Hey, hey, hey.
[Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
Heat. Heat. Heat.
[Music]
Heat.
[Music]
Hey, Heat.
[Music]
Heat.
[Music]
I'd like to call to order this
connecting city council committee
meeting for Monday, July 21st, 2025.
Five and the first committee is finance.
>> Thank you madam. Thank you madam
president. I would like to call the
finance committee committee to order and
the first item is the 2023 consolidated
annual performance and evaluation
report.
» Mayor good evening city council mayor.
>> Good evening.
>> Um the first thing on the agenda is our
2023 papers report. Um I am asking today
for three things that you accept our
outline paper report. The second thing
is to announce our public comment period
and the third is a call for a public
hearing to the next city council meeting
August 11th.
>> Are this on item number one?
>> Item number one.
All those all
we need to call for a public hearing.
U Mr. Chairman, the uh the uh public
hearing will be a separate resolution
and then the the uh comment period and
the acceptance of the report can be done
by one resolution but it will mention
the public hearing as well but the
public hearing will be its own
standalone
resolution the other three items will be
the other
» sorry
any questions
So, may I have a motion to to call for a
public hearing and make another one?
>> So, move.
>> Second. All in favor? I
>> and a motion to accept the annual
performance evaluation report.
>> So move.
>> Second. All in favor?
>> I.
>> Item number two, the 2025 2026 US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development allocations. Miss Carver.
>> Yes. Attached. Please file our 2025 2026
allocations. Um I today I'm asking city
council to adopt a resolution of
authorizing us to accept our funding
from HUD
» question on this
M for the public sake just walk through
summary
>> this year for community development
block grant also known as CDBG we
received 2 million50,241
for home which is home investment
partnership program we received 1
million
187,96.39.
[Music]
And for emergency solution grant, also
known as ESG, we received $184,656.
» Go ahead.
Yes,
>> Miss Cover. Um, how do these figures
compare to what we've gotten in the
past?
>> That it is roughly about 400 and some
odd dollars different from last year.
>> Okay. Well, so we did less.
>> Sorry,
>> that's not so bad. I was I was a little
concerned about it. So
>> So yeah, there were we weren't impacted
by any major cuts.
>> Okay.
But this is kind of money that's in the
pipeline that the dynamics in Washington
are such that we're really looking at
the next cycle seeing a significant hit
in terms of the funding that's provided
through these uh grants and programs.
No, that was my question.
>> Any other question or comment?
>> Seeing none, may I have a motion to
accept this item?
>> So move.
>> Second. All in favor? Hi.
>> Hi.
>> The next item is a 2025 that 2029 accept
HUD lead hazard control and healthy
homes grant. Miss Carl.
>> Yes. So we our 2024
NOA grant for the lead hazard control
healthy home grant was accepted. It's a
4-year grant. We were allocated $3,967
3967
million61.
I'm all tongue tied, forgive me. Um,
over the course of 5 years, this is a
program that we currently work with the
county to administer.
>> Would you give us a summary like how how
this program run into that over the last
couple years?
>> Okay. I'll give it to you over the last
couple years, but we are reimagining
this program because we will be fully
taking back responsibility from the
county to administer this program in the
coming months. So
you want to see the reimagined version
or you want how it's been running?
>> Well, like just a summary of how things
are doing in terms of currently.
>> Okay. So currently the lead program has
reached its benchmarks with the county
every single year since it inception
with the county. Um we have this past
year we've done 28 homes
um with the county that we completed
which was our benchmark. So each year
they give us benchmarks that we need to
reach to satisfy the federal government
and we we've exceeded those. We've got
our lead hazard report. Um and we're
green. They they label it by colors,
red, green, and yellow. So we're green.
So this program is run it's administered
through the county. So they go and do
the intake process through the county
health department and then our lead
assessor and people and also others from
the development team monitor that
program. So when that is come back in
house, it will be under your department.
>> It's under my department now, but we're
just going to now have a in-house intake
person instead of doing the intake
through the county.
>> Nice.
[Music]
>> Any other question?
That's a party. So, does us taking this
in house a little more, does that impact
our uh the finances of it or
>> um it impact finances roughly 124,000 a
year?
>> We'll have right for personnel, but that
also increases there's a travel line,
there's a marketing line, there's an
advertising line. So, versus that being
paid out to the county and now be um
internal. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any
other question?
>> Seeing none. I'll second it. All in
favor? I
>> I.
>> The next item is continuum of care
contract with development of Broadway
LLC doing business capital region YMCA.
Mr.
>> Every year we get awarded from the US
Department of HUD for the continuum care
partnership with the YMCA
for their shelter beds. And this is for
our 2026 continuum of care funding.
We've been awarded 2017
$722,000
and this will support the 20 bed units
in administrative cost to run this
program.
>> Go ahead, please.
>> Um I was just wondering if it's still
going to be um solely for men or
>> It is. Yeah.
Thanks.
Any other question?
Seeing none, we have a motion to move
this item forward.
>> So moved.
>> Second. All in favor?
>> I. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> The next item is the Edward Turn
Memorial Justice Assistant Grant
Program. Chief,
» good evening. Good evening.
» Okay. I come before you here with a
legislative request um to receive
$15,000 which was awarded to the skatey
police department by Assemblyman Angelo
Santa Barbara
uh for under the state uh department of
criminal justice services and uh United
States Department of Justice.
Uh, we plan to use this money uh to
invest in license plate readers for the
police department.
So, I'm looking for approval to accept
this JAG award grant.
>> Question on this side. Go ahead, please.
>> Um, so my question is around um where
these will be. I know that I asked this
question in uh legislative conference.
So, it's just everyone understands that
these particular ones will be used
versus what we currently have. So could
you explain what we currently have and
then how these will be different in
addition to
>> So we have multiple uh license plate
readers currently. We have them uh
leading coming off of our interstates
and we have them on our police cars
which are mobile. Um but the our our
plan and strategy is to have them on all
the arteries that feed into the city so
we know um if if a vehicle has come into
the city or has left. And we are also
putting that we we're also strategically
placing them in our hotspot locations
where we're seeing higher crime.
» Go ahead, please.
>> And how many will this buy?
>> Well, the this is this doesn't buy that many. So, I believe we're looking
to purchase somewhere between three and
five for multiple years. They they they typically run about 2500 each per
year. So we're I think we're going to
buy maybe buy three of them and pay for
them for three years.
>> Thank you.
>> So So we don't necessarily there's an
ongoing cost estimate like so when you
get it you have to pay
uh so it's not something that we don't
necessarily
>> there there there are two different
models. Um but the current model that
we're looking at is a is a pay as a
service.
>> Okay.
There's two components. It's a software
department. It's a software that really
keeps being updated by the leverage to
make.
[Music]
>> Any other question on this item? Seeing
none, we have a motion to move this
forward.
>> So moved.
>> Second. All in favor? I.
>> Thank you. The next item is the
intergovernmental cooperation agreement.
Give chief clicker.
Thank you. Um, so for for the give
grant, this is our 12th year of uh give
funding. GI is an acronym for gun
involved violence elimination, which is
a partnership with the New York State
Department of Criminal Justice Services,
DCJS.
For this grant, um,
the county was awarded one mill
1,148,671.
Of that amount, $452,133
uh is dedicated to the Skanty Police
Department. And we do have a breakdown
of how that is spent.
Primarily what we pay for are two
dedicated detectives,
some fringe benefits, some overtime for
investigations and patrol,
and for an analyst that's uh dedicated
to the initiative supporting the entire
countywide group.
>> Go ahead.
>> I just want clarification. It says
three. So, am I at least summary? It
says three
here. Is that one?
Yes, you you are correct. Uh that's
right because uh two of them are are
give and one of them is non-fatal
investigation. So we do have three.
>> Thank you.
>> Go ahead.
>> Um I was wondering looking at the um
looking at all looking at the personnel
um that are included in the grant, do
they have
do they take on other responsibilities
um or are they just focused on give
grant?
uh all of the all the personnel that are
paid for under this grant have to work
only on uh the initiatives that fall
under the grant. So the three detectives
uh two of them only work on anything
gunrelated and then the non-fatal
uh investigation detective will only
work on uh non-fatal shootings um where they treat them like like the
victim is voiceless. But so they they
put that in-depth investigation into it.
>> And my other question is just um so I
noticed that in terms of the youth
component of the grant, it's like $2,525
that's going towards towards that. Um
I was just wondering um how the amounts
were figured out. In other words, um
because you know I was kind of wishing
that there was more money going towards
the youth component piece, but um I
didn't know if it was sort of mandated
through the grant application or or how
can we help
» trying to find the area that
>> 33 on on the budget part
says community youth engagement,
transportation and engagement report for
activities and programming.
But there's also this card
>> 7,800. Is that the one?
>> No, not this one. Oh, this on page 29 to
7800 on page 33.
>> Oh, that's the transportation.
>> Yes. Oh, is there more though?
>> On page 29.
>> Yeah, there is.
>> Oh, I didn't see it. Let me see.
» Well, I I guess I guess I'll just answer
it by saying that um there are four
partners. There's the police department,
the DA's office, the probation office,
and the sheriff's department. And we
meet as a group, and we get the funding.
And and we all decide on who which
initiatives uh each individual agency
are going to work towards. And then we
break it up based on that funding. And I
know that the probation department has
$250,000 that that's a minimum we have
to give them. And then each agency
decides how to break that down from the
amount that they're allowed.
>> Okay. Thank you. you and I missed the
7,800. So, thank you for cleaning that
up.
>> So, Chief, look, this probably piece of
last legislation that just went through
as well, but you said like um the
cameras would be more hotspots, you
know, were those hot spots like hotspots
of violence that's happening hotspots or
is just like just where we're seeing
more crime? Is it or will they be kind
of deployed in the place where you see
more violent environment or just crime
in general like how are we defining
hotspots in this context I would say?
>> So our our crime analyst uh uses risk
terrain modeling to to to create
hotspots and they take a variety of
different factors to create that
hotspot. So so violent crime is
certainly a component of it but they take calls for service, traffic
accidents. He has a a a a
formula that that that come that that
builds that hot spot and and that's why
we really focus on that area and give
them give it the attention needed to to
cool it off
12 12 years into it. How would you say
like the outcomes? How we have how have
we done what what are some of the
outcomes? I imagine removing guns from
the streets, going stop them,
effectively supervising them on
probation. But what are what are some of
the outcomes and how it compared to our
other partners that we see? Are there
any things that stick out that we're
doing really well or things we've
improved upon?
Um
the the statewide initiative has been a
really big success. Um, you know, we we
you look back 12 years ago, the violent
crime that was in this city, and we've
made remarkable progress, a lot of it is
because of the funding that we were
afforded by this grant. Other
communities have had similar successes
statewide. I know Udica's had very
similar similar successes and uh, you
know, this initiative has been so so
wellreceived that um, the state has been
giving uh, speak speeches. we've been
presenting this at a a national level
and and for and because we've been
involved in it for so long, I'm part of
that uh engagement. Um we I'll be
speaking about it in Baltimore next week
for the a national conference. So, it's
uh it's it's had a lot of good impact
locally and we're very fortunate to have
the funding that we that we get from the
governor.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Hey, Mr. Attorney just found the chief
passed out a copy of the annual report
from the police department which is the
first time put together this
comprehensive document and it tells a
great story there which things we're
talking about tonight uh some of the
smaller components. So we just want to
make sure that uh people take the time
to look that over and if you have any
questions I'm available the command
staff or the police department is
available.
