[0:00] Hey, hey, hey.
[0:02] [Music]
[0:25] Heat. Heat.
[0:29] [Music]
[1:04] Heat. Heat.
[1:14] [Music]
[1:58] [Applause]
[1:58] [Music]
[2:29] Heat. Heat. Heat.
[2:35] [Music]
[2:52] Heat.
[2:55] [Music]
[3:06] Hey, Heat.
[3:09] [Music]
[3:46] Heat.
[3:49] [Music]
[4:10] I'd like to call to order this
[4:11] connecting city council committee
[4:13] meeting for Monday, July 21st, 2025.
[4:16] Five and the first committee is finance.
[4:19] >> Thank you madam. Thank you madam
[4:20] president. I would like to call the
[4:21] finance committee committee to order and
[4:24] the first item is the 2023 consolidated
[4:27] annual performance and evaluation
[4:29] report.
[4:32] » Mayor good evening city council mayor.
[4:34] >> Good evening.
[4:35] >> Um the first thing on the agenda is our
[4:38] 2023 papers report. Um I am asking today
[4:42] for three things that you accept our
[4:45] outline paper report. The second thing
[4:47] is to announce our public comment period
[4:50] and the third is a call for a public
[4:52] hearing to the next city council meeting
[4:55] August 11th.
[4:57] >> Are this on item number one?
[5:00] >> Item number one.
[5:03] All those all
[5:08] we need to call for a public hearing.
[5:11] U Mr. Chairman, the uh the uh public
[5:13] hearing will be a separate resolution
[5:15] and then the the uh comment period and
[5:18] the acceptance of the report can be done
[5:19] by one resolution but it will mention
[5:23] the public hearing as well but the
[5:25] public hearing will be its own
[5:26] standalone
[5:28] resolution the other three items will be
[5:32] the other
[5:38] » sorry
[5:40] any questions
[5:42] So, may I have a motion to to call for a
[5:44] public hearing and make another one?
[5:46] >> So, move.
[5:46] >> Second. All in favor? I
[5:48] >> and a motion to accept the annual
[5:51] performance evaluation report.
[5:53] >> So move.
[5:53] >> Second. All in favor?
[5:55] >> I.
[5:57] >> Item number two, the 2025 2026 US
[6:01] Department of Housing and Urban
[6:02] Development allocations. Miss Carver.
[6:04] >> Yes. Attached. Please file our 2025 2026
[6:08] allocations. Um I today I'm asking city
[6:10] council to adopt a resolution of
[6:12] authorizing us to accept our funding
[6:14] from HUD
[6:18] » question on this
[6:21] M for the public sake just walk through
[6:24] summary
[6:25] >> this year for community development
[6:27] block grant also known as CDBG we
[6:29] received 2 million50,241
[6:34] for home which is home investment
[6:36] partnership program we received 1
[6:38] million
[6:40] 187,96.39.
[6:41] [Music]
[6:43] And for emergency solution grant, also
[6:45] known as ESG, we received $184,656.
[6:54] » Go ahead.
[6:56] Yes,
[6:57] >> Miss Cover. Um, how do these figures
[7:00] compare to what we've gotten in the
[7:01] past?
[7:02] >> That it is roughly about 400 and some
[7:05] odd dollars different from last year.
[7:07] >> Okay. Well, so we did less.
[7:11] >> Sorry,
[7:12] >> that's not so bad. I was I was a little
[7:15] concerned about it. So
[7:16] >> So yeah, there were we weren't impacted
[7:19] by any major cuts.
[7:21] >> Okay.
[7:26] But this is kind of money that's in the
[7:27] pipeline that the dynamics in Washington
[7:30] are such that we're really looking at
[7:32] the next cycle seeing a significant hit
[7:34] in terms of the funding that's provided
[7:36] through these uh grants and programs.
[7:42] No, that was my question.
[7:45] >> Any other question or comment?
[7:48] >> Seeing none, may I have a motion to
[7:49] accept this item?
[7:51] >> So move.
[7:51] >> Second. All in favor? Hi.
[7:53] >> Hi.
[7:54] >> The next item is a 2025 that 2029 accept
[7:58] HUD lead hazard control and healthy
[8:01] homes grant. Miss Carl.
[8:02] >> Yes. So we our 2024
[8:06] NOA grant for the lead hazard control
[8:08] healthy home grant was accepted. It's a
[8:10] 4-year grant. We were allocated $3,967
[8:17] 3967
[8:20] million61.
[8:22] I'm all tongue tied, forgive me. Um,
[8:25] over the course of 5 years, this is a
[8:27] program that we currently work with the
[8:30] county to administer.
[8:33] >> Would you give us a summary like how how
[8:35] this program run into that over the last
[8:38] couple years?
[8:39] >> Okay. I'll give it to you over the last
[8:40] couple years, but we are reimagining
[8:42] this program because we will be fully
[8:44] taking back responsibility from the
[8:46] county to administer this program in the
[8:48] coming months. So
[8:50] you want to see the reimagined version
[8:52] or you want how it's been running?
[8:54] >> Well, like just a summary of how things
[8:55] are doing in terms of currently.
[8:57] >> Okay. So currently the lead program has
[9:00] reached its benchmarks with the county
[9:02] every single year since it inception
[9:04] with the county. Um we have this past
[9:09] year we've done 28 homes
[9:12] um with the county that we completed
[9:14] which was our benchmark. So each year
[9:16] they give us benchmarks that we need to
[9:17] reach to satisfy the federal government
[9:19] and we we've exceeded those. We've got
[9:21] our lead hazard report. Um and we're
[9:24] green. They they label it by colors,
[9:26] red, green, and yellow. So we're green.
[9:31] So this program is run it's administered
[9:33] through the county. So they go and do
[9:35] the intake process through the county
[9:36] health department and then our lead
[9:39] assessor and people and also others from
[9:42] the development team monitor that
[9:43] program. So when that is come back in
[9:45] house, it will be under your department.
[9:48] >> It's under my department now, but we're
[9:49] just going to now have a in-house intake
[9:51] person instead of doing the intake
[9:53] through the county.
[9:55] >> Nice.
[9:57] [Music]
[9:58] >> Any other question?
[10:01] That's a party. So, does us taking this
[10:04] in house a little more, does that impact
[10:06] our uh the finances of it or
[10:10] >> um it impact finances roughly 124,000 a
[10:14] year?
[10:15] >> We'll have right for personnel, but that
[10:18] also increases there's a travel line,
[10:21] there's a marketing line, there's an
[10:22] advertising line. So, versus that being
[10:24] paid out to the county and now be um
[10:27] internal. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any
[10:30] other question?
[10:32] >> Seeing none. I'll second it. All in
[10:35] favor? I
[10:36] >> I.
[10:37] >> The next item is continuum of care
[10:40] contract with development of Broadway
[10:42] LLC doing business capital region YMCA.
[10:46] Mr.
[10:47] >> Every year we get awarded from the US
[10:49] Department of HUD for the continuum care
[10:51] partnership with the YMCA
[10:54] for their shelter beds. And this is for
[10:56] our 2026 continuum of care funding.
[10:59] We've been awarded 2017
[11:03] $722,000
[11:06] and this will support the 20 bed units
[11:08] in administrative cost to run this
[11:09] program.
[11:12] >> Go ahead, please.
[11:13] >> Um I was just wondering if it's still
[11:14] going to be um solely for men or
[11:18] >> It is. Yeah.
[11:22] Thanks.
[11:23] Any other question?
[11:25] Seeing none, we have a motion to move
[11:27] this item forward.
[11:28] >> So moved.
[11:29] >> Second. All in favor?
[11:30] >> I. Thank you so much.
[11:32] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[11:36] >> The next item is the Edward Turn
[11:38] Memorial Justice Assistant Grant
[11:40] Program. Chief,
[11:51] » good evening. Good evening.
[12:00] » Okay. I come before you here with a
[12:02] legislative request um to receive
[12:05] $15,000 which was awarded to the skatey
[12:08] police department by Assemblyman Angelo
[12:11] Santa Barbara
[12:13] uh for under the state uh department of
[12:15] criminal justice services and uh United
[12:18] States Department of Justice.
[12:21] Uh, we plan to use this money uh to
[12:23] invest in license plate readers for the
[12:26] police department.
[12:28] So, I'm looking for approval to accept
[12:30] this JAG award grant.
[12:32] >> Question on this side. Go ahead, please.
[12:34] >> Um, so my question is around um where
[12:37] these will be. I know that I asked this
[12:39] question in uh legislative conference.
[12:41] So, it's just everyone understands that
[12:43] these particular ones will be used
[12:44] versus what we currently have. So could
[12:47] you explain what we currently have and
[12:48] then how these will be different in
[12:50] addition to
[12:52] >> So we have multiple uh license plate
[12:54] readers currently. We have them uh
[12:57] leading coming off of our interstates
[12:59] and we have them on our police cars
[13:01] which are mobile. Um but the our our
[13:03] plan and strategy is to have them on all
[13:07] the arteries that feed into the city so
[13:09] we know um if if a vehicle has come into
[13:11] the city or has left. And we are also
[13:14] putting that we we're also strategically
[13:16] placing them in our hotspot locations
[13:19] where we're seeing higher crime.
[13:23] » Go ahead, please.
[13:24] >> And how many will this buy?
[13:27] >> Well, the this is this doesn't buy that many. So, I believe we're looking
[13:32] to purchase somewhere between three and
[13:34] five for multiple years. They they they typically run about 2500 each per
[13:40] year. So we're I think we're going to
[13:42] buy maybe buy three of them and pay for
[13:44] them for three years.
[13:47] >> Thank you.
[13:49] >> So So we don't necessarily there's an
[13:51] ongoing cost estimate like so when you
[13:53] get it you have to pay
[13:55] uh so it's not something that we don't
[13:57] necessarily
[13:58] >> there there there are two different
[13:59] models. Um but the current model that
[14:02] we're looking at is a is a pay as a
[14:04] service.
[14:05] >> Okay.
[14:08] There's two components. It's a software
[14:09] department. It's a software that really
[14:12] keeps being updated by the leverage to
[14:16] make.
[14:18] [Music]
[14:20] >> Any other question on this item? Seeing
[14:22] none, we have a motion to move this
[14:24] forward.
[14:24] >> So moved.
[14:25] >> Second. All in favor? I.
[14:27] >> Thank you. The next item is the
[14:29] intergovernmental cooperation agreement.
[14:32] Give chief clicker.
[14:37] Thank you. Um, so for for the give
[14:40] grant, this is our 12th year of uh give
[14:43] funding. GI is an acronym for gun
[14:45] involved violence elimination, which is
[14:48] a partnership with the New York State
[14:50] Department of Criminal Justice Services,
[14:52] DCJS.
[14:54] For this grant, um,
[14:58] the county was awarded one mill
[15:00] 1,148,671.
[15:04] Of that amount, $452,133
[15:09] uh is dedicated to the Skanty Police
[15:11] Department. And we do have a breakdown
[15:13] of how that is spent.
[15:17] Primarily what we pay for are two
[15:20] dedicated detectives,
[15:23] some fringe benefits, some overtime for
[15:26] investigations and patrol,
[15:28] and for an analyst that's uh dedicated
[15:32] to the initiative supporting the entire
[15:34] countywide group.
[15:37] >> Go ahead.
[15:37] >> I just want clarification. It says
[15:39] three. So, am I at least summary? It
[15:42] says three
[15:44] here. Is that one?
[15:46] Yes, you you are correct. Uh that's
[15:49] right because uh two of them are are
[15:51] give and one of them is non-fatal
[15:53] investigation. So we do have three.
[15:55] >> Thank you.
[15:57] >> Go ahead.
[15:58] >> Um I was wondering looking at the um
[16:01] looking at all looking at the personnel
[16:03] um that are included in the grant, do
[16:05] they have
[16:07] do they take on other responsibilities
[16:09] um or are they just focused on give
[16:11] grant?
[16:14] uh all of the all the personnel that are
[16:17] paid for under this grant have to work
[16:18] only on uh the initiatives that fall
[16:21] under the grant. So the three detectives
[16:24] uh two of them only work on anything
[16:26] gunrelated and then the non-fatal
[16:29] uh investigation detective will only
[16:31] work on uh non-fatal shootings um where they treat them like like the
[16:38] victim is voiceless. But so they they
[16:40] put that in-depth investigation into it.
[16:43] >> And my other question is just um so I
[16:46] noticed that in terms of the youth
[16:48] component of the grant, it's like $2,525
[16:52] that's going towards towards that. Um
[16:56] I was just wondering um how the amounts
[16:58] were figured out. In other words, um
[17:03] because you know I was kind of wishing
[17:06] that there was more money going towards
[17:07] the youth component piece, but um I
[17:10] didn't know if it was sort of mandated
[17:13] through the grant application or or how
[17:16] can we help
[17:20] » trying to find the area that
[17:23] >> 33 on on the budget part
[17:26] says community youth engagement,
[17:28] transportation and engagement report for
[17:30] activities and programming.
[17:33] But there's also this card
[17:34] >> 7,800. Is that the one?
[17:36] >> No, not this one. Oh, this on page 29 to
[17:38] 7800 on page 33.
[17:41] >> Oh, that's the transportation.
[17:43] >> Yes. Oh, is there more though?
[17:44] >> On page 29.
[17:45] >> Yeah, there is.
[17:46] >> Oh, I didn't see it. Let me see.
[17:50] » Well, I I guess I guess I'll just answer
[17:53] it by saying that um there are four
[17:56] partners. There's the police department,
[17:58] the DA's office, the probation office,
[18:00] and the sheriff's department. And we
[18:02] meet as a group, and we get the funding.
[18:04] And and we all decide on who which
[18:06] initiatives uh each individual agency
[18:09] are going to work towards. And then we
[18:11] break it up based on that funding. And I
[18:13] know that the probation department has
[18:16] $250,000 that that's a minimum we have
[18:18] to give them. And then each agency
[18:21] decides how to break that down from the
[18:23] amount that they're allowed.
[18:24] >> Okay. Thank you. you and I missed the
[18:26] 7,800. So, thank you for cleaning that
[18:28] up.
[18:30] >> So, Chief, look, this probably piece of
[18:32] last legislation that just went through
[18:34] as well, but you said like um the
[18:38] cameras would be more hotspots, you
[18:41] know, were those hot spots like hotspots
[18:44] of violence that's happening hotspots or
[18:46] is just like just where we're seeing
[18:48] more crime? Is it or will they be kind
[18:51] of deployed in the place where you see
[18:52] more violent environment or just crime
[18:54] in general like how are we defining
[18:57] hotspots in this context I would say?
[18:58] >> So our our crime analyst uh uses risk
[19:01] terrain modeling to to to create
[19:03] hotspots and they take a variety of
[19:05] different factors to create that
[19:07] hotspot. So so violent crime is
[19:09] certainly a component of it but they take calls for service, traffic
[19:12] accidents. He has a a a a
[19:16] formula that that that come that that
[19:18] builds that hot spot and and that's why
[19:20] we really focus on that area and give
[19:22] them give it the attention needed to to
[19:25] cool it off
[19:30] 12 12 years into it. How would you say
[19:32] like the outcomes? How we have how have
[19:34] we done what what are some of the
[19:36] outcomes? I imagine removing guns from
[19:38] the streets, going stop them,
[19:40] effectively supervising them on
[19:42] probation. But what are what are some of
[19:44] the outcomes and how it compared to our
[19:46] other partners that we see? Are there
[19:48] any things that stick out that we're
[19:50] doing really well or things we've
[19:51] improved upon?
[19:54] Um
[19:56] the the statewide initiative has been a
[19:58] really big success. Um, you know, we we
[20:01] you look back 12 years ago, the violent
[20:03] crime that was in this city, and we've
[20:05] made remarkable progress, a lot of it is
[20:07] because of the funding that we were
[20:08] afforded by this grant. Other
[20:10] communities have had similar successes
[20:12] statewide. I know Udica's had very
[20:14] similar similar successes and uh, you
[20:18] know, this initiative has been so so
[20:20] wellreceived that um, the state has been
[20:23] giving uh, speak speeches. we've been
[20:26] presenting this at a a national level
[20:29] and and for and because we've been
[20:30] involved in it for so long, I'm part of
[20:32] that uh engagement. Um we I'll be
[20:36] speaking about it in Baltimore next week
[20:38] for the a national conference. So, it's
[20:40] uh it's it's had a lot of good impact
[20:43] locally and we're very fortunate to have
[20:45] the funding that we that we get from the
[20:47] governor.
[20:47] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[20:48] >> Okay.
[20:50] >> Hey, Mr. Attorney just found the chief
[20:53] passed out a copy of the annual report
[20:55] from the police department which is the
[20:57] first time put together this
[20:59] comprehensive document and it tells a
[21:02] great story there which things we're
[21:05] talking about tonight uh some of the
[21:07] smaller components. So we just want to
[21:09] make sure that uh people take the time
[21:11] to look that over and if you have any
[21:13] questions I'm available the command
[21:16] staff or the police department is
[21:17] available.
[21:19] Go ahead, please.
