[0:00] [Music]

[0:24] he

[0:25] [Music]

[4:50] [Applause]

[4:50] [Music]

[4:54] Council committee meeting for Monday

[4:56] October 7th 2024 the first committee is

[4:59] Public Safety I'd like to call the

[5:01] Public Safety Committee to order we have

[5:03] two items on the agenda tonight the

[5:05] first of which is the bja fiscal year

[5:07] 2024 bulletproof best partnership Grant

[5:10] uh Lieutenant

[5:19] no good

[5:23] evening so the bulletproof uh best

[5:27] partnership um Grant 19

[5:30] essentially provides us or affords US

[5:32] the opportunity uh to equip our officers

[5:36] with both through vest uh ultimately

[5:39] this year they are giving us

[5:43] $3,442

[5:45] 74 we are required 50% match by the city

[5:50] this will give us a total of 46 V for

[5:53] bestest this

[5:54] year um and the police department

[5:56] recommends the acceptance of the bja

[5:58] grant award

[6:00] thank you any questions or comments

[6:02] hearing on may have a motion I'll move

[6:04] it I'll second all those in favor I I

[6:07] the next item which is the New York

[6:09] State DMV gtsc Grant award for fiscal

[6:12] year 2025 you tell yes thank you so this

[6:16] one is a total Grant Award of

[6:19] $46,000 uh this requires no matching

[6:21] funds by the city and ultimately What it

[6:23] lets us do is it hires overtime and we

[6:26] can focus our efforts um on increasing

[6:29] seat belt usage reducing dangerous

[6:31] driving behaviors with the ultimate goal

[6:34] of reducing serious injuries and death

[6:36] from traffic

[6:37] crashes thank you any questions or

[6:40] comments Mr Patrick I just want was

[6:42] wondering in terms of the um amount on

[6:44] the grant which is not that high but um

[6:47] that allows for additional enforcement

[6:50] do you think that that will help at all

[6:51] when we um hopefully reduce the speed

[6:54] limit um there's been question about

[6:56] yeah absolutely everything uh that we do

[6:59] is is is um by and large backed up by

[7:02] statistics so we know where the hotpots

[7:04] are in the city and that's exactly what

[7:06] happens we'll hire for get out to go to

[7:08] these hot spots and hot spots in terms

[7:10] of um basically crashes or speeding um

[7:14] so we'll go to those spots and it's

[7:17] described in the grant when we hire it

[7:18] every year where we're actually going to

[7:19] deploy the eff so we already have a

[7:21] pretty good idea where we're going to be

[7:22] going for that year so to answer your

[7:25] question directly I do believe it'll

[7:26] reduce that um crashes and take out

[7:29] thank you so it says that the effective

[7:32] date is October 1 um and you have to

[7:34] sign the um contract before it's in

[7:36] effect so clearly we're pass October 1st

[7:39] so will you still be able to is there a

[7:41] end date so or basically I want to know

[7:44] we have the opportunity to spend the

[7:45] money in time because we're a little bit

[7:47] behind getting started that's right yes

[7:48] we can spend it um and the lieutenant

[7:52] charge of traffic ultimately manages the

[7:54] grant as far as the financial

[7:56] responsibility and he reports on it

[7:58] every Court so that's right all right

[8:02] thank you any other questions or

[8:04] comments hearing on a motion I'll move

[8:06] it I'll second it all those in favor I

[8:09] there any other items to Public Safety

[8:11] hearing n have motion for he so move

[8:14] I'll second all those in favor I I we

[8:19] are uh so uh Mr mudar couldn't be with

[8:22] us this evening so I will be calling

[8:24] finance committee to order we have um

[8:27] seven items on the agenda and the first

[8:30] item uh is regarding the code

[8:32] enforcement fee increases and uh Mr trcy

[8:36] yes um you could come

[8:54] up thank

[9:03] second

[9:56] that Brian treny chief insector from

[10:00] City concy and I'm here to propose some

[10:03] fee increases for

[10:17] COD I'd like to start by uh with these

[10:21] fee increases we want to be able to

[10:23] cover operational costs of the services

[10:26] we provide here in the city and uh

[10:29] the last documented increases were in

[10:33] mid90s with some small increases in

[10:41] 2017 since these changes salaries have

[10:45] nearly double across the board the

[10:48] administrative salaries and um code

[10:51] enforcement officer salaries and the

[10:54] cost of Labor and supplies have risen

[10:57] significantly allware normal inflation

[11:01] that has taken place and with that

[11:03] inflation uh

[11:05] the supplies and um labor have

[11:09] increased uh application process is very

[11:13] expensive and uh along with that um the

[11:16] cost to process those applications and

[11:19] initiate these permits get quite

[11:26] expensive um theant the advancement of

[11:30] technology is is great but does come out

[11:33] a

[11:34] cost

[11:36] um there there are often fees uh for

[11:40] requests that uh for reporting and these uh requests you know they they are

[11:47] we get build for those requests so

[11:50] there's some uh costs that are incurred

[11:53] there our regulatory council is

[11:56] constantly evolving to keep up the uh

[12:00] certifications and uh so you know based

[12:03] on this uh you know we try to keep up

[12:06] with our training and certifications and

[12:08] um this this gets hard to handle so U

[12:11] you know it is necessary to increase

[12:13] these you know keep up with the

[12:15] certification and the training uh we

[12:18] also

[12:20] uh we have some

[12:32] we we do want to hire uh we want to hire

[12:35] qualified Personnel to uh perform

[12:40] thorough inspections to make sure that

[12:42] we have safe structures in the city and

[12:45] along with that um comes some added

[12:48] costs and we need to increase fees to

[12:51] keep up with the this

[12:53] Staffing so um you know based on that um

[12:58] our current permit fee structure is um

[13:02] in need of coming up to date and

[13:06] increasing these

[13:09] fees so I have done some analysis with

[13:12] neighboring communities and uh you know

[13:15] with Albany and Troy being The Benchmark

[13:18] of neighboring cities um and you know

[13:21] with these with this analysis and these

[13:24] comparisons uh you know we are still

[13:28] with the imposed fees that are proposed

[13:31] we will still be on the low side there's

[13:33] a graph here that shows uh that we will

[13:36] still be on the low side of the uh the

[13:39] fees that are proposed

[13:43] so have

[13:45] that um with that being said I think to

[13:49] get to the fee

[13:51] structure

[13:53] um we had highlighted I'd like to go

[13:56] over with the um structure we had here

[13:59] on the left highlighted in yellow uh we

[14:02] have our current fee structure and on

[14:05] the right in green all the proposed fee

[14:08] increases are highlighted in red um I

[14:11] did do some permit fee samples here um

[14:14] on the left showing our current costs

[14:17] for projects that um take place in the

[14:19] city and on the right the adjusted fees

[14:24] for uh permits that will be in place

[14:28] with the prop osed fee increases so I

[14:32] started off with a residential uh job

[14:35] cost of

[14:36] $10,000 and we you can see on the left

[14:39] we have a a fee of

[14:41] $156 and uh you know with the new

[14:44] proposed fee increases uh we'd be at 205

[14:48] with comparable

[14:50] permit moving on to um

[14:54] $100,000 project uh we go from $66

[14:59] to

[15:01] $835 um moving on we do have some um

[15:05] high level projects in in the city and

[15:09] um for a million doll project we'd have

[15:11] a permit cost of

[15:15] $246 and that would move to

[15:19] $3,535 um suppose we had a $50 million

[15:23] events that are being built in the city

[15:25] um you see we had a $100,000 4

[15:33] $1,461

[15:35] 15,6 a project like that would be able

[15:38] to cover third party third party firms

[15:42] to come in and uh you know do our review

[15:45] process on a large project like that

[15:48] plus we would be able to cover uh

[15:50] internally our involvement in the

[15:52] project like that so um you know this

[15:55] would be the bread and butter of the

[15:57] free fee increases

[15:59] um and I'll move on and we'll show some

[16:02] further

[16:06] increases um we have some fee increases

[16:08] we have some fees proposed that didn't

[16:11] exist

[16:13] um

[16:15] being um some certificates and these

[16:19] require some staffing uh costs that you

[16:24] know we were not getting compensated for

[16:26] in the past and um we show some of them

[16:29] here um I won't go every over everything

[16:32] in detail but it is detailed in the uh

[16:35] report that you have there and I I

[16:37] expect you'll review it and go over that

[16:39] in

[16:45] detail so uh you know the primary

[16:48] justifications for the fee increases are

[16:51] uh advances in

[16:53] technology um we would like to uh you

[16:57] know cover costs of City operations and

[17:02] uh future development inter in the

[17:05] department so um this will uh you know

[17:09] help growth

[17:12] of our staffing in the city and F out C

[17:18] operational

[17:19] [Music]

