[0:00] Heat. Hey, Heat.

[0:02] [Music]

[0:53] Heat. Heat.

[0:55] [Music]

[1:26] [Applause]

[1:32] [Music]

[1:39] Heat. Heat. N.

[1:42] [Music]

[2:01] Heat. Heat.

[2:03] [Music]

[3:19] I'd like to call orders. Connecticut

[3:21] council committee meeting for Monday,

[3:24] August 18th, 2025.

[3:28] And the first committee is public

[3:30] safety.

[3:30] >> So, I'd like to call to order the public

[3:32] safety committee. We have four items on

[3:34] the agenda tonight. First of which is

[3:35] the grant award for GTSC child passenger

[3:39] safety program.

[3:53] All right. Good evening, Lieutenant

[3:55] Scott Police Department. Um, sorry, I'm

[3:59] taking up some of your space here.

[4:02] >> Just trying to organize my paper here.

[4:05] >> All right. So, uh, the first item up is

[4:09] a grant award for the Governor Traffic

[4:12] Safety Committee for the Child Passenger

[4:14] Safety Program.

[4:16] The police department has been awarded

[4:18] $6,200 uh in state funding to

[4:20] participate participate in the uh

[4:23] statewide child passenger safety

[4:25] program. Uh it's an initiative focused

[4:27] to ensure that children are transported

[4:29] safely in vehicles. In short, money is

[4:31] going to be used to promote the proper

[4:33] use of car seats. Um help people install

[4:37] them, put on events for free

[4:39] installations, provide car seats, uh

[4:42] education, things of that nature. Um

[4:45] again money comes from the GTSC in

[4:48] partnership with uh Department of Motor

[4:50] Vehicles and there is no match from the

[4:52] city.

[4:53] >> Thank you. Any question or comments

[4:55] here?

[4:57] >> Um so we talked about this a little bit

[4:58] at the committee at the legislative

[5:00] conference. So right now we don't have

[5:02] any seats to buy. We have some left

[5:04] over. You want to just talk about

[5:06] >> correct? So this is the first time we're

[5:08] actually as a police department getting

[5:10] this grant. Um, we were in partnership

[5:12] with uh another organization that

[5:15] received it for us. So, we still have

[5:17] some a trailer full of well, it was full

[5:20] of car seats. Um, I don't know exactly

[5:22] how many car seats this is going to

[5:23] purchase. I know they give them to us at

[5:25] a discounted rate, so we'll have plenty.

[5:28] We haven't ran out in the 3 years that

[5:30] I've known about it. So, um, ultimately

[5:34] what we're going to do is that money is

[5:36] going to go mostly towards events. um

[5:39] we'll kind of piggyback some of the

[5:41] citywide events that are happening uh

[5:44] set up a tenant, offer our services,

[5:47] what have you. So

[5:50] this is okay. So this sounds like an

[5:53] amazing thing here. I just quick

[5:54] question. I don't know if this is the

[5:57] appropriate uh way to communicate some

[5:59] of this, but I I have seen and this is

[6:00] just online. I don't think that we've

[6:02] had this issue here locally, but like

[6:04] where parents are in the hustle bustle

[6:07] thing of leaving their kids in cars. Um

[6:10] I wonder if this would be an opportunity

[6:12] where we could do some prevention work

[6:14] around those things just messaging for

[6:15] people. I don't know. But did you see

[6:17] like that something that fits in with

[6:18] this or

[6:19] >> I haven't seen the education material.

[6:21] Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. No,

[6:22] I haven't seen the material that comes

[6:24] with uh the education part of it. Um,

[6:28] but I can obviously talk to our traffic

[6:29] division, lieutenant sergeant, and see

[6:31] if they can incorporate that. Look at

[6:32] it. Um, obviously that's a great

[6:36] concern. I never want to see that

[6:37] happening. So,

[6:38] >> thank you,

[6:39] >> Mr. Parker.

[6:40] >> Yes. So, you said that you um um

[6:43] attached to other citywide events. Does

[6:45] the police department put on any events

[6:46] on its own just so that people can come

[6:48] there for that purpose and that purpose

[6:49] only?

[6:50] >> Since we've never had the stream before?

[6:52] No.

[6:52] >> Well, but we may.

[6:54] >> But you had car seats before. So, how

[6:56] was that communicated to the public?

[6:58] >> Most to be honest, most of the time it

[7:00] was uh the hospitals were in contact

[7:02] with us. We hadn't uh the the program

[7:04] hadn't been very well established. We

[7:06] had some certified installers. Um but

[7:09] most of the time it was just people

[7:10] reaching out to us most of the time

[7:12] through hospitals. uh they're letting us

[7:14] know, you know, they have an individual

[7:16] who just had a baby, they're in need, or

[7:18] people are contacting us preemptively,

[7:21] like their due date is not too far away

[7:23] and they're going to need a car seat

[7:24] installed. Um so, prior to this, I'm not

[7:28] aware that we had any events, but it's a

[7:30] good recommendation for the traffic

[7:32] division and I will certainly get back

[7:33] to them on that.

[7:34] >> I forgot a trailer on the phone.

[7:36] >> Yeah.

[7:37] >> Thank you.

[7:38] >> Of course. Any other questions or

[7:39] comments? Uh hearing none, I may have a

[7:41] motion. So moved.

[7:42] >> I'll second. All those in favor? I

[7:45] >> uh the second item is a DHS tactical

[7:48] team grant program.

[7:55] » All right. Uh excuse me. The second

[7:59] grant that the city of Connecticut

[8:01] Police Department has been awarded is a

[8:03] $75,000

[8:04] federal grant through uh Department of

[8:07] Homeland Security. Um, this money is

[8:11] provided to help improve and develop uh

[8:13] tactical teams throughout the area for

[8:16] the purchase of equipment and anything

[8:17] that uh kind of helps support their

[8:20] needs towards uh counterterrorism

[8:22] efforts. This is the second year in a

[8:24] row we've been awarded this. There's

[8:26] lots of criteria that goes into meeting

[8:29] the standards to qualify for this um

[8:32] which our current commander has gone to

[8:35] great lengths and spent countless hours

[8:37] um ensuring that we are in compliance

[8:40] and meeting the standards. So um there's

[8:43] a lot on that end. So this is a uh it's

[8:47] for lack of a better term on the back

[8:49] end to uh be able to purchase new

[8:51] equipment.

[8:52] >> Sure.

[8:53] >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Bill,

[8:54] >> you said that um this is for tactical

[8:56] teams throughout the area. Is sketch

[8:59] this only going to be for the city of

[9:00] Skenkity? The

[9:01] >> actual $75,000

[9:03] >> to use only within the city.

[9:05] >> Correct.

[9:06] >> Thank you.

[9:07] >> Any other questions or comments? Hearing

[9:09] seeing none, I have a motion.

[9:10] >> So move.

[9:11] >> I will second. All those in favor?

[9:12] >> I The next item is the explosive

[9:15] detection K19 grant program.

[9:23] All right.

[9:25] This is also another Department of

[9:26] Homeland Security grant. Uh we've been

[9:28] awarded $32,000 in federal funding uh to

[9:33] obtain an explosive detection K9 uh

[9:36] excuse me, it's for an explosive

[9:38] detection K9 team. Uh so with this

[9:42] money, we'll be able to obtain uh

[9:44] purchase an explosive uh detection K9,

[9:48] train them. Uh the other money is going

[9:51] towards um training tools and um any of

[9:57] the uh material needs for the dog,

[9:59] collars, harnesses, all those things. Uh

[10:03] some of the money is also going to go

[10:04] towards back filling for overtime, I

[10:07] believe. I have to look. Um

[10:10] >> just to cover the officer while they're

[10:12] away or so have you. Um,

[10:16] we currently don't have an explosive

[10:18] detection K9. Um, we only have a drug

[10:21] K9. So, one of the benefits of this dog

[10:26] is um there's a lot of public safety

[10:29] surrounding it. They not only detect

[10:32] explosives, but also guns. Um, they're

[10:35] going to be trained in tracking. So, if

[10:37] people flee from us that we're looking

[10:38] for or someone committed burglary, what

[10:41] have you, um, and they run, we can use

[10:43] the dog. They're a great tool. They uh

[10:48] in partnership I know with the Skeny

[10:50] County who has these dogs, they do

[10:53] sweeps around all the major events prior

[10:56] to the event, during the event and so

[10:58] have you. Um looking for any bombs that

[11:01] have been placed prior to so there's a

[11:04] lot of benefits to having a K9.

[11:08] >> Thank you. Any question or comments? I

[11:10] just want to point out that he did uh

[11:12] the uh he said that the um overtime was

[11:14] in there so it is listed there's a

[11:16] budget attached so we see that they did

[11:18] give us that. Thank you.