Go ahead, please.
>> So, um, for the individuals who are
whose, uh, salary is in this grant, they
are already cons they're already current
staff. So, they would not then show up
in our in the our budget as well because
you said they're dedicated to this and
this only. So, this money shows up as
money going in as a grant, but um in
terms of budgeting outside of that,
>> the the the the three detectives there
do show up in our our our staffing
numbers
>> and then the the the money that we
receive from the grant is is put into
our budget through as a as revenue.
>> Thank you.
>> It is part of offsetting the um expense
in our budget. Yes, correct.
>> Any other question regards to this item?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to move
forward?
>> So moved.
>> Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. The
next item is the school community
engagement officer, Chief Clipper.
Okay. So, we um
the contract was up with our with the
school district for our community
engagement officers
and we we renegotiated that contract
under a new umbrella which was to roll
all of uh all of the city um expenses
driven towards a school district at
least for public safety under one
umbrella, one agreement. So, what we
agreed to do is is still fund the six uh
officers full-time, which are four
officers, one investigator, and one
sergeant
um assigned to the school district. And
then we also rolled in all of the
overtime that is spent after hours and
built separately,
all of the engagement that the fire
department does uh throughout the year.
and the alarm false alarm uh calls for
the burglar alarms. We rolled that all
into we did a quick analysis to see what it what what it would be the total
take for the for the city and we came
back to them and agreed that they will
pay us $500,000 a year for the 2025
academic year and then each year goes up
2% after that to account for anticipated
raises.
And then also embedded within that
agreement was that they would allow us
to create a separate agreement which
we'll talk about next to place one of
our second drone nest on top of a one of
their schools.
» So
chief the number quoted here that uh
that is not including overtime is saying
that is excluding overtime.
This new number will include overtime.
Does the number exclude overtime?
>> No, not it will include it.
>> So the 500,000 quoted for the first year
includes overtime.
>> Correct.
>> Some of the offices restrain time and
some are over time.
>> Okay.
Um changes that you explained about
incorporating the overtime um which I do
have a further question. Are there any
other changes since the last contract
in terms of the number of officers or
any of that?
Really, the only significant change
would be that we we always had six
officers, but we uh we agreed to change
one of them to an investigator to give
the school community better direct
access to our youth aid bureau. Um so
that there's a there's a slight increase
in in what that uh I think it's 2% above
the patrol level grade that the
investigate investigator gets paid.
Other than that, no, there's no other
significant changes.
And further um in terms of the $500,000
for the that includes overtime and the
other things you mentioned, is that
based on what we um paid out in in the
prior contract. How how was that number
arrived at?
>> Yes, we um we we took a look at
everything we've done over the last
three years with overtime alarm bills
and with the fire department um build
the school district. And then we took
into account the new uh collective
bargaining agreements for police and
fire and what the pay rate is and and
then we we we did the math on the
overtime end of it also. We added them
all together and that's how we we came
up with this number.
>> Thank you.
[Music]
>> Go ahead.
you.
>> Um, well, I I had a couple of things,
but I just was wondering um how much
overtime like do do they you do they
have, you know, in terms of what they do
at the schools? I mean, do they do a lot
of overtime or is it mostly just during
the
>> Yeah, I wouldn't categorize categorize
it as a lot, but it's we're there often.
So, it's typically like there's a
basketball game, can you send one or two
officers or a football game? Um there's
always just events where they like to
have our officers and Sure.
>> And uh so what we did agree on is that
we have a baseline that they're going to
stay within that baseline and if they if
they're asking for more. We did agree
that if it's like more than 10% of
previous years that that we're going to
talk about it either either not do it or bill for it. But we're all in
agreement that we're going to make it
work. It's just that, you know, now that
it's included, they're not going to take
advantage of us and we're not going to
start saying no either. So,
>> I think it's a very positive um program.
So, I'm excited that we're moving
forward with it again and I'm very
excited that the uh fire department and
fire education is included now in this contract. I think that's
terrific. So,
>> yeah. I guess one other um thing that I
failed to mention is is we're we're
talking with them about pathways which
is
>> uh really for a recruiting perspective
of getting students involved in becoming
police officers and fire firemen, fire
women um and and and and learning more
about what it takes to to join these
professions uh at an early age. So we're we're going to be spending more
time there uh doing that sort of more.
>> That's great. and the fire department
will too.
So, a few things and also that program
as far as working with the academic
piece for guidance counselors and trying
to help them look at like because
there's a lot of curriculum that
students are taking um all the different
programs that school district is
offering some of this some of this
curriculum some their curriculum they
can get credit for by you know engaging
in this program which I think would be
really valuable because now students you
know they it opens up access to that. So
the my question was you said just for
the academic school year now I know that
there's so many programs there's almost
obviously not a lot as much but there's
a lot a significant amount of programs
and things are happening due to
non-traditional like summer hours and
things like that. So the partnership
that's agreed upon so is strictly just
for the academic school year.
I'm glad you mentioned that. And I I I
forgot to mention this that um as a part
of this agreement, the school district
is providing their school safety
officers uh to our parks uh to help us
with with uh the pools in Central Park
and also with a lot of the activities
that are going on there. So, um,
our our community engagement officers
are being assigned to the school to the
parks during those hours um to continue
the engagement with the youth in the
summertime.
So, Chief, um, when we rolled this
program out, I know there were some, you
know, pros and cons and things of that.
um over the last year, can you summarize
for us some of the positive impact this
program has been for the school district
and the public at large?
>> Oh boy. Um so yeah, I mean admittedly
I'm not I'm not hands-on as Lieutenant
Dalton is. I wish he was here. he talked
to you all night about it, but I can
tell you that some of the things that I
mentioned at the school board meeting is
that um in the last nine years that I've
been the chief, I think our relationship
is the best that it's ever been with the
school district. Um I used to meet with
Superintendent Spring, maybe twice a
year. Um when Superintendent Solair came
in, I'd meet with him maybe monthly, but
I feel like I I speak to Superintendent
Cotto
weekly, if not daily. We have a great
relationship. Um, we don't get nearly as
many calls as we used to on the
administrative side about what's going
on in the school. Um, I tend to think
that, uh, things have stabilized there.
And not only are they stable, but um,
they're at a point where they work
towards solutions on any problems
collectively. You know, it's not just
the police, but they've our our officers
there have empowered the school safety
officers to do their job better, which
is ideally what we want to do.
um and and we've had a lot of positive
feedback from the students um on on a
variety of different things. Officers
that have have transitioned out of the
school to to different jobs within the
police department, they they they've
asked if if they can go back for the end
of the year parties, if they could, you
know, remain engaged with them. So,
things like that where the students are
just really appreciative of uh being
able to eat lunch with the sergeant that
works there. And you know it turned into
a thing where every day he had a
different student wanted to eat lunch
with him. So uh we had a recently had a
female uh police officer candidate that
uh you know came right out of the school
district because she got interested in
the job a few years ago and uh and now
she's actively looking for some
assistance with getting ready to be one
of our next officers. So there's, you
know, there's those are just a few that
experiences that I'm familiar with.
Thank you for those um positive impact.
Um, on the staffing, since we're going
to be moving six full-time um, officers,
how would that impact your overall
service to the community or should we
look at hiring six additional staff to
complement your
>> Yes, we need six more officers because
you don't want to stick
position.
>> You know, I'm just throwing that out
because we're going to put six officers
into the school district. How will that
affect your response to service to our
community? I mean, I I I like to think
that um these six officers were
additional officers when we added them,
and by them being there, we're able to
respond to calls immediately rather than
having to send officers that were on the
street before there. So, we're managing
it very well. I mean, I'm not going to
lie, I mean, sometimes calls have to
wait because we're busy, but you know,
what do you we could throw bodies at at
our these problems all the time instead
of managing them. and our sergeants and
our lieutenants in the field services
bureau. They did a good job managing it.
So, it shouldn't negatively impact us.
Um, we're we're we're currently working
on a plan to to to look at the freshman
academy and what kind of impact that
will have. Most likely we'll put the
investigator there to have a presence
there and and that's where we'll work
out of and uh but we're working on it
and I don't think there'll be any impact
on it. Okay.
All right. Thank you. So, um I know I
see in the packet you do talk about the
how community engagement officers are um
are chosen or appointed and so it goes
through that in detail. I did. So all of
the officers who are come on the force
still have to go through the community
piece where the community that community
group um interviews them
when and then and now when they go here
the school district also has to
interview them. Do they have to go to
that um community group again?
>> No.
So once they've been um gone to the
community business officer when they
want to become community engagement
officers then um then they just go
through the school district through your process and then the school
district.
>> Correct.
>> Right.
>> Uh if if if any officer if something
happens and an officer it just doesn't
work out how how is that handled once
they're assigned there?
Well, we're fortunate that that hasn't
happened yet, but you we have a uh you
know, we have we would handle it like
any other officer that did something
wrong. I mean, we would we would take
corrective action and uh hold hold them
accountable and you know, should it be
repeated, then we we would remove them
from their assignment,
whether it's that assignment or any
other one.
>> I'm not implying that they that they did
something wrong. It just may not be a
good fit because maybe they don't, you
know, young people. I've been in the
school district. So sometimes it can
becomes challenging and that's not for
everyone. So
>> yeah, I mean I think that um
>> the untold story that probably has
percolated throughout the police
department is this job isn't for
everyone working in the schools. It's
very busy. So I think that officers that
go there do get burnt out because
there's a lot going on. But they they
also know it's very rewarding. Um, but
they know that, you know, those officers
that stay there more than two years,
>> they're champs and we have a couple of
them, but um, you know, you've seen it
with our sergeants that every year it
seems like they're changing. It's
because they get burnt out and there's,
you know, it's it's it's a very
difficult job. I praise all the teachers
out there that do it year after year.
It's it's difficult being in that
school.
>> Mr. Farley knows.
>> Thank you.
>> Go ahead. I I did also forget to mention
I knew that um that the pool um we had
been using CEOs and Mr. Meki said it's
just been great because they already
know the youth. So in terms of some of
the youth that you know have gotten a
little out of hand um some of the
teenagers at the pool um they have that
relationship already. They know they
know the kids. Um so it's that's been
fantastic um um at the pool. So, I
really appreciate the work they're doing
and it's clear that they're getting to
know know the students.
>> Yep. Mr. Farley,
thank you, Mr. Chair. You have to
remember there's roughly 9,000 students
in the school district. So, all this is
doing is matching up the resources with
the demand.
If these officers weren't there, the
school district is still going to
generate calls for service. This in fact
puts them in a more proactive way.
There's a greater level of deterrence
and this has really been a very
successful program. The chief talks
about some of the good things. There
have been some less than optimal
situations too where the officers being
there have stayed ahead of problems
resolved them where there haven't been
uh extreme negative outcomes. And uh
everybody I think should be proud of the
work that they're doing in the
partnership that we have with the school
district.
