline discrepancy so

[56:32] we have to wait for the answer is what

[56:34] we were told why we didn't get the home

[56:38] off which is a 1.5 request but we have

[56:43] 47 40 let's say 44 other million dollars

[56:46] we're going to be using this isn't a

[56:48] like a one month project it's like a 12

[56:50] to 18 month project so the project will

[56:53] get underway with all the other dollars

[56:54] in the stack

[57:04] okay any other

[57:13] questions Mr Man put your hands

[57:23] with how this question for the council I

[57:27] mean I I can't recall that we move

[57:29] funding from one project to another

[57:31] project I think we move funding within

[57:33] the same project but a a little bit of

[57:36] deviation from the description the

[57:38] specification so this is that's all

[57:40] that's happening here is just moving it

[57:43] internally within the building what's

[57:44] getting done at what

[57:47] time that's what we

[57:52] do go have pleas I'm I'm comfortable

[57:54] with this I mean I think that have done

[57:56] their due diligence the construction

[57:58] project as you know again like Kim I'm

[58:02] not a construction manager or a

[58:04] contracting company but I think we all

[58:06] know that things can change um so again

[58:09] it is just using our money

[58:12] um to meet the changing needs that have

[58:15] happened but it's still the same project

[58:17] which is obviously still a really

[58:19] valuable project in terms of the folks

[58:21] that will receive this housing um you

[58:25] know it's very important that they do so

[58:27] I'm I'm in support of this go ahead

[58:30] please so I I so my question earlier was

[58:33] around like the scope of the project um

[58:35] to make sure that the original scope was

[58:38] still going to be met which is really

[58:39] important to me um and I think that my

[58:43] question is not around like you know

[58:47] importance of this project or whether

[58:49] it's important or not it just it does

[58:51] kind of make me think about like um our

[58:54] flexibility with other projects as well

[58:56] right and I want to just you know again

[58:59] I'm always going to be um trying to

[59:01] encourage us to use an equitable lens

[59:03] when we approach everything that we're

[59:04] doing here and I just I'm wondering

[59:09] about our consistency of um kind of

[59:14] being flexibility with uh other projects

[59:18] that that we have too so that's just a

[59:20] thought in my had as far as this right

[59:21] here um I think that

[59:23] um if the buin of school for the project

[59:26] it's going to be met um then you know I

[59:29] could see why how we can make a a

[59:32] justification for doing it um but to

[59:34] your to what I think your point was um I

[59:39] don't know if we've had other projects

[59:40] come forth and request something similar

[59:44] and we haven't um given it to them based

[59:48] on what the original agreement was so I

[59:50] just think about that stuff I think that

[59:52] we want to continue to be flexible as we

[59:53] can

[59:56] go ahead please and this project has

[59:59] changed dramatically in terms of its

[1:00:02] scope where it was originally proposed

[1:00:05] to do the new building on the rear of

[1:00:07] the campus and leave the front building

[1:00:11] in a disrespect less than a desirable

[1:00:15] condition then try and line up the money

[1:00:17] for it what has happened is they've

[1:00:20] lined up the money for the whole project

[1:00:23] as a result that it's taken a little bit

[1:00:25] longer but there are these components of

[1:00:28] the water line some of the other

[1:00:30] features the front steps that were done

[1:00:32] that were always originally planned to

[1:00:35] be done just the timing has changed a

[1:00:38] little bit and so I again would ask the

[1:00:40] council to move ahead with these

[1:00:42] recommended changes and that is going to

[1:00:45] be a project that reflects well on that

[1:00:49] organization it is going to dramatically

[1:00:52] increase its ability to serve its

[1:00:54] targeted group and and everybody's going

[1:00:57] to look good at the end of

[1:01:04] this go ahead please I just have a

[1:01:06] question this question so what if for

[1:01:09] what happens if the 1.5 million when you

[1:01:11] go to the next round I and how it goes

[1:01:13] you you put it in and it doesn't work

[1:01:16] out you put it in again it doesn't work

[1:01:17] out what happens to your project if the

[1:01:20] 1.5 million does not come through well

[1:01:23] 1.5 million out of 47 million is really

[1:01:26] a small and I know it's not small but in this particular situation we'd be

[1:01:32] going to the investors who have already

[1:01:34] signed off on the project to increase

[1:01:36] their support we have a number of large

[1:01:39] investors involved because it's 4% tax

[1:01:41] credit um so we'd do that I mean and

[1:01:44] Kyla has been an extraordinary grant

[1:01:45] writer I can't predict the future I'd

[1:01:47] love to say that I'd love to predict the

[1:01:50] future the project would already be done

[1:01:52] um but because I can't you know that's a

[1:01:55] valid it's it's a really valid question

[1:01:57] but I don't think we'll stop until we

[1:01:59] get the bucket full if that does

[1:02:04] happen so so you're ready to to go ahead

[1:02:06] and spend $98,000 for the water man rep

[1:02:10] replacement well we have the bids ready

[1:02:13] and so and the balance is going towards

[1:02:16] the Harbor House

[1:02:18] right right the 266

[1:02:22] 449 and I have I have to uh you know

[1:02:25] think and Mr Harley and come in there

[1:02:27] that I mean we're going to have to be

[1:02:29] open up if anybody else come forward

[1:02:31] before us you know with a recommendation

[1:02:34] wanted to move to a next project we have

[1:02:35] because this is the first time we're

[1:02:36] doing this we're moving an entire

[1:02:38] Project funding into another project so

[1:02:41] if some agency come before us we have to

[1:02:44] have an open lens to look at that yeah

[1:02:47] is that's what I'm trying to get at yeah

[1:02:49] definitely so so what I what I CU as far

[1:02:51] as this project here goes I mean this is

[1:02:55] even to the point I think that it has

[1:02:57] changed but it's Chang in scope and

[1:02:59] change for the back right I think that

[1:03:01] this is something that that's good that

[1:03:02] you'll be able to have a larger impact

[1:03:04] in the community I Ser do very important

[1:03:06] work so all things are uh you know all those things are true I guess my

[1:03:11] conversation um amongst the council is

[1:03:13] that as we do this I think that we are

[1:03:15] in a really unique position with this

[1:03:17] funding that we can be somewhat more

[1:03:19] flexible than what we can do with

[1:03:21] traditional fundings I just want us to

[1:03:23] keep that same energy as we're

[1:03:25] approaching you know other projects that

[1:03:27] um have uh that um are living in the

[1:03:31] city and even some of our kind of

[1:03:33] smaller projects who don't um uh might

[1:03:37] not have the same capacity to raise um

[1:03:41] do the great work that you're doing

[1:03:42] institutionally right now at least that

[1:03:44] type of capital that was just my point

[1:03:46] absolutely I support that well I think

[1:03:49] um I just have to say that I I would be

[1:03:51] open to hearing if there were other

[1:03:54] projects but again I think we to really

[1:03:56] examine on a Case by case basis sure

[1:03:59] that you know what's their experience

[1:04:02] what's their expertise what is the rest

[1:04:04] of the funding package you know we I I

[1:04:06] guess I wouldn't want to be cart blanch

[1:04:08] I mean we'd be open to looking at other

[1:04:11] things if they come up but we have to um

[1:04:14] make our judgments based on a Case by

[1:04:17] case basis absolutely yeah so yeah so

[1:04:19] let me because I want clear confusion

[1:04:21] around me saying that like no obviously

[1:04:23] we have to make the informed decisions

[1:04:25] and right calculations is what you're

[1:04:26] saying what I was saying is that my

[1:04:29] point is that to be Equitable in our

[1:04:31] approach is that to be is to make sure

[1:04:34] that we are being as flexible and

[1:04:36] responsive as we can be to all of the um agencies that are coming forth to do

