[Music]
he
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
Council committee meeting for Monday
October 7th 2024 the first committee is
Public Safety I'd like to call the
Public Safety Committee to order we have
two items on the agenda tonight the
first of which is the bja fiscal year
2024 bulletproof best partnership Grant
uh Lieutenant
no good
evening so the bulletproof uh best
partnership um Grant 19
essentially provides us or affords US
the opportunity uh to equip our officers
with both through vest uh ultimately
this year they are giving us
$3,442
74 we are required 50% match by the city
this will give us a total of 46 V for
bestest this
year um and the police department
recommends the acceptance of the bja
grant award
thank you any questions or comments
hearing on may have a motion I'll move
it I'll second all those in favor I I
the next item which is the New York
State DMV gtsc Grant award for fiscal
year 2025 you tell yes thank you so this
one is a total Grant Award of
$46,000 uh this requires no matching
funds by the city and ultimately What it
lets us do is it hires overtime and we
can focus our efforts um on increasing
seat belt usage reducing dangerous
driving behaviors with the ultimate goal
of reducing serious injuries and death
from traffic
crashes thank you any questions or
comments Mr Patrick I just want was
wondering in terms of the um amount on
the grant which is not that high but um
that allows for additional enforcement
do you think that that will help at all
when we um hopefully reduce the speed
limit um there's been question about
yeah absolutely everything uh that we do
is is is um by and large backed up by
statistics so we know where the hotpots
are in the city and that's exactly what
happens we'll hire for get out to go to
these hot spots and hot spots in terms
of um basically crashes or speeding um
so we'll go to those spots and it's
described in the grant when we hire it
every year where we're actually going to
deploy the eff so we already have a
pretty good idea where we're going to be
going for that year so to answer your
question directly I do believe it'll
reduce that um crashes and take out
thank you so it says that the effective
date is October 1 um and you have to
sign the um contract before it's in
effect so clearly we're pass October 1st
so will you still be able to is there a
end date so or basically I want to know
we have the opportunity to spend the
money in time because we're a little bit
behind getting started that's right yes
we can spend it um and the lieutenant
charge of traffic ultimately manages the
grant as far as the financial
responsibility and he reports on it
every Court so that's right all right
thank you any other questions or
comments hearing on a motion I'll move
it I'll second it all those in favor I
there any other items to Public Safety
hearing n have motion for he so move
I'll second all those in favor I I we
are uh so uh Mr mudar couldn't be with
us this evening so I will be calling
finance committee to order we have um
seven items on the agenda and the first
item uh is regarding the code
enforcement fee increases and uh Mr trcy
yes um you could come
up thank
second
that Brian treny chief insector from
City concy and I'm here to propose some
fee increases for
COD I'd like to start by uh with these
fee increases we want to be able to
cover operational costs of the services
we provide here in the city and uh
the last documented increases were in
mid90s with some small increases in
2017 since these changes salaries have
nearly double across the board the
administrative salaries and um code
enforcement officer salaries and the
cost of Labor and supplies have risen
significantly allware normal inflation
that has taken place and with that
inflation uh
the supplies and um labor have
increased uh application process is very
expensive and uh along with that um the
cost to process those applications and
initiate these permits get quite
expensive um theant the advancement of
technology is is great but does come out
a
cost
um there there are often fees uh for
requests that uh for reporting and these uh requests you know they they are
we get build for those requests so
there's some uh costs that are incurred
there our regulatory council is
constantly evolving to keep up the uh
certifications and uh so you know based
on this uh you know we try to keep up
with our training and certifications and
um this this gets hard to handle so U
you know it is necessary to increase
these you know keep up with the
certification and the training uh we
also
uh we have some
we we do want to hire uh we want to hire
qualified Personnel to uh perform
thorough inspections to make sure that
we have safe structures in the city and
along with that um comes some added
costs and we need to increase fees to
keep up with the this
Staffing so um you know based on that um
our current permit fee structure is um
in need of coming up to date and
increasing these
fees so I have done some analysis with
neighboring communities and uh you know
with Albany and Troy being The Benchmark
of neighboring cities um and you know
with these with this analysis and these
comparisons uh you know we are still
with the imposed fees that are proposed
we will still be on the low side there's
a graph here that shows uh that we will
still be on the low side of the uh the
fees that are proposed
so have
that um with that being said I think to
get to the fee
structure
um we had highlighted I'd like to go
over with the um structure we had here
on the left highlighted in yellow uh we
have our current fee structure and on
the right in green all the proposed fee
increases are highlighted in red um I
did do some permit fee samples here um
on the left showing our current costs
for projects that um take place in the
city and on the right the adjusted fees
for uh permits that will be in place
with the prop osed fee increases so I
started off with a residential uh job
cost of
$10,000 and we you can see on the left
we have a a fee of
$156 and uh you know with the new
proposed fee increases uh we'd be at 205
with comparable
permit moving on to um
$100,000 project uh we go from $66
to
$835 um moving on we do have some um
high level projects in in the city and
um for a million doll project we'd have
a permit cost of
$246 and that would move to
$3,535 um suppose we had a $50 million
events that are being built in the city
um you see we had a $100,000 4
$1,461
15,6 a project like that would be able
to cover third party third party firms
to come in and uh you know do our review
process on a large project like that
plus we would be able to cover uh
internally our involvement in the
project like that so um you know this
would be the bread and butter of the
free fee increases
um and I'll move on and we'll show some
further
increases um we have some fee increases
we have some fees proposed that didn't
exist
um
being um some certificates and these
require some staffing uh costs that you
know we were not getting compensated for
in the past and um we show some of them
here um I won't go every over everything
in detail but it is detailed in the uh
report that you have there and I I
expect you'll review it and go over that
in
detail so uh you know the primary
justifications for the fee increases are
uh advances in
technology um we would like to uh you
know cover costs of City operations and
uh future development inter in the
department so um this will uh you know
help growth
of our staffing in the city and F out C
operational
[Music]
cost I would like to open it up to any
questions or
comments it's Miss patri
oh sorry I was forgetting I was
Mr Mr thank you so so um do you and I
know that there's a lot of variables
that would go into this but is there
like any projections of like how much
you know increase Revenue that would
mean for the saf like annually
so in your report um in your report it
would show that there was approximately
a 200 $100,000 increase okay for the
year
2024 and we also show um some increases
that would happen all the way up to back
to 2020 okay yep okay it's in the I
believe it's
$235,000 in the year
2024 and there's been stability with the
amount perit process since
2020 pretty much across the board set
first fight in 2021 du Co
and high level of improvements to
properties that were done with Co taking
place other than that we've been very
consistent withs um so I believe that
figure would be very similar in 2025 and
beond
okay all questions Mr Williams so um
thank you for the presentation I think
there's a very important emphasis on
education and enforcement if you would
be able to speak to just the status of
how many permits are submitted annually
and if that's an accurate reflection of
the work that's being done and also like
do you feel confident in the enforcement
that you're able to support enforcing
these
decase so the amount of permits that are
processed annually are near
3,000 um I believe with these fee
increases we'll be able to staff
properly and we'll be be able to do a
more thorough job with our inspections
and have safer structures in the city
thank
you other
questions so on on the last page that
you had it up there on the certificate
licensing certificate of completion
certificate of compliance So currently
there's no fees can can you explain what
a certificate completion is that
currently previously had no fee and now
there is a fee so certificate completion
is is when a job is done M um and
inspections are all completed M and the
job is completed and a final inspection
is completed and passed a certificate
completion ensures that it it's a