Go ahead, please.
>> Thank you. Yes, good point, ma'am.
Absolutely. I love what they do. Um,
this drone,
what's that going? I I know we wanted to
use drones as, you know, to send them
out to see what the problem was. Is that
just for the school district if if you
deploy a drone?
>> No, no,
>> no. You're just using a building for it?
>> Yeah, the we have the partner the our
drone program has two drones. We have a
one location on the police department.
The second one will be on Central Park
Middle School. Um, which is the highest
point in the city on top of a building
that's three stories tall. So, it's it's
a perfect spot for it.
>> It's really the city in two locations be
able to implement that program.
>> Any other questions regarding this item?
>> Seeing none, we have a motion to move
this item forward.
>> So moved.
>> Second. All in favor? I I thank you
chief.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other business for finance? May I
have a motion to adjurnn?
>> So move.
>> Second. All in favor?
>> I thank you.
>> I'd like to call to order city
development and planning. There are
three items on the agenda. Item number
one is the license agreement with the
city of Skenkity for storage and use of
drone and antenna connect city school
district. Chief Clifford.
>> Okay. Okay. So, as previously mentioned,
uh this is a separate agreement solely
that covers the the the license
agreement for the city of county to
store our our drone and drone nest on
top of the city school uh central park
middle school. And we will they will
also be providing us uh power and
internet for this. There's no additional
cost associated to this agreement
because it's covered in the previous one
that we just discussed.
Any questions regarding this? Um I do
have one and without disclosing
locations, how many of these um type of
drone use antennas on buildings
throughout do we have is this the only
location? You said it's the highest
location, but we have other locations.
Uh so this so the police department and
then this will be the second location
and um the the drones also work on
cellular uh network and um but this uh
the antennas the RF network that we're building appears to be the more uh
durable and strong network for us. So it
is possible that we may look to put more
antennas up throughout the city ideally
on city- owned properties.
We're we're going to just start with
these two and see how it works. And if
we start seeing some failures throughout
the city, we'll we'll we'll see about
other locations.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
>> I move this.
>> Second.
>> All those in favor?
>> I
>> thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Our next item uh item number
two is to authorize the mayor or his
designate to enter into supplemental
agreement number three with New York
State Department of Transportation for
the Broadway Mill and Phil 4th Street to
Weaver Street pin 1760.42.
Mr. Wallen.
>> Hello. Um the DOT reached out to uh our
finance department last week um about
not being able to reimburse the city the
full amount for this project and they
recommended that we pass a supplemental
agreement. This is more of an accounting
issue than anything else. The project
has actually been done for several
years, but we were in the process of
closing it out and the DOT um noticed
this um issue. So they've asked that we
pass this supplemental agreement. In the
footnotes, you'll see it says this
supplemental agreement adds $100,000
plus $18,000 marches funding of that was
removed an error on essay number two. So
they caught the error and this was to
rectify the error on
so
that here um we paid we didn't have we
didn't um we didn't allocate enough
money. Is that what they're saying? Is
that what you're saying?
>> They mistakenly took out some money that
they shouldn't have when they did
supplemental agreement number two. So
now they need to put it back.
>> No, no, no. They need to put it back.
>> Y
>> What's the impact on on our budget
regarding that?
>> No, it's just we just need to get it to
get reimbured. We've already have it out
there. We just have an allocation out
there of to get reimbured of probably
about $100,000. This goes back to the
original assumptions on the project for
close out.
So, we've already submitted all the
paperwork.
>> Everything has been submitted to close
out the project. However, when they went
to close it out, the money was not in
the account and that was the reason
internal error. So, this fixes it on
their end and allows us to get
reimbursed.
>> Okay. Any other questions?
>> Motion. I'll second. All in favor?
>> Thank you. Uh and the um item number
three is the waiver of the
apprenticeship requirement for Central
Park tennis court improvements contract.
>> So right now we have out a contract for
the reconstruction of the tennis courts
in Central Park. Um it was a complete
reconstruction of the parks. There are
17 existing asphalt tennis courts. We'll
be bringing forward a revised agreement
with you at the next session. Uh the
city and USA would like to completely
reconstruct those 17 asphalt courts into
18 post-tension concrete courts.
Post-tension concrete is a specialized
skill. It is not a typical concrete uh
that you would see around here in our
sidewalks or pads. It is a is a skill
where you would be laying out these lines, these cables in the in the
concrete, pouring the concrete and and
tensioning them to put some stress onto
the concrete. and it helps so that the
concrete doesn't crack um as the plane
surface wears. Um we do uh have been
reached out to by several contractors
over that are outside of New York State
and they do not have an apprentichip
program. Um the last time we did a
waiver such as this was for the golf
course irrigation contract as that was
also a specialty contract where we
wanted to make sure that the person that
we selected had at least 5 years
experience and uh certifications doing
at least 50 courts. I believe that's
what we're saying to do. So, we would
like to have the apprentichip program
waved as the bulk of the work is the
concrete for the courts. Um, 18 courts
and then the ancillary work is fencing
and things like that. So, this is not a
Wix law job. This is a a single prime um
contract. So, this is what we're looking
to do.
>> Um, you did mention that um the
contractors may couple questions may be
outside New York State. So is it we no
contractors within the state of New York
uh came forward to make a decision?
>> I'm not aware of any but I haven't I
haven't looked specifically. Um uh
so you know typically what we have done
in the past if we were worried is that
you know he would put it out get bids
back or no bids back and then move
forward his owner
and the father of it.
Can you blow up the hallway, sir?
[Music]
>> Go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> It's okay. Um, but so what I was saying
is that you
we would try to typically do is put this
out, see what we would get back. If we
got no bids back, we would put it out
again with the waiver. However, if we
were to do that, as crazy as it sounds,
we would actually most likely lose all
of the 2026 season because we're really
trying to complete the work this year,
the bulk of the concrete work, then let
the concrete cure over winter, come back
in the spring, and do a lot of the the
fencing and coatings. Um, because what
the USA is really banking on is that we have these courts constructed
and ready to play on June 1st. that way
that they can have a full season. Um, if
we have to push this to next year, um,
that means that they would lose the
entire season. Um, it's not to say that
there isn't ways that we can work around
it. The USA just however would not be
disconnected. They would have to make
accommodations elsewhere.
>> So, this is a way to kind of expedite um
the project. Um, also just full
disclosure is that I was originally
moving forward with doing this on a
source well contract. However, source
well is a purchasing agreement that the
city is a part of. However, as we move
forward through that, it was told to me
by our purchasing agent that the source
well contract can't be used for public
works type jobs, only for material style
jobs. So, this cross the materials into
a public works job. So, we lost some
time on that. We've been working back
and forth on the design and that's been
changed a lot. Um, the USA has been
actively reviewing this project for 4
months to make sure that it meets all
their requirements because nobody wants
to spend $3.5 million on tennis courts
and then not have them exactly right to
serve the tournaments.
>> So, this long story about how we just
passing it now and seeing what we get
puts us in a better position to get the
project done by June 1st of next year.
>> That's right. And one other question,
concrete. I I wasn't accustomed to
seeing concrete on tennis court.
>> Mhm.
>> So that's different. New this is what
the USA
>> USA is pushing the concrete because
concrete does not heave like asphalt
does in the life of a concrete tennis
court. It's a minimum of 30 years, but
they're seeing probably upwards of 50
years. So the only thing that has to be
repaired is the the coating. Mhm.
>> Um that the courts themselves are a
harder court and they're working towards
uh the USA making uh these pre-retention
concrete courts the standard for
municipal.
>> Right. Thank you.
Any questions?
>> All right.
I'll second it.
>> All those in favor?
>> Thank you, Mr.
» Nothing else to come before city
development and planning entertain a
motion to adjourn.
>> So second.
>> All in favor? We are. Thank you very
much.
>> Okay.
>> Call the order of government operations.
We have one item on the agenda. Um Mr.
Nancy. Thank you, Councilman Farley,
members of the council. So, I brought
forth a proposal to create a housing
stability task force. Uh we've all seen
this the issue of good cause law is very
has been very divisive, but we have
people that are very passionate about
this. Um there is that wall of good
cause law. We could we could implement
that. I don't think we have agreement
even here on the council. Um we
certainly don't in the chamber in the uh
hearings that we've had. I voted against
the public hearing because I I'm
interested in creating a task force and
getting to work and looking at is this
the only option? Is this an option
necessary? What are other jurisdictions
doing? I've been since since this
brought before us, I've been doing some
research and looking at national
practices, local practices. What laws
are available? What funding are
available?
um and other strategies instead of
taking this template. Is there local
solutions that we can develop that we're
relying on? Um landlords have a
difficult time. You know, we have good
cause evictions. There are good causes.
Maybe we have a task force. We look at
those causes, drill down more into that
data. Is it because the individual
suffering from mental health issues? Is
it some other issues? Is there things we
can remove that cause so they don't have
to evict? Can we support landlords in
that way? We can reduce evictions by not
having to go to court. What have we done
at that? What have we done in those
cases? Um, code enforcement, how how
responsive are they to to incences? Are
they printing over the codes? Are they
getting there? What's their case though
look like? What are they doing to remove
the issues that landlords bring up? Is
there another kind of line? Can can um
tenants also report it to some somewhere
else where they don't feel retaliation?
and the code the the code violation has
been called and it's been resolved and
we get that information both to land on
the tenant to make that process that is
more cooperative than adversarial. Um I propose we bring together stakeholders
local stakeholders um from the agencies
that know these issues the best and come
up with a real solution for us
connected. I think that's that brings us
great potential for us as a community
and and if if that doesn't work if we
can't come to any kind of agreement we
have we can opt into good cause law if folks agree to that. So I brought
this idea forward and I asked that uh we
move it for a vote to the council
questions.
I I just want to say I think it's a
great idea. Um and I think it's pretty
well laid out. Um I I think it's a good
way to get folks talking with one
another and um especially bringing some
of the experts together from some of the
agencies. Um so I you know I'm
completely in favor of it. Um and I
appreciate you putting it forward.
>> Yeah. like um I like the idea that we
creating this um task force
um is it I think it's going to help us
to get to bring everyone to the table to
hear um the concern and to address um
the concern that is lingering out there.
Um
you mentioned stakeholders, landlord,
tenants, housing advocate, nonprofit and
developer. What I would like to see that
when we create this task force is that
these um agencies
um
they are from Skenctity I landlord,
tenants, housing advocates, nonforprofit
and developer um
we should have people who based in
Skenctity especially some for profit
that is based in Skenctity we should
>> select them and the housing advocate
developer landlord and tenants out to
Skenctity because this is a skenity
thing. We should have people from
Skenctity advocating, meeting uh working
to come to a solution uh both benefit
the landlord and benefit tenants and we
can able to move forward with hearing
concerns from our local residents and
groups.