[1:04:44] this work and I don't want to be in a

[1:04:46] position to where you know we're we're

[1:04:49] not showing that same flexibility and

[1:04:51] understanding cuz as important as it is

[1:04:53] in this which I'm full supportive by the

[1:04:55] way um I just want to make sure that we

[1:04:58] have that same type of lens when we're

[1:04:59] looking at other people because

[1:05:01] sometimes I don't know that we do that

[1:05:03] without having that sense of

[1:05:05] intentionality and really staing it

[1:05:07] explicitly in the beginning of a

[1:05:08] conversation that's why I think it's important to be

[1:05:12] noted go ahead please so I guess I'm

[1:05:15] trying to be considered of the next

[1:05:17] topic that's coming down the line of

[1:05:19] where the rest of our projects are uh it

[1:05:21] sounds as if I mean you've been very

[1:05:23] clear the water main replacement is this

[1:05:25] all po need to allow or approve this

[1:05:28] adjustment I'm very comfortable moving

[1:05:30] forward with that um can you speak to

[1:05:33] the critical health and safety updates

[1:05:34] is that something that you're in a

[1:05:35] similar position to also with the bidden

[1:05:38] contract or is that work that is going

[1:05:39] to be adjusted to the back end I guess

[1:05:41] from trying to identify is these

[1:05:44] additional like construction costs is

[1:05:45] that ACC across the the entirety of the

[1:05:49] project where is it anything that we're

[1:05:51] talking about sense of urgency we have

[1:05:53] to be process right now or you just

[1:05:55] trying to leverage the monies where

[1:05:57] you're not having to repeat work well

[1:05:59] this will be wrapped into the larger

[1:06:00] project that will start in March so

[1:06:02] again I will be at the mercy of the

[1:06:04] contractors okay um obviously they'll

[1:06:07] probably address the health health and

[1:06:09] safety issues first and one of the

[1:06:10] biggest ones is a a bait um and so

[1:06:14] that's where the scope might change a

[1:06:16] little but the the drainage uh not that

[1:06:18] the water main definitely needs to start

[1:06:20] because in order for us to create the

[1:06:22] new building in the back we need a

[1:06:24] higher level of water coming through um

[1:06:27] uh the drainage pits are going to be

[1:06:28] part of the larger project obviously we

[1:06:31] wouldn't be doing those until things

[1:06:33] that are going to fall from the upper

[1:06:34] levels with the renovation aren't going

[1:06:36] to destroy whatever work might be done

[1:06:38] down below and the windows will be done

[1:06:40] at a time when we know that we've

[1:06:42] rebuilt all the Sills the seals are not

[1:06:45] in great repair and then put the new

[1:06:47] windows

[1:06:48] in by amending the budget to um to cover

[1:06:53] the early stages of construction being

[1:06:56] extra considerate of the the funding

[1:06:58] timeline and deadlines of arpa where

[1:07:01] even if something does change even if

[1:07:03] the timeline does God forbid change one

[1:07:05] more time we're it's absolutely going to

[1:07:08] be done by the June 30th 2026 deadline

[1:07:12] doing the early stages is if anything

[1:07:15] the best insurance that we can have from

[1:07:17] for this project which it's changing day

[1:07:20] by day and taking so many twists and

[1:07:22] turns um and while we are talking about

[1:07:25] this in a larger broader context of the

[1:07:27] Harbor House project ultimately the

[1:07:29] original arpa Grant was for crial

[1:07:32] Capital repairs at 44 Washington Avenue

[1:07:35] and it is still for critical Capital

[1:07:36] repairs at 44 Washington

[1:07:43] Avenue

[1:07:46] please I I think thank you for the the

[1:07:49] presentation I think the spirit and

[1:07:51] scope and intent of the proposal really

[1:07:53] the same and I think as as we all know

[1:07:56] variables change and they can change

[1:07:58] rapidly um so I'm in support of of the

[1:08:01] modifications and also what council

[1:08:04] Farley mentioned is that we we need to

[1:08:06] be open to um looking at um as as people

[1:08:09] encounter barriers and and changes in

[1:08:11] the um original um proposals that there

[1:08:15] may be a need for that how we entertain

[1:08:18] that in a effable way this prob so I'm

[1:08:21] happy to support this I have a question

[1:08:25] um please so so you're taking nav's

[1:08:28] house out of this it was never in it

[1:08:34] nav na I'm by what I had goad Navia

[1:08:38] house was never part of the Harbor House

[1:08:41] project we were thinking about longterm

[1:08:45] our our funding prospects where we are

[1:08:47] still focused on Harbor House we are

[1:08:48] still focused on the Early Learning

[1:08:50] Center move uh there wasn't any

[1:08:52] flexibility currently to apply to other

[1:08:55] prospects for needed changes at Navia

[1:08:57] house that's why initially we we added

[1:09:00] it here but as as we spoke and realized

[1:09:03] as we want to change as little as

[1:09:05] possible to the actual scope of our aror

[1:09:07] project we wanted to cause as little

[1:09:10] friction as possible which is exactly

[1:09:12] why we we removed we didn't do a good

[1:09:17] job that is why we

[1:09:19] removed lots of questions and kept it

[1:09:22] only at 44 Washington Avenue just to

[1:09:24] keep it as to the original proposal as

[1:09:27] possible so where's obious house

[1:09:29] actually located oh you can't tell me

[1:09:32] next order the it's the oldest building

[1:09:34] in The Stockade um it's right next to

[1:09:36] the YW it's on that main campus it's not

[1:09:39] it's a little building next to all right

[1:09:42] thank you yeah no it used to

[1:09:47] be all right so what happens to that

[1:09:51] we've received other funding sources to

[1:09:53] support that we we've gotten 25,000 so

[1:09:57] far and we still have a gap but we can

[1:09:58] move forward with that LE some of the

[1:10:02] work thank you any other

[1:10:06] questions are you ready to spend this

[1:10:09] money it's just a game show yes get to

[1:10:14] R yes I'm I'm I'm in support of this um

[1:10:18] this

[1:10:19] reallocation and talking with

[1:10:22] our attorney here we're going to I have

[1:10:25] to amend this

[1:10:27] resolution and incorporate to allocation

[1:10:30] into one so I'm going to ask for a

[1:10:32] motion to amend resolution number 2024

[1:10:36] d224 to come back

[1:10:40] 2020 sorry 2022 D

[1:10:46] 224 and so so combine the Y

[1:10:51] WCA New York our critical Capital needs

[1:10:55] request to Harbor House at YWCA noreast

[1:11:00] New York to combine total of 1 million

[1:11:04] $4,440

[1:11:10] all in favor I so just recap so we just

[1:11:14] combine the two lines into one and

[1:11:16] allocate the funding on the Harbor House

[1:11:19] at y WCA NE n

[1:11:23] y yes do we have the yet it's already

[1:11:26] Ved was that voted oh thank you thank

[1:11:29] you very very much we appreciate your

[1:11:31] support and your

[1:11:35] flexibility go spend that

[1:11:39] money thank youbody good night good

[1:11:42] night the next item is a Continuum of P

[1:11:46] 20 b contract Miss car we received our

[1:11:52] um allocation from HUD for the 20 minut

[1:11:54] in the amount of $8

[1:11:57] 2,522 so today I'm coming before Council

[1:12:00] um asking for permission so the mayor

[1:12:02] can we can go into contract with the

[1:12:08] YMCA

[1:12:10] questions go ahead please so I just want

[1:12:12] on the evaluation analysis I just want

[1:12:14] to be to be clear about the uh $

[1:12:19] 4,141 to the city in the wi so that's

[1:12:24] $8,000 it's double that so we get for

[1:12:28] admin

[1:12:30] $8,200 and we split that so half for the

[1:12:34] 4100 is for the Y and the 4100 is for

[1:12:37] the city and that's one time that is one

[1:12:40] time okay cuz it's the board monthly was

[1:12:42] in here and I was like we get that

[1:12:44] monthly you know I I submitted some of

[1:12:46] these under distress so

[1:12:49] my okay so that's a one time allocation

[1:12:52] thank you I'll take out the word monthly

[1:12:54] cuz we be looking for it thank you

[1:12:57] that's the only question any other

[1:12:59] questions second all in favor

[1:13:04] I the next item is to review the 2024

[1:13:09] 2025 final annual action plan

[1:13:12] allocation Miss far yes that is me um

[1:13:18] last but not least I am here with the

[1:13:20] council for review and to accept our

[1:13:23] final allocation the HUD for the 2024

[1:13:27] 2025 annual action plan we had our

[1:13:31] public comment period for 30 days we

[1:13:33] also had our public hearing and with

[1:13:35] success we had no comments um so I'm

[1:13:38] asking Council um to approve

[1:13:42] that go ahead please um so M car um I

[1:13:45] did see an organization on here let me

[1:13:48] see if I can find it now I did when I it

[1:13:50] to highlight it that was a privately

[1:13:52] owned business

[1:13:55] that we were where is it oh first page

[1:13:58] on page 32 of your aik property I know

[1:14:02] that's a um everything else is like B

[1:14:05] bcni all of those are not for profits

[1:14:07] and so aik I know is a um privately

[1:14:10] owned business and I um this is my first

[1:14:13] time ever seeing us alloc so speak to

[1:14:16] that yes so I'm glad that you ask um

[1:14:19] this is probably the first time but our

[1:14:21] home funds and as a PJ which is a um

[1:14:25] participate in jurisdiction we've always

[1:14:27] had the flexibility to use for-profit um

[1:14:31] as long as the project is in line with

[1:14:33] our com our Consolidated plan for the 5

[1:14:36] years that we put for with HUD we can

[1:14:39] use it and the same goes with cdbg funds

[1:14:41] we just have not had an entity that

[1:14:44] applied that will qualify and had a

[1:14:46] qualifiable project okay so home funds

[1:14:49] is strictly for tenant based rental MH

[1:14:54] home home

[1:14:55] [Music]