[21:20] >> So, um, for the individuals who are
[21:23] whose, uh, salary is in this grant, they
[21:25] are already cons they're already current
[21:27] staff. So, they would not then show up
[21:29] in our in the our budget as well because
[21:32] you said they're dedicated to this and
[21:33] this only. So, this money shows up as
[21:36] money going in as a grant, but um in
[21:39] terms of budgeting outside of that,
[21:41] >> the the the the three detectives there
[21:44] do show up in our our our staffing
[21:46] numbers
[21:47] >> and then the the the money that we
[21:49] receive from the grant is is put into
[21:51] our budget through as a as revenue.
[21:53] >> Thank you.
[21:55] >> It is part of offsetting the um expense
[21:58] in our budget. Yes, correct.
[22:01] >> Any other question regards to this item?
[22:04] Seeing none, may I have a motion to move
[22:06] forward?
[22:06] >> So moved.
[22:07] >> Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. The
[22:10] next item is the school community
[22:12] engagement officer, Chief Clipper.
[22:21] Okay. So, we um
[22:24] the contract was up with our with the
[22:26] school district for our community
[22:28] engagement officers
[22:30] and we we renegotiated that contract
[22:36] under a new umbrella which was to roll
[22:39] all of uh all of the city um expenses
[22:44] driven towards a school district at
[22:46] least for public safety under one
[22:48] umbrella, one agreement. So, what we
[22:51] agreed to do is is still fund the six uh
[22:56] officers full-time, which are four
[22:57] officers, one investigator, and one
[22:59] sergeant
[23:00] um assigned to the school district. And
[23:04] then we also rolled in all of the
[23:07] overtime that is spent after hours and
[23:10] built separately,
[23:12] all of the engagement that the fire
[23:14] department does uh throughout the year.
[23:18] and the alarm false alarm uh calls for
[23:21] the burglar alarms. We rolled that all
[23:23] into we did a quick analysis to see what it what what it would be the total
[23:28] take for the for the city and we came
[23:31] back to them and agreed that they will
[23:33] pay us $500,000 a year for the 2025
[23:36] academic year and then each year goes up
[23:39] 2% after that to account for anticipated
[23:42] raises.
[23:45] And then also embedded within that
[23:47] agreement was that they would allow us
[23:50] to create a separate agreement which
[23:51] we'll talk about next to place one of
[23:54] our second drone nest on top of a one of
[23:57] their schools.
[24:00] » So
[24:02] chief the number quoted here that uh
[24:05] that is not including overtime is saying
[24:07] that is excluding overtime.
[24:11] This new number will include overtime.
[24:14] Does the number exclude overtime?
[24:16] >> No, not it will include it.
[24:18] >> So the 500,000 quoted for the first year
[24:20] includes overtime.
[24:22] >> Correct.
[24:22] >> Some of the offices restrain time and
[24:24] some are over time.
[24:26] >> Okay.
[24:29] Um changes that you explained about
[24:31] incorporating the overtime um which I do
[24:34] have a further question. Are there any
[24:35] other changes since the last contract
[24:39] in terms of the number of officers or
[24:41] any of that?
[24:43] Really, the only significant change
[24:45] would be that we we always had six
[24:47] officers, but we uh we agreed to change
[24:50] one of them to an investigator to give
[24:53] the school community better direct
[24:55] access to our youth aid bureau. Um so
[24:58] that there's a there's a slight increase
[25:00] in in what that uh I think it's 2% above
[25:04] the patrol level grade that the
[25:06] investigate investigator gets paid.
[25:08] Other than that, no, there's no other
[25:10] significant changes.
[25:13] And further um in terms of the $500,000
[25:16] for the that includes overtime and the
[25:18] other things you mentioned, is that
[25:20] based on what we um paid out in in the
[25:23] prior contract. How how was that number
[25:25] arrived at?
[25:26] >> Yes, we um we we took a look at
[25:28] everything we've done over the last
[25:30] three years with overtime alarm bills
[25:33] and with the fire department um build
[25:36] the school district. And then we took
[25:37] into account the new uh collective
[25:40] bargaining agreements for police and
[25:41] fire and what the pay rate is and and
[25:45] then we we we did the math on the
[25:47] overtime end of it also. We added them
[25:50] all together and that's how we we came
[25:52] up with this number.
[25:54] >> Thank you.
[25:55] [Music]
[25:56] >> Go ahead.
[25:59] you.
[26:00] >> Um, well, I I had a couple of things,
[26:02] but I just was wondering um how much
[26:06] overtime like do do they you do they
[26:09] have, you know, in terms of what they do
[26:11] at the schools? I mean, do they do a lot
[26:13] of overtime or is it mostly just during
[26:15] the
[26:16] >> Yeah, I wouldn't categorize categorize
[26:19] it as a lot, but it's we're there often.
[26:21] So, it's typically like there's a
[26:23] basketball game, can you send one or two
[26:25] officers or a football game? Um there's
[26:28] always just events where they like to
[26:29] have our officers and Sure.
[26:31] >> And uh so what we did agree on is that
[26:33] we have a baseline that they're going to
[26:35] stay within that baseline and if they if
[26:37] they're asking for more. We did agree
[26:39] that if it's like more than 10% of
[26:42] previous years that that we're going to
[26:44] talk about it either either not do it or bill for it. But we're all in
[26:49] agreement that we're going to make it
[26:51] work. It's just that, you know, now that
[26:53] it's included, they're not going to take
[26:55] advantage of us and we're not going to
[26:56] start saying no either. So,
[26:58] >> I think it's a very positive um program.
[27:01] So, I'm excited that we're moving
[27:03] forward with it again and I'm very
[27:04] excited that the uh fire department and
[27:07] fire education is included now in this contract. I think that's
[27:12] terrific. So,
[27:13] >> yeah. I guess one other um thing that I
[27:17] failed to mention is is we're we're
[27:19] talking with them about pathways which
[27:22] is
[27:22] >> uh really for a recruiting perspective
[27:24] of getting students involved in becoming
[27:27] police officers and fire firemen, fire
[27:29] women um and and and and learning more
[27:33] about what it takes to to join these
[27:35] professions uh at an early age. So we're we're going to be spending more
[27:39] time there uh doing that sort of more.
[27:41] >> That's great. and the fire department
[27:43] will too.
[27:46] So, a few things and also that program
[27:49] as far as working with the academic
[27:51] piece for guidance counselors and trying
[27:53] to help them look at like because
[27:54] there's a lot of curriculum that
[27:56] students are taking um all the different
[27:58] programs that school district is
[27:59] offering some of this some of this
[28:01] curriculum some their curriculum they
[28:03] can get credit for by you know engaging
[28:07] in this program which I think would be
[28:08] really valuable because now students you
[28:10] know they it opens up access to that. So
[28:14] the my question was you said just for
[28:16] the academic school year now I know that
[28:19] there's so many programs there's almost
[28:22] obviously not a lot as much but there's
[28:24] a lot a significant amount of programs
[28:26] and things are happening due to
[28:28] non-traditional like summer hours and
[28:30] things like that. So the partnership
[28:32] that's agreed upon so is strictly just
[28:34] for the academic school year.
[28:37] I'm glad you mentioned that. And I I I
[28:39] forgot to mention this that um as a part
[28:42] of this agreement, the school district
[28:44] is providing their school safety
[28:46] officers uh to our parks uh to help us
[28:49] with with uh the pools in Central Park
[28:52] and also with a lot of the activities
[28:53] that are going on there. So, um,
[28:57] our our community engagement officers
[29:00] are being assigned to the school to the
[29:01] parks during those hours um to continue
[29:05] the engagement with the youth in the
[29:06] summertime.
[29:10] So, Chief, um, when we rolled this
[29:13] program out, I know there were some, you
[29:14] know, pros and cons and things of that.
[29:17] um over the last year, can you summarize
[29:20] for us some of the positive impact this
[29:23] program has been for the school district
[29:25] and the public at large?
[29:29] >> Oh boy. Um so yeah, I mean admittedly
[29:34] I'm not I'm not hands-on as Lieutenant
[29:36] Dalton is. I wish he was here. he talked
[29:38] to you all night about it, but I can
[29:40] tell you that some of the things that I
[29:42] mentioned at the school board meeting is
[29:44] that um in the last nine years that I've
[29:47] been the chief, I think our relationship
[29:49] is the best that it's ever been with the
[29:50] school district. Um I used to meet with
[29:53] Superintendent Spring, maybe twice a
[29:56] year. Um when Superintendent Solair came
[29:58] in, I'd meet with him maybe monthly, but
[30:01] I feel like I I speak to Superintendent
[30:03] Cotto
[30:05] weekly, if not daily. We have a great
[30:07] relationship. Um, we don't get nearly as
[30:10] many calls as we used to on the
[30:12] administrative side about what's going
[30:14] on in the school. Um, I tend to think
[30:16] that, uh, things have stabilized there.
[30:19] And not only are they stable, but um,
[30:21] they're at a point where they work
[30:23] towards solutions on any problems
[30:25] collectively. You know, it's not just
[30:27] the police, but they've our our officers
[30:29] there have empowered the school safety
[30:31] officers to do their job better, which
[30:33] is ideally what we want to do.
[30:36] um and and we've had a lot of positive
[30:38] feedback from the students um on on a
[30:41] variety of different things. Officers
[30:43] that have have transitioned out of the
[30:46] school to to different jobs within the
[30:48] police department, they they they've
[30:50] asked if if they can go back for the end
[30:52] of the year parties, if they could, you
[30:53] know, remain engaged with them. So,
[30:55] things like that where the students are
[30:57] just really appreciative of uh being
[31:00] able to eat lunch with the sergeant that
[31:01] works there. And you know it turned into
[31:03] a thing where every day he had a
[31:05] different student wanted to eat lunch
[31:06] with him. So uh we had a recently had a
[31:09] female uh police officer candidate that
[31:13] uh you know came right out of the school
[31:14] district because she got interested in
[31:16] the job a few years ago and uh and now
[31:19] she's actively looking for some
[31:21] assistance with getting ready to be one
[31:24] of our next officers. So there's, you
[31:26] know, there's those are just a few that
[31:29] experiences that I'm familiar with.
[31:33] Thank you for those um positive impact.
[31:36] Um, on the staffing, since we're going
[31:38] to be moving six full-time um, officers,
[31:41] how would that impact your overall
[31:44] service to the community or should we
[31:47] look at hiring six additional staff to
[31:50] complement your
[31:51] >> Yes, we need six more officers because
[31:54] you don't want to stick
[31:56] position.
[31:57] >> You know, I'm just throwing that out
[31:58] because we're going to put six officers
[32:00] into the school district. How will that
[32:01] affect your response to service to our
[32:04] community? I mean, I I I like to think
[32:07] that um these six officers were
[32:09] additional officers when we added them,
[32:11] and by them being there, we're able to
[32:13] respond to calls immediately rather than
[32:14] having to send officers that were on the
[32:16] street before there. So, we're managing
[32:18] it very well. I mean, I'm not going to
[32:20] lie, I mean, sometimes calls have to
[32:22] wait because we're busy, but you know,
[32:25] what do you we could throw bodies at at
[32:27] our these problems all the time instead
[32:29] of managing them. and our sergeants and
[32:32] our lieutenants in the field services
[32:33] bureau. They did a good job managing it.
[32:35] So, it shouldn't negatively impact us.
[32:37] Um, we're we're we're currently working
[32:39] on a plan to to to look at the freshman
[32:42] academy and what kind of impact that
[32:45] will have. Most likely we'll put the
[32:47] investigator there to have a presence
[32:48] there and and that's where we'll work
[32:50] out of and uh but we're working on it
[32:52] and I don't think there'll be any impact
[32:54] on it. Okay.
[33:00] All right. Thank you. So, um I know I
[33:02] see in the packet you do talk about the
[33:04] how community engagement officers are um
[33:07] are chosen or appointed and so it goes
[33:10] through that in detail. I did. So all of
[33:13] the officers who are come on the force
[33:15] still have to go through the community
[33:17] piece where the community that community
[33:18] group um interviews them
[33:25] when and then and now when they go here
[33:28] the school district also has to
[33:29] interview them. Do they have to go to
[33:31] that um community group again?
[33:33] >> No.
[33:35] So once they've been um gone to the
[33:37] community business officer when they
[33:38] want to become community engagement
[33:40] officers then um then they just go
[33:43] through the school district through your process and then the school
[33:46] district.
[33:47] >> Correct.
[33:47] >> Right.
[33:48] >> Uh if if if any officer if something
[33:52] happens and an officer it just doesn't
[33:55] work out how how is that handled once
[33:58] they're assigned there?
[34:01] Well, we're fortunate that that hasn't
[34:02] happened yet, but you we have a uh you
[34:04] know, we have we would handle it like
[34:06] any other officer that did something
[34:07] wrong. I mean, we would we would take
[34:09] corrective action and uh hold hold them
[34:12] accountable and you know, should it be
[34:15] repeated, then we we would remove them
[34:16] from their assignment,
[34:18] whether it's that assignment or any
[34:20] other one.
[34:21] >> I'm not implying that they that they did
[34:22] something wrong. It just may not be a
[34:23] good fit because maybe they don't, you
[34:25] know, young people. I've been in the
[34:27] school district. So sometimes it can
[34:29] becomes challenging and that's not for
[34:31] everyone. So
[34:32] >> yeah, I mean I think that um
[34:36] >> the untold story that probably has
[34:38] percolated throughout the police
[34:40] department is this job isn't for
[34:42] everyone working in the schools. It's
[34:44] very busy. So I think that officers that
[34:46] go there do get burnt out because
[34:48] there's a lot going on. But they they
[34:51] also know it's very rewarding. Um, but
[34:53] they know that, you know, those officers
[34:55] that stay there more than two years,
[34:57] >> they're champs and we have a couple of
[34:59] them, but um, you know, you've seen it
[35:01] with our sergeants that every year it
[35:03] seems like they're changing. It's
[35:05] because they get burnt out and there's,
[35:07] you know, it's it's it's a very
[35:08] difficult job. I praise all the teachers
[35:10] out there that do it year after year.
[35:12] It's it's difficult being in that
[35:14] school.
[35:15] >> Mr. Farley knows.
[35:18] >> Thank you.
[35:19] >> Go ahead. I I did also forget to mention
[35:21] I knew that um that the pool um we had
[35:24] been using CEOs and Mr. Meki said it's
[35:27] just been great because they already
[35:29] know the youth. So in terms of some of
[35:32] the youth that you know have gotten a
[35:34] little out of hand um some of the
[35:35] teenagers at the pool um they have that
[35:39] relationship already. They know they
[35:41] know the kids. Um so it's that's been
[35:44] fantastic um um at the pool. So, I
[35:47] really appreciate the work they're doing
[35:49] and it's clear that they're getting to
[35:50] know know the students.
[35:52] >> Yep. Mr. Farley,
[35:57] thank you, Mr. Chair. You have to
[35:58] remember there's roughly 9,000 students
[36:01] in the school district. So, all this is
[36:04] doing is matching up the resources with
[36:07] the demand.
[36:09] If these officers weren't there, the
[36:11] school district is still going to
[36:13] generate calls for service. This in fact
[36:16] puts them in a more proactive way.
[36:18] There's a greater level of deterrence
[36:20] and this has really been a very
[36:22] successful program. The chief talks
[36:24] about some of the good things. There
[36:26] have been some less than optimal
[36:27] situations too where the officers being
[36:29] there have stayed ahead of problems
[36:32] resolved them where there haven't been
[36:35] uh extreme negative outcomes. And uh
[36:37] everybody I think should be proud of the
[36:39] work that they're doing in the
[36:40] partnership that we have with the school
[36:42] district.
[36:44] Go ahead, please.
[36:45] >> Thank you. Yes, good point, ma'am.
[36:47] Absolutely. I love what they do. Um,
[36:49] this drone,
[36:51] what's that going? I I know we wanted to
[36:53] use drones as, you know, to send them
[36:55] out to see what the problem was. Is that
[36:56] just for the school district if if you
[36:59] deploy a drone?
[37:02] >> No, no,
[37:03] >> no. You're just using a building for it?
[37:06] >> Yeah, the we have the partner the our
[37:09] drone program has two drones. We have a
[37:11] one location on the police department.
[37:13] The second one will be on Central Park
[37:14] Middle School. Um, which is the highest
[37:17] point in the city on top of a building
[37:19] that's three stories tall. So, it's it's
[37:21] a perfect spot for it.
[37:22] >> It's really the city in two locations be
[37:26] able to implement that program.
[37:31] >> Any other questions regarding this item?
[37:34] >> Seeing none, we have a motion to move
[37:35] this item forward.
[37:37] >> So moved.
[37:37] >> Second. All in favor? I I thank you
[37:40] chief.
[37:41] >> Thank you.
[37:42] >> Any other business for finance? May I
[37:44] have a motion to adjurnn?
[37:46] >> So move.
[37:46] >> Second. All in favor?
[37:48] >> I thank you.
[37:49] >> I'd like to call to order city
[37:51] development and planning. There are
[37:52] three items on the agenda. Item number
[37:55] one is the license agreement with the
[37:56] city of Skenkity for storage and use of
[37:58] drone and antenna connect city school
[38:01] district. Chief Clifford.
