[0:00] [Music]

[0:37] Heat. Hey,

[0:41] [Music]

[0:45] Heat. Heat. Heat.

[0:48] [Music]

[1:07] N. Heat. Heat.

[1:11] [Music]

[2:05] [Applause]

[2:05] [Music]

[2:12] Heat.

[2:13] [Music]

[2:18] Heat. Hey, hey, hey.

[2:21] [Music]

[3:13] Heat. Heat.

[3:15] [Music]

[3:50] Heat.

[3:50] [Music]

[3:55] Heat. Heat.

[3:58] [Music]

[4:18] Heat.

[4:21] [Music]

[4:45] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

[4:48] [Music]

[5:19] [Applause]

[5:19] [Music]

[6:30] Heat. Heat.

[6:33] [Music]

[7:33] Heat. Heat.

[7:36] [Music]

[8:00] Heat. Heat.

[8:03] [Music]

[8:34] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[8:40] [Music]

[10:21] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N.

[10:25] [Music]

[11:04] Today, April 7th,

[11:06] 2025, we have a couple of

[11:09] presentations. Uh, the first from

[11:11] Saratoga Associates Connect Economic

[11:14] Impact Report, Mr. Maharkin.

[11:17] And you want just the floor right over

[11:19] and then get started. Okay. Okay. Okay.

[11:24] I'm just going to hand these out.

[11:27] Let's see if you go that way. Go that

[11:29] way. Sir,

[11:33] how are you? Well, how are you? Thanks.

[11:36] Some of these people that are listening

[11:38] online, so

[11:40] this may be the first time I've ever

[11:41] been given a microphone. Um, and I

[11:45] normally don't need it.

[11:48] Does this work?

[11:53] All right. Um, well, good evening

[11:55] everyone. Uh, what you have here is the

[11:58] city parks economic impact report that

[12:00] Saratoga Associates worked on uh this

[12:03] summer and fall after the completion of

[12:06] the central park. And in discussions

[12:09] with the city, we really wanted to try

[12:11] to make a connection between the

[12:15] economics, the economic impact with the

[12:17] environmental and the health impacts.

[12:20] Those were all positive, but we really

[12:22] wanted to show uh really what the

[12:24] economic impact would be. So what we did

[12:27] was my friend here, Mr.

[12:30] uh came up with a report which kind of

[12:32] shows the methodology that goes into

[12:34] these studies and we think it's really

[12:37] uh something that's got some real weight

[12:39] to it and validity. So Jackson, do you

[12:43] want to give us the highlights? Yeah,

[12:44] pass the microphone over. So thank you

[12:46] folks for having us here for allowing us

[12:49] to talk about this report. So just kind

[12:51] of going to go through kind of the big

[12:53] points about it. I think the big points

[12:54] and then you know after that if you have

[12:55] any questions we be glad to talk about

[12:57] how we got to those results or anything

[12:59] uh if it's within the report but big

[13:01] kind of finding is that there's almost

[13:03] 15 million dollars each year in impact

[13:07] that these parks provide and we kind of

[13:09] looked at it uh in four distinct

[13:12] buckets. We looked at it first from the

[13:15] perspective of you know the racial

[13:17] equity income of equity excuse me that

[13:22] sort of thing. Um what we found is that

[13:25] really skinny compared to peers like

[13:27] Albany um is a much much

[13:31] more equitably distributed parks system.

[13:34] There's a lot

[13:36] more access across income across race

[13:39] for folks to go and enjoy these parks.

[13:41] So that was the first thing we looked at

[13:43] because the impact in these parts it's

[13:45] going to be very different if they're

[13:47] concentrated in a certain place or

[13:49] certain folks get the reap the impacts

[13:51] of it and some don't. But what we said

[13:54] found is that it's really

[13:55] well certain. So that was the first

[13:57] thing that we found. The next big point

[13:59] was on the environmental side and what

[14:01] we did is we looked at these parks and

[14:03] we said okay what if these parks weren't

[14:05] here? What would that environmental

[14:07] impact look like? And kind of the short

[14:09] of that is that we found more than half

[14:11] a million dollar in storm water savings

[14:14] from these parks. And so we were really

[14:16] excited to see that. Uh the next one was

[14:18] on property values. We looked at it as

[14:21] to how these parks actually improve real

[14:23] estate around parks.

[14:25] What we found is that each year the

[14:28] value of being near these parks and from

[14:30] that the increased property values

[14:33] resulted in almost

[14:35] $700,000 in additional taxable revenue

[14:38] for this connectivity. Um and then the

[14:40] last thing we looked at is what is the

[14:42] consumer surplus and what is the uh sort

[14:45] of input output value of the operations

[14:50] that are done here and uh you know the

[14:53] amount of folks that come and spend time

[14:54] here. So to do that, we use cell phone

[14:58] data cuz we assume that most folks have

[15:00] access to cell phones and based on that

[15:03] we could get a number of the amount of

[15:05] folks that go to the park, when they go

[15:07] to the park, where they came to the park

[15:09] from, and then from that could describe

[15:11] the value of that park uh visit. And we

[15:14] did that using a method technology

[15:16] developed by the US Army Corps of

[15:17] Engineers. Um, and so again, from all of

[15:20] those numbers, we came up with almost

[15:22] $15 million in impact these parks

[15:25] provide each year for these cities of

[15:27] Skenctity. So, we're really proud of

[15:29] that. Yeah, I you know, to so to be

[15:32] honest with you, it's we've seen studies

[15:34] like this before that indicated it was a

[15:36] seven or 8:1 value for uh every $1

[15:40] invested, there's eight $8 of some sort

[15:42] of direct, indirect, or induced economic

[15:45] impact. and the proof is in the pudding.

[15:48] Uh we're really proud of the report. Um

[15:50] we're really proud of the work we've

[15:52] done with the city and the city should

[15:53] be very proud of it system. Um does

[15:56] anyone have any questions?

[15:58] Very proud of our system.

[16:02] Mr. So you said you use cell phone data.

[16:05] Yes. In order to Can you tell us a

[16:07] little bit more about that? Like where

[16:08] did you get the data from? Yeah. So

[16:09] that's a great question. So there's a

[16:11] tool called

[16:13] Placer AI or excuse me. Um, and that's a

[16:16] site where they basically work with self

[16:19] providers and folks like that and they

[16:21] buy that data in bulk and they anonymize

[16:24] it and then they allow you to go and see

[16:27] basically for a specific area how many

[16:30] folks leave go to that that area where

[16:33] they went to before, where they went to

[16:35] after. Um, so it allows us to get really

[16:37] detailed data about who is it that goes

[16:40] to these parks, where are they going

[16:42] before they go to the parks, where are

[16:43] they going once they leave the park. Um,

[16:45] and then from there get some really cool

[16:47] uh valuable insights from that. Now, now

[16:50] Jackson, we also I believe we got that

[16:53] from cuz that's what Parks and Trails

[16:55] New York did as well. So that's Parks

[16:57] and Trails New York came out with a

[16:59] study last fall that used similar

[17:01] methodologies. So we followed that. We

[17:03] work cell phone. Hey, what was it

[17:05] called? Uh what what's it called? The

[17:07] site itself is placer.com.

[17:10] Placer. Yeah. And that's in the report.

[17:12] So you go there and check out what

[17:15] they've got.

[17:17] No, it's really useful information. I

[17:19] was surprised that they can compile data

[17:22] that way, but it's it's almost uh scary

[17:25] what they can do to be honest with you.

[17:28] But yeah, the the data here is, you

[17:31] know, we did a lot of thorough research

[17:34] as most departments here can tell you

[17:36] with respect to it. So, we're very

[17:38] confident in this information and, you

[17:40] know, if anyone has any questions, feel

[17:42] free to reach out to us. But, uh, we're very uh very proud of it. Yes,

[17:47] sir. Um, so my question was on the uh

[17:50] the counter. Have you recognized any uh

[17:54] dollars that reductions based on a lack

[17:57] of maintenance or upgrades to

[17:59] parks? That's a good question. I don't

[18:01] know if you want to answer it, but I I

[18:03] would say, you know, frankly, if you

[18:05] have stuff that is wellmaintained, it

[18:07] needs less maintenance and it needs less

[18:09] replacement. So, I mean, all of those

[18:12] things are factored in operations and

[18:14] maintenance, new construction,

[18:16] replacements, those sorts of things. So,

[18:18] uh, there's a there's a lot of

[18:19] references, there's a lot of data, and obviously anyone can reach out to us

[18:24] with

[18:30] questions.

[18:32] Anyone

[18:39] else? So, uh, could you talk a little

[18:41] bit more about the income and racial

[18:43] equity that you talked about and how

[18:45] that came, you know, how you came up

[18:46] with the data and exactly what you mean

[18:47] by that? Sure. Yeah. So, I think that's

[18:49] a great question. So, what we did is we

[18:51] looked

[18:52] at census data. We looked at the

[18:55] 10-minute walk shed. Based on that, we

[18:58] went down to the block group level and

[19:00] we looked at places that had an above

[19:02] average percentage of uh folks of either

[19:05] low income um of a minority group to

[19:09] non-white. And um we also looked at

[19:12] national origin. So that's a little bit

[19:13] different. I don't need to go into those

[19:15] distinctions here for you folks, but we

[19:17] looked at those factors and we looked at

[19:18] those same factors in places like Albany

[19:22] um and compared basically what does it

[19:25] look like down in Albany? What does it

[19:26] look like here in Skenctity? And from

[19:30] those factors, we can look that say

[19:32] Skcti is doing a lot better job because

[19:35] of the distribution here of folks within

[19:37] that 10-minute walk shed compared to

[19:40] places like Albany. And one one thing I

[19:42] would add to it is that we do have

[19:44] graphics that show the parks layout with

[19:46] respect to the city. So you can see the

[19:49] walkability and stuff. And it's also

[19:51] interesting because with the park areas,

[19:53] you can see the areas that have heat

[19:56] islands and and and green islands and

[19:58] those sorts of things to where there's

[20:00] real te temperature

[20:02] discrepancies. And there's also one

[20:04] point I didn't uh speak to there, which

[20:06] is also we looked at which is the access

[20:08] for folks that don't have cars. We

[20:10] looked at the access by public transit

[20:13] to the parks as well. Um and looked at

[20:15] those stats and again compared those as

[20:16] well to peers like Albany. Yeah. And and

[20:19] one thing I would say is that the you

[20:21] know the municipal golf course is a real

[20:24] asset to the community because it adds

[20:26] so much to the other programs that are

[20:28] out there. There's not a lot of

[20:30] municipal golf courses that that

[20:32] generate a regular profit the way they

[20:34] do here and it's a credit to the entire

[20:36] staff.

[20:38] Yes.

[20:40] Oh, so overall you said you no problem.

[20:44] There's so you say your report says

[20:46] there's over more than 14.8 8 million in

[20:48] economic value annually based on this

[20:51] plan. Yep.

[20:54] So that really is broken down and I

[20:56] don't have the numbers. Go to the head.

[20:59] There's actually a there's a breakdown

[21:01] of those and it really is across those

[21:03] four factors here. the environmental,

[21:04] the economic. Um, but if you go to the

[21:07] back end, there's a a little Excel sheet

[21:09] that shows you and

[21:13] I'm feel

[21:18] free for the question. No, this one

[21:22] right here. So, this is the breakdown

[21:23] and then from there we break down where

[21:25] we actually come to those different

[21:27] factors, the different breakdown of the

[21:29] values. Um, so one of the big things

[21:31] you'll see is of course the value from

[21:33] folks that come here that spend time

[21:34] here that visit hotels and then shop at

[21:37] restaurants and eat park as well. We'll

[21:40] see that we speak about that. If there's

[21:42] any specific questions, like I said,

[21:43] glad to go more in depth. I do have one

[21:45] now that I see the breakdown. So you're

[21:47] saying over more than 9 million of this

[21:49] Yes. is in visitor and tourism. Yes.

[21:53] To our parks. Yes. And that means so

[21:56] folks that are going to the parks from

[21:58] spending time at USA Mona's

[22:02] um of course baseball tournaments Mona's

[22:07] um excuse

[22:09] me yes all of the value from that and

[22:13] the value that provides to vendors and

[22:15] of course folks that live there too. So,

[22:17] when we say that, that does, I believe,

[22:18] also include the consumer surplus that

[22:21] folks have from being able to go to

[22:22] something like music haven for free um

[22:26] as well as the increased uh income that

[22:28] comes to the vendors from being able to

[22:30] access that market there. Yeah. The one nice thing the uh Central Park

[22:35] does in particular is it has so many

[22:37] different types of events that brings

[22:39] the community. So, it's just not one

[22:42] sort of thing. It's not just disc golf.

[22:44] There's a lot of folks coming in for the

[22:45] baseball tournaments. There's a lot of

[22:47] folks for the various festivals. There's

[22:49] a lot of people for the road races, all

[22:51] sorts of things. So, the programming for

[22:54] it should be commended and it's really a

[22:56] great asset to the city. So, in this $9

[22:59] million, is it included any hotels? Has

[23:01] it included those kind of other

[23:02] amenities? Exactly. Yes. So, the the

[23:06] spending that is induced from say

[23:08] someone goes to a baseball game and they

[23:09] have to bring their family. So they're

[23:11] going to go stay at a hotel. They're

[23:13] going to probably spend at a restaurant.

[23:15] And so all of that spending we include

[23:17] here because but for it being in that

[23:19] park, you know, who's to say it wouldn't

[23:21] be somewhere else, right? Um so that's

[23:23] really what we look in that figure too.

[23:25] Okay. Thank you. Is your hand moving?

[23:29] No. Okay. Are there any other questions?

[23:33] All

[23:35] right. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank

[23:37] you.

[23:40] Yes. Thank you.

[23:44] Okay. Uh so next conversation on current

[23:48] findings.

[24:04] [Music]

[24:10] So, I prepared a speed report uh for the

[24:12] month of March to go over. Just want to

[24:15] make sure everyone knows kind of what

[24:16] I'm getting at as far as uh what you're

[24:18] looking at here. Start with a legend off

[24:21] to the left. Uh starts with blue under

[24:23] 20, then goes up to green, yellow, red,

[24:26] uh which is a darker shade of red after

[24:28] it's over 40 there. And each node, each

[24:31] uh UB hub that records data there spits

[24:35] out two numbers for the month uh one in

[24:37] each direction. And that is the 85th

[24:40] percentile speed that drivers are

[24:42] traveling at. So that's done

[24:44] to eliminate any outliers such as

[24:47] emergency vehicles that may skew data.

[24:48] Gives you a real-time view as to how

[24:50] people are actually driving.

[25:03] All right. Just want to give everyone a

[25:05] nice look at Belleview, Mount Pleasant,

[25:09] Central State, and Woodlon. Uh we do

[25:11] have some stretches that we monitor. Uh

[25:15] Hamburg is one you see right there that

[25:18] we're working on. Uh compliance there.

[25:21] Watt Street right next to it kind of

[25:24] makes that S-curve. That's one we're

[25:26] taking a look at. Um into McDonald also

[25:29] Clayton Road right over there. That's an

[25:33] issue that we're trying to clean up here

[25:35] as as the uh enforcement really picks

[25:38] up. But uh Norwood Avenue is something

[25:40] that I showed improvement on. That is

[25:43] the stretch just above Alimont. Um

[25:47] believe this node right here was red on

[25:50] February's report. So, we've got one

[25:52] improvement, but um I don't want that to

[25:56] uh skew anything as far as it's only

[25:58] March. We got this started in March. Um

[26:01] it was even a discretionary roll out

[26:03] from TD as far as ticketing goes. So, um

[26:06] we'll hope that there's increased

[26:08] compliance going forward. want to pan up

[26:16] here to north side and upper Union

[26:20] Street. Um, Rosa Road is another one

[26:23] that we're monitoring there. That one

[26:25] over into the 40s. And then, um, one

[26:27] that I want to add is Belmont, which has

[26:30] popped up as of recently. That yellow

[26:32] node uh, kind of going parallel with

[26:34] Wyoming Avenue there. That is another

[26:36] one that we'd like to uh key in on.

[26:39] But this is uh I feel like a little more

[26:43] compliant to our speed compared to

[26:45] February. So I'd say it's going in the

[26:47] right direction. Only hoping not to

[26:49] improve as uh like I alluded to with PD

[26:52] uh issuing tickets uh without discretion

[26:55] going into April here. Okay.

[26:59] Um more that's it. So, um, one question

[27:03] is we hear a lot of a lot from Kings

[27:05] Road. Did you is there any I didn't see

[27:07] any or hear any data. Kings Road does

[27:09] did not uh make the list as far as

[27:12] streets to monitor. I monitor them every

[27:15] month or going back 8 n months. So, has

[27:18] it popped up? It has not popped up. And

[27:20] how does it pop up? How does that

[27:22] determine if it if you got like a row of

[27:24] road situation there where you got

[27:25] multiple

[27:26] reds kings?

[27:33] Okay. Can you tell me how the reds

[27:34] actually get there? Because, you know,

[27:35] we're hearing from Kro that they are red

[27:38] um or some color. So, can you tell me

[27:41] how it actually turned cuz I was and red

[27:44] was the red and darker red. Yeah, you

[27:46] got a darker red that goes over there.

[27:48] So, it's the UV hub getting the clear uh

[27:52] speed of the car going by it. And like I

[27:54] said, this is the 85th percentile of

[27:56] speed. So removing any outliers that

[27:58] would be caused by emergency vehicles.

[28:00] So it's a real feel for the drivers as

[28:03] they're commuting going about the city.

[28:07] Any questions?

[28:10] Mr. Williams, are you able to speak to

[28:12] comparatively to other municipalities? I

[28:14] know you're looking specifically at I

[28:16] think as we look at certain issues

[28:18] within the city, people think that

[28:19] they're unique to our city where that's

[28:21] why we're experiencing the same issues

[28:23] other municipalities are dealing with. I

[28:25] have not taken this and compared it to

[28:26] say an Albany or a Troy, but that is

[28:28] something open to do. Absolutely. Thank

[28:31] you.

[28:36] Should be noted there's I don't think

[28:38] any other city in the capital district

[28:39] has this level of analytic data

[28:42] available to them. There are some other

[28:45] cities across the country, but none are

[28:47] as far advanced as connected.

[28:52] Any other

[28:53] questions? Thank you, Mr.

[29:01] K. So, um, we're going to have to start

[29:05] our committees now. And as you can see,

[29:06] we have a very long agenda. So, look,

[29:11] Mr. Les. So, I'd like to call up the

[29:13] board of the public safety committee. We

[29:14] have three items on the agenda tonight.

[29:16] First of which is the STR grant, and

[29:18] that'll be presented by Mr. Chief

[29:21] Clicker AC.

[29:31] Good evening. Thank

[29:32] you. One or two people. I got to take my

[29:35] glasses

[29:37] off. Okay. So, so I come before you

[29:40] tonight. Thank you for your time um to

[29:43] ask for you to accept a grant that we

[29:46] are receiving from the

[29:47] state. Some background information. and

[29:49] Governor Kathy Hokll allocated $23

[29:52] million to equip law enforcement,

[29:54] district attorneys, domestic violence

[29:55] service providers, and other partners,

[29:58] partnering agencies with the necessary

[29:59] funding, guidance, and training to

[30:01] effectively respond to, mitigate, and

[30:03] prosecute intimate partner violence

[30:05] through evidence-based, survivor

[30:07] centered, trauma-informed, and

[30:08] culturally responsive interventions.

[30:12] Uh, as a county, we are eligible to

[30:14] receive an award of

[30:19] 1,177,640,000 from DCJS that starts

[30:22] retroactive to April 1st of this year

[30:25] and runs to March 31st of

[30:28] 2026. I sit on the panel of uh of

[30:32] dividing the money up. We all agreed to

[30:35] give the the lion share to the YWCA as

[30:38] our partner agency for Skenctity's part,

[30:42] the Sket Police Department's part. We

[30:44] will be receiving with your approval

[30:48] $35,000 and

[30:53] $35,718. and we look to spend that on

[30:56] funding two dedicated detectives

[30:59] dedicated to domestic violence, a

[31:02] half-time crime analyst and also some

[31:05] overtime funding and uh reimbursement

[31:08] for cellular

[31:10] phones.

[31:11] Uh

[31:13] one one position would need to be added

[31:15] to our budget. We currently have a

[31:18] dedicated detective that we that would

[31:21] now become fully funded on the salary

[31:24] line. Uh and the city would absorb the benefit line because she's a current

[31:29] employee. This new addition will be

[31:32] fully funded for salary and

[31:34] benefits. And for the crime analyst,

[31:37] again, this is also a current employee

[31:40] who's been attached to the crime

[31:41] analysis center in Albany. And it's the

[31:44] model that we're building is to have

[31:45] that person embedded there. So we

[31:47] believe that we can get the job done

[31:49] with her working halftime on this

[31:51] project in collaboration with Albany

[31:54] Police Department and other ones in the

[31:56] capital region and we would be refund we

[31:59] would basically uh receive half of her

[32:02] salary as reimbursement through this. Um

[32:05] but we would be paying the other half

[32:07] plus full benefits for her.

[32:10] So the uh the recommendation the request

[32:12] is that we accept this strive grant and

[32:15] be allowed to increase our

[32:16] departmental's total budgeted officer

[32:18] count from 167 to

[32:21] 168. Any questions or comments? So

[32:25] county is eligible. Is that due to the

[32:28] number of domestic incidents reported?

[32:31] Why would we annual why we're It is. It

[32:33] is. We're one of the highest in the

[32:34] state. uh our numbers um as a city um

[32:39] right now the only part one crime that

[32:42] we see going up is assaults and they're

[32:44] mostly driven by domestics.

[32:49] So um you said that these are current

[32:51] all current employees all with the

[32:54] exception of one which we would which we

[32:56] would then need to backfill. We would

[32:58] hire. Okay. We would hire and so going

[33:00] forward that that's something we have to

[33:02] budget for the correct after this grant

[33:05] is over. Okay. Correct. And so um well

[33:08] but that being said um I'm told that

[33:11] very similar to the gift grant they

[33:12] don't expect this grant to go away

[33:14] anytime soon. Oh okay. So it may be

[33:16] funded into the future. Thank you. So

[33:19] for for an employee that's currently

[33:20] there you said that um half of the

[33:22] salary would come out of this. Correct.

[33:25] And okay. So if that employee is already

[33:27] budgeted, does that mean how's what's

[33:29] going to be the impact on what we

[33:31] already budgeted for that person? And if

[33:32] that person says part of this grant is

[33:34] now going to pay their salary, how does

[33:36] that impact the current budget? The the

[33:38] net result is we will increase our

[33:39] revenue line by

[33:41] 116,48 for this calendar year.

[33:47] What was my question, Mr. Carly? So this

[33:50] sounds like pretty good stuff. Number

[33:52] one, chief, my question is you said that

[33:54] you decided after being on your panel to

[33:57] kind of get the lion share, I think it's

[33:58] a term you used to say. Could you talk a

[34:01] little bit about why you decided that

[34:02] the investment would be better at that

[34:04] end or more impactful if you will? Sure.