certificate that says that that job is
completed or completed properly and not
to code so just to be clear you're um
increasing you're you're increasing the
time for to pull permit in the first
place is that is that correct uh
increasing what the fine to pull the
permit the fee to pull the permit the
fine Fe yes ma'am yes and then in
addition to that adding another fee to
then close out your job um a certificate
of completion is only uh given processed
and given upon request of the applicant
of the permit holder uh we don't that's
not given out um on every single job so
only upon
request so could you just tell me why
someone would want other and other
people just like I don't we really care
um there's a number of reasons they
could want that it's for um show that
they're company maybe for marketing
reasons on their own behalf um it could
be for banks it could be for financing
um there's a multitude of reasons um
that they could want that right and so
these done by the city these are done by
code enforcement staff administrative
staff code enforcement there's no third
party inspection that needs to be done
outside of this correct okay thank you
other
questions down there Mr just for the for
the council um I propose I submitted
proposed draft legislation in the in the
uh in the packets for this week and uh
that would some of the proposed fee changes require
code changes and they're they're they're
covered in that Omnibus ordinance that
goes through all those code changes
others just require a uh resolution um
and that uh for for for the code if you
adopt that resolution with the attached
fees schedule the fees are adopted so
I'm going through the proposed fee
schedule with the building inspector I
was able to take the ones out requireed
code
uh uh amendments and then there's there's other one that just
requires a resolution with the uh with
the fee schedule attached and uh if you
wish to proceed on this you need to have
a a public hearing and it would be a
public hearing on all all all
matters would be the amendment of the
code any sort of Bill in would be
referred to as in increase in building
fee building code Codes fees you know it
would have all the
sections uh of the code that are going
to be amended but it would be just
one group uh because it is one category
it's it's building codes fees and just
like you've just been given the
presentation here um that's how it'll be
presented to the public in in this fee
scheduled that are proposed so you can
call for a public hearing for uh for the 28th the resolution would have to be
passed next week and then and the uh
the fee schedule would be the the 28th
would be the public hearing and then the
uh and then the
U if you decide to adopt the ordinances
you can adopt the ordinances and the
effective day for the fee schedules will
be January 1 so you can work those
figures into your budget analysis okay
that's that's an important point so um
discussion regarding so we have in front
of us in our packet uh tonight the
resolution that Mr O'Brien has um
prepared to have a public hearing on
October 28th so um would folks like to
move forward with that um with well so
right now we're just calling for the
public hearing we're not passing
anything right that's what I'm saying
but I mean just want to it's not on our
you know agenda so I just wanted to um
the public hearing is on the agenda this
one is not no it's it's it's a
resolution it's part of the presentation
so right now you want to call for the
public hearing a public hearing yeah and
then you'll have it on the 28th with the
resolution next week okay I do have
another question okay under the working
without permits previously it was just
doubl fines so now you want fees so now
you want to double the fees and charge
an additional $100 is that or 100 uh for
a residential 200 for a commercial so a
an additional fee on top of the double
FES yes that's good okay
just other
questions just even even with that we
still um I appreciate the comparative
analysis that you did with
municipalities and it seems like we
still would be under yeah these are uh
these are with so those comparisons are
done with the proposed fee changes not
before so me we're
still lower than our neighboring cities
any other questions if not I'll call for
a motion for um this public hearing that
would be held on October
28th thank
you okay
second I'll second it all in favor all
right okay thank
you next item on the agenda is um the
reminder for the public hearing for the
2025 proposed operating budget and
capital budget for the city is conect
and this is just a reminder that the
public hearing will be held on October
15th
2024 next item is a reminder of a public
hearing to amend
sections 12413 and
12422 of the SKC city code increasing
administrative fees regarding false
alarm calls and that public hearing will
be on October 15 2024 Mr O'Brien yes I
just have a question regarding the the
council's uh uh position on this I
provided uh in there a draft a draft
ordinance which indicated the from from
the committee meeting last last time of
the reduction from four to two false
alarms y um but I wasn't sure and I just
highlighted there but I didn't put any
bracketed language in uh those those
highlighted Parts in section e the
bottom part of your paragraph there
those are the the the current Fe I
didn't know whether or not you wanted to
change those fees down below I I
highlighted
them the uh the two four Force four for
false alarms goes down to two but I was
uncertain whether you wanted to change
those fee amounts that you see there
2550 and 75 I didn't know whether that
you wanted to change that or not they're
highlighted but not
amended I don't think there's any
discussion about uh increasing the fees
but just lowering the um the number of
times
okay okay yes I
mean Mr Williams yeah know correct me if
I'm wrong um M Patrick I thought last
time we all to speak for myself I
thought that the fees that they
currently stand were relatively low and
I was under the impression we didn't
have to put in place any specific
amounts because the public hearing as it
was listed identified that there would
be subsequent changes in the future is
that correct um I think we were was
doing the public hearing for the changes
overall and I think the idea was when we
came back here tonight you would revisit
that to see whether or not you wanted to
change those numbers in that part of the
uh
formula no hand oh
sorry um so discussion about that um in
terms of raising these
fees Mr Farley yeah I could be remember
correctly during the presentation that
we had I thought that there was
discussion I thought there was a
suggested fee increase with that I agree
I I could be remembering that wrong but it's not reflected here
yeah so I
don't I don't know if a final number
came V and I know it was you know was
discussion on it but I don't think it
was
formalized we don't have any no we don't
to tell us about that so well this is
can we call for the what's your question
whether we wanted to raise these fees
for false
alans if you look to cover the expenses
and again we're taking the number of
calls and reducing it for the fees so
it's kind of like the freebies in there
but it's expensive to put a piece of
fire apparatus at a scene there's
virtually no call where we send out one
piece of
apparatus
uh around this like 400 50
$550 at minimum per piece of again
apparatus police calls can be widely
variant from it's a oneman car going
there it's a two-man car going
there or multiple cars so these fees do
not cover the cost of delivering the
service and at the same time we're very
cognizant of what our good faith efforts
so that uh people wouldn't be assessed
uh think example uh in the spring and
fall you get uh it gets cooler outside
you'll get uh humidity so somebody's
using a closed dryer sobody might be
home they don't expect it uh it
will go outside and the air will
condense so it'll look like could be
smoke it's really just steam you know if
a neighbor is calling that in as a fire
we would still treat that as a good
faith MH uh response so that there would
be no assessment for that type of call
it's where you get uh people who have
alarm systems that are overly sensitive
or flawed in some way so that uh uh the
dog jumps up against the door rattles it
and the contacts on the alarm vary so
you trip an alarm again we do it a
couple times it's fine when it's
multiple times we're again looking to be
able to put resources where they're
really needed and how do you incentivize
people to be
compliant uh and uh do it so the numbers
that are in place are low
M The Proposal is to reduce the number
of free
times but uh again it's up to the
council in terms of an actual be
structure to look to cover those Mr so
at this point I mean we could go call
for public hearing and then I forgot
which officer it was that brought this
forward
um yeah no I'm saying was officer so we
can still go forward with the public
hearing and they could we could then
have a discussion after that in terms of
increasing fees if that if that's what
the council is inclined to
do okay Mr you can yeah have the public
you have the public hear next week what
happens and then revisit in two weeks
and then uh finalize that we want to
know whether we going to charge
penalties before the public I mean would
we want the public to be able to respond
to the fees as part of the public
hearing Mr Williams but that's I'm
pretty sure in the way the public
hearing was written was to identify that
these fee increases were subject to
change'll be public comment and you can
visit in two weeks and then
and we'll see what the the comments are