[38:04] >> Okay. Okay. So, as previously mentioned,
[38:06] uh this is a separate agreement solely
[38:08] that covers the the the license
[38:11] agreement for the city of county to
[38:13] store our our drone and drone nest on
[38:16] top of the city school uh central park
[38:18] middle school. And we will they will
[38:21] also be providing us uh power and
[38:24] internet for this. There's no additional
[38:27] cost associated to this agreement
[38:29] because it's covered in the previous one
[38:30] that we just discussed.
[38:33] Any questions regarding this? Um I do
[38:36] have one and without disclosing
[38:38] locations, how many of these um type of
[38:41] drone use antennas on buildings
[38:44] throughout do we have is this the only
[38:46] location? You said it's the highest
[38:48] location, but we have other locations.
[38:51] Uh so this so the police department and
[38:53] then this will be the second location
[38:55] and um the the drones also work on
[38:58] cellular uh network and um but this uh
[39:01] the antennas the RF network that we're building appears to be the more uh
[39:07] durable and strong network for us. So it
[39:10] is possible that we may look to put more
[39:12] antennas up throughout the city ideally
[39:15] on city- owned properties.
[39:18] We're we're going to just start with
[39:19] these two and see how it works. And if
[39:20] we start seeing some failures throughout
[39:22] the city, we'll we'll we'll see about
[39:25] other locations.
[39:26] >> Thank you.
[39:28] >> Any other questions?
[39:29] >> I move this.
[39:30] >> Second.
[39:32] >> All those in favor?
[39:33] >> I
[39:34] >> thank you very much.
[39:35] >> Thank you. Our next item uh item number
[39:38] two is to authorize the mayor or his
[39:40] designate to enter into supplemental
[39:42] agreement number three with New York
[39:44] State Department of Transportation for
[39:45] the Broadway Mill and Phil 4th Street to
[39:48] Weaver Street pin 1760.42.
[39:52] Mr. Wallen.
[39:54] >> Hello. Um the DOT reached out to uh our
[39:57] finance department last week um about
[40:00] not being able to reimburse the city the
[40:02] full amount for this project and they
[40:04] recommended that we pass a supplemental
[40:06] agreement. This is more of an accounting
[40:08] issue than anything else. The project
[40:10] has actually been done for several
[40:11] years, but we were in the process of
[40:13] closing it out and the DOT um noticed
[40:16] this um issue. So they've asked that we
[40:18] pass this supplemental agreement. In the
[40:20] footnotes, you'll see it says this
[40:22] supplemental agreement adds $100,000
[40:25] plus $18,000 marches funding of that was
[40:28] removed an error on essay number two. So
[40:32] they caught the error and this was to
[40:33] rectify the error on
[40:40] so
[40:42] that here um we paid we didn't have we
[40:46] didn't um we didn't allocate enough
[40:48] money. Is that what they're saying? Is
[40:49] that what you're saying?
[40:50] >> They mistakenly took out some money that
[40:52] they shouldn't have when they did
[40:53] supplemental agreement number two. So
[40:55] now they need to put it back.
[40:55] >> No, no, no. They need to put it back.
[40:57] >> Y
[40:57] >> What's the impact on on our budget
[40:59] regarding that?
[41:01] >> No, it's just we just need to get it to
[41:02] get reimbured. We've already have it out
[41:04] there. We just have an allocation out
[41:05] there of to get reimbured of probably
[41:08] about $100,000. This goes back to the
[41:11] original assumptions on the project for
[41:15] close out.
[41:17] So, we've already submitted all the
[41:18] paperwork.
[41:20] >> Everything has been submitted to close
[41:21] out the project. However, when they went
[41:23] to close it out, the money was not in
[41:25] the account and that was the reason
[41:27] internal error. So, this fixes it on
[41:30] their end and allows us to get
[41:31] reimbursed.
[41:33] >> Okay. Any other questions?
[41:35] >> Motion. I'll second. All in favor?
[41:39] >> Thank you. Uh and the um item number
[41:43] three is the waiver of the
[41:44] apprenticeship requirement for Central
[41:45] Park tennis court improvements contract.
[41:48] >> So right now we have out a contract for
[41:51] the reconstruction of the tennis courts
[41:53] in Central Park. Um it was a complete
[41:56] reconstruction of the parks. There are
[41:58] 17 existing asphalt tennis courts. We'll
[42:01] be bringing forward a revised agreement
[42:02] with you at the next session. Uh the
[42:04] city and USA would like to completely
[42:07] reconstruct those 17 asphalt courts into
[42:10] 18 post-tension concrete courts.
[42:12] Post-tension concrete is a specialized
[42:15] skill. It is not a typical concrete uh
[42:18] that you would see around here in our
[42:20] sidewalks or pads. It is a is a skill
[42:23] where you would be laying out these lines, these cables in the in the
[42:27] concrete, pouring the concrete and and
[42:30] tensioning them to put some stress onto
[42:32] the concrete. and it helps so that the
[42:33] concrete doesn't crack um as the plane
[42:36] surface wears. Um we do uh have been
[42:39] reached out to by several contractors
[42:41] over that are outside of New York State
[42:43] and they do not have an apprentichip
[42:45] program. Um the last time we did a
[42:47] waiver such as this was for the golf
[42:48] course irrigation contract as that was
[42:51] also a specialty contract where we
[42:52] wanted to make sure that the person that
[42:54] we selected had at least 5 years
[42:56] experience and uh certifications doing
[42:59] at least 50 courts. I believe that's
[43:01] what we're saying to do. So, we would
[43:03] like to have the apprentichip program
[43:05] waved as the bulk of the work is the
[43:07] concrete for the courts. Um, 18 courts
[43:11] and then the ancillary work is fencing
[43:13] and things like that. So, this is not a
[43:16] Wix law job. This is a a single prime um
[43:19] contract. So, this is what we're looking
[43:22] to do.
[43:24] >> Um, you did mention that um the
[43:26] contractors may couple questions may be
[43:28] outside New York State. So is it we no
[43:30] contractors within the state of New York
[43:33] uh came forward to make a decision?
[43:34] >> I'm not aware of any but I haven't I
[43:36] haven't looked specifically. Um uh
[43:40] so you know typically what we have done
[43:44] in the past if we were worried is that
[43:46] you know he would put it out get bids
[43:49] back or no bids back and then move
[43:51] forward his owner
[43:54] and the father of it.
[43:58] Can you blow up the hallway, sir?
[44:09] [Music]
[44:11] >> Go ahead. I'm sorry.
[44:12] >> It's okay. Um, but so what I was saying
[44:15] is that you
[44:22] we would try to typically do is put this
[44:24] out, see what we would get back. If we
[44:26] got no bids back, we would put it out
[44:28] again with the waiver. However, if we
[44:31] were to do that, as crazy as it sounds,
[44:34] we would actually most likely lose all
[44:35] of the 2026 season because we're really
[44:38] trying to complete the work this year,
[44:40] the bulk of the concrete work, then let
[44:42] the concrete cure over winter, come back
[44:44] in the spring, and do a lot of the the
[44:46] fencing and coatings. Um, because what
[44:49] the USA is really banking on is that we have these courts constructed
[44:53] and ready to play on June 1st. that way
[44:56] that they can have a full season. Um, if
[44:58] we have to push this to next year, um,
[45:01] that means that they would lose the
[45:02] entire season. Um, it's not to say that
[45:06] there isn't ways that we can work around
[45:07] it. The USA just however would not be
[45:09] disconnected. They would have to make
[45:10] accommodations elsewhere.
[45:12] >> So, this is a way to kind of expedite um
[45:16] the project. Um, also just full
[45:20] disclosure is that I was originally
[45:22] moving forward with doing this on a
[45:24] source well contract. However, source
[45:26] well is a purchasing agreement that the
[45:28] city is a part of. However, as we move
[45:30] forward through that, it was told to me
[45:32] by our purchasing agent that the source
[45:34] well contract can't be used for public
[45:37] works type jobs, only for material style
[45:39] jobs. So, this cross the materials into
[45:42] a public works job. So, we lost some
[45:45] time on that. We've been working back
[45:47] and forth on the design and that's been
[45:48] changed a lot. Um, the USA has been
[45:51] actively reviewing this project for 4
[45:53] months to make sure that it meets all
[45:54] their requirements because nobody wants
[45:56] to spend $3.5 million on tennis courts
[45:58] and then not have them exactly right to
[46:00] serve the tournaments.
[46:02] >> So, this long story about how we just
[46:07] passing it now and seeing what we get
[46:09] puts us in a better position to get the
[46:11] project done by June 1st of next year.
[46:13] >> That's right. And one other question,
[46:16] concrete. I I wasn't accustomed to
[46:18] seeing concrete on tennis court.
[46:20] >> Mhm.
[46:20] >> So that's different. New this is what
[46:23] the USA
[46:24] >> USA is pushing the concrete because
[46:25] concrete does not heave like asphalt
[46:28] does in the life of a concrete tennis
[46:29] court. It's a minimum of 30 years, but
[46:31] they're seeing probably upwards of 50
[46:33] years. So the only thing that has to be
[46:35] repaired is the the coating. Mhm.
[46:37] >> Um that the courts themselves are a
[46:39] harder court and they're working towards
[46:41] uh the USA making uh these pre-retention
[46:43] concrete courts the standard for
[46:45] municipal.
[46:46] >> Right. Thank you.
[46:48] Any questions?
[46:49] >> All right.
[46:52] I'll second it.
[46:52] >> All those in favor?
[46:54] >> Thank you, Mr.
[46:58] » Nothing else to come before city
[46:59] development and planning entertain a
[47:00] motion to adjourn.
[47:01] >> So second.
[47:03] >> All in favor? We are. Thank you very
[47:06] much.
[47:06] >> Okay.
[47:07] >> Call the order of government operations.
[47:08] We have one item on the agenda. Um Mr.
[47:12] Nancy. Thank you, Councilman Farley,
[47:14] members of the council. So, I brought
[47:16] forth a proposal to create a housing
[47:19] stability task force. Uh we've all seen
[47:23] this the issue of good cause law is very
[47:25] has been very divisive, but we have
[47:27] people that are very passionate about
[47:28] this. Um there is that wall of good
[47:31] cause law. We could we could implement
[47:32] that. I don't think we have agreement
[47:34] even here on the council. Um we
[47:37] certainly don't in the chamber in the uh
[47:39] hearings that we've had. I voted against
[47:41] the public hearing because I I'm
[47:44] interested in creating a task force and
[47:46] getting to work and looking at is this
[47:48] the only option? Is this an option
[47:50] necessary? What are other jurisdictions
[47:52] doing? I've been since since this
[47:54] brought before us, I've been doing some
[47:56] research and looking at national
[47:58] practices, local practices. What laws
[48:00] are available? What funding are
[48:02] available?
[48:03] um and other strategies instead of
[48:06] taking this template. Is there local
[48:08] solutions that we can develop that we're
[48:11] relying on? Um landlords have a
[48:13] difficult time. You know, we have good
[48:15] cause evictions. There are good causes.
[48:17] Maybe we have a task force. We look at
[48:19] those causes, drill down more into that
[48:20] data. Is it because the individual
[48:22] suffering from mental health issues? Is
[48:24] it some other issues? Is there things we
[48:26] can remove that cause so they don't have
[48:27] to evict? Can we support landlords in
[48:29] that way? We can reduce evictions by not
[48:32] having to go to court. What have we done
[48:34] at that? What have we done in those
[48:35] cases? Um, code enforcement, how how
[48:38] responsive are they to to incences? Are
[48:41] they printing over the codes? Are they
[48:42] getting there? What's their case though
[48:44] look like? What are they doing to remove
[48:46] the issues that landlords bring up? Is
[48:48] there another kind of line? Can can um
[48:52] tenants also report it to some somewhere
[48:55] else where they don't feel retaliation?
[48:57] and the code the the code violation has
[49:00] been called and it's been resolved and
[49:02] we get that information both to land on
[49:04] the tenant to make that process that is
[49:06] more cooperative than adversarial. Um I propose we bring together stakeholders
[49:13] local stakeholders um from the agencies
[49:15] that know these issues the best and come
[49:17] up with a real solution for us
[49:18] connected. I think that's that brings us
[49:20] great potential for us as a community
[49:22] and and if if that doesn't work if we
[49:25] can't come to any kind of agreement we
[49:27] have we can opt into good cause law if folks agree to that. So I brought
[49:31] this idea forward and I asked that uh we
[49:34] move it for a vote to the council
[49:39] questions.
[49:45] I I just want to say I think it's a
[49:46] great idea. Um and I think it's pretty
[49:48] well laid out. Um I I think it's a good
[49:51] way to get folks talking with one
[49:52] another and um especially bringing some
[49:55] of the experts together from some of the
[49:56] agencies. Um so I you know I'm
[50:00] completely in favor of it. Um and I
[50:02] appreciate you putting it forward.
[50:07] >> Yeah. like um I like the idea that we
[50:12] creating this um task force
[50:15] um is it I think it's going to help us
[50:19] to get to bring everyone to the table to
[50:22] hear um the concern and to address um
[50:25] the concern that is lingering out there.
[50:27] Um
[50:29] you mentioned stakeholders, landlord,
[50:31] tenants, housing advocate, nonprofit and
[50:34] developer. What I would like to see that
[50:36] when we create this task force is that
[50:38] these um agencies
[50:41] um
[50:43] they are from Skenctity I landlord,
[50:46] tenants, housing advocates, nonforprofit
[50:48] and developer um
[50:52] we should have people who based in
[50:53] Skenctity especially some for profit
[50:55] that is based in Skenctity we should
[50:58] >> select them and the housing advocate
[51:00] developer landlord and tenants out to
[51:02] Skenctity because this is a skenity
[51:04] thing. We should have people from
[51:06] Skenctity advocating, meeting uh working
[51:10] to come to a solution uh both benefit
[51:13] the landlord and benefit tenants and we
[51:16] can able to move forward with hearing
[51:18] concerns from our local residents and
[51:21] groups.
[51:23] Question
[51:25] are you suggesting that people who serve
[51:27] on this task force there to be a task
[51:30] force that they live in the city of
[51:32] committee? Okay,
[51:33] >> that is something we have done on the
[51:34] boards and you know you know city city
[51:36] boards that you have to have you must be
[51:38] a resident
[51:39] >> to serve on the board. So I want to make
[51:40] sure that we
[51:41] >> when we set up the task force is um
[51:44] comprised of people from skenctity non
[51:46] forprofit from skenctity housing group
[51:48] from skenctity. Okay. Because you're
[51:49] saying a non forprofit from Skenctity,
[51:52] it could be a Skenctity. I first number
[51:54] one, I I agree that every I would like
[51:57] to see all of our um doors if we're
[52:00] talking about city issues have people
[52:02] that live in the city connected. I'm I'm a fan of that. I know that sometimes
[52:06] you get to where there's areas of
[52:07] certain expertise um that people offer
[52:10] that might not live in the city. I think
[52:11] that, you know, that's um there's value
[52:14] there, too. But when you're saying like
[52:17] a a nonforprofit
[52:19] that's based out connected so like a lot
[52:22] of the nonprofits that are operates
[52:25] connected but their board of directors
[52:27] people don't live in connectivity a lot
[52:28] of their staff don't live in sketity so
[52:31] I guess I'm trying to make it clear the
[52:33] distinction from in order to serve this
[52:36] board you have to live in sketity that's
[52:37] what you're saying no non forprofits
[52:41] providing service in skity let me just
[52:43] do an example I cap they They're located
[52:46] in Skenctity.
[52:47] >> I want to see them on the board
[52:49] >> to help us the house.
[52:51] >> So you don't have to live in
[52:53] >> I want the organization to be in
[52:54] Skenctity. I want housing advocates to
[52:57] be in Skenctity.
[52:58] >> I don't want somebody from Bethlehem to
[53:00] come and be on this board because we
[53:01] don't do that on our city boards having
[53:04] non-residents.
[53:05] >> So I think that's what we need to do to
[53:07] focus on on skconity the skinnity
[53:10] concerns.
[53:11] >> Okay. So Okay. So you're not you don't
[53:12] have to
[53:13] >> no for non for profofit has to be based
[53:15] in skinny work if you work is connected
[53:17] you could live anywhere but work is
[53:19] connected and you're saying that that's
[53:21] >> I'm not I'm not in favor of taking a
[53:23] agency X out of Albany to help us solve
[53:25] our problem here
[53:29] » well I I definitely in reading this I
[53:31] was thinking of some of the nonprofits
[53:34] that are related to housing and knowing
[53:36] some of the executive directors for
[53:38] example um I wasn't sure that they
[53:41] necessarily lived in the city of
[53:43] Skenctity. Um so I would too suggest
[53:46] that um we make sure we have the
[53:48] relevant uh providers um represented.