[34:07] Um, you know, we all agreed that the the YWCA they are the specialists in

[34:13] this line of work and we really wanted

[34:15] to position them with funding which

[34:18] they've for years lacked in order to um

[34:22] to staff with with with some

[34:24] specialists. So they have some victim

[34:26] specialists. this is really victim

[34:28] centered um to to get them to cooperate

[34:30] more against the offenders and and and

[34:33] to seek help sooner than later um to get

[34:36] out of the situation that they're in. Um

[34:38] they will be hiring the coordinator for

[34:40] this project. Um and then they will also

[34:43] be subsidizing some some of the um some

[34:46] of the other staff members to put this

[34:48] program on. But you know they they are

[34:50] also buying some equipment to help help

[34:53] the victims and to monitor some

[34:54] offenders through probation. probation

[34:56] is another partner of ours in this. Um,

[34:59] so that that's why we we agreed and when

[35:01] I say the lion share, they got the most,

[35:02] not the lion share, they got 364,000.

[35:05] They just they were the we agreed that

[35:07] we needed to give give them serious

[35:09] consideration on funding them as best we

[35:13] could. Any other questions or

[35:17] comments? Patrick, please.

[35:19] No, you are you deferring to me. Um, I

[35:23] just want to say I mean I'm really um

[35:25] impressed with the staffing levels. Um,

[35:27] especially I know the work that the YW

[35:29] does in this in this arena and I was

[35:31] thrilled to see you know all the various

[35:34] positions at the Y that will benefit

[35:36] from this. So um I think it's great. Um

[35:39] but also you know too bad that we have

[35:42] to do it but um thank you for getting

[35:44] the grant. Yeah, I will give a lot of

[35:47] credit to the to the YW.CA for for

[35:49] years. we've been doing a lot of the

[35:51] work that that's not built into this

[35:53] grant. So, if you will, we we're a model

[35:56] um of to help develop this grant. Um but

[35:59] it's the work still hasn't been enough,

[36:01] which is why we decided to add a second

[36:03] investigator so that we can start

[36:05] investigating the more minor offenses

[36:07] that are now not being

[36:09] investigated because they're not a

[36:11] felony level. So, we are we are adding

[36:13] some things to this grant that that are

[36:15] going to allow us to hopefully uh see a change in those numbers.

[36:22] Um yeah, um chief, well, I have here a

[36:25] little separate issue um regarding the

[36:28] recent arrest and raids by the Skenctity

[36:30] Police Department. Um that's brought

[36:33] renewed attention to the issue of

[36:35] illegal cannabis sales here in the city.

[36:38] Um just wanted to know if there's any

[36:41] action us as a city council can take. Um

[36:45] first of all uh to address the

[36:47] properties where these illegal sales are

[36:49] being held. Um and uh secondly uh what

[36:53] action can we take against the property

[36:55] owners who are allowing these sales uh

[36:58] on operations on the properties?

[37:02] Sure. Um you know so that's that's

[37:04] something that you know we've been

[37:05] working on for a while now um for some

[37:08] years and uh we've been in discussions

[37:10] uh really for for the last few months

[37:12] with our corporation council with the

[37:14] mayor's office with code enforcement and

[37:17] uh you know I I would think that we will

[37:19] be coming back to the council soon with some requests once we uh could do

[37:23] our homework on this but there's uh to

[37:25] your point I think there's a lot that

[37:26] needs to be done with these properties

[37:29] um because uh you know what happened

[37:31] last week uh should not be acceptable to

[37:33] anybody in our community. Uh, thank you.

[37:35] So, I I'd like to I'm going to be

[37:37] putting a legislative request in um

[37:41] regarding this to see what what we can

[37:43] do as a council uh for our April 21st

[37:46] meeting. So, we'd like to make that.

[37:48] Yeah. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.

[37:51] So, this question

[37:54] um knowing that the Y does a lot of

[37:56] great work around this. I know that

[37:58] there's a lot of community agencies and

[37:59] you know a lot of protective factors

[38:01] here in our community. I'm just curious

[38:03] as do why do you think that we were so

[38:05] high um as the you know pretty close to

[38:10] top in the state like what do you know

[38:12] like what are the contributing factors

[38:14] to that? Like what do you think that

[38:15] those are?

[38:17] You know that's a question that we've

[38:18] been trying to ask for a while. Our

[38:20] district attorney kind of you know he

[38:21] feels that's the density of our county.

[38:24] we our population is pretty dense for

[38:25] the size of our county because it it's a

[38:27] per capita uh criteria that they use. So

[38:31] he feels that you know the the the

[38:33] density of our county could be one of

[38:34] the reasons and you know other than that

[38:37] we're trying to figure it out. You know

[38:39] we're we you know the domestic violence

[38:43] is is is very tricky to try to be

[38:45] proactive to stop and it's really almost

[38:48] impossible to proactively stop. the only

[38:50] way we can we can address it is on that

[38:53] first phone call we get and then you

[38:55] know through education and things like

[38:57] that one thing I would think just having

[39:00] a thought around this I don't know if

[39:03] it's maybe if it is finance that would

[39:05] be the the right partner with that uh

[39:07] Mr. mayor, but

[39:09] I have a limited scope around

[39:12] understanding this, but I know that

[39:13] there's there were some connections made

[39:16] between like the economic health of the

[39:18] city um and far as like uh employment

[39:22] things of that nature that have shown to

[39:25] impact and this is like I'm just pulling

[39:27] this off of memory, but just thinking

[39:29] about like

[39:30] how those things are contributing

[39:32] factors. Um and I think this might be

[39:34] more on the national scale, but I'm sure

[39:36] it might be true here. So maybe looking

[39:38] into that maybe that's something that

[39:40] how another way that we could even

[39:42] assist with this is like maybe looking

[39:44] at both those data sets and seeing where

[39:47] the you know connectivity is if there is

[39:49] any around like our city unemployment

[39:52] rate our you know city's financial

[39:55] health and you know wellbeing and how

[39:57] does that correlate to like domestic

[39:59] violence for some of the

[40:02] people? Yeah, Mike, I was sort of along

[40:05] the same lines thinking about the issue

[40:07] of poverty and its relation to um

[40:10] domestic abuse. Um, and I was just

[40:12] wondering, um, again, I think it's very

[40:15] tricky in terms of what we do to try to,

[40:18] um, help prevent, um, the incidents of

[40:21] domestic abuse, but I was wondering if,

[40:23] um, the folks in the schools um, our

[40:26] community resource officers or, um,

[40:28] other programming in the schools happens

[40:30] around

[40:32] um, talking to young men and young women

[40:35] um, about this. um in terms of you know

[40:39] hoping

[40:42] that you know their understanding not to

[40:45] do it, their understanding to report it

[40:47] if it is happening to not stand up not take it uh you know that kind of

[40:52] thing. So I was just wondering if the

[40:53] police department was involved in any

[40:55] way with the school district around

[40:57] those issues.

[41:00] Um, I I think it's fair to say that when

[41:03] we when we built out the school resource

[41:06] officer program, the community

[41:07] engagement officers in the schools, that

[41:09] part of part of the discussions was that

[41:11] they are a resource to the school

[41:13] community for anything. It doesn't have

[41:15] to be school violence or anything school

[41:17] related. It could be something that's

[41:19] related to their home life. Um, so and I

[41:22] know that from speaking to the past

[41:24] couple superintendents, they're all well

[41:25] aware that if students come to school

[41:27] and they're not talking for a day, but

[41:29] they're normally talking, something may

[41:30] have happened in their homes that they

[41:32] need to be aware of. It's, you know,

[41:34] it's the payroll with care method. And,

[41:36] uh, so, so those are things that we've

[41:38] had discussions with, but you know,

[41:41] really just having those open lines of

[41:42] communication, the best thing that we

[41:44] can do with the school district.

[41:48] Mr. So just to follow up on that, I know

[41:50] that, you know, there's a partnership,

[41:52] you know, with, you know, the police

[41:54] department, with probation, other

[41:56] community partners that are really are

[41:59] situ within the school district that's

[42:01] currently happening and it's been

[42:02] happening for a while is to just kind of

[42:04] make sure that those type of situations

[42:06] are kind of elevated. Um, and that not

[42:09] only is it, you know, the information

[42:11] doesn't stay siloed cuz sometimes that

[42:13] can happen when dealing with something

[42:14] that is as sensitive as this. you know,

[42:17] we want to be really mindful about that,

[42:19] but so there is I can, you know, I sit

[42:21] on that committee as well that's that's

[42:23] happening. Thank you. Yeah, I would like

[42:26] to follow up on that and you don't have

[42:27] to ask answer specifically, but to Miss

[42:30] um Miss Patrick's point, I think that um

[42:32] it would be ideal if they were like they

[42:34] had the like stranger danger, whatever.

[42:36] Maybe they're not calling it then

[42:38] anymore. But with those kind of things

[42:39] that they actually talked to students

[42:41] about were they were the subjects

[42:42] introduced and you're not waiting for a

[42:44] student to something to happen and you

[42:46] try to figure out by their behavior what

[42:48] exactly happened. Is there any level of

[42:51] curriculum or could there be where

[42:53] actually you talk to students that if

[42:54] you see something in your not and it may

[42:56] not be through the police department, it

[42:58] may be through the school system within

[42:59] a partnership where you actually have a

[43:02] forum or or a class or whatever you want

[43:05] to call it where you actually introduce

[43:06] that so that children feel more

[43:08] comfortable that if something is

[43:10] happening that they can come forth as

[43:12] opposed to, you know, the social worker

[43:14] or the teacher trying to determine what

[43:16] is causing their behavior to be

[43:18] different. Sure. Um I'm not sure right

[43:22] now, but I can I guess the only response

[43:24] I have to that is I had a meeting today

[43:26] with the school district uh

[43:28] superintendent, the deputy

[43:29] superintendent regarding our contact

[43:31] that's up for the school resource

[43:32] officers. And part of that conversation

[43:34] was the mayor's desire to uh to have the

[43:38] police and fire department involved more

[43:40] with with the education inside the

[43:42] schools. um talking on a variety of

[43:44] different topics and that certainly

[43:45] would be one of them um should they want us to be there to help

[43:48] with that.

[43:50] So maybe even though I could be involved

[43:52] with that. All right. So circling back

[43:55] to the finances. So since you said that

[43:58] there's an increase in revenue, do we at

[44:00] this point in time and maybe this

[44:02] question for our um finance deputy

[44:04] finance commissioner or finance chair

[44:06] here. do we need to um amend our budget

[44:09] since there's going to be I won't call

[44:11] it a savings but since we're now um

[44:13] money that we had initially had um

[44:16] allocated towards the line on your

[44:19] budget do we need to do a budget

[44:21] amendment to that um in order to

[44:24] recognize that there's this been this

[44:25] change in the

[44:27] budget I'll get back to you on that

[44:31] all right thank you

[44:33] any other questions or comments um I did

[44:35] have one respond. I greatly appreciate

[44:38] it. I think anytime we uh identify these

[44:41] types of uh influx of doctors, I think

[44:44] to the point that Mr. Farley was always

[44:46] making, it increases our responsiveness

[44:48] to chronic issues and concerns. And I

[44:51] imagine at the end of this, although our

[44:53] hope is for it to renew, um we're going

[44:55] to recognize that living without this

[44:58] funding is going to be a significant

[45:01] negative impact on what work is going to

[45:03] be able to be done right now. Um, with

[45:06] respect to future budgets which seem to

[45:08] be getting bigger than than lesser, is

[45:10] there any uh confidence you can put in

[45:13] absorbing this into your budget as is?

[45:20] Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm so confident

[45:22] that this is going to keep going on. I

[45:24] didn't really put much thought behind

[45:25] that. But to your point, uh, many times

[45:27] we look at grants and we think about

[45:29] that, okay, this is a one or two-year

[45:31] grant. Is this something that we can see

[45:33] as being sustainable beyond the grant

[45:35] period? And if our answer is no, we just

[45:37] don't apply. And that has happened many

[45:39] times. But I'm I'm I asked that

[45:42] question. I'm I was told that expect

[45:44] this one to be just like GIF and it'll

[45:47] just keep going and going until domestic

[45:49] violence is eradicated. Then we can get

[45:51] rid of all of them. So thinking if there

[45:54] are no other questions, thank you. Thank

[45:57] you. Uh item number two is a follow

[45:59] discussion chapter 93 and the C

[46:01] regarding legucation and the police.

[46:07] May I have a motion to move? Second.

[46:09] All in favor.

[46:12] Now item number two discussion regarding

[46:15] chapter 93 code regarding regretation

[46:17] items.

[46:20] Thank you. So the last time we discussed

[46:22] this, it was because Sarn was now

[46:23] becoming dormant and and according to

[46:26] the code, they do have a seat at the

[46:27] table and um what I asked the council

[46:30] for was to provide input um in terms of

[46:33] other organizations or how we could re

[46:36] uh we could change the code so that

[46:38] we're not put in a position where

[46:39] they're not getting um they're not

[46:41] getting quum. My understanding is they

[46:44] recently have the situation again uh

[46:46] because there is an organization that is

[46:49] on there and does have a representative

[46:50] that's not showing up. I was just made

[46:52] aware of that today. So what I will be

[46:54] doing is um and asking Mr. uh Williams

[46:57] to do is actually reach out to that

[46:58] organization um and and let the mayor,

[47:01] you know, include the mayor that this

[47:02] person just isn't showing up and do they

[47:06] have a replacement. And I don't know um

[47:08] I don't ever get any, you know, we don't

[47:10] get reports as we used to. they used to

[47:12] come and tell us where they what they

[47:13] were doing. So, and also to ask for the

[47:15] CPRB um to give us some some feedback on

[47:19] how they think we can um rectify this

[47:21] because they're the ones doing the work

[47:22] every day. I did not get any feedback

[47:24] from council members, but at this time

[47:26] if there's any other feedback um so

[47:30] anyone um I committee I would recommend

[47:34] uh the seat or safe inc. I know we're

[47:36] briefly talking about having a youth

[47:37] component when informally speaking with

[47:39] the uh chair for the CPRB. Definitely

[47:42] identifying a sincere need to have more

[47:45] of a voice from our emerging community

[47:47] who are also impacted um by the

[47:50] responsiveness from the police

[47:51] department. I think it's important to

[47:53] have that uh integrated feedback uh to

[47:56] ensure that their voice is included in

[47:59] these ongoing conversations. I think

[48:01] we'll have to probably

[48:02] identify

[48:05] by comparison of corporation council but

[48:07] also through office of professional

[48:09] standards at what age range is

[48:11] appropriate. Um not talking about

[48:13] toddlers or anything but I think just

[48:14] making sure the individual that's

[48:16] exposed to this has the right

[48:18] wherewithal um because we want to make

[48:20] sure there is proper consideration for

[48:22] the confidentiality of some of this

[48:24] information. Um and then also I just

[48:27] wanted to add a snapshot this month's

[48:30] meeting which will be this Wednesday

[48:31] they'll be having the member from the K9

[48:34] department present. Uh so if anyone is

[48:36] looking to just hear more about what uh

[48:38] issues or items will fall at the lake

[48:40] review board. You can also have

[48:42] opportunity to meet a member from this

[48:44] team and the meetings are at 6:00 here

[48:46] in St. Paul on the second floor.

[48:51] So I forgive me madam chair for that. Um

[48:55] I'm well no I'm answering your question.

[48:57] That's why I was Yeah. So, I'm not

[49:00] exactly off top of my head sure like

[49:02] what all the um what parties were, but

[49:05] and I and I apologize for not sending

[49:07] this thought prior to the meeting, but I

[49:09] am think I was thinking based on our

[49:12] last conversation, if we look to have

[49:14] some some justice involved, families or representation there on that board,

[49:20] that might take us outside of like

[49:22] um what is existing now.

[49:26] Uh and my question for you, you were

[49:30] mentioning that they used to come and

[49:31] give us like reports. Now that was

[49:33] happening, was it happening quarterly or

[49:35] was that and and is there is that

[49:38] something that we can kind of

[49:39] communicate out like an expectation not

[49:42] just for them to come in and give us a

[49:43] oneoff but

[49:45] maybe give us some before it's moving

[49:47] forward? Well, I think we can certainly

[49:48] make that request. Um in terms of

[49:51] justice involved the uh the code speaks

[49:53] specifically

[49:55] um to people's and justice involved on a

[49:58] certain level who can and cannot sit. So

[49:59] there is some language in there already

[50:01] around that. So um it doesn't exclude

[50:04] everyone but it does exclude a certain

[50:05] group of people. So we can take a look

[50:07] at that and then if you have more

[50:08] questions around that definitely um uh

[50:12] the seats um I know that the city

[50:14] council has a seat and then an

[50:16] additional seat that we do with non

[50:18] voting but everything else that we're

[50:21] considering you know we have to

[50:22] definitely work with the mayor's office

[50:23] to to change uh anything in that

[50:26] legislation um because those are those

[50:28] are seats that would be um filled

[50:30] through going through the mayor's

[50:32] office. So, um I would ask that the um

[50:35] CPRB just come next meeting, please, and

[50:39] have us give some update on where they

[50:40] are and where their challenges lie and

[50:43] maybe their recommendations on how we

[50:44] can um help move this forward along with

[50:47] the recommendations that were given here

[50:48] today. Absolutely.

[50:52] Any other questions or comments related

[50:53] to that agenda item?

[50:57] [Music]

[50:58] The last item on the agenda is a

[51:01] reminder public hearing to add section

[51:03] 182-8 to chapter 182 of the SMDC code to

[51:07] create a sound permit application. Um

[51:09] public hearing was on March 24th, 2025.

[51:13] Mr. Mine, thank you. Yes, we did a

[51:16] public hearing regarding this uh

[51:18] amendment and in your package you would

[51:22] see that this under 182 section 182 a

[51:26] section was added 182.8 eight and then

[51:30] there is the permit application that we

[51:33] went back and forth and we did change it

[51:35] in authorizing things some of the

[51:37] languages and it's just the

[51:41] um the section that is added I'll just

[51:46] ask

[51:46] um council just update us on this

[51:50] one it's it's pretty straightforward it

[51:54] just needs another office to intake

[51:56] these

[51:58] um and you know intake the uh and

[52:01] process the applications.

[52:06] What you say not another office?

[52:10] It's it's it's either the city police

[52:13] department or another

[52:18] office but in the court can clearly say

[52:21] that

[52:23] um coming from the police department

[52:26] right but I understand the mayor speak

[52:30] that regard

[52:33] well you wanted an element of

[52:34] convenience to have people be able to

[52:36] come make the application maybe the city

[52:38] clerk's office Then there's people that

[52:41] generally already familiar with

[52:43] it get processed and then notification

[52:47] to go out to in the police department or

[52:50] appropriate agencies within the city to

[52:53] monitor the activity so that nobody's

[52:56] creating situation that uh is offensive

[53:00] or irritating to neighbors.

[53:04] Thank you. Any other questions or

[53:07] comments? But I'm a little um why do we

[53:10] I mean this is something like should be

[53:13] handled by the police department because

[53:15] at the end of the day they will have to

[53:16] review this application. They will have

[53:18] to approve

[53:19] it and they will have to monitor the

[53:23] situation. So why why another

[53:27] department? I'm just trying to

[53:29] understand why not just an element of

[53:32] convenience to get the application

[53:35] coming in. It's like street closing

[53:38] permits, you know, circulated throughout

[53:41] the city and every department signs off

[53:43] on them.

[53:48] Um, so since this is going to be just

[53:51] about every event, I do have a level of

[53:53] concern regarding the amount of people

[53:56] the influx that's going to now be would

[53:58] come into whatever office it is. And the

[54:00] crooks office in particular, I do see,

[54:02] you know, the marriage license, golf

[54:04] license, and every other license.

[54:06] Um, and if the police department isn't

[54:09] the place, is there someplace else in

[54:11] city hall that we could maybe um get

[54:13] this to happen?

[54:16] Um, I just imagine that it's going to be

[54:19] a lot of of of extra work. And it and if

[54:22] that's not going to be the case, do we

[54:24] then assign someone to the clerk's

[54:26] office, get another body in the clerk's

[54:28] office or even a part-time body in the

[54:29] clerk's office to take on the additional

[54:31] work? Because right now, it's staffed

[54:33] essentially for the work that it does.

[54:35] And if we're going to increase the

[54:37] volume of work, I think we have to take

[54:39] that in consideration.

[54:44] Thank you. I I think that would hold

[54:46] true for the police department as well.

[54:48] You know, someone to take these

[54:49] applications and um process them and

[54:52] who's going to be responsible. I guess

[54:53] the the uh the uh 911 call or the non 911 call of uh

[55:02] 6390 911. would get a call on this and

[55:06] be dispatched to the officers to go. Um,

[55:09] but my understanding, Mr. Mame, is first

[55:12] they would get a phone call to the

[55:14] individual on fire here. So, who's going

[55:16] to be making that phone call again? And

[55:19] does the police department have enough

[55:21] um individuals when it comes in quue um

[55:24] to call them right away or is it going

[55:26] to be a 30 or 40 minute or 2hour delay

[55:29] in calling even because of other

[55:32] incidents that are already in quue that

[55:34] the police department need to follow on

[55:36] and follow up on. And I guess my last

[55:38] question would be um I don't I didn't

[55:41] know if we decided if we were going to

[55:42] charge for this permit like we charge

[55:45] for other permits.

[55:48] I think at the last um it said no at the

[55:50] last u meeting we decided a majority of

[55:53] us decided that we're not going to

[55:55] charge that was mine

[56:00] yeah so but so I remember in our last

[56:03] conversation I'm not really sure about

[56:05] the best place for intake but kind of to

[56:09] uh Mr. to's point. The hope here is that

[56:12] by having the number and a contact

[56:15] designated contact person on file, then

[56:18] it will relieve some stress off the our

[56:20] police department having to respond and

[56:22] send their car out. So, I don't know if

[56:25] that's an officer that's designated to

[56:26] call, hey, listen, or or you know where

[56:28] that call comes from. But either way,

[56:30] whoever is making that call, it should,

[56:33] and again, this is somewhat in theory,

[56:35] but I imagine that it will become less

[56:37] of a strain on the department to respond

[56:41] via phone call and tell somebody, hey,

[56:43] we got you on file here. We know you're

[56:44] doing something. Hey, can you turn on

[56:45] your music? And then happy to send that

[56:49] initial car out. That could be one or

[56:50] two officers dedicated to that. this

[56:53] country. Yeah, it would seem to me and

[56:56] not trying to add to the burden of our

[56:57] police firm, but they probably are going

[56:59] to be the people that will have to

[57:00] respond to um and probably already

[57:04] respond uh to these types of complaints

[57:06] all the time. Um so it seems to me like

[57:08] they would want to have um there at the

[57:12] police department record of this permit

[57:16] because you know I mean right off the

[57:17] bat if somebody doesn't have the permit

[57:20] um that's one whole set. I mean, I don't

[57:22] know if we want to ask them to to

[57:24] respond, but the chief said just send in

[57:26] hand me once tomorrow.