[17:20] cost I would like to open it up to any

[17:23] questions or

[17:26] comments it's Miss patri

[17:29] oh sorry I was forgetting I was

[17:33] Mr Mr thank you so so um do you and I

[17:37] know that there's a lot of variables

[17:38] that would go into this but is there

[17:39] like any projections of like how much

[17:41] you know increase Revenue that would

[17:43] mean for the saf like annually

[17:51] so in your report um in your report it

[17:55] would show that there was approximately

[17:58] a 200 $100,000 increase okay for the

[18:01] year

[18:02] 2024 and we also show um some increases

[18:06] that would happen all the way up to back

[18:09] to 2020 okay yep okay it's in the I

[18:14] believe it's

[18:15] $235,000 in the year

[18:18] 2024 and there's been stability with the

[18:22] amount perit process since

[18:26] 2020 pretty much across the board set

[18:29] first fight in 2021 du Co

[18:33] and high level of improvements to

[18:37] properties that were done with Co taking

[18:40] place other than that we've been very

[18:42] consistent withs um so I believe that

[18:46] figure would be very similar in 2025 and

[18:48] beond

[18:51] okay all questions Mr Williams so um

[18:55] thank you for the presentation I think

[18:57] there's a very important emphasis on

[18:59] education and enforcement if you would

[19:01] be able to speak to just the status of

[19:04] how many permits are submitted annually

[19:06] and if that's an accurate reflection of

[19:08] the work that's being done and also like

[19:10] do you feel confident in the enforcement

[19:12] that you're able to support enforcing

[19:14] these

[19:15] decase so the amount of permits that are

[19:20] processed annually are near

[19:23] 3,000 um I believe with these fee

[19:25] increases we'll be able to staff

[19:27] properly and we'll be be able to do a

[19:29] more thorough job with our inspections

[19:32] and have safer structures in the city

[19:35] thank

[19:38] you other

[19:40] questions so on on the last page that

[19:43] you had it up there on the certificate

[19:45] licensing certificate of completion

[19:48] certificate of compliance So currently

[19:50] there's no fees can can you explain what

[19:52] a certificate completion is that

[19:53] currently previously had no fee and now

[19:55] there is a fee so certificate completion

[19:58] is is when a job is done M um and

[20:03] inspections are all completed M and the

[20:07] job is completed and a final inspection

[20:09] is completed and passed a certificate

[20:13] completion ensures that it it's a

[20:16] certificate that says that that job is

[20:19] completed or completed properly and not

[20:21] to code so just to be clear you're um

[20:26] increasing you're you're increasing the

[20:27] time for to pull permit in the first

[20:29] place is that is that correct uh

[20:31] increasing what the fine to pull the

[20:33] permit the fee to pull the permit the

[20:36] fine Fe yes ma'am yes and then in

[20:39] addition to that adding another fee to

[20:43] then close out your job um a certificate

[20:46] of completion is only uh given processed

[20:50] and given upon request of the applicant

[20:54] of the permit holder uh we don't that's

[20:56] not given out um on every single job so

[20:59] only upon

[21:01] request so could you just tell me why

[21:03] someone would want other and other

[21:05] people just like I don't we really care

[21:08] um there's a number of reasons they

[21:10] could want that it's for um show that

[21:14] they're company maybe for marketing

[21:16] reasons on their own behalf um it could

[21:19] be for banks it could be for financing

[21:23] um there's a multitude of reasons um

[21:26] that they could want that right and so

[21:28] these done by the city these are done by

[21:31] code enforcement staff administrative

[21:32] staff code enforcement there's no third

[21:35] party inspection that needs to be done

[21:36] outside of this correct okay thank you

[21:42] other

[21:45] questions down there Mr just for the for

[21:48] the council um I propose I submitted

[21:51] proposed draft legislation in the in the

[21:54] uh in the packets for this week and uh

[21:57] that would some of the proposed fee changes require

[22:01] code changes and they're they're they're

[22:03] covered in that Omnibus ordinance that

[22:05] goes through all those code changes

[22:07] others just require a uh resolution um

[22:13] and that uh for for for the code if you

[22:17] adopt that resolution with the attached

[22:19] fees schedule the fees are adopted so

[22:22] I'm going through the proposed fee

[22:23] schedule with the building inspector I

[22:26] was able to take the ones out requireed

[22:28] code

[22:29] uh uh amendments and then there's there's other one that just

[22:33] requires a resolution with the uh with

[22:36] the fee schedule attached and uh if you

[22:39] wish to proceed on this you need to have

[22:41] a a public hearing and it would be a

[22:44] public hearing on all all all

[22:48] matters would be the amendment of the

[22:50] code any sort of Bill in would be

[22:52] referred to as in increase in building

[22:54] fee building code Codes fees you know it

[22:57] would have all the

[22:59] sections uh of the code that are going

[23:01] to be amended but it would be just

[23:04] one group uh because it is one category

[23:07] it's it's building codes fees and just

[23:10] like you've just been given the

[23:12] presentation here um that's how it'll be

[23:14] presented to the public in in this fee

[23:16] scheduled that are proposed so you can

[23:19] call for a public hearing for uh for the 28th the resolution would have to be

[23:25] passed next week and then and the uh

[23:29] the fee schedule would be the the 28th

[23:33] would be the public hearing and then the

[23:35] uh and then the

[23:37] U if you decide to adopt the ordinances

[23:40] you can adopt the ordinances and the

[23:42] effective day for the fee schedules will

[23:44] be January 1 so you can work those

[23:47] figures into your budget analysis okay

[23:51] that's that's an important point so um

[23:54] discussion regarding so we have in front

[23:56] of us in our packet uh tonight the

[23:59] resolution that Mr O'Brien has um

[24:01] prepared to have a public hearing on

[24:04] October 28th so um would folks like to

[24:08] move forward with that um with well so

[24:12] right now we're just calling for the

[24:13] public hearing we're not passing

[24:14] anything right that's what I'm saying

[24:16] but I mean just want to it's not on our

[24:18] you know agenda so I just wanted to um

[24:21] the public hearing is on the agenda this

[24:23] one is not no it's it's it's a

[24:26] resolution it's part of the presentation

[24:28] so right now you want to call for the

[24:29] public hearing a public hearing yeah and

[24:31] then you'll have it on the 28th with the

[24:33] resolution next week okay I do have

[24:35] another question okay under the working

[24:38] without permits previously it was just

[24:40] doubl fines so now you want fees so now

[24:44] you want to double the fees and charge

[24:46] an additional $100 is that or 100 uh for

[24:50] a residential 200 for a commercial so a

[24:53] an additional fee on top of the double

[24:54] FES yes that's good okay

[24:59] just other

[25:03] questions just even even with that we

[25:06] still um I appreciate the comparative

[25:08] analysis that you did with

[25:10] municipalities and it seems like we

[25:12] still would be under yeah these are uh

[25:16] these are with so those comparisons are

[25:19] done with the proposed fee changes not

[25:21] before so me we're

[25:24] still lower than our neighboring cities

[25:30] any other questions if not I'll call for

[25:34] a motion for um this public hearing that

[25:36] would be held on October

[25:39] 28th thank

[25:40] you okay

[25:43] second I'll second it all in favor all

[25:46] right okay thank

[25:49] you next item on the agenda is um the

[25:53] reminder for the public hearing for the

[25:55] 2025 proposed operating budget and

[25:57] capital budget for the city is conect

[26:00] and this is just a reminder that the

[26:01] public hearing will be held on October

[26:03] 15th

[26:05] 2024 next item is a reminder of a public

[26:08] hearing to amend

[26:11] sections 12413 and

[26:15] 12422 of the SKC city code increasing

[26:19] administrative fees regarding false

[26:21] alarm calls and that public hearing will

[26:24] be on October 15 2024 Mr O'Brien yes I

[26:27] just have a question regarding the the

[26:29] council's uh uh position on this I

[26:32] provided uh in there a draft a draft

[26:35] ordinance which indicated the from from

[26:37] the committee meeting last last time of

[26:40] the reduction from four to two false

[26:42] alarms y um but I wasn't sure and I just

[26:46] highlighted there but I didn't put any

[26:48] bracketed language in uh those those

[26:51] highlighted Parts in section e the

[26:53] bottom part of your paragraph there

[26:56] those are the the the current Fe I

[26:58] didn't know whether or not you wanted to

[27:00] change those fees down below I I

[27:03] highlighted

[27:04] them the uh the two four Force four for

[27:09] false alarms goes down to two but I was

[27:11] uncertain whether you wanted to change

[27:13] those fee amounts that you see there

[27:15] 2550 and 75 I didn't know whether that

[27:17] you wanted to change that or not they're

[27:20] highlighted but not

[27:22] amended I don't think there's any

[27:24] discussion about uh increasing the fees

[27:26] but just lowering the um the number of

[27:28] times

[27:31] okay okay yes I

[27:35] mean Mr Williams yeah know correct me if

[27:37] I'm wrong um M Patrick I thought last

[27:39] time we all to speak for myself I

[27:41] thought that the fees that they

[27:43] currently stand were relatively low and

[27:44] I was under the impression we didn't

[27:46] have to put in place any specific

[27:48] amounts because the public hearing as it

[27:51] was listed identified that there would

[27:52] be subsequent changes in the future is

[27:54] that correct um I think we were was

[27:57] doing the public hearing for the changes

[28:00] overall and I think the idea was when we

[28:02] came back here tonight you would revisit

[28:04] that to see whether or not you wanted to

[28:07] change those numbers in that part of the

[28:09] uh

[28:12] formula no hand oh

[28:15] sorry um so discussion about that um in

[28:18] terms of raising these

[28:21] fees Mr Farley yeah I could be remember

[28:25] correctly during the presentation that

[28:27] we had I thought that there was

[28:28] discussion I thought there was a

[28:30] suggested fee increase with that I agree

[28:33] I I could be remembering that wrong but it's not reflected here

[28:38] yeah so I

[28:40] don't I don't know if a final number

[28:43] came V and I know it was you know was

[28:46] discussion on it but I don't think it

[28:47] was

[28:48] formalized we don't have any no we don't

[28:52] to tell us about that so well this is

[28:55] can we call for the what's your question

[28:59] whether we wanted to raise these fees

[29:00] for false

[29:02] alans if you look to cover the expenses

[29:05] and again we're taking the number of

[29:06] calls and reducing it for the fees so

[29:09] it's kind of like the freebies in there

[29:12] but it's expensive to put a piece of

[29:15] fire apparatus at a scene there's

[29:18] virtually no call where we send out one

[29:21] piece of

[29:23] apparatus

[29:26] uh around this like 400 50

[29:29] $550 at minimum per piece of again

[29:34] apparatus police calls can be widely

[29:37] variant from it's a oneman car going

[29:39] there it's a two-man car going

[29:42] there or multiple cars so these fees do

[29:48] not cover the cost of delivering the

[29:52] service and at the same time we're very

[29:54] cognizant of what our good faith efforts

[29:58] so that uh people wouldn't be assessed

[30:02] uh think example uh in the spring and

[30:05] fall you get uh it gets cooler outside

[30:10] you'll get uh humidity so somebody's

[30:12] using a closed dryer sobody might be

[30:15] home they don't expect it uh it

[30:18] will go outside and the air will

[30:21] condense so it'll look like could be

[30:23] smoke it's really just steam you know if

[30:25] a neighbor is calling that in as a fire

[30:29] we would still treat that as a good

[30:30] faith MH uh response so that there would

[30:34] be no assessment for that type of call

[30:38] it's where you get uh people who have

[30:41] alarm systems that are overly sensitive

[30:44] or flawed in some way so that uh uh the

[30:48] dog jumps up against the door rattles it

[30:51] and the contacts on the alarm vary so

[30:55] you trip an alarm again we do it a

[30:58] couple times it's fine when it's

[31:00] multiple times we're again looking to be

[31:03] able to put resources where they're

[31:05] really needed and how do you incentivize

[31:08] people to be

[31:10] compliant uh and uh do it so the numbers

[31:14] that are in place are low

[31:17] M The Proposal is to reduce the number

[31:21] of free

[31:23] times but uh again it's up to the

[31:26] council in terms of an actual be

[31:28] structure to look to cover those Mr so

[31:31] at this point I mean we could go call

[31:32] for public hearing and then I forgot

[31:34] which officer it was that brought this

[31:35] forward

[31:40] um yeah no I'm saying was officer so we

[31:43] can still go forward with the public

[31:44] hearing and they could we could then

[31:46] have a discussion after that in terms of

[31:48] increasing fees if that if that's what

[31:50] the council is inclined to

[31:52] do okay Mr you can yeah have the public

[31:56] you have the public hear next week what

[31:58] happens and then revisit in two weeks

[32:00] and then uh finalize that we want to

[32:03] know whether we going to charge

[32:05] penalties before the public I mean would

[32:07] we want the public to be able to respond

[32:09] to the fees as part of the public

[32:12] hearing Mr Williams but that's I'm

[32:14] pretty sure in the way the public

[32:16] hearing was written was to identify that

[32:19] these fee increases were subject to

[32:22] change'll be public comment and you can

[32:25] visit in two weeks and then

[32:28] and we'll see what the the comments are

[32:30] and

[32:31] then get more information so can I just

[32:35] ask on these fees that you highlighted

[32:38] here those are the current those are

[32:39] current okay right okay Mr Williams and

[32:42] then just as a a point of reference I

[32:43] wanted to appreciate the mayor's comment

[32:45] um and also is a point of clarification

[32:48] I I yield to the understanding that

[32:50] we'll never be able to fully recruit the

[32:52] funds or the the me costs and the

[32:56] response true response cost of

[32:58] responding to any of these instances I

[33:00] think it's just having a stronger uh

[33:03] fine structure or fee structure for just

[33:06] the continued um misuse of this response

[33:09] from our city just because we to your

[33:11] point again it takes a considerable

[33:13] effort to respond to any any of these

[33:15] instances and even with the reduction in

[33:18] a number of the freebies as you

[33:19] highlighted I still think there needs to

[33:21] be more more of a a steeper uh Financial

[33:25] or

[33:26] monetary effects

[33:28] mhm okay any other questions or comments

[33:31] All right so that public hearing will be

[33:33] held on October 15th so next item on the

[33:36] agenda is um also calling for a public

[33:39] hearing and this one is uh public

[33:41] hearing to amend section 927 of this

[33:44] connected city code increasing fees and

[33:46] charges for Police Department Records um

[33:49] that public hearing will also be on

[33:51] October 15 2024 any comments or

[33:56] questions Okay so next item is um a

[34:00] reminder uh that we also will be having

[34:03] a public hearing to discuss amending

[34:05] city code

[34:07] 14414 C increasing dog license fees and

[34:11] that public hearing will be on October

[34:13] 15

[34:14] 2024 any comments or

[34:17] questions okay and uh the next public

[34:20] hearing uh reminder is uh to amend

[34:25] excuse me section

[34:26] [Music]