and
then get more information so can I just
ask on these fees that you highlighted
here those are the current those are
current okay right okay Mr Williams and
then just as a a point of reference I
wanted to appreciate the mayor's comment
um and also is a point of clarification
I I yield to the understanding that
we'll never be able to fully recruit the
funds or the the me costs and the
response true response cost of
responding to any of these instances I
think it's just having a stronger uh
fine structure or fee structure for just
the continued um misuse of this response
from our city just because we to your
point again it takes a considerable
effort to respond to any any of these
instances and even with the reduction in
a number of the freebies as you
highlighted I still think there needs to
be more more of a a steeper uh Financial
or
monetary effects
mhm okay any other questions or comments
All right so that public hearing will be
held on October 15th so next item on the
agenda is um also calling for a public
hearing and this one is uh public
hearing to amend section 927 of this
connected city code increasing fees and
charges for Police Department Records um
that public hearing will also be on
October 15 2024 any comments or
questions Okay so next item is um a
reminder uh that we also will be having
a public hearing to discuss amending
city code
14414 C increasing dog license fees and
that public hearing will be on October
15
2024 any comments or
questions okay and uh the next public
hearing uh reminder is uh to amend
excuse me section
[Music]
of the connected city code increasing
parking violation fines and that public
hearing will be on uh October 15
2024 um and any comments or questions on
that okay so our last item uh for
finance committee tonight is uh M barage
is going to update us about the tax
foreclosure process M barage um we have
requested that uh this item be removed
and we so compiled
information okay yes thank you so two
weeks could we bring it back or will you
let us know I'll let you know okay okay
thank you all right so that was the last
item on the agenda unless there's other
items to come forward I'd like to have a
uh call for
uh coming out of finance committee uh
motion was thank you I'll second all in
favor I I okay thank you okay at this
time I like to call the order government
operations we have one agenda item and
that the appointment of Naim Abol
Alexander Bland and the reappointment of
Randall Beach to the Planning Commission mayor MTH thank you Mr
chairman those terms have expired there
we've uh done some Outreach submitted
names for your consideration to
uh continue that board's good work and
appreciate your favorable
consideration any questions or comments
on
that president pfield I have a question
um one of the people that that um mayor
that you put forward to consider is uh a
former employee and I know that the last
time that we put forth a former employee
to be named to a board that that moved
forward and was vetoed so um I just I'm
not clear why you know why we're having
different considerations now than we did
um a few months ago which when is that
um I don't think I need to say that well
somebody in the Corporation Council
office who you know litigating items
with the city uh you'd like to get into
a lot more detail more than willing to
do that I I would because um this
individual had a very um had a pretty um
High uh position I'm more than happy to
put together a full presentation of the
conflict of interests that exists with
that and the Far Below
professional uh performance of that
individual in the you're hanging had on
that it's the wrong one these are good
people they're going to be able to do
the job and would ask the council's
consideration for these individuals so
um I I think that I have a right to my
opinion and and so say hanging my hand
on it it's a question that something
happened I'm bringing it forward so I
don't think the fact that I'm bringing
forward means that I'm hanging my hand
on it means I'm bringing a question
forward and I have the right to do that
so um and I'm not questioning whether
they're good people or not so please
don't put it out there like I'm saying
that they're not good people that's not
what I'm saying at all I'm simply saying
that there was an individual who was a a
former employee who in a high position
and this person was all similarly in a
high position not the same department so
I'll for the next cycle do a full
presentation that's entirely up to you
but certainly that's certainly my
question and I don't have any um any
concern with any of the others that
wasn't was a concern that I had
thank you um knowing the three
individuals that that the mayor put
forward I was especially excited about
Naim only because he worked in uh for
the city for for many years still works
in that uh same uh department for
another municipality so I think having
him on the board is invaluable as as
well as Ali and the U and Randle so
that's I have to say Thank
you so again I I you know I refrain from
saying an individual's name because this
is not about individuals so just to be
clear and my question is about the
consistency of appointing people that's
it so that's why I didn't mention their
name well they're right here it's here
for us it's not here for everyone that's
listening right now so um so that that
was my
question so it seems that the the
question is is um more about process not
uh the person okay okay that's Point
Clarity okay
um any other questions comments or
concerns around
us and that's the just for the record
that's the only one that I'm question
only because everybody else doesn't have
that same kind of conflict that that person does
okay any other questions comments on
this so at this point maybe we
uh entertain a motion um to maybe we
treat these all of them separately and
then Corporation Council with
that's the appropriate
respons um the members of the committee
who the members of the committee can
make a motion to
uh however you know you've got three
candidates if you want two out of three
you can do two out of three and just
leave the one for the next time or you
can do three as a as as a complete and
then have a vote on the all three at the uh on the council meeting on
Monday night you want to vote two out or
three out it's up to it's up to what how
the committee wants to do it just be
clear I'm asking for affirmative
consideration for all
three I'm I'm comfortable moving to out
today okay
and so I think that um just based
on committee members that are here right
now is myself and presin Porterfield um
I think
the what I need to do right now because
if we try to move all three of them
forward I think president porteri has
been very clear that she's concerned
around the process and consistency of
the process so if we attempt to move all
three of them out I don't think that
we'll be successful doing that
so I would like to entertain a motion to
um move um it would
be Alexandra Glenn and the reappointment
of Randle Beach to to the uh planning
commissioner I'll second that can I make
a comment please um I I actually um do
feel I just do want to say that I think
that n would be excellent on this
committee and I do think that there's a
difference between the previous
discussion in terms of the
employee um and uh the former employee
that's being discussed here so I just
want to go on record and say that I
think that all three should be
appointed thank you for that and I
respect your opinion but my but that's
my opinion and I just wanted you know
the process it's about the process and I
want to continually make it clear it's
not about the individual I also
obviously know the individual as well
when he worked for the city and did a
fine job but I'm talking about the
process okay so I I think what we're
talking about here again is about the
process not the person um and so what
we'll do is uh
I'll second there I second it okay oh
I'll make the motion I can make the
motion I made the motion okay I second
okay all those in favor
I so we
can Mr Mayor are you going to uh put
together a presentation you were saying
for the
next to bring us back for this person is
that what you were saying you're going
to do well with the council presidents
uh again names came forward that I
considered really to be Court Choice the
performance was substandard and I did
not support them being moved on to a
committee That's My Prerogative uh this
terms of diversity you're holding up a
name today it's the council's
prerogative to do that go ahead and do
it okay well I'm not I mean I'm not
comfortable with the characterization of
holding up a name as the council's um
the actions that the council's taken
today um that's why immediately was
asking who was it and if it's I I I
personally think that he would be um
great to serve on on the board as well I
think we're all in in agreement with
that but I think that the that the
question was about the process and if
we're making um a certain set of
calculations when it comes to um one
individual then for in the act of
consistency and integrity we're making
asking the same questions for everyone
and I think that that's you know and and
if you were going to come bring for some
more information Mr Mayor I think that
then we'd be in a better was before the
council in terms of process move the
names
forward you're not moving them all
forward here that legislation came
forward I vetoed portion of it so if you
want to be consistent in the process you
move them forward and then if I don't
like them then I would veto it so again
you're choosing to do something
different than what was done before