[11:20] >> Thank you. Uh any other questions or

[11:22] comments? where where would you would

[11:24] you purchase the K9 and what's the

[11:26] typical training time where the uh the

[11:29] K9 is can be um assigned to the first

[11:34] question where

[11:35] >> yeah so there's multiple uh like

[11:38] organizations breeders if you will

[11:40] around the country for the most part

[11:42] that do this it's all about timing so

[11:45] you kind of find who has one when you're

[11:48] available to purchase um I know they I

[11:51] believe they have one lined up and with

[11:52] a backup uh just in case things fall

[11:56] through. But they have to catch the dog

[11:57] at the right age um in the right point

[11:59] of their life. The training for it um

[12:04] I don't quote me on this, but I believe

[12:06] it's 6 months and it's I believe the

[12:09] state police hosts it. So, it's a pretty

[12:11] intensive training.

[12:12] >> Thank you.

[12:13] Any other questions or

[12:15] comments? Hear not. I have a motion.

[12:17] >> I move it.

[12:18] >> Second. All those in favor?

[12:20] >> I. And the last agenda item is going to

[12:22] be an update by the Civilian Police

[12:24] Review Board.

[12:35] » Denine Palmir,

[12:37] chair of the Skenctity CPRB. First up, I

[12:41] guess we are to talk about the cases

[12:43] that have been reviewed. I put the cases

[12:45] in the whole listing on everybody's

[12:47] chair. That way, you would have them. To

[12:49] date, there's been eight cases that have

[12:50] been reviewed. This is only through

[12:52] June. I did not do July or August, but

[12:56] I'm not that far ahead of things, but

[12:58] January through June. There are eight

[13:00] cases reviewed, 10 violations.

[13:02] Um, four policy, three procedure, one

[13:05] use of force, two discourtesy. I think

[13:08] the important thing to realize here and

[13:09] to note is that although they there

[13:12] weren't complaints, there were two other

[13:14] sustained policy violations that once

[13:17] the officers had reviewed um OPS had

[13:19] reviewed the case and the camera

[13:21] footage, they found two policy

[13:23] violations which they then brought

[13:25] against the police officers. Um and

[13:27] there was one other sustained policy

[13:28] violation.

[13:32] I know you haven't had time to review

[13:34] those, but if you have any questions,

[13:35] I'm open to answering them.

[13:46] » Oh, sorry.

[13:47] >> It's okay. So, I know that there was

[13:49] some concerns about having a quorum. So,

[13:52] have you missed any meetings in time

[13:54] frame? Um, since we've been in the air,

[13:56] you're not able to make the quum.

[13:57] >> We have not. it we have not but it is

[14:00] part of the ordinance discussion that we

[14:01] would like to change in the proposed

[14:03] ordinance at one point because currently

[14:06] the way the ordinance is written there

[14:07] are supposed to be nine members um and

[14:10] regardless of the amount of members

[14:12] there's still a quorum of five

[14:14] >> which is sometimes problematic currently

[14:16] we have seven members but one of them is

[14:17] a holdover right we have an opening um

[14:20] the NAACP has an opening and sun turned

[14:24] in their membership and we're waiting

[14:26] for someone from the city to be

[14:28] appointed

[14:29] Um, the NAACP's nominee did not come

[14:31] through because they did not reside in

[14:33] the city of Skenctity, which is part of

[14:34] the ordinance.

[14:35] >> It didn't go through from the mayor's

[14:37] office.

[14:37] >> It did not, but part of our ordinance is

[14:40] that they must live within the city

[14:42] limits.

[14:42] >> Mhm.

[14:43] >> So,

[14:44] >> thank you. Uh, Miss Mayor,

[14:47] >> so you said

[14:48] the quorum is still the quorum is still

[14:51] five um regardless of whether you hit

[14:53] the nine is what you're saying. Yes.

[14:55] Okay. I just want

[14:55] >> So when we have six members and

[14:57] somebody's on vacation, we're calling

[14:59] around making sure everyone will be

[15:01] there

[15:02] >> and we hold the meeting. If someone's a

[15:03] few minutes late, half hour, whatever,

[15:05] it's just it's harder.

[15:06] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[15:08] >> Because the the code calls for nine.

[15:12] >> Yeah. So

[15:13] >> Well, because the code calls the quorum

[15:15] calls for five regardless.

[15:17] >> Well, the code calls for nine. So five

[15:19] would be a quorum.

[15:20] >> Yes.

[15:22] Are you so are you we're going to talk a

[15:24] little bit more?

[15:25] >> Yeah, if you want something else.

[15:26] >> No, I want to know if you today you're

[15:28] going to talk about trying to change

[15:29] that or is that coming a later

[15:30] discussion?

[15:31] >> Um I think that was part of the thing

[15:32] the ordinance changes that we wanted to

[15:34] also it was I think there were three

[15:36] things. What's happening? What have we

[15:38] been doing?

[15:39] Ordinance suggestions that are not being

[15:42] brought today but should just be

[15:43] discussed, right? Is that okay? So, I

[15:47] kicked it off with here's the status of

[15:50] the cases that we've reviewed. Next up,

[15:52] I had listed just a list of activities

[15:54] that the CPRB has been up to and doing.

[15:58] Um,

[16:00] it's kind of just an overview of what's

[16:02] happening with us. One of the things

[16:03] that's also January through June, um,

[16:06] I'm going to jump to what we have been

[16:08] up to because I think it's pretty

[16:09] exciting. July, January through June, we

[16:11] did a lot of work on trying to come up

[16:12] with what the CPRB what we're our goals,

[16:15] right? We're supposed to be out in the

[16:16] community. we're supposed to be doing

[16:17] this. We're supposed to be meeting the

[16:18] community where they are. And currently

[16:20] the way it was set up, we are not doing

[16:21] that, right? We're not going out. We're

[16:23] not doing this. So, first thing is how

[16:26] do we market ourselves and to the

[16:28] community? So, since then, we have had a

[16:30] logo approved by corporation council. It

[16:32] is up there uh behind you on the little

[16:35] runner that's goes with our tables and

[16:38] our tablecloths. Um we've had pens,

[16:41] magnets, we're looking at business

[16:43] cards. We now have an email address that

[16:46] is chair skenctity cprbgmail.com.

[16:49] It'll transfer all the way down to

[16:51] whoever happens to be in charge. Um just

[16:55] in case they want to file a complaint

[16:56] and do so by email

[16:59] and we're hoping to take this sort of

[17:02] show on the road. We have developed a

[17:04] PowerPoint pitch that talks about the

[17:07] organization and what we're doing uh

[17:10] that has been presented to one

[17:11] organization thus far. What I did find

[17:13] interesting and just for statistics, one

[17:16] of the things that we talk about is the

[17:18] CPRB and its role as it relates to other

[17:22] organizations and cities. One of the

[17:25] things we hear the key limitations are

[17:28] that we don't have subpoena power and a

[17:29] variety of other things. But I likened

[17:32] our size 67,000

[17:34] uh population.

[17:36] Most people compare us to the Alb CPRB,

[17:39] right? It's just it's a neighboring

[17:40] town. But Mount Vernon also has advisory

[17:42] only CPRB. Pikipsy, Bingmpington, and

[17:45] Udica have naturally no formal oversight

[17:48] board for the police review board. Just

[17:49] a statistic that I think is interesting

[17:51] when people talk about the CPRB and our

[17:54] role.

[17:58] » Any questions?

[17:59] >> And I'll just last natural point of

[18:02] discussion. Would you mind just talking

[18:03] about just references to sending members

[18:06] on consecutive years to the NOL?

[18:08] >> Right. So, we're a member of the Nquille

[18:10] by ordinance and um this year we have

[18:13] two members going to the conference.

[18:16] Last year I attended the conference and

[18:18] part of as chair what we've tried to do

[18:20] is make sure that different people have

[18:21] the opportunity to attend the conference

[18:23] for educational purposes. This year

[18:25] there's two going um that have never

[18:27] been before. Um Keith St. John

[18:32] and Harleen Andress

[18:36] are attending this year. Um, in

[18:40] addition, right, we're we're trying to

[18:41] get our marketing material up and

[18:42] running so that we can get out there

[18:43] into the community and meet people where

[18:45] they are.

[18:48] >> I just briefly looked at your um the

[18:50] brochure. So, I thought that there were

[18:52] more than I only see two places that

[18:54] with the police department, which people

[18:56] are filing against in the office of the

[18:57] mayor. There are no other places that

[18:59] people can file a complaint.

[19:01] >> Well, getting the complaint form seems

[19:02] to be difficult. Not everybody seems to

[19:04] have exact hours in their building in

[19:07] their buildings, right? So, the library

[19:09] doesn't seem to have the complaint form

[19:10] and until it is revised, which the

[19:12] revisions have been sent back to the

[19:14] police department and they're supposed

[19:15] to be doing it in Spanish as well. Um,

[19:18] those are the two locations where it's

[19:20] easiest to pick up. I mean, I supposedly

[19:22] the library is supposed to have them,

[19:24] but they don't. Um, the NAA is supposed

[19:26] to have them, but they don't. The Human

[19:28] Rights Commission is supposed to have

[19:29] them. They don't have hours, regular

[19:31] hours

[19:32] >> at the Human Rights Commission.

[19:37] » Um, so

[19:40] it seems to me that that that we should

[19:43] figure out a way where like they're even

[19:46] just there you can pick them up like the

[19:47] registration forms. You don't have to be

[19:50] like at the library when they're open

[19:52] and they're open often.