[53:51] But if an executive director I I don't
[53:54] even know but I mean let's say they
[53:55] lived in Scotia uh and worked in
[53:58] Skenctity um at a skenctity housing
[54:02] related um agency that I think that
[54:06] would be okay. I guess also I would say
[54:08] that it would seem to me that we'd want
[54:10] to make sure that the landlords in
[54:12] particular weren't necessarily the
[54:14] landlords that might be a part of this
[54:16] task force wouldn't necessarily be you
[54:19] know from New York City or something
[54:22] like that. So I I I feel like that's
[54:25] more important I guess than uh the
[54:27] nonprofit piece uh in terms of I would
[54:30] want to make sure the landlords are
[54:31] locally based.
[54:32] >> So you
[54:33] >> the representatives on the task force.
[54:35] So we're saying that any or
[54:37] representative that's on this task force
[54:39] would have to resign and connect.
[54:41] >> I I think that would be important.
[54:45] >> I'm open to debating that. But that's
[54:47] about
[54:49] >> any other questions, comments on this.
[54:55] » Thank you, Sister Mancini. How um how
[54:57] would these uh individuals or nonprofits
[55:00] or whatever who would pick them? How
[55:02] would they end up on the task force or
[55:04] push? everyone at the table. Um what are
[55:07] your plans on who would be the head of
[55:09] this task force and how would these
[55:11] individuals um uh what would the agenda
[55:15] be? Who would make the agenda um instead
[55:18] of just a whole bunch of people just
[55:19] sitting around talking about things?
[55:21] >> I mean
[55:22] >> yeah I I
[55:23] >> what more do you have for us? I'd like
[55:25] to select
[55:28] uh people interested in being on it but
[55:30] have a chair co-chair and we can bring
[55:32] nominations to to the council for
[55:36] approval would be one way of doing that.
[55:38] >> Who would who would you put that out to?
[55:41] >> All council members for recommendations.
[55:44] Um thinking director of development um
[55:47] any other principles landlord
[55:49] association slick. Um, you know, I'm
[55:52] certainly open for uh recommendations. I
[55:55] don't want to go ahead and do it on my
[55:56] own, but folks um there's folks from the
[56:00] Sketchy Foundation. Um I think any of
[56:03] those groups that have been very active,
[56:05] we get the representatives on each of
[56:07] those groups. So, we're hitting with
[56:08] those folks that are really passionate
[56:10] and close to this issue.
[56:11] >> Absolutely. which we all are, but who's
[56:13] going to
[56:15] >> I could I could I could um begin that
[56:18] process and maybe work with um
[56:20] Alexandria if if she's closest to this
[56:23] issue from the city.
[56:27] [Music]
[56:30] » Alex the staff person. Yeah,
[56:35] >> we make
[56:37] staff available to support it, but Alex
[56:39] would be
[56:40] >> one of the parties.
[56:42] >> I could work with the mayor and
[56:44] President Porterfield to develop that
[56:46] list.
[56:49] >> And how long do you think that'll take
[56:50] in addition to the four months when you
[56:52] want when we would want an answer back
[56:54] from this task force?
[56:55] >> I would like to have it after if it were
[56:57] to pass within 30 days. We have a
[57:00] membership recommendation for
[57:01] membership. Would
[57:04] you be expecting resumes or I you know
[57:08] from individuals who want to be on this
[57:10] task force?
[57:10] >> I think I'd like to yeah um people can
[57:13] send recommendations of who they and and
[57:16] uh some rationale why they would be
[57:17] appropriate for this task force that
[57:19] they have subject knowledge on it. So
[57:22] you see this as a
[57:26] instead of
[57:28] root cause this task force
[57:30] >> for for me um this and I appreciate you
[57:32] bringing up obviously it's an issue very
[57:35] passion people are very u concerned with
[57:38] um for me I don't know enough about the
[57:41] issue what's been done what's what's
[57:43] worked what's not I'd like to get more
[57:45] information I thought this would be a
[57:46] way for us to get there um it doesn't
[57:49] seem this may pass if we voted on it
[57:52] today or or or and to then we'll make
[57:56] new channels. This is an opportunity for
[57:58] us to get to work and say maybe we don't
[58:00] need it. Maybe the people involved in
[58:02] the in this maybe as a city we come we
[58:05] can come up with a better plan cuz then
[58:07] because given this will drill down more
[58:08] into that data will the people really
[58:11] affected by this. What are the causes
[58:13] for you being affected? can what we can
[58:15] do what can we do outside of the box
[58:17] threes out those and maybe that we can
[58:20] do better than the law I've been you
[58:22] know partner of laws past implementing
[58:24] them and and writing them or assisting
[58:27] them and the best um for me the best
[58:31] initiatives are those that are locally
[58:32] driven and the people are lying on them
[58:34] and behind them um I don't know that
[58:37] good cause would get us there but I
[58:38] think something we developed
[58:40] collectively that was that specific to
[58:42] connectity I think that would a long way
[58:45] to resolving these issues. So, so my
[58:48] question is cuz
[58:52] good cause the main purpose of good
[58:54] cause is to offer tenant protections
[58:57] um need tenant protections and
[59:01] nowhere do I see this task force that's
[59:05] not offering tenant protections. So I
[59:08] don't see how this could stand in place
[59:11] for good cause because it the primary
[59:14] function of good cause this task force
[59:16] wouldn't doesn't address. Um other
[59:19] concerns would be I I think it's a a a
[59:23] good idea. Um but then it's appropriate
[59:27] context again not let replacing good
[59:29] cause because it doesn't offer anything.
[59:32] It's really um having people get
[59:35] together and um look at data and then uh
[59:40] make their uh help help us with some uh
[59:45] information that right now already kind
[59:47] of exists. I mean we like it says like
[59:50] um you know
[59:52] looking at uh the displacement and
[59:56] eviction data we have that data and
[59:59] actually that data was presented to us
[1:00:01] already. Um, and what I don't want this
[1:00:04] to be is to look at something that's um,
[1:00:06] kind of performative in a way to kick
[1:00:08] things down the road um, and not address
[1:00:11] this because we're talking about um,
[1:00:13] the, you know, people's livelihood and
[1:00:15] this would be months and months before
[1:00:17] this could even get formed. And then
[1:00:19] once it's formed, we have to wait for it
[1:00:21] to be for it to operationalize to get back and give us data that we
[1:00:24] already have. right now we have the data
[1:00:28] um on all of the issues that are that are raised right here is
[1:00:32] already data
[1:00:33] >> and so I guess um my question would be
[1:00:37] what more data would you be looking for
[1:00:39] in order to like support good cause data
[1:00:43] when we talk about tenant protections
[1:00:46] and and the reasons for good cause um
[1:00:50] could be because of behavioral issues
[1:00:53] right they're disruptive they're not
[1:00:55] paying their rent. Um
[1:00:58] I don't know them all those two stand
[1:01:01] out
[1:01:02] >> and that would bear out in the data.
[1:01:04] >> And then what have we done to stop to
[1:01:06] remove those issues? Is it okay good cause? So 90% of the evictions 70%
[1:01:12] meet good cause criteria this law won't
[1:01:14] do much. But if 70% of the time we can
[1:01:17] intervene and come up with solutions we
[1:01:19] can reduce that number down to maybe 20
[1:01:22] 30%. because we to develop strategies
[1:01:25] that are addressing the behaviors that
[1:01:27] are leading to the eviction. Is it lack
[1:01:30] of funds? What's what's available? Are
[1:01:33] they reimbursement rates? How
[1:01:34] reimbursement?
[1:01:36] What have we done for behavioral? Have
[1:01:38] we addressed that? We're going to pass
[1:01:39] this on to someone else. Could we hurt
[1:01:41] this person? They're going to go to the
[1:01:42] next place. They're going to go again.
[1:01:44] Okay. Are there ways? What have they
[1:01:46] been involved in the social service? Is
[1:01:48] there something that can help with that?
[1:01:49] Can we resolve those crisis? respond to
[1:01:51] praises in a way that works when we keep
[1:01:53] them in those homes. Once they're in
[1:01:55] those homes, what have we done to
[1:01:56] stabilize that? What supports do we have
[1:01:58] in place rather than do we call the
[1:02:00] police? Are there things they can do to
[1:02:03] offer supports of attendance that
[1:02:06] objectate that reason or need to evict
[1:02:09] or call the police? I'd like to look at
[1:02:11] that data. What are the nature of the
[1:02:12] cause? What's happening in our code
[1:02:14] enforcement office? Are they responding
[1:02:16] in a way we hope that they would? is
[1:02:18] asserting residents both tenants and
[1:02:20] landlords. We need a lot of anecdotal
[1:02:22] information, but I don't have enough
[1:02:24] specifics to what that looks like. I
[1:02:26] mean, those things we can look at to see
[1:02:28] what we can do to build up our system
[1:02:31] that can support both tenants and
[1:02:33] landlords. Okay. So,
[1:02:36] a lot a lot said and a lot of good
[1:02:39] things. Um but like when you talk about
[1:02:42] disruptive tenants and and for
[1:02:44] non-payment as issues under good cause
[1:02:47] as it exists those are both uh good
[1:02:51] reasons to evict.
[1:02:52] >> So in other words if we had passed good
[1:02:55] cause and then we got information that
[1:02:58] there was a lot of uh evictions for
[1:03:00] non-payment that it wouldn't be it
[1:03:04] wouldn't be an issue. So, in other
[1:03:05] words, the good cause already allows for
[1:03:08] that. And what you're saying is I I
[1:03:10] think it's good to look at the data. Um
[1:03:12] I think that as much deep diving as we
[1:03:15] could do, we can do, but the data that
[1:03:17] is not uh um
[1:03:21] uh
[1:03:23] anecdotal data is that about us being
[1:03:26] third in the state for its eviction
[1:03:28] right now like that. So, we don't we
[1:03:30] don't have to do a study on knowing
[1:03:32] that,
[1:03:32] >> right? we have an eviction problem here,
[1:03:34] right? So that so this is why good cause
[1:03:37] um addresses that. So again, I don't
[1:03:39] think that it's wrong or a bad idea. I
[1:03:43] think in the context of not passing good
[1:03:46] cause to do this. I think it
[1:03:48] >> it doesn't offer any of the protections
[1:03:51] that good cause and we already have the
[1:03:52] data
[1:03:53] >> as far as eviction. All right. Well, and
[1:03:56] then Oh, sorry. I'm sorry.
[1:03:57] >> And then part of the um and some of the
[1:04:02] other things that are in the legislative
[1:04:04] request are like um having, you know,
[1:04:08] public forums and engaging stakeholder
[1:04:10] voices.
[1:04:11] We just put forth to have a public
[1:04:15] hearing, but it got voted down. You see
[1:04:18] what I'm saying? So, it's like it's it's
[1:04:20] difficult for me to see why if we're
[1:04:23] looking for public voices and
[1:04:24] stakeholder information and we bring
[1:04:26] forth the opportunity to do that as a
[1:04:28] public hearing, why why would we go with
[1:04:31] that? You see what I'm saying? So, it
[1:04:32] doesn't look like that.
[1:04:33] >> Why I think you're ready. Go ahead.
[1:04:37] Whenever you're ready for the first
[1:04:41] is he responding.
[1:04:42] >> Yeah. Yeah. So I I gave the reason why I
[1:04:47] didn't support the public hearing. I
[1:04:49] wanted to get busy done on this. And
[1:04:50] with the good cause, if you look at 90%
[1:04:54] now, I don't know, you know, we're at
[1:04:55] that level. And if like I said, 70% did
[1:04:59] meet good cause standards. So nothing
[1:05:01] for the landlords to worry about, right?
[1:05:05] >> But it is for the tenants because we
[1:05:07] didn't do anything other than that. And
[1:05:09] so what are we doing about that to keep
[1:05:10] them in those homes? So that the
[1:05:12] placement is not disruptive. And if we
[1:05:14] don't do something like this, we miss
[1:05:15] that opportunity to take a look at that
[1:05:18] data and keep them in the homes and what
[1:05:20] supports aren't we given or providing
[1:05:22] that maybe have and taking a critical
[1:05:24] look. We could be avoiding many of those
[1:05:27] evictions.
[1:05:29] >> That's I agree 100% with that as far as
[1:05:33] giving it that President.
[1:05:37] So, um I think that you know as what
[1:05:40] she's already been said that a lot of
[1:05:41] the data that you're looking for it
[1:05:42] already exists and then and I don't
[1:05:44] believe that it requires an additional
[1:05:47] committee to get the data because it
[1:05:49] exists and and can one or two people do
[1:05:51] it. I think I believe that there are
[1:05:53] agencies out there already that have
[1:05:55] this data readily available and if you
[1:05:58] need it in a compact way then you just
[1:06:00] bring it all together that's fine. Um
[1:06:02] and that makes sense to me. Um, and also
[1:06:05] you talked about what about code
[1:06:07] enforcement, about keeping people in
[1:06:08] their apartments and SCAP does a lot of
[1:06:10] that work already. So there's already a
[1:06:12] lot of the work being done that this
[1:06:15] call this call this task force calls
[1:06:17] for. So
[1:06:20] my concern is that as Miss Duturo has
[1:06:24] asked about the process of getting
[1:06:26] people on board. So on boarding people
[1:06:28] is a whole process in itself. So we're
[1:06:30] adding that time to the 120 days that
[1:06:32] you mentioned. Um and in addition to
[1:06:34] that then there's a selection process
[1:06:37] that that for me is a little bit up in
[1:06:39] the air because when you ask for a
[1:06:41] public um a public hearing any and
[1:06:44] everyone can come to that then we don't
[1:06:46] select who whose voice is heard at this
[1:06:49] table um at at the housing table and um
[1:06:52] and just just for the record because
[1:06:54] within your um within your legislative
[1:06:56] request it said something about us being
[1:06:58] reactive and I just want to and I know
[1:07:00] that you weren't on the council back
[1:07:01] then but in 2020 22, we did have a
[1:07:04] housing form. So, this discussion has
[1:07:05] been going on for a while. Uh, it's not
[1:07:08] new. Um, the other concern I have is
[1:07:12] that in terms of who will be on the task
[1:07:15] force,
[1:07:17] if we're looking for representation,
[1:07:20] that's people who I feel like the best
[1:07:22] voice to be heard is a people who are
[1:07:25] impacted, not be it landlord or tenant.
[1:07:29] And for the individuals who I believe um
[1:07:33] good cause mostly impacts in terms of
[1:07:36] tenants, they don't have the um the
[1:07:41] liberty or the ke the um extra time to
[1:07:45] be on a task force because I'm guessing
[1:07:47] that if you want to do this, it can't be
[1:07:49] during work hours. It has to be after
[1:07:52] hours. And then again, how do we how do
[1:07:55] we decide who can come and who can't
[1:07:58] come? So those are, you know, those are
[1:08:00] concerns for me and um again I think
[1:08:03] it's just one more burden uh upon
[1:08:05] tenants and landlords quite frankly that
[1:08:07] we you know do more studies of things
[1:08:09] that again I believe we're already here
[1:08:11] that we can just pull the data together
[1:08:13] within that time of onboarding we could
[1:08:15] get um that that information together if
[1:08:18] that's the concern. Um, so I'm not sure
[1:08:23] of
[1:08:25] how creating a task force gets us to the
[1:08:28] point of gathering more information
[1:08:31] beyond what currently exists because
[1:08:35] it it's just already there. And again,
[1:08:37] it's for me having like se us selecting
[1:08:41] who could and could not be on there. How
[1:08:43] do we make those determinations? I find
[1:08:45] that challenging. Uh and it was
[1:08:48] mentioned that we the people submit
[1:08:50] their resumes and serving on a board um
[1:08:54] a city board I believe is
[1:08:57] I believe city serving on a city board
[1:09:00] is different than than a task force. And
[1:09:03] in my uh in my experience with task
[1:09:05] force we've never asked people for their
[1:09:07] resume. They just kind of like show up
[1:09:08] and say I want to be on the task force
[1:09:10] and and they're included. So, and this I
[1:09:14] think closes kind of makes it more a
[1:09:16] kind of a closed group as opposed to a
[1:09:20] public forum, a public um hearing which
[1:09:23] any and everyone regards to their
[1:09:24] position can be heard. So I I I again
[1:09:30] think we can gather the information
[1:09:31] without creating this task force which
[1:09:33] at this point in time we're talking 30
[1:09:34] days to 120 150 days that we even you
[1:09:38] know to get through this process which I
[1:09:41] think information that's that's already
[1:09:43] um current and within in terms of good
[1:09:46] cause you did say you know maybe we
[1:09:48] should look at something that's more
[1:09:49] local and that would that would work. Is
[1:09:54] it possible that we look at good cause
[1:09:56] and see what works? Because we've not
[1:09:58] had that discussion about, okay, here's
[1:10:01] the good cause and there was one thing
[1:10:04] we said about what a small landlord
[1:10:05] looks like and then the percentage. Have
[1:10:07] we looked at other parts of good cause
[1:10:10] and said this works for skate activity
[1:10:11] or this doesn't because there's already
[1:10:13] a framework out there, right?