okay well that wouldn't make sense
because these are names you brought
forward so you wouldn't veto the names
that you put for so I'm just asking for
more information I'm not sure why that
is you know um and it's it's the same
proc I mean I'm talking about the
process so for me to ask for more
information as we do around this table
consistently um I I don't see why that
is really something that people have
concerns
with Miss Patrick I'm wondering whether
um just bring this up I
wonder I'm listening I wonder whether we
could have separated a discussion around
process in the
future when we do this and these three
names being brought forward here this
evening since it sounds like the three
names M um would probably have
acceptance by I bet the majority of the
council um if it was to come out of
committee um so I just raised that point
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
kind of um is for us to examine that
process and how and what uh questions
are we asking um and why then I think
that's
a we need to do that obviously so we can
have a better understanding before we
get get to the point get to this point
uh Mr I I think it's worth noting I
think to to Patrick's Point I don't know
how beneficial a conversation before
would have been because it was only at
this point that it became like an
highlighted issue of concern by Mr
Quarterfield not words in your mouth uh
I truly believe in transparency so if
the mayor had additional uh
considerations for his choice previously
I would appreciate that insight and I
think as a checks and balances uh that
deeper analysis helps me personally
understand how that decision making goes
and I think this just helps ensure
efficacy of the entire process so I
don't see that as a bad thing um and
again make sure we are uh intentionally
highlighting there are no issues
throughout this entire conversation to
any of these individuals I think it is
just a matter of consistency just
wanting to wait till the other answers
are being addressed
okay okay sorry to delor it but I
believe that we did address those other
issues on the other appointment when we
discussed that appointment um and did
not make that appointment um and here
tonight we do have um the background
information that we need um about the
individuals that are on the agenda this
evening for this particular so I think
we did have pretty you know I think the
mayor expressed his concerns about that
other individual at the previous at the
meeting where we didn't appoint him to
the committee just to be clear we did
appoint him and then the mayor the mayor
V the appointment so we did that that person is I guess what I'm saying
right and I guess um and you expressed
your
concerns I don't remember the being that
detailed
okay so if if one of the questions that
was brought up in the prior um attempt
to appoint was that the person was a
previous employee then if that was a
point of
conversation I wish at that point we
would have kind of hashed it out moving
forward to say okay well this is why
could be a issue moving forward and then
we might have not have been here I don't
think that the mayor um I believe that
the mayor is acting in good faith trying
to uh put for someone that um we all
feel is is is qualified and I feel that
President Porter feel is acting in good
faith and saying let's make sure our
checks and balances are consistent so I
don't think that there's really a issue
around um who we think should be
appointed or whether this person is
worthy or not it just seems like a
question of process and that's that's
one that we can uh address uh moving
forward and then if this type of
situation arises again then we kind of
know our playb from that point so I
think again it's not necessarily a
disagreement but more as a Cas it's just
a lack of clarity as process and U I
think both our mayor and our council
president are both acting in good faith
to do
so so with that said I will uh entertain
the motion to adour government
operations
second all those in favor I your
turn did you move two names forward we
did we did yeah we
did thank you so I'd like to um convene
health and Recreation committee we have
one item on the agenda and that's a
discussion of the renaming of woodlon
Park uh M pill this item is being
removed and this this request has been
descended from the people that requested
it oh
okay um so i' like a motion to adjourn
health and Recreation second motion to
okay okay all in favor F thank you I'd
like to call to order City development
and planning we have 16 items on the
agenda um the first one is the award the
bidden contract for tilled water piping
repairs to cedo Plumbing in the amount
of
94492 Mr Leon good evening
legis request you have in front of you
tonight is um for the bid of the chair
children water P repairs for the service
there were two bids that were submitted
one from Sano construction and one fromo
um we also have the bid net so I believe
there was approximately 12 vendors who
took it but only submitted bids the
lowest responsible bid was from PTO for
94422 $93
um recommendation is to move forward
with the award of that bid so that the
um glol pipes can get repaired prior to
Winter any questions
concerns I'll second all in favor I I
thank you all right Mr Leons uh if I
could just ask you this we did talk
about it didn't actually make it an
agenda item but um I know that you've
been visiting uh neighborhood
associations And discussing the um
proposed changes to the trash collection
and um I don't know that um all council
members know about that and if we could
just just kind of give us kind of this
brief overview that you've been giving
to the neighborhood associations um if
you weren't aware there was a trash
committee meet uh put together um during
the summer um we meant to discuss
potential ways to reduce the excessive
was that we're picking up at curbside
and to address the B items that we are
picking up because currently under the
code we take everything that's left
there um it's covered in the trash fees
um it's getting very expensive um very
time consuming um removing um you know
what we used to call jackpots but
accessible way so I have been going out
to the neighborhood um Association
meetings to let them know that currently
there is some changes coming forth with
Council approval um one is the amount of
trash that will be allowed uh per unit
um the amount of trash that was say
discussed tenly agreed upon were
six um trash bags and were 32 gallon
bags or one 45 gallon can per
residential unit so if you had a two
unit you're going to get 14 bags you had
a three unit you're going to get 21 bags
and then we did uh develop a list of
bulk items each item has a fee
associated with it whether it's a couch
or sofa a mattress um an increments of
about $5 and um you know how it would be
done currently was discussed come to
seah home like you do with a permit for
development or building department um
you f out form down roow 9 you w the
receipts you prepaid for what you want
picked up whether um if you got 20 bags
I think we came with an extra bag trash
is not like a bulk item was
$2.50 um B items don't only take conver
leave mattress was $10
um after you pay for it to come
downstairs we would give you the
appropriate stickers and we would set
the date to have it out on the curb and
then our staff would know that with
these stickers on we would be taking
that and it was paid for so um it has
been being discussed I went to three
neighborhood meetings I going to fourth
one this Thursday so hopefully my budget
presentation is quick because
it's not about that but UNCW so
um so I am going out I have been
speaking um in regards to the
trash so then after all so the process
after this would be as in terms of the
council the process no I'm asking the
question what would the process be after
the we would present to the council the
fee structure rate increases and the
council would then decide whether or not
you want to move forward with it and
then I believe it would be changed in
the city code yes so we're just
informing just informing the public
right now yes that is right is there is
there room for public feedback on that
or answer some of the questions I've
said anybody who has any other questions
give my email i't received any other
questions about it but I think most
residents who obey the current even
though it's not a rule but appropriate
law on a trash it's the the people who
are abusing it we know trash comes in
from outside the city people live
outside the city have running units in
the city you know you can go byy some of
these units and there's just a
tremendous amount of trash um so um you
know I think it's more going after the
you know the residents or the landl are
abusing
it U Mr Willams so I just wanted to
thank you for that un scheduled update I
really appreciate it and um as we get
into the budget season I imagine that's
going to be an issue we hit uh a little
bit in detail uh if you're comfortable
at this moment are there any
reservations to the current increases
and the uh rece no there was no it more
was a the questions I got a couple of
them more of a convenience of um coming
down the city hall and having to prepay
whether there was the ability to do
something via the phone and you calling
the credit card uh it gets a little
difficult cuz then how do you get the
stickers to it you'd have to keep more
of a checklist and the route foring
would have to have that checklist so
when they go to that house you know they
compare the checklist to what they they
had but you know I mean there's an
inconvenience to almost anything so