[1:14:56] buying and hold on you done got me all

[1:14:59] dis shuffled let me go to my notes sorry

[1:15:03] so there's four activities homeowner

[1:15:06] Rehabilitation okay home buying home

[1:15:09] buyer activities which a developer what

[1:15:11] is included rental housing and tenant

[1:15:13] based rental assistance so aik is

[1:15:15] looking to do affordable housing in an

[1:15:18] area to that we're addressing blight so

[1:15:21] that is in line with the the current com

[1:15:25] plan for Community

[1:15:28] Development as you also can see Madam um

[1:15:31] president they asked for a much more a

[1:15:34] significant amount more um so we do

[1:15:37] understand um that they've never done

[1:15:39] this before with the city Le we have to

[1:15:41] do a risk analysis to make sure that

[1:15:44] they are capable they have the capacity

[1:15:45] to manage this funding which is why we

[1:15:47] gave them a little bit to show that we

[1:15:49] are leveraging some of the for-profit

[1:15:51] organizations in our community to

[1:15:53] address a has it okay and so their

[1:15:57] project is already it's all outline here

[1:16:00] so this is a specific project where this

[1:16:02] funds together yes and our home

[1:16:04] specialist is going to give technical

[1:16:06] assistance to aik cuz we know we only

[1:16:08] gave them a small amount so that's that

[1:16:10] 10 and something th000 is not going to

[1:16:12] be able to satisfy their whole project

[1:16:14] but maybe one

[1:16:16] unit thank

[1:16:18] you good so I have I have some specific

[1:16:21] questions about several of these so I

[1:16:23] don't know if you want to do them go

[1:16:25] ahead please so the first one would be

[1:16:27] for habitat of humanity um they asked

[1:16:30] for 346 420 we're giving them 200 um and

[1:16:35] maybe this answerers might cover some of

[1:16:37] the other questions as well but will

[1:16:39] they then just adapt their project or

[1:16:43] are they yes they will have to give

[1:16:44] based on the allocation they'll give an

[1:16:46] updated

[1:16:47] budget to use those FS okay and then um

[1:16:50] the next one would be the city of Troy

[1:16:52] in that consortion agreement did they

[1:16:54] back out is that why we're not giving

[1:16:55] them any money no we gave them money

[1:16:58] well I mean

[1:16:59] um oh yes okay I'm sorry I I'm looking

[1:17:02] in the wrong column on that one sorry um

[1:17:06] to the uh boys and girls club in terms

[1:17:08] of the youth um programs that they do

[1:17:11] for us um is it that we have other money

[1:17:15] that we've given them for Central Park

[1:17:17] is that they only applied for Jerry

[1:17:21] barough uh the one that's on page 34

[1:17:23] Quack and bu sign that's okay that's the

[1:17:26] internal y so that gets Boys and Girls

[1:17:30] Club does the work but it's managed

[1:17:31] internal internally by

[1:17:35] engineering okay so okay so this is not

[1:17:38] um this looks like it's the the

[1:17:40] activities that they're offering for

[1:17:42] youth are you talking about the for you

[1:17:44] a personal and non personal oh she's

[1:17:46] soen there yeah yeah I mean we're giving

[1:17:48] them what they asked for I was just

[1:17:50] curious as to you know whether they were

[1:17:52] getting other funding for Central Park

[1:17:54] but I do not see any money um for

[1:17:57] Central Park okay but engineering has

[1:18:00] funding for Park Improvement so I

[1:18:02] wouldn't see why that wouldn't fall into

[1:18:06] there

[1:18:07] okay

[1:18:10] um then just uh I was just wondering on

[1:18:15] the SKC foundation's one SKC resident

[1:18:18] driven change whether anybody from the

[1:18:20] city is being represented on that

[1:18:23] committee if there's any I don't know if

[1:18:24] City I don't think there city council

[1:18:26] representation but I didn't know if

[1:18:27] maybe you or someone from your office

[1:18:29] was no we have not been invited yet to

[1:18:32] that yeah I'd like to see somebody from

[1:18:34] the city get invited to to be a part of

[1:18:36] that

[1:18:37] Coalition um can I I can speak I I mean

[1:18:41] I think that's open and I was you know I

[1:18:44] was asked I was like I I really didn't

[1:18:45] have time so I think it's an open

[1:18:47] process it's been they've been doing

[1:18:48] this for a while so my understanding is

[1:18:50] there were invitations out there and

[1:18:52] there was an open process for people to

[1:18:53] be a part of it oh okay I see what you're saying all right

[1:19:00] um skip that one for now

[1:19:09] um that that's it those are my questions

[1:19:13] thank you I have one under the funding

[1:19:16] for the Empowerment Center they had

[1:19:18] asked for

[1:19:20] 262,000 and we we're the proposal here

[1:19:23] is 75

[1:19:26] okay well they also Encompass in their

[1:19:31] application a lot of programming that

[1:19:33] doesn't exist right now so we scored

[1:19:36] these applications we have a scorecard

[1:19:38] um So based on what the empowerment

[1:19:41] spent Center spent last year is what we

[1:19:44] allocated so last year they were awarded

[1:19:47] roughly 30,000 we gave them additional

[1:19:51] money that equaled up to 75,000 and they

[1:19:53] were able to

[1:19:55] majority of that down so that's where

[1:19:57] that 75,000 allocation came from okay go

[1:20:01] ahead please I'm glad you said scorecard

[1:20:03] so I was going to ask um I know during

[1:20:06] our uh arpa conversations there's a lot

[1:20:08] of criticism but one of the takeaways

[1:20:10] that I appreciate was having I know it

[1:20:12] was before your UH tenure here but

[1:20:14] having a I guess parameter of where the

[1:20:17] Planning Development um Department felt

[1:20:19] with each project for me I was asking if

[1:20:22] there's a way to include a Col

[1:20:25] to just highlight uh how many years said

[1:20:29] organizations have been receiving

[1:20:30] funding but I guess what I'm

[1:20:32] specifically asking for is what is their

[1:20:34] ability to meet like the tangibles like

[1:20:37] that's the efficacy of them delivering

[1:20:38] so that's one of the things that they're

[1:20:40] scored on in the application right also

[1:20:43] being in compliant how they spend the

[1:20:45] money now the team has considered all of

[1:20:47] those things when looking at these

[1:20:48] applications some of our um I would be

[1:20:52] remissed if I didn't say this some of

[1:20:53] our sub reant were trying to kind of

[1:20:55] wing them off of support so to speak um

[1:20:58] to be sustainable without every year

[1:21:01] applying for the fund so that we can

[1:21:03] open up the pool and do maybe internal

[1:21:05] projects because right now a lot of our

[1:21:07] smaller subrecipients solely depend on

[1:21:10] the city of connected cdbg funding so

[1:21:12] we're trying to give them the support to

[1:21:15] be able to apply for other funding so

[1:21:17] that we can use some of the funding for

[1:21:19] some of our internal um

[1:21:22] priorities like trash

[1:21:26] is that is that information that you

[1:21:28] feel comfortable disclosing on this form

[1:21:30] not now I cuz I know we're at the final

[1:21:32] probably not on this form but I can give

[1:21:35] you um I can give you some of the the

[1:21:38] stats from the scorecards from the

[1:21:40] reviewer redacting who the reviewer are

[1:21:42] cuz my team was worried about that too

[1:21:44] if I tell you who reviewed the

[1:21:47] application but I I can provide you with

[1:21:49] that appreciate that thank

[1:21:51] you the next one I have here is um

[1:21:53] Wildwood um programs can you brief us on

[1:21:57] this program Wildwood is a is part of is

[1:22:02] a shelter and as part of the Consortium

[1:22:05] actually so that's they're funded with

[1:22:07] home and I don't have all of the Deets

[1:22:10] on um while would at the top of my head

[1:22:12] so I will have to send that to you

[1:22:14] councilman I

[1:22:16] apologize please send it to the entire

[1:22:18] Council no

[1:22:20] I Mr M she said Michael it's a lot of

[1:22:23] sub needs to remember every detail a

[1:22:27] great

[1:22:29] job any other

[1:22:32] questions go ahead please I just think

[1:22:34] uh you said that you're going to send a

[1:22:36] scorecard out to our yeah I'll give I'll

[1:22:38] send an overview or a summary on how um

[1:22:42] how they scored you know the the main

[1:22:45] [Music]

[1:22:46] points is that an internal criteria that

[1:22:49] you created for the score card or is

[1:22:51] that something it was not used in the

[1:22:52] past okay um

[1:22:55] but it is used

[1:22:58] now I think their version of a scorecard

[1:23:01] was just different they talked about it

[1:23:03] but nothing that we had receipts in case

[1:23:05] somebody challenged what we putting

[1:23:09] forward any other question no I just

[1:23:12] want to commend you um I know it was a

[1:23:13] lot of work but getting it there you

[1:23:15] know make sure you had answers to all

[1:23:17] our questions so really appreciate that

[1:23:20] thank you now I'm I'm really hot

[1:23:24] [Music]

[1:23:26] seeing no other question I have a I

[1:23:28] would like to move a motion that we

[1:23:29] adopted 2024 2025 annual action

[1:23:33] plan so move second all in favor I thank

[1:23:37] you good

[1:23:40] work the next item is the downtown

[1:23:43] district Pump Station modernization

[1:23:45] project still

[1:23:56] good evening good

[1:23:58] evening the legislative request you have

[1:24:00] FR you tonight is to authoriz the near

[1:24:03] entering the engineering and planning

[1:24:05] Grant with New York State EFC for

[1:24:08] $50,000 uh towards a preliminary

[1:24:11] engineering study of two pump stations

[1:24:14] in downtown one southb street Pump

[1:24:16] Station and the other would be the

[1:24:18] Broadway Pump Station pump stations are

[1:24:20] old um they've been there and been touch

[1:24:24] other than Motors and parts um for the

[1:24:27] last 45 years I've been here so um our

[1:24:31] development has changed down there

[1:24:32] they're getting more flow um to the uh

[1:24:36] study from CL Harbor was $660,000 but

[1:24:39] there is a $50,000 Grant from EFC offset

[1:24:42] the cost of the cost is be

[1:24:45] $10,000 the preliminary engineering

[1:24:47] review is sort of a prerequisite to move

[1:24:50] forward to be eligible for future Grant

[1:24:52] if we decide to do something with those

[1:24:54] pump stations um and go into a design um

[1:24:57] for upgrading um so that is part of the

[1:25:01] um critera to have a preliminary juring

[1:25:05] report prior to doing something else

[1:25:07] with a project it puts us gives us

[1:25:09] eligibility for future grants for that

[1:25:12] project

[1:25:14] questions seeing none we have a motion

[1:25:16] to move this item

[1:25:17] forward second second all in favor thank

[1:25:21] you m i well not this one particular

[1:25:26] project but I know that um we had

[1:25:28] another pump I didn't know there was so

[1:25:29] many pump stations for so let me just

[1:25:31] say that in the city so I knew that we

[1:25:33] had the pump station um you mentioned it

[1:25:35] at the legislative conference on

[1:25:37] Washington Avenue that's storm storm

[1:25:40] order okay so um is it a similar I think

[1:25:45] we uh last year we allocated money the

[1:25:48] difference is theing house we do have we

[1:25:51] do have current money to um working on

[1:25:54] that uh um that is storm water so that

[1:25:57] handles some storm water FL okay the two

[1:26:00] pump stations in towntown the South fa

[1:26:02] and the Broadway are

[1:26:05] sanitary difference but they're impact

[1:26:08] because you know um we call I ey inflow

[1:26:12] and um infiltration is when storm water

[1:26:15] still because the pipes are 100 years

[1:26:17] old in the city they still Infiltrate

[1:26:19] The sanitary Lin so they're still um you

[1:26:22] know if it was a perfect enclosed PL

[1:26:24] system what everybody used as waste

[1:26:26] water in their houses apartments and

[1:26:28] restaurants and businesses would only be

[1:26:30] in that pipe but the flow is always

[1:26:32] greater because conditional pipes old

[1:26:35] pipes they crack their clay pipes they

[1:26:37] just get natural infiltration so the

[1:26:39] mans they're brim so you get natural

[1:26:41] infiltration which creates more water

[1:26:43] going through that pump station than it

[1:26:45] was just a PL sewer system so the

[1:26:49] Washington an pum station is another

[1:26:51] project which is part of the resiliency

[1:26:53] project along with with with the uh

[1:26:57] waste treatment plan River Homes so we

[1:26:59] do have grant money for that consider gr

[1:27:01] money that to us earlier in this year so

[1:27:05] do we have a time I mean is it going to

[1:27:07] be similar to this we have to have a

[1:27:08] study Etc and so on that study's been

[1:27:10] done we have the grant money okay now we

[1:27:12] have to um enter an agreement with a

[1:27:15] consulting firm okay um and then um

[1:27:19] they'll do design that project is

[1:27:21] probably 18 Maybe 20 24 months away

[1:27:26] because it is a big project we're

[1:27:28] probably talking $20

[1:27:28] [Music]

[1:27:31] million just want to say it's not lost

[1:27:33] on us when we come forward and with

[1:27:35] these projects and have already um

[1:27:37] secured some grant funding I know that

[1:27:39] that's like work that is not easily done

[1:27:42] and I you know as he walks in right on

[1:27:44] CU Mr W okay you're up I'm joking no but

[1:27:47] we do appreciate that you know the

[1:27:49] efforts to try to um leverage funding

[1:27:51] sources to to get these prod last five

[1:27:53] years I think we've got about $50

[1:27:55] million in Grant PR that's great thank

[1:27:59] you Pa thank you have a good evening

[1:28:01] right thank you the next item is amended

[1:28:04] and reated of first supplemental Bond

[1:28:06] ordinance for Rice River Road treatment

[1:28:09] plan Mr D hello good evening um so the

[1:28:14] council uh approved this on June 10th

[1:28:16] the resolution uh there was a small tweak in the verbage that was not

[1:28:21] included um it should have stated

[1:28:23] issuance

[1:28:24] of the project um P say purpose was

[1:28:27] increased by approximately 5 million um

[1:28:30] so there was a small mistake in the

[1:28:31] garbage but that has been

[1:28:34] adjusted

[1:28:37] [Music]