[34:27] of the connected city code increasing

[34:30] parking violation fines and that public

[34:33] hearing will be on uh October 15

[34:36] 2024 um and any comments or questions on

[34:40] that okay so our last item uh for

[34:44] finance committee tonight is uh M barage

[34:47] is going to update us about the tax

[34:49] foreclosure process M barage um we have

[34:52] requested that uh this item be removed

[34:54] and we so compiled

[34:56] information okay yes thank you so two

[34:59] weeks could we bring it back or will you

[35:00] let us know I'll let you know okay okay

[35:03] thank you all right so that was the last

[35:06] item on the agenda unless there's other

[35:07] items to come forward I'd like to have a

[35:10] uh call for

[35:12] uh coming out of finance committee uh

[35:17] motion was thank you I'll second all in

[35:19] favor I I okay thank you okay at this

[35:23] time I like to call the order government

[35:24] operations we have one agenda item and

[35:27] that the appointment of Naim Abol

[35:31] Alexander Bland and the reappointment of

[35:33] Randall Beach to the Planning Commission mayor MTH thank you Mr

[35:38] chairman those terms have expired there

[35:41] we've uh done some Outreach submitted

[35:44] names for your consideration to

[35:47] uh continue that board's good work and

[35:51] appreciate your favorable

[35:53] consideration any questions or comments

[35:55] on

[35:56] that president pfield I have a question

[35:59] um one of the people that that um mayor

[36:02] that you put forward to consider is uh a

[36:04] former employee and I know that the last

[36:06] time that we put forth a former employee

[36:09] to be named to a board that that moved

[36:11] forward and was vetoed so um I just I'm

[36:15] not clear why you know why we're having

[36:17] different considerations now than we did

[36:20] um a few months ago which when is that

[36:23] um I don't think I need to say that well

[36:26] somebody in the Corporation Council

[36:27] office who you know litigating items

[36:30] with the city uh you'd like to get into

[36:33] a lot more detail more than willing to

[36:35] do that I I would because um this

[36:38] individual had a very um had a pretty um

[36:41] High uh position I'm more than happy to

[36:44] put together a full presentation of the

[36:46] conflict of interests that exists with

[36:48] that and the Far Below

[36:51] professional uh performance of that

[36:55] individual in the you're hanging had on

[36:58] that it's the wrong one these are good

[37:01] people they're going to be able to do

[37:03] the job and would ask the council's

[37:05] consideration for these individuals so

[37:09] um I I think that I have a right to my

[37:11] opinion and and so say hanging my hand

[37:13] on it it's a question that something

[37:15] happened I'm bringing it forward so I

[37:18] don't think the fact that I'm bringing

[37:19] forward means that I'm hanging my hand

[37:21] on it means I'm bringing a question

[37:22] forward and I have the right to do that

[37:25] so um and I'm not questioning whether

[37:26] they're good people or not so please

[37:28] don't put it out there like I'm saying

[37:29] that they're not good people that's not

[37:30] what I'm saying at all I'm simply saying

[37:32] that there was an individual who was a a

[37:35] former employee who in a high position

[37:37] and this person was all similarly in a

[37:39] high position not the same department so

[37:41] I'll for the next cycle do a full

[37:46] presentation that's entirely up to you

[37:48] but certainly that's certainly my

[37:51] question and I don't have any um any

[37:53] concern with any of the others that

[37:55] wasn't was a concern that I had

[38:01] thank you um knowing the three

[38:03] individuals that that the mayor put

[38:04] forward I was especially excited about

[38:07] Naim only because he worked in uh for

[38:09] the city for for many years still works

[38:11] in that uh same uh department for

[38:14] another municipality so I think having

[38:16] him on the board is invaluable as as

[38:19] well as Ali and the U and Randle so

[38:22] that's I have to say Thank

[38:24] you so again I I you know I refrain from

[38:27] saying an individual's name because this

[38:28] is not about individuals so just to be

[38:31] clear and my question is about the

[38:35] consistency of appointing people that's

[38:37] it so that's why I didn't mention their

[38:38] name well they're right here it's here

[38:41] for us it's not here for everyone that's

[38:42] listening right now so um so that that

[38:45] was my

[38:47] question so it seems that the the

[38:49] question is is um more about process not

[38:52] uh the person okay okay that's Point

[38:56] Clarity okay

[38:58] um any other questions comments or

[39:00] concerns around

[39:02] us and that's the just for the record

[39:04] that's the only one that I'm question

[39:05] only because everybody else doesn't have

[39:07] that same kind of conflict that that person does

[39:14] okay any other questions comments on

[39:19] this so at this point maybe we

[39:23] uh entertain a motion um to maybe we

[39:26] treat these all of them separately and

[39:29] then Corporation Council with

[39:31] that's the appropriate

[39:33] respons um the members of the committee

[39:36] who the members of the committee can

[39:38] make a motion to

[39:40] uh however you know you've got three

[39:43] candidates if you want two out of three

[39:44] you can do two out of three and just

[39:46] leave the one for the next time or you

[39:50] can do three as a as as a complete and

[39:52] then have a vote on the all three at the uh on the council meeting on

[39:57] Monday night you want to vote two out or

[40:00] three out it's up to it's up to what how

[40:03] the committee wants to do it just be

[40:05] clear I'm asking for affirmative

[40:07] consideration for all

[40:11] three I'm I'm comfortable moving to out

[40:15] today okay

[40:19] and so I think that um just based

[40:25] on committee members that are here right

[40:27] now is myself and presin Porterfield um

[40:31] I think

[40:32] the what I need to do right now because

[40:35] if we try to move all three of them

[40:37] forward I think president porteri has

[40:39] been very clear that she's concerned

[40:41] around the process and consistency of

[40:42] the process so if we attempt to move all

[40:45] three of them out I don't think that

[40:46] we'll be successful doing that

[40:49] so I would like to entertain a motion to

[40:53] um move um it would

[40:56] be Alexandra Glenn and the reappointment

[40:59] of Randle Beach to to the uh planning

[41:03] commissioner I'll second that can I make

[41:06] a comment please um I I actually um do

[41:09] feel I just do want to say that I think

[41:11] that n would be excellent on this

[41:13] committee and I do think that there's a

[41:15] difference between the previous

[41:17] discussion in terms of the

[41:19] employee um and uh the former employee

[41:22] that's being discussed here so I just

[41:24] want to go on record and say that I

[41:26] think that all three should be

[41:29] appointed thank you for that and I

[41:32] respect your opinion but my but that's

[41:34] my opinion and I just wanted you know

[41:36] the process it's about the process and I

[41:37] want to continually make it clear it's

[41:39] not about the individual I also

[41:42] obviously know the individual as well

[41:43] when he worked for the city and did a

[41:44] fine job but I'm talking about the

[41:47] process okay so I I think what we're

[41:51] talking about here again is about the

[41:53] process not the person um and so what

[41:56] we'll do is uh

[41:58] I'll second there I second it okay oh

[42:00] I'll make the motion I can make the

[42:02] motion I made the motion okay I second

[42:04] okay all those in favor

[42:06] I so we

[42:08] can Mr Mayor are you going to uh put

[42:12] together a presentation you were saying

[42:13] for the

[42:14] next to bring us back for this person is

[42:18] that what you were saying you're going

[42:19] to do well with the council presidents

[42:22] uh again names came forward that I

[42:24] considered really to be Court Choice the

[42:28] performance was substandard and I did

[42:31] not support them being moved on to a

[42:34] committee That's My Prerogative uh this

[42:38] terms of diversity you're holding up a

[42:40] name today it's the council's

[42:42] prerogative to do that go ahead and do

[42:44] it okay well I'm not I mean I'm not

[42:47] comfortable with the characterization of

[42:49] holding up a name as the council's um

[42:52] the actions that the council's taken

[42:54] today um that's why immediately was

[42:56] asking who was it and if it's I I I

[43:00] personally think that he would be um

[43:02] great to serve on on the board as well I

[43:04] think we're all in in agreement with

[43:06] that but I think that the that the

[43:07] question was about the process and if

[43:09] we're making um a certain set of

[43:11] calculations when it comes to um one

[43:14] individual then for in the act of

[43:16] consistency and integrity we're making

[43:18] asking the same questions for everyone

[43:20] and I think that that's you know and and

[43:22] if you were going to come bring for some

[43:23] more information Mr Mayor I think that

[43:25] then we'd be in a better was before the

[43:27] council in terms of process move the

[43:29] names

[43:31] forward you're not moving them all

[43:33] forward here that legislation came

[43:35] forward I vetoed portion of it so if you

[43:39] want to be consistent in the process you

[43:40] move them forward and then if I don't

[43:42] like them then I would veto it so again

[43:45] you're choosing to do something

[43:47] different than what was done before

[43:51] okay well that wouldn't make sense

[43:53] because these are names you brought

[43:54] forward so you wouldn't veto the names

[43:56] that you put for so I'm just asking for

[43:58] more information I'm not sure why that

[43:59] is you know um and it's it's the same

[44:02] proc I mean I'm talking about the

[44:04] process so for me to ask for more

[44:05] information as we do around this table

[44:07] consistently um I I don't see why that

[44:11] is really something that people have

[44:13] concerns

[44:15] with Miss Patrick I'm wondering whether

[44:18] um just bring this up I

[44:25] wonder I'm listening I wonder whether we

[44:27] could have separated a discussion around

[44:30] process in the

[44:32] future when we do this and these three

[44:36] names being brought forward here this

[44:39] evening since it sounds like the three

[44:41] names M um would probably have

[44:44] acceptance by I bet the majority of the

[44:47] council um if it was to come out of

[44:49] committee um so I just raised that point

[44:52] I'm not really sure yeah no if we can I would say that I think that that's the next best course of action is to