[1:10:14] >> And is that a better way to go as
[1:10:16] opposed to like let's just throw that
[1:10:18] out the window and let's start from
[1:10:20] scratch. Well, my vision was that we
[1:10:23] would that would be a critical um task
[1:10:27] of this group is to look at that and and
[1:10:30] what's been done, how that works. And
[1:10:32] again, I don't I haven't been in the
[1:10:34] council here about a year. I don't know
[1:10:37] that we take it and we take all that out
[1:10:39] there, but actually, you know, people
[1:10:40] can come and do public testimony, but
[1:10:43] it's not a conversation. And that we
[1:10:45] come together, we have a vision, and you
[1:10:46] want a strength that works for both
[1:10:48] landlords and tenants.
[1:10:49] >> That's the vision. and that's why we're
[1:10:51] all here. Now, let's create that. I
[1:10:53] don't know that we've ever done that,
[1:10:55] but that's to me could have powerful
[1:10:57] outcomes and outcomes that work. Let's
[1:10:59] take that data in a way that this is the
[1:11:01] end game cuz it works for both parties,
[1:11:03] all parties. So, how do we get there?
[1:11:06] And we take that data and this is the
[1:11:07] direction we want to go. And I think
[1:11:09] that could have a powerful outcome. I
[1:11:11] don't know that the law itself will get
[1:11:13] us there. That that's my thinking behind
[1:11:16] this is let's take this on and let's
[1:11:18] develop this
[1:11:20] So can I ask clarify? Yes sir.
[1:11:23] >> All right. So just just to clarify
[1:11:26] you you're stating that the task force
[1:11:28] would be would gather information all
[1:11:30] the findings etc. So and I am saying
[1:11:32] that though that already exists and in
[1:11:35] my opinion we don't need a task force to
[1:11:37] gather information that currently
[1:11:39] exists.
[1:11:40] >> It's it's not a new information. Is that
[1:11:43] an individual and I'm not trying to put
[1:11:44] work on on city staff. Is that an
[1:11:47] individual? Is it you and whomever who
[1:11:49] can just gather the data? I don't think
[1:11:51] it takes 120 days to gather the data
[1:11:55] because it exists already. It's just a
[1:11:57] matter of or because it won't be new.
[1:12:00] >> It's already there.
[1:12:01] >> So, she's done.
[1:12:03] >> So, do we we can't just take the you
[1:12:06] know gather the data again. It's I I
[1:12:09] feel like let me just say that we're
[1:12:10] just kicking the can down the road to
[1:12:12] gather data which currently exists. And
[1:12:15] I don't know that we need to to create a
[1:12:18] whole task force and again who's going
[1:12:21] to be on it, who chooses them. I think
[1:12:23] that's a lot that hammers out. And
[1:12:24] ideally, we always say it's going to be
[1:12:27] this amount of time that we all lot to
[1:12:28] that. But we all know in the work that
[1:12:30] we do that sometimes we put a time limit
[1:12:34] on it, but unfortunately
[1:12:36] sometimes we have to go beyond that. So
[1:12:38] I don't want this to be an ongoing
[1:12:40] process.
[1:12:42] Well, I actually think that it goes
[1:12:44] beyond root cause. I think that what Mr.
[1:12:46] Mancini, at least this is how I'm
[1:12:48] interpreting this, um is the idea that
[1:12:51] we're looking at housing stability.
[1:12:52] We're looking at how we think about
[1:12:54] quality of lives for the people that
[1:12:57] live in in the city of Skenctity. And
[1:12:59] so, you know, again, I think it's not
[1:13:02] even about the data, which, you know, I
[1:13:04] know that you in particular, for
[1:13:06] example, when we talk about people that
[1:13:08] are homeless, um, I think you wanted
[1:13:10] more information and wanting to do more
[1:13:12] research about the homelessness issue.
[1:13:14] This would be something that, you know,
[1:13:16] this task force would be talking about
[1:13:18] housing issues that might also include
[1:13:20] um the idea of homelessness within the
[1:13:24] city. So, it would actually help us help
[1:13:26] frame some of the it's not just about
[1:13:29] good costs, I guess, is what I'm trying
[1:13:30] to say. This is really talking about all
[1:13:33] levels of housing stability within the
[1:13:35] city of Connecticut. Am I right? Is that
[1:13:37] what I'm reading in in your proposal?
[1:13:39] Um, so I think that bringing people
[1:13:41] together around a table, um, where they
[1:13:44] really can have that chance to look at
[1:13:46] the bigger picture of housing in the
[1:13:49] city of Skenctity, whether it's
[1:13:51] homelessness, whether it's, um, you
[1:13:54] know, tenants rights, whether it's
[1:13:56] landlords rights, whether it's how do we
[1:13:58] educate both landlords and tenants about
[1:14:01] their rights? Um, I mean, I feel like,
[1:14:03] you know, in in in essence, so the task
[1:14:05] force might, if I'm just spitballing
[1:14:08] here, but having been a part of, you
[1:14:10] know, other groups like this, you know,
[1:14:12] maybe they're going to put together a
[1:14:13] calendar of activities that um would
[1:14:15] include different types of educational
[1:14:18] forums um that would help to bring
[1:14:23] information to the people that need it,
[1:14:24] whether it's tenants or whether it's
[1:14:26] landlords. um as well as then we as um
[1:14:32] policy you know working with staff I
[1:14:34] should say but I mean it gives us that
[1:14:36] overview um of things that maybe each of
[1:14:39] us in our own experiences and in our own
[1:14:41] work in our own volunteer lives or our
[1:14:43] professional lives we've we've seen um
[1:14:47] and heard a lot um but I wouldn't I
[1:14:50] wouldn't frame this around good cause
[1:14:52] and I also just do want to hesit I want
[1:14:54] to add that I'm sure you all have seen
[1:14:56] that there's no deadline on good cause.
[1:14:59] It's not like when we discussed the
[1:15:01] cannabis issue, where we had a deadline
[1:15:04] of December 31st, whatever year that
[1:15:06] was, and we had to make a decision um by
[1:15:09] that time. There is absolutely no
[1:15:11] deadline on the good cause of eviction
[1:15:13] law. So, I actually think we should
[1:15:14] table that for a little bit um because
[1:15:17] that opting in piece is not anything
[1:15:19] that has to happen um with any urgency.
[1:15:22] But this idea I feel gives us that I
[1:15:26] that opportunity to and I don't I don't
[1:15:29] mean just data I mean but really here
[1:15:32] you know more in terms of I mean we've
[1:15:34] had a lot of people that have come and
[1:15:36] spoken at public hearings which is why
[1:15:39] not public hearing but at our council
[1:15:40] meetings which is why I voted against
[1:15:42] the public hearing. I really feel like
[1:15:44] we've had a huge amount over uh an
[1:15:47] extended period of time of input from
[1:15:49] both tenants and landlords on that. But
[1:15:51] I'd like to see them come together at a
[1:15:54] table um in the same way any of us do on
[1:15:57] committees at our at our jobs um and
[1:16:00] really be able to take a deep dive into
[1:16:03] housing stability in the city of
[1:16:05] Skenctity. So that's why I would support
[1:16:07] this.
[1:16:08] >> So just to give some context, so um once
[1:16:12] Skenctity is doing a group that is that
[1:16:14] they're doing that right now,
[1:16:16] >> there's not the one thing that I heard
[1:16:19] that isn't happening. Um right now we're
[1:16:22] once connected there have multiple
[1:16:24] community stakeholder meetings um
[1:16:27] there's been landlord representation
[1:16:29] tenant representation
[1:16:31] um elected officials like even I think
[1:16:34] you were at one of them so so this is
[1:16:36] happening right now um
[1:16:40] so just kind of want to make sure that
[1:16:44] people understand that that just based
[1:16:45] on what the description is here that's
[1:16:47] happening now and and so I've seen
[1:16:50] significant distinctions between that
[1:16:53] and what we're talking about here. I
[1:16:55] guess my question is
[1:16:57] um so now kind of flushing through this
[1:17:01] missing. So this wouldn't
[1:17:05] if this is to Miss Passion point that
[1:17:08] goes beyond the cause. It's not just
[1:17:10] around the cost which I I agree. I think
[1:17:12] anytime the more conversations that we
[1:17:13] have more people we can get involved
[1:17:15] housing stability a great thing. Um so
[1:17:18] are you saying that now
[1:17:21] um that this wouldn't be in this is
[1:17:24] something that could happen in uh
[1:17:29] combination with good cause or is this
[1:17:31] something that can only happen in your
[1:17:34] point of view um separate from good
[1:17:37] cause?
[1:17:40] >> Both can be true. Okay. Okay. All right.
[1:17:45] So, um, I'm sorry.
[1:17:48] >> No, no, but you just for me, I'd like us
[1:17:52] to have an opportunity to develop
[1:17:55] solutions that are going to be generated
[1:17:58] and that are specific to Sketchy issues,
[1:18:01] but the players are disconnected
[1:18:03] residents, the code enforcement, even
[1:18:05] social service, I'm sure, has a role
[1:18:07] that we want to focus there and beyond
[1:18:09] the community. And specifically, are we
[1:18:11] really drilling down into the real
[1:18:13] issues? I don't need two evictions with
[1:18:16] a good cause when we're not going to get
[1:18:17] there. So I' I I'd like to for for me
[1:18:20] I'd like before we pass the law, I would
[1:18:22] need to do that. We we we address it and
[1:18:25] resolve it ourselves without that need
[1:18:27] would be to me like great that home run.
[1:18:32] >> That would that would be great. But the
[1:18:34] issues that uh Skenctity is third in the
[1:18:36] state for victim people right now and
[1:18:38] that task force um could probably give
[1:18:41] us some really good information. Um but
[1:18:43] the the again the function of good cause
[1:18:45] cuz I think that we're um what we're
[1:18:48] saying might not exactly be what we're
[1:18:50] meaning cuz I'm picking up on different
[1:18:52] things here. It's like good cause the
[1:18:54] purpose of that is to keep people um
[1:18:57] from wrong convicted. So like evicted.
[1:19:00] So I guess my question was to you is
[1:19:02] hearing the people that came to the rail
[1:19:05] um do you believe that people are
[1:19:07] getting
[1:19:09] uh retaliatory patients do you believe
[1:19:11] them what they're saying that some
[1:19:12] people that that's a something that's
[1:19:14] happening
[1:19:14] >> I'm sure that's happening I'm sure the
[1:19:16] people that are doing that mostly would
[1:19:18] cause law as well
[1:19:21] >> but yeah
[1:19:21] >> well I mean I mean we have all sorts of
[1:19:23] laws that people break them all the time
[1:19:25] that's the reason why we have them right
[1:19:26] so like the fact that if I'm a bad
[1:19:28] landlord they're not going skirt the
[1:19:30] good cause law.
[1:19:31] >> So those you know bad players in either
[1:19:33] end are but you know they're going to do
[1:19:35] it but we're going to hit that
[1:19:37] >> abs that don't need the law
[1:19:39] >> now we're talking that that makes sense
[1:19:41] to me. So so I guess my the next point
[1:19:44] then Mr. I'll go to you um would be uh
[1:19:48] Miss Patrick you said that you know
[1:19:50] there's no deadline on good cause like
[1:19:52] there is on other like on the canvas you
[1:19:55] have the cannabis well the key
[1:19:57] distinction from that to me that we need
[1:19:59] to make is that um one was talking about
[1:20:02] like you know whether we can have a a
[1:20:04] dispensary and the other one is talking
[1:20:06] about whether the families in the city
[1:20:07] can have some place to live so there is
[1:20:10] a deadline for the people that have come
[1:20:12] to us that we've heard the voices at the
[1:20:14] rail unless we don't believe them. Um,
[1:20:17] and I've heard landlords versus at the
[1:20:19] rail around the horrible things that
[1:20:21] tenants have put them through and I
[1:20:22] believe them, too. I believe them 100%.
[1:20:25] I believe that that's happening. where
[1:20:27] we're getting where the disconnect is
[1:20:29] happening is that all the negative and
[1:20:32] horrible stories that are I believe to
[1:20:35] be true when landlords are saying that
[1:20:38] the that the tenants not paying the
[1:20:39] rent, they're destroying the property,
[1:20:42] they're breaking the lease, they're
[1:20:43] having more people in the property than
[1:20:45] what they're supposed to.
[1:20:47] All of those things
[1:20:50] under good cause
[1:20:53] are permissible.
[1:20:54] So the landlords under good cause for
[1:20:57] all the things that they're sending us.
[1:20:58] It offers those protections for them to evict people. It is not one thing
[1:21:03] that you've mentioned that anyone has
[1:21:05] mentioned at the railway doesn't. So,
[1:21:06] what I'm saying is at this point, like
[1:21:10] is this so if this is something that
[1:21:12] you're uh willing to uh that you'd like
[1:21:16] to see happen,
[1:21:18] I I could uh
[1:21:21] see why a task force would be a good
[1:21:23] thing, but people are getting if you
[1:21:24] know that people are getting retaliatory
[1:21:27] evictions now and it's happening now,
[1:21:30] then we need to do something about that
[1:21:33] now because it doesn't hurt anyone in in
[1:21:36] the way that landlords can still evict
[1:21:38] every person who damages property or
[1:21:40] doesn't pay their rent or breaks their
[1:21:41] lease under good cost. So again, I'm
[1:21:43] saying to you,
[1:21:45] >> okay, I agree.
[1:21:47] And then we can talk about the task
[1:21:49] force. You know what the task force can
[1:21:51] do in labor? But to to substitute it in
[1:21:54] for good cause it
[1:21:57] quite honestly on the face of it just
[1:21:58] doesn't make sense cuz if you know that
[1:22:00] people are being illegally evicted and
[1:22:02] you believe that then we need to do
[1:22:04] something to address that and that's
[1:22:05] what could cause us.
[1:22:07] >> Well maybe so
[1:22:10] we got to be clear. So let's be clear.
[1:22:11] So what you're saying is that people are
[1:22:13] not being
[1:22:13] >> No. What I'm saying is I don't this law
[1:22:16] and it application interpretation of it
[1:22:19] is going to is going to solve that. I
[1:22:21] think us drilling down to the data and
[1:22:22] what's happening will tell me what what
[1:22:25] more what data are you looking for? Like
[1:22:28] what other reasons for eviction
[1:22:32] retaliations? What does that look like?
[1:22:34] Is that is it a code enforcement thing?
[1:22:36] Is it like like somebody's going to be
[1:22:38] evicted, they call now they can't be
[1:22:40] evicted? There are a lot of there's a
[1:22:41] lot of information out there. Is it for
[1:22:43] non-payment of rent? Is it the person's
[1:22:45] having episodes and they have to be
[1:22:47] evicted? So, are they going to push them
[1:22:49] off to another landlord? Is there ways
[1:22:51] we can stabilize that? What currently do
[1:22:54] we do in cases like that?
[1:22:56] >> How often do the police I mean the
[1:22:58] incidents of domestic violence in police
[1:23:01] responding? What do we do in those
[1:23:03] situations? How do we stabilize people
[1:23:04] in your home and community? Let's take a
[1:23:06] broader look. Can we do something like
[1:23:08] that where you don't have a need for the
[1:23:09] law that that data we don't have? So, I I agree with all the things that
[1:23:17] you're saying. These are good things we
[1:23:19] d that we should be looking at. Again, I
[1:23:22] don't see how the data offers any
[1:23:25] protections for people while we
[1:23:28] wait possibly, you know, 3 to 4 months
[1:23:33] in the city with the highest with one of
[1:23:35] the highest eviction rates in the state
[1:23:36] as we wait another 3 or 4 months and
[1:23:39] we're talking about displaced families.
[1:23:41] Nothing that you're suggesting with this
[1:23:42] task force would impact good cause. So,
[1:23:45] I guess what I would say to you is this.
[1:23:47] I guess this is a question and maybe you
[1:23:48] could be my thought partner on this
[1:23:51] know that it's happening
[1:23:54] then maybe the way to go about it would
[1:23:57] be to opt into good cause
[1:24:01] and then the task force part of the
[1:24:03] function of the task force can look at
[1:24:06] how it's impacting the city because
[1:24:08] that's information that we don't have
[1:24:10] now right we don't have that information
[1:24:13] right now but we do have the the high
[1:24:16] eviction
[1:24:17] data. We do have uh uh some of the
[1:24:21] people came and presented us with a
[1:24:23] different type of eviction data in the
[1:24:24] city of Skenctity. We have that. You
[1:24:26] know, that wasn't again that wasn't like
[1:24:28] someone's opinion. That was, you know,
[1:24:29] these are these are pulled from credible
[1:24:31] data sources that they cited in the
[1:24:33] information they gave us. So, maybe the the thing to do would be to
[1:24:39] opt into good cause for offering those
[1:24:41] protections to people, right? and then
[1:24:45] use the task force to look at um how
[1:24:48] it's impacting people and address some
[1:24:50] of those other issues that we're talking
[1:24:51] about that good cause. Would you is that
[1:24:54] would you be open for that?
[1:24:55] >> Well, I I like the idea of using good
[1:24:57] cause as a motivator to bring people to
[1:24:59] the table and and want to solve
[1:25:01] problems. I think if we go past it, we
[1:25:02] may lose a group or lose that
[1:25:04] commitment. Okay. Who you think won't
[1:25:06] come to the table?
