[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]