thank
you again thank you for doing that um
community outreach I appreciate that get
help informed public I was thinking that
um would again are very preliminary and
I'm sure we'll probably um address this
at another time but my burning question
right now is like so would it be people
would be able to come in and maybe
prepay for a couple tax tags for what
could be a and then late I guess the
question would be would they have to
communicate that oh I have a mattress
out or would they be able to kind of
prepa for the tax slap it on the
mattress to because it's evolving you
know if they came in sort of prepaid for
a sheet of
stickers and they called in and said
look I've got a mattress and a box um I
got my stickers on it it's you know
it'll get picked up we just have to know
it's when we get into the MERS you know
um the thing is
you know there are you know some things
are being taken advantage of and you
know it's obvious thank you mayor had
come thank you madam president
again in this process last year this was
a major point of contention in terms of
the adoption of the budget our current
code dealing with garbage collection is
out of date it's flawed and basically
nobody in the city fully complies with
the code we set up meetings went through
things looking the simple analysis was
jackpots somebody puts four tons of
material out there we pick it up we've
had number of ongoing meetings it is not
a simple solution it's a complicated
fact pattern in which there are a lot of
variables to it in that the council
president declined to participate after
a certain point and again I can't
building in operational efficiencies
unless I have changes in the code that
has to come from the city council and
looking for some level of indication
what the council will support or not
support to be able to move forward in
this and some of this will end up
getting pushed through during this
budget process which again builds
tension
and creates conflict that tried to avoid
but uh again would defer to your
position where you said you don't want
to participate anymore and don't want to
actually move something forward to to
the council I okay so let's just be
clear I never said I didn't want to move
anything forward to the council so let's
go over what really happened this began
in January and I did not step away until
July that was 7 months later uh during
that time we did not come through
anything concrete nothing came before
the council to even consider we had one
update and it was just kind of an
overview but there was nothing that was
concrete brought before the council that
said would you take a look at this and
would you move this forward there was a
discussion about um something being
coming misdemeanors versus um announ
it's a violation in terms of trash
coming from outside the city again
nothing was concrete was brought before
this Council so yes in July after
meetings from January through July in
saiding meeting after meeting and then
the last two meetings were cancel I did
step away because I did not see the
meeting as being effective and that's
really creating any change
uh in addition to that in March I
submitted um something to the committee
to um say here are some my
considerations those things were never
considered the one thing that I said
early on is if we could just at least
look at what has um what's already in
the books and we can start implementing
that and that is putting the trash out
early getting a fee for that that was
done but beyond that the things that I
put out for consideration were just not
considered and I'm not offended by that
however there there is no point in me
continuing come to meetings if in fact
what I'm my contributions are not moving
forward so in my letter to you or my
email to you um I also said if you want
to submit to someone else that's fine or
when you're ready to bring this to the
council please bring It Forward if
anyone wants to see my entire email I'm
willing to forward that to you and and
just and everyone on the council knows
that I was stepping away because I also
emailed them and said that as well so
it's not that we didn't want to bring it
to the council there was nothing to
bring forward and I said when it comes
time Bring It Forward and and then you
know I I went to a meeting and I saw
that this was already being discussed so
I just wanted the council to know
because I was getting phone calls about
oh there's going to be fees or or
limitations on bags so I just wanted
everyone on the council who may not have
known that this was already being
discussed and was out there that's all
there as to
that it's solely your prerogative to
move legislation forward but first you
have to give us something to consider as
we're doing tonight and we were not
giving anything to consider
oh it's not my sorry did you you have
your hand up no you have your hand up oh
yeah um so in discussion of trash you
know we we we we contacted multiple
municipalities Paul and Chris went out
of their way to always make sure present
uh the committee with um what's
happening everywhere and out there and
as far as addressing I mean we started
out as as these jackpots or cleanouts um
but you couldn't just you know we had to
put it actually put a price tag on a mattress um a dresser a lamp anything
that won't fit into a b which eventually
will I believe cost myself who creates a
lot of trash and every taxpayer in the
city a lot more money than the $34 $43
that could have been adopted last budget
season and you still would have been
able to put everything including myself
out of the trash and it would have been
collected I'm sorry thank
you go ahead uh the one thing I was
going to add is just I remember those
conv ations during our last budget cycle
um because uh they were very in depth I
would say probably one of the two top
concerns last year I would say for me
personally it was wanting to make sure
our first response to these heightened
fees wasn't looking towards the
residents so I appreciate Mr lefon and
the committee uh all members as it
started and what it kind of evolved into
for what they were able to submit I
understand this is not the final
solution but it is a step forward and
it's just making sure that each of us in
our capacities just highlight
are we considering this area because the
one thing I want to not happen or the
one thing I want to prevent is this
causes more pain and frustration not
only for our residents but also for the
employees as they try to implement this
and enforce it um but definitely there
needs to be a change for anyone that's
not aware waste removal is far expensive
and it is just growing um and again
we're going to have these endep
discussions what L this week so not want
to to burn a lot of that energy that we
have now um but thank you for the work
that's done and I look forward to seeing
this in the coming months thank you do impr prompted I appreciate
that uh the next item is the award of
been contract emergency service training
facility room simulator to Midstate
Industries Mr
Walling hello hello so this is a roof
training simulator there is a rendering
in your packet of what it would look
like it is a
wooden essentially Erector Set uh
designed specifically to simulate um
when they have to breach a roof cut open
a roof uh this is lower than that as you
can see it would still simulate using
possibly a ladder get up on the roof
operate hand tools things like that to
get in and then the panels uh that would
be then cut could be replaced um this
would go in the area that is the fire
Charing Tower facility in a spot that
used to hold a burn pit that was removed
and paved over by o yes um Midstate is a
company that we do lots of work with
here we're confident they'll be able to
do the work successfully um and the fire
department supports moving forward with
the
project
questions I'll second all those in favor
I I thank you item number three is to
authorize the issuance of a votable
permit number 686 to Andy's I'm not sure
Zen is his name pronounced Zen actually
I believe so uh for sign on overhang
cities right away at 469 State Street um
so this is a rebranding of an existing
sign uh Zen restaurant is rebranding as
you'll see in the packet um the sign
structure will stay However the panels
will be replaced um his uh new same
owner but it's been time so we wanted to
replace it here we've also included the
awnings that's what the picture is for
to show that they'll be having a new
sign panel and
awnings so the new name will be Ember
this the new name of the business they
changing their name correct it is a new
business oh new business same location I don't know
what he would call it if it's a
rebranding re it's a it's a new I don't
want to I don't want to ruin anything
that's
going the permit it's assigned okay any
questions concerns I'll second all those
in
favor there's I believe that there's a
company so when we um when we prepare
the legislation will insert the company
need okay I believe that that's just
a yeah all right thank you okay thank
you Mr do you have anything else that's
it no okay uh the next item number four
is development of the lead service line
replacement inventory action type two
action Mr Ferrari and
Mr yeah hello everybody Madam president
and Council mayor um we were asking here
the city is about to uh uh do a lead
service line replacement and to uh uh
comply with the actions you know we're
looking to uh uh follow the Seeker act
and it's been determined that the
proposed action will have no uh uh no uh
adverse impact on the environment or the
criteria within so it's a type consider
a type two uh plan uh and this