Question
are you suggesting that people who serve
on this task force there to be a task
force that they live in the city of
committee? Okay,
>> that is something we have done on the
boards and you know you know city city
boards that you have to have you must be
a resident
>> to serve on the board. So I want to make
sure that we
>> when we set up the task force is um
comprised of people from skenctity non
forprofit from skenctity housing group
from skenctity. Okay. Because you're
saying a non forprofit from Skenctity,
it could be a Skenctity. I first number
one, I I agree that every I would like
to see all of our um doors if we're
talking about city issues have people
that live in the city connected. I'm I'm a fan of that. I know that sometimes
you get to where there's areas of
certain expertise um that people offer
that might not live in the city. I think
that, you know, that's um there's value
there, too. But when you're saying like
a a nonforprofit
that's based out connected so like a lot
of the nonprofits that are operates
connected but their board of directors
people don't live in connectivity a lot
of their staff don't live in sketity so
I guess I'm trying to make it clear the
distinction from in order to serve this
board you have to live in sketity that's
what you're saying no non forprofits
providing service in skity let me just
do an example I cap they They're located
in Skenctity.
>> I want to see them on the board
>> to help us the house.
>> So you don't have to live in
>> I want the organization to be in
Skenctity. I want housing advocates to
be in Skenctity.
>> I don't want somebody from Bethlehem to
come and be on this board because we
don't do that on our city boards having
non-residents.
>> So I think that's what we need to do to
focus on on skconity the skinnity
concerns.
>> Okay. So Okay. So you're not you don't
have to
>> no for non for profofit has to be based
in skinny work if you work is connected
you could live anywhere but work is
connected and you're saying that that's
>> I'm not I'm not in favor of taking a
agency X out of Albany to help us solve
our problem here
» well I I definitely in reading this I
was thinking of some of the nonprofits
that are related to housing and knowing
some of the executive directors for
example um I wasn't sure that they
necessarily lived in the city of
Skenctity. Um so I would too suggest
that um we make sure we have the
relevant uh providers um represented.
But if an executive director I I don't
even know but I mean let's say they
lived in Scotia uh and worked in
Skenctity um at a skenctity housing
related um agency that I think that
would be okay. I guess also I would say
that it would seem to me that we'd want
to make sure that the landlords in
particular weren't necessarily the
landlords that might be a part of this
task force wouldn't necessarily be you
know from New York City or something
like that. So I I I feel like that's
more important I guess than uh the
nonprofit piece uh in terms of I would
want to make sure the landlords are
locally based.
>> So you
>> the representatives on the task force.
So we're saying that any or
representative that's on this task force
would have to resign and connect.
>> I I think that would be important.
>> I'm open to debating that. But that's
about
>> any other questions, comments on this.
» Thank you, Sister Mancini. How um how
would these uh individuals or nonprofits
or whatever who would pick them? How
would they end up on the task force or
push? everyone at the table. Um what are
your plans on who would be the head of
this task force and how would these
individuals um uh what would the agenda
be? Who would make the agenda um instead
of just a whole bunch of people just
sitting around talking about things?
>> I mean
>> yeah I I
>> what more do you have for us? I'd like
to select
uh people interested in being on it but
have a chair co-chair and we can bring
nominations to to the council for
approval would be one way of doing that.
>> Who would who would you put that out to?
>> All council members for recommendations.
Um thinking director of development um
any other principles landlord
association slick. Um, you know, I'm
certainly open for uh recommendations. I
don't want to go ahead and do it on my
own, but folks um there's folks from the
Sketchy Foundation. Um I think any of
those groups that have been very active,
we get the representatives on each of
those groups. So, we're hitting with
those folks that are really passionate
and close to this issue.
>> Absolutely. which we all are, but who's
going to
>> I could I could I could um begin that
process and maybe work with um
Alexandria if if she's closest to this
issue from the city.
[Music]
» Alex the staff person. Yeah,
>> we make
staff available to support it, but Alex
would be
>> one of the parties.
>> I could work with the mayor and
President Porterfield to develop that
list.
>> And how long do you think that'll take
in addition to the four months when you
want when we would want an answer back
from this task force?
>> I would like to have it after if it were
to pass within 30 days. We have a
membership recommendation for
membership. Would
you be expecting resumes or I you know
from individuals who want to be on this
task force?
>> I think I'd like to yeah um people can
send recommendations of who they and and
uh some rationale why they would be
appropriate for this task force that
they have subject knowledge on it. So
you see this as a
instead of
root cause this task force
>> for for me um this and I appreciate you
bringing up obviously it's an issue very
passion people are very u concerned with
um for me I don't know enough about the
issue what's been done what's what's
worked what's not I'd like to get more
information I thought this would be a
way for us to get there um it doesn't
seem this may pass if we voted on it
today or or or and to then we'll make
new channels. This is an opportunity for
us to get to work and say maybe we don't
need it. Maybe the people involved in
the in this maybe as a city we come we
can come up with a better plan cuz then
because given this will drill down more
into that data will the people really
affected by this. What are the causes
for you being affected? can what we can
do what can we do outside of the box
threes out those and maybe that we can
do better than the law I've been you
know partner of laws past implementing
them and and writing them or assisting
them and the best um for me the best
initiatives are those that are locally
driven and the people are lying on them
and behind them um I don't know that
good cause would get us there but I
think something we developed
collectively that was that specific to
connectity I think that would a long way
to resolving these issues. So, so my
question is cuz
good cause the main purpose of good
cause is to offer tenant protections
um need tenant protections and
nowhere do I see this task force that's
not offering tenant protections. So I
don't see how this could stand in place
for good cause because it the primary
function of good cause this task force
wouldn't doesn't address. Um other
concerns would be I I think it's a a a
good idea. Um but then it's appropriate
context again not let replacing good
cause because it doesn't offer anything.
It's really um having people get
together and um look at data and then uh
make their uh help help us with some uh
information that right now already kind
of exists. I mean we like it says like
um you know
looking at uh the displacement and
eviction data we have that data and
actually that data was presented to us
already. Um, and what I don't want this
to be is to look at something that's um,
kind of performative in a way to kick
things down the road um, and not address
this because we're talking about um,
the, you know, people's livelihood and
this would be months and months before
this could even get formed. And then
once it's formed, we have to wait for it
to be for it to operationalize to get back and give us data that we
already have. right now we have the data
um on all of the issues that are that are raised right here is
already data
>> and so I guess um my question would be
what more data would you be looking for
in order to like support good cause data
when we talk about tenant protections
and and the reasons for good cause um
could be because of behavioral issues
right they're disruptive they're not
paying their rent. Um
I don't know them all those two stand
out
>> and that would bear out in the data.
>> And then what have we done to stop to
remove those issues? Is it okay good cause? So 90% of the evictions 70%
meet good cause criteria this law won't
do much. But if 70% of the time we can
intervene and come up with solutions we
can reduce that number down to maybe 20
30%. because we to develop strategies
that are addressing the behaviors that
are leading to the eviction. Is it lack
of funds? What's what's available? Are
they reimbursement rates? How
reimbursement?
What have we done for behavioral? Have
we addressed that? We're going to pass
this on to someone else. Could we hurt
this person? They're going to go to the
next place. They're going to go again.
Okay. Are there ways? What have they
been involved in the social service? Is
there something that can help with that?
Can we resolve those crisis? respond to
praises in a way that works when we keep
them in those homes. Once they're in
those homes, what have we done to
stabilize that? What supports do we have
in place rather than do we call the
police? Are there things they can do to
offer supports of attendance that
objectate that reason or need to evict
or call the police? I'd like to look at
that data. What are the nature of the
cause? What's happening in our code
enforcement office? Are they responding
in a way we hope that they would? is
asserting residents both tenants and
landlords. We need a lot of anecdotal
information, but I don't have enough
specifics to what that looks like. I
mean, those things we can look at to see
what we can do to build up our system
that can support both tenants and
landlords. Okay. So,
a lot a lot said and a lot of good
things. Um but like when you talk about
disruptive tenants and and for
non-payment as issues under good cause
as it exists those are both uh good
reasons to evict.
>> So in other words if we had passed good
cause and then we got information that
there was a lot of uh evictions for
non-payment that it wouldn't be it
wouldn't be an issue. So, in other
words, the good cause already allows for
that. And what you're saying is I I
think it's good to look at the data. Um
I think that as much deep diving as we
could do, we can do, but the data that
is not uh um
uh
anecdotal data is that about us being
third in the state for its eviction
right now like that. So, we don't we
don't have to do a study on knowing
that,
>> right? we have an eviction problem here,
right? So that so this is why good cause
um addresses that. So again, I don't
think that it's wrong or a bad idea. I
think in the context of not passing good
cause to do this. I think it
>> it doesn't offer any of the protections
that good cause and we already have the
data
>> as far as eviction. All right. Well, and
then Oh, sorry. I'm sorry.
>> And then part of the um and some of the
other things that are in the legislative
request are like um having, you know,
public forums and engaging stakeholder
voices.
We just put forth to have a public
hearing, but it got voted down. You see
what I'm saying? So, it's like it's it's
difficult for me to see why if we're
looking for public voices and
stakeholder information and we bring
forth the opportunity to do that as a
public hearing, why why would we go with
that? You see what I'm saying? So, it
doesn't look like that.
>> Why I think you're ready. Go ahead.
Whenever you're ready for the first
is he responding.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So I I gave the reason why I
didn't support the public hearing. I
wanted to get busy done on this. And
with the good cause, if you look at 90%
now, I don't know, you know, we're at
that level. And if like I said, 70% did
meet good cause standards. So nothing
for the landlords to worry about, right?
>> But it is for the tenants because we
didn't do anything other than that. And
so what are we doing about that to keep
them in those homes? So that the
placement is not disruptive. And if we
don't do something like this, we miss
that opportunity to take a look at that
data and keep them in the homes and what
supports aren't we given or providing
that maybe have and taking a critical
look. We could be avoiding many of those
evictions.
>> That's I agree 100% with that as far as
giving it that President.
So, um I think that you know as what
she's already been said that a lot of
the data that you're looking for it
already exists and then and I don't
believe that it requires an additional
committee to get the data because it
exists and and can one or two people do
it. I think I believe that there are
agencies out there already that have
this data readily available and if you
need it in a compact way then you just
bring it all together that's fine. Um
and that makes sense to me. Um, and also
you talked about what about code
enforcement, about keeping people in
their apartments and SCAP does a lot of
that work already. So there's already a
lot of the work being done that this
call this call this task force calls
for. So
my concern is that as Miss Duturo has
asked about the process of getting
people on board. So on boarding people
is a whole process in itself. So we're
adding that time to the 120 days that
you mentioned. Um and in addition to
that then there's a selection process
that that for me is a little bit up in
the air because when you ask for a
public um a public hearing any and
everyone can come to that then we don't
select who whose voice is heard at this
table um at at the housing table and um
and just just for the record because
within your um within your legislative
request it said something about us being
reactive and I just want to and I know
that you weren't on the council back
then but in 2020 22, we did have a
housing form. So, this discussion has
been going on for a while. Uh, it's not
new. Um, the other concern I have is
that in terms of who will be on the task
force,
if we're looking for representation,
that's people who I feel like the best
voice to be heard is a people who are
impacted, not be it landlord or tenant.