[19:53] >> They are. like you if you just pick one

[19:54] up and just locations where people can

[19:57] actually pick them up as opposed to us

[19:59] saying it has to be a certain time

[20:00] because city hall closes as well

[20:03] >> and police department doesn't they do

[20:04] have that um but so I think that we uh

[20:08] it would be probably better to expand

[20:12] where people can get them um even if if

[20:14] they go to the county building and the

[20:16] human rights commission itself isn't

[20:18] open but the county building is open

[20:20] there'd be some place so I really think

[20:22] we should expand that was I know it was

[20:24] longer than this. Um and and maybe even

[20:26] people can get it online.

[20:28] >> It was longer than that in their other

[20:29] brochure, but then we went back to the

[20:31] basics and read where they were and they

[20:34] weren't available there. So, this is

[20:36] sort of And by the way, this isn't

[20:37] really final. This is a printout that I

[20:39] did because it's changing constantly and

[20:42] I don't want to spend the city's money

[20:43] on having brochures printed that are

[20:45] constantly evolving at this point. So,

[20:47] I've been printing them out 10 or 20 at

[20:49] a time.

[20:50] >> Smart. So, I really think that we should

[20:52] consider trying to have them in more

[20:53] locations uh that quite frankly if

[20:56] people are more comfortable going as

[20:58] opposed to, you know, going to the

[21:00] police department because they're filing

[21:02] uh complaint against the police. So,

[21:03] that for some people might be a little

[21:05] intimidating.

[21:05] >> Yeah.

[21:06] >> So, if we could figure out places we

[21:07] could just have the the uh have them and

[21:10] is it possible to have them online? Do

[21:13] are they online?

[21:14] >> They are online. You can still print it

[21:16] down through the city's website and the

[21:17] CPRB's website. Um, which the team here

[21:21] has at the city has been great about

[21:22] keeping updated with all of our new

[21:24] things as they come up. Um, there's a form there. The form is being

[21:29] updated though as we speak. We were just

[21:31] doing

[21:32] >> I'm sorry. Um, Councilman, when did we

[21:35] sent it over to the chief with some

[21:36] revisions?

[21:37] >> Uh, the date. Yes.

[21:38] >> I think it was June 9th. So, we're

[21:40] waiting for those revisions and then

[21:42] it's going to be translated going to be

[21:43] translated into Spanish.

[21:46] >> Okay. And people can mail these in as

[21:48] well. So, I think we should note that as

[21:49] well because maybe that will take away

[21:51] some of that. But, um, if we could look

[21:53] at council member some ways to have in

[21:56] other locations, I think that would be

[21:58] extremely helpful. Not that we're

[21:59] getting that many complaints, but just

[22:01] broadening where people can pick up and

[22:03] then file.

[22:04] >> Absolutely. I think Miss Patrick.

[22:07] >> Well, can I just ask so for example the

[22:09] library? I mean they don't have them but

[22:11] do they not have them because the thing

[22:12] is under revision right now? Is that

[22:14] why?

[22:15] >> I I don't think they have them and we

[22:16] can talk about this in the ordinance is

[22:18] the fact that the CPRB is all volunteer

[22:20] and we've been trying to update these.

[22:22] So getting them distributed and out and

[22:25] about and updated has not been it's

[22:28] something that we're doing on our

[22:29] volunteer time.

[22:30] >> I'd be happy to help with the libraries

[22:31] if you need that. Great when you're when

[22:34] you're ready. I mean actually it would

[22:35] just be obviously the ones that are

[22:36] within the city but um unless you wanted

[22:39] them in all the nine branches but um you

[22:42] can tell me that later but I'm happy to

[22:44] drop them.

[22:45] >> I think wherever wherever we can meet

[22:47] people where they are as um you

[22:50] mentioned meeting we don't have a lot of

[22:52] complaints but is that because there

[22:54] aren't issues or because they don't know

[22:57] that we're there. Um that's, you know,

[23:00] one of the things that we're hoping that

[23:02] by getting out there and attending

[23:03] community events, they will learn that

[23:06] we're there. Um recently there was

[23:08] enough publicity that someone reached

[23:10] out to me directly to take a complaint.

[23:12] Right. We can do that and it was

[23:14] submitted to for review.

[23:16] >> Okay.

[23:17] And I would just say that that caption

[23:19] is the response of government that I

[23:20] think a lot of us around this table and

[23:22] also within the city just come to expect

[23:24] just how do we acknowledge where we are

[23:26] but also continue to improve our

[23:28] processes and I believe this is one of

[23:30] the ways that I haven't seen since I've

[23:32] been on the council and been a part of

[23:34] the CPRB. So definitely I appreciate the

[23:36] work that you and the board are

[23:38] currently doing. Um, as you mentioned, I

[23:40] think there are often references to the

[23:42] Albany uh chapter um some ballot and I

[23:46] think for some uh unsubstantiated

[23:48] reasons, but I appreciate what our city

[23:50] is doing in trying to continue to put

[23:52] forth a positive effort. Uh, and I

[23:55] believe that although our complaints may

[23:56] not fully represent where the city is,

[23:59] uh, these types of efforts, these

[24:00] community engagement opportunities, I

[24:02] think that leads some credibility to

[24:03] support some of the findings that we do

[24:06] understand and know. Um so unless there

[24:08] are any other questions.

[24:10] >> Yeah. So I just um number one um through

[24:14] referrals like so where where are the

[24:17] certifications that you are getting like

[24:19] if you could and I don't expect you to

[24:21] have this off top of head but like are

[24:23] you seeing like a lot of referrals

[24:24] coming from agencies or individuals or

[24:27] how does that work?

[24:29] >> Mainly from the individuals doing the

[24:32] report to the police department.

[24:34] >> Okay. Okay.

[24:34] >> Yeah. I mean, let me through the state

[24:37] attorney general's office, right? You

[24:38] can get a complaint there. However,

[24:40] sometimes those have to go through their

[24:42] internal processes to get to us. We

[24:44] recently just reviewed two that were a

[24:46] year old that they didn't get to us for

[24:49] a year.

[24:50] >> Okay?

[24:50] >> So, it just takes time if they file it

[24:53] because you can file a complaint with

[24:54] the attorney general's office against

[24:56] the police department and it will get to

[24:58] us.

[24:59] >> It just doesn't come as swiftly.

[25:01] So what happens when um

[25:05] someone puts forth a complaint and then

[25:07] the complaint is like founded like

[25:09] what's the next steps?

[25:11] >> So based on this we had say well we have

[25:13] a complaint there. I'll just talk to the

[25:14] one case that we had a sustained

[25:15] violation in and that officer you know

[25:19] it went through the unions and the stuff

[25:21] and he was reprimanded um ended up

[25:23] losing three vacation days based on

[25:25] policy violation. Right. still it's not

[25:28] our our place as the CPRB to implement

[25:32] the um

[25:36] change behaviors or whatever you want to

[25:37] say that um that happened but it does go

[25:40] to the council the union reps and

[25:43] everyone to come up with a particular

[25:47] punishment shall we say

[25:48] >> okay you also said that like we're often

[25:51] compared to Albany um something that you

[25:54] highlight is that Albany has subpoena in

[25:56] the power, but we don't have that. But

[25:58] there's also other uh

[26:02] comparable uh review boards that don't

[26:04] have any official oversight capacity at

[26:06] all. Um was that us not having subpoena

[26:10] power? Was that just how it was written

[26:11] when things were initiated? Is that

[26:14] something that you'd like to see change

[26:15] or

[26:16] >> So, it's interesting in the in within

[26:17] the ordinance, it talks about the

[26:18] subpoena power and says that we could

[26:20] use the city council to elicit the

[26:23] subpoena power, but it's an interesting

[26:25] contradiction because they call it a

[26:27] double blind review. And they say, but

[26:29] you should have an investigator. Well,

[26:31] if we hire an investigator, it's not a

[26:32] double blind review. So, I'm not sure

[26:34] how that works within this the way the

[26:37] ordinance is currently working. So we So

[26:39] it says in an ordinance that you do have

[26:41] subpoena.

[26:42] >> No, it says we could use the city

[26:43] council

[26:44] >> in order

[26:44] >> and then the city council could issue a

[26:47] subpoena based upon our I think that's

[26:50] the way it's written.

[26:51] >> That's true.

[26:54] >> But if it's written the way it's not our

[26:55] true function of how to So would

[26:58] >> is that something that uh the the board

[27:01] would like to have is direct?

[27:03] >> I don't I don't I don't I don't think

[27:04] that they're right currently that we're

[27:06] asking for direct subpoena power. Mhm.

[27:08] >> Um, currently I think that's could be a

[27:10] change if we see the cases

[27:14] increase and there's an issue that comes

[27:16] up, but currently that we're not seeing

[27:18] that. And I have to say that OPS is is

[27:20] sustaining the violations and then

[27:22] they're finding their own within their

[27:24] review.

[27:24] >> Um, and when we ask to go back and

[27:26] review body camera, street cameras,

[27:29] etc., they always comply within 30 to 60

[27:32] days of getting us the redacted camera

[27:34] footage.