obligation and we passed this resolution
uh it uh it satisfies the requirement
for efc's for us to be able to execute
uh uh the grants that are out there
available so this tyto Seeker would help
us uh uh get grants to perform the left
Service uh
inventory uh I do have a question so
does this have anything thing you know
the um survey that we got yeah so how is
this connected to that this is in
addition to that
right this will help us qualify for the
survey helps us qualify for the grants
which then this review makes us
compliant for the possible State funding
that lose Federal money that's going
through the states is that corre it's
$671,000
Grant we want to definitely hear the
money we want everyone to
hear but we didn't get the grant yet
satisfied recording to apply for the
grant okay like Mr furry said this is a
requirement that it's not there's no
environmental impact because it's a
survey so we're not doing anything to
the environment we're not constructing
anything or building anything but uh it
is a requirement under EFC that we we
check and since it's a type two there's
no further action needed but we do have
to have a resolution to submit with the
packet um to meet the requirement um and
this qualified as ACC to the $671,000
grant for the lead service survey that
is currently out there so going apply
for the grant in this would yes and
that's just part of the to have that so
we can send back okay okay any more
questions I'll move it I'll second all
those in favor thank you very much thank
you very
much okay the next few will go very
quickly um so the uh the next one is a
um ceremon resolution uh recognizing
James Thomas Jr this was on the agenda
before as that we brought back I talked
to Mr Thomas and want to make sure that
um the statistics were correct and I
think that's really important I guess
forth so um bringing it back and to um
just U Move it out again actually just
but um to present to him and just want
to make sure his stats are correct so
motion I'll second all in favor I um
item number six uh ceremonial resolution
acknowledging Ferrari's 50e anniversary
Mr mantin yeah I just um actually today
is the 50y year anniversary
congratulations congratulations
where's our
s I'd like to recommend that we pass a
resolution honoring them the years of
outstanding service to the community
I'll move it I'll definitely second it
all in favor I I thank you the uh next
resolution is honoring celebrating
Italian oh I'm I'm just sorry will this
be at our next council meeting Mr Man
yes okay all right just want just to be
sure if any know there's something
special thing going on you want want to
do someplace else okay um the next one
is ceremonial resolution celebrating
Italian Heritage Month Miss Doro yes
thank you so uh I will be presenting
this this Friday if anyone would like to
attend um at the motor Edge lighthous to
the daughters and sons um of uhar Lord
Sons and Daughters Sons and
Daughters Gabrielle denunzio Sons and
Daughters of America um celebrating
October being the uh we daughters who
were at it yes most recently to the
order of the sons of Italy the order of
the sons of Italy and brother anyway um
Dia
yes uh October's a national calian
American heritage month and it's just um
honoring uh uh the uh Italian Heritage
here in our in our country and what was
the date did you presenting Friday I
think the 11th is that this Friday no
that would be that would be not even a
Friday is it no it is Friday is it
Friday so a week from this Friday right
no this Friday this Friday October 11
but Mr Toro we wouldn't have passed it
by
then because we have to pass it at the
next council
meeting okay then I'll present it um
I'll go to the club and at a later date
then all right so yeah if you just let
like you know I'm sure people would want
to come especially if they get chance to
eat buy their food though just be clear
so if you could um just give us tell us
when choose a new date and then I'll
make all right sorry about that thank
you we oh so like a motion please so
moved I'll second all those in favor I I
uh and the next ceremonial resolution
recognizing domestic violence Awareness
Month the month of November thank you
and um so many individuals are impacted
whether they're um U very special cause
to me and I will presenting this at our
October uh 15th meeting okay tion so
moved second all those in favor I I and
the next one is uh number nine
ceremonial resolution recognizing
October as Polish American Heritage
Month yes so October is also polish Amic
Polish American Heritage Month um and um
actually the first um we had polish
immigrants that came to skincity
actually in the late
1790s um so uh i' would like to be able
to honor and celebrate uh the
contributions of Polish Americans to our
city and our nation uh with this
resolution you have somebody coming to
this council meeting yes it's it'll be
uh Reverend kikki who's on the podium
with us all right a
motion um so move I'll second all in
favor I I okay item number 10 is um a
review of for the ceremony renaming of a
portion of Barrett Street from here on
to the intersection of South from
Marlene Hill Way the public hearing was
held on September 23rd 2024 Mr M is not
here so I'll just take this agenda item
and um so have any discussions around
that yes Mr T yes U there's been quite a
bit
of um disc communication discussion um
even again today we received a letter
from you know another individual um I I
really think
that you know again everyone you know
acknowledges Marley and Hill and and and
great um her greatness to the city of
sken there's just I there's just been
way too much I I'm just not comfortable
at this point um with some of the
letters that we've been getting in um
trying to even move this forward um I
realize we should honor her um you know
if the family wants I I I think you know
uh the street that she was born and
raised on and what she did there
um reading some of the letters that are
coming into us and and the individuals
that they're from um I I just think
there's just way too much discussion and
um and uh information from the
community not favoring this for us to
kind of reconsider doing an alternative
something for
Martin um so and so I we all have gotten
the the the uh information um I just
want to frame this in terms of the fact
that uh we have a process in terms of um
ceremonial naming and uh this family has
gone through that process so I uh and
when we first began this discussion we
did talk about um having a a plaque we we had several things the council was
not in um you know that's excuse me the
family was not in agreement to that so
they wanted to move ahead with the
process that we have put in place
in terms of um ceremonially naming a
street so they've gone through that
process um they've turned in more than
enough names um I'm sorry you have
something yeah I just go go through the
there's 550 raw
signatures and the ordinance requires
75% from the neighborhood and the
neighborhood that's 140 three
signatures and I looked at the the the
neighborhood is described D in SK County
Planning goes from about not Street all
the way out down
to The Stockade out towards Broadway and
I also looked at the election District
that particular street is in and that's
in the fourth election District which
goes that the borders go up to Avenue A
Avenue B bordered by Senus Street as if
upon FR Frankin Avenue so for your
reference so they met them they met the
uh no they no not the
75% they did not mean the not within
that that neighborhood I the
neighborhood that I was looking at the
SK the County planning definition of
neighborhood as well as the boundaries
of the election District that
particular uh residents and looking
those two things they they it's 143
signatures are out of that neighborhood
now what you can do is there's options I
mean you can deny it approve it or give
them 180
days so to get no signatures right okay
um that's just for the for the okay so
um so now again we're putting on a
standard that we've never asked other
people to do in terms of did we ever
drill down to what a neighborhood look
like because we have had other people
submit the necessary signatures and I
don't think it ever came to the point
that it was questioned were they really
within the neighborhood so again I don't
want to like start uh creating standards
that we did not Implement before if
going forward we need to do that but we
did not do that and so Madam chair I I I
I'm just looking at the but the numbers
for this time and that's how I did it
and Reporting back to the coun what it
is I don't know what happened in the
past I'm just giving you what the
numbers are now and indeed and in the
future we need to move forward but I
think right now we just need to work
with the legislation the way it is um
and we never again drill down to to the
75% so I'm a little I'm I'm not inclined
to do that um my suggestion is though
that because again we we said let's do
the plaque we came up with a number of
things um my suggestion would be that um
because the problem seems to be that
they
that it's it shouldn't it the request is
that it not be on the same hole so um
but it'd be in the same neighborhood
even on the same street so um I'm I'm
comfortable with it um being on the same
street however instead of the um
ceremonial sign going north towards hon
that it would go south towards um
towards Union Street and then it would
not be on the same pole even the people
the family that brought this forward
said they just want to do something for
their family member they did not want to
interfere with the other family member
was family was doing so in my in my mind