And for the individuals who I believe um
good cause mostly impacts in terms of
tenants, they don't have the um the
liberty or the ke the um extra time to
be on a task force because I'm guessing
that if you want to do this, it can't be
during work hours. It has to be after
hours. And then again, how do we how do
we decide who can come and who can't
come? So those are, you know, those are
concerns for me and um again I think
it's just one more burden uh upon
tenants and landlords quite frankly that
we you know do more studies of things
that again I believe we're already here
that we can just pull the data together
within that time of onboarding we could
get um that that information together if
that's the concern. Um, so I'm not sure
of
how creating a task force gets us to the
point of gathering more information
beyond what currently exists because
it it's just already there. And again,
it's for me having like se us selecting
who could and could not be on there. How
do we make those determinations? I find
that challenging. Uh and it was
mentioned that we the people submit
their resumes and serving on a board um
a city board I believe is
I believe city serving on a city board
is different than than a task force. And
in my uh in my experience with task
force we've never asked people for their
resume. They just kind of like show up
and say I want to be on the task force
and and they're included. So, and this I
think closes kind of makes it more a
kind of a closed group as opposed to a
public forum, a public um hearing which
any and everyone regards to their
position can be heard. So I I I again
think we can gather the information
without creating this task force which
at this point in time we're talking 30
days to 120 150 days that we even you
know to get through this process which I
think information that's that's already
um current and within in terms of good
cause you did say you know maybe we
should look at something that's more
local and that would that would work. Is
it possible that we look at good cause
and see what works? Because we've not
had that discussion about, okay, here's
the good cause and there was one thing
we said about what a small landlord
looks like and then the percentage. Have
we looked at other parts of good cause
and said this works for skate activity
or this doesn't because there's already
a framework out there, right?
>> And is that a better way to go as
opposed to like let's just throw that
out the window and let's start from
scratch. Well, my vision was that we
would that would be a critical um task
of this group is to look at that and and
what's been done, how that works. And
again, I don't I haven't been in the
council here about a year. I don't know
that we take it and we take all that out
there, but actually, you know, people
can come and do public testimony, but
it's not a conversation. And that we
come together, we have a vision, and you
want a strength that works for both
landlords and tenants.
>> That's the vision. and that's why we're
all here. Now, let's create that. I
don't know that we've ever done that,
but that's to me could have powerful
outcomes and outcomes that work. Let's
take that data in a way that this is the
end game cuz it works for both parties,
all parties. So, how do we get there?
And we take that data and this is the
direction we want to go. And I think
that could have a powerful outcome. I
don't know that the law itself will get
us there. That that's my thinking behind
this is let's take this on and let's
develop this
So can I ask clarify? Yes sir.
>> All right. So just just to clarify
you you're stating that the task force
would be would gather information all
the findings etc. So and I am saying
that though that already exists and in
my opinion we don't need a task force to
gather information that currently
exists.
>> It's it's not a new information. Is that
an individual and I'm not trying to put
work on on city staff. Is that an
individual? Is it you and whomever who
can just gather the data? I don't think
it takes 120 days to gather the data
because it exists already. It's just a
matter of or because it won't be new.
>> It's already there.
>> So, she's done.
>> So, do we we can't just take the you
know gather the data again. It's I I
feel like let me just say that we're
just kicking the can down the road to
gather data which currently exists. And
I don't know that we need to to create a
whole task force and again who's going
to be on it, who chooses them. I think
that's a lot that hammers out. And
ideally, we always say it's going to be
this amount of time that we all lot to
that. But we all know in the work that
we do that sometimes we put a time limit
on it, but unfortunately
sometimes we have to go beyond that. So
I don't want this to be an ongoing
process.
Well, I actually think that it goes
beyond root cause. I think that what Mr.
Mancini, at least this is how I'm
interpreting this, um is the idea that
we're looking at housing stability.
We're looking at how we think about
quality of lives for the people that
live in in the city of Skenctity. And
so, you know, again, I think it's not
even about the data, which, you know, I
know that you in particular, for
example, when we talk about people that
are homeless, um, I think you wanted
more information and wanting to do more
research about the homelessness issue.
This would be something that, you know,
this task force would be talking about
housing issues that might also include
um the idea of homelessness within the
city. So, it would actually help us help
frame some of the it's not just about
good costs, I guess, is what I'm trying
to say. This is really talking about all
levels of housing stability within the
city of Connecticut. Am I right? Is that
what I'm reading in in your proposal?
Um, so I think that bringing people
together around a table, um, where they
really can have that chance to look at
the bigger picture of housing in the
city of Skenctity, whether it's
homelessness, whether it's, um, you
know, tenants rights, whether it's
landlords rights, whether it's how do we
educate both landlords and tenants about
their rights? Um, I mean, I feel like,
you know, in in in essence, so the task
force might, if I'm just spitballing
here, but having been a part of, you
know, other groups like this, you know,
maybe they're going to put together a
calendar of activities that um would
include different types of educational
forums um that would help to bring
information to the people that need it,
whether it's tenants or whether it's
landlords. um as well as then we as um
policy you know working with staff I
should say but I mean it gives us that
overview um of things that maybe each of
us in our own experiences and in our own
work in our own volunteer lives or our
professional lives we've we've seen um
and heard a lot um but I wouldn't I
wouldn't frame this around good cause
and I also just do want to hesit I want
to add that I'm sure you all have seen
that there's no deadline on good cause.
It's not like when we discussed the
cannabis issue, where we had a deadline
of December 31st, whatever year that
was, and we had to make a decision um by
that time. There is absolutely no
deadline on the good cause of eviction
law. So, I actually think we should
table that for a little bit um because
that opting in piece is not anything
that has to happen um with any urgency.
But this idea I feel gives us that I
that opportunity to and I don't I don't
mean just data I mean but really here
you know more in terms of I mean we've
had a lot of people that have come and
spoken at public hearings which is why
not public hearing but at our council
meetings which is why I voted against
the public hearing. I really feel like
we've had a huge amount over uh an
extended period of time of input from
both tenants and landlords on that. But
I'd like to see them come together at a
table um in the same way any of us do on
committees at our at our jobs um and
really be able to take a deep dive into
housing stability in the city of
Skenctity. So that's why I would support
this.
>> So just to give some context, so um once
Skenctity is doing a group that is that
they're doing that right now,
>> there's not the one thing that I heard
that isn't happening. Um right now we're
once connected there have multiple
community stakeholder meetings um
there's been landlord representation
tenant representation
um elected officials like even I think
you were at one of them so so this is
happening right now um
so just kind of want to make sure that
people understand that that just based
on what the description is here that's
happening now and and so I've seen
significant distinctions between that
and what we're talking about here. I
guess my question is
um so now kind of flushing through this
missing. So this wouldn't
if this is to Miss Passion point that
goes beyond the cause. It's not just
around the cost which I I agree. I think
anytime the more conversations that we
have more people we can get involved
housing stability a great thing. Um so
are you saying that now
um that this wouldn't be in this is
something that could happen in uh
combination with good cause or is this
something that can only happen in your
point of view um separate from good
cause?
>> Both can be true. Okay. Okay. All right.
So, um, I'm sorry.
>> No, no, but you just for me, I'd like us
to have an opportunity to develop
solutions that are going to be generated
and that are specific to Sketchy issues,
but the players are disconnected
residents, the code enforcement, even
social service, I'm sure, has a role
that we want to focus there and beyond
the community. And specifically, are we
really drilling down into the real
issues? I don't need two evictions with
a good cause when we're not going to get
there. So I' I I'd like to for for me
I'd like before we pass the law, I would
need to do that. We we we address it and
resolve it ourselves without that need
would be to me like great that home run.
>> That would that would be great. But the
issues that uh Skenctity is third in the
state for victim people right now and
that task force um could probably give
us some really good information. Um but
the the again the function of good cause
cuz I think that we're um what we're
saying might not exactly be what we're
meaning cuz I'm picking up on different
things here. It's like good cause the
purpose of that is to keep people um
from wrong convicted. So like evicted.
So I guess my question was to you is
hearing the people that came to the rail
um do you believe that people are
getting
uh retaliatory patients do you believe
them what they're saying that some
people that that's a something that's
happening
>> I'm sure that's happening I'm sure the
people that are doing that mostly would
cause law as well
>> but yeah
>> well I mean I mean we have all sorts of
laws that people break them all the time
that's the reason why we have them right
so like the fact that if I'm a bad
landlord they're not going skirt the
good cause law.
>> So those you know bad players in either
end are but you know they're going to do
it but we're going to hit that
>> abs that don't need the law
>> now we're talking that that makes sense
to me. So so I guess my the next point
then Mr. I'll go to you um would be uh
Miss Patrick you said that you know
there's no deadline on good cause like
there is on other like on the canvas you
have the cannabis well the key
distinction from that to me that we need
to make is that um one was talking about
like you know whether we can have a a
dispensary and the other one is talking
about whether the families in the city
can have some place to live so there is
a deadline for the people that have come
to us that we've heard the voices at the
rail unless we don't believe them. Um,
and I've heard landlords versus at the
rail around the horrible things that
tenants have put them through and I
believe them, too. I believe them 100%.
I believe that that's happening. where
we're getting where the disconnect is
happening is that all the negative and
horrible stories that are I believe to
be true when landlords are saying that
the that the tenants not paying the
rent, they're destroying the property,
they're breaking the lease, they're
having more people in the property than
what they're supposed to.
All of those things
under good cause
are permissible.
So the landlords under good cause for
all the things that they're sending us.
It offers those protections for them to evict people. It is not one thing
that you've mentioned that anyone has
mentioned at the railway doesn't. So,
what I'm saying is at this point, like
is this so if this is something that
you're uh willing to uh that you'd like
to see happen,
I I could uh
see why a task force would be a good
thing, but people are getting if you
know that people are getting retaliatory
evictions now and it's happening now,
then we need to do something about that
now because it doesn't hurt anyone in in
the way that landlords can still evict
every person who damages property or
doesn't pay their rent or breaks their
lease under good cost. So again, I'm
saying to you,
>> okay, I agree.
And then we can talk about the task
force. You know what the task force can
do in labor? But to to substitute it in
for good cause it
quite honestly on the face of it just
doesn't make sense cuz if you know that
people are being illegally evicted and
you believe that then we need to do
something to address that and that's
what could cause us.
>> Well maybe so
we got to be clear. So let's be clear.
So what you're saying is that people are
not being
>> No. What I'm saying is I don't this law
and it application interpretation of it
is going to is going to solve that. I
think us drilling down to the data and
what's happening will tell me what what
more what data are you looking for? Like
what other reasons for eviction
retaliations? What does that look like?
Is that is it a code enforcement thing?
Is it like like somebody's going to be
evicted, they call now they can't be
evicted? There are a lot of there's a
lot of information out there. Is it for
non-payment of rent? Is it the person's
having episodes and they have to be
evicted? So, are they going to push them
off to another landlord? Is there ways
we can stabilize that? What currently do
we do in cases like that?