[57:28] Yeah, I get used to I think they should

[57:31] end up with a record of the permit.

[57:32] Absolutely. But I I would like chief to

[57:34] respond. I mean, would someone be able

[57:36] to make a phone call when anything comes

[57:39] in? I mean, have you been, you know,

[57:42] consulting about any of this or Sorry to

[57:45] put you on the spot. M I guess my

[57:48] question would be

[57:51] for for the for the noise permit what

[57:53] are we permitting?

[57:57] Excess of the current code.

[58:00] No absent a permit. Why wouldn't

[58:05] somebody just be able to play their

[58:07] music

[58:09] if it's not in excess of the noise?

[58:13] So I'd say my understanding of the

[58:16] permit process and please correct me if

[58:18] I'm wrong is to place a level of

[58:20] accountability and then also to

[58:22] formalize how you are being considerate

[58:24] to others around you. So with that, it

[58:27] puts in place a point of contact so that

[58:29] if there are any issues or concerns, it

[58:31] then gives the responding agency, which

[58:33] would be the police department, a clear

[58:35] means of here's your first step. And

[58:37] then truly the hope or one of the

[58:39] byproducts is that it saves you time of

[58:41] having to send physical resources. To

[58:44] me, a phone call is significantly more

[58:46] easier to manage than sending out a

[58:48] unit. Um and then also it provides those

[58:51] around um that household a safe

[58:54] understanding that

[58:57] um one of the areas within the process

[59:00] is notifying your adjacent households.

[59:03] So again, I think it's just letting

[59:04] people know there's no issues with

[59:06] having music within the guidelines of

[59:08] the city code. um but putting in place

[59:10] some additional means so that uh others

[59:13] are notified and that there's a proper

[59:15] response

[59:17] uh proper responding person to reach out

[59:20] to so you're not just banging on the

[59:22] door waiting for someone else to

[59:23] come that p that piece I like having the contact information my

[59:29] concern with issuing permits

[59:32] is we're then enforcing the permits so

[59:35] we're we're issuing them and then when

[59:38] we show up and they're like but you gave

[59:39] this and then we have to explain to

[59:41] them, well, I know we gave it to you,

[59:43] but you're violating it. That's why my

[59:46] question is like when if somebody were

[59:48] to come and file for a permit, what

[59:50] exactly are what's the what's the reason

[59:52] why they're filing for it that they

[59:54] can't currently do right now?

[1:00:00] Yeah. Again, I I think and guys feel me if if I'm out of turn here. I

[1:00:06] think that the hope there is that now it

[1:00:10] is another point of accountability for

[1:00:11] somebody cuz we're not saying that now

[1:00:14] we give you this permit you can blast

[1:00:15] your music, right? That's not what we're

[1:00:17] saying. We're saying that we recognize

[1:00:18] that as especially as a weather change,

[1:00:20] people are going to want to have more

[1:00:21] outdoor activities. So, this encourages

[1:00:24] people to, you know, be a better

[1:00:25] neighbor to, you know, make those

[1:00:27] notifications. Um, and then, you know,

[1:00:29] have somebody on on contact on file. And

[1:00:32] I think that, you

[1:00:34] know, I'm sure like any enforcement or

[1:00:37] anything that changes in the code,

[1:00:38] you'll have people who are won't be

[1:00:40] interested in in in following the rules.

[1:00:42] But, you know, I think majority of

[1:00:44] people will say, "Okay, this is

[1:00:45] something I could do. This is something

[1:00:46] that's required of me now to do this,

[1:00:48] then I do it." And then it puts us all

[1:00:50] in a better position. Um, I don't think

[1:00:52] it it's going to uh be an absolute uh

[1:00:55] cure all for some of the noise pollution

[1:00:58] that we're experiencing, but it does

[1:01:01] operationalize a little bit of goodwill

[1:01:02] between the neighbors and more

[1:01:04] accountability for individuals.

[1:01:10] No, I agree with that. It's more on we

[1:01:12] touch on that accountability and kind of

[1:01:13] give the PD the information that needed

[1:01:16] rather than wasting time sending out to

[1:01:18] officer there where we can do better

[1:01:19] with our officer a phone call. I think

[1:01:21] we discussed this a couple years ago in

[1:01:23] terms of more of getting information,

[1:01:26] make that call, let them know that they

[1:01:28] are in violation, you know, rather than

[1:01:30] showing up at the property. And, you

[1:01:33] know, it's more of it's more of driven

[1:01:36] towards that accountability for whoever

[1:01:39] is doing an event. And I think that's

[1:01:42] what the whole aim is for here. And then

[1:01:44] um regardless of amending this, it's in

[1:01:46] the city charter regardless. So if we

[1:01:49] were to do nothing today with this area,

[1:01:51] it's still in the city charter that the

[1:01:52] police department can issue special

[1:01:54] permit for events. So this is more of us

[1:01:58] amending it to broaden the scope of who

[1:02:00] is responsible and to add another office

[1:02:03] if it's not the police department or

[1:02:05] someone else to help with that special

[1:02:07] permit.

[1:02:11] Thank you. So to like kind of to your

[1:02:13] point, chief, it's it's similar to like

[1:02:15] why do we issue street closing for block

[1:02:17] parties? because we want to know what's

[1:02:18] happening. We want to know what's going

[1:02:19] on. If there's an issue, we want to know

[1:02:21] who we contact. So, to me, it's very

[1:02:23] similar to that. Um, further to the

[1:02:26] point of who it should be, since we're

[1:02:27] having a lot of discussion around

[1:02:29] that, the information that was provided

[1:02:31] to us by corporation council said that

[1:02:34] the application is going to be uh

[1:02:35] reviewed and approved by this connecting

[1:02:37] police department that um that the chief

[1:02:40] of police will have to review it and

[1:02:42] we'll issue it. So, it sounds like it

[1:02:44] starts at the police department.

[1:02:47] um otherwise that it would have to

[1:02:50] happen here and then we'd have to

[1:02:51] transmit the information to the police

[1:02:53] department or someone would have to come

[1:02:54] here and look at it. But based on um

[1:02:56] what's been given to us for 182-8

[1:03:00] um it looks like the police department

[1:03:02] would be the starting place based on

[1:03:03] this language. Okay, Mr. Chairman,

[1:03:06] perhaps uh we can internally look at

[1:03:09] this administratively and find find

[1:03:12] another office and perhaps the council

[1:03:15] can as well think of another office for

[1:03:17] you know for the intake of this and get

[1:03:20] back to do dealing with this in two

[1:03:23] weeks. If I can Mr.

[1:03:27] Mayor the street closing permit today

[1:03:30] comes into the mayor's office.

[1:03:34] That number's been growing over the

[1:03:35] years. That application then is

[1:03:38] circulated throughout the city. So the

[1:03:41] fire department has to sign off on it.

[1:03:43] Finance says sign off on it. Police

[1:03:45] department has to sign off on it so that

[1:03:48] they're aware. And it also when the

[1:03:50] actual closure is

[1:03:52] issued or modification of traffic flow,

[1:03:56] it sent to dispatch. You know, in this

[1:04:00] system, the simpler thing is if we knew

[1:04:02] who had the loud

[1:04:04] noise, the complaint is going to come in

[1:04:07] to a phone call, either 911 or the

[1:04:11] non-emergency number to dispatch. So,

[1:04:14] they could look it up and then just call

[1:04:16] the party and say, "We've got a

[1:04:19] complaint. Your sound is too loud."

[1:04:21] But again, to the chief's

[1:04:25] point, we're going to permit people to

[1:04:28] do what they can do today without a

[1:04:33] permit. And then we're assuming people

[1:04:36] are going to violate it. And then what

[1:04:38] are they going to do? Do we have to send

[1:04:40] the police out? Do we send a drone out?

[1:04:43] Do

[1:04:45] we do the phone call to it? And as we

[1:04:49] all know, those noise

[1:04:52] complaints are ones that back up where

[1:04:56] again, they're priority three calls. And

[1:05:00] it's unfortunate where you have one

[1:05:02] individual or one location that makes

[1:05:05] poor choices and has very loud

[1:05:10] noise. Most times it does not generate

[1:05:13] one complaint, complain about that.

[1:05:15] You'll get 10 complaints and a lot of

[1:05:17] the complaints are not narrowed down to

[1:05:21] say it's a specific address on a

[1:05:24] specific street. It's there's some place

[1:05:27] two blocks over or it's the yellow house

[1:05:30] farther up the street. And so dispatch

[1:05:32] has to sort that out. Is it a separate

[1:05:35] violation or is it one location that's

[1:05:39] doing it? And so again, hopefully in

[1:05:43] this whole discussion and narrative,

[1:05:45] people

[1:05:47] will understand that their actions do

[1:05:51] have repercussions and negative

[1:05:52] influence on their neighbors and that

[1:05:55] people weather gets warmer, they won't

[1:05:57] be playing music excessively loud or

[1:06:00] engaged in conduct that uh generates

[1:06:04] noise in a manner that irritates the

[1:06:05] neighbors.

[1:06:08] And I would have to agree. I I think

[1:06:10] show me another way we can get someone's

[1:06:12] contact information. I'm all in favor of

[1:06:15] doing that. I think the only issue is an

[1:06:18] uninforcable recommendation is a

[1:06:20] suggestion. So I think this

[1:06:21] unfortunately is the only opportunity we

[1:06:23] have to get that contact information. I

[1:06:26] think similar to how we're rolling out

[1:06:28] the new speed limits uh which we've

[1:06:30] heard has been so wellreceived by the

[1:06:32] community, I think it's we're

[1:06:33] reconditioning behaviors. Uh so I think

[1:06:36] hopefully over time people who are going

[1:06:38] through this experience are then sharing

[1:06:40] that information with other party

[1:06:42] starters and they recognize that within

[1:06:44] the city of Skenctity they are now

[1:06:46] identifying this as a point of emphasis

[1:06:48] to address moving forward. But sincerely

[1:06:50] growing up in the city noise has been an

[1:06:52] issue and we have to try something

[1:06:53] different. Whether this is the right

[1:06:54] different I don't know but I think it

[1:06:56] shows the community that we hear you and

[1:06:58] we are going to try something new.

[1:07:02] Um there so May glad you touched on the

[1:07:06] drone. I think when we were discussing

[1:07:07] our investment in the drone, we did talk

[1:07:09] about using drone for this first

[1:07:11] responders for as a first responder to

[1:07:14] the kind of incident like you know or

[1:07:16] when people have events like this. So I

[1:07:19] don't know if you want to remind if

[1:07:21] that's still on the card is that

[1:07:23] possible. Yeah, it is. And you as I sat

[1:07:26] down, assistant chief kind of whispered

[1:07:28] to me, what's the benefit of the permit?

[1:07:30] So, it just got me, you know, it was I'm

[1:07:32] just thinking that because I hear what

[1:07:34] you're saying. You want to come up with

[1:07:35] a

[1:07:36] solution perhaps a permit that would

[1:07:39] allow if somebody's having a party, how

[1:07:42] do you encourage somebody to file for a

[1:07:43] permit and give us this information?

[1:07:46] Right. Right. Now, a big um

[1:07:49] misunderstanding is that when the police

[1:07:51] show up, you get one show up without a

[1:07:54] with a with a notification. Cuz when we

[1:07:56] show up and we issue a ticket, they're

[1:07:58] like, "I thought you got one show up."

[1:08:00] That's like, nope, that's never in the

[1:08:01] code. It's not the case. Perhaps with a

[1:08:03] permit and the sharing of that

[1:08:05] information, that's the way you sell it.

[1:08:07] That's the benefit is you, you know,

[1:08:09] you're having a party, a picnic, you're

[1:08:11] going to have music on. You sound get

[1:08:14] your permit, give us your information.

[1:08:16] If we get a complaint where we find that

[1:08:18] it's too loud, now we have an easy way

[1:08:20] to contact you and tell you you're being

[1:08:22] too loud, shut it off. That's the

[1:08:24] benefit. So, that that's a way it

[1:08:26] potentially could work. Yes. And I think

[1:08:28] that's right. That's what we're trying

[1:08:29] to get. Now we have the information that

[1:08:31] can help us. As long as we sell to the

[1:08:32] public that way and tell them if you

[1:08:35] don't get the permit and we show up,

[1:08:36] you're getting the ticket. There's no

[1:08:40] one one free show off. And before your

[1:08:43] question, I know there's a component in

[1:08:45] the city code where you're able to uh

[1:08:47] take away the noise making device. Is

[1:08:49] there any way we can uh evaluate? I I'm

[1:08:52] just trying to look at what are what

[1:08:53] what's available to us. Um, and then

[1:08:55] also I want to put your offers in

[1:08:57] officers situation where there's getting

[1:08:59] doors slammed in their faces or not

[1:09:01] answer. Yeah. I mean, we're always real

[1:09:04] careful before we do that. But you

[1:09:06] usually the threshold that I use

[1:09:09] personally and I've recommended is is

[1:09:11] that if you feel that sound coming

[1:09:14] through your body, we're probably going

[1:09:16] to take the equipment. If if we've told

[1:09:18] you once and you and you you haven't

[1:09:19] listened to us now, we're going to take

[1:09:21] it and till the judge says to return,

[1:09:23] Miss Ver, I just want to So, it does

[1:09:25] sound like you think that this is a

[1:09:27] valid useful thing for us to be.

[1:09:32] As long as there's a benefit to the

[1:09:33] person applying because otherwise I'd

[1:09:35] hate to be put in a position to them to

[1:09:37] say, well, why did I even apply for this

[1:09:39] if I'm if you're showing up anyways and

[1:09:41] I'm getting a ticket?

[1:09:43] Oh, well, they'd have to know the

[1:09:45] parameters around the noise level, which

[1:09:47] I believe was a certain decel, but even

[1:09:49] then, I mean, it's like, how are they

[1:09:50] going to know it? How are they going to

[1:09:52] measure themselves? But what I would

[1:09:56] throw out, and I hope I'm wrong, is

[1:09:59] people who are going to be the worst

[1:10:01] violators are not going to get no matter

[1:10:05] what the council changes the legislation

[1:10:08] to.

[1:10:10] I would say optimistically we have to

[1:10:11] present another narrative because I feel

[1:10:14] like that that shows the people of the

[1:10:15] community that there's nothing we can do

[1:10:17] to address this and I would have to

[1:10:19] disagree. Mr. W did you raise no I was going to say that if

[1:10:27] we have our minds kind

[1:10:31] of aimed towards like the worst

[1:10:34] offenders here. I mean, I think honestly

[1:10:36] if we just had to deal with the people

[1:10:38] that were the worst offenders as far as

[1:10:41] it goes, then that would that alone

[1:10:43] would cut a lot of, you know, uh, track

[1:10:46] traffic off of resources for the police

[1:10:47] that they wouldn't have to deal with. I

[1:10:49] think that this is something that

[1:10:52] there's a lot of variables that are

[1:10:53] involved. So, you might have people who

[1:10:55] they have their music up a little louder

[1:10:57] in the daytime as a neighbor happens all

[1:10:59] the time. Daytime I don't mind. You know

[1:11:00] what I mean? and it gets a little bit

[1:11:03] little darker outside then maybe I'll

[1:11:04] tell my neighbor hey you know but so I

[1:11:06] think that knowing that there is a

[1:11:09] continuum if you will of people who are

[1:11:11] going to be enjoying music outdoors then

[1:11:16] a lot of the people

[1:11:17] who those people same people say hey if

[1:11:20] there's a problem turn it down those

[1:11:21] people want to come have a permit they

[1:11:22] don't want to be in compliance they

[1:11:23] don't want to you

[1:11:25] know snub their nose at their neighbors

[1:11:28] a lot of time I think a lot of people

[1:11:30] it's something that is

[1:11:32] uh you know it it it's a matter of

[1:11:34] perspective and some cuz my loud might

[1:11:36] not be their loud and vice versa. So I

[1:11:38] think that this is a way that we can

[1:11:39] kind of again operationalize you know

[1:11:41] establishing some goodwill within the

[1:11:43] neighborhood and and and let people know

[1:11:45] and I think that's a really good idea

[1:11:46] chief that if you did get the permit

[1:11:49] then you know that's why you're giving

[1:11:51] us courtesy call. Hey we know it's you

[1:11:53] think for giving us information we need

[1:11:54] you to turn it down a little bit or you

[1:11:56] didn't now we're going to enforce what's

[1:11:58] already under the code. So I think that that that shows some benefit there.

[1:12:02] Um this So this is a quality of life

[1:12:05] issue that we've been talking about for years and um I just think that we

[1:12:09] just have to let people know because

[1:12:11] there are people that that it's already

[1:12:13] something that really people should be

[1:12:14] adhering to. So I've already heard

[1:12:16] feedback, oh it's you're you're

[1:12:18] targeting certain groups or certain

[1:12:20] individuals. And I think it's just a

[1:12:21] matter of just making sure that we

[1:12:23] educate people that like this applies to

[1:12:24] everyone regardless of where you live or

[1:12:27] what your neighborhood is. It applies to

[1:12:28] everyone. Um, and I don't I don't think

[1:12:31] it's a bad idea cuz sometimes the music

[1:12:33] does get really loud even in cars. We

[1:12:35] didn't talk about that. I get it. I was

[1:12:36] going to say goes the end with the cars

[1:12:39] that are speeding down our street as

[1:12:40] well. But I think being able to identify

[1:12:43] people I've been at parties where the

[1:12:44] police have come. It wasn't my party.

[1:12:47] was

[1:12:48] mine. Um, and so but if there that

[1:12:53] person knew ahead of time that they

[1:12:54] already had to get a permit etc and so

[1:12:56] on and you know because the neighbors

[1:12:58] called there's something so I think that

[1:13:01] we at least minimally should um try to

[1:13:05] uh put something in place that at least

[1:13:07] puts everyone on notice and let them

[1:13:09] makes them aware.

[1:13:12] Um definitely the chief's recommendation

[1:13:14] of putting in writing in a benefit. I

[1:13:17] think that is absolutely something we

[1:13:18] should consider. I don't know what steps

[1:13:19] we need to do to I'm sorry. Could you

[1:13:21] just repeat a warning built in

[1:13:24] completing the permit? Um I don't know

[1:13:26] what we need to do if we do anything at

[1:13:29] this point. I don't I I think that's a

[1:13:32] policy. Okay. Perfect. All right. Uh so

[1:13:35] with this we need to um it's just a

[1:13:38] reminder. Okay.

[1:13:41] Uh there are no other items to put on

[1:13:43] wait.

[1:13:45] Are we moving this forward or are we

[1:13:48] holding it for two weeks to kind of

[1:13:50] determine which office that is going to

[1:13:52] take responsibility for this format?

[1:13:54] That was my take. So let's um hold hold

[1:13:55] this for two weeks, bring it back and

[1:13:57] let's come up with a solution in terms

[1:13:59] of what recommendation in terms of where

[1:14:03] they can pull this.

[1:14:06] So we'll have it back in two weeks so

[1:14:07] they can move forward. Well, so that we

[1:14:09] can move something forward. Just put it

[1:14:11] in the mayor's office will take it and

[1:14:13] we'll handle it just in the same way we

[1:14:14] do

[1:14:17] street. So do we need So can I just be

[1:14:20] clear? So the forms would come it would

[1:14:23] come directly from your office and then

[1:14:25] you would handle the moving it around to

[1:14:26] the different departments. So what we do

[1:14:28] now similar to what forms

[1:14:34] is there form in the legislation that

[1:14:36] has to be designed.

[1:14:38] No form's already here.

[1:14:43] Well, I'd have to look at that to see if

[1:14:45] it conforms with other ones that we're

[1:14:48] working on which incorporate their

[1:14:50] applicability to an EZRI platform for a

[1:14:53] mapping system. So, but the form itself

[1:14:57] doesn't need legislation. It's just part

[1:14:59] of the mayor's office.

[1:15:03] Okay.

[1:15:05] So, so with that said that we can move

[1:15:06] this as amended. As amended, the mayor

[1:15:10] may have a motion. So, move second. Uh

[1:15:14] second. All in favor?

[1:15:16] I call public safety. I have a motion to

[1:15:19] still move. Second. Second. All in

[1:15:22] favor?

[1:15:24] So, I'd like to open health and

[1:15:26] recreation. Um, and tonight we have

[1:15:28] before us um I do, you know, we had a

[1:15:31] health and recreation meeting last uh

[1:15:33] well, we tried to have a health and

[1:15:34] recreation meeting last week and

[1:15:36] unfortunately

[1:15:38] um I was the only person there. I will

[1:15:41] thank Mr. from the committee. Um I'll

[1:15:43] thank Mr. Müer for showing up after uh

[1:15:46] his uh community center opened which was

[1:15:49] very very generous of him. Um what we

[1:15:52] learned um through our discussion

[1:15:54] because we couldn't officially have a

[1:15:56] meeting um was that indeed um for the

[1:15:59] this body um we would be uh voting on a

[1:16:03] pool policy. The pool rules um are

[1:16:07] something that our staff um would be

[1:16:10] contributing to us. We they're included

[1:16:12] in our packet here so that we can see

[1:16:14] them. Um we we've certainly talked about

[1:16:16] them many many times now at this point.

[1:16:19] Um, so what I'd like to do is ask um we have um our pools our parks director

[1:16:27] uh Maka and um our uh commissioner

[1:16:31] general services here. This would fall

[1:16:33] under their uh department. So, um I

[1:16:36] don't know if you want to come up and

[1:16:37] talk about this at all.

[1:16:46] Good evening, Mayor President Council

[1:16:48] members. Real background before we go

[1:16:50] into pool policy. We sat down and we

[1:16:52] spoke to our pool operators, the Boys

[1:16:54] and Girls Club. So, I asked them certain

[1:16:56] questions. One of the things I asked

[1:16:57] them is how many times during the summer

[1:16:59] season do we reach capacity? 95% of the

[1:17:02] summer season we reach capacity which is

[1:17:04] 400 people in the pool. I also asked her

[1:17:07] when we reach capacity what's the best

[1:17:09] estimate that you have of non-resident

[1:17:11] using our pool. During the weekday she

[1:17:13] stated that 25 to 30% of the pool was

[1:17:15] occupied by non-residents. On the

[1:17:17] weekends that rises up to 50%. Holidays

[1:17:21] and hot days it stays about 50%. So on a

[1:17:24] given day on a weekend you can count on

[1:17:26] 200 non-residents being in your pool and

[1:17:28] only 200 connected residents. That's one

[1:17:31] of the reasons the policy was designed

[1:17:32] for where it is, the way it was set up,

[1:17:35] that it has to be skewed residents only,

[1:17:37] allowing a 21-year-old to bring in three

[1:17:39] up to three guests under the age of 10,

[1:17:42] allowing the sket residents more

[1:17:44] capacity in the pool. Absolutely.

[1:17:48] [Music]

[1:17:50] Any questions?