[27:38] In regards to the review of the camera

[27:40] footage, etc., who reviews that? The

[27:42] entire body. How um who reviews that? If

[27:45] you want to review for a case,

[27:46] >> it's the entire body is invited.

[27:48] >> Okay.

[27:48] >> The entire body is invite invited. The

[27:51] last case we reviewed, five of us showed

[27:52] up. So, all except for two.

[27:55] >> Mhm.

[27:57] And then if I can add the definitely a

[27:59] point of clarification is the office of

[28:02] professional standards. They do a

[28:03] sincere job with seeing every complaint

[28:05] through to completion bubble which was a

[28:08] part of that as a sergeant and that's

[28:09] where we've come to develop our

[28:11] professional relationship. But sincerely

[28:13] the important onus I think is put on

[28:16] complaints. Please put valid contact

[28:18] information because that is sincerely

[28:19] the true means of how that department

[28:22] can get in touch with you to give you

[28:24] updates along the process and also

[28:26] supply like just a summation or

[28:28] summarization of what's happened. But

[28:30] often times you hear that they're unable

[28:31] to get in contact with some of these

[28:33] individuals. Uh I think it's based on

[28:35] how the complaint form is written or it

[28:37] does have a very negative connotation to

[28:39] it whereas like you mess up an

[28:41] information or misconvey detail that the

[28:44] police department is going to seek like

[28:46] legal ramifications against you and

[28:48] that's truly not the case but um how you

[28:50] see it based is based on where you sit.

[28:52] Uh so wanting to see those revisions

[28:54] just so it not welcomes complaints but

[28:58] presents a different uh view to

[29:01] individuals who truly feel that they

[29:02] were u disenfranchised or treated in a

[29:06] negative way. uh but sincerely the

[29:07] office of professional standards they do

[29:10] see these complaints through to

[29:11] completion and I think in this uh review

[29:14] uh which we can just attach to uh the

[29:17] meeting if the public would like to see

[29:18] it uh if it's appropriate I think it

[29:21] shows what Miss Potterer has said um

[29:24] there are cases where uh complaints have

[29:26] been sustained and there have been

[29:28] plausible outcomes in the benefit of the

[29:30] community

[29:32] >> but if there are no other questions or

[29:34] concerns She

[29:37] quickly do I just highlight some of the

[29:39] ordinance changes that were

[29:40] >> I apologize.

[29:41] >> Okay.

[29:43] >> The city code. Yes. Um so based upon the

[29:47] way this was written and taking into

[29:49] account that this was written back in

[29:50] 2001, right? Things have changed. Okay.

[29:53] >> Right. So the board um is supposed to

[29:56] have two exeicio uh non- voting members,

[29:59] a member of the public the public safety

[30:01] commissioner and a citizen at large

[30:02] appointed by city council. those that

[30:05] has never that doesn't happen. So, um I

[30:09] don't know if it needs to remain.

[30:11] >> I thought Mr. um Miss Patrick

[30:13] >> Ke St. John I thought Ke was our

[30:16] appointee.

[30:17] >> Yes,

[30:17] >> he is the city council's nominee to the

[30:20] board, but this is an exopicio non

[30:23] voting member that also city.

[30:26] >> That's what it says.

[30:27] >> Okay.

[30:28] Oh, we got

[30:28] >> section 934

[30:31] non- voting members from the public the

[30:33] public safety commissioner and a citizen

[30:36] at large appointed to the city council,

[30:38] but it's a non- voting member.

[30:40] >> So, this person has never

[30:41] >> No, he doesn't come.

[30:42] >> No. As a matter of fact, I looked up his

[30:44] name today because I'm going to invite

[30:45] him to come speak.

[30:47] >> Oh, well then that might be why he

[30:49] hasn't shown up.

[30:50] >> No, just recently.

[30:52] >> Just so you

[30:53] >> Okay,

[30:55] >> Mr. Chairman, you can just that as it's

[30:58] written, it's just a matter of

[31:00] appointing another exeicio member to the

[31:03] board, right?

[31:04] >> You know, it's it's there. So, it's just

[31:06] a matter of doing a resolution at some

[31:08] point, just appointing an as an exeicial

[31:10] member.

[31:10] >> But we we were also kind of on the side

[31:12] discussing that we the public safety

[31:13] commissioner is also written in there,

[31:17] >> right? We have a public safety

[31:19] commissioner as an exeicial man.

[31:21] >> Yes. Do we have a public safety

[31:23] commissioner?

[31:23] >> Yes. Yeah.

[31:25] >> I thought Didn't you invite us to

[31:26] something?

[31:28] >> He's the public safety commissioner,

[31:31] >> but he's still going to be in that role.

[31:33] >> Yeah.

[31:33] >> Okay. Okay.

[31:36] >> Okay. Next was the quorum, which we've

[31:38] quickly addressed that. I think that we

[31:39] need to look at that based upon the

[31:41] number of

[31:43] members that are appointed. It's been

[31:45] taking a while. Um right now, just for

[31:48] instance, Sycamore Collaborative, their

[31:50] person was up in February. They were

[31:52] notified in December that this person

[31:54] would be done by February. Sharon has

[31:57] been lovely at studying, but she keeps

[31:59] asking me every month, have they found a

[32:01] member? Have they found a member?

[32:03] >> Um, and that hasn't happened and it's

[32:05] August. Um, we're trying to find, you

[32:08] know, we we change the ordinance a bit

[32:09] to allow for the city to appoint

[32:11] someone, but that, you know, we were

[32:13] trying to let them hold on to their

[32:14] seat, but we're getting to the point

[32:16] that they may not be able to hold that

[32:17] seat that we're going to have to say

[32:19] city council should appoint someone. But

[32:21] there is already an appointee missing

[32:23] and that was Suns when they gave up

[32:25] >> their position. So we already have Sun

[32:28] out there not having someone and then we

[32:31] have the NAACP's nominee who couldn't

[32:34] step in because of that and then we'd

[32:35] have Sycamore collaborative which would

[32:37] then put us back down to six.

[32:42] » So there was also the process where

[32:43] we're talking about having an alternate.

[32:45] So none of these organizations well

[32:47] NAACP had an alternate but since the

[32:49] main person couldn't come you know the

[32:52] alternate couldn't be there so none of

[32:54] the organizations are putting forth an

[32:56] alternate it doesn't seem so based upon

[32:59] the appointments I've seen the

[33:01] appointment letters there doesn't seem

[33:02] to be uh a listing that this other

[33:04] person is part of that um

[33:07] >> with the exception of the NAACP where

[33:10] they put forth to

[33:11] >> okay

[33:13] let's take a look at that

[33:15] Um so the other part is 9311 says that

[33:19] the board shall encourage and facilitate

[33:21] mediation of any complaint. Well that

[33:24] hasn't happened. Um it says that we

[33:26] should should have a list of approved

[33:28] mediators and their qualifications.

[33:32] Um and then 9312 says that we should

[33:34] have the power to independently review

[33:36] complaints. And again, this goes to the

[33:39] subpoena power, but if we have to

[33:41] operate under a double blind system,

[33:43] that negates one another. So, I think

[33:45] there just needs to be a review of the

[33:47] wording and how that is done and what we

[33:50] would like. It calls for an annual

[33:52] independent audit by a consultant

[33:54] selected by the board of all the

[33:56] complaints and their investigations each

[33:58] year.

[34:00] That has not been done either. Um, and

[34:03] then the board shall charge and oversee

[34:05] its paid staff.

[34:07] No.

[34:10] » And I know it's not in here because

[34:13] obviously it would be a budgetary item,

[34:15] >> but it budgeted supposedly the

[34:17] investigator was that would have been a

[34:19] paid staff, but there's no investigator.

[34:21] >> Right. Right. Um, and then this was

[34:24] interesting and I don't know if it needs

[34:25] to be reviewed or if it was when it was

[34:27] established, but it says the mayor and

[34:29] the city council shall each appoint 10

[34:32] Skenctity residents to an advisory

[34:34] committee for an ongoing study and

[34:37] subsequent recommendations to the police

[34:39] review board.

[34:41] I don't know of an advisory.

[34:45] >> I believe that is when they first

[34:47] established it. Um, so I don't know if

[34:50] the wording should explain it better,

[34:52] but that was when it was first set.

[34:54] >> Okay.

[34:56] >> Um it's my understanding that

[34:58] >> those are those are the high points of

[35:00] the ordinance changes where we can kind

[35:01] of reviewing and looking at

[35:04] >> and since we uh kind of graciously

[35:06] skirted across budget uh any potential

[35:09] conversations how are you spending down?

[35:11] >> So yeah, so I think LA last year's

[35:13] budget was $15,000. This year we are

[35:16] sending two staff two sorry staff two

[35:19] board members to the NQL conference. Um

[35:22] and obviously we've started the

[35:24] marketing and Sarah Hughes has been

[35:25] wonderful at getting us the marketing

[35:27] materials. I send her a logo and a link

[35:29] to something and the next thing I know

[35:31] stuff arrives at my house. So we have

[35:32] tables and chairs and obviously runners.