[45:00] kind of um is for us to examine that

[45:03] process and how and what uh questions

[45:05] are we asking um and why then I think

[45:08] that's

[45:10] a we need to do that obviously so we can

[45:13] have a better understanding before we

[45:14] get get to the point get to this point

[45:17] uh Mr I I think it's worth noting I

[45:19] think to to Patrick's Point I don't know

[45:22] how beneficial a conversation before

[45:24] would have been because it was only at

[45:27] this point that it became like an

[45:28] highlighted issue of concern by Mr

[45:30] Quarterfield not words in your mouth uh

[45:33] I truly believe in transparency so if

[45:35] the mayor had additional uh

[45:37] considerations for his choice previously

[45:39] I would appreciate that insight and I

[45:42] think as a checks and balances uh that

[45:46] deeper analysis helps me personally

[45:48] understand how that decision making goes

[45:51] and I think this just helps ensure

[45:52] efficacy of the entire process so I

[45:54] don't see that as a bad thing um and

[45:56] again make sure we are uh intentionally

[45:59] highlighting there are no issues

[46:01] throughout this entire conversation to

[46:03] any of these individuals I think it is

[46:05] just a matter of consistency just

[46:07] wanting to wait till the other answers

[46:09] are being addressed

[46:14] okay okay sorry to delor it but I

[46:18] believe that we did address those other

[46:20] issues on the other appointment when we

[46:22] discussed that appointment um and did

[46:25] not make that appointment um and here

[46:28] tonight we do have um the background

[46:30] information that we need um about the

[46:33] individuals that are on the agenda this

[46:35] evening for this particular so I think

[46:38] we did have pretty you know I think the

[46:41] mayor expressed his concerns about that

[46:44] other individual at the previous at the

[46:46] meeting where we didn't appoint him to

[46:49] the committee just to be clear we did

[46:51] appoint him and then the mayor the mayor

[46:53] V the appointment so we did that that person is I guess what I'm saying

[46:59] right and I guess um and you expressed

[47:02] your

[47:04] concerns I don't remember the being that

[47:07] detailed

[47:08] okay so if if one of the questions that

[47:12] was brought up in the prior um attempt

[47:14] to appoint was that the person was a

[47:17] previous employee then if that was a

[47:20] point of

[47:21] conversation I wish at that point we

[47:23] would have kind of hashed it out moving

[47:25] forward to say okay well this is why

[47:26] could be a issue moving forward and then

[47:29] we might have not have been here I don't

[47:30] think that the mayor um I believe that

[47:32] the mayor is acting in good faith trying

[47:34] to uh put for someone that um we all

[47:36] feel is is is qualified and I feel that

[47:39] President Porter feel is acting in good

[47:40] faith and saying let's make sure our

[47:41] checks and balances are consistent so I

[47:43] don't think that there's really a issue

[47:46] around um who we think should be

[47:48] appointed or whether this person is

[47:50] worthy or not it just seems like a

[47:51] question of process and that's that's

[47:53] one that we can uh address uh moving

[47:57] forward and then if this type of

[47:59] situation arises again then we kind of

[48:01] know our playb from that point so I

[48:03] think again it's not necessarily a

[48:05] disagreement but more as a Cas it's just

[48:07] a lack of clarity as process and U I

[48:10] think both our mayor and our council

[48:11] president are both acting in good faith

[48:13] to do

[48:14] so so with that said I will uh entertain

[48:18] the motion to adour government

[48:19] operations

[48:21] second all those in favor I your

[48:25] turn did you move two names forward we

[48:29] did we did yeah we

[48:31] did thank you so I'd like to um convene

[48:36] health and Recreation committee we have

[48:37] one item on the agenda and that's a

[48:39] discussion of the renaming of woodlon

[48:41] Park uh M pill this item is being

[48:44] removed and this this request has been

[48:46] descended from the people that requested

[48:49] it oh

[48:53] okay um so i' like a motion to adjourn

[48:56] health and Recreation second motion to

[49:02] okay okay all in favor F thank you I'd

[49:06] like to call to order City development

[49:08] and planning we have 16 items on the

[49:10] agenda um the first one is the award the

[49:13] bidden contract for tilled water piping

[49:15] repairs to cedo Plumbing in the amount

[49:19] of

[49:22] 94492 Mr Leon good evening

[49:27] legis request you have in front of you

[49:28] tonight is um for the bid of the chair

[49:32] children water P repairs for the service

[49:35] there were two bids that were submitted

[49:37] one from Sano construction and one fromo

[49:41] um we also have the bid net so I believe

[49:44] there was approximately 12 vendors who

[49:47] took it but only submitted bids the

[49:49] lowest responsible bid was from PTO for

[49:54] 94422 $93

[49:56] um recommendation is to move forward

[49:59] with the award of that bid so that the

[50:01] um glol pipes can get repaired prior to

[50:05] Winter any questions

[50:07] concerns I'll second all in favor I I

[50:11] thank you all right Mr Leons uh if I

[50:13] could just ask you this we did talk

[50:15] about it didn't actually make it an

[50:16] agenda item but um I know that you've

[50:19] been visiting uh neighborhood

[50:22] associations And discussing the um

[50:25] proposed changes to the trash collection

[50:28] and um I don't know that um all council

[50:30] members know about that and if we could

[50:32] just just kind of give us kind of this

[50:34] brief overview that you've been giving

[50:36] to the neighborhood associations um if

[50:39] you weren't aware there was a trash

[50:41] committee meet uh put together um during

[50:44] the summer um we meant to discuss

[50:47] potential ways to reduce the excessive

[50:51] was that we're picking up at curbside

[50:53] and to address the B items that we are

[50:55] picking up because currently under the

[50:57] code we take everything that's left

[50:59] there um it's covered in the trash fees

[51:02] um it's getting very expensive um very

[51:05] time consuming um removing um you know

[51:08] what we used to call jackpots but

[51:10] accessible way so I have been going out

[51:13] to the neighborhood um Association

[51:15] meetings to let them know that currently

[51:17] there is some changes coming forth with

[51:20] Council approval um one is the amount of

[51:23] trash that will be allowed uh per unit

[51:26] um the amount of trash that was say

[51:30] discussed tenly agreed upon were

[51:33] six um trash bags and were 32 gallon

[51:37] bags or one 45 gallon can per

[51:40] residential unit so if you had a two

[51:43] unit you're going to get 14 bags you had

[51:44] a three unit you're going to get 21 bags

[51:47] and then we did uh develop a list of

[51:49] bulk items each item has a fee

[51:52] associated with it whether it's a couch

[51:54] or sofa a mattress um an increments of

[51:58] about $5 and um you know how it would be

[52:01] done currently was discussed come to

[52:04] seah home like you do with a permit for

[52:06] development or building department um

[52:09] you f out form down roow 9 you w the

[52:11] receipts you prepaid for what you want

[52:14] picked up whether um if you got 20 bags

[52:17] I think we came with an extra bag trash

[52:19] is not like a bulk item was

[52:21] $2.50 um B items don't only take conver

[52:25] leave mattress was $10

[52:27] um after you pay for it to come

[52:29] downstairs we would give you the

[52:29] appropriate stickers and we would set

[52:31] the date to have it out on the curb and

[52:33] then our staff would know that with

[52:35] these stickers on we would be taking

[52:36] that and it was paid for so um it has

[52:40] been being discussed I went to three

[52:42] neighborhood meetings I going to fourth

[52:45] one this Thursday so hopefully my budget

[52:48] presentation is quick because

[52:52] it's not about that but UNCW so

[52:57] um so I am going out I have been

[52:59] speaking um in regards to the

[53:01] trash so then after all so the process

[53:05] after this would be as in terms of the

[53:07] council the process no I'm asking the

[53:09] question what would the process be after

[53:11] the we would present to the council the