[1:17:53] So, the Boys and Girls Club, um, right

[1:17:55] now, do they ask if we're residents? I

[1:17:58] I've been through before. They loosely

[1:18:00] take uh zip codes and they told she told

[1:18:03] us that they do have some she sees a lot

[1:18:05] of these unit zip codes coming in. A lot

[1:18:07] of them are indistinguishable because

[1:18:09] they come to one 306 which is a large

[1:18:11] zip code area 309 and overrun but her

[1:18:14] best estimates are with that 25 to 30%

[1:18:16] non-resident during the week and 50% on

[1:18:19] hot days and weekends and holidays.

[1:18:22] I I want to thank you for putting this

[1:18:23] together, realizing that you can make

[1:18:26] the policy and uh you did a heck of a

[1:18:28] job putting that together. I especially

[1:18:30] like the 21 years and older um to have

[1:18:34] three individuals 10 and under. Um so I

[1:18:38] thank you for the work you put into

[1:18:39] this. I'll try to make it more equitable

[1:18:42] for our sketity residents. You know,

[1:18:43] given the fact our sketity residents

[1:18:45] deserve to have shots on you. Everybody

[1:18:46] says, "Well, I got relatives that are

[1:18:48] going to come." That's that's just fine.

[1:18:49] But what about the hundreds connected

[1:18:51] residents who are going to stand outside

[1:18:52] the gate on an 80 degree day? I can't

[1:18:54] get in the pool.

[1:18:58] So just speaking to things I brought

[1:19:00] that I did bring up already because um I

[1:19:02] think that um to be a resident connected

[1:19:05] if you have guests in town over a

[1:19:07] holiday weekend or whatever to not be

[1:19:08] able to come to them to come to the pool

[1:19:10] when we talked about how much revenue is

[1:19:12] being driven from our prior report by

[1:19:15] our visitors and tourism. I think for me anyway I think that we should

[1:19:18] really revisit that in terms of having

[1:19:21] allowing minimally at least one guest um

[1:19:24] if you're a resident that brings a guest

[1:19:27] to the pool because right now you can't

[1:19:28] have you can't right based on this based

[1:19:31] on I tell you it's under 10 years old we

[1:19:33] can raise we can raise at 21 years old

[1:19:35] and above you're allowed one guest which

[1:19:37] will make it equitable when you allow

[1:19:38] someone over 21 to bring three guests in

[1:19:40] you're going to get a hearts connected

[1:19:42] residence and 300 guests in the pool

[1:19:44] they're going to outweigh us if it's a

[1:19:46] 1:1 ratio. I think that would work

[1:19:48] because I don't really see that we're

[1:19:50] going to have that. Most of the time if

[1:19:51] you're going to bring you're going to

[1:19:52] bring in young children. Most adults

[1:19:55] won't bring other adults to the

[1:19:57] pool. You know, you're going to see

[1:19:59] Uncle Carl's going to bring Uncle Carl

[1:20:01] might bring three young kids with him,

[1:20:02] you know, and Danny might say, "Well,

[1:20:04] I'm going to bring Joe in, but you're

[1:20:06] not going to see he's not going to bring

[1:20:07] three older

[1:20:09] relatives." Mom might bring some.

[1:20:13] Um, so that was one thing. And so you

[1:20:15] said that um that the Boys and Girls

[1:20:17] Club Girls and Girls Club the data they

[1:20:19] were um capturing was kind of like

[1:20:21] generalized. They did not specifically

[1:20:24] ask for an ID to prove that you lived in

[1:20:26] the city. They just took the zip code

[1:20:28] and said and so I could walk in even if

[1:20:30] I did live in Connecticut and say, "Oh,

[1:20:32] I live in 1205." But now we're going to

[1:20:34] ask you for your ID. You're going to

[1:20:35] have to identify yourself. My point is

[1:20:37] that data could or could not be could be

[1:20:40] skewed because we didn't have any real

[1:20:42] um identification of who was coming in

[1:20:44] there. Um and I also think that because

[1:20:47] the pool was a novelty when it first

[1:20:48] opened, it's I mean people were just

[1:20:50] coming from everywhere. It's true. There

[1:20:53] was even a video where almost everybody

[1:20:54] in the video that they did to advertise

[1:20:57] the pool did not live in the city. I

[1:20:58] thought that was interesting. So So I

[1:21:01] think that first first of all initially

[1:21:02] was a novelty. However, um I think that

[1:21:05] now that it's open, I'm not sure if

[1:21:07] we'll see that level of influx. So, I

[1:21:08] that's why I'm asking that there be a

[1:21:10] little bit more flexibility in terms of,

[1:21:13] you know, adults bringing um another

[1:21:15] adult. Yeah, I I think that's a

[1:21:18] one-on-one ratio for an adult like that

[1:21:20] and still one 21 and below so the

[1:21:22] younger kids can get in, you know, and

[1:21:24] other kids always need adults with them

[1:21:25] there. I think that's that's acceptable.

[1:21:29] Um

[1:21:32] yeah, I did. So, and the poll rules is what you're doing, right? So, I just

[1:21:37] um there was the one where it says it

[1:21:39] says children up to 5 years old must

[1:21:41] have an adult with them. So, do they

[1:21:45] mean does this really mean children five

[1:21:46] and under? Oh, have an adult in the pool

[1:21:49] with them? In the pool with them. So,

[1:21:52] anyone under that age can't be inside

[1:21:53] the pool without somebody with Okay.

[1:21:55] It's in the pool or on the pool deck.

[1:21:57] Okay. Good. But the way it reads, it's

[1:21:59] it just to me it should read that

[1:22:00] children five and under must have an

[1:22:02] adult. Do you see what I'm talking

[1:22:04] about? In the water. In the water. In

[1:22:07] the pool itself. Yes.

[1:22:12] Just have an adult. I mean, it's just

[1:22:16] Yes.

[1:22:18] And then if you're on the pool five

[1:22:20] to 10, they have to have an adult on the

[1:22:21] pool deck. Yes. Got it. All right. that was the only um I thought that

[1:22:25] language wasn't very extremely clear.

[1:22:30] The the other piece that we did talk

[1:22:31] about was um whether to charge to

[1:22:34] actually get into the pool. Um we had

[1:22:37] decided we in previous discussions of

[1:22:40] the health and recreation committee, we

[1:22:42] had talked about not charging residents

[1:22:45] uh to get into the pool. Um again, we

[1:22:48] couldn't make a decision last week. Um

[1:22:52] so you know I do want to bring that that

[1:22:54] forward.

[1:22:56] Um if we are going to charge it adds a

[1:23:00] whole other layer of you know staffing

[1:23:03] equipment that we would need um etc. So

[1:23:07] um I'm just open to hearing from folks

[1:23:10] about what they what they feel about

[1:23:12] that.

[1:23:14] Are you are you talking like um charging

[1:23:17] non-residents or Well, we we were

[1:23:20] talking about, you know, residents

[1:23:21] getting in for free. Um this pool policy

[1:23:25] says that it's only um it's strictly

[1:23:28] limited to current residents of the

[1:23:30] city. They can bring a certain number of

[1:23:31] non-resident guests. So therefore, it

[1:23:33] would be free. Um, so in our in our

[1:23:38] conversation, not obviously not this

[1:23:40] prior week, but the prior conversation,

[1:23:42] I thought that there

[1:23:45] was I everyone well everyone I spoke to,

[1:23:48] I should say, agreeing with not charging

[1:23:51] city residents. Um, so and

[1:23:54] I'm I still feel really strongly about

[1:23:56] that about not charging our city

[1:23:58] residents to use the city pool. Um I

[1:24:00] think that you know obviously if we're

[1:24:02] not allowing non- city residents use of

[1:24:04] the pool then that just takes care of

[1:24:06] that. But if there is you know some

[1:24:08] flexibility around that then charging on

[1:24:11] non city residents I think it would be

[1:24:13] an appropriate thing to do it just to

[1:24:15] your point it would look at like you

[1:24:16] know how do we collect that um that fee

[1:24:20] and does the collection of the fee or

[1:24:23] does the existing fee um justify the

[1:24:26] action within itself? Right. Well, we've

[1:24:29] looked at Would you like to handle? We

[1:24:31] looked at all different options. We

[1:24:33] talked about a kiosk, getting put a

[1:24:34] kiosk in. If you're a non-resident, you

[1:24:36] have you have to go to the kiosk, buy a

[1:24:37] pass to get in, get banded to come in

[1:24:39] the pool. The startup costs are

[1:24:42] tremendous. By the time we buy the

[1:24:43] kiosk, we do the the cost for processing

[1:24:46] and everything else, maintenance costs,

[1:24:48] everything else to get the kiosk. So,

[1:24:49] it's kind of kind of if we don't we're

[1:24:51] not sure how much revenue we're actually

[1:24:53] going to generate, how many non

[1:24:54] residents we're going to get. And then

[1:24:56] we talked about having somebody there to

[1:24:58] collect the money. We we could have

[1:24:59] somebody there collect the money and

[1:25:00] then we have to bring a supervisor in

[1:25:02] overtime. So we close out at the night.

[1:25:05] The numbers match the the bank book is

[1:25:07] put together. That has to be done every

[1:25:09] night of the pool. So we're going to pay

[1:25:10] somebody time and a half 4 hours a night

[1:25:12] to come and collect that money. And

[1:25:14] Sunday double time 4 hours to close

[1:25:16] because the pool is open way after hours

[1:25:17] are the building's closed. Everybody's

[1:25:19] done. Oh. So

[1:25:21] because well if we're

[1:25:23] basing the pool rules based off the

[1:25:26] feedback that we got from the boys and

[1:25:27] girls but those are the numbers that are

[1:25:30] we're building our rationale around

[1:25:32] then if if that holds to be true um then

[1:25:37] it seems like there might be a a large a

[1:25:40] large enough uh margin um in order to

[1:25:43] justify doing it. But to President

[1:25:45] Portfield's point if it's based on

[1:25:48] number one that the data that we have

[1:25:51] collected hasn't been um as uh accurate

[1:25:55] as we'd like it to be or as specific as

[1:25:56] we'd like it to be and or it being kind

[1:25:59] of the novelty the new thing that's

[1:26:01] happening. Um so maybe and I I would

[1:26:05] just suggest this anyway is that we

[1:26:07] allow ourselves

[1:26:09] to know that we you know we could be a

[1:26:11] little more responsive to the needs of

[1:26:13] the community once we get information.

[1:26:15] So like if like if this information if

[1:26:16] we're saying hey we find out that there

[1:26:18] is a huge amount of people coming in

[1:26:20] then we're like we need to do something

[1:26:21] about this. If not then we don't. Um so

[1:26:24] I I would just caution us to not be

[1:26:27] overly committed to what um whatever

[1:26:30] thing we come up with now. Um yes I'd

[1:26:32] like to say that um one of the things

[1:26:34] that we've talked about is that we will

[1:26:37] re-evaluate this uh following the

[1:26:39] season. I think um we definitely talked

[1:26:42] about the fact that um you know we want

[1:26:44] to have some good data to make

[1:26:46] decisions. Um so we will have to look at

[1:26:48] this you know after I think this is

[1:26:50] going to be an interesting season. We

[1:26:52] had met with Boys and Girls Club today

[1:26:54] and we talked about maybe establishing a

[1:26:56] different way why they can collect a

[1:26:57] little more different data so it's a

[1:26:58] little more accurate what we're getting

[1:27:00] in you know and if we met in a policy to

[1:27:02] let one adult one-on-one adults in we'll

[1:27:04] have some more data we can come back

[1:27:05] next year and say okay this is what we

[1:27:07] determined that we got this is what we can anticipate and revenue coming

[1:27:11] back to us

[1:27:13] Mr. Williams. Uh, I'd say definitely I'm

[1:27:16] on board with having a yearly or annual

[1:27:18] review of these types of policies. I am

[1:27:20] not in agreement with charging our city

[1:27:24] residents in any regard to this. And I

[1:27:26] think there's also consideration to

[1:27:28] either increase that additional guest

[1:27:31] age. Um, what we don't want to happen is

[1:27:34] splitting up friend loops. um because I

[1:27:36] think we want to drive our youth or

[1:27:39] engagement to these types of uh approved

[1:27:41] activities because I don't know if

[1:27:43] anyone's noticed the bikes are out again

[1:27:45] and I think we are going to be presented

[1:27:47] with a different issue of how do we

[1:27:50] guide our youth to these approved

[1:27:52] activities. Um, but for the only reason

[1:27:55] of we put a little under 20% of our ARVA

[1:28:00] eligible ARA funding to this project, I

[1:28:02] think that buys a few years of good

[1:28:04] grease to the residents of our city with

[1:28:06] respect to any potential charges. Um,

[1:28:09] but sincerely, we heard about all the

[1:28:11] positive impacts from Central Park. I

[1:28:13] would not want to put in place any

[1:28:14] barriers if just referencing my

[1:28:16] upbringing, we did not have a lot. And

[1:28:18] like I stated before, this economic

[1:28:20] climate, regardless of who's at the

[1:28:22] presidency, is requiring a lot of people

[1:28:25] to start evaluating how you're spending

[1:28:26] dollars. And that's regardless of how

[1:28:28] old you are.

[1:28:31] Okay.

[1:28:34] So, um other questions, but um I guess

[1:28:38] did you want to try to um vote on this

[1:28:41] tonight or um wait let people um well I

[1:28:45] mean it was sent out ahead of time u for

[1:28:47] folks to review. But um and you have a

[1:28:50] question. I'm sorry. It's okay. I just

[1:28:51] want to be clear. We're only building on

[1:28:53] the pool policy. The pool rules is very

[1:28:55] separate and need to be done. Yes. by a

[1:28:58] park throughout. That's absolutely

[1:29:00] right. That was um our corporation

[1:29:01] council um did I'm sorry. What's that?

[1:29:05] the that the city council would be

[1:29:07] responsible for the pool policy, but the

[1:29:09] pool rules um are something that the

[1:29:12] staff would decide with our giving us a

[1:29:15] chance to take a look at. Right. The

[1:29:16] city code is is very clear that the

[1:29:19] superintendent of parks does the pool

[1:29:21] rules.

[1:29:23] You can do a resolution endorsing those

[1:29:26] the rules as issued by the park

[1:29:28] commissioner. You can do a resolution

[1:29:29] that would review it and endorse it to

[1:29:32] that. But the the authority to issue

[1:29:34] rules regarding the pool is the parks

[1:29:36] commissioner's authority and but how and

[1:29:39] if you were to charge a fee then that's

[1:29:41] comes within the council's perview

[1:29:43] because then that's that's financing.

[1:29:45] But as far as the issuing rules, the

[1:29:47] chart I mean the code says he's reissues

[1:29:51] the rules, but you can certainly do a

[1:29:52] resolution endorsing those rules if you

[1:29:55] wish. Okay, Mr. Mer. Yeah. Under on proof of residency

[1:30:01] summary residents, anyone over 10 years

[1:30:04] older must provide a skinnity city

[1:30:08] school district for

[1:30:09] joining. We need we need a class. anyone

[1:30:12] over 10 years is are we talking about

[1:30:17] um and you're asking for school ID so

[1:30:20] there should be a cut off in age up to

[1:30:22] 18

[1:30:24] will you cut it off at 18 kind of open

[1:30:27] end here it's right cut off at 18 for

[1:30:29] school IDs and after 18 you have to

[1:30:30] produce a driver's license so you would

[1:30:35] have to change you might want to change

[1:30:36] this anyone over must provide you have

[1:30:39] to um or between the ages Basically

[1:30:42] between the age of yeah between the ages

[1:30:44] of 10 and 18 years old you must provide

[1:30:46] school ID over 18 we could kick you back

[1:30:48] to the current regular regular social

[1:30:50] ID. Okay. Yes. Is that school age

[1:30:55] individual school age?

[1:31:02] So, anyone anyone between the

[1:31:06] ages of 10 to 18 must provide a sketchy

[1:31:10] city school district photo

[1:31:12] ID school age?

[1:31:15] Well, the question is what about

[1:31:17] students who like go to charter schools

[1:31:18] or some of the private schools or things

[1:31:20] like that? So, that's so I

[1:31:25] cuz they they're not issued school

[1:31:27] district. did not that was not brought

[1:31:31] up when we had the other meetings. Yeah.

[1:31:33] Any school age because of LA won't have

[1:31:35] a city school district.

[1:31:38] So do they does for example do they have

[1:31:41] a school ID? No.

[1:31:45] Okay. So we'll have to we are going to

[1:31:46] have to go back to the drawing board a

[1:31:48] little bit on that one then I guess. Not

[1:31:50] too much. We need to broaden this

[1:31:53] one to

[1:31:55] bullet. Yeah.

[1:31:58] And again, I think I mean, we we had

[1:32:00] talked about them coming here to get an

[1:32:03] ID um was something else that had

[1:32:06] brought you brought up at I guess two

[1:32:08] meetings ago of health and recreation.

[1:32:14] Mr. No worries. So, I was thinking like

[1:32:17] and also like having the Boys and Girls

[1:32:20] Club as partners in this is a really

[1:32:23] positive thing and I think that they

[1:32:25] know a lot of our our students and our

[1:32:27] kids that are in the community that

[1:32:29] don't necessarily attend Sket City

[1:32:31] School District. So, I think

[1:32:33] maybe if we wanted to like move

[1:32:35] something out tonight, not saying that

[1:32:37] we need to do that, but if we're looking

[1:32:39] to do that, then maybe um adding some

[1:32:42] language that would give some difference

[1:32:43] to them. Um would be I I I think I'd be

[1:32:49] I think that would be okay. I think that could

[1:32:53] allow make it a little more broad. Um

[1:32:55] but if it's something that, you know, we

[1:32:57] want to just bring back and just

[1:33:01] as we brainstorm to come up with another

[1:33:03] form of ID that'd be okay too. I just

[1:33:06] once we put it in the policy then it is

[1:33:08] the policy. So it's almost one of those

[1:33:09] things that we want to have more more

[1:33:12] discretion of our partners

[1:33:14] on board. Um first I appreciate all the

[1:33:17] work and effort that you've put into

[1:33:18] this. Um I do think that we need to like

[1:33:21] try to hammer down or when I say we I

[1:33:23] mean I definitely mean the health and

[1:33:25] recreation committee and I appreciate

[1:33:27] you calling the meetings. Um my

[1:33:29] suggestion is that there with all the

[1:33:31] input that you've received today that we

[1:33:32] just have that one final meeting and ask

[1:33:34] that all I'm going to look at the

[1:33:35] ceiling that all committee members um be

[1:33:38] able to attend and also the boys and

[1:33:40] girls along with our uh the um our parks

[1:33:44] director so that we can hammer it down

[1:33:46] the time is it's April. Yes. And uh so

[1:33:49] we're getting close and we really need

[1:33:50] to get this moved out and so that people

[1:33:53] understand and know and get can get

[1:33:55] prepared and get their ID and everything

[1:33:57] that they need in order to um go by the

[1:33:59] policy rules. So I don't I mean it's up

[1:34:02] to you if you want to try to to

[1:34:05] we'll have another health and recreation

[1:34:06] committee meeting. Um we we'll have to I

[1:34:08] mean I guess to unless you feel

[1:34:10] differently do we need to I mean could

[1:34:12] we just come up with something tonight?

[1:34:14] I mean we've heard a lot of different

[1:34:15] that was the suggestion of the

[1:34:16] corporation. Absolutely. I mean, I do

[1:34:18] want to point out also that all the

[1:34:20] staff showed up as well to the meeting

[1:34:22] last week. So, well, I said you I had

[1:34:24] something else going on, but anyway, it

[1:34:26] doesn't matter. What I'm saying is all

[1:34:27] school age children need some sort of

[1:34:29] ID. If schools don't have that um to

[1:34:32] give to a child, whether they're

[1:34:34] homeschooled, um charter school, charter

[1:34:37] school, Catholic schools, it doesn't

[1:34:39] matter. But if they don't have a student

[1:34:41] ID um then perhaps a note from a parent

[1:34:46] um a note from the school that the child

[1:34:48] can carry with them um without a photo

[1:34:52] attached. I mean it's it's kind of

[1:34:53] simple. There's no matter if we have a

[1:34:55] special meeting or not, we're not going

[1:34:57] to be able to figure that out for

[1:34:59] children who don't have it. So at so not

[1:35:03] this last meeting but the previous

[1:35:05] meeting um is where I brought raised the

[1:35:07] issue around like what about our

[1:35:08] students that go to charter schools and

[1:35:11] my thought then and my thought still is

[1:35:13] that's something that if we give a level

[1:35:15] of difference to our again the whole

[1:35:17] point of having the boys and girls club

[1:35:19] doing this is cuz they have a unique

[1:35:22] yeah they have a unique understanding of

[1:35:24] the community and they have systems in

[1:35:26] places. So, and a lot of the students

[1:35:28] that that don't go to maybe they don't

[1:35:31] go to Skynet City School District, but

[1:35:33] they're a member of the Boys and Girls

[1:35:34] Club, right? Then they have a

[1:35:35] application that has a lot of

[1:35:37] information there. So, I think that the

[1:35:38] way to handle that would be move with

[1:35:41] what we have, but just maybe make a

[1:35:43] amendment to give that um and

[1:35:45] corporation council could help us up

[1:35:46] with the language on that that gives a

[1:35:48] level of difference to our community

[1:35:49] partner. Yeah, Mr. Toro. Um, and I don't

[1:35:54] know how we could reference it in there,

[1:35:55] but the sheriff's department also gives

[1:35:57] IDs. Um, right, fingerprints and IDs.

[1:36:01] Somehow we can reference that in there.

[1:36:03] Um, for school age children who don't

[1:36:06] attend a city school,

[1:36:10] Miss Porterfield, Miss Porterfield,

[1:36:12] sorry, that I think that's a really good

[1:36:14] suggestion. And again, I think it's I

[1:36:16] still think we need to like bring it all

[1:36:18] in and have it like concise. Um and I

[1:36:21] also skinnity county the job um training

[1:36:23] agency does IDs they you know for for

[1:36:27] summer youth program. So can we since we

[1:36:30] have these partners who already do these

[1:36:31] things make sure that we get our

[1:36:33] partners on board to make and like if

[1:36:34] you have a child that doesn't go to a

[1:36:36] school where they give an ID you could

[1:36:38] take your child to this place or that

[1:36:39] place. So I think that we need to like

[1:36:42] um like determine that get our partners

[1:36:44] on board with it as we move forward with

[1:36:46] that. That's that's my suggestion. Well,

[1:36:48] the Boys and Girls Club would be the

[1:36:50] best. Um, because you know, uh, Bill's

[1:36:53] been working really closely with Julie

[1:36:54] who oversees this program for us. Uh, in

[1:36:58] the summer, we could actually reach out

[1:37:00] maybe to the charter schools and inform

[1:37:02] what agencies where they could get an ID

[1:37:03] before we get going on the season. If

[1:37:05] you would like to use our pool, we must

[1:37:07] contact this agency to get an ID to come

[1:37:09] to the pool this summer. Yeah. And we

[1:37:11] charge the dasis. I I think we're

[1:37:14] overthinking that. I think we have I we

[1:37:17] just have language in there that says

[1:37:19] these are these are all acceptable forms

[1:37:21] of ID but not limited to and then give

[1:37:24] the Boys and Girls Club the difference

[1:37:26] to say okay Jimmy you go to this charter

[1:37:30] school. I know that cuz you're a club

[1:37:32] member come on in you. If we give them

[1:37:34] that difference then we don't have to

[1:37:35] try to figure out all the intricate

[1:37:38] pieces that we're not going to be able

[1:37:39] to figure out anyway. I think we leaving

[1:37:41] it with enough

[1:37:43] uh enough space for boys and boys and

[1:37:46] girls to do what they're experts at

[1:37:48] doing. Then we move it out and we're

[1:37:49] good. Okay.