[1:28:40] questions motion to to move this

[1:28:43] forward second all in favor

[1:28:47] I any other business of pro

[1:28:50] Finance I would like to recess um the

[1:28:52] finance committee to Monday

[1:28:54] um August 12th at 5:30 p.m. room 1110 to

[1:28:58] continue discussion on the um the towing

[1:29:02] contract for HMK and ac2 you need an

[1:29:05] hour and a half for that no really

[1:29:10] 5 six sorry thank

[1:29:14] you six sorry so we recess um Monday

[1:29:17] August 12 6

[1:29:21] p.m. need a motion yes yeah

[1:29:24] second second all in favor I thank

[1:29:27] you thank you mayor thank you um I'd

[1:29:31] like to call to order City development

[1:29:32] and planning we have two items on the

[1:29:34] agenda first item is the uh followup for

[1:29:38] arpa and Miss Carver's back and she's

[1:29:42] provided this information to us

[1:29:44] everybody should have received an email

[1:29:46] regarding where we were with that um so

[1:29:48] high level the most um

[1:29:50] significant um things that you should

[1:29:52] know is that electric City Co-Op they

[1:29:54] have reached all their

[1:29:56] pre-contractual um requirements and they

[1:29:58] are pending to go in the contract My

[1:30:00] Hope was to have the contract um done

[1:30:02] and executed this week but that I was

[1:30:04] unable to get to that but um in the

[1:30:06] coming week I should have an executed

[1:30:08] contract with them they have gotten

[1:30:10] sight and supplied everything that was

[1:30:12] required of them so that's exciting um

[1:30:15] and they met that in the deadline that

[1:30:17] they're the extension that the city

[1:30:19] council provided to them great um the

[1:30:22] three items that are currently still

[1:30:24] pending is our Miracle on Craig project

[1:30:29] our DU foundation and the Empowerment

[1:30:32] Center so we have met um with the

[1:30:36] Hamilton Hill Co-op after they've done

[1:30:39] their presentation um to city council

[1:30:41] we've met with um D Foundation um I

[1:30:45] think that this needs it's time for this

[1:30:47] to be Revisited um by the council Dory

[1:30:52] um in meeting with them they are looking

[1:30:55] to have their

[1:30:56] $200,000 to go towards

[1:30:59] programming um and so separated on what

[1:31:02] the resolution

[1:31:04] um States um it is my hope

[1:31:09] that I we can get all on the same page

[1:31:12] the mayor Department of development city

[1:31:14] council and all of the organizations to

[1:31:17] really kind of get this moving um moving

[1:31:21] forward so how much money are we talking

[1:31:23] about about um with between the uh well

[1:31:27] what they're now calling the Hamilton

[1:31:28] Hill cooperative and dor I know

[1:31:32] initially D the Empowerment Center and D

[1:31:35] were merged into one um by development

[1:31:38] prior to you so I know that so how much

[1:31:41] money is there overall in that piece and

[1:31:44] then looking another phone I have to get

[1:31:47] a calculator CU I don't know that on

[1:31:49] hand okay so we have the 5 575 000 would

[1:31:54] be empowerment cuz they have they

[1:31:57] empowerment and D re was together they

[1:31:59] had 875,000

[1:32:03] okay I'm sorry go ahead right can we

[1:32:05] look on the paper that's for me here it

[1:32:08] is

[1:32:10] so we'll get there we have it cuz I know

[1:32:13] it's broken down but on the spreadsheet

[1:32:15] that I provided I broke that down um for

[1:32:17] city council I don't think it's on this

[1:32:20] one okay

[1:32:42] construction

[1:32:45] 875

[1:32:48] Cent so there's a million between the

[1:32:51] two there's a million

[1:32:54] there's a milli 75 500 correct and then

[1:32:59] 1.2 for Carver

[1:33:02] yes okay I remember that now all right

[1:33:06] and has any of the money been spent yet

[1:33:08] for from the empowerment that was yes

[1:33:10] I've already deducted that oh okay so

[1:33:14] it's still the 1

[1:33:16] 175,000 or not no that 875 is not the it

[1:33:20] was more than the 875 if I'm not correct

[1:33:24] it's all

[1:33:34] correct so you're saying that right now

[1:33:37] it's been considered as that the the JY

[1:33:40] is asking to be removed from they they

[1:33:43] want to separate themselves and do their

[1:33:45] project separate and aart

[1:33:49] okay M

[1:33:51] president so you just mentioned to us

[1:33:53] that um there is

[1:33:54] $875,000 available for Brey and the

[1:33:57] Empowerment Center is that $875 for

[1:34:01] empowerment 200 for Dury oh 8 and5 for

[1:34:04] empowerment and 200 oh thought the

[1:34:08] empowerment didn't send any spend anyy

[1:34:10] let me go to my last spreadsheet I

[1:34:14] apologize isn't this the spreadsheet

[1:34:17] that's the update so let me see what I

[1:34:18] got from it's come back

[1:34:24] that's

[1:34:31] good no that's original not it is there

[1:34:34] in the

[1:34:42] description can't see

[1:34:46] this you can see it better P yeah it's

[1:34:50] just highlighted in yellow in what we

[1:34:52] received email

[1:35:04] yes so the 875 is minus what Ron um what

[1:35:10] he spent already oh

[1:35:14] okay so 875 minus what's already been

[1:35:18] spent we don't just we just don't know

[1:35:19] that number right now yes I'm going to

[1:35:21] get you the number it's already the 875

[1:35:24] that's the number I've already subract

[1:35:26] that represents actual right now what is

[1:35:29] available and I will get you the amount

[1:35:31] that Mar

[1:35:38] okay okay let me correct myself mayor

[1:35:42] you making me nervous okay let me

[1:35:45] correct myself okay the Empowerment

[1:35:48] Center and I apologize city council has

[1:35:52] 794

[1:35:54] $116 $6 he they spent

[1:35:59] $52,000

[1:36:00] and4 okay so that $52,400

[1:36:24] so moving forward the pl plan

[1:36:27] is my hope is that like I previously

[1:36:32] said that we can work with the

[1:36:35] mayor the entities that are involved

[1:36:37] City Council in development and really

[1:36:40] because I know that there's been some

[1:36:42] issues with how this money is to move

[1:36:45] forward so I would like to be able to

[1:36:48] help facilitate it moving in the right

[1:36:51] direction

[1:36:56] M

[1:36:58] no m m so because um could you just

[1:37:01] refresh our memory in terms of the the

[1:37:03] deadline to spend the money and also so

[1:37:06] you're confident that this is going to

[1:37:08] get completed by that that any of this

[1:37:11] work

[1:37:12] is I don't know Council woman

[1:37:16] um the deadline to spend our internal

[1:37:20] deadline is October 2026 but okay our

[1:37:24] external deadline which I've relayed to

[1:37:26] our sub recipients is June to give us a

[1:37:29] little bit of room to make sure we have

[1:37:30] everything that we need to report

[1:37:32] properly to the US Treasury okay so June

[1:37:35] 30th is the our outward facing deadline

[1:37:38] to the public okay just SP now but I I

[1:37:41] can't confidently answer um that

[1:37:44] question because either way the project

[1:37:46] Carver um the co-op there is still a gap

[1:37:49] and I think that um one of the concerns

[1:37:51] is just addressing how we're going to

[1:37:53] come how that money is going to move

[1:37:55] forward the mayor did have some some

[1:37:58] [Music]

[1:38:01] ideas that was going to be my next my

[1:38:04] next question says that you want to

[1:38:06] share your you know how do you put the

[1:38:09] money together for car what the bigger

[1:38:12] project is and there's not enough money

[1:38:14] on the table so we're having discussions

[1:38:16] to see if can move more money into that

[1:38:20] build so it um so for the Cooperative

[1:38:23] because I'm going to start car The

[1:38:25] Cooperative uh because it's on where

[1:38:30] they're going to Craig May connection is

[1:38:32] are there not opportunities and because

[1:38:34] it's a historic building to um to assist

[1:38:37] as we've been doing with the Y to assist

[1:38:40] with you know trying to find some

[1:38:42] funding for them and you know helping

[1:38:43] them because they don't have the

[1:38:45] capacity of the why we we all know that

[1:38:47] but is there ways to uh assist

[1:38:49] especially since it's sitting there

[1:38:51] right in a place where there going to be

[1:38:53] major

[1:38:54] renovation so um that's for me with the Harvard building and my

[1:39:00] understanding is they're also um asking

[1:39:03] seeking funding from other sources in

[1:39:05] addition to what we

[1:39:07] provided yes they they they should have

[1:39:10] um we did ask for some additional

[1:39:11] information um from them recently with

[1:39:14] the deadline so I'm looking to get their

[1:39:16] updated plans on how what the organiz

[1:39:20] what organizations are included in the

[1:39:22] colop um and that will help us find

[1:39:24] other sources too um the department of

[1:39:27] development and planning supports that

[1:39:29] trying to find other sources to go

[1:39:31] towards the car center which I've

[1:39:32] already relay that to the mayor as well

[1:39:34] so we we have the information out to our city grant writer who has on her

[1:39:39] radar so we are looking um to to

[1:39:46] assist well I and if if the since they

[1:39:50] submitted their application separately

[1:39:52] and they're asking now to have it

[1:39:53] separated again I I would be supportive

[1:39:56] of that so that they could move ahead

[1:39:58] while they're not so they're not waiting

[1:39:59] for the Carver to L up all of their

[1:40:02] funding if this funding is going to get

[1:40:04] them we needing to go without waiting

[1:40:06] that's um what I'm hearing you say that

[1:40:09] they wanted to separate and so they they

[1:40:11] did articulate

[1:40:14] that Mr M and Mr over here to your point

[1:40:18] I mean should uh I would suggest that we

[1:40:21] ask them for an updated uh budget

[1:40:24] because the last time it came it was

[1:40:26] $200,000 operating cost I mean it's a

[1:40:30] year and a half ago so I would recommend

[1:40:33] that we ask them for an updated um

[1:40:35] budget in terms of operating cost so

[1:40:37] that we can see where it lands today

[1:40:41] before we proceed to make any um final

[1:40:44] allocation are you are you both entities

[1:40:47] are you just speaking about um but you mentioned about Dury moving forward

