[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]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, July 21, 2025

Transcript