[1:37:53] Mr. I was going to recommend that um if

[1:37:56] they don't have an ID, why don't we put

[1:37:58] the language in there in terms of like a

[1:38:00] male with that child name? We can

[1:38:03] substitute that also. So a proof of

[1:38:05] residency. So here is a male. Well, how

[1:38:07] do we know that you're male? Yeah.

[1:38:10] We only had that one. So we wanted to

[1:38:11] say we can bring a utility

[1:38:14] bill in. I mean like some medical no you

[1:38:17] know insurance card some sort of things

[1:38:20] like that can be substituted

[1:38:23] insurance card or or just to you know

[1:38:26] just as I stated earlier the

[1:38:30] superintendent has the authority already

[1:38:32] and just blank language as such other ID

[1:38:37] that the superintendent parts deems

[1:38:39] suitable

[1:38:42] and then we just write that into this

[1:38:43] policy.

[1:38:45] Okay. So, we'll get something from you

[1:38:47] if that's okay. You and I can we'll sit

[1:38:49] down. That way the superintendent of

[1:38:51] course can work with the corporation

[1:38:53] council's office as to that would be

[1:38:55] great cuz that was I mean you know the

[1:38:57] language as you see here I did um run it

[1:39:00] through the corporation council's office

[1:39:02] um for tonight too. So um that would be

[1:39:05] great and we can talk as well. But

[1:39:09] so are we bringing back this back in two

[1:39:11] weeks? Is that what you're saying? Um, I

[1:39:13] think that sounds like we're going to

[1:39:15] have to bring it back in two weeks. Um,

[1:39:17] that still gives us time. Remember, we

[1:39:18] did start in the fall, uh, knowing that

[1:39:21] we wanted to make sure that this was

[1:39:23] going to be in place before the pool

[1:39:24] opens.

[1:39:26] So, Mr. Mayor, why why why hold it for

[1:39:29] two weeks? I think you have the language

[1:39:31] already that you wanted to put in this

[1:39:34] area. So, just amend it as is with the

[1:39:36] language and move it forward. Amend it.

[1:39:39] Well, we'll amend that one bullet in

[1:39:41] terms of between the ages of 10 and 18.

[1:39:44] Um, and then we will have to future

[1:39:46] amend it though when we um

[1:39:49] in terms of the other acceptable forms

[1:39:51] of

[1:39:52] ID put that into the rules instead of the policy. The ideal

[1:39:59] ID is a New York State driver's license.

[1:40:03] Really kids as early as 16 can start to

[1:40:06] get a driver's license. you know, it's

[1:40:09] by 18 a higher percentage have it. So,

[1:40:11] it's

[1:40:14] the folk group that I think Yeah, I

[1:40:17] think our focus is more on the younger

[1:40:19] ones and how they get it. So, and so

[1:40:22] some are going to have school IDs or

[1:40:24] they're going to be with an adult.

[1:40:26] They're that young. They're not just

[1:40:28] coming over to the pool by themselves.

[1:40:30] So, we're not going to let them in.

[1:40:32] That's true. So, that's true. I

[1:40:33] recommend you just I'm not a committee

[1:40:35] but I just my recommendation to move

[1:40:36] forward what it to discuss and move

[1:40:38] forward for two weeks you get to work

[1:40:40] hard on this back and forth for several

[1:40:42] meetings why another meeting when it's

[1:40:44] only a small amount of um language that

[1:40:47] needs to be added okay so with the I was

[1:40:50] going to ask for a motion so

[1:40:52] Mur second no I just have a question so

[1:40:55] we're going to see the language

[1:40:56] completed before um before we actually

[1:40:58] Yes. Okay, that's my question. And and

[1:41:01] just to the other point, some uh I heard

[1:41:03] it said that, you know, there it's going

[1:41:05] to not be younger kids. According to

[1:41:07] this pool policy, there are anybody

[1:41:09] that's 10 or over can come with 90. So,

[1:41:12] it is going to be some 10 year olds or

[1:41:13] 12 year olds or whatever who are coming

[1:41:16] and they need to come with something and

[1:41:19] not most of those we're assuming

[1:41:21] connected to school district kids that

[1:41:22] we already know is in their system.

[1:41:25] To Mr. Froley's point, the charter

[1:41:27] schools didn't think about that. We have

[1:41:29] other school kids that are not in the

[1:41:30] school system here that might show up at

[1:41:32] the pool. Yeah. How about for uh

[1:41:34] Catholic schools? Do they same thing? Um

[1:41:38] just Catholic schools. All right. So,

[1:41:41] Miss Duro moved it. Can I get a second?

[1:41:44] Sure. And we're seconding it with the

[1:41:46] language to say that the age requirement

[1:41:49] we're going to craft the age requirement

[1:41:51] and then it's going to also include the

[1:41:53] fact that these are accepted uh forms of

[1:41:57] ID but not limited to or and

[1:42:01] or the oneonone with adult is allowed on

[1:42:05] adult guest. Okay. Yes. So that would

[1:42:08] have to be part of the acceptable forms

[1:42:10] of ID will put into rules. Okay. Okay.

[1:42:13] So all in favor I miss Petro. Okay. All right. So

[1:42:22] there's nothing further to come. Thank

[1:42:24] you very much. There's nothing further

[1:42:26] to come before health and recreation. Um

[1:42:29] motion to second. Okay. All in favor? I thank you very much. That was nice.

[1:42:37] Okay. Call to order finance. The first

[1:42:39] item is update purchasing policy.

[1:42:48] [Music]

[1:42:51] Hi. Cool. Good

[1:42:53] evening. So, a little background. The uh

[1:42:57] purchasing policy expired um December

[1:42:59] 31st of 2024. Uh we're looking to update

[1:43:03] the purchasing policy for a 2-year deal.

[1:43:07] um the evaluation analysis of the

[1:43:09] updated sections. There's three sections

[1:43:11] that have updated the determination of

[1:43:13] need for competitive bidding purchasing

[1:43:15] requirements procedures for the overall

[1:43:18] purchases. Um so I recommend the city

[1:43:20] council approved the 20 25 to 26

[1:43:23] purchasing policy there questions. Is

[1:43:26] there a copy of that?

[1:43:30] Yeah. It should be in it in your box a

[1:43:33] separate separate document.

[1:43:37] purchases

[1:43:45] yesterday. You

[1:43:49] have

[1:43:51] one box, right? I have

[1:43:57] one

[1:43:59] box in the content.

[1:44:03] They should be they should be printed

[1:44:04] this month. I'm just going to go grab

[1:44:21] it. Would you

[1:44:29] say anything?

[1:44:33] There's nothing that has been uh taken

[1:44:37] out. So everything highlighted in

[1:44:43] yellow. Okay.

[1:45:07] No, it's not.

[1:45:17] You're searching every single page.

[1:45:34] This is

[1:45:37] [Music]

[1:45:49] not the

[1:45:55] They're

[1:45:57] not they're not there's like a lot of

[1:46:00] kids

[1:46:01] living and they all cherish schools in

[1:46:04] Albany.

[1:46:06] Sure. Yes.

[1:46:08] Troy Gabby's boyfriend's kids go there.

[1:46:13] All right. Again, I think

[1:46:28] That's how much you probably

[1:46:47] Joe, is that your handwriting? Yeah,

[1:46:49] that's my

[1:46:51] notes. This is a code. No one else

[1:46:56] can. Only I can decipher this.

[1:47:01] What? Sorry.

[1:47:33] Oh, magnetic stuff. My wrist

[1:47:47] stuff. Heat. Heat.

[1:47:50] [Music]

[1:48:00] It's

[1:48:08] just glam.

[1:48:46] Don't you see this right now?

[1:49:03] We just got

[1:49:05] these today.

[1:49:14] Thank you. Does everyone have a copy

[1:49:17] now? I

[1:49:19] don't have mirror, huh? Yes, I do. I

[1:49:24] have coverage here. Okay.

[1:49:32] So, this this document came this this evening um to the council. So, we

[1:49:38] didn't get a chance to to review these

[1:49:40] documents,

[1:49:42] early afternoon. Um the majority of the

[1:49:45] policy is the same as previous years.

[1:49:48] There's just three sections within the

[1:49:51] document that updated. Um one is the

[1:49:55] back language that allows the

[1:49:56] municipalities

[1:49:58] um to leverage the existing contracts

[1:50:01] that the city has. Um and I just want to

[1:50:04] say too we had Ron Gardner um our

[1:50:08] corporation council assistant

[1:50:09] corporation council and Sarah used the

[1:50:12] supervisor these documents and uh

[1:50:14] everyone approved the updated changes.

[1:50:19] So is that the changes you just

[1:50:21] highlighted there or can you walk us

[1:50:23] through the changes?

[1:50:25] So yep on page three is the piggyback

[1:50:29] language. Uh currently the city is able

[1:50:32] to piggy back on other municipalities.

[1:50:34] It just gives opportunity other

[1:50:35] municipalities to piggy back on our

[1:50:43] contracts. Um so if we have a contract

[1:50:46] out there say for example this vehicle

[1:50:49] the specs if it meets their specs and

[1:50:51] their guidelines they can go up our

[1:50:53] contract without pushing something new

[1:50:54] out.

[1:51:02] Sometimes the county

[1:51:06] pays

[1:51:08] for

[1:51:09] whatever. So it's just applicable to the

[1:51:12] city or if you're doing other similar

[1:51:15] work that makes sense. Uh the next

[1:51:18] section on page six is regards

[1:51:22] MWD. Again, Ron Gardner from the ration

[1:51:26] officer review this and it's okay with

[1:51:29] the updates.

[1:51:34] Yeah. Go ahead, please. Yeah. And Mr.

[1:51:36] Chairman, this language that you see

[1:51:38] highlighted in that portion is taken

[1:51:40] from county uh purchasing policy which

[1:51:43] references the federal regulations and

[1:51:45] the regular and as well as the contract

[1:51:48] system and the uh the listings in which

[1:51:51] the uh purchases uh and approved uh

[1:51:55] vendors come from. So this is mirroring

[1:51:57] their language um regarding what they

[1:52:00] use and I think it's sufficient to

[1:52:02] comply with state federal

[1:52:07] regulations. Go ahead. Uh correct me if

[1:52:11] I'm wrong. I believe Mr. Gardner was

[1:52:12] last year you talked about including

[1:52:14] like an index or a column that

[1:52:16] essentially gave a grade to bids. Is

[1:52:19] that applicable to this or am I

[1:52:22] misunderstanding what this is? I'm

[1:52:24] sorry. you gave a grade. Uh so when he

[1:52:27] previously was here, he talked about if

[1:52:29] we were able to identify a score with

[1:52:31] respect to uh

[1:52:33] bears meeting the NWB requirements or

[1:52:37] expectations. That's just an additional

[1:52:39] way to just capture that comparatively

[1:52:42] to all other

[1:52:46] bits. This is these are the approved

[1:52:48] vendors from the state. So I know that

[1:52:51] Mr. garden did look at this piece and he

[1:52:53] was okay with this language.

[1:53:03] So just glad you brought it up because

[1:53:05] um Mr. Gardner had also mentioned um

[1:53:07] popping it up from $300,000 to $500,000

[1:53:10] when you did the presentation to us a

[1:53:13] few weeks ago. So I'm still seeing here

[1:53:16] on page five section three is 300,000.

[1:53:20] He asked for us to consider raising up

[1:53:22] to

[1:53:24] $500,000. And then under section four, I

[1:53:28] came back in couple years ago, we had

[1:53:30] changed the word goals requirement. So

[1:53:34] I'm not sure why again he reviewed the

[1:53:37] document

[1:53:38] um but two weeks, three weeks ago now um

[1:53:42] and was okay with all the language um so

[1:53:44] he didn't mention any of that tonight.

[1:53:46] Yeah, cuz we had changed it back and not

[1:53:48] using the the word go because it's kind

[1:53:51] of like soft language requirement more

[1:53:55] and we had adopted that a couple years

[1:53:57] ago. So I would like to see that those

[1:54:00] I'm not aware of that. Yes, this

[1:54:03] policies Mr.

[1:54:05] Chairman goals are current.

[1:54:10] unhighlight is what's in the current

[1:54:12] policy. Correct. Correct. And the

[1:54:14] current policy speaks to those.

[1:54:18] Yes.

[1:54:20] Well, I think there were some there were

[1:54:22] some other documents that highlight that

[1:54:24] when we were approving this a few years

[1:54:26] ago.

[1:54:33] Isn't it in number three?

[1:54:37] Oh, that's where he wanted to make it.

[1:54:39] Yeah, that's where he asked that we

[1:54:41] should consider upping it to 500,000.

[1:55:00] and I would like to see that we consider

[1:55:02] since we have this document here section

[1:55:03] 4 we replace the word

[1:55:09] requirement Mr. Yeah. Um,

[1:55:13] so I'm not sure. Um, I know that we just

[1:55:16] received this today. Is this something

[1:55:18] that maybe we can bring back and give us

[1:55:22] opportunities? Yeah, thank you. That was

[1:55:24] one of the reason why I asked that we

[1:55:25] only got this document uh, you

[1:55:28] know, midafter afternoon, late

[1:55:30] afternoon, doesn't matter. We should

[1:55:32] have got it over the weekend and we

[1:55:33] could have review it and come up with

[1:55:34] our recommendation. So I don't have a

[1:55:36] problem because two weeks and come back

[1:55:38] with it and come up with all this

[1:55:40] petition because right now we're just

[1:55:42] we're running here trying to piece it

[1:55:44] together

[1:55:45] here and I just want us to incorporate

[1:55:48] what Mr. Gardner told us few weeks ago

[1:55:51] what is recommendation that you want to

[1:55:53] see in the policy. So I think that needs

[1:55:56] to be considered we could ask the

[1:56:00] Again I want to say that Ron Gardner was

[1:56:03] involved in this process. We had a

[1:56:04] meeting with him. He was okay with all

[1:56:06] the language within this document.

[1:56:13] Mr. He's okay with with the 300,000, but

[1:56:16] then he asked us a few weeks ago for

[1:56:18] 500,000. So, I'm kind of like where he

[1:56:22] stands. He's presenting a document to us

[1:56:24] asking us for 500,000. I hear we have

[1:56:27] 300,000. We could provide emails saying

[1:56:30] he's perfectly okay with this language.

[1:56:32] Well, I

[1:56:39] could I was just saying just

[1:56:42] so please.

[1:56:44] So, I was going to say just that we

[1:56:46] would I would like to see in writing

[1:56:48] that I don't believe you, but um that

[1:56:50] you know where Mr. Garin was with this

[1:56:51] and also have him present because I'm not clear on why he said 500,000 a

[1:56:55] few a couple weeks ago and now um it's

[1:56:58] the beginning of this. If something's

[1:56:59] changed, that's fine. However, I just

[1:57:01] would like a little bit more clarity and

[1:57:03] um I also have to agree that I would

[1:57:06] like a little bit more time than I

[1:57:07] didn't have time today to really go

[1:57:09] through it. I do appreciate you coming

[1:57:12] and with

[1:57:24] us just waiting to see where you are

[1:57:26] with this. Any other question regarding

[1:57:28] this? I'm recommending that we hold this

[1:57:29] for 2 weeks. I I I can't in the f do

[1:57:33] this because I I have some changes that

[1:57:35] I would like to review this and to make

[1:57:38] recommendation and to also look at um

[1:57:41] Mr. Gard document that he presented to

[1:57:43] us and if he is okay with 300,000 we

[1:57:46] just need to to get that

[1:57:50] information.

[1:57:54] So I'm in agreement. I remember the

[1:57:57] extended conversation we had about

[1:57:58] including that additional column that I

[1:58:00] was looking forward to. So to hear that wasn't included for whatever

[1:58:03] reason. I would appreciate hearing that

[1:58:05] from Mr. Gardner and no slight to you.

[1:58:08] Um but I was sincerely just it was a few

[1:58:12] minutes him back and forth with Mr.

[1:58:14] poorly and I'm happy to agree with

[1:58:16] wanting to see that or him applying just

[1:58:19] a gradient to understand how intentional

[1:58:22] companies were being at adhering to

[1:58:24] these expectations.

[1:58:26] I agree. All right. So, we'll have us

[1:58:29] back in two

[1:58:30] weeks. The next item we'll just have you

[1:58:32] there is a 2025 budget reappropriation.

[1:58:38] Okay. Um the city council uh just a

[1:58:41] little accessory city council authorized

[1:58:43] resolution uh

[1:58:46] 2023195 and lease agreement purchase the

[1:58:48] bleach into October

[1:58:51] 2023. Um we have not received the trucks

[1:58:55] as of yet but we anticipate uh an aerial

[1:58:59] by the end of 2025 and the pumpers two

[1:59:01] pumpers by early 2026.

[1:59:04] uh we did not appropriate the funds for

[1:59:07] 2025. Uh so it's not within the budget

[1:59:10] adopted budget. So we have to

[1:59:11] appropriate approximately

[1:59:14] $621,700 to pay for two payments. One in

[1:59:18] April, end of April and the other in

[1:59:20] October of 2025. As you can see in the

[1:59:23] evaluation analysis in your legislative

[1:59:25] request, you can see uh the budget

[1:59:27] reappropriation. Um it is re recommended

[1:59:30] the city council approve this

[1:59:32] reappropriation.

[1:59:35] This is all the payments for correct.

[1:59:38] There's I believe I also sent the lease

[1:59:42] agreement to the city council with the

[1:59:44] payment schedule. Yes. So there are 10

[1:59:49] payments 11 payments. Uh so 10 payments

[1:59:52] of 310 850 and 7 cents and then there's

[1:59:55] one balloon pay balloon payment of 1

[1:59:57] million. um 100,000 approximately. So

[2:00:01] with that said, this going to cause an

[2:00:03] increase to our 2025 budget by

[2:00:12] 621,7 questions, please. So you said

[2:00:15] that we um I see because I looked at the

[2:00:18] uh the lease agreement

[2:00:20] um and on on exhibit C there is a number

[2:00:24] four that said they would require will

[2:00:26] be acquired with due diligence and be

[2:00:28] fully acquired on it before and then it

[2:00:30] says November and nothing more. So we

[2:00:31] don't know what would follow that. Um so

[2:00:35] you said we should have one by the end

[2:00:36] of this year and then by next year.

[2:00:39] Correct. Do we have any specific dates?

[2:00:41] Two by next year. Two by next year. Um

[2:00:46] because I don't see I I've tried to read

[2:00:49] uh I read through this extensively and I

[2:00:52] don't see anywhere where it gives us an

[2:00:54] option and out that says if they don't

[2:00:55] deliver by a certain time that we still

[2:00:58] get to go these terms and I know the

[2:01:00] reason that that we went with this was

[2:01:02] so that we would save money. Yes. So we

[2:01:04] went through an escro discount

[2:01:07] agreement. Um so we're approximately

[2:01:09] saving $10,000 per payment. Um uh that's

[2:01:13] based on the interest acred. Um so this

[2:01:17] process we've been doing it about

[2:01:18] approximately 20 years now. Um so it's

[2:01:21] nothing new for the council. Um but is

[2:01:24] the delay usually that's new? Um it

[2:01:26] depends. It depends with the product the

[2:01:29] uh parts. Um that's a question mark. So

[2:01:33] it's usually uh a year and a half to two

[2:01:35] years uh we obtain these vehicles. But

[2:01:39] do we generally start our lease payment

[2:01:40] before the two vehicles are received?

[2:01:43] Yes. I I looked at the last time we did

[2:01:46] this lease agreement lease agreement and

[2:01:48] we did. Um good news is that um we keep

[2:01:52] and hold on to these trucks until we

[2:01:54] receive the new trucks. Uh so I believe

[2:01:57] we're done paying the current lease for

[2:02:00] the past trucks. So there's no payment

[2:02:02] uh no harm financially to the city until

[2:02:04] we receive the new trucks.

[2:02:08] Any other questions? I'll move it.

[2:02:11] Second. All in favor? I the next item is agreement between

[2:02:16] city of connectity and IU all the local

[2:02:20] 158 operating engineers.

[2:02:25] [Applause]

[2:02:27] So, the city and the local 150 operating

[2:02:31] engineers uh recently just um negotiated

[2:02:34] and came to an agreement that we're

[2:02:37] hoping that the city council

[2:02:39] authorizes. Um I believe I attached the

[2:02:42] MOA for the council's review. Uh just a

[2:02:46] side

[2:02:48] note, the final cost

[2:02:53] um for the retro to 2027 is

[2:02:58] approximately

[2:03:00] $168,000 that'll be increase in our

[2:03:06] budget. That's over the 3year period.

[2:03:09] Oh, so a total of sorry total of

[2:03:14] $45,817 will increase our budget for

[2:03:20] 2025 this year. So from our adopted

[2:03:25] budget and to this increase would be

[2:03:32] 45,3720

[2:03:35] increase

[2:03:39] questions seeing may I have a motion to

[2:03:41] move this item forward. Move second. All

[2:03:43] in favor? I I The next item is the

[2:03:47] increase of the sky municipal golf

[2:03:49] course force rates.

[2:03:52] Um so this actually went through

[2:03:55] committee um last cycle uh but there was

[2:03:59] just a clerical error and uh it did not

[2:04:03] make it onto the agenda of

[2:04:05] the council. So, we're just uh

[2:04:09] recommending that the committee

[2:04:13] uh pass it through again. Does this

[2:04:16] mention clerical error? Clerical error

[2:04:20] cuz yeah, it was supposed to be in the packet last night. Oh, that's

[2:04:24] what we already did. Yeah. Let me just

[2:04:27] go ahead, please. So, um what happened

[2:04:29] was that it did it did make it to the

[2:04:31] council agenda. However, what was sent

[2:04:33] to us to to the clerk's office was the

[2:04:36] same exact document. So, although we

[2:04:38] voted it through, what we had was the

[2:04:40] same exact document that was sent to us

[2:04:42] and was attached. So, um even though we

[2:04:44] voted it through with the name, it was

[2:04:45] not the correct document in the packet.

[2:04:49] So, that's why we have to make sure we

[2:04:51] go through this process and get it um

[2:04:54] make sure we get it and when we get it

[2:04:55] back to the floor that it's the correct

[2:04:57] document in our packet.