that would not interfere with the other
family was doing but we would have um
been consider uh consideration to both
families as opposed to say well go back
now and you know do it where wherever
else or do something else we've asked
people to do this we did not give them
those drill down specifics uh we just
gave them a general and um so that would
be my suggestion I went over to
specifically to drive over to see what
it was visually and um so like I said
for me not not going towards here on
street but going in the other direction
would then set as
y I won't say but satisfy I think it's a
fair
compromise based on the number of U
correspondents we've gotten and um as
you've alluded to they haven't always
been um pleasant but I'm not necessarily
saying which family they came from but I
think there's just been a lot of input
and a lot of discussion around this so
that would be my suggestion that we um
we compromise in that way so
yes Mr Mayor again this has happened two
times before one was with Don Burch uh
there was a big outpouring question
whether the signatures were solely
within that neighborhood or he had a
wider
constituency that was put up the other
one was with Martin Luther King way
renaming the ceremonial component of
Albany Street they did do the level of
signatures or whatever I took and just
discounted that and put the sign up
independent of that and you know seem to
have made people semi-happy some members
of the council were mad at me the
general public was happy it's the nature
of the job sometimes you just make a
decision move ahead and get things done
and not spend all the time and effort
Milling around on some of these things
that really don't
matter other council member on
this Mr Williams
Mr I saw two hands like at the same time
uh I was going to say thank you to Mr uh
O'Brien I definitely think being on the
council it's been a constantly learning
experience for me but definitely the
interpretation of previous and then as
we are provide additional context that
helps us understand how best to like
apply the law as it SE fit so I want to
say one of the the measures moving
forward I would like to identify if
there's a way we can make that
distinction very visible or
understanding not only for ourselves but
also to the applicants who looking to
these types of considerations um to miss
the Toro's point I definitely was I
let's say taken aback by the number of
correspondents that we've been receiving
on this this topic and it seems to be
wanting to have a
better a better implementation on
location uh so to miss P Field's
response
andos of want to make sure we do the
right step I think it compromises more than appropriate I just want to
make sure that we are communicating that
to both families and potentially
adjusting the law or the code so that we
can not to run into the situation in the
future so potentially having a limit on
the number of uh ceremonial signs in one
area I think that would help us prepare
the council and how it is going to
practice moving forward
speak uh what you hand
up okay then sure so I I think you know
my understanding of this is that you
know we want to be able to honor um both
these individuals for the contributions
that they made to the city is connec um
we don't we want to do that in a way
that doesn't um crouch on one another
and I think that this of what you're
suggesting uh president CI accomplishes
that I think anytime that you're talking
about families and Legacies that a
certain level of evokes a certain level
of promotion and I think that so I'm I'm
not surprised that um you know that that
people have strong feelings as to how we
should move moving forward but again I
think that you
know if these are two individuals that
contributed to the city um we can make
sure that they both get the recognition
that they deserve in a way that doesn't
encou on one another I think that's the
best way to do it I do have a question
for Corporation counsel though when you
um
we're doing your research can you tell
me like you you were saying that it
should be a a certain amount of names
within the neighborhood how many how
what was the percentage of 75% that's
the that that's that's what the
ordinance says that's what the ordinance
says so it's 75% from the neighborhood
corre and the neighbor how I defined is
how it's connecting to County Planning
defines neighborhood plus I also added
on the election District where that
particular street is on and as part of
the neighborhood okay all right and how many So based on what was turned
in how many of those signatures came in
within the neighborhood within the
neighborhood based on 143 I believe I
and how many would you need in order to
be I think it's 200 and some odd
signatures they get up they get up to
the uh uh
375 okay M Patrick did you have something
well I think though um I'm not sure
about this but um
there's not a lot of residential that's
true property on that on the street in
terms of numbers of yeah but I
understanding that I also you know I I
looked it went the how they Define
neighborhood okay is The Stockade out to
Lower Broadway and all and then if you
look at the election District it's
always passed to you know out to syus
Street as as a border and then up to
Avenue a and Avenue B and Bren Franken
Avenue up from that particular
neighborhood up Union Street so it's a it's large it's a large area as
far as the definitions under under scan
County Planning in the election District
Miss Miss ver did you want to add
something um excuse me yes uh the
council um can approve or deny the
application for any reason or reasons
the members determine to be in the best
interest of the city per the city code
so you
don't you don't necessarily have to have
that number of signatures the the
council can choose to accept or deny the
application for whatever reason the
council
chooses so it's not the code the
code
um it's not an end all be all the
75%
Mr and that might shed some light on
what I was going to think last and I
think moving forward to Mr Williams
point maybe we need to have like a
different formula than a 500 because if
you don't have 500 you know or this
neighborhood you can have you know uh
selection of you know thousands of
residents and in this neighborhood you
might only have you know a much smaller
amount so maybe um us looking at
addressing that in the code just because
I would like the code to Define it
pretty clear so it's not
really so it's clear for everyone and
you know and everyone feels you know
better about moving for so we know
exactly what people's capability to do
this I know that that
might add some work as far as now we
have to know have the DAT on how many
eligible people would be able to sign a
petition but I think that is something
that we might want to look at as a
council Mr I don't think we should have
the family go back and get more
signatures I think they've gotten the
signatures if we were going to change
that we probably should have told them
theyed in the beginning of process I'd
like the compromise that you put forward
and I would be in support of
that so um anyone else so it's just you
and I um tonight miss Patrick I'm okay
with the compromise okay with that so um
do you want
to make the
motion we're just doing a portion of
Barrett Street from here on street to
the no okay then I need okay so so what
I what I'm suggesting is that we not
started here on street but is it South
Avenue the next street over South the
South Avenue um what I'm suggesting we
start South Avenue and go towards y
Street in the um so towards the South as
opposed to going to euron which is a
North this way they um the need there's
no pole with both yeah um on the same
sign and and let's just keep in mind
that Luigi Lane is not ceremonial it's
actually a chang name and we've already
passed that and and you know at this
point in time it's whatever the city you
know the um f department has to do what
whoever to get that that that part's
already done so I'm suggesting that we
start South and and go south for the
ceremonial naming and that way um
hopefully maybe nobody's gets everything
they want but somebody gets some people
Everyone Gets something that they want
so that's my suggestion so that's what
the motion would be do you want to make
the motion I can make the motion I I'd
make a motion that we um accept the
signatures for the C woman naming a
portion of be Street starting at South
Avenue um and two blocks to I think it's
two blocks to Union Street tomorrow he
I'll second all those in favor I thank you for your discussion oh okay
M Williams no I was just going to say
adding into that I definitely am a
proponent of addressing issues have we
encounter them so as we are moving uh to
a conclusion what this matter uh it's a
corporation Council uh recommendations
for like having clear language would you
recommend either having our own City
definition of neighborhood or I think I
think the I think the definitions are fine I you know it's neighborhood
because each you know each definition is
and then coupled it with the election
District you get a good sense of the
neighborhood and I also think the way it
was as the the corporation has to
pointed out you you you've got city
council review May approve or deny the
application for any reason or or you
know for any reason or reasons the
members May determine the best interest
of the city so
the you have
requirements but you also have latitude
to wave for lack of a better term those
requirements so you have a standard but
you also you know under the
circumstances you can you can wave those
and that's what we've done in this