[53:14] fee structure rate increases and the

[53:17] council would then decide whether or not

[53:18] you want to move forward with it and

[53:20] then I believe it would be changed in

[53:21] the city code yes so we're just

[53:24] informing just informing the public

[53:26] right now yes that is right is there is

[53:28] there room for public feedback on that

[53:31] or answer some of the questions I've

[53:33] said anybody who has any other questions

[53:35] give my email i't received any other

[53:37] questions about it but I think most

[53:39] residents who obey the current even

[53:44] though it's not a rule but appropriate

[53:46] law on a trash it's the the people who

[53:49] are abusing it we know trash comes in

[53:51] from outside the city people live

[53:53] outside the city have running units in

[53:55] the city you know you can go byy some of

[53:57] these units and there's just a

[53:58] tremendous amount of trash um so um you

[54:02] know I think it's more going after the

[54:05] you know the residents or the landl are

[54:08] abusing

[54:11] it U Mr Willams so I just wanted to

[54:14] thank you for that un scheduled update I

[54:16] really appreciate it and um as we get

[54:18] into the budget season I imagine that's

[54:19] going to be an issue we hit uh a little

[54:21] bit in detail uh if you're comfortable

[54:23] at this moment are there any

[54:25] reservations to the current increases

[54:28] and the uh rece no there was no it more

[54:31] was a the questions I got a couple of

[54:33] them more of a convenience of um coming

[54:35] down the city hall and having to prepay

[54:38] whether there was the ability to do

[54:39] something via the phone and you calling

[54:42] the credit card uh it gets a little

[54:44] difficult cuz then how do you get the

[54:46] stickers to it you'd have to keep more

[54:48] of a checklist and the route foring

[54:50] would have to have that checklist so

[54:51] when they go to that house you know they

[54:53] compare the checklist to what they they

[54:56] had but you know I mean there's an

[54:59] inconvenience to almost anything so

[55:02] thank

[55:04] you again thank you for doing that um

[55:06] community outreach I appreciate that get

[55:09] help informed public I was thinking that

[55:11] um would again are very preliminary and

[55:14] I'm sure we'll probably um address this

[55:16] at another time but my burning question

[55:18] right now is like so would it be people

[55:22] would be able to come in and maybe

[55:24] prepay for a couple tax tags for what

[55:27] could be a and then late I guess the

[55:29] question would be would they have to

[55:31] communicate that oh I have a mattress

[55:33] out or would they be able to kind of

[55:34] prepa for the tax slap it on the

[55:35] mattress to because it's evolving you

[55:38] know if they came in sort of prepaid for

[55:40] a sheet of

[55:42] stickers and they called in and said

[55:44] look I've got a mattress and a box um I

[55:48] got my stickers on it it's you know

[55:50] it'll get picked up we just have to know

[55:52] it's when we get into the MERS you know

[55:54] um the thing is

[55:56] you know there are you know some things

[55:58] are being taken advantage of and you

[56:00] know it's obvious thank you mayor had

[56:04] come thank you madam president

[56:07] again in this process last year this was

[56:10] a major point of contention in terms of

[56:13] the adoption of the budget our current

[56:16] code dealing with garbage collection is

[56:21] out of date it's flawed and basically

[56:24] nobody in the city fully complies with

[56:27] the code we set up meetings went through

[56:31] things looking the simple analysis was

[56:34] jackpots somebody puts four tons of

[56:37] material out there we pick it up we've

[56:39] had number of ongoing meetings it is not

[56:42] a simple solution it's a complicated

[56:45] fact pattern in which there are a lot of

[56:47] variables to it in that the council

[56:51] president declined to participate after

[56:53] a certain point and again I can't

[56:57] building in operational efficiencies

[56:59] unless I have changes in the code that

[57:01] has to come from the city council and

[57:05] looking for some level of indication

[57:07] what the council will support or not

[57:09] support to be able to move forward in

[57:11] this and some of this will end up

[57:13] getting pushed through during this

[57:15] budget process which again builds

[57:18] tension

[57:20] and creates conflict that tried to avoid

[57:25] but uh again would defer to your

[57:27] position where you said you don't want

[57:29] to participate anymore and don't want to

[57:31] actually move something forward to to

[57:33] the council I okay so let's just be

[57:35] clear I never said I didn't want to move

[57:38] anything forward to the council so let's

[57:40] go over what really happened this began

[57:42] in January and I did not step away until

[57:45] July that was 7 months later uh during

[57:48] that time we did not come through

[57:49] anything concrete nothing came before

[57:51] the council to even consider we had one

[57:53] update and it was just kind of an

[57:55] overview but there was nothing that was

[57:57] concrete brought before the council that

[57:58] said would you take a look at this and

[58:00] would you move this forward there was a

[58:02] discussion about um something being

[58:04] coming misdemeanors versus um announ

[58:07] it's a violation in terms of trash

[58:08] coming from outside the city again

[58:10] nothing was concrete was brought before

[58:12] this Council so yes in July after

[58:15] meetings from January through July in

[58:17] saiding meeting after meeting and then

[58:19] the last two meetings were cancel I did

[58:20] step away because I did not see the

[58:22] meeting as being effective and that's

[58:24] really creating any change

[58:26] uh in addition to that in March I

[58:28] submitted um something to the committee

[58:32] to um say here are some my

[58:33] considerations those things were never

[58:35] considered the one thing that I said

[58:37] early on is if we could just at least

[58:40] look at what has um what's already in

[58:42] the books and we can start implementing

[58:44] that and that is putting the trash out

[58:45] early getting a fee for that that was

[58:47] done but beyond that the things that I

[58:49] put out for consideration were just not

[58:51] considered and I'm not offended by that

[58:53] however there there is no point in me

[58:55] continuing come to meetings if in fact

[58:58] what I'm my contributions are not moving

[59:00] forward so in my letter to you or my

[59:02] email to you um I also said if you want

[59:05] to submit to someone else that's fine or

[59:07] when you're ready to bring this to the

[59:08] council please bring It Forward if

[59:10] anyone wants to see my entire email I'm

[59:12] willing to forward that to you and and

[59:14] just and everyone on the council knows

[59:16] that I was stepping away because I also

[59:17] emailed them and said that as well so

[59:19] it's not that we didn't want to bring it

[59:21] to the council there was nothing to

[59:23] bring forward and I said when it comes

[59:24] time Bring It Forward and and then you

[59:26] know I I went to a meeting and I saw

[59:28] that this was already being discussed so

[59:30] I just wanted the council to know

[59:32] because I was getting phone calls about

[59:33] oh there's going to be fees or or

[59:35] limitations on bags so I just wanted

[59:37] everyone on the council who may not have

[59:39] known that this was already being

[59:40] discussed and was out there that's all

[59:42] there as to

[59:43] that it's solely your prerogative to

[59:46] move legislation forward but first you

[59:48] have to give us something to consider as

[59:49] we're doing tonight and we were not

[59:51] giving anything to consider

[59:57] oh it's not my sorry did you you have

[59:59] your hand up no you have your hand up oh

[1:00:01] yeah um so in discussion of trash you

[1:00:05] know we we we we contacted multiple

[1:00:07] municipalities Paul and Chris went out

[1:00:10] of their way to always make sure present

[1:00:12] uh the committee with um what's

[1:00:14] happening everywhere and out there and

[1:00:16] as far as addressing I mean we started

[1:00:18] out as as these jackpots or cleanouts um

[1:00:21] but you couldn't just you know we had to

[1:00:23] put it actually put a price tag on a mattress um a dresser a lamp anything