[2:05:00] Any other questions? Move it. All in

[2:05:02] favor? I thank you. The next item is

[2:05:07] review certain provisions of chapter 161

[2:05:10] of the United Code entitled garbage,

[2:05:13] rubbish, and refugees. Miss

[2:05:23] your name. Your name. Well, actually, so

[2:05:26] really um really just kind of need a

[2:05:29] level of update um in terms of where we

[2:05:32] are with it. Uh I don't I'm sure that

[2:05:34] everyone's getting questions about where

[2:05:35] we are with the uh roll out the

[2:05:38] stickers, uh what we're going to, you

[2:05:40] know, how we're going to process this

[2:05:41] and just overall and um also there was

[2:05:46] there have been some suggestions and

[2:05:48] maybe we revisit this at this point uh

[2:05:50] in terms of other ways that we could

[2:05:52] handle this. But anyway, where we are

[2:05:54] right now in in terms of the um the

[2:05:57] sticker system, the stickers um in the

[2:05:59] mailer should be out I hope by the end

[2:06:02] of the week, if not early next week.

[2:06:10] Okay.

[2:06:11] Um final version of the actual mailing

[2:06:15] pardon. I'm working on the final version

[2:06:17] of the actual mailing and the stickers

[2:06:19] are available. They've been available in

[2:06:21] the uh bureau receipts. So they are

[2:06:23] there locked in the vault. They have

[2:06:25] sold some stickers. People have come in

[2:06:28] and purchased some stickers. So they are

[2:06:29] there and they are available.

[2:06:33] So how did people end up knowing that um

[2:06:36] they could come to the bureau? Phone

[2:06:37] call. Um it's on the

[2:06:40] website and then the fly the flyer will

[2:06:43] go out. We're still in a soft start. So

[2:06:47] Okay. Um, so what I've been noticing and

[2:06:52] um got a call out on Facebook for it is

[2:06:54] that we're we're seeing people throwing

[2:06:56] mattresses over fences now and and you

[2:06:58] know

[2:07:00] uh so

[2:07:02] um I'm I'm seeing more things alongside

[2:07:05] the road and you know is there any way

[2:07:08] if we're going to be able to address

[2:07:09] that? Let's say there's a mattress

[2:07:11] that's leaning up against a a pole.

[2:07:13] We're just going to grab it and throw it

[2:07:14] in the truck. Yeah. I mean, if there's a

[2:07:16] mattress that somebody just discarded

[2:07:17] like they did in the alleyways, the

[2:07:20] typical dump sites that we've been

[2:07:21] picking up for the last years and years

[2:07:24] jumping in Avenue W Street, there's just

[2:07:26] certain places we just pick up

[2:07:28] constantly. Um, we take a phone call and

[2:07:31] we go pick it up. I mean, that's what we

[2:07:32] can do. Obviously, we don't know who

[2:07:34] dumped it. If there's a camera there,

[2:07:36] um, we'll look at the camera. We'll go

[2:07:38] to the police department. uh if we have

[2:07:41] you know call a plate number um but

[2:07:44] absent you know um a video we go video

[2:07:48] um no different that we have been doing

[2:07:50] for the last been around for a lot of

[2:07:52] years for years um it's unfortunate that

[2:07:54] people will still do that

[2:07:56] but people are still going to speed to

[2:07:58] it that says 25 people are still going

[2:08:01] to do what they want to do so if people

[2:08:04] identify or see something like a metric

[2:08:06] over fence just reach out to the city to

[2:08:09] identify where between PB, the county,

[2:08:11] and Brian Canon, we typically can look

[2:08:13] for video and, you know, we turn it over

[2:08:16] to the police department. They'll do an

[2:08:18] instant report on it and see if they can

[2:08:19] track down who discarded the um the

[2:08:22] waste. But if there's no place, there's

[2:08:24] no camera, like just a camera, just grab

[2:08:26] it and talk it up to nothing we can do.

[2:08:29] Cost of doing business.

[2:08:32] Um, yes. Oh, question.

[2:08:37] So, go ahead, please. Thank you,

[2:08:41] sir. Um, so question. So, I know I think

[2:08:45] this is more towards the towards the

[2:08:47] mayor. I know that we're put you're

[2:08:49] still in the final process of getting

[2:08:52] that mailer together. Um, my question

[2:08:55] is, are we enforcing this now? Cuz I I

[2:09:00] did get a call about someone getting a

[2:09:03] fine. And I guess the question is are we enfor these enforcement now

[2:09:09] before we're mailing out the stickers to

[2:09:11] people?

[2:09:12] What were they fighting for? So So they

[2:09:16] told me it was a there was a a I think

[2:09:20] she said a TV and but it was $75. She

[2:09:24] said that she was fine. So I guess the

[2:09:26] question is are we are we I'm sorry.

[2:09:29] Okay. Sorry. She looked down in here.

[2:09:31] Okay. I thought you were helping maybe

[2:09:33] you got the same call. Um, so I guess

[2:09:36] the question is are we currently

[2:09:38] enforcing

[2:09:40] um the sticker rule without

[2:09:44] it could have been it could have been a

[2:09:46] fine for so Okay. So without the address

[2:09:51] violation I can't sure I'll make sure I

[2:09:53] have reach out to you and look it up. Go

[2:09:56] ahead. Thank you. Um, so I I I think our

[2:09:59] $50 fines for putting your trash out

[2:10:01] early or whatever that that soft start

[2:10:03] is over. Now they're $75. That's the

[2:10:06] administrative fee that was approved by

[2:10:08] the council to go to $75. Thank you.

[2:10:18] Well, we passed the resolution. I think

[2:10:19] we have to code. The code still says 50.

[2:10:23] I'm sorry. I think the code still says

[2:10:26] 50. So we we did Yeah, we didn't we didn't up it to 75. It's still $50 there. So I'm not sure

[2:10:32] why why charging $75.

[2:10:37] Huh? No, we did not. It remains the

[2:10:41] administrative fee remains at the $50.

[2:10:47] So Mr. Party, let's get back to that

[2:10:49] first. Can you get some information

[2:10:50] regarding how we do that?

[2:10:55] I think we did when we were when we were

[2:10:57] reviewing this document. I I don't think

[2:10:59] we touched on the administrative fee

[2:11:02] check through the um police department

[2:11:04] because the administrative fee was I

[2:11:06] think it's

[2:11:07] broad. I

[2:11:10] think that that came through. Yeah. But

[2:11:12] that was code enforcement

[2:11:15] we for violations. I don't know if you know if it's not going to be covered

[2:11:20] under us then we'll let them call me.

[2:11:22] go back to $50. Yeah. No, it's

[2:11:25] $50 on this document here. So, we need

[2:11:28] to either keep it at 50 or we need to

[2:11:31] change

[2:11:33] from page seven. That is

[2:11:36] page of this document here. We back up

[2:11:41] 62 right down to the bottom. Last

[2:11:45] paragraph. Mhm. Yeah. We didn't we

[2:11:47] didn't I can recall vividly that we

[2:11:49] didn't touch on the administrative

[2:11:54] Yes, code enforcement, we did increase

[2:11:55] the $75 administrative fees.

[2:12:13] Any other questions? That was that was

[2:12:15] my um Do you have any more questions?

[2:12:18] No, those those are the questions in in

[2:12:20] the back. Okay. All right. Any other

[2:12:23] business for finance? Thank you. Uh Mr.

[2:12:26] Chairman, uh I have asked that Mr. Gokan

[2:12:29] put in the request for approval tenative

[2:12:32] agreement with CSEA that was dropped

[2:12:34] from the agenda today and CSEA is

[2:12:39] maintaining basis that that should move

[2:12:42] forward.

[2:12:48] Go ahead, please. Go ahead. So, there

[2:12:50] was a between the city um and

[2:12:54] CSEA. However,

[2:12:57] um the was a what they called a typo in

[2:13:01] the MOA and uh that was voted for by the

[2:13:04] entire body, voted by on the voted on by

[2:13:08] the entire body. They realized later

[2:13:11] there was a typo in the MOA and then

[2:13:14] created another MOA which I when I spoke

[2:13:17] to Mr. McCabe that I recommended to him

[2:13:21] that he called it an addendum. Um and

[2:13:24] that was not voted on by the entire

[2:13:26] body. He said he spoke to several people

[2:13:29] about it and everybody was okay with it

[2:13:31] but there was not a meeting called where

[2:13:33] the entire body was voted on it. I spoke

[2:13:36] to Mr. about it. I spoke to Mr. we could

[2:13:39] talk about it and this was on Friday I

[2:13:42] believe and we were both um comfortable

[2:13:45] with the fact that it is being voted on

[2:13:47] by the entire body. I did not feel

[2:13:51] comfortable that something that just

[2:13:52] happened through conversations as

[2:13:54] opposed to the entire membership being

[2:13:56] called and present and to vote on was

[2:13:58] something that the council shouldn't

[2:13:59] move forward on without there being a

[2:14:01] meeting and some written documentation

[2:14:03] of the meeting. So when we had that

[2:14:06] conversation Mr. Gammuck agreed with it,

[2:14:08] Mr. McCabe agreed with it and that's how

[2:14:10] we walked away from it. Um there would

[2:14:12] be some retroactive pay, but delaying

[2:14:15] this call calling for another meeting

[2:14:16] would not change that pay, but it would

[2:14:19] put the council and the um this MOA in the position of having the MOA with

[2:14:25] all the correct information voted on by

[2:14:27] the entire

[2:14:28] body so that there's not an addendum

[2:14:30] that goes with it and it's not done just

[2:14:33] simply by talking to various people and

[2:14:34] saying, you know, no one no one

[2:14:36] disagreed cuz conceivably someone could say that I wasn't consulted on

[2:14:40] this. But if there's a membership

[2:14:42] meeting that does not come into play. So

[2:14:45] you have the email in front of you that

[2:14:47] I did send um that Mr. Book where he he

[2:14:50] sent that and um I again feel strongly

[2:14:54] that we should make it's two weeks and

[2:14:56] that it's it's not going to change the

[2:14:58] amount of money but that we should have

[2:14:59] this done and at the entire membership

[2:15:02] there should be a meeting called and

[2:15:03] this not have be done by conversations

[2:15:05] with various people that that really

[2:15:07] there's no written documentation for.

[2:15:09] Not saying the conversation didn't take

[2:15:11] place. However, say it's cleaner and we

[2:15:14] make sure we have a meeting that's

[2:15:15] called and no member can say if they

[2:15:17] didn't attend the meeting, they didn't

[2:15:18] intend the meeting, but that there was

[2:15:20] not a meeting where they could come and make their voices heard on this. And

[2:15:25] for the record, the um the typo was

[2:15:27] really significant in terms of the

[2:15:29] information that was provided in the

[2:15:30] original MOA and what it was changed to.

[2:15:34] So, ma'am, do we have a draft of the

[2:15:36] MOA? There is no MOA here that I signed.

[2:15:39] So, it's non-existent. CSEA's position

[2:15:41] is we've negotiated a contract, we've

[2:15:44] entered into it, they've approved it,

[2:15:47] and it's now to the city council to

[2:15:50] ratify that and allow me to sign the

[2:15:53] final document.

[2:15:55] But the the document that they sent

[2:15:57] again had that misinformation that they

[2:15:59] wanted to to add an addendum that did

[2:16:02] not was not presented to the entire

[2:16:04] body. So, where is that document? Uh,

[2:16:09] Mr. Ste, unless I sign that, it doesn't

[2:16:13] exist. So, you have

[2:16:16] somebody there was a title in there that

[2:16:19] is not in the budget.

[2:16:21] When you adopt the budget, it says any

[2:16:24] position that's not funded, it's

[2:16:26] abolished, right? So, it's a non-issue.

[2:16:30] And there's also a title in there that

[2:16:32] they incorrectly put in there that we

[2:16:36] can print it out for you. There's

[2:16:36] entitle in there that the information is

[2:16:38] incorrect and then they wanted it re and

[2:16:41] then they wanted to uh do the addendum

[2:16:43] which was done by

[2:16:45] conversations to change that

[2:16:48] title as opposed to being in the

[2:16:50] original MOA that was that the um the

[2:16:53] membership voted on.

[2:16:57] Would that call for a budget

[2:16:58] reappropriation? approval upon adoption

[2:17:01] of the contract by the city council and

[2:17:05] we would go back budget amendment when

[2:17:07] we do the retro any salary adjustments.

[2:17:11] So, Mr. Mr. Moair um and and council

[2:17:15] members, I just wanted to make sure if

[2:17:16] we're changing that and there are going

[2:17:18] to be amendments to addendums amendments

[2:17:20] to the um to the actual MOA that was

[2:17:23] going on by the body that the entire

[2:17:24] body get to vote on it again as opposed

[2:17:26] to any addendum being made by

[2:17:29] conversations. What Mr. McCabe said is

[2:17:31] there were typos and they corrected the

[2:17:34] typos based on this additional um MLA. I

[2:17:38] would just like it's he said it would

[2:17:40] not be a problem. the retroactive money

[2:17:42] still happens for them to bring their

[2:17:45] body together. So, everyone um again

[2:17:47] gets to vote on it as the CSA's position

[2:17:50] is best the council can move

[2:17:55] forward that should be entered into an

[2:17:57] improper

[2:18:00] practice. Okay.

[2:18:03] Could you repeat that please?

[2:18:09] Negotiated a contract. Mhm. It's been

[2:18:12] approved by the membership

[2:18:14] going forward to the council. CSEA's

[2:18:17] position, which I've outlined here, is

[2:18:20] that it should go forward. Choosing not

[2:18:23] to go forward, making references to an

[2:18:26] unsigned MOA. It's on their agreement.

[2:18:28] You're really moving the council into a

[2:18:30] position which could be considered an

[2:18:31] improper practice. So you're suggesting

[2:18:34] that that we make an amendment to what

[2:18:36] they agreed on based on not having

[2:18:38] another meeting because that's what it

[2:18:40] really this has boiled down to. I mean

[2:18:43] Miss M um Mu was there present for the

[2:18:46] conversations and again Mr. Mr. Mugamuk

[2:18:51] that is what we we discussed and you

[2:18:53] were quite comfortable with. I'm not

[2:18:54] sure where this has um has actually as a

[2:18:57] matter of fact there were a lot of he

[2:18:58] had a lot of questions about the MOA and

[2:19:00] the additional

[2:19:01] changes that were not voted on and and

[2:19:05] so you know that's where we are. It's

[2:19:07] not an improper practice but mayor quite

[2:19:10] frankly I'm not comfortable um voting

[2:19:12] something through that the entire body

[2:19:14] didn't get an opportunity to to weigh in

[2:19:16] on. Let's go back one step. Do you have

[2:19:19] a copy of the

[2:19:20] MOA? I have seen it and I've seen the

[2:19:24] amendment as well in the amendment and

[2:19:26] that has my signature on it. Nope.

[2:19:29] There's no

[2:19:30] signature. You can type anything up. You

[2:19:32] can wave it around. You can say whatever

[2:19:34] you want till I sign it and the

[2:19:37] representative of CSEA sign it. It's not

[2:19:39] an agreement. But what he's saying what

[2:19:42] was what he is saying that he being

[2:19:44] Stephen Cape is what was presented is

[2:19:46] incorrect and he needs to make some

[2:19:48] changes need to be made to that. Mr. Mr.

[2:19:50] Book, would you like to speak to

[2:19:52] this? Come on up, please. Please come

[2:19:55] up.

[2:20:04] So, it was under my impression. Um, I

[2:20:07] believe after you spoke with Steve

[2:20:08] McCabe, um, he was not comfortable with

[2:20:12] whatever the language or the case was.

[2:20:15] Um, the agreement needs to change. Um,

[2:20:18] so I after our discussion, um, I said he

[2:20:23] was not comfortable with that and would

[2:20:25] like to take it off the agenda. Um, I I

[2:20:28] said I believe that would be fine. Not

[2:20:31] that he's not comfortable with it, but

[2:20:32] he wanted to make an

[2:20:33] amendment based on and you saw the

[2:20:36] document cuz you sent it to us. You sent

[2:20:37] it today, right? Yes. Yes. And you saw

[2:20:40] the document and it was there was an

[2:20:41] amendment that again did not go through

[2:20:43] a discussion with the whole body. Was it

[2:20:46] document sent to the council or just so

[2:20:48] No, no, because we we decided that we're

[2:20:50] taking it off. So, okay. Yes.

[2:20:53] So, why are I'm sorry I'm Why are we

[2:20:55] talking about this if there's no way?

[2:20:58] Well, CSA is we do have a tenative

[2:21:02] agreement with CSA.

[2:21:06] I'm just like, so can that be shared to

[2:21:09] the entire council? There is a there is

[2:21:11] an agreement which I sent to the city

[2:21:12] council

[2:21:14] this yes today right

[2:21:18] city I sent it last week you lent it

[2:21:20] last week and then Mr. So he sent it he

[2:21:23] sent it last week and then Mr. McCabe

[2:21:25] said there was something wrong with it,

[2:21:27] that it was incorrect. And so then on

[2:21:30] Friday, he brought a document that he

[2:21:32] also called an MA changing the language

[2:21:35] because of the er the clerical errors

[2:21:38] that were made in there. That was

[2:21:39] brought up on

[2:21:41] Friday which he said he brought to the

[2:21:43] mayor and the mayor at that time. I'm

[2:21:45] repeating what Mr. McCabe said, he had

[2:21:47] not seen that before. So again, um to to

[2:21:51] me for and then Mr. McCabe again said

[2:21:53] that they needed to change it but the

[2:21:56] changes had not been voted by um the

[2:21:58] entire body but they had had

[2:22:00] conversations with people and you say

[2:22:02] you send it to the entire council or you

[2:22:04] just send it to the president and the

[2:22:07] miss president. Okay. So it's not the

[2:22:09] council. So you don't you don't

[2:22:11] have to do no because the discussions

[2:22:15] came up and then it was on the agenda so

[2:22:16] it would have gone out and then on

[2:22:18] Friday we had the conversation. So then

[2:22:20] it came off the agenda. I want to make

[2:22:21] that very clear. We did not receive

[2:22:23] correspondence because it was not on the

[2:22:25] agenda. Well, there was a legislative

[2:22:26] request that went in for it. And just

[2:22:28] for have put in the record, this is from

[2:22:30] Angela Angelique by water. Please be

[2:22:33] advised that CSEA was not aware that

[2:22:36] this request was made and acted upon,

[2:22:39] which I didn't act upon it, so it's just

[2:22:42] out there. It is CSEA's position that

[2:22:45] the membership voted and ratified the

[2:22:49] contract on March 11th,

[2:22:51] 2025. I sent an email notify a

[2:22:54] notification to the city of the

[2:22:56] ratification vote and then last week

[2:22:59] scanned a formal letter notifying the

[2:23:01] city such

[2:23:06] and then again on Friday, Mr. McCabe

[2:23:08] said there were there were errors. So I

[2:23:11] think before

[2:23:12] we just vote it through without having

[2:23:15] at least Mr. McCabe here having it vote

[2:23:17] through again that because he is he is

[2:23:20] the the um president of the union and he

[2:23:24] is the one who said that there were we

[2:23:27] there need to be some changes made in

[2:23:28] the document that was not something that

[2:23:30] I came up with.

[2:23:32] So can can we get these changes uh

[2:23:34] before Monday and we can put this on for

[2:23:36] unanimous consent

[2:23:39] again? You wouldn't have had the I'm not

[2:23:41] signing the tenative agreement. You

[2:23:44] could move forward with consent. I'm

[2:23:47] telling you I'm not signing that MOA

[2:23:49] that was presented in Brighton. So, and

[2:23:53] that's the problem that he said that he

[2:23:55] didn't want to send the MOA because the

[2:23:57] one that the one page that he

[2:23:59] gave the one page is actually not the

[2:24:02] original MOA. It's an addendum to it

[2:24:05] that he's asking for. This addendum was

[2:24:07] not voted through by the through the

[2:24:09] body,

[2:24:11] right? The original MOA which we

[2:24:13] negotiated has been approved by the

[2:24:15] membership. Right. Yeah. So, which is

[2:24:19] what I'm saying that the second one he

[2:24:20] would have to go back to the membership.

[2:24:22] Why are we even

[2:24:23] talking about the agenda? Because allow

[2:24:27] a man to proceed with his negotiation

[2:24:29] and then bring him to Congress. No

[2:24:31] negotiations. I completed the

[2:24:35] negotiations. Now, you approved it. Now,

[2:24:37] it requires the city council to approve

[2:24:39] it. So, I think we just need to bring it

[2:24:41] forward two weeks. whatever move forward

[2:24:44] with our we need to move forward and get

[2:24:45] this done and whatever and um we're not

[2:24:48] part of the negotiation so that's

[2:24:49] between like I said it's the the chair

[2:24:52] um the president of the union who

[2:24:54] brought these additional things forward

[2:24:55] to the mayor on Friday. Okay. So, so

[2:25:00] let's let's wait and get everything

[2:25:02] together and then move forward.

[2:25:04] But Mr. McCain is was comfortable with

[2:25:07] what he said on Friday, but the mayor

[2:25:09] will not sign it. Yeah. So there's a little bit of disconnect here

[2:25:12] that it needs to they needs to iron out

[2:25:14] the differences to us. Yes, they need to

[2:25:16] iron out the differences agree whatever

[2:25:18] they need to agree on and move forward

[2:25:19] and bring it to us and let's move

[2:25:20] forward with it. All right. I don't

[2:25:23] think we have any issue with approving

[2:25:25] contracts for for workers to approve

[2:25:28] over the years contract and reward our

[2:25:31] hard workers. All right. Any other

[2:25:33] business for finance? Motion to adjurnn.

[2:25:36] So moved. Second. All in favor? I thank

[2:25:39] you.

[2:25:40] Yeah, let's call the board of government

[2:25:42] operations. We have two items on the

[2:25:44] agenda. First is shadowing city jobs.

[2:25:46] Mr. Williams, thank you. Um, I think we

[2:25:49] can all agree that shadowing city jobs

[2:25:51] is important and important to what we

[2:25:53] do. Um, I don't believe any of us have

[2:25:55] the direct knowledge or understanding of

[2:25:58] the day-to-day. So having the ability to

[2:26:01] uh be in walk in their shoes for a

[2:26:03] limited period of time I think is an

[2:26:05] important um gradient that allows us to

[2:26:09] better understand the decisions we make

[2:26:10] and their impacts on their day-to-day

[2:26:12] lives. Uh so the reason why this is

[2:26:15] coming forward is uh I myself uh pride

[2:26:17] myself on getting out into the community

[2:26:19] and understanding and working with the

[2:26:21] city staff in my limited capacity and I

[2:26:24] understand it is a sincerely a snapshot

[2:26:27] of what they do day in day out. Um but a

[2:26:29] recent request was denied which is

[2:26:32] something I have not had to experience

[2:26:35] and in my request for further updates

[2:26:37] have not received an answer. Um, so I'd

[2:26:39] say at this time it's wanting to put in

[2:26:41] place a formal process that one supports

[2:26:45] that this is within the mayor's purview

[2:26:48] as staffing is, which I openly

[2:26:51] understand and agree with. It's not that

[2:26:53] my agreements has anything to do with

[2:26:54] that. um but wanted to implement another

[2:26:57] series that formally addresses how um

[2:27:01] how refusals or

[2:27:04] uh or not approvals is handled. That way

[2:27:08] we can remedy whatever disagreements or

[2:27:11] whatever inks there is present uh to

[2:27:13] ensure that this doesn't hold up the

[2:27:16] intent of any council member to get into

[2:27:18] and see the jobs.