[35:36] Um and we did get two sets of everything

[35:38] so that the vice chair Keith St. John

[35:40] also has a set of the same types of

[35:42] things at his house because we weren't

[35:45] sure that there was an appropriate area

[35:47] for us to house this so that anyone

[35:49] could get to it. So, we each have a

[35:50] table, tablecloth, runner, pens,

[35:52] magnets. Um, we're looking at cards. We

[35:55] held off on the cards because I wanted

[35:57] it to have just a unified email address

[35:59] on it and not listed to the chair or

[36:02] someone.

[36:03] >> So, those will be next. So I think cost

[36:06] will be the attendance at a variety of

[36:09] events, right? Paying those fees to have

[36:11] tables and tableabling and being out in

[36:13] the community.

[36:16] Mley,

[36:16] >> do you think that a a small stipen would

[36:19] uh encourage people to um

[36:23] participate and do so more a little more

[36:25] uh robustly than what's happening now?

[36:29] >> You know, that that's always a good

[36:30] question. Um, probably one that hurts my my heart a little is someone who

[36:36] volunteers and believes in volunteerism

[36:39] um and the commitment of volunteerism as

[36:41] a volunteer board if you commit to it. I

[36:44] would hope that you would meet those

[36:46] commitments.

[36:48] >> So would it enhance it?

[36:50] >> It may. Um, but I would, as you look at

[36:54] what we do, I would like to put in place

[36:56] a job description. Then before we did

[36:59] so, before we offered a stipen, do a job

[37:01] description that highlights what the

[37:02] person is supposed to be doing as part

[37:05] of the stipend. Um, unilaterally, just

[37:08] going across the board. And I know that

[37:11] because I I have met with other civilian

[37:14] review boards and last year at the NARL

[37:16] conference talked to uh quite a few that

[37:18] do have stipens. Um some have ended up

[37:22] with problematic stipens because they've

[37:24] given it at the first of the year and

[37:26] then the person drops and those that

[37:28] have to do it then they have to do a

[37:30] monthly stipen which becomes different

[37:32] for the city as a a monthly type of

[37:35] thing. So while I am in agreement that

[37:39] it could help, I'd like to farret that

[37:41] out a little further before saying yes,

[37:43] I think this is it, but how do we

[37:46] institute it in a way that ensures that

[37:49] the person who doesn't get, you know,

[37:51] say it was whatever, $1,000, but then I

[37:54] have them leave and this person then

[37:55] gets $1,000 and I just don't want to

[37:58] spend the city's money.

[38:00] >> Yeah.

[38:01] I I think also I mean I think it really

[38:04] would have to be well thought out

[38:05] because also how do you I mean who's

[38:07] going to hold the person accountable um

[38:09] how do you is there going to be a time

[38:11] sheet I mean how would they what is what

[38:15] if person A comes to every meeting does

[38:18] all the work um etc but person B hasn't

[38:22] shown up at all does that person still

[38:24] get the stipen who makes those decisions

[38:26] >> and when right do you get the stipen at

[38:29] the end of the year after you have

[38:30] contributed to the through the year. I'd

[38:32] love to see it fared out as well. I

[38:34] think that it it is an important thing

[38:36] and I do think it could be possible.

[38:38] >> So, Mr. Further, so a couple things like

[38:41] so I think about

[38:43] so there are other kind of boards that

[38:46] uh that offer stip for lack of a better

[38:49] term. So, I think that some of that you

[38:51] know we could look at like the success

[38:53] and how we manage those things. But I

[38:56] think overall like when we're talking

[38:58] about uh a position such as this, it is

[39:00] a very important position,

[39:03] but including a stipen sometimes uh

[39:07] allows not sometimes but offer up more

[39:09] access to this because a lot of people

[39:12] in our community um might have the heart

[39:14] of a val volunteer but don't have the

[39:17] time or the financial means to do so.

[39:19] And a lot of times um as far as

[39:22] representation goes on boards like this

[39:25] uh you know a lot of times that people

[39:27] who are in are from marginalized

[39:30] communities are the representation that

[39:32] we're seeking because the the

[39:33] statistically those are the people who

[39:36] will be more impacted by some level of

[39:38] misconduct. So, it's also like kind of

[39:41] like knowing our audience, if we will,

[39:44] and then making sure that we're not um

[39:47] unintentionally not including access for

[39:50] someone to participate in a board like

[39:52] this because of their current financial

[39:55] situation. That that can be a

[39:56] dealbreaker for someone who has a great

[39:59] part of that volunteer, but needs to

[40:01] pick up that extra shift at the store or

[40:03] whatever they're working at in order to

[40:04] sit uh to maintain their lifestyle.

[40:06] >> Right. Again, I'm I'm all in at a job

[40:10] description and sort of the the idea of

[40:12] meeting those qualifications. Um, we've

[40:15] had a couple of instances in the past

[40:17] year where um we've had to remove board

[40:20] members for lack of participation.

[40:23] Right. It is part of the the overall

[40:25] thing. I do my best to try to keep them

[40:26] updated as to their attendance um and

[40:29] the requirements of the position, but it

[40:32] doesn't help us if we can't meet the the

[40:35] role of the organization. So that's

[40:37] >> no we're going to make the same point

[40:39] Mr. Fleman and we do have other boards

[40:40] that give siphons so we could look at

[40:42] how they manage it. We've had um

[40:44] situations where something similar come

[40:46] up on other boards. So we should be able

[40:48] to manage it if in fact uh a siphon

[40:52] is something that we would end up doing

[40:54] uh for this particular board.

[40:57] >> Absolutely. There are no other questions

[40:59] or uh comments. definitely would like to

[41:01] thank him as volunteer on top of being a

[41:03] volunteer. Uh hurting pets per se is not

[41:07] a is an easy task and sincerely uh this

[41:10] work is very important. I've seen her

[41:12] attend meetings virtually, not as a

[41:14] voting member, but just to ensure that

[41:15] her presence is still felt on meetings

[41:17] and just want to say thank you.

[41:19] >> Thank you for having a lot of work.

[41:21] That's great.

[41:21] >> Thank you for having us. We hope to do

[41:23] that and if the budget is part of that

[41:26] statement, we can certainly welcome it.

[41:28] I'm not saying that we wouldn't. I'm

[41:30] just saying as as we go forth, it would

[41:32] certainly help getting people to deliver

[41:35] the items needed to be. I'm just going

[41:37] to take my little table runner.

[41:39] >> Okay.

[41:42] >> On my way out.

[41:45] >> Thank you.

[41:47] >> Uh there's no action needed with that

[41:49] item. So there are no further uh

[41:51] discussion points for the public to

[41:54] adjourn.

[41:55] >> So moved.

[41:55] >> I'll second. All those in favor? I we

[41:57] are here.

[42:00] >> Sure. I'd like to call to order the

[42:02] finance committee. We have three items

[42:04] on the agenda tonight. First of which is

[42:06] the National New York EV make ready

[42:08] program CD50002-

[42:12] India Alpha 1769.

[42:21] Thank you.

[42:26] » All right. Um

[42:29] this is

[42:31] um

[42:33] we have an electric vehicle project

[42:34] going down going on down at Urian Union.

[42:38] Um it's addressed as one 112 um South

[42:42] College Street. However, it's

[42:44] essentially if you're looking at

[42:45] Clinton's Ditch, that little triangle

[42:48] lot in front, um it's going to be in

[42:50] there. It actually was I misspoke during

[42:52] a meeting the other day. It was

[42:54] originally closest to Union Street. now

[42:56] has been shifted to basically the tip

[42:59] closer to Burger. Um but ultimately this

[43:03] was a grant from uh National Grid been

[43:08] awarded very specific number of

[43:11] $327,379.98

[43:14] uh for the installation of four DC FC

[43:17] charging station plugs um in the area I

[43:20] just discussed. Again, there's no match

[43:22] from the city. This is uh in combination

[43:25] with um

[43:27] couple other grants that we had already

[43:31] put through and been approved on um

[43:34] Department of Energy grant which is

[43:36] ultimately going to cover cover our

[43:37] costs. Um

[43:41] so what this is going to do, what this

[43:43] grant ultimately is for is going to pay

[43:45] for um

[43:48] the upgrade of the service through

[43:50] national grid. Um due to the large

[43:52] amount of power that's going to be drawn

[43:53] from it um and then the other grant

[43:56] money is going to go towards the

[43:58] equipment and the contractor performing

[44:00] the work.

[44:03] >> Any questions or comments for

[44:05] >> So is this a city law?

[44:08] That's a great question.

[44:09] >> Yes.

[44:14] >> Thank you.

[44:15] >> So, it's the one that's like like when

[44:16] you want to go if you want to go kind of

[44:18] like that curving thing.

[44:19] >> Yeah. It's the lot between Erie

[44:21] Boulevard and that road that splits in

[44:23] front of Clint. It's literally a little

[44:25] wedge, little triangle.

[44:27] >> All right. Just wanted to make sure it

[44:28] was city lot. And my only other question

[44:31] I don't expect you to say to know is

[44:32] there any comprehensive plan citywide

[44:35] with respect to addressing the EP

[44:37] considerations from Steve?