[1:25:07] >> I don't know. I just think it's good to
[1:25:09] hang over that as a motivator for all of
[1:25:12] us and for landlords and private
[1:25:15] organizations.
[1:25:16] >> I see that point for the group, but it's
[1:25:18] like we're leveraging people's lives to
[1:25:20] get if somebody really cares about we're
[1:25:23] dealing with people's lives. I agree
[1:25:25] with you. So, I don't know if passing
[1:25:27] this law I I think good cause is good,
[1:25:29] but I rather us for something great, but
[1:25:32] it's a disconnected and I don't know
[1:25:33] that good cause gets us there. But
[1:25:36] >> that's that's just my show. Like I said,
[1:25:39] we can go
[1:25:42] a discussion.
[1:25:44] >> Sure. Anybody else who wants to
[1:25:45] participate? If we did, I was just
[1:25:46] answering a question. I miss Patrick.
[1:25:50] >> Um, and now I just lost what I was going
[1:25:52] to say. Um, I really, really, really
[1:25:55] want to stress that
[1:25:58] again.
[1:26:00] I mean, I feel like you're turning it
[1:26:02] more into just trying to have a
[1:26:04] conversation again about good cause.
[1:26:07] >> It is. It is. It's in his legislation.
[1:26:08] >> I'm just saying I'm just saying I I
[1:26:10] think that you sound it seems like
[1:26:12] you're trying to debate here on the good
[1:26:14] cause on opting into good cause. And I
[1:26:17] don't think what that that's what the
[1:26:18] purpose of this discussion should have
[1:26:20] been. Um I I also want to say that
[1:26:25] it's been my experience over the last
[1:26:27] several years um of watching what's been
[1:26:29] going on and what's going on in the
[1:26:31] state. Um that again I just want to
[1:26:34] caution folks that
[1:26:38] we don't even know what's going to
[1:26:40] happen with good cause eviction
[1:26:41] legislation. I mean they could change
[1:26:43] that law. They could change the elements
[1:26:45] of that law. Um, if you read about the
[1:26:48] law, I mean, you can see that it still
[1:26:50] could be in flux after after something
[1:26:53] happens. Look what happened with the
[1:26:55] cannabis dispensary. Um, you know, we
[1:26:57] had a deadline by which we had to make a
[1:26:59] decision. um we made a decision and
[1:27:02] after we made the decision the state
[1:27:04] went ahead and changed the regulations
[1:27:06] within the um premise of the law and
[1:27:10] they started saying you know things like
[1:27:12] there were only going to be a certain
[1:27:13] number of licenses there could only be a
[1:27:15] certain number there could only be a
[1:27:16] certain number of uh dispensaries that
[1:27:18] could be I mean all this stuff that came
[1:27:20] out after we all had to make a decision
[1:27:22] about the law here first of all I don't
[1:27:25] want to go back to the whole good cause
[1:27:26] eviction but I will say since we don't
[1:27:29] have to rush rush into good cause
[1:27:31] eviction because there's no deadline uh
[1:27:34] for what we what we do on that. I like
[1:27:36] the task force idea because it brings
[1:27:39] together folks, different voices in the
[1:27:41] community. Yes, we heard them in the
[1:27:43] public in the city council. Um so I did
[1:27:46] vote against the public hearing, but
[1:27:48] this is a way to bring in experts. Bring
[1:27:50] in somebody from SCAP, bring in somebody
[1:27:53] from um I I I don't know. I mean, I
[1:27:56] would say like all the various
[1:27:58] organizations in our community as well
[1:28:00] as some representation by landlord,
[1:28:03] representation by tenant. Um, the one
[1:28:05] skinnctity piece I have to say sometimes
[1:28:09] I read the stuff that that's coming out
[1:28:11] and I think, well,
[1:28:13] we still are the people, the city is
[1:28:15] still the people that are going to have
[1:28:17] to pass certain things. Um, like for
[1:28:20] example, right now they're talking about
[1:28:22] an app or whatever. I mean the landlords
[1:28:24] are talking about the preferred um
[1:28:26] listing. I can't remember the exact name
[1:28:28] of it. I mean it all is going to operate
[1:28:31] like separately from the city. I mean
[1:28:33] really the city should be taking the
[1:28:35] lead in in looking at housing in looking
[1:28:39] at housing stability. And so I think
[1:28:41] this is one way of trying to do that. So
[1:28:44] get try to let's all try to get away
[1:28:46] from the good cause eviction piece for a
[1:28:48] second. let's get let's get away and
[1:28:50] just start to think about the housing
[1:28:53] situation in our city um in general. Um
[1:28:57] and that's where I think and again I
[1:28:58] mean I appreciate that the Skin
[1:29:00] Foundation is you know having forums um
[1:29:04] bringing folks together but again it's
[1:29:07] stuff is still going to have to come to
[1:29:08] the city um you know really or and the
[1:29:12] county. I mean, by the way, there were
[1:29:14] no county representation at the at the
[1:29:17] forum that I did go to, and I was
[1:29:18] sitting there thinking, wow, I mean,
[1:29:21] that's where public health is. That's
[1:29:22] where social services is. I mean, like,
[1:29:25] you know, we should have those
[1:29:26] legislators sitting with us um talking
[1:29:29] about housing stability um here. So, you
[1:29:33] know, I think I think that there has to
[1:29:34] be a multi- what's the right word, you
[1:29:38] know, or multi-pronged approach to to
[1:29:41] the general issue um that I would like
[1:29:44] to see happen because I mean, how many
[1:29:46] of us have been involved in this for
[1:29:47] years um trying to look at homelessness,
[1:29:51] trying to look at people that are living
[1:29:52] in poverty and trying to find solutions
[1:29:55] and so you know,
[1:29:57] >> so I I'll just respond to that and Mr.
[1:30:00] Porfield.
[1:30:02] Okay. Um, number one, I just want to
[1:30:04] say, you know, you're kind kind of
[1:30:06] mischaracterizing what I'm doing here.
[1:30:08] Um, I want to read you the first
[1:30:10] sentence in in the legislation. It says,
[1:30:13] "The city was connected is currently
[1:30:15] evaluating whether to opt into New York
[1:30:16] State could cause eviction loan."
[1:30:18] >> That sentence number one. The first
[1:30:21] sentence in the evaluation uh next
[1:30:24] paragraph is rather than focus nearly on
[1:30:26] the reactive policy such as good cause
[1:30:28] eviction. So to say that I'm taking this
[1:30:32] legislation and making it about good
[1:30:34] cause when the legislation itself is
[1:30:37] about doing something other than good
[1:30:40] cause. That's what's really happening.
[1:30:42] Would you agree that that's
[1:30:43] >> I hear what you're saying and I do see
[1:30:45] that in here but I think and again I
[1:30:47] don't want to speak for Mr. Many, but it
[1:30:49] seems like the topic of good cause
[1:30:52] eviction that has been brought to our
[1:30:55] table um is what might have helped him
[1:30:59] consider suggesting that I you can jump
[1:31:02] in here. I'm not trying to put words in
[1:31:03] your mouth, but might have been one of
[1:31:06] the impetuses for suggesting that the
[1:31:10] task force might be a good thing to to
[1:31:13] have come to be.
[1:31:14] >> Sure.
[1:31:14] >> So, that's what I'm saying.
[1:31:15] >> Sure. The only thing I'm saying is that
[1:31:17] if it's characterizing it as a task
[1:31:19] force instead of the cause, then that's
[1:31:22] one conversation. You know, we're having
[1:31:23] a conversation about a task force, then
[1:31:26] the cause doesn't even need to be a part
[1:31:28] of the conversation.
[1:31:31] >> It's about housing.
[1:31:32] >> So, right. So, therefore, I'm not
[1:31:34] characterizing this about good cause.
[1:31:36] The legislation itself is about good
[1:31:38] cause. It says it in both paragraphs.
[1:31:40] Uh, and also I would add that you're
[1:31:42] saying that the laws could change, but
[1:31:45] every everything there's not a piece of
[1:31:47] legislation that we don't that we don't
[1:31:49] pass right now that could be subject to
[1:31:51] change. That's part of being a
[1:31:52] responsive body of government. We've
[1:31:54] said a lot of things and then the state
[1:31:56] might have did something. The federal
[1:31:57] the feds might have done something that
[1:31:59] changed the landscape for us. But that's
[1:32:01] true for anything. So that's really not
[1:32:02] a good reason not to act. And I would
[1:32:04] also say you're saying that we don't
[1:32:06] have to rush. Reality is yeah, we don't
[1:32:08] have to rush. We all We all own our
[1:32:09] homes and we're not in possibility of
[1:32:11] facing eviction.
[1:32:12] >> That's not what I'm saying.
[1:32:13] >> What I'm saying? But what I'm saying,
[1:32:15] Miss Patrick, what you said was we don't
[1:32:17] have to rush. What I'm telling you is
[1:32:19] >> there's no deadline for opting into
[1:32:21] causeiction. That's what I meant.
[1:32:22] >> Okay. Okay. I'm just going off what you
[1:32:24] said, but people
[1:32:28] » Well, I just want Let's just be clear.
[1:32:30] The reason that this task force
[1:32:32] conversation even came about is because
[1:32:34] of the deposed eviction. So, I don't
[1:32:36] think that we can discuss one without
[1:32:38] the other. I think that would be it. It
[1:32:40] just is impossible because that I would
[1:32:42] believe, correct me if I'm wrong, was
[1:32:45] the driving force about why Mr. Mancini
[1:32:48] said, "Oh, I looked at the cause, maybe
[1:32:49] that's not it." So, let's look at the
[1:32:52] task force. So, I don't think we can
[1:32:53] leave that out of the conversation and
[1:32:55] really have a a a robust conversation
[1:32:58] about this particular task force. um
[1:33:01] once connectedity was mentioned and you
[1:33:03] know there's some you know they're like
[1:33:04] maybe they weren't doing the best job
[1:33:06] but if there's already an organization
[1:33:08] already doing that why we don't use
[1:33:12] these resources that you're talking
[1:33:13] about these people that you're talking
[1:33:14] about and join the effort that's already
[1:33:16] happening because they're already quite
[1:33:19] a few steps ahead because they've
[1:33:21] already been doing the study. We know
[1:33:22] that they have people who are directly
[1:33:24] impacted. We know that landlords um have
[1:33:28] been at those meetings. So
[1:33:31] you mentioned that everything has to
[1:33:32] come back to the government. So why are
[1:33:34] we trying to do something separate and
[1:33:35] apart when there's an there's already an
[1:33:37] organization a group of organized
[1:33:39] individuals who are stakeholders who are
[1:33:42] impacted who have a level of expertise
[1:33:45] who are already participating in this?
[1:33:47] Why a separate and apart task force
[1:33:50] doing something similar to work that's
[1:33:52] already being done? And if we feel like
[1:33:55] if if we join with this group and we
[1:33:57] look at and say, "Well, I think you're
[1:33:59] missing this mark." That to me makes a
[1:34:01] lot more sense as opposed to saying,
[1:34:03] "Okay, I know that you're doing that
[1:34:04] over there, but let's do something and
[1:34:06] be do something over here and and we're
[1:34:09] not doing this together." So, I think a
[1:34:12] better idea is um or let me build on
[1:34:15] your idea, I'll say it that way, is that
[1:34:17] we look at what's already being done and
[1:34:20] join efforts with that group. Um I don't
[1:34:24] and I I have to agree with Mr. Farley. I
[1:34:26] don't know that we necessarily have to
[1:34:27] wait till everything is concrete and set
[1:34:30] in stone because that never happens if
[1:34:32] we are we put throwing out the good for
[1:34:34] the perfect because the perfect is never
[1:34:35] going to happen. At least I've never
[1:34:36] seen it happen in my life. There's always some things that can be
[1:34:39] did done differently. And also there is
[1:34:42] urgency now for the people who who this
[1:34:45] is impacting. So
[1:34:49] good cause has to be a part of this
[1:34:51] conversation whether we like it or not.
[1:34:52] Um and I again I offer the opportunity
[1:34:55] that we take a look at the actual
[1:34:56] legislation and say this works this
[1:34:58] doesn't work. There are some clear
[1:35:00] things like if your land if your tenant
[1:35:02] is not paying rent you take them to
[1:35:05] court and they they have to go. there
[1:35:07] are some really clearly laid out things
[1:35:09] and my recommendation is that we um look
[1:35:12] at what good cause is and look at the
[1:35:14] good landlords because I don't think the
[1:35:16] landlords who are doing the right thing
[1:35:17] right now are the landlords who are
[1:35:19] really going to be impacted by this and
[1:35:22] yes some people will slip under the
[1:35:24] radar whether it be landlords and
[1:35:25] tenants it's just that I'm sure that
[1:35:27] landlords can tell you that's the nature
[1:35:29] of the business and tenants will tell
[1:35:31] you the same thing so um again I don't
[1:35:34] think it's targeting the landlords to
[1:35:36] the ones that I've spoken to explain to
[1:35:38] me how they're handling what they do. To
[1:35:41] me, good cause from what I've all the
[1:35:43] legislation that I've read, the pros and
[1:35:45] the cons is that the landlords who are
[1:35:48] already doing all the wonderful things
[1:35:50] will not be negatively impacted. We're
[1:35:52] already looking at code enforcement and
[1:35:54] all of that.
[1:35:56] So, and code enforcement, as I
[1:35:59] understand, it goes in when tenants
[1:36:00] call, when landlords call, they already
[1:36:02] go in. It's, you know, so that wouldn't
[1:36:04] be in addition. So why not join with
[1:36:06] one's connectivity and make it one's
[1:36:08] connected?
[1:36:11] >> Yeah. Thank you. So what I'm sensing
[1:36:14] here from Mr. Mancini on legislative
[1:36:16] records is more of a long-term solution.
[1:36:18] How do we work to benefits connectities
[1:36:21] landlord and tenant and not pitting each
[1:36:24] other this group against each other? How
[1:36:27] can we come up with a solution? bring
[1:36:29] them to the table and bring agency that
[1:36:32] are advocating for tenants, advocating
[1:36:34] for landlord together and let them work
[1:36:36] at a long-term solution. That's what the
[1:36:39] whole that's what I'm sensing from the
[1:36:40] solution and it's driven towards that.
[1:36:43] It's not more of like well we don't want
[1:36:45] this and we don't want that. Bring
[1:36:47] people table discuss gather information
[1:36:49] and let's move forward and see what we
[1:36:51] can do to benefit. Um you know um it's a
[1:36:55] boring topic. I mean, we can sit down
[1:36:57] here and we can debate and we can debate
[1:36:59] every word against each other, but it's
[1:37:00] we're not getting anywhere. So, we we
[1:37:03] need to do something
[1:37:05] to benefit our connectity residents and
[1:37:08] that's what Mr. Mancini is trying to do
[1:37:10] here. Um, setting up this task force,
[1:37:13] which I think is a good thing, bringing
[1:37:14] people out to the table, discuss ideas,
[1:37:18] come up with solutions and to,
[1:37:22] you know, come up with a solution, come
[1:37:24] up and address it and move forward.
[1:37:25] Let's see what we can do in terms of um
[1:37:28] these concerns. I mean,
[1:37:33] I don't feel at this point in time that
[1:37:34] we we're going to move forward that
[1:37:36] legislation. That's how I I know sense
[1:37:39] it. But here's a solution for us to add
[1:37:42] something to the table and to make sure
[1:37:44] that we can do something that benefit
[1:37:46] both parties. And we can we can sit here
[1:37:49] and we can talk about um skinnity is a
[1:37:51] third in eviction in the state. Are we asking ourselves or are we asking
[1:37:56] the question why is connectity the third
[1:38:00] position in the state?
[1:38:01] >> Are they all because landlord just wake
[1:38:03] up one morning and decide to evict all
[1:38:05] their tenants or are they bad tenants?
[1:38:09] We need to address that. We can't say
[1:38:10] that oh we in the state and make us look
[1:38:14] good or bad but how does that how did
[1:38:16] they arrive at that that in the court
[1:38:19] system?
[1:38:20] >> Mhm. Is it is it because landlord you
[1:38:23] know want to clear their property? Is
[1:38:24] the tenant bad? Those are the things the
[1:38:26] task force will be addressed.
[1:38:28] >> They will address that and those things
[1:38:31] will come to life because we're going to
[1:38:32] have some we and I said that over and
[1:38:34] over. We have good tenants. We have bad
[1:38:37] tenants. We have good landlord and we
[1:38:39] have bad landlord.
[1:38:41] >> And there's no secret about that. Bring
[1:38:43] them to the table. Let them address the
[1:38:45] concerns. We gather information. We come
[1:38:47] back and say we really need to do this.
[1:38:50] Here is the information that we're
[1:38:51] gathering from all the agencies that are
[1:38:53] dealing with tenants agency in Skynctity
[1:38:56] that are dealing with tenants agency
[1:38:57] that are dealing with landlords and the
[1:38:59] landlord group and people outside of the
[1:39:02] landlord group who in Skenctity would
[1:39:04] like to come to this forum and address
[1:39:06] concerns and let's let's us as a
[1:39:08] council.