[2:27:21] [Music]

[2:27:25] special. Sorry. Um I mean anytime I've

[2:27:29] wanted to do something like this, which

[2:27:31] primarily has been I have not ridden on

[2:27:33] the garbage truck as Mr. Williams has

[2:27:35] and probably won't, but I have certainly

[2:27:37] uh gone out with our police and our fire

[2:27:40] um and talked to other staff, but I've

[2:27:42] always just gone to the mayor's office

[2:27:45] and asked first um for permission to do

[2:27:48] so um because I feel like I don't want

[2:27:51] to overstep my role and that the mayor,

[2:27:54] you know, I've really usually just said,

[2:27:56] um is it okay if I, you know, sit down

[2:27:59] and talk with X, Y, or Z or, you know,

[2:28:03] go out uh and and try to be a group of

[2:28:06] commisser. Um I'm not really

[2:28:09] understanding. I mean to me it's sort of

[2:28:11] simple, doesn't need a lot of

[2:28:13] conversation. Um it's simple and

[2:28:15] straightforward. Mr. Williams has put a

[2:28:17] request in. Uh he's been given access

[2:28:20] anytime he has asked for asked to

[2:28:24] uh spend time with uh the assessment

[2:28:28] office. I declined that because of

[2:28:31] pending workplace violence claims, other

[2:28:35] questions that are being dealt with with

[2:28:37] city council's rapport with that office

[2:28:40] in internal conflicts that I had. So,

[2:28:42] putting another council member in there,

[2:28:44] I felt grossly complicated the

[2:28:46] operations of that department. I

[2:28:49] declined it. And when those issues are

[2:28:52] resolved, he's more than happy to spend

[2:28:55] time in the assessment or any other

[2:28:57] office that he

[2:28:59] wants. Mr. Bonds, right? And I'd say at

[2:29:02] this time, this is the most information

[2:29:03] I've received on the topic. Had I

[2:29:05] received that when asked, I think that

[2:29:07] would have prevented me taking these

[2:29:09] measures. I would say at this present

[2:29:11] time we are at this juncture and I think

[2:29:14] it is important to put in place a policy

[2:29:16] so that there is not the need to have to

[2:29:18] replicate this course of events.

[2:29:26] I still think it's the prerogative of

[2:29:28] the mayor to you know approve or not

[2:29:30] approve. Um so so I don't really think

[2:29:33] we need a policy I guess is what I'm

[2:29:35] saying.

[2:29:37] So Mr. Williams and then Mr. Right. But

[2:29:40] I would say there's also the prerogative

[2:29:42] if you're asking for an update to

[2:29:43] receive a response and this conversation

[2:29:46] where you point how to receive a

[2:29:48] response.

[2:29:50] Thank you. Again, as Miss Patrick says,

[2:29:52] I think it's up to the mayor. Um, you

[2:29:54] know, different departments at different

[2:29:55] times may be busy. Um, and you know,

[2:29:59] it's not a place for shadowing at that

[2:30:01] particular time during tax receipts or

[2:30:03] things like that. So, um, again, you

[2:30:06] know, we go to the mayor, you request

[2:30:08] it. The I did provide an email response.

[2:30:11] It was a brief summary, not to get into

[2:30:13] the gross details of it. And sorry

[2:30:16] things don't move quite as fast as you

[2:30:17] like, but that's my position. Still

[2:30:20] would decline the council member

[2:30:21] engaging in anything with the assessment

[2:30:23] office. Okay. Before

[2:30:26] we

[2:30:28] address, so I but how I understand what

[2:30:32] Mr. Williams is saying is that having a

[2:30:35] process in place

[2:30:38] um can increase that communication.

[2:30:42] Therefore, I I don't think that Hold on

[2:30:44] a second, Mr. Mayor. I'll be done in a

[2:30:46] second. Thank you. What I was saying is

[2:30:47] that I don't think Mr. Williams was

[2:30:49] suggesting at all that you're not going

[2:30:52] to approve or disapprove, but maybe

[2:30:55] having like a hey, I want to visit this

[2:30:58] department for this reason. and then you

[2:31:01] or who you your designate says, "Hey,

[2:31:03] thank you call for your interest in this

[2:31:06] um doesn't work this time, maybe look to

[2:31:09] the future and just operationalizing

[2:31:11] that." That might not be uh the worst

[2:31:13] idea and I would hate for uh this to

[2:31:15] turn into um something um more along the

[2:31:18] lines of uh where we're drawing lines in

[2:31:21] the sand around access to departments,

[2:31:23] but we don't need to do that. we can

[2:31:25] just uh I I agree that it is in reality

[2:31:29] and I think that by having

[2:31:31] something as a process um wouldn't be a

[2:31:35] worse thing. I don't see like why would

[2:31:37] we even might push back on something

[2:31:38] like that. Well, why don't we look at

[2:31:39] the process? So, I've been here I think

[2:31:41] 13 years 14 years might even be today is

[2:31:46] the anniversary. Have never declined

[2:31:49] one. Everybody's had access one time.

[2:31:52] So, if the council wants to change that

[2:31:54] policy so that everything is reviewed

[2:31:56] and we'll periodically decline stuff, go

[2:31:59] ahead.

[2:32:01] I don't think we need to. I mean, I'm

[2:32:03] not on this committee, but I it sounds

[2:32:05] like it was a one-off.

[2:32:08] I guess my question unless other people

[2:32:10] have had um I mean, I've never It's

[2:32:13] never happened before. So, it's a one

[2:32:17] time and there are issues still there

[2:32:19] that I'm dealing with.

[2:32:28] So, this question is for the mayor since

[2:32:31] um um involves a council member. Is that

[2:32:34] something you want to tell us about in

[2:32:35] executive session or is that something

[2:32:36] you prefer not to I'm not going to get

[2:32:39] into it at this point. Okay. Allegations

[2:32:42] and there's discussion and review the

[2:32:43] time going. Okay. and the assessment

[2:32:46] office you

[2:32:49] said with quotes around that maybe I

[2:32:52] don't concern. Yes. So I guess my

[2:32:54] further question is um if there were

[2:32:57] requests for shadowing the department

[2:33:00] where there people were not having uh

[2:33:02] concern with their interaction with the

[2:33:04] council member. That's something that

[2:33:05] would I just said that it's never been

[2:33:06] declined before. Mr. Williams has never

[2:33:08] been declined. Uh we have police here.

[2:33:12] want to go out with the police tonight.

[2:33:14] So, they'll make it available.

[2:33:17] They

[2:33:27] make so for clarity, how I understand it

[2:33:30] is that the the the fact that you

[2:33:33] declined um wasn't the issue. It was the

[2:33:37] fact that uh there was um you were

[2:33:39] trying to understand understand why that

[2:33:41] was and you know that a process had a

[2:33:44] process in place to explain that. I'm

[2:33:46] sorry miss just talking out loud. Sorry.

[2:33:49] Okay. You have the floor. No, I just

[2:33:52] think it's something that could just be

[2:33:53] handled oneonone. Um doesn't need to

[2:33:55] come to council. Okay. I would Sounds

[2:33:58] like there was a there was a little bit

[2:33:59] of a disagreement and

[2:34:01] No. And at at this point I'm not going

[2:34:04] to speak up. I understand that the mayor

[2:34:07] is going to make decisions with the best

[2:34:08] interest of city hall in mind and I

[2:34:10] contend to that openly. If as a council

[2:34:13] member I am asking for an update so that

[2:34:15] I can uphold the duties that I was voted

[2:34:17] on to perform and I do not get an answer

[2:34:20] back. This is the only formal process we

[2:34:23] have so I can receive said answer. I've

[2:34:26] gotten that today but I did not receive

[2:34:28] that prior to today. you know, and and

[2:34:31] Miss Patrick, I I would echo what you're

[2:34:33] saying around like maybe some one-on-one

[2:34:35] conversations. Um, the conversation

[2:34:37] usually involves two people, unless

[2:34:39] you're me driving your car, sometimes I

[2:34:40] talk to myself, but usually you have to

[2:34:42] have two people that are willing to

[2:34:43] participate and for it to be uh at least

[2:34:46] reciprocal communication. So I think

[2:34:48] that and I agree, but I also will

[2:34:51] highlight that often if we're having a

[2:34:54] candid conversation here, which is

[2:34:55] appears that we are, there's multiple

[2:34:57] things that are brought to this table

[2:34:58] that could be summed up in the

[2:34:59] conversation. I think we just

[2:35:01] experienced one of those things a couple

[2:35:02] minutes ago with the email um that was

[2:35:05] shared uh that wasn't necessarily on the

[2:35:07] agenda. So I agree with that practice as

[2:35:09] making sure that we can um streamline

[2:35:11] communication in a more effective

[2:35:13] manner.

[2:35:14] Um but if communication if someone is

[2:35:17] reaching out um and is not uh being

[2:35:22] communicated back with or at least

[2:35:24] sufficient communication then one must

[2:35:26] take steps. So I but I do agree with

[2:35:28] that and I hope that we all can hold

[2:35:30] ourselves to that standard of reaching

[2:35:32] out to people and not trying to make a

[2:35:34] spectacle or something at a a council

[2:35:35] meeting or a committee meeting. Maybe we

[2:35:37] all should think about that. Mhm.

[2:35:40] Cuz I don't think that that's what

[2:35:42] necessarily uh this is. I think that

[2:35:44] this was pretty clear that he was okay

[2:35:46] with the no but wanted to get the

[2:35:48] information and felt like he wasn't. So

[2:35:49] now he's putting something in place so

[2:35:51] it doesn't happen again moving forward.

[2:35:52] And I think that that's

[2:35:55] a appropriate

[2:35:58] response. Any other questions about

[2:36:00] that? Is that something that you want to

[2:36:01] um have a further conversation about,

[2:36:03] Mr. Williams? So, no need to uh move

[2:36:07] anything on that. I need more. Okay.

[2:36:09] Thank you. Moving on to our fourth. How do you pronounce this?

[2:36:18] Last

[2:36:21] time Mr. Williams last time I called it

[2:36:23] before. It wasn't don't do that. Come

[2:36:26] on.

[2:36:28] So I think for the sake of time when I

[2:36:29] said briefly move through uh with still

[2:36:32] giving proper uh uh validity to this um

[2:36:36] I put in place just some um information

[2:36:39] I've been able to compile I didn't

[2:36:41] receive any updates. We definitely can

[2:36:43] receive that from the council right now

[2:36:45] essentially what I've compiled with

[2:36:46] respect to this position was it should

[2:36:48] be a city resident over the age of 21.

[2:36:50] Um part of the expectations is um

[2:36:54] supporting civic and community media

[2:36:55] engagement opportunities. This

[2:36:56] individual must have published bodies of

[2:36:59] work or more uh cannot have a previous

[2:37:02] polarate um and then the porates will be

[2:37:05] chosen um by a nominating committee and

[2:37:08] then this committee will also serve as a

[2:37:10] reviewing committee to ensure the works

[2:37:12] of this uh position are upheld. Uh there

[2:37:16] were previous comments about wanting to

[2:37:18] investigate the previous commission or

[2:37:20] the previous position at the county

[2:37:22] level. They're confirmed that position

[2:37:24] does not exist. Uh there were further

[2:37:27] conversations about whether we could

[2:37:28] integrate uh across the county. Uh and I

[2:37:31] think that'd be a conversation with the

[2:37:32] nominee reviewing committee and also the

[2:37:35] first port laurate. I don't think there

[2:37:37] will be any issues with that. Um there's

[2:37:39] a big county with a lot of significant

[2:37:40] needs. I've been referencing Saratoga's

[2:37:43] Fort Laurate and it seems as though this

[2:37:45] individual has been presenting written

[2:37:47] works at holiday engagements um and

[2:37:50] they're published online. I think the

[2:37:52] next step would be just formal

[2:37:53] formalizing some language so that we can

[2:37:55] add this to the city's website and also

[2:37:58] to um publish their works on the city

[2:38:00] website. But um without any further

[2:38:02] questions, it would just be me coming

[2:38:04] back putting this to writing and then

[2:38:07] having us read that uh review that

[2:38:09] formal text. Sure. My my only thought

[2:38:11] would be then not having something

[2:38:14] published initially. I think maybe we

[2:38:17] should broaden that a little bit cuz you

[2:38:19] might have those people that have been

[2:38:20] working on their craft for a while but

[2:38:22] haven't necessarily acting published but

[2:38:23] then we be the first person to publish

[2:38:25] it just to cast a wide net. But this is

[2:38:28] really good. Yeah. No, I definitely

[2:38:30] think the person should I I agree with

[2:38:32] Mr. Williams initial um you know again

[2:38:35] doing a lot of research about this and

[2:38:36] thinking about other poet laureates. I

[2:38:38] think the person should have a

[2:38:39] substantial body of work already

[2:38:42] published to earn the honorarium of of

[2:38:45] being the poet laurate. Um so I would I

[2:38:48] would want to see a published body of

[2:38:50] work. I'm fine for the nominating

[2:38:52] committee or the selection committee to

[2:38:54] make those further um what would you

[2:38:57] call it? You know decide what the what

[2:39:00] the criteria was going to be. But I do

[2:39:03] think that somewhat of an extensive

[2:39:05] published work um of poetry um would be important um if we were going

[2:39:12] to be doing this. I did say the last

[2:39:14] time the last meeting that we talked

[2:39:16] about this that I know Mr. Williams was

[2:39:18] suggesting maybe not have and I know we haven't put this in the budget but

[2:39:22] not having an honorarium. Um but I do

[2:39:25] think that especially if I mean in my

[2:39:27] experience poet laurate would be

[2:39:29] especially like this is national poetry

[2:39:32] month you know would be going into the

[2:39:34] schools and um talking to you know

[2:39:38] teaching poetry and and working with

[2:39:41] kids in the schools um during national

[2:39:43] poetry month. Um, and I think if we were

[2:39:46] going to be, you know, hoping that

[2:39:48] somebody would have that, um, they

[2:39:51] they'd also want to have some teaching

[2:39:52] experience. Obviously, they have to be

[2:39:54] able to be able to communicate with

[2:39:56] children, but, um, you know, that there

[2:39:59] would be some sort of stipend um, for

[2:40:01] the poet laurate. Um, yet to be

[2:40:03] determined how we get that money, but

[2:40:05] um, I have some ideas there myself, but

[2:40:08] um, and shared some of those with Mr.

[2:40:09] Williams. But I do think that that cuz

[2:40:12] it's going to be work uh for this

[2:40:14] person. Uh you know, usually they might

[2:40:17] go in for like a full week and do like

[2:40:18] every third grade, every fourth grade,

[2:40:20] and then a public presentation or

[2:40:22] something like that. So, you know, but

[2:40:24] it's just something to consider. But I I

[2:40:26] do like the idea. Um because I know that

[2:40:29] you did do some research and and did do

[2:40:31] some some thought about this with other

[2:40:33] looking at other poet laurates.

[2:40:36] Yeah. So not so and I I agree and I can

[2:40:38] see why there's some well I don't

[2:40:40] necessarily agree but I can see where

[2:40:41] that there's um um some value in having

[2:40:44] someone has a significant amount of

[2:40:46] published work. So my thought on on that

[2:40:50] and I didn't want to spend too much time

[2:40:52] on it due to what Mr. Williams opened up

[2:40:54] the topic but I think it's it's not

[2:40:56] worthy to say that. So right here in

[2:40:59] Skenctity um we've done one of the

[2:41:01] largest uh spoken word poetry shows in

[2:41:04] New York State. right here at Proctor

[2:41:06] and a large amount of those poets, they

[2:41:08] are spoken word artists and they don't

[2:41:11] have things that are traditionally

[2:41:12] published but now nowadays um you know

[2:41:15] people self-publish online on blogs,

[2:41:18] things of that nature. So I think that

[2:41:20] if we it would just be and and I don't

[2:41:23] think this is something that we need to

[2:41:24] hash out now. I just wanted to be clear

[2:41:26] that my intention around them not having

[2:41:28] to have something um published. I think

[2:41:30] in more of the traditional published

[2:41:32] sense and I want to make sure that we

[2:41:34] are incre increasing always access and

[2:41:36] opportunities cuz we get a larger more

[2:41:38] diverse population when we do so. So

[2:41:40] that's that was my intention around

[2:41:42] that. So I would say we can simply

[2:41:45] broaden that

[2:41:46] definition to incorporate new age. So I

[2:41:50] think that's a

[2:41:54] way together. Um any other questions or

[2:41:56] thoughts on

[2:41:58] this hearing? None. I will accept a

[2:42:00] motion to adjourn by two weeks. Oh,

[2:42:02] you're going to bring it back two weeks.

[2:42:03] Awesome. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Br two

[2:42:05] weeks. Second. We are journ. Thank you.

[2:42:09] I'd like to call uh to order public

[2:42:11] service and utilities. We have two items

[2:42:13] on the agenda tonight. Uh Grace Road and

[2:42:16] uh discussion regarding street.

[2:42:29] Hello.

[2:42:31] A legislative request we have in front

[2:42:33] of you tonight is for what we're calling

[2:42:36] phase three of the um price well

[2:42:38] waterfall project. Um we started this

[2:42:40] about 3 years ago. Um uh moving forward

[2:42:43] we put the new wells in. We put three

[2:42:45] new wells in. Um then we moved into the

[2:42:47] flidation uh part of it and this is the

[2:42:50] final phase where it would be the

[2:42:52] wellhouses themselves mechanical um

[2:42:55] general contracting electrical

[2:42:56] contracting uh which includes a new

[2:42:58] substation. So you have a sort of a

[2:43:01] standalone system at the water wells. Um

[2:43:03] so there's a redundant system to always

[2:43:06] be able to provide drinking water to the

[2:43:07] city safety if something was to happen

[2:43:09] to the main building at the plant. Um

[2:43:12] originally we had 12 wells there. Uh

[2:43:14] we're down to eight. We did put three in

[2:43:17] a year and a half ago. Uh good

[2:43:19] producers. They produce about 3,000

[2:43:21] gallons a minute. So this would be the

[2:43:23] uh the final phase or phase three of the

[2:43:25] project to get everything online. Um the

[2:43:29] general contract, the lowest responsible

[2:43:31] bidder was Keller at

[2:43:37] $5,224,668. And the electrical contract

[2:43:40] should go to Stillson Electric. Um the

[2:43:43] low bid was disqualified because it was

[2:43:46] insufficient. So a low bid on the

[2:43:48] electrical to the one vendor was

[2:43:51] disqualified. Um and that was based on

[2:43:53] recommendations from law. So the second

[2:43:55] next responsible bid would be still

[2:43:57] electric for 2.784 million. Um so we

[2:44:02] move this forward. Any questions? Yes.

[2:44:06] Actually the this is for corporation

[2:44:08] council. Um can you just without giving

[2:44:10] us the name can you give us the

[2:44:11] parameters that that why um what was the

[2:44:14] insufficiency was unresponsive there's

[2:44:17] certain requirements you have to you

[2:44:18] know when you deal with steel bidding

[2:44:20] you have to hit all those benchmarks and

[2:44:22] they missed the benchmark efficient so

[2:44:25] therefore it's not considered okay thank

[2:44:28] you any other questions miss so um this

[2:44:34] uh so the funding is already it says to

[2:44:38] for major to be determined. Yes, I spoke

[2:44:40] to Derek uh this morning on there are

[2:44:42] different funding sources we have to

[2:44:43] pull from. There's money left over from

[2:44:45] the original grant. We did get a grant

[2:44:47] for $3 million to do the wells wasn't

[2:44:49] all expended. So, there's money there.

[2:44:51] So, it'll be a combination of different

[2:44:52] cost codes. And then there will be some

[2:44:54] city funds that were approved

[2:44:56] previously. I think it was right. So,

[2:44:59] but all the money is there.

[2:45:05] Yes. Give her

[2:45:09] That's my question. Okay. Would you

[2:45:11] rather drink water? All right. Fair

[2:45:13] enough.

[2:45:14] Oh, seeing that seeing no other

[2:45:17] questions, um I'd like to uh recommend

[2:45:19] that we u move forward with the

[2:45:22] contracts for uh William J. Suns for

[2:45:28] 5,224,668 and Sterling

[2:45:31] electric in the amount of

[2:45:35] $2,784,585 for a total of8,9253.

[2:45:40] I'll make that motion. Second.

[2:45:44] Mr. Manini. All in favor?

[2:45:48] Thank you, Mr. Mr. U. Next is a

[2:45:51] discussion uh regarding uh the W street

[2:45:55] sewage pipeline pipeline. Mr. Williams,

[2:45:58] thank you. So, this item is actually

[2:46:00] going to be removed and added back on in

[2:46:02] two weeks. Uh just for transparency uh a

[2:46:06] more appropriate version of the petition

[2:46:08] was presented and that provides uh more

[2:46:11] of the ask for the city code. So, just

[2:46:13] wanted to make sure there are no

[2:46:14] barriers in place before this is

[2:46:16] formally reviewed.

[2:46:18] Can you take a motion to move it uh put

[2:46:20] it on the agenda for two weeks? Yes. But

[2:46:23] we don't have to move that. It's only a

[2:46:24] discussion. Yes. Thank you.

[2:46:27] Uh seeing nothing else um for public

[2:46:31] service and utilities, I'd like to make

[2:46:33] a motion to close.

[2:46:36] Second. All in favor?

[2:46:40] Second. Second. All in favor?

[2:46:44] Or city development

[2:46:46] site. We have 13 items on the

[2:46:51] agenda. Um so the first item is the

[2:46:56] um state environment policy secret for

[2:46:59] the reszoning of the form of St. Clair's

[2:47:00] Hospital. I don't see uh Miss Carver

[2:47:04] present.

[2:47:07] Mr. Okay, you're replacing Mr. Gil is

[2:47:10] also available if there's any questions.

[2:47:13] All right. Go ahead, sir. Um, so

[2:47:16] speaking of place, Miss Carver was out

[2:47:18] at a training this week. Um, last month

[2:47:20] the planning commission reviewed the uh,

[2:47:24] recommendation for the resoning for the

[2:47:25] St. Clair's parcel and the

[2:47:28] um, parcels next.