[1:00:29] that won't fit into a b which eventually

[1:00:32] will I believe cost myself who creates a

[1:00:35] lot of trash and every taxpayer in the

[1:00:37] city a lot more money than the $34 $43

[1:00:41] that could have been adopted last budget

[1:00:42] season and you still would have been

[1:00:45] able to put everything including myself

[1:00:46] out of the trash and it would have been

[1:00:48] collected I'm sorry thank

[1:00:51] you go ahead uh the one thing I was

[1:00:54] going to add is just I remember those

[1:00:55] conv ations during our last budget cycle

[1:00:57] um because uh they were very in depth I

[1:01:00] would say probably one of the two top

[1:01:01] concerns last year I would say for me

[1:01:04] personally it was wanting to make sure

[1:01:06] our first response to these heightened

[1:01:08] fees wasn't looking towards the

[1:01:10] residents so I appreciate Mr lefon and

[1:01:12] the committee uh all members as it

[1:01:14] started and what it kind of evolved into

[1:01:16] for what they were able to submit I

[1:01:18] understand this is not the final

[1:01:19] solution but it is a step forward and

[1:01:21] it's just making sure that each of us in

[1:01:24] our capacities just highlight

[1:01:26] are we considering this area because the

[1:01:28] one thing I want to not happen or the

[1:01:30] one thing I want to prevent is this

[1:01:31] causes more pain and frustration not

[1:01:33] only for our residents but also for the

[1:01:35] employees as they try to implement this

[1:01:37] and enforce it um but definitely there

[1:01:39] needs to be a change for anyone that's

[1:01:41] not aware waste removal is far expensive

[1:01:44] and it is just growing um and again

[1:01:46] we're going to have these endep

[1:01:48] discussions what L this week so not want

[1:01:52] to to burn a lot of that energy that we

[1:01:54] have now um but thank you for the work

[1:01:56] that's done and I look forward to seeing

[1:01:58] this in the coming months thank you do impr prompted I appreciate

[1:02:04] that uh the next item is the award of

[1:02:06] been contract emergency service training

[1:02:08] facility room simulator to Midstate

[1:02:10] Industries Mr

[1:02:15] Walling hello hello so this is a roof

[1:02:21] training simulator there is a rendering

[1:02:23] in your packet of what it would look

[1:02:24] like it is a

[1:02:26] wooden essentially Erector Set uh

[1:02:29] designed specifically to simulate um

[1:02:31] when they have to breach a roof cut open

[1:02:33] a roof uh this is lower than that as you

[1:02:35] can see it would still simulate using

[1:02:37] possibly a ladder get up on the roof

[1:02:39] operate hand tools things like that to

[1:02:41] get in and then the panels uh that would

[1:02:44] be then cut could be replaced um this

[1:02:46] would go in the area that is the fire

[1:02:49] Charing Tower facility in a spot that

[1:02:51] used to hold a burn pit that was removed

[1:02:54] and paved over by o yes um Midstate is a

[1:02:58] company that we do lots of work with

[1:03:00] here we're confident they'll be able to

[1:03:02] do the work successfully um and the fire

[1:03:05] department supports moving forward with

[1:03:07] the

[1:03:08] project

[1:03:10] questions I'll second all those in favor

[1:03:13] I I thank you item number three is to

[1:03:15] authorize the issuance of a votable

[1:03:18] permit number 686 to Andy's I'm not sure

[1:03:21] Zen is his name pronounced Zen actually

[1:03:23] I believe so uh for sign on overhang

[1:03:26] cities right away at 469 State Street um

[1:03:29] so this is a rebranding of an existing

[1:03:32] sign uh Zen restaurant is rebranding as

[1:03:34] you'll see in the packet um the sign

[1:03:37] structure will stay However the panels

[1:03:39] will be replaced um his uh new same

[1:03:44] owner but it's been time so we wanted to

[1:03:46] replace it here we've also included the

[1:03:47] awnings that's what the picture is for

[1:03:50] to show that they'll be having a new

[1:03:51] sign panel and

[1:03:54] awnings so the new name will be Ember

[1:03:57] this the new name of the business they

[1:03:58] changing their name correct it is a new

[1:04:00] business oh new business same location I don't know

[1:04:05] what he would call it if it's a

[1:04:06] rebranding re it's a it's a new I don't

[1:04:08] want to I don't want to ruin anything

[1:04:10] that's

[1:04:11] going the permit it's assigned okay any

[1:04:15] questions concerns I'll second all those

[1:04:18] in

[1:04:19] favor there's I believe that there's a

[1:04:22] company so when we um when we prepare

[1:04:25] the legislation will insert the company

[1:04:27] need okay I believe that that's just

[1:04:30] a yeah all right thank you okay thank

[1:04:34] you Mr do you have anything else that's

[1:04:36] it no okay uh the next item number four

[1:04:40] is development of the lead service line

[1:04:42] replacement inventory action type two

[1:04:45] action Mr Ferrari and

[1:04:49] Mr yeah hello everybody Madam president

[1:04:52] and Council mayor um we were asking here

[1:04:56] the city is about to uh uh do a lead

[1:04:59] service line replacement and to uh uh

[1:05:02] comply with the actions you know we're

[1:05:04] looking to uh uh follow the Seeker act

[1:05:08] and it's been determined that the

[1:05:09] proposed action will have no uh uh no uh

[1:05:13] adverse impact on the environment or the

[1:05:15] criteria within so it's a type consider

[1:05:17] a type two uh plan uh and this

[1:05:21] obligation and we passed this resolution

[1:05:23] uh it uh it satisfies the requirement

[1:05:27] for efc's for us to be able to execute

[1:05:30] uh uh the grants that are out there

[1:05:32] available so this tyto Seeker would help

[1:05:36] us uh uh get grants to perform the left

[1:05:40] Service uh

[1:05:43] inventory uh I do have a question so

[1:05:45] does this have anything thing you know

[1:05:46] the um survey that we got yeah so how is

[1:05:49] this connected to that this is in

[1:05:51] addition to that

[1:05:54] right this will help us qualify for the

[1:05:57] survey helps us qualify for the grants

[1:06:00] which then this review makes us

[1:06:03] compliant for the possible State funding

[1:06:06] that lose Federal money that's going

[1:06:08] through the states is that corre it's

[1:06:10] $671,000

[1:06:13] Grant we want to definitely hear the

[1:06:15] money we want everyone to

[1:06:16] hear but we didn't get the grant yet

[1:06:19] satisfied recording to apply for the

[1:06:21] grant okay like Mr furry said this is a

[1:06:25] requirement that it's not there's no

[1:06:27] environmental impact because it's a

[1:06:29] survey so we're not doing anything to

[1:06:30] the environment we're not constructing

[1:06:32] anything or building anything but uh it

[1:06:34] is a requirement under EFC that we we

[1:06:37] check and since it's a type two there's

[1:06:39] no further action needed but we do have

[1:06:40] to have a resolution to submit with the

[1:06:42] packet um to meet the requirement um and

[1:06:45] this qualified as ACC to the $671,000

[1:06:48] grant for the lead service survey that

[1:06:51] is currently out there so going apply

[1:06:53] for the grant in this would yes and

[1:06:54] that's just part of the to have that so

[1:06:56] we can send back okay okay any more

[1:07:00] questions I'll move it I'll second all

[1:07:02] those in favor thank you very much thank

[1:07:05] you very

[1:07:06] much okay the next few will go very

[1:07:09] quickly um so the uh the next one is a

[1:07:12] um ceremon resolution uh recognizing

[1:07:16] James Thomas Jr this was on the agenda

[1:07:18] before as that we brought back I talked

[1:07:20] to Mr Thomas and want to make sure that

[1:07:22] um the statistics were correct and I

[1:07:24] think that's really important I guess

[1:07:25] forth so um bringing it back and to um

[1:07:29] just U Move it out again actually just

[1:07:32] but um to present to him and just want

[1:07:34] to make sure his stats are correct so

[1:07:37] motion I'll second all in favor I um

[1:07:42] item number six uh ceremonial resolution

[1:07:44] acknowledging Ferrari's 50e anniversary

[1:07:47] Mr mantin yeah I just um actually today

[1:07:50] is the 50y year anniversary

[1:07:52] congratulations congratulations

[1:07:57] where's our

[1:07:59] s I'd like to recommend that we pass a

[1:08:02] resolution honoring them the years of

[1:08:04] outstanding service to the community

[1:08:07] I'll move it I'll definitely second it

[1:08:09] all in favor I I thank you the uh next

[1:08:13] resolution is honoring celebrating

[1:08:15] Italian oh I'm I'm just sorry will this

[1:08:17] be at our next council meeting Mr Man

[1:08:22] yes okay all right just want just to be

[1:08:24] sure if any know there's something

[1:08:25] special thing going on you want want to

[1:08:27] do someplace else okay um the next one

[1:08:30] is ceremonial resolution celebrating

[1:08:33] Italian Heritage Month Miss Doro yes

[1:08:36] thank you so uh I will be presenting

[1:08:38] this this Friday if anyone would like to

[1:08:40] attend um at the motor Edge lighthous to

[1:08:43] the daughters and sons um of uhar Lord

[1:08:48] Sons and Daughters Sons and

[1:08:51] Daughters Gabrielle denunzio Sons and

[1:08:54] Daughters of America um celebrating

[1:08:57] October being the uh we daughters who

[1:09:00] were at it yes most recently to the

[1:09:02] order of the sons of Italy the order of

[1:09:04] the sons of Italy and brother anyway um

[1:09:06] Dia

[1:09:08] yes uh October's a national calian

[1:09:11] American heritage month and it's just um

[1:09:14] honoring uh uh the uh Italian Heritage

[1:09:17] here in our in our country and what was

[1:09:19] the date did you presenting Friday I

[1:09:21] think the 11th is that this Friday no

[1:09:24] that would be that would be not even a

[1:09:25] Friday is it no it is Friday is it

[1:09:27] Friday so a week from this Friday right

[1:09:29] no this Friday this Friday October 11

[1:09:33] but Mr Toro we wouldn't have passed it

[1:09:35] by

[1:09:36] then because we have to pass it at the

[1:09:38] next council

[1:09:39] meeting okay then I'll present it um

[1:09:42] I'll go to the club and at a later date

[1:09:45] then all right so yeah if you just let

[1:09:47] like you know I'm sure people would want

[1:09:48] to come especially if they get chance to

[1:09:50] eat buy their food though just be clear

[1:09:53] so if you could um just give us tell us

[1:09:55] when choose a new date and then I'll

[1:09:58] make all right sorry about that thank

[1:10:01] you we oh so like a motion please so

[1:10:05] moved I'll second all those in favor I I

[1:10:08] uh and the next ceremonial resolution

[1:10:11] recognizing domestic violence Awareness

[1:10:13] Month the month of November thank you

[1:10:17] and um so many individuals are impacted

[1:10:19] whether they're um U very special cause

[1:10:23] to me and I will presenting this at our

[1:10:26] October uh 15th meeting okay tion so

[1:10:30] moved second all those in favor I I and

[1:10:34] the next one is uh number nine

[1:10:35] ceremonial resolution recognizing

[1:10:37] October as Polish American Heritage

[1:10:40] Month yes so October is also polish Amic

[1:10:43] Polish American Heritage Month um and um

[1:10:47] actually the first um we had polish

[1:10:49] immigrants that came to skincity

[1:10:51] actually in the late

[1:10:53] 1790s um so uh i' would like to be able

[1:10:56] to honor and celebrate uh the

[1:10:59] contributions of Polish Americans to our

[1:11:01] city and our nation uh with this

[1:11:02] resolution you have somebody coming to

[1:11:04] this council meeting yes it's it'll be

[1:11:06] uh Reverend kikki who's on the podium

[1:11:08] with us all right a

[1:11:11] motion um so move I'll second all in

[1:11:15] favor I I okay item number 10 is um a

[1:11:19] review of for the ceremony renaming of a

[1:11:21] portion of Barrett Street from here on

[1:11:23] to the intersection of South from

[1:11:25] Marlene Hill Way the public hearing was

[1:11:28] held on September 23rd 2024 Mr M is not

[1:11:32] here so I'll just take this agenda item

[1:11:35] and um so have any discussions around

[1:11:40] that yes Mr T yes U there's been quite a

[1:11:43] bit

[1:11:44] of um disc communication discussion um

[1:11:48] even again today we received a letter

[1:11:51] from you know another individual um I I

[1:11:54] really think

[1:11:55] that you know again everyone you know

[1:11:59] acknowledges Marley and Hill and and and

[1:12:02] great um her greatness to the city of

[1:12:05] sken there's just I there's just been

[1:12:07] way too much I I'm just not comfortable

[1:12:10] at this point um with some of the

[1:12:11] letters that we've been getting in um

[1:12:13] trying to even move this forward um I

[1:12:16] realize we should honor her um you know

[1:12:19] if the family wants I I I think you know

[1:12:22] uh the street that she was born and

[1:12:23] raised on and what she did there

[1:12:25] um reading some of the letters that are

[1:12:28] coming into us and and the individuals

[1:12:30] that they're from um I I just think

[1:12:32] there's just way too much discussion and

[1:12:37] um and uh information from the

[1:12:41] community not favoring this for us to

[1:12:44] kind of reconsider doing an alternative

[1:12:46] something for

[1:12:49] Martin um so and so I we all have gotten

[1:12:54] the the the uh information um I just

[1:12:57] want to frame this in terms of the fact

[1:12:59] that uh we have a process in terms of um

[1:13:02] ceremonial naming and uh this family has

[1:13:05] gone through that process so I uh and

[1:13:08] when we first began this discussion we

[1:13:11] did talk about um having a a plaque we we had several things the council was