[1:39:10] Yes, we we want to join our agency, but
[1:39:13] we as a legislative body, we are
[1:39:15] discussing opting in to cause eviction.
[1:39:19] We're trying now to come up with a
[1:39:20] solution. Other than that, if that's not
[1:39:22] going to pass and come up with a
[1:39:23] solution, how do we benefit? And I think
[1:39:25] it's our responsibility as a legislative
[1:39:28] body to discuss it. Create our own group
[1:39:31] as Mr. Mancini recommend here. Invite
[1:39:34] all the agencies on board whoever would
[1:39:36] like to join and let's hear from them
[1:39:38] and let's move forward. And Mr. Mr. Dor
[1:39:42] talk about how do we reach out to these
[1:39:44] people? How do we on board them? I think
[1:39:45] if this were to pass to create this task
[1:39:48] force, it is upon us
[1:39:51] council and with the help of staff to
[1:39:53] reach out to agency and to get them on
[1:39:55] board and we on board them. I don't
[1:39:56] think it's a hard process and I to get
[1:39:59] them on board and and let them join and
[1:40:01] the task force and let's discuss it
[1:40:02] openly at forums. We're not going to
[1:40:05] stretch it out for for four, five, six
[1:40:06] months. We should have time time frame,
[1:40:09] cut off time, bring back information to
[1:40:11] us, discuss, move forward.
[1:40:13] >> Yeah. So to to your point, Mr. Miller,
[1:40:17] um it sounds like we're asking for a
[1:40:19] public hearing, which we definitely had
[1:40:22] on the table at our last council
[1:40:25] meeting. Sounds that's what it sounds
[1:40:27] like to me. You're saying to have people
[1:40:28] in a public forum express their
[1:40:31] concerns, thoughts, and ideas.
[1:40:33] >> Mr. Farley, Mr.
[1:40:37] If you're going to define my my state,
[1:40:39] I'm not going to do that to you. I'm
[1:40:40] telling you my point. I'm not calling
[1:40:42] for public. I'm calling for a task force
[1:40:43] that people can sit down openly and
[1:40:45] discuss this as a forum. We come back
[1:40:47] with a solution to the table and move
[1:40:49] forward with creating whatever
[1:40:50] recommendation of the task force. So if
[1:40:52] we can't opt in, we have a solution, a
[1:40:55] long-term solution that is mentioned in
[1:40:57] this LR here by Mr. Mini looking for a
[1:41:01] short-term long-term strategy to
[1:41:03] stabilize housing without increasing
[1:41:06] regulatory burden unnecessarily. This is
[1:41:08] a legislation here, Mr. Mans President.
[1:41:11] That's what I'm focused on. So, I'm not
[1:41:13] going to allow you to mince my word back
[1:41:14] into public hearing. Please, let's not
[1:41:16] do this.
[1:41:16] >> So, hold on. So, let let me be very
[1:41:18] clear with you, Mr. Müer, and anyone
[1:41:20] else that's listening. I'm not trying to
[1:41:23] uh mischaracterize your words. What the
[1:41:25] words you just said was bring people
[1:41:27] together to talk in a public forum.
[1:41:29] That's the word you just said. So, hold
[1:41:31] on, please. So, that's why I said it
[1:41:33] sounds like
[1:41:34] >> bring agencies to to the task force.
[1:41:36] >> And so, what I'm saying to you again is
[1:41:40] that's what it sounded like. If you're
[1:41:41] saying no that you're that you that
[1:41:43] you're saying that you don't want people
[1:41:45] you you're being very uh specific to the
[1:41:48] task force having people come to talk.
[1:41:50] Okay. I'm just saying with the words you
[1:41:52] use. So I guess I'll go to Miss I
[1:41:54] haven't question.
[1:41:56] >> So as I
[1:41:57] >> I didn't see your hand.
[1:41:59] >> Go ahead Mr. W four times ago and then
[1:42:03] >> four times more
[1:42:06] times ago sometimes I think Mr. See, I'm
[1:42:09] just going to whoever reads my little
[1:42:11] notes here, but any not really. Uh I
[1:42:14] guess I I guess my uh first thing is
[1:42:16] yes, a task force and bring one skinnity
[1:42:18] to the table if they're already so far
[1:42:20] ahead of us. But we're the legislative
[1:42:22] body for this city and we need to
[1:42:24] protect renters, tenants, homeowners,
[1:42:28] every homeless people, everyone here in
[1:42:30] the in in the city. That's our job. I
[1:42:32] guess the data that's been presented
[1:42:34] wasn't present, it was presented by one
[1:42:36] side of the issue for good cause. So,
[1:42:39] I'd like to see more data. Absolutely.
[1:42:41] Um I'd like to know um I'd like to bring
[1:42:44] home ownership into this whole
[1:42:46] situation. Okay. Because uh listening at
[1:42:49] the rail multiple times to tenants,
[1:42:53] >> landlords, individuals, a lot of these
[1:42:56] tenants are paying money that could go
[1:42:58] towards a mortgage. We have a homes
[1:43:00] program that that that's on the table.
[1:43:03] Uh in some of the research I did uh
[1:43:05] about good cause. Uh Skenctity was like
[1:43:08] fourth on the list for their home homes
[1:43:12] ownership program. Um so we have that.
[1:43:15] We have um um who builds our homes here
[1:43:19] out here? Mine's uh
[1:43:22] >> UCI our Habitat. Okay. We have a lot of
[1:43:25] that going on. We have a lot of great
[1:43:26] things going on here in the city. We
[1:43:29] also had a uh a landlord registry data
[1:43:33] um that Slick was working on and other
[1:43:36] individuals. Okay. They had a monstrous
[1:43:39] meeting over at at at the waters edge.
[1:43:42] There was every agency there whether it
[1:43:44] was DSS. So these things are all being
[1:43:46] done. Um so as with the task force they
[1:43:49] can continue to be done. And I want to
[1:43:51] know why are we there in my state? I
[1:43:53] want data on the top evictions. What?
[1:43:57] Why?
[1:43:59] I want to know why we're third in the
[1:44:01] state because that's pretty damn bad.
[1:44:03] Okay.
[1:44:05] I want to know why. I want I want I you
[1:44:07] know, I want the data on that because is
[1:44:10] it,
[1:44:12] you know, being in both situations
[1:44:14] myself in my lifetime, renting and and
[1:44:17] having an apartment for rent, it's um,
[1:44:20] you know, it's not good on either end. So I
[1:44:25] understand both sides but again I think
[1:44:28] uh a task force when you want to call it
[1:44:31] a task force or something uh get
[1:44:33] together invite one's connectity in
[1:44:35] invite the county in okay I guess my
[1:44:38] last thing is before it banters back and
[1:44:39] forth and back and forth this is in
[1:44:41] government operations it's uh Mr. Farley
[1:44:45] Mr. Baron and Miss Porterfield. At this
[1:44:47] point, we should probably try to move it
[1:44:49] out of committee or take a vote on it
[1:44:50] because that would be my recommendation.
[1:44:54] So,
[1:44:55] >> well, I'd like to add something to the
[1:44:57] conversation before we move it to the
[1:44:58] vote vote. Um because as the
[1:45:00] conversation as we, you know, go further
[1:45:02] down the road in the conversation, I'm
[1:45:03] hearing a lot about having stakeholders
[1:45:05] and agencies and organizations.
[1:45:08] So to me, we've already talked ourselves
[1:45:10] away from tenant representation, which
[1:45:12] is a concern because we're talking about
[1:45:15] I understand that people do this every
[1:45:17] single day. It's their job about, you
[1:45:19] know, making sure people have housing,
[1:45:21] etc. But we cannot leave out the people
[1:45:23] that are directly impacted. That is a
[1:45:26] voice that needs to be at the table,
[1:45:28] right? So we cannot already, as we're
[1:45:30] talking about, I'm hearing that, okay,
[1:45:31] we have the stakeholders, we have the
[1:45:32] nonprofits, etc. and so on.
[1:45:34] >> I'm not talking about what's in the
[1:45:35] legislation. I'm talking about the
[1:45:36] conversation. Um and so I think we have
[1:45:39] to make sure we steer steer away from
[1:45:41] that and make sure and in terms of um
[1:45:44] inviting one's connectity in why are we
[1:45:47] not joining one's connectedity if it's
[1:45:49] already doing the work and why are we
[1:45:52] saying to this organization that's
[1:45:53] already this organized group of people
[1:45:55] from a respected that's part of a
[1:45:57] respected foundation within our
[1:45:59] community and has done a lot of work
[1:46:00] already. Why aren't we saying to them we
[1:46:03] would like to be a part of this and then
[1:46:05] come up with something as opposed to
[1:46:07] again creating something that in my mind
[1:46:10] already exists perhaps not to the level
[1:46:12] we'd like to see. Why aren't we doing
[1:46:15] that? We don't always have to be we the
[1:46:18] creator of it. we can be a part of it
[1:46:21] and then when it comes together if if it
[1:46:24] comes to the point where we need to move
[1:46:25] something then we've had that
[1:46:26] organization you know presented to the
[1:46:28] city having done that work and and I
[1:46:30] know from being at the meetings and
[1:46:32] seeing who's there that there are
[1:46:34] already people there on both sides that
[1:46:36] are already impacted these individuals
[1:46:38] are not being left the stakeholders are
[1:46:40] there also the tenants on the ground
[1:46:43] experienced in this are there why are we
[1:46:46] doing
[1:46:48] extra
[1:46:49] that why aren't we just joining in? If
[1:46:51] we see something that is happening, why
[1:46:52] aren't we we um joining in? I'm I'm just
[1:46:55] not clear on why we need to feel like
[1:46:57] there's needs to be something
[1:46:59] above and beyond the work that's in in
[1:47:02] addition to I should say not above and
[1:47:04] beyond, but in addition to the work
[1:47:05] that's already being done, why we're not
[1:47:06] joining with a group that's already
[1:47:08] doing this work as opposed to starting
[1:47:11] something new.
[1:47:14] say about it. No, listen, I'm okay with
[1:47:17] the conversation continuing. I think
[1:47:19] it's an important one. So, I'm going to
[1:47:21] make sure that everyone gets to say
[1:47:22] whatever they need to say.
[1:47:23] >> Yeah. I guess um the reason that I said
[1:47:25] what I said about the work that one
[1:47:28] connectivity is is doing is that
[1:47:30] ultimately
[1:47:32] it's still going to have to be us that I
[1:47:36] mean they can come up with as many ideas
[1:47:38] as they want um as they want but still
[1:47:42] then they would probably have to come to
[1:47:43] the city council and say hey you know we
[1:47:46] want to make sure that you guys pass
[1:47:48] this or you know could you consider this
[1:47:50] option or this idea or this Um, so you
[1:47:55] know, I mean, and again, I mean, four of
[1:47:57] us were I couldn't make the last
[1:47:58] meeting, but four of us were at the
[1:48:01] first meeting. Um,
[1:48:03] great. But again, it's ultimately our
[1:48:06] responsibility, not theirs. Um, like I
[1:48:09] mean, I read about the app that they
[1:48:11] were thinking about doing. I mean, it's
[1:48:13] sort of like I was kind of like, well,
[1:48:15] you know, maybe the city should be
[1:48:16] thinking about doing the app. I mean,
[1:48:19] it's it's really us. Do you know what
[1:48:21] I'm saying? So, I think I think that
[1:48:23] it's great that we work in tandem. Uh or
[1:48:26] if the task if this task force went
[1:48:28] through, you know, that we invite a
[1:48:30] representative from one skinny to come
[1:48:32] and report on the kinds of things that
[1:48:33] they're thinking about and talking
[1:48:35] about. I think this would include tenant
[1:48:37] representation
[1:48:39] um as well as landlord representation.
[1:48:41] Um, so to to get that your first concern
[1:48:45] that's
[1:48:49] » to the point um I I'd like to counter
[1:48:51] where we're talking about where Slick
[1:48:53] says they want to come up with landlord
[1:48:54] registry a certain process that Slick
[1:48:57] within their organization wants to do
[1:48:59] that and they're not we're not doing
[1:49:01] that on be behalf of the city. They're
[1:49:03] coming up with that. So how is this
[1:49:05] different
[1:49:06] >> with once connectity
[1:49:10] having representation if you know I know
[1:49:12] that Mr. Toro always uh attends the
[1:49:14] Slick meetings. How is this different?
[1:49:17] >> Slick is already coming up with certain
[1:49:20] things still have to come through to us,
[1:49:22] right? I think the mayor is already we
[1:49:24] already have things in place within the
[1:49:26] city that um in terms of landlords in
[1:49:29] terms of rule,
[1:49:31] >> the uh residents, the rental uh types of
[1:49:35] things and the and the other things that
[1:49:36] the mayor is trying to suggest. So,
[1:49:38] right. So, you know, I'm just saying
[1:49:40] it's still us. It's still
[1:49:42] >> I'm not disputing that fact. But what I
[1:49:44] am saying is that organizations come to
[1:49:45] us all the time about things they'd like
[1:49:48] to bring forward, things they'd like to
[1:49:50] see. And again, we're we're entertaining
[1:49:52] that Slick come forward with their
[1:49:55] landlord registry and all this thing
[1:49:57] that they've been talking about for a
[1:49:59] while since 22. I heard that about that.
[1:50:02] So, it's something that they've been
[1:50:03] talking about and want to present it to
[1:50:05] the city and they've talked about
[1:50:06] working with the mayor on that. So, how is it that this organization over
[1:50:12] here we're saying okay we'll work
[1:50:14] through it like that we won't take it on
[1:50:16] we'll take your recommendations
[1:50:19] and then when over here we're talking
[1:50:21] about ones connected we're saying we
[1:50:23] won't necessarily take your
[1:50:24] recommendations because they have to
[1:50:25] come to us first
[1:50:27] >> why aren't we just why aren't we just
[1:50:28] joining with as as we're joining with
[1:50:30] Slick why aren't we joining with ones
[1:50:32] connectedity the work is already started
[1:50:35] they're already doing the work we know
[1:50:37] that they have stakeholders and we know
[1:50:38] they have tenants. All of the things all
[1:50:40] of the things that are already that are
[1:50:42] in here that Mr. Many may see and I
[1:50:44] believe some of the data that was asked
[1:50:46] for in terms of uh what Mr. Tur said is
[1:50:48] data again already exists and we could
[1:50:51] just make these things known to once
[1:50:52] connected. Hey, this is what we'd like
[1:50:54] to see. So I don't I I just don't see
[1:50:57] how we need to do it separate and apart
[1:50:59] is what I'm essentially saying.
[1:51:01] >> I mean I'm not on that subcommittee so
[1:51:04] where this is heading. So so
[1:51:08] [Music]
[1:51:10] again landlord registry great idea. I
[1:51:13] think, you know, in in in more lenient
[1:51:15] terms, it's it maybe this wasn't what
[1:51:18] you were saying, Miss Special, but it
[1:51:19] seemed like what you were saying is that we should take it on because
[1:51:23] ultimately it's our responsibility. And
[1:51:25] I think the point that President Pier
[1:51:27] was highlighting is that um we work with
[1:51:31] agencies
[1:51:32] all the time to bring to bring forth uh legislation that we context. So,
[1:51:38] Slick is one of those agencies. Slick
[1:51:40] happens to be part of Kentucky. Um, so
[1:51:44] again, so instead of reinventing the
[1:51:47] wheel, we can just, you know, instead of
[1:51:50] having them have to come to us, we can
[1:51:52] just go to them to hear like, you know,
[1:51:54] what's happening and then we add value
[1:51:55] in the conversation that way. Again, if you think that a task force in
[1:52:01] addition to this is something that is
[1:52:03] good, that's that's great. So, let me
[1:52:07] just ask you some pretty simple
[1:52:09] questions so then we can move on cuz
[1:52:10] that seems to be what people like to
[1:52:12] have happen. I mean, but remember guys,
[1:52:15] we're the decisions that we're making
[1:52:16] are extremely consequential. That's why
[1:52:18] they deserve this back and forth. This
[1:52:20] conversation, they are these are
[1:52:22] people's lives are at stake literally.
[1:52:24] So, we want to make sure that we're
[1:52:26] having these conversations and and it's
[1:52:28] very intentional and sometimes draws our
[1:52:30] way, but I feel like it's worth. Um, so
[1:52:33] Mr. Mania, are you saying that this is
[1:52:34] something that could happen in
[1:52:37] conjunction with good cause? Are you
[1:52:41] saying that that this has to be either
[1:52:42] or or could this based on the data that
[1:52:45] would have not be a guessing? I guess
[1:52:47] that's
[1:52:47] >> I think given the place we're in now,
[1:52:50] this come before that would pass. The
[1:52:54] good cause would pass. My guess and I
[1:52:56] don't would be that would not good cause
[1:52:59] would not pass. I think the work of this
[1:53:02] task force will bring it. Yes, we need
[1:53:05] it or clearly we've come up with
[1:53:07] something better
[1:53:09] that
[1:53:11] that's what I would like us to get to.