[2:47:30] They voted

[2:47:32] to recommend a resoning from it's

[2:47:35] currently a mixture of institutional

[2:47:37] districts R1 and R2. Reszone all of

[2:47:39] those to R3. Um and then the

[2:47:42] recommendation from the department of de

[2:47:43] development was to adopt a negative

[2:47:45] seeker declaration for this project. Um

[2:47:48] the reason being is R3 was determined to

[2:47:51] be the least intensive zoning district

[2:47:54] that was feasible for this parcel. Um

[2:47:58] other zoning districts were talked about

[2:47:59] in terms of R1 R2 cuz demolition costs

[2:48:02] and return on investment would were

[2:48:04] deemed not infeasible for a vast

[2:48:07] majority if not all potential

[2:48:08] developers. Um, so R3 was a good use for

[2:48:13] the parcel. It's about 20 acres total,

[2:48:16] which would be suitable for multif

[2:48:18] family development. Um, there's

[2:48:19] sufficient parking on site in order to

[2:48:21] accommodate that. And um, any potential

[2:48:24] applicants that come forward could

[2:48:26] potentially use some light commercial,

[2:48:28] light retail um, in that, but not as

[2:48:31] intensive as you would see in the

[2:48:32] current institutional or other

[2:48:34] commercial districts. Okay. Were there

[2:48:37] any questions regarding this?

[2:48:39] I'll entertain a motion. So move. So

[2:48:41] second all in favor. Thank you.

[2:48:45] And the second item is to u the city

[2:48:49] zone map to reszone the properties that

[2:48:51] make up former St. Clair's um from the

[2:48:54] um institutional R institutional

[2:48:57] district to R3 multiple family

[2:48:59] residential. And there was a public

[2:49:00] hearing on 224 and as recall no one came

[2:49:03] to speak on that. Was there anyone

[2:49:05] except Mr. Young I think. Were you there

[2:49:08] for public hearing? Right. That was it.

[2:49:10] But he was in favor of it.

[2:49:12] [Music]

[2:49:14] Meeting too with the neighborhood weeks

[2:49:16] ago. So,

[2:49:21] thank you. You're welcome. Thank you,

[2:49:24] Jack, for covering the secret item. Uh,

[2:49:26] this is a pivotal vote tonight. We hope

[2:49:28] to move this forward next week. Uh, we

[2:49:30] don't we can't have a big empty hospital

[2:49:32] in the middle of the city. We just can't afford to knock it down. It cost

[2:49:36] 10 million bucks. Nobody has that money.

[2:49:38] It'd be a shame to knock down. It's a

[2:49:40] great building. It's uh it's got great

[2:49:42] history. My two sons were born there. I

[2:49:44] tell people, "My mother had a heart

[2:49:46] attack in front of LS. She say, "Take me

[2:49:47] to St. Clair's." You know, there's that

[2:49:49] kind of history and connectity about

[2:49:51] this building. So, we're going to save

[2:49:53] it. We're going to preserve it. We have

[2:49:55] developers who are going to put $50

[2:49:56] million into it. Uh build a pool,

[2:49:59] outdoor pool there, pickle ball courts.

[2:50:02] It's going to be u daycare there, 200

[2:50:05] some apartments. plenty of parking. It's

[2:50:08] a less intensive use than a hospital. Uh

[2:50:11] going to really help the the price

[2:50:12] chopper next door, the market 32. Access

[2:50:15] to the park. Uh the developers are

[2:50:17] really excited about the project.

[2:50:19] Unanimous vote by the planning

[2:50:20] commission. Great neighborhood meeting

[2:50:23] up on Albert Street uh a couple weeks

[2:50:25] ago. Uh terrific turnout, a lot of good

[2:50:29] back and forth, a lot of strong support.

[2:50:31] The developers got a big ovation at the

[2:50:33] end of the meeting.

[2:50:34] We're really excited to move this

[2:50:36] forward and uh get working on this

[2:50:38] hospital and uh make sure we save the

[2:50:40] building and um we get some developers

[2:50:43] to put $50 million into our city. Be a

[2:50:45] great great great uh move forward. Happy

[2:50:48] to answer any questions.

[2:50:50] Mr. Williams, uh just as a point of

[2:50:52] clarity, I definitely like transparency.

[2:50:54] There were some negative comments, not

[2:50:57] say in comparison to the overwhelming uh positive response. uh those negative

[2:51:03] concerns were with regards to winning a

[2:51:04] traffic study and then just the negative

[2:51:07] impacts of property value based on this.

[2:51:09] Could you speak to those? Sure. So, we

[2:51:11] looked at the traffic numbers and the

[2:51:13] traffic numbers on Mlullen are way way

[2:51:16] down like 30% down because it's no

[2:51:18] longer a hospital. People aren't pulling

[2:51:20] in in the middle of the night having

[2:51:21] babies or having heart attacks or having

[2:51:23] sick kids. They're not coming in with

[2:51:26] sirens. They're not coming in with

[2:51:28] ambulances and fire trucks. It's a much

[2:51:31] quieter place and the traffic count will

[2:51:34] continue to go down with this project.

[2:51:36] So, it's a cal a traffic calming uh

[2:51:39] project. Uh and we've looked at all the

[2:51:41] numbers from DOT. So, I'm glad you rose

[2:51:43] that arose raised that point. The next

[2:51:45] issue was some people were saying, can't

[2:51:48] you build single family homes there?

[2:51:50] Well, you can't because there's three

[2:51:52] medical buildings on the campus. They

[2:51:53] all stay and the main hospital because

[2:51:55] we're using historic tax credits has to

[2:51:58] stay. But if you had someone came up and

[2:52:00] magically dropped $10 million on us to

[2:52:02] knock it down, you could only build a

[2:52:04] handful of homes there because you still

[2:52:06] have to have the driveway. You still

[2:52:08] have the three medical buildings which

[2:52:10] are owned by different folks. And then

[2:52:12] you'd have a very small footprint of the

[2:52:14] hospital to build single family homes,

[2:52:17] but it it doesn't make sense. And you

[2:52:19] you'd blow up this building that has a

[2:52:21] great history and still has a strong

[2:52:23] useful life ahead of it. So we're all

[2:52:25] about preservation. would try to save

[2:52:27] buildings rather than knock them down.

[2:52:29] So those issues were addressed. Pro the

[2:52:32] worst thing we had one woman from

[2:52:33] Bradley that we talked to and she was

[2:52:36] concerned. She said her property values

[2:52:38] are really going up in the city which is

[2:52:39] great and we we said the worst thing

[2:52:42] that can happen is for nothing to

[2:52:44] happen. The building goes dark. The

[2:52:47] building gets shut down. then you're

[2:52:49] going to have people dumping mattresses

[2:52:50] there, parking cars there, abandoning

[2:52:53] cars, um graffiti on the building. So,

[2:52:56] the do nothing approach is the one

[2:52:59] that's going to hurt property values the

[2:53:01] most. So, we were really able to kind of

[2:53:03] address that with some of the some of

[2:53:05] the residents that we can't do nothing.

[2:53:07] That just doesn't work. And you can't

[2:53:09] build like three single family homes

[2:53:11] there in the middle of a medical campus.

[2:53:13] Just didn't make sense. So, those are

[2:53:15] great points. I'm glad you raised them.

[2:53:17] I think really this is a welcoming open

[2:53:20] public meeting and uh everybody got

[2:53:23] their answers their questions answered.

[2:53:24] Thank you.

[2:53:28] Sure. Just to address that really quick

[2:53:30] as well because there were a few

[2:53:32] negative comments at Oh, absolutely.

[2:53:34] There were a few negative comments at

[2:53:36] the planning commission as well. Um a

[2:53:38] lot of them dealt with SP sites plan

[2:53:40] specific comments. So if we talk about

[2:53:42] just the resoning and we take the

[2:53:44] applicant out of the

[2:53:45] equation, leaving it as

[2:53:48] institutional invites a lot of different

[2:53:50] uses that would not be allowed in the

[2:53:51] R3. That would exacerbate a lot of these

[2:53:54] concerns. As Mr. Gillan said, it was an

[2:53:55] active hospital before. That is on the

[2:53:58] table currently. You could put in a more

[2:54:00] intensive school that could be filled

[2:54:02] up. you know, a lot of different items

[2:54:04] and businesses that could attract a lot

[2:54:06] more traffic um and a lot more potential

[2:54:08] nuisances for the community that having

[2:54:11] apartments will not. So, even if we take

[2:54:14] the the specific application out that's

[2:54:16] on the table, the reasoning is was

[2:54:18] deemed to be the least intensive for the

[2:54:20] neighborhood. Good point. Mr. Chair,

[2:54:22] just to follow up, this is this is just

[2:54:24] reszoning. This is not my use. This is

[2:54:26] on resigning. So, right, this is that's

[2:54:29] what's before the council. I'm getting

[2:54:31] myself as usual.

[2:54:34] Um, any other questions? Just a

[2:54:36] clarification on the um Thank you. on

[2:54:39] the legislative request uh on the

[2:54:41] legislative request which is really uh

[2:54:44] had to be up should have been updated.

[2:54:45] The recommendation was for us to call a

[2:54:47] public hearing of what you have in your

[2:54:48] packet, but the recommendation really

[2:54:50] should be just to based on what was um

[2:54:52] the public hearing information to pass

[2:54:54] this at this point. with a negative

[2:54:56] declaration. Is that exactly right? So

[2:54:58] that's what we're actually doing

[2:54:59] tonight. So So it will be the seeker the

[2:55:01] seeker resolution has a negative

[2:55:03] declaration and the zone change. Right.

[2:55:05] Right. So um we can update this

[2:55:08] too, but I just want to make sure that

[2:55:09] everyone understands it's not within

[2:55:11] here.

[2:55:12] All right. Okay. Any other questions?

[2:55:16] All those in favor? Thank you

[2:55:20] both. And thank you. You're going to be

[2:55:22] here.

[2:55:25] Okay. So the next item is recommendation

[2:55:28] of AR recommendation of Arbor Day and

[2:55:31] saves connected that. Yeah. Thank you

[2:55:34] very um yeah so this is a pretty simple

[2:55:36] one just to uh we're working with uh

[2:55:39] take our parks director as well um

[2:55:42] recognizing our day is a requirement for

[2:55:44] our tree city USA application uh which

[2:55:46] we successfully received for 2024. We're

[2:55:48] hoping to do the same in 2025. Uh we

[2:55:51] have a plan in place for some tree

[2:55:53] plantings in Central Park in order to

[2:55:55] commemorate the event. Um should be a

[2:55:57] good community event I believe for

[2:55:59] February the 25th just to to celebrate

[2:56:02] our trees.

[2:56:04] Questions concerns. I moved second. All

[2:56:06] those in favor? I. Thank

[2:56:10] you. Item number four MS4 update. Mr.

[2:56:14] [Music]

[2:56:23] Let me just check. National championship

[2:56:26] tip off is in 35

[2:56:29] minutes. I pick up chicken wings at

[2:56:32] 8:30. So you

[2:56:34] guys chicken wings on order

[2:56:38] 8:30. Thank you for the record. MS4. So,

[2:56:43] what I wanted to do was since I usually

[2:56:45] come to these meetings anyways, I wanted

[2:56:46] to talk to you about the city's MS4,

[2:56:49] which is uh New York State DEC

[2:56:51] designates all municipalities of our

[2:56:53] size as MS4s, which means that we are

[2:56:55] the we're kind of deputized by the state

[2:56:58] to be the regulating authority for storm

[2:57:01] water in the area. So, for the city, we

[2:57:03] regulate the city. Um, it's a it's a

[2:57:07] challenge. Um, we don't have an MS4

[2:57:09] officer anymore officially. that

[2:57:11] position was removed. So, we have I have

[2:57:14] deputized a consultant to help us with

[2:57:16] this. Uh the consultant role is

[2:57:19] important because what I'm talking about

[2:57:20] is they just updated the rules this year

[2:57:23] after a six-year uh update. They finally

[2:57:26] made it official. Uh and this is going

[2:57:28] to be a 5-year program um of of new

[2:57:32] rules and operations for the city. So,

[2:57:34] I'm kind of giving you a little bit of a

[2:57:35] heads up. The report, one part of that

[2:57:38] is just making sure the public's aware

[2:57:40] of it. So, what we're going to be doing

[2:57:41] is we just submitted the MS4 annual

[2:57:44] report and it's going to be posted to

[2:57:46] the city's website this week. So, that's

[2:57:49] the the main thing for everybody to know

[2:57:51] is that there is an MS4 annual report

[2:57:53] that's going to be posted to the city's

[2:57:54] website. So, the second thing to know is

[2:57:56] that we're going to be having new

[2:57:58] requirements going forward. So, I I just

[2:58:01] put in your packet a couple of things.

[2:58:02] So, this is a summarized uh inventory of

[2:58:06] SWIPS and open MS4s in the city. So

[2:58:09] you'll see a lot of familiar projects in

[2:58:11] here because in order to be on this

[2:58:13] list, you have to have a project site

[2:58:15] over an acre. So it's a pretty good size

[2:58:17] for a city lot to have over an acre. So

[2:58:19] you'll see on here, city has their own.

[2:58:21] Grout Park, we have to file our own for

[2:58:23] that. Uh Colonial Car Wash, the new one

[2:58:25] on Branding Wine Avenue, that one we're

[2:58:27] closing out. But this is a list of

[2:58:29] active projects. So we're we're trying

[2:58:30] to close these out. But a new

[2:58:33] requirement is this letter that we are

[2:58:36] also working on and this is going to

[2:58:38] come into the planning process as well

[2:58:40] which is we need to document that people

[2:58:44] are maintaining the practices which is

[2:58:47] the catch basins and the storm sewers

[2:58:49] and all the things on their property

[2:58:51] that they have put in. So I'll use the

[2:58:53] biggest example here which would be

[2:58:55] Mohawk Harbor. Mohawk Harbor the group

[2:58:57] put in very large vortex units. These

[2:59:00] very large cases based storm water

[2:59:01] units. Those are privately owned. I have

[2:59:04] not gone over and inspected them.

[2:59:06] However, now the DEC is saying that you

[2:59:08] need to reach out to Glesie and people

[2:59:11] like that with this letter and asked

[2:59:13] them to document that they are cleaning

[2:59:16] it and managing it and if they are not

[2:59:18] then you need to help them put a plan in

[2:59:20] place. So luckily we don't have you know

[2:59:24] a thousand but this is also kind of

[2:59:27] retroactive. This is active. So, I have

[2:59:30] to work with planning on going back

[2:59:32] slowly and finding out who may have one.

[2:59:35] Um, and so I also want to bring this up

[2:59:38] because this is still new and we're

[2:59:40] still trying to figure it out, but it

[2:59:41] may have an impact on budget because I

[2:59:44] don't know how much this is going to

[2:59:45] impact workload and things like that.

[2:59:48] So, we may need uh a separate MS4 line

[2:59:51] to make sure that we're in compliance

[2:59:53] and I'll have all that ready for you by that point. Um, but I thought, like I

[2:59:59] said, as advice you come and maybe do uh

[3:00:01] two updates a year. I'm here usually

[3:00:03] every other week anyways. So, it would

[3:00:05] be good just to to get in front of you

[3:00:06] with some of these things. So, right now

[3:00:08] uh I want to just let you know is here

[3:00:10] is our active inventory. The file is

[3:00:13] posted. It will be on the website and

[3:00:15] the next step is we're going to be

[3:00:16] sending out letters to people with open

[3:00:19] practices about them and their

[3:00:20] maintenance.

[3:00:23] Any general questions? Any questions?

[3:00:25] Anyways, so just to be clear, you So

[3:00:28] everyone here, you're going to have to

[3:00:30] catch them up to date on this. Yes.

[3:00:32] That's what the letters talks about is

[3:00:33] that it doesn't act like I mean it acts

[3:00:35] like this is new. It's a new

[3:00:36] requirement. We're reaching out to you

[3:00:38] to document it and then we're going to

[3:00:40] be going forward. Um but if they don't

[3:00:42] get back to you, that's where you get

[3:00:43] into this little bit of, you know, now

[3:00:45] I'm chasing down people for things and

[3:00:47] they might not realize that there's a

[3:00:49] management practice. Um so that's part

[3:00:51] of working with the development

[3:00:52] department. And now when they come for

[3:00:54] planning and code review, they have to

[3:00:56] they're going to have to give me their

[3:00:58] operation and maintenance manual for

[3:01:02] their systems. Um, another example would

[3:01:04] be living

[3:01:10] [Music]

[3:01:15] skinc the outlet is clean. So you would

[3:01:18] come and you give me a record that yes,

[3:01:19] it was mowed twice. We inspected it.

[3:01:21] it's in good standing. It's it's really

[3:01:23] that simple. And then I would file that

[3:01:26] and say that the living project has has

[3:01:29] done that. So that's that's what we're

[3:01:31] looking for essentially for the private

[3:01:32] ones. And then the MS4 report that is

[3:01:35] online that's for mostly for us right

[3:01:38] now which says that you know we street

[3:01:41] sweep that's a very big deal that we

[3:01:43] street sweep weekly and we go out and

[3:01:45] street sweep to get things out of the

[3:01:46] catch basins that we use our vac trucks

[3:01:48] to vacuum out catch basins that we're

[3:01:50] really actively trying not to put

[3:01:53] pollutants into the river and that's the

[3:01:56] whole point of that. So, um, but this is

[3:01:59] year one. It's going to keep the

[3:02:00] requirements go up a little bit more

[3:02:01] every year, but once again, I will, uh,

[3:02:04] keep you a breast of the updates as as

[3:02:06] we go.

[3:02:08] Yes, Miss Patrick. Um, so, um, by when

[3:02:12] do you have to have, you know, these

[3:02:14] properties at least? Um, I have I have

[3:02:17] one year. Oh, okay. So, I we

[3:02:20] the we we did uh the locations of our

[3:02:23] outfalls that was something that we did

[3:02:25] last year. the maintenance. Now, the

[3:02:28] this is essentially this year's agenda

[3:02:29] item is to reach out and start getting O

[3:02:32] andM manuals and practices in place and

[3:02:34] showing them and then trying to do a

[3:02:36] better job of reaching out to the public

[3:02:38] and that's why I thought this would be a good step. Um we also uh in the past

[3:02:42] when we had uh an MS4 officer, they

[3:02:45] would go to farmers market. That may be

[3:02:47] something that we do is just go there

[3:02:49] and you have a board and you just talk

[3:02:51] about it handouts. That seems to be what

[3:02:53] we used to do when we had the officer,

[3:02:55] but um maybe if it's a nice day, I'll bring the board and sit at the

[3:02:58] farmers market. You know, it's just

[3:03:00] that's how I check a box to get um the

[3:03:03] public aware of what's going on. Oh,

[3:03:06] thank you.

[3:03:09] Questions,

[3:03:11] concerns? Okay. So, we just need a

[3:03:13] motion this Yes. Okay. I'll motion.

[3:03:19] No motion. All right. So, thank you very

[3:03:21] much. It's just you just talking. All

[3:03:23] right. So, did we make your change time?

[3:03:25] Well, I have one more, so we got to go.

[3:03:28] Eight minutes.

[3:03:29] All right. Item number five, master

[3:03:31] agreement with the New York State

[3:03:32] Department of Transportation for a new

[3:03:34] federal aid project. So, uh this federal

[3:03:36] a project was is on the tip and it is a

[3:03:40] great project uh one that everybody's

[3:03:42] really excited about. It is a

[3:03:45] essentially second phase even though

[3:03:47] it's not related on paper to the Central

[3:03:49] Park connector project which was a

[3:03:51] project that connected essentially the

[3:03:52] dog park in Central Park to Veil Park.

[3:03:56] Uh it was an on-road project widening

[3:03:58] sidewalks brownly down Brandy Wine into

[3:04:02] Veil. Um this project is taking where it

[3:04:05] dead ends. Right now it operatively dead

[3:04:07] ends at the new Cummings Connectity

[3:04:10] Environmental Education Center and

[3:04:11] you'll see it ends. Um, this project is

[3:04:14] going to take where that ends and it's

[3:04:15] going to bring it all the way through

[3:04:17] the park to Fair Avenue and then down

[3:04:19] Fair Avenue to State Street. And we're

[3:04:21] hoping that the entirety of the project

[3:04:23] is an off-road path. Um, and then that

[3:04:26] will be able to have that connection

[3:04:28] down to State Street and people will be

[3:04:30] able to walk and ride up from State

[3:04:31] Street to Fair. Um, and then that path

[3:04:34] won't dead end anymore. And then the

[3:04:36] goal would be then uh that connection

[3:04:38] would also create that roof that we

[3:04:40] want. If anybody ever walks the pond, uh

[3:04:43] when you walk the pond and you're on

[3:04:45] that path, it kind of ends and then you

[3:04:47] go down to the pond and then you're by

[3:04:48] the building and it it feels not

[3:04:50] cohesive. It does feel very odd and then

[3:04:52] this will actually create that loop. So

[3:04:54] it be kind of a twofur project. Um so

[3:04:57] it's a federal project. It's on, you

[3:04:59] know, to extend our parks and trails.

[3:05:02] Uh, I think it's it's going to be uh

[3:05:04] enjoyed and utilized by everybody. Um,

[3:05:06] and the other thing that we're going to

[3:05:08] incorporate into this is we are going to

[3:05:09] eliminate one of the entrances to the B

[3:05:12] diamond parking lot. If anybody can kind

[3:05:14] of remember that the duck pond, the B

[3:05:16] diamond parking lot, there's like this

[3:05:17] weird V entrance and we're going to

[3:05:20] eliminate the really quick slip ramp

[3:05:22] because we're getting we get complaints.

[3:05:24] I've been talking with Mosaic about it

[3:05:25] that people are are coming down and just

[3:05:28] right into the lot. So, we really wanted

[3:05:29] to slow down and make that turn. Um, so

[3:05:32] one of those entrances is going to go

[3:05:33] away.

[3:05:36] Any questions?

[3:05:38] Second. All those in favor?

[3:05:41] Thank you. Sounds great. Excuse me.

[3:05:45] You're going to make it. Um, the next

[3:05:48] item is um to correct resolution

[3:05:50] 2025-1052

[3:05:53] uh sale of 1656 Kerry

[3:05:56] Street. Mr. Brown is joining us. Um

[3:06:01] there's a way at a conference to explain

[3:06:03] that. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[3:06:07] Yes. Um so the original resolution

[3:06:10] number

[3:06:11] 2025-052 which authorized the

[3:06:14] u

[3:06:16] contract at

[3:06:20] 166

[3:06:22] resolution resolution to reflect

[3:06:27] any

[3:06:28] questions second. All in favor I I thank

[3:06:32] you Mr. Brown.

[3:06:34] Um the final items uh item 7 through 13

[3:06:38] are for property sales which require us

[3:06:40] going into executive session. Um so at

[3:06:43] this time I'd like to recess city

[3:06:46] development and

[3:06:47] planning. So second. All in favor? We're

[3:06:51] recess. So I'd like to call the claims

[3:06:53] committee. We have one item on the

[3:06:54] agenda tonight discussion that will need

[3:06:57] to take place in executive session. So I

[3:07:00] have a motion to enter executive

[3:07:01] session.

[3:07:02] Second. Second. All those in favor? I

[3:07:05] members of the public will have to

[3:07:06] leave.

[3:07:11] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, April 7, 2025

Transcript