[44:40] >> You are correct. You know what is going

[44:42] on? Um this is um to be honest I'm not

[44:46] exactly 100% sure why the police

[44:48] department is involved in this project.

[44:50] This isn't a police department project.

[44:52] Um Chief was asked to look into this and

[44:59] if you all know Chief Whipple, but he's

[45:00] an all-star and he doesn't clearly say

[45:02] no. So, he hit the ground running,

[45:04] figured it out, and here we are getting

[45:07] a whole boatload of money to update some

[45:11] EV charging or provide and update

[45:14] electricity and EV charging stations

[45:16] around the city. He's currently working

[45:18] on one right now to get some chargers

[45:20] outside of the station, but this is not

[45:22] that. This is completely separate. So

[45:25] without putting that comment and you on

[45:27] the spot since you actually made this I

[45:29] shared the same uh thought process um is

[45:33] there a better um position or department

[45:35] suited for this type of work? Um I

[45:37] imagine it is in respect to some of the

[45:39] staffing concerns throughout the city uh

[45:41] city hall be specific but hopefully we

[45:43] can have some discussions around that

[45:45] budgetarily speaking not

[45:48] >> um any other questions or comments

[45:50] regarding

[45:52] >> just regarding that um Mr. Kucho who

[45:54] used to who was our assigned

[45:56] superintendent signal superintendent did

[45:58] um the past EV stuff that we got

[46:00] installed that was something that he was

[46:02] doing. So it's good point that we should

[46:04] try to figure out if it's should it be

[46:07] the police department where should that

[46:08] fail.

[46:09] >> Regardless of what body work a person

[46:11] submits.

[46:13] Um if there are no other questions or

[46:15] comments. Can I have a motion to uh

[46:19] >> I I'll make the motion to uh accept this

[46:22] funding.

[46:23] >> I will second. All those in favor?

[46:25] >> I I The next item on discussion is a

[46:28] discussion regarding citywide

[46:30] re-evaluation. Miss

[46:37] » Good evening everybody. Um it for the

[46:40] course of the time that I have been here

[46:41] at the city um we've gone from a

[46:43] equalization rate uh at a high of 123%

[46:47] um to 60.39%

[46:49] now. Um some of it you know I mean it's

[46:51] obviously due to the um how well the

[46:54] market's been doing but having an

[46:56] equalization rate that continues to fall

[46:58] um at such a dramatic

[47:01] um rate is going to cause us some

[47:03] problems in terms of like economic

[47:05] stability in the city. um you know I I

[47:09] put on the back of the um on the back of

[47:12] the form that I submitted in the packets

[47:14] um there's a bullet there's a bullet

[47:16] point list that kind of describes what

[47:19] happens or what the equalization rate

[47:21] does

[47:22] >> but you know it can affect our bond

[47:23] rating um it can uh it certainly has

[47:27] shown an effect on what the county uses

[47:30] like the city tax rate for county

[47:32] purposes um because we've fallen at such

[47:35] a dramatic rate. We are we end up car uh

[47:38] covering the majority of the tax rate

[47:41] compared to our uh neighbors in the in

[47:44] the um in the county. So, um I you know

[47:49] I kind of when I was speaking with Miss

[47:50] Porter um last week, we talked about

[47:54] just opening this up for a discussion.

[47:56] Um it's you know I mean it's a big thing

[47:58] to think about. It's an expensive thing

[47:59] to think about, but we're going to the

[48:02] market really isn't the market is still

[48:04] pretty hot. Um, and I don't know that

[48:07] we're going to see anything changing or

[48:09] at least it going back up anytime soon

[48:11] without us physically doing something to

[48:13] change that.

[48:15] >> Um, I'm not really sure. You know, I'm

[48:17] happy to answer questions or talk more

[48:20] about it. You know, there's a lot of

[48:21] information in here. Um, there's a lot

[48:24] of companies that we could go, you know,

[48:25] we can get an RFP from, we can take a

[48:27] look at. Um I you know I got a a quote

[48:31] from someone um who said you know a city

[48:33] of our size it would probably cost um

[48:36] upwards of 2 million to really um get

[48:40] all of the resources. There's there's

[48:42] different levels. Um, I know that if

[48:44] even if we enter into this conversation,

[48:46] the biggest problem or the biggest

[48:48] challenge we have is that our data is is

[48:51] really, you know, I mean, we've got a

[48:53] lot of stuff going on in the city where

[48:55] people don't get building permits and so

[48:57] we're not able to capture,

[48:59] >> you know, changes in bedroom count,

[49:01] bathroom count, square footage of homes.

[49:04] Um, so being able to use an outside

[49:06] company, uh, would help. They have more

[49:08] resources than we do, um, in the, you

[49:10] know, in our office. more staff, um,

[49:13] more they do those kinds of things

[49:14] full-time. So, it's, you know, would be

[49:17] a benefit to us, um, to really use some

[49:19] of the resources of outside folks.

[49:24] >> Um, so

[49:26] a couple of million dollars perhaps to

[49:28] hire um, that company to do the uh,

[49:32] reevaluation. Do you have any sense of

[49:35] what we might expect in revenue if we

[49:38] were to do the re-evaluation? Um, And that's I mean it's tricky. There's

[49:43] really no it doesn't really generate

[49:45] revenue um in the way that you think it

[49:47] kind of flip-flops. So tax rates would

[49:49] go down because we're generating a

[49:51] higher value in the city. So when it

[49:53] comes to looking at the levy, you know,

[49:55] it's still a matter of tightening per

[49:57] strings and you know I mean in order to

[49:59] get

[50:00] >> um the tax cap you know I don't I don't

[50:02] think that that's ever wanting anyone

[50:04] wants to enter into that discussion of

[50:06] trying to um go over the tax cap. So

[50:09] it's but um I've heard instances of

[50:12] other places where they don't change the

[50:14] tax rates. So they take in all the

[50:16] revenue from a reval but then they force

[50:19] an assessment office or other um

[50:21] officials in the municipality to um then

[50:25] field questions from folks who want

[50:26] their assessments lowered because tax

[50:28] rates didn't balance that out as they

[50:31] increased um assessed value. So, you

[50:34] know, I mean, it's it doesn't really

[50:36] create a whole lot of revenue, but it

[50:39] equalizes everything in the city.

[50:41] >> We've got some areas of the city right

[50:42] now where properties are selling for

[50:44] 200% more than what they're assessed at.

[50:48] >> Um, and so being able to capture that um

[50:51] and show some equity across the board um

[50:54] between different neighborhoods is, you

[50:55] know, I mean, that's one of the major

[50:57] benefits of uh doing

[50:58] >> Artha.

[51:02] So, um, can you actually just tell us a

[51:05] little bit about like how you came to to

[51:07] do this at this, you know, as we're

[51:09] starting to do this right now and how

[51:11] long the process would take? I know you

[51:13] mentioned that we talked about it, but I

[51:14] did not initiate those.

[51:15] >> No, that's okay. That's okay. Um, well,

[51:18] I just in conversations with the mayor

[51:19] about our equalization rate every year,

[51:21] um, and and how I see the market going

[51:24] forward, um, we kind of talked about the

[51:27] possibility of me bringing this forward

[51:28] to the council. um just to you know

[51:31] start the discussion uh and see it

[51:34] generally takes anywhere from 2 to four

[51:36] years um for because there's a lot of

[51:39] data collection that happens especially

[51:41] in the first two years um and so

[51:45] it the last time we did a reval it was

[51:47] in they started it in 2007 and it went

[51:49] on the books in 2009 um but it wasn't

[51:52] they used outside folks but they hire

[51:55] they just hired a lot of people to work

[51:57] within the office as opposed to using a

[52:00] company that does it a lot. Um, you

[52:03] know, that has some of those other

[52:04] outside resources. Um, and you know,

[52:07] there were things like, um, we use these

[52:10] things called property record cards. And

[52:12] unfortunately, we found that a lot of

[52:14] the data was just copied from one

[52:16] property record card to another as

[52:18] opposed to having some field inspections

[52:20] done. Now, it's not possible with a city

[52:22] our size to get to out to every single

[52:25] property, but there's a lot of um,

[52:27] resources. There's pictometry which is

[52:29] um you have a a plane flies over the

[52:32] municipality and then we can take a look

[52:34] at changes that have happened. Um and

[52:38] then some of the software that they

[52:39] include is change finder. So if we do a

[52:42] fly over every year then they show they

[52:44] actually draw the outline of properties

[52:46] that have changed year um so that we can

[52:49] at least capture that data.

[52:53] >> So we we haven't done that yet. So right

[52:56] now if we did that we wouldn't we

[52:59] wouldn't know what was what was added on

[53:00] within the last year year.

[53:01] >> Um we may based on the the information

[53:04] we have and taking a look at the

[53:06] properties. Um it's sometimes it's hard

[53:10] to you know I mean yes I would say the

[53:12] easy answer answer to that question is

[53:14] um we may not know we may not be able to

[53:17] but looking at codes data looking at

[53:19] information that we currently have in

[53:21] our office um we've got a lot of you

[53:23] know we use the multiple listing service

[53:25] and there's a lot of other uh real

[53:27] estate websites out there where we can

[53:29] take a look at properties that have sold

[53:31] in the city um and some of a reval is

[53:35] you know collecting that data but then

[53:36] It's also just looking at sales within

[53:39] each of the neighborhoods and doing some

[53:40] modeling um and statistics and then you

[53:44] know kind of finding a center line um

[53:46] and using that to determine the values

[53:49] of neighborhoods.