[1:53:14] Um and and you know the one thing about
[1:53:16] one's connectity is I think clearly this
[1:53:19] falls within our accountability
[1:53:20] authority and I would ask Mr. O'Brien,
[1:53:23] is there some language in if we were do
[1:53:25] the resolution that gives us the
[1:53:27] authority to enact the recommendations
[1:53:29] which would be distinct from other
[1:53:30] groups doing it where we as a city
[1:53:32] council mayor this you know if there's
[1:53:36] you know looking at your the housing uh
[1:53:39] rental housing section I depending on
[1:53:42] what areas of the uh code need to be
[1:53:45] amended you can always do that if it's
[1:53:47] within our authority some things take
[1:53:50] state legislation but you know
[1:53:52] depends on what the recommendations from
[1:53:55] any task force say whether it's
[1:53:58] something that can be has it been done
[1:54:00] legislatively or program you know
[1:54:01] through programs or requires state
[1:54:04] enabling legislation. So that's that's
[1:54:08] always the the possibility. Um but the
[1:54:11] you know the uh if I can just follow up
[1:54:14] you know the the local law number one is
[1:54:19] still pending before you. I want to make
[1:54:21] that clear. All right. I know we um it
[1:54:25] was introduced
[1:54:27] last uh last week. There will be more
[1:54:29] than 7 days on your table. It's on for
[1:54:32] final consideration next week.
[1:54:36] The local law I mean the the resolution
[1:54:39] for a public hearing that was the
[1:54:41] council's public hearing. That is not
[1:54:43] the mayor's public hearing. How does the
[1:54:45] mayor's public hearing come about? only
[1:54:48] if the local law is passed that would
[1:54:50] require four votes. So the fact that the the public hearing resolution failed
[1:54:57] last week does not impact the fact that local law number one is still
[1:55:02] before you next week before a vote a
[1:55:04] vote and if the sponsor wishes to
[1:55:07] continue you know on that I don't you
[1:55:08] know I don't want to speak on behalf of
[1:55:11] Mr. Farley but right now that's that's
[1:55:13] on for a vote for next week.
[1:55:18] So I guess uh I would just
[1:55:21] again just raise the point before you
[1:55:23] move to a go. I'm just agree to think
[1:55:25] that
[1:55:26] um a housing task force is something
[1:55:29] that I think could be um a valuable
[1:55:32] thing but being that it's in the it's
[1:55:34] being presented in the context in place
[1:55:37] of good cause housing task force doesn't
[1:55:40] prevent families who are being
[1:55:43] wrongly convicted um which
[1:55:47] I don't think that anyone on the council
[1:55:49] I only ask Mr. But I don't think anybody
[1:55:51] else on the council thinks that that's
[1:55:52] not happening right now. I don't and and
[1:55:55] please let me know if I'm wrong. I guess
[1:55:56] that's a better question. Does anyone
[1:55:58] think that that families are not being
[1:56:02] wrongfully evicted in this connectivity
[1:56:04] right now? Does anyone think that?
[1:56:08] >> Well, do you have specific examples of
[1:56:11] somebody's being wrongfully evicted? You
[1:56:14] know, these are generic things. If
[1:56:15] there's something that needs action,
[1:56:17] I'll bring staff out of that tonight.
[1:56:20] Get them back.
[1:56:22] >> Bring more people from the law
[1:56:23] department. I'll call the county. I'll
[1:56:25] put a call in the governor's office. A
[1:56:26] lot of this is rhetoric. You got to give
[1:56:28] specific examples of people that are
[1:56:31] being improperly, illegally, or somehow
[1:56:35] treated improperly.
[1:56:36] >> So, let me answer your question very
[1:56:38] directly. Yes, there are uh incidents uh
[1:56:42] people they came to the larger council
[1:56:44] meeting and they've been there. There
[1:56:45] hasn't been a council meeting I think in
[1:56:47] the last larger council meetings where
[1:56:48] no one hasn't got up and talked about
[1:56:50] the fact that they had
[1:56:53] people that were currently concerned
[1:56:55] based on threats that were
[1:56:57] >> concerned going through an eviction
[1:56:59] process.
[1:56:59] >> Hold on. So, so you're so then let me
[1:57:02] answer it this way then.
[1:57:04] >> The heart and spirit of good cause is to
[1:57:06] prevent that from happening. So when
[1:57:09] people come to their counsel and say
[1:57:10] that that has been their experience, I
[1:57:13] believe them. So when I say okay, that's
[1:57:15] been your experience, good cause put
[1:57:18] something in place to prevent that from
[1:57:20] happening. And to your answer, yes,
[1:57:22] multiple people have come before us and
[1:57:24] said that they have been retaliatory or
[1:57:26] they've been out of the home. So yes.
[1:57:29] Um
[1:57:30] at this point, I will uh entertain a
[1:57:32] motion.
[1:57:35] [Music]
[1:57:37] Mr. Chairman, this is this is a motion
[1:57:39] for the creation of the task force. Is
[1:57:41] that is that was that the motion is that
[1:57:44] the motive is on your member of the
[1:57:46] committee?
[1:57:48] >> Yes. I I like to that we create a task
[1:57:51] force uh to invite these agencies to
[1:57:54] help us uh participate and uh bring
[1:57:56] ideas to the table.
[1:58:01] [Music]
[1:58:03] >> Second.
[1:58:05] Um I'm I'm not going to second it
[1:58:07] because I again feel like we should be
[1:58:09] trying to work with one's connection. It
[1:58:10] already exists. I think this is being
[1:58:13] separate and apart and creating a whole
[1:58:15] new entity
[1:58:17] is not the most time uh time effective
[1:58:21] way of doing this if if our real goal is
[1:58:23] to address this but to join with an
[1:58:25] organization that's doing that already.
[1:58:27] Um, and we know that it has to come to
[1:58:30] us in the long run, but why are we not
[1:58:32] working with a group that's already
[1:58:34] doing similarly as we're working with
[1:58:36] another the landlord group who is who's
[1:58:38] bringing things forward and we're being
[1:58:40] very open to that. So again, the work's
[1:58:42] being done. I think the better way to go
[1:58:44] is to join with a group that's doing it
[1:58:46] and not create our own separate entity
[1:58:49] which will probably draw the same
[1:58:51] people. We're going to be drawing on the
[1:58:53] same people to come to the table. So
[1:58:55] that's just one more group that they
[1:58:56] have to be a part of. So based on the
[1:58:59] evalu those are my evaluations. Um so I can't second it based on that.
[1:59:05] >> Thank you. I obviously won't be second
[1:59:08] based on the fact that again
[1:59:12] this is uh legislation
[1:59:14] that is being presented
[1:59:17] uh instead of root cause is how it's um
[1:59:20] crafted here in the legislation.
[1:59:22] Therefore, I can't uh support it because
[1:59:25] it doesn't offer any of the protections
[1:59:27] that good cause does um and as we've
[1:59:30] been talking to people that are coming
[1:59:32] to the rail and have been reaching out
[1:59:35] to us very clearly, this is a problem
[1:59:38] and I can't support anything that's
[1:59:40] going to let another family be
[1:59:42] wrongfully evicted out of their house
[1:59:44] and uprooted to this place um while we
[1:59:47] figure out data that we've that's
[1:59:51] already been presented to us that's
[1:59:52] already ex existed and I'm don't think
[1:59:57] that just based on the conversation I
[1:59:59] don't know that the council has read
[2:00:01] through this legislation um I don't know
[2:00:03] that everyone has I would just strongly
[2:00:06] suggest that you really read through the
[2:00:07] legislation because again nothing that
[2:00:09] was brought forward today as far as
[2:00:12] landlord protections as far as evicting
[2:00:13] people based on breaking lease damage
[2:00:16] property and nonp payment of rent those
[2:00:18] are all permissible under good cause so
[2:00:20] with that I I won't be
[2:00:23] That motion correct.
[2:00:29] » Before you close, I just want to um
[2:00:31] thank Mr. Mansini for trying to come up
[2:00:33] with a solution that trying to present
[2:00:36] some sort of creative solution that
[2:00:37] would help us through this discussion
[2:00:39] about housing stability. So, thanks. I
[2:00:41] thought it was I thought it was a good
[2:00:43] try.
[2:00:44] >> And Mr. Ming, I appreciate you uh your
[2:00:46] ideas around the task force. that I just
[2:00:49] can't support it in place of good cause
[2:00:52] because good cause protects people and
[2:00:54] keeps them in their house and this
[2:00:56] doesn't do that.
[2:00:57] >> Yeah. Just final comment was what in
[2:01:00] place of was to gain support of
[2:01:04] so then and we're not going to get there
[2:01:08] task force but they got information come
[2:01:10] up with some other solutions that are
[2:01:12] possible but not in place of get more
[2:01:14] information as necessary. I don't think
[2:01:16] we need or know if it's necessary. Well,
[2:01:19] in the data, but I don't know what we've
[2:01:22] done to resolve those and I don't know
[2:01:24] that this law is going to solve those
[2:01:27] problems. I don't think we solve all.
[2:01:30] So, we on the same page. I don't think
[2:01:32] that good cause solves all the problems.
[2:01:34] I think that it does offer protections
[2:01:36] for people who are wrongfully
[2:01:38] um and illegally and and right now not
[2:01:42] but wrongfully being convicted for like
[2:01:43] retaliatory convictions and based on
[2:01:46] their um uh sexual orientation andor all
[2:01:51] those things that came to the real set.
[2:01:53] So I'm sorry
[2:01:57] we're going to sit here and we spin it
[2:01:59] right the way around my phone. This is
[2:02:01] my committee sir. This is my committee
[2:02:03] sir.
[2:02:04] spinning stuff.
[2:02:05] >> See, but this is a problem.
[2:02:06] >> My gosh.
[2:02:07] >> See, but look, the way you're conducting
[2:02:08] yourself right now is is what I perceive
[2:02:10] as a problem. Just because you feel the
[2:02:12] conversation is going on long, you're
[2:02:14] being disrespectful.
[2:02:15] >> No, it's not because I I'm not against
[2:02:17] allowing people to allow people to
[2:02:19] express themselves. Debating people for
[2:02:22] the whole evening.
[2:02:23] >> But sir, right now,
[2:02:24] >> everyone is entitled to their opinion
[2:02:25] and you should respect that. You're not
[2:02:27] respecting our the other members opinion
[2:02:31] and suggestion.
[2:02:31] >> Right now you're acting out of order,
[2:02:33] sir. Right now, I have to call it out of
[2:02:36] order. You have to call it.
[2:02:38] >> Okay. Well, then
[2:02:39] >> excuse me, sir. Gentlemen, Mr. Mr. Moon
[2:02:41] with Mr. Farley saying that he did not
[2:02:43] call on you and um and recognize you to
[2:02:46] speak. That's what he's saying right
[2:02:47] now.
[2:02:48] >> Um Mr. Farley, if I can inter Mayor, did
[2:02:50] you there was I saw that your pen was
[2:02:52] up. Did you? Is there something you
[2:02:53] wanted to interject here? Could
[2:02:56] the clerk just transmit around I'd like
[2:02:59] copies of whatever the data is or the
[2:03:03] information that's part of the record of
[2:03:04] the council
[2:03:07] >> that was provided to us at the last
[2:03:09] council meeting.
[2:03:10] >> Well,
[2:03:12] just narrative over the rail is not a
[2:03:16] formal presentation of stuff to each
[2:03:19] individual council member. It's not
[2:03:21] subject to uh review. And if you're
[2:03:25] voting on something, you should know
[2:03:27] what you're voting. You've asked for
[2:03:29] data on a lot of things. I've made that
[2:03:31] a big portion here. What data is before
[2:03:34] the council?
[2:03:38] >> I can say that there was data that was
[2:03:39] presented at the council meeting at the
[2:03:41] last council meeting that um so somebody
[2:03:44] came forward. So we could we uh yeah, we
[2:03:46] do have that. Um, and if you're asking
[2:03:49] about all of the data that's been
[2:03:50] requested here, it would, you know, take
[2:03:53] a few days. If you just want to see
[2:03:55] what's been presented to the council,
[2:03:56] then there's that. But if you're asking
[2:03:57] for all the data that's outlined here,
[2:03:59] it would take a couple days. But I
[2:04:01] believe the data exists and can be
[2:04:03] compiled in
[2:04:05] >> what's part of the record.
[2:04:06] >> Okay. Part of the record that that we
[2:04:08] have.
[2:04:11] » So, um,
[2:04:14] I'm sorry, Mr. Man. Uh, Mr. Farley. Yes.
[2:04:18] >> So I I want I want to make sure I give
[2:04:20] Mr. Junior opportunity to speak while I
[2:04:23] call on Mr. I'm good. Oh okay.
[2:04:28] >> Thank you.
[2:04:29] >> Okay. Thank you sir.
[2:04:30] >> Thank you. As long as we're still going.
[2:04:32] You said being a victim for sexual
[2:04:34] preference and things like that. We
[2:04:35] don't have any data for that. So that's
[2:04:37] not even on the table. So
[2:04:39] >> I'm I'm sorry. It's just
[2:04:41] >> you can say that. That's fine.
[2:04:42] >> Right. I mean, the mayor asked, you
[2:04:45] know, who's coming forward, who's there?
[2:04:48] I mean, people are getting evicted
[2:04:49] obviously for reasons that the court
[2:04:52] finds acceptable. But I I again, I want
[2:04:55] to know why we're third in the state.
[2:04:57] Maybe Sam can get those numbers together
[2:04:58] for us. This this here uh that we got uh
[2:05:02] over the rail, just handed over the
[2:05:04] rail. It could have been made up, but we
[2:05:06] don't know. No,
[2:05:09] >> I think they they I think they cited
[2:05:11] where where the information came from,
[2:05:12] man. I don't think it was cited. It was
[2:05:14] cited
[2:05:15] >> just handed it over. I
[2:05:17] >> Well, can I just say that that happens
[2:05:19] to us often. We are often handed things
[2:05:21] across the rail. So,
[2:05:22] >> and we don't always necessarily um
[2:05:25] question the authenticity of it or where
[2:05:28] it sourced from, but this one did give
[2:05:30] the sources. So, I mean, I know
[2:05:32] obviously this is a very hot topic even
[2:05:34] among council members and a very
[2:05:36] passionate uh topic even among council
[2:05:38] members. So, we've all had our say today
[2:05:41] and lots of it. Um, clearly this did not
[2:05:45] pass out of committee. Um and and I also
[2:05:48] want to say in terms of the cause that
[2:05:51] we consistently talk about um tenants
[2:05:53] and tenant protections, but it also
[2:05:55] protects landlords. And I think that you
[2:05:57] should not lose sight of that because it
[2:06:00] gives them the ability to say somebody's
[2:06:02] not paying your rent, you have to go.
[2:06:05] Somebody's destroying your property or
[2:06:06] all these somebody's you said you your
[2:06:09] lease says one person and you moved in
[2:06:11] five people, they have to go. So there
[2:06:13] are protections for landlords and
[2:06:15] tenants in this legislation and that
[2:06:18] good cause legislation. So that's the
[2:06:20] last comment I have. Mr.
[2:06:22] >> So we saw with that um I would say uh
[2:06:25] that uh Mr. Nini um I what I was saying
[2:06:27] is I appreciate um what you're how you
[2:06:30] presenting this task force. Again I just
[2:06:33] due to it being instead of so you and I
[2:06:36] um were both at the last ones connected
[2:06:38] to me and we've had conversations. I
[2:06:40] look forward to working continue to work
[2:06:42] with you on these conversations. You all
[2:06:44] can get all that and figure it out. Um
[2:06:46] yeah. So again, this isn't an argument.
[2:06:48] Um this is a open exchange of of ideas
[2:06:51] that's important because it impacts
[2:06:53] people's livelihood and it's urgent for
[2:06:55] people who are in the situation. Thank
[2:06:57] God in my situation right now. I'm going
[2:06:59] to set this table that I know of. Um
[2:07:02] with that uh I any more issues come
[2:07:06] before government operations? If not, I
[2:07:08] will accept a motion to adjurnn. So
[2:07:10] moved.
[2:07:10] >> Second.
[2:07:12] >> We are journal.
[2:07:14] All
[2:07:14] >> in favor.
[2:07:14] >> All in favor?
[2:07:15] >> I
[2:07:16] >> Everyone seems to be in favor.
[2:07:20] >> Call the order of the claims committee.
[2:07:21] We have two items on the agenda. Um they
[2:07:24] both seem to be uh in action item. So I
[2:07:28] will
[2:07:30] motion to go into executive session.
[2:07:34] >> Oh,
[2:07:36] the motion. All right. She got me all
[2:07:38] flustered.
[2:07:42] » I'll second it. Okay. Right now.
[2:07:45] >> All in favor?
[2:07:46] >> I I We
[2:07:48] >> We got it. All right. The public will
[2:07:50] have to leave.
[2:07:51] >> Yes. Members of the public will have to
[2:07:52] leave.
[2:07:59] [Music]
[2:08:00] >> I'm going with her.
[2:08:04] [Music]
[2:08:30] Heat. Heat.
[2:08:34] [Music]
[2:09:03] Heat. Heat.
[2:09:07] [Music]