[1:13:17] not in um you know that's excuse me the

[1:13:19] family was not in agreement to that so

[1:13:21] they wanted to move ahead with the

[1:13:23] process that we have put in place

[1:13:25] in terms of um ceremonially naming a

[1:13:29] street so they've gone through that

[1:13:30] process um they've turned in more than

[1:13:32] enough names um I'm sorry you have

[1:13:36] something yeah I just go go through the

[1:13:39] there's 550 raw

[1:13:41] signatures and the ordinance requires

[1:13:44] 75% from the neighborhood and the

[1:13:47] neighborhood that's 140 three

[1:13:50] signatures and I looked at the the the

[1:13:54] neighborhood is described D in SK County

[1:13:56] Planning goes from about not Street all

[1:14:00] the way out down

[1:14:01] to The Stockade out towards Broadway and

[1:14:05] I also looked at the election District

[1:14:07] that particular street is in and that's

[1:14:09] in the fourth election District which

[1:14:11] goes that the borders go up to Avenue A

[1:14:15] Avenue B bordered by Senus Street as if

[1:14:18] upon FR Frankin Avenue so for your

[1:14:21] reference so they met them they met the

[1:14:24] uh no they no not the

[1:14:26] 75% they did not mean the not within

[1:14:29] that that neighborhood I the

[1:14:31] neighborhood that I was looking at the

[1:14:32] SK the County planning definition of

[1:14:35] neighborhood as well as the boundaries

[1:14:38] of the election District that

[1:14:40] particular uh residents and looking

[1:14:43] those two things they they it's 143

[1:14:47] signatures are out of that neighborhood

[1:14:49] now what you can do is there's options I

[1:14:53] mean you can deny it approve it or give

[1:14:56] them 180

[1:14:58] days so to get no signatures right okay

[1:15:03] um that's just for the for the okay so

[1:15:07] um so now again we're putting on a

[1:15:09] standard that we've never asked other

[1:15:11] people to do in terms of did we ever

[1:15:12] drill down to what a neighborhood look

[1:15:14] like because we have had other people

[1:15:16] submit the necessary signatures and I

[1:15:19] don't think it ever came to the point

[1:15:20] that it was questioned were they really

[1:15:22] within the neighborhood so again I don't

[1:15:23] want to like start uh creating standards

[1:15:26] that we did not Implement before if

[1:15:28] going forward we need to do that but we

[1:15:30] did not do that and so Madam chair I I I

[1:15:35] I'm just looking at the but the numbers

[1:15:37] for this time and that's how I did it

[1:15:39] and Reporting back to the coun what it

[1:15:42] is I don't know what happened in the

[1:15:43] past I'm just giving you what the

[1:15:44] numbers are now and indeed and in the

[1:15:47] future we need to move forward but I

[1:15:48] think right now we just need to work

[1:15:50] with the legislation the way it is um

[1:15:53] and we never again drill down to to the

[1:15:55] 75% so I'm a little I'm I'm not inclined

[1:15:57] to do that um my suggestion is though

[1:16:01] that because again we we said let's do

[1:16:04] the plaque we came up with a number of

[1:16:05] things um my suggestion would be that um

[1:16:09] because the problem seems to be that

[1:16:11] they

[1:16:12] that it's it shouldn't it the request is

[1:16:15] that it not be on the same hole so um

[1:16:18] but it'd be in the same neighborhood

[1:16:20] even on the same street so um I'm I'm

[1:16:24] comfortable with it um being on the same

[1:16:26] street however instead of the um

[1:16:29] ceremonial sign going north towards hon

[1:16:31] that it would go south towards um

[1:16:34] towards Union Street and then it would

[1:16:36] not be on the same pole even the people

[1:16:38] the family that brought this forward

[1:16:40] said they just want to do something for

[1:16:41] their family member they did not want to

[1:16:43] interfere with the other family member

[1:16:45] was family was doing so in my in my mind

[1:16:48] that would not interfere with the other

[1:16:50] family was doing but we would have um

[1:16:53] been consider uh consideration to both

[1:16:56] families as opposed to say well go back

[1:16:58] now and you know do it where wherever

[1:17:01] else or do something else we've asked

[1:17:03] people to do this we did not give them

[1:17:05] those drill down specifics uh we just

[1:17:08] gave them a general and um so that would

[1:17:11] be my suggestion I went over to

[1:17:13] specifically to drive over to see what

[1:17:16] it was visually and um so like I said

[1:17:19] for me not not going towards here on

[1:17:21] street but going in the other direction

[1:17:24] would then set as

[1:17:25] y I won't say but satisfy I think it's a

[1:17:28] fair

[1:17:30] compromise based on the number of U

[1:17:34] correspondents we've gotten and um as

[1:17:37] you've alluded to they haven't always

[1:17:39] been um pleasant but I'm not necessarily

[1:17:42] saying which family they came from but I

[1:17:44] think there's just been a lot of input

[1:17:45] and a lot of discussion around this so

[1:17:47] that would be my suggestion that we um

[1:17:50] we compromise in that way so

[1:17:54] yes Mr Mayor again this has happened two

[1:17:59] times before one was with Don Burch uh

[1:18:03] there was a big outpouring question

[1:18:06] whether the signatures were solely

[1:18:07] within that neighborhood or he had a

[1:18:09] wider

[1:18:10] constituency that was put up the other

[1:18:13] one was with Martin Luther King way

[1:18:16] renaming the ceremonial component of

[1:18:18] Albany Street they did do the level of

[1:18:22] signatures or whatever I took and just

[1:18:25] discounted that and put the sign up

[1:18:28] independent of that and you know seem to

[1:18:34] have made people semi-happy some members

[1:18:37] of the council were mad at me the

[1:18:39] general public was happy it's the nature

[1:18:41] of the job sometimes you just make a

[1:18:43] decision move ahead and get things done

[1:18:46] and not spend all the time and effort

[1:18:48] Milling around on some of these things

[1:18:50] that really don't

[1:18:52] matter other council member on

[1:18:56] this Mr Williams

[1:18:59] Mr I saw two hands like at the same time

[1:19:02] uh I was going to say thank you to Mr uh

[1:19:04] O'Brien I definitely think being on the

[1:19:06] council it's been a constantly learning

[1:19:08] experience for me but definitely the

[1:19:09] interpretation of previous and then as

[1:19:12] we are provide additional context that

[1:19:13] helps us understand how best to like

[1:19:16] apply the law as it SE fit so I want to

[1:19:19] say one of the the measures moving

[1:19:21] forward I would like to identify if

[1:19:23] there's a way we can make that

[1:19:24] distinction very visible or

[1:19:26] understanding not only for ourselves but

[1:19:28] also to the applicants who looking to

[1:19:29] these types of considerations um to miss

[1:19:32] the Toro's point I definitely was I

[1:19:34] let's say taken aback by the number of

[1:19:36] correspondents that we've been receiving

[1:19:38] on this this topic and it seems to be

[1:19:41] wanting to have a

[1:19:43] better a better implementation on

[1:19:46] location uh so to miss P Field's

[1:19:49] response

[1:19:50] andos of want to make sure we do the

[1:19:52] right step I think it compromises more than appropriate I just want to

[1:19:56] make sure that we are communicating that

[1:19:57] to both families and potentially

[1:19:59] adjusting the law or the code so that we

[1:20:02] can not to run into the situation in the

[1:20:04] future so potentially having a limit on

[1:20:06] the number of uh ceremonial signs in one

[1:20:11] area I think that would help us prepare

[1:20:13] the council and how it is going to

[1:20:15] practice moving forward

[1:20:17] speak uh what you hand

[1:20:20] up okay then sure so I I think you know

[1:20:25] my understanding of this is that you

[1:20:27] know we want to be able to honor um both

[1:20:30] these individuals for the contributions

[1:20:32] that they made to the city is connec um

[1:20:35] we don't we want to do that in a way

[1:20:37] that doesn't um crouch on one another

[1:20:40] and I think that this of what you're

[1:20:42] suggesting uh president CI accomplishes

[1:20:45] that I think anytime that you're talking

[1:20:47] about families and Legacies that a

[1:20:50] certain level of evokes a certain level

[1:20:52] of promotion and I think that so I'm I'm

[1:20:56] not surprised that um you know that that

[1:21:00] people have strong feelings as to how we

[1:21:02] should move moving forward but again I

[1:21:04] think that you

[1:21:05] know if these are two individuals that

[1:21:09] contributed to the city um we can make

[1:21:12] sure that they both get the recognition

[1:21:15] that they deserve in a way that doesn't

[1:21:17] encou on one another I think that's the

[1:21:19] best way to do it I do have a question

[1:21:21] for Corporation counsel though when you

[1:21:23] um

[1:21:25] we're doing your research can you tell

[1:21:26] me like you you were saying that it

[1:21:28] should be a a certain amount of names

[1:21:31] within the neighborhood how many how

[1:21:33] what was the percentage of 75% that's

[1:21:37] the that that's that's what the

[1:21:38] ordinance says that's what the ordinance

[1:21:40] says so it's 75% from the neighborhood

[1:21:42] corre and the neighbor how I defined is

[1:21:45] how it's connecting to County Planning

[1:21:47] defines neighborhood plus I also added

[1:21:50] on the election District where that

[1:21:52] particular street is on and as part of

[1:21:55] the neighborhood okay all right and how many So based on what was turned

[1:22:02] in how many of those signatures came in

[1:22:04] within the neighborhood within the

[1:22:05] neighborhood based on 143 I believe I

[1:22:08] and how many would you need in order to

[1:22:09] be I think it's 200 and some odd

[1:22:11] signatures they get up they get up to

[1:22:13] the uh uh

[1:22:15] 375 okay M Patrick did you have something

[1:22:20] well I think though um I'm not sure

[1:22:22] about this but um

[1:22:25] there's not a lot of residential that's

[1:22:28] true property on that on the street in

[1:22:31] terms of numbers of yeah but I

[1:22:34] understanding that I also you know I I

[1:22:36] looked it went the how they Define

[1:22:38] neighborhood okay is The Stockade out to

[1:22:41] Lower Broadway and all and then if you

[1:22:45] look at the election District it's

[1:22:47] always passed to you know out to syus

[1:22:50] Street as as a border and then up to

[1:22:52] Avenue a and Avenue B and Bren Franken

[1:22:55] Avenue up from that particular

[1:22:57] neighborhood up Union Street so it's a it's large it's a large area as

[1:23:04] far as the definitions under under scan

[1:23:07] County Planning in the election District

[1:23:10] Miss Miss ver did you want to add

[1:23:12] something um excuse me yes uh the

[1:23:16] council um can approve or deny the

[1:23:18] application for any reason or reasons

[1:23:21] the members determine to be in the best

[1:23:23] interest of the city per the city code

[1:23:25] so you

[1:23:26] don't you don't necessarily have to have

[1:23:28] that number of signatures the the

[1:23:30] council can choose to accept or deny the

[1:23:32] application for whatever reason the

[1:23:35] council

[1:23:37] chooses so it's not the code the

[1:23:39] code

[1:23:41] um it's not an end all be all the

[1:23:46] 75%

[1:23:48] Mr and that might shed some light on

[1:23:50] what I was going to think last and I

[1:23:52] think moving forward to Mr Williams

[1:23:54] point maybe we need to have like a

[1:23:55] different formula than a 500 because if

[1:23:58] you don't have 500 you know or this

[1:24:00] neighborhood you can have you know uh

[1:24:02] selection of you know thousands of

[1:24:04] residents and in this neighborhood you

[1:24:06] might only have you know a much smaller

[1:24:08] amount so maybe um us looking at

[1:24:11] addressing that in the code just because

[1:24:14] I would like the code to Define it

[1:24:17] pretty clear so it's not

[1:24:19] really so it's clear for everyone and

[1:24:21] you know and everyone feels you know

[1:24:23] better about moving for so we know

[1:24:25] exactly what people's capability to do

[1:24:27] this I know that that

[1:24:29] might add some work as far as now we

[1:24:31] have to know have the DAT on how many

[1:24:34] eligible people would be able to sign a

[1:24:36] petition but I think that is something

[1:24:38] that we might want to look at as a

[1:24:41] council Mr I don't think we should have

[1:24:44] the family go back and get more

[1:24:46] signatures I think they've gotten the

[1:24:48] signatures if we were going to change

[1:24:50] that we probably should have told them

[1:24:52] theyed in the beginning of process I'd

[1:24:55] like the compromise that you put forward

[1:24:57] and I would be in support of

[1:25:01] that so um anyone else so it's just you

[1:25:06] and I um tonight miss Patrick I'm okay

[1:25:08] with the compromise okay with that so um

[1:25:11] do you want

[1:25:13] to make the

[1:25:17] motion we're just doing a portion of

[1:25:20] Barrett Street from here on street to

[1:25:22] the no okay then I need okay so so what

[1:25:26] I what I'm suggesting is that we not

[1:25:28] started here on street but is it South

[1:25:31] Avenue the next street over South the

[1:25:33] South Avenue um what I'm suggesting we

[1:25:35] start South Avenue and go towards y

[1:25:38] Street in the um so towards the South as

[1:25:40] opposed to going to euron which is a

[1:25:43] North this way they um the need there's

[1:25:47] no pole with both yeah um on the same

[1:25:50] sign and and let's just keep in mind

[1:25:51] that Luigi Lane is not ceremonial it's

[1:25:54] actually a chang name and we've already

[1:25:57] passed that and and you know at this

[1:25:59] point in time it's whatever the city you

[1:26:01] know the um f department has to do what

[1:26:03] whoever to get that that that part's

[1:26:05] already done so I'm suggesting that we

[1:26:08] start South and and go south for the

[1:26:10] ceremonial naming and that way um

[1:26:12] hopefully maybe nobody's gets everything

[1:26:15] they want but somebody gets some people

[1:26:17] Everyone Gets something that they want

[1:26:19] so that's my suggestion so that's what

[1:26:20] the motion would be do you want to make

[1:26:22] the motion I can make the motion I I'd

[1:26:24] make a motion that we um accept the

[1:26:27] signatures for the C woman naming a

[1:26:29] portion of be Street starting at South

[1:26:31] Avenue um and two blocks to I think it's

[1:26:34] two blocks to Union Street tomorrow he

[1:26:37] I'll second all those in favor I thank you for your discussion oh okay

[1:26:43] M Williams no I was just going to say

[1:26:45] adding into that I definitely am a

[1:26:46] proponent of addressing issues have we

[1:26:48] encounter them so as we are moving uh to

[1:26:51] a conclusion what this matter uh it's a

[1:26:53] corporation Council uh recommendations

[1:26:56] for like having clear language would you

[1:26:58] recommend either having our own City

[1:27:00] definition of neighborhood or I think I

[1:27:02] think the I think the definitions are fine I you know it's neighborhood