[1:40:51] they wanted to go separate

[1:40:54] and I want to join team with the

[1:40:56] Empowerment Center so I'm speaking

[1:40:58] specifically about um durri Foundation

[1:41:01] okay for an updated

[1:41:04] budget okay Mr

[1:41:07] Williams um so my question is if we can

[1:41:11] kind of take step take a step back to a

[1:41:12] previous agenda item the CBG uh final

[1:41:16] approval when you are considering

[1:41:18] funding organizations is that done with

[1:41:21] any considerations for other funding

[1:41:22] streams are you looking Singularity

[1:41:24] between the monies that you have

[1:41:25] available to apply with your programs

[1:41:27] say that again councilman so my my

[1:41:30] bigger question is I'm looking at the

[1:41:32] city's decision to fund the Empowerment

[1:41:34] Center at a considerably less level than

[1:41:37] what they requested and I'm worried

[1:41:39] about us funding it and their

[1:41:40] scaleability to meet that big ask of I

[1:41:45] think you said what $8,000 is still

[1:41:46] outlining and if we're trying to

[1:41:48] identify additional funding to support a

[1:41:51] resource that everyone has been in

[1:41:53] agreement with supporting I think it

[1:41:55] makes sense to move a considerable

[1:41:57] amount if not all of that to support

[1:41:59] this larger

[1:42:03] effort I think that's kind of what's

[1:42:05] been on the table from the mayor to move

[1:42:07] the money that was allocated to the

[1:42:10] Empowerment Center to the larger effort

[1:42:12] but if I'm hearing them correctly and I

[1:42:14] know you can't speak right there uh the

[1:42:18] understanding it sounds like to

[1:42:20] pull all three of these projects

[1:42:22] together and I don't know if that's to a

[1:42:24] detriment to any singular on being

[1:42:30] affected what we're trying to work out

[1:42:33] money is not there in the initial review

[1:42:36] to do the

[1:42:41] carers do we know do we know how much

[1:42:44] they need what would be

[1:42:48] sufficient we're talking the building

[1:42:50] inovations now number was in ballpark of

[1:42:54] 3.2

[1:42:56] million2 I'm not comfortable even using

[1:43:00] that number because it's been a period

[1:43:02] of time so in fact it may be a larger

[1:43:05] number

[1:43:06] to complete what would be an adequate

[1:43:10] stabilization and adaptive reuse of that

[1:43:17] facility and the historic designation is

[1:43:20] not helping oh it's not

[1:43:25] okay up or now no no I no okay my

[1:43:29] question I answered on conversation

[1:43:31] that's all right

[1:43:33] um oh so if your hand is up see now now

[1:43:37] you got me so the one question I have is

[1:43:40] are we this is not coming for us for 30

[1:43:42] to separate them out tonight are we

[1:43:43] voting on that tonight no we're just

[1:43:45] having a conversation right now she's

[1:43:46] updating us on where we are with ARA

[1:43:49] sure and so these are the three projects

[1:43:51] that are outstanding with speaking of

[1:43:54] them

[1:43:55] separately uh so that's what we're just

[1:43:57] having yeah I was just wondering if

[1:43:59] that's something

[1:44:00] that and seeing how much money there is

[1:44:03] remaining out of the money that was

[1:44:04] originally allocated Mr mudaron has said

[1:44:07] that he would like to hear like to see

[1:44:09] an updated budget from J

[1:44:12] foundation

[1:44:14] and she's she's prepared to do that from

[1:44:17] our conversation as well since she's now

[1:44:20] asking when she came to present to

[1:44:22] council she was asking reasing for her

[1:44:25] original act before it was brought

[1:44:27] together which was of like 900 and

[1:44:29] something, um so the budget that the

[1:44:31] council has for that does not support

[1:44:34] the programing so she is aware and we

[1:44:37] have acts for

[1:44:39] that and do we also need to hear from

[1:44:42] the co-op as to where they are with

[1:44:44] funding yes we have um what we're in

[1:44:47] August now we don't have a lot of time

[1:44:49] no they both organizations were given

[1:44:51] the deadline for update budgets and

[1:44:54] outlining the demographics that they're

[1:44:55] going to serve as for Friday August 9th

[1:44:59] Friday

[1:45:01] okay all of the organizations have been

[1:45:03] given out the same not empowerment okay

[1:45:09] underst some of that empowerment money

[1:45:11] was to rehab the building so if you have

[1:45:15] another building the program delivery

[1:45:18] can be moved

[1:45:26] Mr Williams I I feel comfortable

[1:45:29] speaking plainly uh I I don't golf but I

[1:45:32] understand the importance of us funding

[1:45:33] the irrigation system because that is a

[1:45:35] really good resource within individuals

[1:45:37] that partake in that Community um I

[1:45:40] understood the importance of us doubling

[1:45:44] our funding for the Central Park Pool I

[1:45:46] don't swim but I understand the

[1:45:49] importance of providing that resource to

[1:45:51] not only our youth but parents who don't

[1:45:53] have the ability to keep their bodies

[1:45:55] cool down and hot and uh climates as as

[1:45:57] we've been experiencing throughout the summer this year um I'm looking

[1:46:01] forward to the investment that Arena

[1:46:04] will bring to our community among other

[1:46:07] tangible uh budget budgeted allocated it

[1:46:11] items that facilitate a certain need for

[1:46:14] a certain Community I think it is safe

[1:46:16] to say that this community resource

[1:46:19] center I don't have the words cuz I'm

[1:46:22] very passionate about this we need to

[1:46:23] find the funding and if that means that

[1:46:25] we need to dissolve the Empowerment

[1:46:27] Center as of now I am in full support of

[1:46:30] doing that if that means it buys time

[1:46:32] for us to leverage other opportunities

[1:46:35] but to say at this point we're now

[1:46:36] skeptical because all the numbers don't

[1:46:39] outline I would say I was supportive of

[1:46:41] other projects and I'm asking for that

[1:46:43] for

[1:46:50] this Madam president

[1:46:53] you um you mentioned that you ask um DY

[1:46:55] for an updated budget is there is there

[1:46:57] any timeline attached to that August 9th

[1:47:00] August a Friday it's Friday thank you I

[1:47:03] missed that sorry and one one um one

[1:47:07] other thing actually this is like more

[1:47:09] for finance when we um when the auditor

[1:47:12] came one of the things he said is that

[1:47:14] there were still 31 million in arpa

[1:47:16] funds so I don't know what that

[1:47:18] breakdown looks like of uh but if

[1:47:21] there's I'm not sure he just said 31

[1:47:23] million so I didn't know if that meant

[1:47:25] money that we

[1:47:26] had I didn't know what that number was

[1:47:29] allocated encumbered I didn't know what

[1:47:30] but he said there was still 31 million

[1:47:32] in his audit report of arpa funds so my

[1:47:36] question

[1:47:37] is how is that money broken down what's

[1:47:40] been allocated what's been encumbered

[1:47:42] how is that 31 million and that question

[1:47:44] is not for you but that question would

[1:47:46] be as we're considering this and um

[1:47:49] seeking ways to fund uh projects where is that 31 what's that 31 million

[1:47:54] breakdown look

[1:47:55] like so we would need the answer to that

[1:47:58] question so can we request an updated um

[1:48:01] our of

[1:48:03] allocation from Finance Finance in terms

[1:48:07] of what was allocated what was spent to

[1:48:08] dat and what is available yes I see a

[1:48:11] money has

[1:48:14] been allocated appropriate may not have

[1:48:17] actually been spent so some of the cash

[1:48:19] is still there and that was as of

[1:48:21] December 31st so it's over half a year

[1:48:24] ago and we've closed out some of these

[1:48:26] contracts we spent the money we paid for

[1:48:29] the swimming pool the things at the golf

[1:48:31] course so that that money is nowhere

[1:48:35] near 31 million

[1:48:37] in fre

[1:48:40] for opera account too I can't you come

[1:48:44] up here because I can't hear you and I

[1:48:45] want hear

[1:48:53] thank you um so as you aware some of

[1:48:56] that money was in the general operating

[1:48:58] account there all the funds in that um

[1:49:01] capital projects um and the list of them

[1:49:03] in that you've been or just now but if

[1:49:07] you need a breakdown sure do that for

[1:49:10] you what's been actually spent

[1:49:12] encumbered

[1:49:14] all yes I think that we need to see that that would be ideal to the council