>> How often do the police I mean the
incidents of domestic violence in police
responding? What do we do in those
situations? How do we stabilize people
in your home and community? Let's take a
broader look. Can we do something like
that where you don't have a need for the
law that that data we don't have? So, I I agree with all the things that
you're saying. These are good things we
d that we should be looking at. Again, I
don't see how the data offers any
protections for people while we
wait possibly, you know, 3 to 4 months
in the city with the highest with one of
the highest eviction rates in the state
as we wait another 3 or 4 months and
we're talking about displaced families.
Nothing that you're suggesting with this
task force would impact good cause. So,
I guess what I would say to you is this.
I guess this is a question and maybe you
could be my thought partner on this
know that it's happening
then maybe the way to go about it would
be to opt into good cause
and then the task force part of the
function of the task force can look at
how it's impacting the city because
that's information that we don't have
now right we don't have that information
right now but we do have the the high
eviction
data. We do have uh uh some of the
people came and presented us with a
different type of eviction data in the
city of Skenctity. We have that. You
know, that wasn't again that wasn't like
someone's opinion. That was, you know,
these are these are pulled from credible
data sources that they cited in the
information they gave us. So, maybe the the thing to do would be to
opt into good cause for offering those
protections to people, right? and then
use the task force to look at um how
it's impacting people and address some
of those other issues that we're talking
about that good cause. Would you is that
would you be open for that?
>> Well, I I like the idea of using good
cause as a motivator to bring people to
the table and and want to solve
problems. I think if we go past it, we
may lose a group or lose that
commitment. Okay. Who you think won't
come to the table?
>> I don't know. I just think it's good to
hang over that as a motivator for all of
us and for landlords and private
organizations.
>> I see that point for the group, but it's
like we're leveraging people's lives to
get if somebody really cares about we're
dealing with people's lives. I agree
with you. So, I don't know if passing
this law I I think good cause is good,
but I rather us for something great, but
it's a disconnected and I don't know
that good cause gets us there. But
>> that's that's just my show. Like I said,
we can go
a discussion.
>> Sure. Anybody else who wants to
participate? If we did, I was just
answering a question. I miss Patrick.
>> Um, and now I just lost what I was going
to say. Um, I really, really, really
want to stress that
again.
I mean, I feel like you're turning it
more into just trying to have a
conversation again about good cause.
>> It is. It is. It's in his legislation.
>> I'm just saying I'm just saying I I
think that you sound it seems like
you're trying to debate here on the good
cause on opting into good cause. And I
don't think what that that's what the
purpose of this discussion should have
been. Um I I also want to say that
it's been my experience over the last
several years um of watching what's been
going on and what's going on in the
state. Um that again I just want to
caution folks that
we don't even know what's going to
happen with good cause eviction
legislation. I mean they could change
that law. They could change the elements
of that law. Um, if you read about the
law, I mean, you can see that it still
could be in flux after after something
happens. Look what happened with the
cannabis dispensary. Um, you know, we
had a deadline by which we had to make a
decision. um we made a decision and
after we made the decision the state
went ahead and changed the regulations
within the um premise of the law and
they started saying you know things like
there were only going to be a certain
number of licenses there could only be a
certain number there could only be a
certain number of uh dispensaries that
could be I mean all this stuff that came
out after we all had to make a decision
about the law here first of all I don't
want to go back to the whole good cause
eviction but I will say since we don't
have to rush rush into good cause
eviction because there's no deadline uh
for what we what we do on that. I like
the task force idea because it brings
together folks, different voices in the
community. Yes, we heard them in the
public in the city council. Um so I did
vote against the public hearing, but
this is a way to bring in experts. Bring
in somebody from SCAP, bring in somebody
from um I I I don't know. I mean, I
would say like all the various
organizations in our community as well
as some representation by landlord,
representation by tenant. Um, the one
skinnctity piece I have to say sometimes
I read the stuff that that's coming out
and I think, well,
we still are the people, the city is
still the people that are going to have
to pass certain things. Um, like for
example, right now they're talking about
an app or whatever. I mean the landlords
are talking about the preferred um
listing. I can't remember the exact name
of it. I mean it all is going to operate
like separately from the city. I mean
really the city should be taking the
lead in in looking at housing in looking
at housing stability. And so I think
this is one way of trying to do that. So
get try to let's all try to get away
from the good cause eviction piece for a
second. let's get let's get away and
just start to think about the housing
situation in our city um in general. Um
and that's where I think and again I
mean I appreciate that the Skin
Foundation is you know having forums um
bringing folks together but again it's
stuff is still going to have to come to
the city um you know really or and the
county. I mean, by the way, there were
no county representation at the at the
forum that I did go to, and I was
sitting there thinking, wow, I mean,
that's where public health is. That's
where social services is. I mean, like,
you know, we should have those
legislators sitting with us um talking
about housing stability um here. So, you
know, I think I think that there has to
be a multi- what's the right word, you
know, or multi-pronged approach to to
the general issue um that I would like
to see happen because I mean, how many
of us have been involved in this for
years um trying to look at homelessness,
trying to look at people that are living
in poverty and trying to find solutions
and so you know,
>> so I I'll just respond to that and Mr.
Porfield.
Okay. Um, number one, I just want to
say, you know, you're kind kind of
mischaracterizing what I'm doing here.
Um, I want to read you the first
sentence in in the legislation. It says,
"The city was connected is currently
evaluating whether to opt into New York
State could cause eviction loan."
>> That sentence number one. The first
sentence in the evaluation uh next
paragraph is rather than focus nearly on
the reactive policy such as good cause
eviction. So to say that I'm taking this
legislation and making it about good
cause when the legislation itself is
about doing something other than good
cause. That's what's really happening.
Would you agree that that's
>> I hear what you're saying and I do see
that in here but I think and again I
don't want to speak for Mr. Many, but it
seems like the topic of good cause
eviction that has been brought to our
table um is what might have helped him
consider suggesting that I you can jump
in here. I'm not trying to put words in
your mouth, but might have been one of
the impetuses for suggesting that the
task force might be a good thing to to
have come to be.
>> Sure.
>> So, that's what I'm saying.
>> Sure. The only thing I'm saying is that
if it's characterizing it as a task
force instead of the cause, then that's
one conversation. You know, we're having
a conversation about a task force, then
the cause doesn't even need to be a part
of the conversation.
>> It's about housing.
>> So, right. So, therefore, I'm not
characterizing this about good cause.
The legislation itself is about good
cause. It says it in both paragraphs.
Uh, and also I would add that you're
saying that the laws could change, but
every everything there's not a piece of
legislation that we don't that we don't
pass right now that could be subject to
change. That's part of being a
responsive body of government. We've
said a lot of things and then the state
might have did something. The federal
the feds might have done something that
changed the landscape for us. But that's
true for anything. So that's really not
a good reason not to act. And I would
also say you're saying that we don't
have to rush. Reality is yeah, we don't
have to rush. We all We all own our
homes and we're not in possibility of
facing eviction.
>> That's not what I'm saying.
>> What I'm saying? But what I'm saying,
Miss Patrick, what you said was we don't
have to rush. What I'm telling you is
>> there's no deadline for opting into
causeiction. That's what I meant.
>> Okay. Okay. I'm just going off what you
said, but people
» Well, I just want Let's just be clear.
The reason that this task force
conversation even came about is because
of the deposed eviction. So, I don't
think that we can discuss one without
the other. I think that would be it. It
just is impossible because that I would
believe, correct me if I'm wrong, was
the driving force about why Mr. Mancini
said, "Oh, I looked at the cause, maybe
that's not it." So, let's look at the
task force. So, I don't think we can
leave that out of the conversation and
really have a a a robust conversation
about this particular task force. um
once connectedity was mentioned and you
know there's some you know they're like
maybe they weren't doing the best job
but if there's already an organization
already doing that why we don't use
these resources that you're talking
about these people that you're talking
about and join the effort that's already
happening because they're already quite
a few steps ahead because they've
already been doing the study. We know
that they have people who are directly
impacted. We know that landlords um have
been at those meetings. So
you mentioned that everything has to
come back to the government. So why are
we trying to do something separate and
apart when there's an there's already an
organization a group of organized
individuals who are stakeholders who are
impacted who have a level of expertise
who are already participating in this?
Why a separate and apart task force
doing something similar to work that's
already being done? And if we feel like
if if we join with this group and we
look at and say, "Well, I think you're
missing this mark." That to me makes a
lot more sense as opposed to saying,
"Okay, I know that you're doing that
over there, but let's do something and
be do something over here and and we're
not doing this together." So, I think a
better idea is um or let me build on
your idea, I'll say it that way, is that
we look at what's already being done and
join efforts with that group. Um I don't
and I I have to agree with Mr. Farley. I
don't know that we necessarily have to
wait till everything is concrete and set
in stone because that never happens if
we are we put throwing out the good for
the perfect because the perfect is never
going to happen. At least I've never
seen it happen in my life. There's always some things that can be
did done differently. And also there is
urgency now for the people who who this
is impacting. So
good cause has to be a part of this
conversation whether we like it or not.
Um and I again I offer the opportunity
that we take a look at the actual
legislation and say this works this
doesn't work. There are some clear
things like if your land if your tenant
is not paying rent you take them to
court and they they have to go. there
are some really clearly laid out things
and my recommendation is that we um look
at what good cause is and look at the
good landlords because I don't think the
landlords who are doing the right thing
right now are the landlords who are
really going to be impacted by this and
yes some people will slip under the
radar whether it be landlords and
tenants it's just that I'm sure that
landlords can tell you that's the nature
of the business and tenants will tell
you the same thing so um again I don't
think it's targeting the landlords to
the ones that I've spoken to explain to
me how they're handling what they do. To
me, good cause from what I've all the
legislation that I've read, the pros and
the cons is that the landlords who are
already doing all the wonderful things
will not be negatively impacted. We're
already looking at code enforcement and
all of that.
So, and code enforcement, as I
understand, it goes in when tenants
call, when landlords call, they already
go in. It's, you know, so that wouldn't
be in addition. So why not join with
one's connectivity and make it one's
connected?
>> Yeah. Thank you. So what I'm sensing
here from Mr. Mancini on legislative
records is more of a long-term solution.
How do we work to benefits connectities
landlord and tenant and not pitting each
other this group against each other? How
can we come up with a solution? bring
them to the table and bring agency that
are advocating for tenants, advocating
for landlord together and let them work
at a long-term solution. That's what the
whole that's what I'm sensing from the
solution and it's driven towards that.
It's not more of like well we don't want
this and we don't want that. Bring
people table discuss gather information
and let's move forward and see what we
can do to benefit. Um you know um it's a
boring topic. I mean, we can sit down
here and we can debate and we can debate
every word against each other, but it's
we're not getting anywhere. So, we we
need to do something
to benefit our connectity residents and
that's what Mr. Mancini is trying to do
here. Um, setting up this task force,
which I think is a good thing, bringing
people out to the table, discuss ideas,
come up with solutions and to,
you know, come up with a solution, come
up and address it and move forward.
Let's see what we can do in terms of um
these concerns. I mean,
I don't feel at this point in time that
we we're going to move forward that
legislation. That's how I I know sense
it. But here's a solution for us to add
something to the table and to make sure
that we can do something that benefit
both parties. And we can we can sit here
and we can talk about um skinnity is a
third in eviction in the state. Are we asking ourselves or are we asking
the question why is connectity the third
position in the state?