[1:27:06] because each you know each definition is

[1:27:10] and then coupled it with the election

[1:27:11] District you get a good sense of the

[1:27:13] neighborhood and I also think the way it

[1:27:15] was as the the corporation has to

[1:27:17] pointed out you you you've got city

[1:27:19] council review May approve or deny the

[1:27:21] application for any reason or or you

[1:27:23] know for any reason or reasons the

[1:27:25] members May determine the best interest

[1:27:26] of the city so

[1:27:28] the you have

[1:27:30] requirements but you also have latitude

[1:27:33] to wave for lack of a better term those

[1:27:36] requirements so you have a standard but

[1:27:39] you also you know under the

[1:27:40] circumstances you can you can wave those

[1:27:42] and that's what we've done in this

[1:27:44] particular case and I think the

[1:27:45] ordinance is as written is fine for

[1:27:47] those situations there was 500

[1:27:50] signatures the the the issue was the

[1:27:53] amount of in the neighborhood but um you

[1:27:58] can you can accept it or or or not and

[1:28:02] you can deny it for any reason or accept

[1:28:05] it for any reason we've indicated the

[1:28:06] reasons why you accepted and I think we

[1:28:09] should maybe consider the amount of

[1:28:10] signatures that's that's pretty a pretty

[1:28:12] steep number but that would be something

[1:28:14] we um would uh talk about going forward

[1:28:17] that see you had something you want to

[1:28:19] add to this uh yeah just quickly if I

[1:28:21] could so the department of development

[1:28:24] starting our comprehensive planning

[1:28:26] thing and one of the first steps in that

[1:28:28] is going to be analyzing and defining

[1:28:29] neighborhoods we're going to be reaching

[1:28:31] out to them as well so we can uh have a

[1:28:34] very defined set of of uh neighborhoods

[1:28:37] get populations and demographics along

[1:28:39] with that and i' be happy to pass that

[1:28:40] on to the council when the time is ready

[1:28:42] so that can help ease this process with

[1:28:44] will have soon that would help our

[1:28:45] process greatly if we knew how many

[1:28:47] people were in each neighborhood then we

[1:28:48] could really um create our legislation

[1:28:51] so it's not uh burdensome for

[1:28:53] individuals could you always once that's

[1:28:55] done you can always amend this ordinance

[1:28:57] as another subpar said the following are

[1:28:59] recognized neighborhoods and then then

[1:29:02] you then you you'll have a starting

[1:29:04] point until then no ceremonial

[1:29:05] resolutions is

[1:29:08] that okay um so it's been moov in second

[1:29:10] so um but so the uh next item on the

[1:29:14] agenda is the um vape and smoke shop

[1:29:18] zoning ordinance and cannabis right Mr

[1:29:20] okay Mr O'Brien yes uh thank you uh

[1:29:23] Madam president um if you recall a

[1:29:25] couple of months ago um we you all

[1:29:28] passed the the uh fape shop or ordinance

[1:29:31] and at the time there was discussion

[1:29:33] about the Cannabis shops and using that

[1:29:37] Amendment to the code that you all just

[1:29:40] amended as a as a as a starting point

[1:29:43] for dealing with uh the the zoning of

[1:29:47] cannabis shops and I you know as you

[1:29:49] know in the last several months there's

[1:29:51] been a number of cannabis shops that

[1:29:53] have been open open throughout the city

[1:29:55] 501 uh uh State Street 245 Broadway

[1:30:00] Lower Broadway um and uh there and I

[1:30:05] also have provided you and the city

[1:30:07] clerk has provided you with a uh

[1:30:11] application a notice of application from

[1:30:13] a location on Burling

[1:30:15] Street now the office of Canabis

[1:30:18] management have issued regulations and

[1:30:20] they Rec comonly referred to as rule 119

[1:30:24] and I previously I'm sorry refer to R

[1:30:27] rule 119 119

[1:30:30] and I provided you with copies of the

[1:30:33] relevant portions of rule 119 and the

[1:30:37] first part of rule 119 that will briefly

[1:30:41] talk about is 11 19.3 is notification of

[1:30:44] municipalities so as far as the process

[1:30:46] is

[1:30:48] concerned is that prior to their an

[1:30:51] applicant putting their paperwork with

[1:30:54] the office of cannabis management

[1:30:56] they're supposed to notify us and

[1:31:00] that you as you can see is has been done

[1:31:03] on regarding the gurling street and as

[1:31:06] they come through we should we should uh

[1:31:10] be notified and then that gives you you

[1:31:13] the council the mayor an opportunity to

[1:31:15] weigh in on that particular location and the office of cannabis management

[1:31:21] sends that up to the board who actually

[1:31:23] makes an determination regarding whether

[1:31:25] they should give the license or not as

[1:31:28] to uh whether what what sort of

[1:31:31] community issues they are

[1:31:33] M the other part of the the

[1:31:36] 119th I gave you was that if an

[1:31:41] applicant feels that a municipality

[1:31:44] has hindered their ability to uh uh run

[1:31:50] their operation or do their operation

[1:31:52] they can say can go to the office of

[1:31:54] cannabis management and ask for an

[1:31:56] advisory to

[1:31:59] opinion um this is a dynamic area it's

[1:32:03] changing and as you know uh the Office

[1:32:06] of cisp Management um there was a a

[1:32:10] backlog of licenses and since the

[1:32:13] beginning of the year you can see how

[1:32:15] the the governor put new you know people

[1:32:18] in and as you can see the tempo has

[1:32:22] changed and I think that this is a time

[1:32:24] where it's okay to put claws on to see

[1:32:28] whether or not you want to Zone these

[1:32:31] just like zoning vape and smoke shops in

[1:32:34] other words have a moratorium while a

[1:32:38] zoning code is amended to deal with vape

[1:32:41] shops we are allowed to do

[1:32:44] that because because because it's coming

[1:32:47] to zoning and I think I I in yesterday's

[1:32:50] Gazette there was I believe the city of

[1:32:53] Amsterdam is cold for moratorium there's

[1:32:56] is 90 days

[1:32:59] so we have that authority to zone so

[1:33:03] before we get to the zoning we can have

[1:33:06] a moratorium to see where we want these

[1:33:10] locations

[1:33:15] because how you want them spaced and

[1:33:17] what parts of the city you want them

[1:33:20] because the the one you know 501 States

[1:33:23] Streed this cing in out right now just

[1:33:25] recently opened um

[1:33:28] is uh 1300 ft like jacket from another

[1:33:32] one at 245 Lower

[1:33:35] Broadway right over right over here so

[1:33:39] um plus there's other applications

[1:33:41] pending before the planning board of

[1:33:45] other locations including one on up on

[1:33:48] Eastern Avenue and one of the locations

[1:33:51] ja

[1:33:57] uh there was a proposed location that

[1:33:59] was approved by ocm B Parkway over by

[1:34:01] the Family Dollar um there's one on

[1:34:04] Lower Broadway two on Lower State Street

[1:34:07] um one at the new black house building

[1:34:09] one at the peoples joint that that Sean

[1:34:11] mentioned um on on Crane Street couple

[1:34:15] on Broadway there there's quite a few

[1:34:17] scatter throughout the harbor yeah in

[1:34:19] the harbor as well thank

[1:34:21] you so um what we can do is

[1:34:26] um have a resolution calling for a

[1:34:29] public

[1:34:30] hearing calling for a moratorium the

[1:34:32] moratorium legislation would be

[1:34:34] presented to you in two weeks with the

[1:34:36] idea of it being

[1:34:39] uh presented and voted on uh in in

[1:34:44] November um reviewing it and having a

[1:34:47] 90-day

[1:34:48] moratorium but if you want to get to

[1:34:50] that process we have to have a

[1:34:52] resolution calling for public

[1:34:54] hearing uh so we can adopt a moratorium

[1:34:58] ordinance like we did for the B smoke

[1:35:01] shops so um so so just to be clear

[1:35:05] though um the the way that the state

[1:35:07] regulations are out there it's a, ft in

[1:35:10] a straight line so 501 and 245 Broadway

[1:35:13] are not in a straight 501 State and 245

[1:35:16] Broadway it's 1,300 ft anyway so it just

[1:35:18] it meets the test 1300 right

[1:35:21] but excuse me it meets the test

[1:35:25] begin and it's also not in a straight

[1:35:27] line yeah so we can we can we can as we

[1:35:31] did in the lines for the vape shops we

[1:35:34] can do you know do the the line the

[1:35:37] lining when you how we did the lines we

[1:35:40] can do that for how many feet away um so

[1:35:45] we can we can do that through the zoning

[1:35:49] code so I just want to be clear we can do something and override what

[1:35:54] the state has said because it's our

[1:35:56] zoning you it's our zoning

[1:36:00] ordinance has can set certain

[1:36:04] parameters as for for for uh for uh

[1:36:10] distances

[1:36:12] okay Mr yes thank you what about the

[1:36:15] applications that are already in they

[1:36:17] would have to be processed to be

[1:36:19] grandfathered in but similar to the

[1:36:21] moratorium but going forward we should

[1:36:24] be aware of this we should be

[1:36:29] proactively looking at this situation so

[1:36:32] the licens there we just have to let

[1:36:34] them move forward yeah if they're if

[1:36:36] it's already in process but if they

[1:36:39] haven't gotten the license yet if they

[1:36:41] haven't got the license yet that's we don't know what the status is

[1:36:46] right well a few people I mean yeah

[1:36:48] there are people with their license

[1:36:49] already

[1:36:50] so um so at this point in time um the ask is whether we want to call for a

[1:36:57] public

[1:36:58] hearing

[1:36:59] um to ask for a more a 90-day moratorium

[1:37:03] in terms of Zoning for uh

[1:37:05] cannabis you have a question I would say

[1:37:07] yes thank

[1:37:08] you any other discussion around

[1:37:12] that I'll make that motion you make

[1:37:14] motion for Public public hearing yes all

[1:37:16] right I'll second in fact regarding the

[1:37:19] UN research that issue

[1:37:21] we the you know the the feet between

[1:37:24] each one what's the measurement I want

[1:37:27] to make you know make sure that we're

[1:37:30] okay with you know complying with the state but also man you know abil our

[1:37:35] ability to uh locate these these these

[1:37:39] establishments pursuing to our code so

[1:37:41] let me just state that I want to double

[1:37:43] and triple check that the feed distance

[1:37:46] yes okay and yeah that that would be I

[1:37:48] wouldn't want us to pass something in

[1:37:49] the state's like no you're you can't do

[1:37:51] that but I I wanted definitely take a

[1:37:54] look at that and uh

[1:37:59] um so so why you're looking at that I

[1:38:03] don't know I mean this seems like it's a

[1:38:05] very fluid process at ocm and um so we

[1:38:08] could just make sure that we're Guided

[1:38:11] by the most upto-date

[1:38:13] legislation that they've been putting

[1:38:15] forward they put forward yeah Madam

[1:38:18] chair Madam president that that's it's a

[1:38:21] good observation because there was an

[1:38:22] article in the New York a bar Journal

[1:38:24] about that you know the very situation

[1:38:26] referring to it as a dynamic situation

[1:38:28] of words or substance to that because uh

[1:38:31] to accommodate these shifts and they so

[1:38:34] everybody has to be flexible and uh um

[1:38:38] so uh yes this is a a dynamic situation

[1:38:42] for both the state as well as for

[1:38:44] us all right so yes just saying you do

[1:38:48] like the

[1:38:51] revenue well why will comment that I

[1:38:54] mean you know I think that had we

[1:38:57] had Fuller more full information even

[1:39:01] before we decided made the decision

[1:39:03] about whether we were going to opt opt

[1:39:05] in or opt out was that double negative

[1:39:08] thing so yes it's been very uh fluid and

[1:39:11] dynamic and um you know I think some of

[1:39:14] our decisions might might have been

[1:39:16] different had we had a clearer picture

[1:39:19] from the start so I think we have to

[1:39:21] vote on the so I'm I'm um yeah so just

[1:39:24] say I did want to opt out just because

[1:39:26] so we wouldn't be here didn't know we'd

[1:39:28] be exactly here but um but it be given

[1:39:30] us more time but we are here now and now

[1:39:32] we have to try to figure how we remedy

[1:39:34] this um so um so a motion to call for

[1:39:39] public hearing yes to um consider a

[1:39:43] 90day moratorium moratorium thre all

[1:39:46] right I'll move

[1:39:48] that I'll second all those in favor I okay we did it twice yeah we did do it

[1:39:57] I just didn't think you voted

[1:40:01] okay all right the final items are um

[1:40:05] about property

[1:40:07] sales and they'll be done the executive

[1:40:09] session so at this point in time I'll

[1:40:12] ask for a motion to go in the executive

[1:40:13] session so move second all in favor

[1:40:16] members of the public will have to

[1:40:19] leave thank

[1:40:22] you e

[1:40:25] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, October 7, 2024

Transcript