[1:49:19] to see where we

[1:49:21] are thank you very very

[1:49:27] much are there other questions for Miss

[1:49:30] Carver or anything regarding the

[1:49:34] ARA thank you very much for your we'll

[1:49:36] look forward to getting the updated

[1:49:38] budget

[1:49:39] and is there a plan to put all in have a

[1:49:43] discussion yes I will reach out um to

[1:49:46] the director of operations get May

[1:49:48] schedule and coordinate

[1:49:54] all right thank you very

[1:49:57] much the next item on the agenda is to

[1:50:00] Award Big contract for the Central Park

[1:50:03] roadway improvements Mr

[1:50:13] Wallen hello hello as you're aware uh so

[1:50:17] wanted to move forward with a Central

[1:50:20] Park complete Central Parkway complete

[1:50:22] Street project part of the sidewalk

[1:50:24] Assessment program that the council put

[1:50:25] in place several years ago uh project

[1:50:28] went through several designs the design

[1:50:29] that was landed on was concept D concept

[1:50:32] D was put together bid uh we received

[1:50:36] numerous bids for the work uh the bids

[1:50:38] are in your package the bids uh with the

[1:50:41] exception of an outlier were very tight

[1:50:44] and the low bid was Keller construction

[1:50:47] at which I have here $1.07 million uh we

[1:50:51] have worked with before um not too much

[1:50:54] recently but I did reach out to their

[1:50:56] project manager today and speak with

[1:50:58] them with our engineer and uh they're

[1:51:00] comfortable with their bid and they're

[1:51:02] looking to move forward with it so we

[1:51:04] have uh no reason not to move forward

[1:51:06] with the

[1:51:07] bid any questions Mr M would you able to

[1:51:10] give us a brief timeline so the timeline

[1:51:16] is we discussed it today cuz I knew you

[1:51:18] would asked about it we don't think

[1:51:19] we're going to have enough time to do

[1:51:20] the entire Street given the size of the

[1:51:22] street um there's two options that we

[1:51:25] have and the option is we can do half of

[1:51:26] the street possibly and do one side of

[1:51:29] it get the concrete in and and get the

[1:51:31] sidewalk curb and all that do bind your

[1:51:34] course and leave it or we can push the

[1:51:36] whole project and wait till the spring

[1:51:38] um the reason that we don't want to push

[1:51:40] the project uh too late is that the

[1:51:42] project is a concrete project

[1:51:46] um a lot of concrete a lot of time and

[1:51:50] it's already August so what we need is

[1:51:53] if we place the concrete in October and

[1:51:56] then somehow we get ice in November um

[1:52:00] and we have anyone put any kind of ice

[1:52:03] Mount down we would have to go out and

[1:52:06] almost police it because you need a

[1:52:09] minimum of 30 days and then it also gets

[1:52:11] into the back and forth of if something

[1:52:14] were to happen like sping which has

[1:52:16] happen on rare occasions on some

[1:52:18] projects um it comes into a he said he

[1:52:21] said uh is is it the concrete or is it

[1:52:24] the salt and then we go back and forth

[1:52:27] uh on that so I really don't want to get

[1:52:29] into an entertaining where we have even

[1:52:31] the question of that I really want to

[1:52:33] make sure that the concrete sets up for

[1:52:35] 30 days um we just did talk with the

[1:52:38] contractor today this would be a

[1:52:39] subcontractor so he's reaching out to

[1:52:41] the subcontractor this week to see what

[1:52:43] he can do also it's a lot of curbing

[1:52:47] it's an incredible amount of Curbing and

[1:52:48] as you recall last year there was a

[1:52:50] curbing shortage now that has eased up

[1:52:53] so there may be but this is a given the

[1:52:56] islands and that the street would be

[1:52:57] complete May over a lot of curving

[1:53:00] so I mean we want to push but at the

[1:53:04] same time we don't want to cut our nose

[1:53:06] to fite our face and push just to get

[1:53:08] half done and then have complaints uh

[1:53:12] that there could be an issue or you know

[1:53:13] somebody you know what's going to happen

[1:53:15] is someone is going to put out some type

[1:53:17] of a ro rock salt thinking it's not a

[1:53:18] rock salt and there could be an issue so

[1:53:21] uh to void that but I know that we said

[1:53:23] we're going to try to get it done this

[1:53:24] year I'm not trying to make excuses but

[1:53:26] the timing is what it is it's it's

[1:53:27] August and this is a very large

[1:53:30] project there's also there's also

[1:53:32] drainage involved I just want to make

[1:53:33] sure you're aware of that we are this is

[1:53:35] not this is a big project we're putting

[1:53:37] in all new catch basins we're redoing

[1:53:39] some of the drainage we're putting in

[1:53:41] parking we're putting in new you know

[1:53:43] subbase where there currently is grass

[1:53:45] so it's a large project it's much larger

[1:53:48] than the past um sidewalk assessment

[1:53:50] projects that we've done in the city

[1:53:52] this is more of a street reconstruction

[1:53:54] so that's why timeing if we were to do

[1:53:57] half it would most likely be the side

[1:53:59] without the parking cuz we feel like

[1:54:01] that side would be quicker um and so

[1:54:05] there could be a benefit to doing that

[1:54:06] but I just need to make sure that the

[1:54:08] sidewalk is in in enough time to cure

[1:54:14] inside so what would that be your

[1:54:16] recommendation to do half of it on the

[1:54:19] side without the parking so that you

[1:54:20] have something there this year

[1:54:23] that's probably not my recommendation I

[1:54:26] don't think to disturb everyone and go

[1:54:28] forward just to just to say that we did

[1:54:31] it I don't know if that's good because

[1:54:33] we would get half of it done and let's

[1:54:34] say we're all done and out of there by

[1:54:37] November 1st right all done paid uh to

[1:54:40] binder course we wouldn't be top course

[1:54:42] so I mean even saying that out loud

[1:54:44] right that would mean that if we put the

[1:54:46] curb in there we're an inch lower so our

[1:54:48] 1in curber Beals now are 2 in at

[1:54:51] driveway so I'm going to get complet

[1:54:52] complains about my driveway is too steep

[1:54:54] you know there's a lot that could could

[1:54:56] go in and I don't know about the economy

[1:54:58] you know like we waited for Kings Road

[1:55:00] Bridge until the end of winter so that

[1:55:03] we could start and get it done in one

[1:55:04] season instead of starting and shutting

[1:55:07] down and starting again so I would I

[1:55:10] would probably recommend that we just

[1:55:12] get it all done in one but I'll wait to

[1:55:14] hear back from the contractor you know I

[1:55:15] see you guys every 2 weeks I can report

[1:55:18] back to you at the next time but we just

[1:55:20] talked with them today I can see what

[1:55:21] their sub contractor schedu is but I

[1:55:23] don't think there's any I don't think

[1:55:26] there's any right now C that has the

[1:55:27] entire Street done by November 1st I

[1:55:32] just think it's too much of a project

[1:55:34] and we remember we have to do contracts

[1:55:37] and bonds and there you know there's a

[1:55:39] lot of leg work after you after you

[1:55:41] approve it as well so does is there any

[1:55:44] consideration to have multiple um

[1:55:47] contractor subcontractor for this

[1:55:50] project um is that possible

[1:55:53] possibly to push it I I could see if we

[1:55:56] really want to if that's something that

[1:55:58] you want to look at is to see if I could

[1:56:00] you know said that we want to get this

[1:56:01] done by a certain timeline and see what

[1:56:03] they say

[1:56:05] sure I I think you should consider

[1:56:08] that as an option

[1:56:13] okay does that in facted the Integrity

[1:56:15] of the project by have that many hands

[1:56:18] and that close to a

[1:56:20] space well I would have to make sure

[1:56:22] they're all subs the issue that I would

[1:56:24] have feel like that it would do is that

[1:56:26] if we were to push and ask them to put

[1:56:28] extra labor to set a deadline that I

[1:56:30] didn't state in the bid you know we said

[1:56:32] that you had 120 days to complete the

[1:56:34] project um not that you had to get it

[1:56:36] done by October 1st um so if we were to

[1:56:41] do that you know inevitably what is the saying is you know cheap quick or uh

[1:56:48] you know cheap quick or good so I'm

[1:56:50] going to tell you if we we put a 60-day

[1:56:53] deadline on this it's not going to be

[1:56:54] any cheaper they're going to come back

[1:56:55] with us for some kind of a change order

[1:56:57] which I could come to the table and talk

[1:57:01] about and and once again every there are

[1:57:04] jobs committed for these contractors

[1:57:06] We're Not The Only Game in Town doing

[1:57:08] construction this is something that

[1:57:09] they're putting on their agenda um if

[1:57:12] you'd like I know I could reach out to

[1:57:16] the second or third and and find out but

[1:57:18] that just delays the award and I don't

[1:57:19] know how that works with purchasing

[1:57:21] about you know setting a deadline that

[1:57:22] wasn't necessarily in the contract they

[1:57:24] said that they can do in 120

[1:57:28] days yes it's just worth having to make

[1:57:32] you said just ask the question see what

[1:57:34] feedback you get you know um but I can

[1:57:37] get information before next Monday I

[1:57:39] would

[1:57:40] I your judg get the

[1:57:43] information so um so I I I would also

[1:57:46] have concerns if we had too many hands

[1:57:48] in the pot that we you know that

[1:57:50] concerned about the Integrity of the

[1:57:51] project

[1:57:52] and if it's rushed because we're saying

[1:57:54] to them you have to have by now I want

[1:57:55] to make sure that we're getting quality

[1:57:57] projects that's going to last for years

[1:57:59] and

[1:58:00] not that's the complication with

[1:58:02] projects like this too is that the

[1:58:03] homeowners put money out of their own

[1:58:05] Pockets into these projects I know tax

[1:58:07] dollars are everybody's pocket money but

[1:58:09] this is a little bit more close to home

[1:58:11] so on these projects they are a little

[1:58:15] bit more of a pain um because everyone

[1:58:18] is a little bit more involved and there

[1:58:19] is a lot of uh community invol ment

[1:58:25] so a deadline to get it done the entire

[1:58:29] project this year makes a tough project

[1:58:31] harder but it's not to say it makes it

[1:58:34] impossible this is also not my only

[1:58:36] project

[1:58:37] so cuz right now you're asking us to

[1:58:40] just go ahead and award this tonight

[1:58:43] however if you're looking at Subs then

[1:58:44] we wouldn't be able to do that

[1:58:48] no

[1:58:50] substitute so so should we should we

[1:58:53] hold off on this until you come back to

[1:58:55] us for two

[1:58:57] weeks the longer we wait the real thing

[1:59:00] is to award the

[1:59:02] contract have Chris meet with the

[1:59:05] contractor and go over the timeline and

[1:59:07] maybe things that are going to move

[1:59:08] faster than some of the assumptions are

[1:59:10] or it's just what the reality of the

[1:59:12] project is so does it get done this year

[1:59:16] does it move till next year I would yeah

[1:59:19] I would move forward as right now let me

[1:59:22] try to get you some information before

[1:59:24] Monday and then if you don't want to

[1:59:26] vote on it Monday that's your

[1:59:27] prerogative to not vote on it Monday and

[1:59:29] we can go to another step you know and

[1:59:32] see what else we have here but just to not would delay us two more weeks to

[1:59:37] get us and we're talking about trying to

[1:59:39] save

[1:59:41] time okay all right and motion so second

[1:59:47] all those in favor thank you very much M

[1:59:50] all right uh there's nothing else to

[1:59:52] come before City development and cling I

[1:59:54] can a motion to

[1:59:56] adjourn second all those in favor weour

[1:59:59] thank you very much like to call

[2:00:02] government operations we have three

[2:00:03] items on the agenda um first being there

[2:00:07] regarding the raming of city street U to

[2:00:11] Luigi Lane um so family have came forth

[2:00:15] and as you all know that um there's

[2:00:18] another uh family that came forth and

[2:00:21] wanted

[2:00:22] um us to include and recognize um their

[2:00:26] family member who was also a large

[2:00:28] contributor um to the success of you

[2:00:31] know set establishment and also had some

[2:00:34] um pretty significant uh impact on the

[2:00:38] surrounding Community as well um

[2:00:41] received emails um from

[2:00:43] people asking us about this I just

[2:00:46] wanted to kind of bring this a

[2:00:47] discussion on um I receiv the email

[2:00:50] today and I guess you know I would share

[2:00:52] my thoughts with the um for us to uh

[2:00:58] stay the course that uh we were moving

[2:01:00] forward on um but renaming it um I think

[2:01:03] that there's other options um I mean

[2:01:05] again if you think about it it's kind of

[2:01:07] a good problem to have right that we

[2:01:08] have people who have contributed so much

[2:01:10] to our community um and we should look

[2:01:13] for as many opportunities as we possibly

[2:01:14] can to celebrate them and their uh

[2:01:17] achievements and contributions so my uh thought would be um you know working