>> Are they all because landlord just wake
up one morning and decide to evict all
their tenants or are they bad tenants?
We need to address that. We can't say
that oh we in the state and make us look
good or bad but how does that how did
they arrive at that that in the court
system?
>> Mhm. Is it is it because landlord you
know want to clear their property? Is
the tenant bad? Those are the things the
task force will be addressed.
>> They will address that and those things
will come to life because we're going to
have some we and I said that over and
over. We have good tenants. We have bad
tenants. We have good landlord and we
have bad landlord.
>> And there's no secret about that. Bring
them to the table. Let them address the
concerns. We gather information. We come
back and say we really need to do this.
Here is the information that we're
gathering from all the agencies that are
dealing with tenants agency in Skynctity
that are dealing with tenants agency
that are dealing with landlords and the
landlord group and people outside of the
landlord group who in Skenctity would
like to come to this forum and address
concerns and let's let's us as a
council.
Yes, we we want to join our agency, but
we as a legislative body, we are
discussing opting in to cause eviction.
We're trying now to come up with a
solution. Other than that, if that's not
going to pass and come up with a
solution, how do we benefit? And I think
it's our responsibility as a legislative
body to discuss it. Create our own group
as Mr. Mancini recommend here. Invite
all the agencies on board whoever would
like to join and let's hear from them
and let's move forward. And Mr. Mr. Dor
talk about how do we reach out to these
people? How do we on board them? I think
if this were to pass to create this task
force, it is upon us
council and with the help of staff to
reach out to agency and to get them on
board and we on board them. I don't
think it's a hard process and I to get
them on board and and let them join and
the task force and let's discuss it
openly at forums. We're not going to
stretch it out for for four, five, six
months. We should have time time frame,
cut off time, bring back information to
us, discuss, move forward.
>> Yeah. So to to your point, Mr. Miller,
um it sounds like we're asking for a
public hearing, which we definitely had
on the table at our last council
meeting. Sounds that's what it sounds
like to me. You're saying to have people
in a public forum express their
concerns, thoughts, and ideas.
>> Mr. Farley, Mr.
If you're going to define my my state,
I'm not going to do that to you. I'm
telling you my point. I'm not calling
for public. I'm calling for a task force
that people can sit down openly and
discuss this as a forum. We come back
with a solution to the table and move
forward with creating whatever
recommendation of the task force. So if
we can't opt in, we have a solution, a
long-term solution that is mentioned in
this LR here by Mr. Mini looking for a
short-term long-term strategy to
stabilize housing without increasing
regulatory burden unnecessarily. This is
a legislation here, Mr. Mans President.
That's what I'm focused on. So, I'm not
going to allow you to mince my word back
into public hearing. Please, let's not
do this.
>> So, hold on. So, let let me be very
clear with you, Mr. Müer, and anyone
else that's listening. I'm not trying to
uh mischaracterize your words. What the
words you just said was bring people
together to talk in a public forum.
That's the word you just said. So, hold
on, please. So, that's why I said it
sounds like
>> bring agencies to to the task force.
>> And so, what I'm saying to you again is
that's what it sounded like. If you're
saying no that you're that you that
you're saying that you don't want people
you you're being very uh specific to the
task force having people come to talk.
Okay. I'm just saying with the words you
use. So I guess I'll go to Miss I
haven't question.
>> So as I
>> I didn't see your hand.
>> Go ahead Mr. W four times ago and then
>> four times more
times ago sometimes I think Mr. See, I'm
just going to whoever reads my little
notes here, but any not really. Uh I
guess I I guess my uh first thing is
yes, a task force and bring one skinnity
to the table if they're already so far
ahead of us. But we're the legislative
body for this city and we need to
protect renters, tenants, homeowners,
every homeless people, everyone here in
the in in the city. That's our job. I
guess the data that's been presented
wasn't present, it was presented by one
side of the issue for good cause. So,
I'd like to see more data. Absolutely.
Um I'd like to know um I'd like to bring
home ownership into this whole
situation. Okay. Because uh listening at
the rail multiple times to tenants,
>> landlords, individuals, a lot of these
tenants are paying money that could go
towards a mortgage. We have a homes
program that that that's on the table.
Uh in some of the research I did uh
about good cause. Uh Skenctity was like
fourth on the list for their home homes
ownership program. Um so we have that.
We have um um who builds our homes here
out here? Mine's uh
>> UCI our Habitat. Okay. We have a lot of
that going on. We have a lot of great
things going on here in the city. We
also had a uh a landlord registry data
um that Slick was working on and other
individuals. Okay. They had a monstrous
meeting over at at at the waters edge.
There was every agency there whether it
was DSS. So these things are all being
done. Um so as with the task force they
can continue to be done. And I want to
know why are we there in my state? I
want data on the top evictions. What?
Why?
I want to know why we're third in the
state because that's pretty damn bad.
Okay.
I want to know why. I want I want I you
know, I want the data on that because is
it,
you know, being in both situations
myself in my lifetime, renting and and
having an apartment for rent, it's um,
you know, it's not good on either end. So I
understand both sides but again I think
uh a task force when you want to call it
a task force or something uh get
together invite one's connectity in
invite the county in okay I guess my
last thing is before it banters back and
forth and back and forth this is in
government operations it's uh Mr. Farley
Mr. Baron and Miss Porterfield. At this
point, we should probably try to move it
out of committee or take a vote on it
because that would be my recommendation.
So,
>> well, I'd like to add something to the
conversation before we move it to the
vote vote. Um because as the
conversation as we, you know, go further
down the road in the conversation, I'm
hearing a lot about having stakeholders
and agencies and organizations.
So to me, we've already talked ourselves
away from tenant representation, which
is a concern because we're talking about
I understand that people do this every
single day. It's their job about, you
know, making sure people have housing,
etc. But we cannot leave out the people
that are directly impacted. That is a
voice that needs to be at the table,
right? So we cannot already, as we're
talking about, I'm hearing that, okay,
we have the stakeholders, we have the
nonprofits, etc. and so on.
>> I'm not talking about what's in the
legislation. I'm talking about the
conversation. Um and so I think we have
to make sure we steer steer away from
that and make sure and in terms of um
inviting one's connectity in why are we
not joining one's connectedity if it's
already doing the work and why are we
saying to this organization that's
already this organized group of people
from a respected that's part of a
respected foundation within our
community and has done a lot of work
already. Why aren't we saying to them we
would like to be a part of this and then
come up with something as opposed to
again creating something that in my mind
already exists perhaps not to the level
we'd like to see. Why aren't we doing
that? We don't always have to be we the
creator of it. we can be a part of it
and then when it comes together if if it
comes to the point where we need to move
something then we've had that
organization you know presented to the
city having done that work and and I
know from being at the meetings and
seeing who's there that there are
already people there on both sides that
are already impacted these individuals
are not being left the stakeholders are
there also the tenants on the ground
experienced in this are there why are we
doing
extra
that why aren't we just joining in? If
we see something that is happening, why
aren't we we um joining in? I'm I'm just
not clear on why we need to feel like
there's needs to be something
above and beyond the work that's in in
addition to I should say not above and
beyond, but in addition to the work
that's already being done, why we're not
joining with a group that's already
doing this work as opposed to starting
something new.
say about it. No, listen, I'm okay with
the conversation continuing. I think
it's an important one. So, I'm going to
make sure that everyone gets to say
whatever they need to say.
>> Yeah. I guess um the reason that I said
what I said about the work that one
connectivity is is doing is that
ultimately
it's still going to have to be us that I
mean they can come up with as many ideas
as they want um as they want but still
then they would probably have to come to
the city council and say hey you know we
want to make sure that you guys pass
this or you know could you consider this
option or this idea or this Um, so you
know, I mean, and again, I mean, four of
us were I couldn't make the last
meeting, but four of us were at the
first meeting. Um,
great. But again, it's ultimately our
responsibility, not theirs. Um, like I
mean, I read about the app that they
were thinking about doing. I mean, it's
sort of like I was kind of like, well,
you know, maybe the city should be
thinking about doing the app. I mean,
it's it's really us. Do you know what
I'm saying? So, I think I think that
it's great that we work in tandem. Uh or
if the task if this task force went
through, you know, that we invite a
representative from one skinny to come
and report on the kinds of things that
they're thinking about and talking
about. I think this would include tenant
representation
um as well as landlord representation.
Um, so to to get that your first concern
that's
» to the point um I I'd like to counter
where we're talking about where Slick
says they want to come up with landlord
registry a certain process that Slick
within their organization wants to do
that and they're not we're not doing
that on be behalf of the city. They're
coming up with that. So how is this
different
>> with once connectity
having representation if you know I know
that Mr. Toro always uh attends the
Slick meetings. How is this different?
>> Slick is already coming up with certain
things still have to come through to us,
right? I think the mayor is already we
already have things in place within the
city that um in terms of landlords in
terms of rule,
>> the uh residents, the rental uh types of
things and the and the other things that
the mayor is trying to suggest. So,
right. So, you know, I'm just saying
it's still us. It's still
>> I'm not disputing that fact. But what I
am saying is that organizations come to
us all the time about things they'd like
to bring forward, things they'd like to
see. And again, we're we're entertaining
that Slick come forward with their
landlord registry and all this thing
that they've been talking about for a
while since 22. I heard that about that.
So, it's something that they've been
talking about and want to present it to
the city and they've talked about
working with the mayor on that. So, how is it that this organization over
here we're saying okay we'll work
through it like that we won't take it on
we'll take your recommendations
and then when over here we're talking
about ones connected we're saying we
won't necessarily take your
recommendations because they have to
come to us first
>> why aren't we just why aren't we just
joining with as as we're joining with
Slick why aren't we joining with ones
connectedity the work is already started
they're already doing the work we know
that they have stakeholders and we know
they have tenants. All of the things all
of the things that are already that are
in here that Mr. Many may see and I
believe some of the data that was asked
for in terms of uh what Mr. Tur said is
data again already exists and we could
just make these things known to once
connected. Hey, this is what we'd like
to see. So I don't I I just don't see
how we need to do it separate and apart
is what I'm essentially saying.
>> I mean I'm not on that subcommittee so
where this is heading. So so
[Music]
again landlord registry great idea. I
think, you know, in in in more lenient
terms, it's it maybe this wasn't what
you were saying, Miss Special, but it
seemed like what you were saying is that we should take it on because
ultimately it's our responsibility. And
I think the point that President Pier
was highlighting is that um we work with
agencies
all the time to bring to bring forth uh legislation that we context. So,
Slick is one of those agencies. Slick
happens to be part of Kentucky. Um, so
again, so instead of reinventing the
wheel, we can just, you know, instead of
having them have to come to us, we can
just go to them to hear like, you know,
what's happening and then we add value
in the conversation that way. Again, if you think that a task force in
addition to this is something that is
good, that's that's great. So, let me
just ask you some pretty simple
questions so then we can move on cuz
that seems to be what people like to
have happen. I mean, but remember guys,
we're the decisions that we're making
are extremely consequential. That's why
they deserve this back and forth. This
conversation, they are these are
people's lives are at stake literally.