[53:52] » Uh there are no other questions or

[53:54] comments. I would definitely like to say

[53:55] I appreciate you continuing to push

[53:57] forth this agenda item. I remember you

[53:59] discussing it um very uh confidently

[54:02] emotionally and budget hearing as a as a

[54:05] means forward for our city. Uh so that

[54:08] definitely is appreciated for myself. If

[54:10] you're able to speak to it though, is

[54:12] there an average or an acceptable

[54:15] equalization rate for a municipality or

[54:17] can you can speak to that? Thank you.

[54:18] >> Yeah, sure. Uh 100%.

[54:22] And and generally when you do um when

[54:25] you do a reval you are at 100%. And

[54:29] given some of the resources that um

[54:32] outside companies have um we'd possibly

[54:36] be able to stay at 100% going forward

[54:39] because we'd have good data. um we've

[54:41] have the ability to use some of their

[54:42] modeling software um and you know do

[54:46] some work in each of the neighborhoods

[54:48] that we determine when we go through a

[54:50] rebal.

[54:51] Um so yeah, it's is really what you want

[54:54] is your equalization rate. You want the

[54:56] assessed value of a home to be equal to

[55:00] um the fair market value of the home.

[55:02] >> So what people are being taxed on is

[55:04] actually what they can go out and get

[55:07] for their property on the market.

[55:10] Understood.

[55:11] >> Yeah.

[55:12] >> Thank you. Uh are there any other

[55:13] question? Um Miss Patrick from

[55:15] >> So our next step I mean obviously it um

[55:19] we've been asked uh before uh to try to

[55:22] go out for the revaluation. Um obviously

[55:25] it would have to be something that would

[55:26] be part of our budget discussions. Is it

[55:28] something that you hope to put into the

[55:30] budget for?

[55:31] >> Probably not for this year. I think

[55:32] there's a lot of work we would need to

[55:34] do prep work that we would need to do

[55:36] and I would suggest that we look at it

[55:38] for next year. So, we're really just

[55:40] you're keeping it in front of us.

[55:42] >> Yeah. And and trying to push it a little

[55:44] bit more just because I do see the the

[55:46] equalization rate continuing to go down.

[55:48] >> Yeah.

[55:49] >> Um and it just, you know, I mean, I

[55:51] guess and I think I I mentioned this

[55:53] while we don't really do a ton of

[55:55] revaluations every year. You know, we

[55:56] try to follow up on permits and those

[55:58] kinds of things, but um right now as we

[56:02] revalue a home, say that fair market

[56:04] value is 100,000, we're only taxing it

[56:07] on 60,000. So, we're losing out on the

[56:10] potential of some revenue there. You

[56:12] know, I mean, I think there's some other

[56:13] extenduating circumstances just the, you

[56:16] know, some of the burden falls on the

[56:18] residential taxpayers. Um, we've got,

[56:20] you know, a lot of downtown buildings

[56:22] that have pilot agreements and things

[56:23] like that. So, it makes it more

[56:24] difficult. But um you know and I don't

[56:27] know how that that's also something that

[56:29] working with an outside agency we want

[56:31] to know how that would affect um some of

[56:33] the pilot agreements if we're you know

[56:34] changing cuz some of them are based on

[56:36] the land value of the property and then

[56:39] a certain percentage of the building

[56:41] itself.

[56:42] >> Um and so I don't I don't necessarily

[56:44] know how all that works either.

[56:46] >> So but yeah I in answer to your question

[56:49] it's I I don't wouldn't want to rush

[56:51] anything.

[56:52] >> Okay. Thank you. So,

[56:55] >> um, then also I'd like to to snapshot

[56:58] having discussions at the council table.

[56:59] I imagine there are a lot of different

[57:01] parameters to your job that would be

[57:03] beneficial to a council member. So, I

[57:04] hope u moving forward the opportunities

[57:07] to shadow uh your office would be

[57:08] entertained by the mayor's office. I

[57:10] know for myself just looking to broaden

[57:12] my understandings so I can make the best

[57:14] informed decision. Um, Miss Porto. Oh,

[57:16] >> so kind of I was want a similar question

[57:19] to what Miss Patrick asked in Taiwan. So

[57:21] you've answered that, but in terms of

[57:24] you mentioned that um people aren't

[57:26] pulling build billing building permits.

[57:28] So is that something that we that needs

[57:30] to be focused on? I won't say we because

[57:32] it's not our admin that's administrative

[57:34] responsibility, but is that something

[57:36] that we need to focus more on um in

[57:39] terms of making sure people are pulling

[57:40] the permits? Is that something that

[57:41] would be helpful?

[57:43] >> Yes. And yeah. Yes. I mean, I was going

[57:45] to say yes because, you know, it gives

[57:48] us the opportunity to then we don't

[57:50] always get in the building, but we find

[57:52] out information about the building.

[57:55] >> Yeah, it's I mean it's plus it's really

[57:57] like a life safety issue.

[57:59] >> Um we do when we come upon things like

[58:01] that, we refer them to the codes office

[58:04] so then they go out and take a look and

[58:06] see. Sometimes sometimes we find out

[58:08] work was done but it's really just

[58:09] painful you know it's nothing it's

[58:11] nothing that would rise to the occasion

[58:13] of um a code you know work or for us to

[58:16] even possibly entertain evaluation

[58:17] change.

[58:18] >> Um but we at least try to refer so that

[58:21] the codes office is aware.

[58:23] >> And my other comment I mentioned this

[58:25] before at the council table and I'll

[58:26] bring it up again is we getting ready to

[58:27] go into budget discussions. I think we

[58:29] really do need to have to look at our

[58:30] pilots. Um we've heard it's going to be

[58:32] a tough budget. So um pilots are

[58:36] uh pretty substantial in our city. So,

[58:40] we should take a look at that. I know

[58:41] that pilots are done through metro cuts,

[58:43] etc., but I think we need to take a look

[58:45] at um how that impacts our residents,

[58:48] how impacts the city overall in terms of

[58:50] taxes. And as we're going through this

[58:51] process of budgeting, we take a look at

[58:53] the pilots, how many we have, what they

[58:55] look like, and all that. So, just want

[58:57] to just repeat that again. Uh I know

[58:59] it's going to be a difficult and

[59:00] challenging conversation, but uh one

[59:03] that really needs to happen. you hear

[59:05] about our equaliz equalization rate and

[59:08] how things are just impacting our city

[59:10] overall. So, I think we have to look at

[59:11] the big picture. Even if we're not doing

[59:13] this until next year, we can look at

[59:14] pilots this year.

[59:18] >> Uh any other questions or comments? Uh

[59:21] so, this was no action required. Thank

[59:22] you for the update, Miss.

[59:24] >> Thank you very much.

[59:26] >> Um the last agenda item is homes

[59:29] American Rescue Plan uh award.

[59:38] So the uh the Ski Detroit Colony Home

[59:42] Consortium received a one-time

[59:44] allocation of home federal funds in the

[59:46] fiscal year 2021 as part of the rescue

[59:49] American Rescue Plan Act. Uh the

[59:51] consortium has committed one uh

[59:54] $1,700,000

[59:56] in Hallmark funds to the YWCA

[59:58] of Skenctity doing business errors

[1:00:00] northeastern New York to construct and

[1:00:03] rehabilitate affordable rental units in

[1:00:06] the Harbor House project. The project is

[1:00:09] expected to close on September 24th,

[1:00:12] 2025 with a proposed construction start

[1:00:14] date of October 1st, 2025.

[1:00:17] Uh the city of Skin Equity as a lead

[1:00:19] entity um does require a resolution to

[1:00:22] be passed awarding the Hallmark funds in

[1:00:24] the amount of $1,700,000

[1:00:27] to the YW.CA.

[1:00:30] >> Thank you.

[1:00:31] >> Is this the project that we've also

[1:00:33] allocated ARPA funds to as well?

[1:00:35] >> Yes, it is.

[1:00:36] >> And uh this amount of money, is this our

[1:00:39] portion of the um consortium money?

[1:00:42] >> Uh yes. So um the consort the home

[1:00:44] consortium is all three of us together.

[1:00:46] They award the projects together as

[1:00:47] well.

[1:00:48] >> So they all we all awarded. So there's

[1:00:49] no other money.

[1:00:50] >> Yeah. For the homeland. Yes.

[1:00:51] >> Okay. I thought it was just our version.

[1:00:54] >> Yeah. I believe there were other

[1:00:55] projects that were previously awarded as

[1:00:57] well.

[1:00:57] >> Oh, there. So this is what's So

[1:00:59] >> So this is just what was already

[1:01:01] previously um allocated specifically for

[1:01:03] this project, but we are not allowed to

[1:01:05] award the funds until after all other

[1:01:07] financials are put in place.