particular case and I think the
ordinance is as written is fine for
those situations there was 500
signatures the the the issue was the
amount of in the neighborhood but um you
can you can accept it or or or not and
you can deny it for any reason or accept
it for any reason we've indicated the
reasons why you accepted and I think we
should maybe consider the amount of
signatures that's that's pretty a pretty
steep number but that would be something
we um would uh talk about going forward
that see you had something you want to
add to this uh yeah just quickly if I
could so the department of development
starting our comprehensive planning
thing and one of the first steps in that
is going to be analyzing and defining
neighborhoods we're going to be reaching
out to them as well so we can uh have a
very defined set of of uh neighborhoods
get populations and demographics along
with that and i' be happy to pass that
on to the council when the time is ready
so that can help ease this process with
will have soon that would help our
process greatly if we knew how many
people were in each neighborhood then we
could really um create our legislation
so it's not uh burdensome for
individuals could you always once that's
done you can always amend this ordinance
as another subpar said the following are
recognized neighborhoods and then then
you then you you'll have a starting
point until then no ceremonial
resolutions is
that okay um so it's been moov in second
so um but so the uh next item on the
agenda is the um vape and smoke shop
zoning ordinance and cannabis right Mr
okay Mr O'Brien yes uh thank you uh
Madam president um if you recall a
couple of months ago um we you all
passed the the uh fape shop or ordinance
and at the time there was discussion
about the Cannabis shops and using that
Amendment to the code that you all just
amended as a as a as a starting point
for dealing with uh the the zoning of
cannabis shops and I you know as you
know in the last several months there's
been a number of cannabis shops that
have been open open throughout the city
501 uh uh State Street 245 Broadway
Lower Broadway um and uh there and I
also have provided you and the city
clerk has provided you with a uh
application a notice of application from
a location on Burling
Street now the office of Canabis
management have issued regulations and
they Rec comonly referred to as rule 119
and I previously I'm sorry refer to R
rule 119 119
and I provided you with copies of the
relevant portions of rule 119 and the
first part of rule 119 that will briefly
talk about is 11 19.3 is notification of
municipalities so as far as the process
is
concerned is that prior to their an
applicant putting their paperwork with
the office of cannabis management
they're supposed to notify us and
that you as you can see is has been done
on regarding the gurling street and as
they come through we should we should uh
be notified and then that gives you you
the council the mayor an opportunity to
weigh in on that particular location and the office of cannabis management
sends that up to the board who actually
makes an determination regarding whether
they should give the license or not as
to uh whether what what sort of
community issues they are
M the other part of the the
119th I gave you was that if an
applicant feels that a municipality
has hindered their ability to uh uh run
their operation or do their operation
they can say can go to the office of
cannabis management and ask for an
advisory to
opinion um this is a dynamic area it's
changing and as you know uh the Office
of cisp Management um there was a a
backlog of licenses and since the
beginning of the year you can see how
the the governor put new you know people
in and as you can see the tempo has
changed and I think that this is a time
where it's okay to put claws on to see
whether or not you want to Zone these
just like zoning vape and smoke shops in
other words have a moratorium while a
zoning code is amended to deal with vape
shops we are allowed to do
that because because because it's coming
to zoning and I think I I in yesterday's
Gazette there was I believe the city of
Amsterdam is cold for moratorium there's
is 90 days
so we have that authority to zone so
before we get to the zoning we can have
a moratorium to see where we want these
locations
because how you want them spaced and
what parts of the city you want them
because the the one you know 501 States
Streed this cing in out right now just
recently opened um
is uh 1300 ft like jacket from another
one at 245 Lower
Broadway right over right over here so
um plus there's other applications
pending before the planning board of
other locations including one on up on
Eastern Avenue and one of the locations
ja
uh there was a proposed location that
was approved by ocm B Parkway over by
the Family Dollar um there's one on
Lower Broadway two on Lower State Street
um one at the new black house building
one at the peoples joint that that Sean
mentioned um on on Crane Street couple
on Broadway there there's quite a few
scatter throughout the harbor yeah in
the harbor as well thank
you so um what we can do is
um have a resolution calling for a
public
hearing calling for a moratorium the
moratorium legislation would be
presented to you in two weeks with the
idea of it being
uh presented and voted on uh in in
November um reviewing it and having a
90-day
moratorium but if you want to get to
that process we have to have a
resolution calling for public
hearing uh so we can adopt a moratorium
ordinance like we did for the B smoke
shops so um so so just to be clear
though um the the way that the state
regulations are out there it's a, ft in
a straight line so 501 and 245 Broadway
are not in a straight 501 State and 245
Broadway it's 1,300 ft anyway so it just
it meets the test 1300 right
but excuse me it meets the test
begin and it's also not in a straight
line yeah so we can we can we can as we
did in the lines for the vape shops we
can do you know do the the line the
lining when you how we did the lines we
can do that for how many feet away um so
we can we can do that through the zoning
code so I just want to be clear we can do something and override what
the state has said because it's our
zoning you it's our zoning
ordinance has can set certain
parameters as for for for uh for uh
distances
okay Mr yes thank you what about the
applications that are already in they
would have to be processed to be
grandfathered in but similar to the
moratorium but going forward we should
be aware of this we should be
proactively looking at this situation so
the licens there we just have to let
them move forward yeah if they're if
it's already in process but if they
haven't gotten the license yet if they
haven't got the license yet that's we don't know what the status is
right well a few people I mean yeah
there are people with their license
already
so um so at this point in time um the ask is whether we want to call for a
public
hearing
um to ask for a more a 90-day moratorium
in terms of Zoning for uh
cannabis you have a question I would say
yes thank
you any other discussion around
that I'll make that motion you make
motion for Public public hearing yes all
right I'll second in fact regarding the
UN research that issue
we the you know the the feet between
each one what's the measurement I want
to make you know make sure that we're
okay with you know complying with the state but also man you know abil our
ability to uh locate these these these
establishments pursuing to our code so
let me just state that I want to double
and triple check that the feed distance
yes okay and yeah that that would be I
wouldn't want us to pass something in
the state's like no you're you can't do
that but I I wanted definitely take a
look at that and uh
um so so why you're looking at that I
don't know I mean this seems like it's a
very fluid process at ocm and um so we
could just make sure that we're Guided
by the most upto-date
legislation that they've been putting
forward they put forward yeah Madam
chair Madam president that that's it's a
good observation because there was an
article in the New York a bar Journal
about that you know the very situation
referring to it as a dynamic situation
of words or substance to that because uh
to accommodate these shifts and they so
everybody has to be flexible and uh um
so uh yes this is a a dynamic situation
for both the state as well as for
us all right so yes just saying you do
like the
revenue well why will comment that I
mean you know I think that had we
had Fuller more full information even
before we decided made the decision
about whether we were going to opt opt
in or opt out was that double negative
thing so yes it's been very uh fluid and
dynamic and um you know I think some of
our decisions might might have been
different had we had a clearer picture
from the start so I think we have to
vote on the so I'm I'm um yeah so just
say I did want to opt out just because
so we wouldn't be here didn't know we'd
be exactly here but um but it be given
us more time but we are here now and now
we have to try to figure how we remedy
this um so um so a motion to call for
public hearing yes to um consider a
90day moratorium moratorium thre all
right I'll move
that I'll second all those in favor I okay we did it twice yeah we did do it
I just didn't think you voted
okay all right the final items are um
about property
sales and they'll be done the executive
session so at this point in time I'll
ask for a motion to go in the executive
session so move second all in favor
members of the public will have to
leave thank
you e
[Music]