[2:01:23] with uh the family to find um a a

[2:01:27] separate and um way of kind to to to

[2:01:31] support and celebrate the contributions

[2:01:33] that uh the family member had that's

[2:01:35] what I was thinking that's support so um

[2:01:39] as you stated that you know we had a

[2:01:40] public hearing and another family came

[2:01:42] forward and then we received um emails

[2:01:45] and also feedback from from others

[2:01:49] including um Mr M I spoke about so so

[2:01:52] there were three things that were

[2:01:54] presented so I'll just put those out

[2:01:56] there that um could be considered

[2:01:58] obviously the very first one um keeping

[2:02:00] at Luigi blae and then having a sign or

[2:02:04] some I don't even know what you call

[2:02:06] them similar to the one that they just

[2:02:08] did at the baseball field down behind

[2:02:10] the college uh where it just kind of

[2:02:13] outlines the whole history and obviously

[2:02:14] within that history it would be the name

[2:02:16] of the um the owner after um Mr is this

[2:02:22] last name Luigi or first luig luig first

[2:02:27] name okay so um that was the one one of

[2:02:30] the options the other option was to keep

[2:02:33] the street name exactly the same Barrett

[2:02:35] Lane Barrett Village Lane and to have

[2:02:38] two cere ceremonial signs under it one

[2:02:40] saying you know one with each name

[2:02:42] that's been brought forward and then the

[2:02:45] third option was to just call it Luigi's

[2:02:48] Lane which then really named it after

[2:02:50] the restaurant and not the IND

[2:02:52] individual those were the three that um

[2:02:56] suggestions that were given to

[2:02:59] me

[2:03:01] I what I'd like to see again I don't

[2:03:04] think I don't think we want to end up

[2:03:06] taking away from the initial uh action

[2:03:10] course that we were taking because I

[2:03:12] think that uh this gentleman um deserves

[2:03:15] the recognition and and its

[2:03:18] entirety so I I mean I would think that

[2:03:22] another kind of um I I guess plaque um

[2:03:25] that which you were talking about that

[2:03:26] was on the um ConEd Community College

[2:03:28] schools and I to which is a beautiful

[2:03:31] thing I think that you know um find

[2:03:34] finding a way to

[2:03:38] uh to celebrate um both individuals

[2:03:41] without taking away for one I think is

[2:03:43] that that's really the the best course

[2:03:45] of action but I definitely welcome

[2:03:48] council

[2:03:49] member I I agree with you

[2:03:52] um I've been thinking about this and

[2:03:54] mulling over actually the three pretty

[2:03:57] much the three things that you said um

[2:03:59] Miss pfield and I do think moving

[2:04:01] forward with the original course of

[2:04:03] action is the way to go and the idea of

[2:04:06] in some other way recognizing I mean

[2:04:08] there might be other people as well that

[2:04:10] might have worked um at the restaurant

[2:04:12] uh as long as for a length of time uh

[2:04:15] similar to the other the other person

[2:04:17] that whose family came forward so I I

[2:04:20] agree with Mr Farley on this

[2:04:22] and I think it's also not I'm sorry I

[2:04:25] just oh probably not appropriate I just

[2:04:29] wanted to point one thing out cuz I've

[2:04:30] been talking with the family I just

[2:04:31] wanted to make sure I know that they're

[2:04:32] not supposed to speak is that the

[2:04:33] original idea to your point was it was

[2:04:35] Luigi the person not Luigi's the

[2:04:37] restaurant I know we're all clear on

[2:04:38] that and even though it predated me uh

[2:04:41] from these restaurants from talking with

[2:04:43] the community and even talking with Gary

[2:04:44] in my office and I'm sure some of you

[2:04:45] might remember the the reason of the

[2:04:48] push with the IG G's with the apost S

[2:04:51] possi not being the best and going to

[2:04:53] something more um educational like some

[2:04:55] kind of a plaque was that according to

[2:04:58] the people I talked to that grew up in

[2:04:59] that area there were multiple

[2:05:01] restaurants that were next to each other

[2:05:02] possibly a Stella's and Luigi's and a

[2:05:05] third and I just if we go down that road

[2:05:08] of the sign and being for a restaurant

[2:05:11] when there were many restaurants that

[2:05:13] probably are very close to people and

[2:05:14] not the person I think you're opening

[2:05:16] yourselves up to just a larger

[2:05:19] interpretation whereas we could stick

[2:05:22] with it is about a person not a place

[2:05:24] and that the signs could be about the

[2:05:27] place and I think it's not a terrible

[2:05:29] idea just because that area is newer it

[2:05:33] does not really fit in with the

[2:05:34] character of the street even though it's

[2:05:36] moose connect as we call it living concy

[2:05:38] but something there to talk about the

[2:05:39] old SKC might be worthwhile to do and

[2:05:42] set some kind of standard for the rest

[2:05:44] of the area I just wanted to make sure

[2:05:45] that got pointed out because a couple

[2:05:47] people came up to me and said you know

[2:05:48] there were multiple restaurants there

[2:05:50] even though when I went to the wees

[2:05:52] there weren't because I can't date

[2:05:54] myself but we're talking about something

[2:05:55] that started in the ' 50s so I just

[2:05:58] wanted to make sure I pointed that

[2:06:01] out yes so I think to to Mr as well this

[2:06:05] is about this is about a person and the

[2:06:07] contribution is not necessarily a place

[2:06:09] I think the place is part of the larger

[2:06:11] story um and and you know uh family

[2:06:15] members have reached out and um and have

[2:06:18] even said that you know that Miss

[2:06:20] marleene Hill um has made significant uh

[2:06:23] contributions and they would love to see

[2:06:26] um her her honor in her own right um so

[2:06:29] I would again my my suggestion would be

[2:06:32] we move forward um as plan and work with

[2:06:35] the family of marlin Hill for something

[2:06:37] that's going to be um acceptable for

[2:06:40] them and to broader Community to

[2:06:41] celebrate her accomplishments as

[2:06:44] well anyone

[2:06:48] else I'm oh I'm sorry

[2:06:53] I like that that plan I remember mother

[2:06:55] phoh being one of those restaurants that

[2:06:58] used to go thean

[2:07:04] and those owners had almost equal time

[2:07:08] it was Luigi Hill came in and ran One

[2:07:11] restaurant for a longer period of

[2:07:13] time when when Luigi's long than the

[2:07:16] other

[2:07:17] two Mama Pharaoh's and Mama bianes and

[2:07:21] Luigi's were like the three anchors

[2:07:25] there they're about the same amount of

[2:07:28] time oh

[2:07:30] okay so again it seems like we have uh

[2:07:33] again these are good quote unquote

[2:07:35] problems to have I think that we should

[2:07:36] be looking any way we can to celebrate

[2:07:38] how the contributions of the people that

[2:07:40] live here so I think that's what we'll

[2:07:41] do um is there any

[2:07:43] other thoughts on

[2:07:46] that uh to your point I think it's it's

[2:07:49] a beautiful thing and we can make sure

[2:07:51] we capture the history throughout our

[2:07:53] community which is very very vast and

[2:07:55] identify ways to make sure as the Next

[2:07:57] Generation comes about those items are

[2:07:58] not forgotten um I don't think there's

[2:08:01] any need to repeat any in the comments

[2:08:02] which I do agree just want to add that c

[2:08:04] as

[2:08:06] well

[2:08:08] okay yeah I suggested that we co-name

[2:08:12] the street to recognize both individual

[2:08:14] who had made significant contribution to

[2:08:16] that block that street but I mean if

[2:08:19] majority of the comment like to move

[2:08:20] forward and respect your recommendation

[2:08:22] to move forward with what we have for

[2:08:25] the Luigi's Luigi um reaming but at the

[2:08:30] same time I welcome that suggestion to

[2:08:33] Let's honor the other individual also

[2:08:37] because both have made significant

[2:08:38] contribution here based on the

[2:08:40] information that we have in front of us

[2:08:42] so we can move forward one and then at

[2:08:45] the same time pick up the pace and

[2:08:46] trying to recognize the other individual

[2:08:49] in a short distance time

[2:08:53] so in terms of moving forward with the

[2:08:55] um the other family and talking about

[2:08:57] what I'm going to call a historic marker

[2:08:58] that's going be on

[2:09:00] okay um I just want to make sure that we

[2:09:02] do that as you know sometimes um you

[2:09:07] know things get lost and SAU but then my

[2:09:09] other question is generally

[2:09:12] who is that something cost we absorb

[2:09:15] mayor if we're renaming a street do we

[2:09:16] just do the new street sign that's all

[2:09:18] us on us

[2:09:22] and the responsibility is to the cities

[2:09:24] to do it if somebody would like to make

[2:09:26] a donation on that behalf I of course we

[2:09:29] not turn that down yes and how about a

[2:09:32] historic marker if we did that would be

[2:09:35] the similar I just one to mix find out

[2:09:38] where the how the cost would be

[2:09:43] covered I move

[2:09:45] this second those in favor

[2:09:49] I okay next time we city code chapter 28

[2:09:54] second 29 standing committee president P

[2:09:57] thank you um so our standing committees

[2:09:59] aren't committees that meet on a regular

[2:10:01] basis ideally if we would then we'd have

[2:10:04] more discussion at the standing

[2:10:05] committees than the Committees would

[2:10:06] bring to the council um but that has not

[2:10:09] necessarily been the case however we did

[2:10:11] recently have a u meeting of the

[2:10:13] standing committee and there were there

[2:10:15] was some discussion on how committee

[2:10:17] reports were handled so what I provided

[2:10:19] for the council is um chapter 28 um

[2:10:23] sections 27- 29 about how a f committee

[2:10:27] should operate and so you all have that

[2:10:30] and the specific conversation was around

[2:10:34] um uh section

[2:10:36] 28-28 which is the Quorum and reports of

[2:10:39] the committee and it states that two

[2:10:42] committee members shall ACC to the quum

[2:10:44] and reports of the committee shall be in

[2:10:45] writing and shall not be received unless

[2:10:48] signed by at least two members so

[2:10:52] um I mentioned that to the chair of that

[2:10:55] particular committee and there was some

[2:10:58] discussion as whether or not that was

[2:11:00] correct my understanding is I wasn't

[2:11:01] there but it was recorded and publicly

[2:11:03] so I want to publicly have this

[2:11:04] discussion that um if whoever said that being me um based on the code you