So, we want to make sure that we're
having these conversations and and it's
very intentional and sometimes draws our
way, but I feel like it's worth. Um, so
Mr. Mania, are you saying that this is
something that could happen in
conjunction with good cause? Are you
saying that that this has to be either
or or could this based on the data that
would have not be a guessing? I guess
that's
>> I think given the place we're in now,
this come before that would pass. The
good cause would pass. My guess and I
don't would be that would not good cause
would not pass. I think the work of this
task force will bring it. Yes, we need
it or clearly we've come up with
something better
that
that's what I would like us to get to.
Um and and you know the one thing about
one's connectity is I think clearly this
falls within our accountability
authority and I would ask Mr. O'Brien,
is there some language in if we were do
the resolution that gives us the
authority to enact the recommendations
which would be distinct from other
groups doing it where we as a city
council mayor this you know if there's
you know looking at your the housing uh
rental housing section I depending on
what areas of the uh code need to be
amended you can always do that if it's
within our authority some things take
state legislation but you know
depends on what the recommendations from
any task force say whether it's
something that can be has it been done
legislatively or program you know
through programs or requires state
enabling legislation. So that's that's
always the the possibility. Um but the
you know the uh if I can just follow up
you know the the local law number one is
still pending before you. I want to make
that clear. All right. I know we um it
was introduced
last uh last week. There will be more
than 7 days on your table. It's on for
final consideration next week.
The local law I mean the the resolution
for a public hearing that was the
council's public hearing. That is not
the mayor's public hearing. How does the
mayor's public hearing come about? only
if the local law is passed that would
require four votes. So the fact that the the public hearing resolution failed
last week does not impact the fact that local law number one is still
before you next week before a vote a
vote and if the sponsor wishes to
continue you know on that I don't you
know I don't want to speak on behalf of
Mr. Farley but right now that's that's
on for a vote for next week.
So I guess uh I would just
again just raise the point before you
move to a go. I'm just agree to think
that
um a housing task force is something
that I think could be um a valuable
thing but being that it's in the it's
being presented in the context in place
of good cause housing task force doesn't
prevent families who are being
wrongly convicted um which
I don't think that anyone on the council
I only ask Mr. But I don't think anybody
else on the council thinks that that's
not happening right now. I don't and and
please let me know if I'm wrong. I guess
that's a better question. Does anyone
think that that families are not being
wrongfully evicted in this connectivity
right now? Does anyone think that?
>> Well, do you have specific examples of
somebody's being wrongfully evicted? You
know, these are generic things. If
there's something that needs action,
I'll bring staff out of that tonight.
Get them back.
>> Bring more people from the law
department. I'll call the county. I'll
put a call in the governor's office. A
lot of this is rhetoric. You got to give
specific examples of people that are
being improperly, illegally, or somehow
treated improperly.
>> So, let me answer your question very
directly. Yes, there are uh incidents uh
people they came to the larger council
meeting and they've been there. There
hasn't been a council meeting I think in
the last larger council meetings where
no one hasn't got up and talked about
the fact that they had
people that were currently concerned
based on threats that were
>> concerned going through an eviction
process.
>> Hold on. So, so you're so then let me
answer it this way then.
>> The heart and spirit of good cause is to
prevent that from happening. So when
people come to their counsel and say
that that has been their experience, I
believe them. So when I say okay, that's
been your experience, good cause put
something in place to prevent that from
happening. And to your answer, yes,
multiple people have come before us and
said that they have been retaliatory or
they've been out of the home. So yes.
Um
at this point, I will uh entertain a
motion.
[Music]
Mr. Chairman, this is this is a motion
for the creation of the task force. Is
that is that was that the motion is that
the motive is on your member of the
committee?
>> Yes. I I like to that we create a task
force uh to invite these agencies to
help us uh participate and uh bring
ideas to the table.
[Music]
>> Second.
Um I'm I'm not going to second it
because I again feel like we should be
trying to work with one's connection. It
already exists. I think this is being
separate and apart and creating a whole
new entity
is not the most time uh time effective
way of doing this if if our real goal is
to address this but to join with an
organization that's doing that already.
Um, and we know that it has to come to
us in the long run, but why are we not
working with a group that's already
doing similarly as we're working with
another the landlord group who is who's
bringing things forward and we're being
very open to that. So again, the work's
being done. I think the better way to go
is to join with a group that's doing it
and not create our own separate entity
which will probably draw the same
people. We're going to be drawing on the
same people to come to the table. So
that's just one more group that they
have to be a part of. So based on the
evalu those are my evaluations. Um so I can't second it based on that.
>> Thank you. I obviously won't be second
based on the fact that again
this is uh legislation
that is being presented
uh instead of root cause is how it's um
crafted here in the legislation.
Therefore, I can't uh support it because
it doesn't offer any of the protections
that good cause does um and as we've
been talking to people that are coming
to the rail and have been reaching out
to us very clearly, this is a problem
and I can't support anything that's
going to let another family be
wrongfully evicted out of their house
and uprooted to this place um while we
figure out data that we've that's
already been presented to us that's
already ex existed and I'm don't think
that just based on the conversation I
don't know that the council has read
through this legislation um I don't know
that everyone has I would just strongly
suggest that you really read through the
legislation because again nothing that
was brought forward today as far as
landlord protections as far as evicting
people based on breaking lease damage
property and nonp payment of rent those
are all permissible under good cause so
with that I I won't be
That motion correct.
» Before you close, I just want to um
thank Mr. Mansini for trying to come up
with a solution that trying to present
some sort of creative solution that
would help us through this discussion
about housing stability. So, thanks. I
thought it was I thought it was a good
try.
>> And Mr. Ming, I appreciate you uh your
ideas around the task force. that I just
can't support it in place of good cause
because good cause protects people and
keeps them in their house and this
doesn't do that.
>> Yeah. Just final comment was what in
place of was to gain support of
so then and we're not going to get there
task force but they got information come
up with some other solutions that are
possible but not in place of get more
information as necessary. I don't think
we need or know if it's necessary. Well,
in the data, but I don't know what we've
done to resolve those and I don't know
that this law is going to solve those
problems. I don't think we solve all.
So, we on the same page. I don't think
that good cause solves all the problems.
I think that it does offer protections
for people who are wrongfully
um and illegally and and right now not
but wrongfully being convicted for like
retaliatory convictions and based on
their um uh sexual orientation andor all
those things that came to the real set.
So I'm sorry
we're going to sit here and we spin it
right the way around my phone. This is
my committee sir. This is my committee
sir.
spinning stuff.
>> See, but this is a problem.
>> My gosh.
>> See, but look, the way you're conducting
yourself right now is is what I perceive
as a problem. Just because you feel the
conversation is going on long, you're
being disrespectful.
>> No, it's not because I I'm not against
allowing people to allow people to
express themselves. Debating people for
the whole evening.
>> But sir, right now,
>> everyone is entitled to their opinion
and you should respect that. You're not
respecting our the other members opinion
and suggestion.
>> Right now you're acting out of order,
sir. Right now, I have to call it out of
order. You have to call it.
>> Okay. Well, then
>> excuse me, sir. Gentlemen, Mr. Mr. Moon
with Mr. Farley saying that he did not
call on you and um and recognize you to
speak. That's what he's saying right
now.
>> Um Mr. Farley, if I can inter Mayor, did
you there was I saw that your pen was
up. Did you? Is there something you
wanted to interject here? Could
the clerk just transmit around I'd like
copies of whatever the data is or the
information that's part of the record of
the council
>> that was provided to us at the last
council meeting.
>> Well,
just narrative over the rail is not a
formal presentation of stuff to each
individual council member. It's not
subject to uh review. And if you're
voting on something, you should know
what you're voting. You've asked for
data on a lot of things. I've made that
a big portion here. What data is before
the council?
>> I can say that there was data that was
presented at the council meeting at the
last council meeting that um so somebody
came forward. So we could we uh yeah, we
do have that. Um, and if you're asking
about all of the data that's been
requested here, it would, you know, take
a few days. If you just want to see
what's been presented to the council,
then there's that. But if you're asking
for all the data that's outlined here,
it would take a couple days. But I
believe the data exists and can be
compiled in
>> what's part of the record.
>> Okay. Part of the record that that we
have.
» So, um,
I'm sorry, Mr. Man. Uh, Mr. Farley. Yes.
>> So I I want I want to make sure I give
Mr. Junior opportunity to speak while I
call on Mr. I'm good. Oh okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you sir.
>> Thank you. As long as we're still going.
You said being a victim for sexual
preference and things like that. We
don't have any data for that. So that's
not even on the table. So
>> I'm I'm sorry. It's just
>> you can say that. That's fine.
>> Right. I mean, the mayor asked, you
know, who's coming forward, who's there?
I mean, people are getting evicted
obviously for reasons that the court
finds acceptable. But I I again, I want
to know why we're third in the state.
Maybe Sam can get those numbers together
for us. This this here uh that we got uh
over the rail, just handed over the
rail. It could have been made up, but we
don't know. No,
>> I think they they I think they cited
where where the information came from,
man. I don't think it was cited. It was
cited
>> just handed it over. I
>> Well, can I just say that that happens
to us often. We are often handed things
across the rail. So,
>> and we don't always necessarily um
question the authenticity of it or where
it sourced from, but this one did give
the sources. So, I mean, I know
obviously this is a very hot topic even
among council members and a very
passionate uh topic even among council
members. So, we've all had our say today
and lots of it. Um, clearly this did not
pass out of committee. Um and and I also
want to say in terms of the cause that
we consistently talk about um tenants
and tenant protections, but it also
protects landlords. And I think that you
should not lose sight of that because it
gives them the ability to say somebody's
not paying your rent, you have to go.
Somebody's destroying your property or
all these somebody's you said you your
lease says one person and you moved in
five people, they have to go. So there
are protections for landlords and
tenants in this legislation and that
good cause legislation. So that's the
last comment I have. Mr.
>> So we saw with that um I would say uh
that uh Mr. Nini um I what I was saying
is I appreciate um what you're how you
presenting this task force. Again I just
due to it being instead of so you and I
um were both at the last ones connected
to me and we've had conversations. I
look forward to working continue to work
with you on these conversations. You all
can get all that and figure it out. Um
yeah. So again, this isn't an argument.
Um this is a open exchange of of ideas
that's important because it impacts
people's livelihood and it's urgent for
people who are in the situation. Thank
God in my situation right now. I'm going
to set this table that I know of. Um
with that uh I any more issues come
before government operations? If not, I
will accept a motion to adjurnn. So
moved.
>> Second.
>> We are journal.
All
>> in favor.
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> Everyone seems to be in favor.
>> Call the order of the claims committee.
We have two items on the agenda. Um they
both seem to be uh in action item. So I
will
motion to go into executive session.
>> Oh,
the motion. All right. She got me all
flustered.
» I'll second it. Okay. Right now.
>> All in favor?
>> I I We
>> We got it. All right. The public will
have to leave.
>> Yes. Members of the public will have to
leave.
[Music]
>> I'm going with her.
[Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]