[2:11:11] know is not a person that needs to have

[2:11:12] a seat at tables is what was said so um

[2:11:16] I don't take well I guess I do take

[2:11:18] exception to that but I just want to be

[2:11:19] clear that any information that I

[2:11:21] provide to the council I'm getting it

[2:11:22] directly from the code it's not

[2:11:23] something I'm making up or applying to

[2:11:26] one individual or one committee that is

[2:11:28] not apply to other committees so I just

[2:11:31] wanted to make sure that everyone um had

[2:11:33] this in front of them and knew that that

[2:11:35] is something that's actually in the code

[2:11:37] it's not something that I'm asking for

[2:11:39] as a council president because it's my

[2:11:41] um my purview or my desire but it's

[2:11:43] actually in the city code so you know

[2:11:46] again that discussion take took place

[2:11:48] publicly and was recorded So I just want

[2:11:50] to make sure that it's public on record

[2:11:51] that this is a part of the city code in

[2:11:53] terms of those things being en wred for

[2:11:56] the standing

[2:11:57] committees that that's it so unless

[2:12:00] anybody has any questions around that CH

[2:12:02] comments on that so Mr saying that the

[2:12:06] committee chairs can make or over Courts

[2:12:08] at committee meetings oh no I'm saying

[2:12:10] we need both no absolutely they can do

[2:12:13] that but we also have to have it

[2:12:14] submitted in writing for the records

[2:12:15] according to this that's I'm not I'm not

[2:12:18] out saying no oral

[2:12:20] reports because the the committee chair

[2:12:22] did give an oral report and then that

[2:12:24] report would be in writing and then

[2:12:25] turned in whatever was reported would be

[2:12:27] then turned in to um the cl's office

[2:12:30] just going by the code yes well actually

[2:12:32] um just for some clarification further

[2:12:34] then because I've now asked for um a

[2:12:37] written report to come from the city

[2:12:38] clerk's office of the minutes minutes

[2:12:41] were taken at the meeting and that was

[2:12:42] what I was then when I received that

[2:12:44] I'll go to the other two committee

[2:12:46] members um and ask them to you know

[2:12:49] hopefully we'll sign off on um on the

[2:12:52] minutes of the meeting that's what I

[2:12:53] thought that was suggesting no the

[2:12:55] written report should be the oral report

[2:12:57] that you gave it should should reflect

[2:12:59] report that you gave now you submitting

[2:13:00] in

[2:13:02] right okay the cour used to once upon a

[2:13:06] time when I was on city

[2:13:08] council reduced the minutes and then for

[2:13:11] those minutes to be formalized it took

[2:13:14] the signature of at least two city

[2:13:17] council members who were in attendance

[2:13:19] if three members are there and all three

[2:13:22] would sign the

[2:13:24] Amendments I don't know do you still do

[2:13:26] that Sam or we have meeting this was the

[2:13:29] first time we've had since I've been on

[2:13:31] Council this was the first time I've

[2:13:33] participated in the committee meeting so

[2:13:35] um well we're in a committee meeting

[2:13:37] right now well I meant I mean a

[2:13:39] sub a standing

[2:13:42] committee Parks and Recreation is a

[2:13:44] standing Comm right so yes is the expectation for the

[2:13:52] city clerk to be present at all

[2:13:55] committee meetings including standing

[2:13:57] committees I know that there would the

[2:13:59] deputy clerk was at the last meeting so

[2:14:01] again something that we have

[2:14:04] done so here we

[2:14:06] are oh so the deputy clerk was not

[2:14:08] supposed to be I didn't I said it's not

[2:14:11] something that we have been have done so

[2:14:13] I just want to make sure that we just

[2:14:15] you know have those those minutes in in

[2:14:16] writing and so I'm

[2:14:19] not I'm not clear why there's there's a

[2:14:22] controversy around it so but it seem to

[2:14:24] have been at the meeting but I wasn't

[2:14:28] present so everyone's pretty clear

[2:14:30] moving forward on that any questions

[2:14:32] comments on

[2:14:35] that okay thank you m president move

[2:14:38] forward

[2:14:39] then okay last item on the agenda is

[2:14:42] discussion of Charter divisions

[2:14:44] president P thank you um the mayor

[2:14:46] brought forward about the CH revisions

[2:14:49] based on um section

[2:14:51] 6 C excuse me c 6-8 regarding the

[2:14:55] operating budget at our um last

[2:14:57] committee meeting and there was um

[2:14:59] discussion that was proposed to change

[2:15:01] it only um that was submitted through

[2:15:03] the law department on behalf of the

[2:15:05] mayor only to look at that but during

[2:15:07] the discussion it was noted that there

[2:15:08] were other revisions in the charter that

[2:15:10] maybe needed to happen and that we

[2:15:12] should take a comprehensive look um at

[2:15:15] that so what I provided for you and I

[2:15:17] agree with that so um what I provided

[2:15:20] for you is we talked a little bit about

[2:15:23] the um the methods of revising the

[2:15:25] charter so starting on well the page

[2:15:29] number overlaps so it's going to be hard

[2:15:31] for you to see but one two three like on

[2:15:36] the back of the third third page in it

[2:15:38] starts with approaches to Charter

[2:15:40] revisions um talks about revision by

[2:15:43] commission Charter rision by initi

[2:15:45] initiate initiative and referendum and

[2:15:48] direct legislation so um I thought we

[2:15:51] need to have start having the discussion

[2:15:52] as we're going to be looking at the

[2:15:54] charter not uh in my opinion I don't

[2:15:56] know if the entire Charter certainly

[2:15:58] needs to be

[2:16:00] um revised but the parts that do that we

[2:16:03] do it in a comprehensive way so that we

[2:16:05] just move through all those things

[2:16:06] forward at one time so I'm bringing

[2:16:08] forward the um guidelines that I

[2:16:10] received from New York State on how this

[2:16:12] is

[2:16:15] done so I'm opening that up for discuss

[2:16:18] yeah I'm opening up for discussion

[2:16:21] any questions or comments

[2:16:24] on Yeah question um I'd like to ask

[2:16:28] Council um whether we could still move

[2:16:30] forward with looking at the one piece of

[2:16:33] Charter revision that actually had a

[2:16:35] time it definitely had sort of a timing

[2:16:38] kind of thing um although it wouldn't

[2:16:40] affect us it was pling to affect the

[2:16:43] 2026 budget right not the 2025 Bud

[2:16:46] discussions but it's still bumping up

[2:16:49] against some time periods so I just if

[2:16:51] you want to have a public hearing you

[2:16:53] can do it next week calling for and

[2:17:00] then maybe voting it on the 19th but I

[2:17:04] think that's cutting close but we can

[2:17:06] look at that um because then it would

[2:17:09] have to go to

[2:17:10] the mayor after us and then he has to

[2:17:14] give notice for his public hearing M

[2:17:17] which has to be 5 days M and then he has

[2:17:20] to make a decision

[2:17:21] if he accepts it then it's September 5th

[2:17:24] I mean we're getting September 3rd I

[2:17:27] think we're looking at Tuesday and the

[2:17:29] 3D so it's

[2:17:31] getting getting close particular in

[2:17:35] regarding this particular the council

[2:17:39] wishes

[2:17:40] to put anything on the ballot this fall

[2:17:43] for no

[2:17:44] okay based on the last I'm sorry but

[2:17:47] based on the last time that you told us that that that wasn't even

[2:17:50] possibility well it's because what you

[2:17:53] do is once again you're dealing with a

[2:17:55] local law and putting it on the

[2:17:57] referendum and it would still be uh time

[2:18:01] periods that we're talking about and

[2:18:03] then you would have to put a commission

[2:18:05] together which you know and what what of

[2:18:07] the if it's if it's created by the

[2:18:10] legislature then you have to indicate

[2:18:13] how you wish to have that body who's

[2:18:16] going to be the chairman count of

[2:18:18] members how they were appointed Etc so

[2:18:20] that's in a in a process or is under the

[2:18:23] mayor

[2:18:25] oral part of the municipal home rule law

[2:18:29] it already States how you know how many

[2:18:31] you know the members and how it's

[2:18:33] appointed and it's mayoral appointments

[2:18:35] Etc whereas if it's created via the

[2:18:38] legislature commission it's it's much

[2:18:40] more you have to develop the rules and

[2:18:43] how many members and how you you know

[2:18:46] what their terms are etc etc so it's a

[2:18:48] little bit more involved especially

[2:18:50] we're talking about the time FR

[2:18:53] involved

[2:18:56] so but that is from what I looked at um

[2:18:59] in what we were sent um we could ask the

[2:19:03] mayor to put together the charter

[2:19:04] commission if we wanted to look at the

[2:19:08] whole Charter but it seemed to me that

[2:19:11] we still I guess I'm just asking the

[2:19:13] question because of the timing aspect of

[2:19:15] the one particular thing that came to us

[2:19:19] regarding that November one

[2:19:21] you know the budget discussion and and

[2:19:24] whether we decide on the budget by

[2:19:26] November one or not I I guess I'm I'm

[2:19:29] asking can we still do both of those

[2:19:30] things we could Mo with the one

[2:19:33] discussion which is more time you know

[2:19:36] you could always do I mean if you want

[2:19:38] to have a discussion about creating a

[2:19:39] Comm condition that's still going to be

[2:19:41] a bobal law but then that has to go

[2:19:43] before the voters by the 60th day so in

[2:19:46] other

[2:19:47] words you're you're to put that together

[2:19:52] um the composition of such commission

[2:19:55] you know how you're going to do it the

[2:19:57] providing the method tring a number of

[2:19:59] members you know whether they're going

[2:20:00] to be appointed how they're going to be

[2:20:02] appointed etc those are those are things

[2:20:05] that you you as the city council if they

[2:20:08] decide if you decide to create a

[2:20:10] commission you would have to do do those

[2:20:14] parameters whereas you under the mayor

[2:20:17] system under a mayor of any City

[2:20:21] um it's the law spells it out much more

[2:20:25] precisely such a commission cons consist

[2:20:27] of not less than nine no more than 15

[2:20:30] members all of whom shall be residents

[2:20:32] of the City original appointments to the

[2:20:34] commission shall be made by a mayor

[2:20:35] there certificate appointment and the

[2:20:38] mayor shall commit you know appoint the

[2:20:41] chairman Vice chairman

[2:20:43] secretary and that any membership

[2:20:46] vacancy of such commission is is filled

[2:20:49] by the mayor so you can see whereas

[2:20:52] that's dealing with a mayoral Commission

[2:20:55] on a charter commission whereas in the

[2:20:58] city

[2:21:00] um the composition may also SP but um

[2:21:04] but you would have to

[2:21:06] really

[2:21:09] um fix the method to determine the

[2:21:11] number of the members of such commit so

[2:21:15] you have more

[2:21:16] latitude by having more latitude you

[2:21:19] going to take a little bit more time how

[2:21:20] you want to have that

[2:21:23] structure now you

[2:21:27] can you

[2:21:32] can so you can you can May adopt the

[2:21:35] legislative body you uh May adopt a

[2:21:38] local law for the establishment of the

[2:21:40] commission to draft a new or revise City

[2:21:43] Charter and uh you can do that you and

[2:21:48] uh in in in the shorter or simplified

[2:21:51] but it does still you would still have

[2:21:53] to deal with the creation of a

[2:21:54] commission you can submit to the

[2:21:57] electors of such City you know shall

[2:21:59] there be a commission to draft a newer

[2:22:01] Revis in the charter as a proposed by

[2:22:04] local Law whatever so you can put it to

[2:22:06] the voters shall we have a a a charter

[2:22:09] commission but that doesn't okay yes or

[2:22:13] no I mean you it's still you would still

[2:22:16] have to at some point deal with the

[2:22:18] issue of creating such a commission

[2:22:25] thought

[2:22:26] questions so my my point again was just

[2:22:29] to bring It Forward because you know it

[2:22:30] did come and um I will say that I was

[2:22:33] what was presented to us I was not in

[2:22:35] agreement with but I don't disagree that

[2:22:37] we do need to do something I don't see

[2:22:39] us doing it in time for this Bud uh this

[2:22:42] um election season frankly um but I

[2:22:44] don't want the conversation to die

[2:22:46] either and if it's going to take a while

[2:22:48] as it seems like it is and with been yes

[2:22:51] ideal to start this conversation earlier

[2:22:52] in the year however we didn't and um so

[2:22:56] how do we move forward to make sure that

[2:22:57] we don't but this is just go not go

[2:23:01] forward and in terms of the budget I

[2:23:03] think Mr mudaron um kind of spoke to

[2:23:06] that the last time is that we just you

[2:23:08] know we just have we weren't this would

[2:23:10] not have been um in time for this year's

[2:23:13] budget period but that we have to work

[2:23:17] together and have conversations perhaps

[2:23:20] with the chair of finance and the mayor

[2:23:21] and the president ahead of time so that

[2:23:23] we can make sure that we're having those

[2:23:25] conversations and having agreements as

[2:23:26] we move forward we don't want to happen

[2:23:29] what we had let happen last year however

[2:23:31] I think that it's possible that just it

[2:23:33] doesn't have to happen we just have to

[2:23:35] be all open to communicating and making

[2:23:38] sure that it doesn't and and everyone

[2:23:40] coming to the table

[2:23:41] um with their concerns ideas and you

[2:23:44] know input in the budget so

[2:23:49] absolutely no I say

[2:23:53] absolutely those your comments on

[2:23:57] that okay any action on that so uh this

[2:24:02] anything motion to go operations

[2:24:07] so second all in favor I

[2:24:35] look

[2:24:38] [Music]

[2:24:50] so

[2:24:51] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, August 5, 2024

Transcript