[1:01:10] >> Okay. So now they're ready to go.

[1:01:12] >> Yep.

[1:01:12] >> Mhm. Okay. Any other questions or

[1:01:14] comments? Hearing none. I have a motion.

[1:01:17] >> So moved.

[1:01:17] >> I'll second. All those in favor? I. U.

[1:01:20] There are no other items that will

[1:01:21] follow the finance committee. May I have

[1:01:22] a motion to adjourn?

[1:01:24] >> So moved.

[1:01:24] >> I'll second. All those in favor? I

[1:01:28] >> um so I'd like to open health and

[1:01:29] recreation. We have one item on the

[1:01:31] agenda. I do want to say we just got the

[1:01:33] material and legislative request today

[1:01:37] um for this. Um it was on the agenda

[1:01:39] that we received the other day, but we

[1:01:41] just got the material today. Um

[1:01:44] a legislative request and um the

[1:01:47] background information just came with

[1:01:48] today's materials. So, I know that we're

[1:01:51] supposed to have more lead time. Um

[1:01:55] it's not the first time it's ever

[1:01:56] happened with

[1:01:57] >> I understand that. I just wanted to

[1:01:58] point that out. So, I'm going to say

[1:02:00] let's move ahead. Um if you'd like to

[1:02:03] take the floor.

[1:02:05] >> Certainly. Certainly. Um so last week um

[1:02:09] I attended a town hall meeting that was

[1:02:13] uh held at uh Sunni Skenctity um where

[1:02:16] the conversation was about uh surgical

[1:02:20] services being removed from Belle uh

[1:02:22] Belle Hospital Women's Center and some

[1:02:25] of those services being transferred over

[1:02:26] to Ellis Hospital. um the nurses that

[1:02:30] were there um were expressing a lot of

[1:02:33] concerns around um how this can impact

[1:02:35] people's uh access to health care. Um

[1:02:39] and this is kind of you know something

[1:02:42] that is really going to impact people

[1:02:45] that live in the city of Skenity. Um,

[1:02:48] and I just wanted to make sure that, you

[1:02:49] know, we as a council um, had a

[1:02:52] discussion about this and possibly uh,

[1:02:54] bringing resolution in support of

[1:02:56] leaving the surgical services um, at

[1:02:58] Bell's Women's Center.

[1:03:01] >> So, oh, I don't have to raise my hand.

[1:03:03] Um, I'd like to say that I'm not in

[1:03:05] support of um, having that kind of a

[1:03:08] resolution. And I think that we really

[1:03:10] need to continue to understand that

[1:03:12] Ellis has been having financial um

[1:03:15] issues and I respect that the doctors

[1:03:17] and the administrators who um are in

[1:03:20] charge there um which is of course a

[1:03:22] private company um have made this

[1:03:25] decision um as a way to bring in more

[1:03:29] efficiencies u make sure that they're

[1:03:31] following as much cost reduction as they

[1:03:33] can. It's my understanding that no

[1:03:36] services will be lost. the women's

[1:03:38] health services will continue um at

[1:03:41] Belleview. Um neither of the surgical um

[1:03:46] neither of them are being used to

[1:03:48] capacity at this point. So I think Ellis

[1:03:50] is really making this decision in order

[1:03:52] to try to bring more efficiencies uh to

[1:03:55] the operation overall of Ellis Hospital.

[1:03:59] Um so for me the bottom line is that and

[1:04:03] I know we've had these discussions in

[1:04:04] the past when we had to you know make

[1:04:06] the decision about well we also came to

[1:04:08] the table about McCullen um I don't want

[1:04:12] to lose Ellis hospital I think that

[1:04:14] would really be a problem for the

[1:04:16] residents of Skenctity to not have a

[1:04:18] hospital um and so I would support the

[1:04:21] decision-m of the people in charge at

[1:04:23] Ellis um to you know support that they

[1:04:28] need to do this um in terms of the

[1:04:31] deficiencies.

[1:04:33] >> Oh, Miss Portfield. So, um for me, you you you framed it as the you know,

[1:04:39] dollars and cents and I'd like to frame

[1:04:40] it in terms of the health of the

[1:04:42] patients who are use women all women at

[1:04:46] who use these services. So, we

[1:04:48] understand that um there's financial

[1:04:51] implications. However, people's health

[1:04:53] is also impacted by this. And there's

[1:04:56] certain communities who if they're not

[1:04:58] have the ability to get the services

[1:05:00] locally, then you know, getting to

[1:05:02] someplace else becomes a challenge. And

[1:05:04] I also want to point out that when this

[1:05:06] started, it was we're not going to we're

[1:05:09] not going to impact Bel. We're not going

[1:05:11] to there's things that that were not

[1:05:12] going to that are now happening. And as

[1:05:14] this began with Ellis, well, actually,

[1:05:16] it's now really Trinity that's over all

[1:05:18] of this. as as this was um happening, we

[1:05:22] keep seeing fewer and fewer services

[1:05:25] being offered or cut back. You can't get

[1:05:27] dental at Alice anymore. I don't know if

[1:05:29] you know that. So, now that pushes that

[1:05:31] all of that over to a place where

[1:05:33] currently they have like a sixmonth

[1:05:35] waiting list. So, we are talking about

[1:05:38] impacting individuals health and I want

[1:05:41] to separate it from our uh pre prior

[1:05:43] conversation when we talked about

[1:05:45] staffing. So I'd like us to look at this

[1:05:47] in terms of the health of the

[1:05:49] individuals who will be impacted by

[1:05:50] this. And um while we talk about how the

[1:05:54] administrators and the doctors make all

[1:05:56] these decisions, we were at the um press

[1:06:00] conference that was called by NISA, the

[1:06:01] New York State nurses, and nurses,

[1:06:03] there's more nurses in the hospital than

[1:06:05] there are doctors. So the nurses are

[1:06:07] talking about how this impacts them. So

[1:06:08] I think we should also listen to the

[1:06:10] folks who are on the ground every day,

[1:06:12] many of them, and how this is impacting.

[1:06:14] We understand that the administrators

[1:06:16] get to make the decision but the the

[1:06:18] people who are impacted on they they

[1:06:20] their voice also should be heard and for

[1:06:22] them this is a major concern and I'm

[1:06:24] concerned about it as well um about the

[1:06:27] kind of services that they want to cut

[1:06:29] back as we see and we should also look

[1:06:31] at what this particular agency has done

[1:06:33] with other hospitals across uh across

[1:06:35] the state. So, I'm I'm I'm supportive of

[1:06:38] this because we're talking about

[1:06:40] people's health and health concerns and

[1:06:43] we can't always make that about dollars

[1:06:45] and cents.

[1:06:46] >> I think though that none of the women's

[1:06:48] health services that are happening at

[1:06:50] Belleview are going to be affected. They

[1:06:52] still will be maintained at Belleview.

[1:06:54] Um they also um mimography all the

[1:06:58] maternity um services other women's

[1:07:00] health services are going to be

[1:07:02] remaining at Belleview as well as if

[1:07:04] someone needed to have emergency

[1:07:06] C-section if someone needed to have a

[1:07:08] life-saving emergency surgery that would

[1:07:10] remain at Belleview. Um

[1:07:13] >> well I'm just going to say

[1:07:14] >> I think we're hearing I think we're

[1:07:15] hearing from different folks. Um so so

[1:07:18] again I also want to say that I don't

[1:07:20] think it's the responsibility of the

[1:07:22] city council to necessarily be passing a

[1:07:25] resolution um about the hospital. So

[1:07:29] that's that's also what I feel but I

[1:07:31] think the bottom line that we all have

[1:07:32] to keep into in mind is we have to make

[1:07:35] sure that Ellis remains open.

[1:07:38] >> So my

[1:07:39] >> Mr. file.

[1:07:40] >> Certainly. So, a few things. Um,

[1:07:43] I guess my my question to you is that

[1:07:45] where did you get that information cuz

[1:07:47] some of the information that you stated

[1:07:49] earlier um I don't believe you in the

[1:07:51] beginning was Agnes. So, I'm trying to

[1:07:53] figure out maybe where did you get that

[1:07:55] information? Who because I do agree

[1:07:56] probably been talking to different

[1:07:57] people. So, who where did you get that

[1:07:59] information?

[1:07:59] >> I got the information from leadership at

[1:08:01] Ellis.

[1:08:02] >> Okay. Okay. And I also would like to

[1:08:04] suggest that we I'm sure we could

[1:08:05] probably invite um folks to come in and

[1:08:09] talk to us as well.

[1:08:10] >> I'm I'm always open like even now I'm

[1:08:13] always open to uh hearing from folks to

[1:08:15] help us make an informed decision. Um

[1:08:17] did in that information did they let you

[1:08:19] know that there would be 14 nurses jobs

[1:08:21] being laid off as a result of this?

[1:08:23] >> What I've heard is that the 14

[1:08:25] individuals were offered um jobs at

[1:08:27] Ellis at equal or greater salaries than

[1:08:30] they actually were currently making. So,

[1:08:32] and some of them have left and gone to

[1:08:34] other places. Um, but yeah, that's

[1:08:38] >> that's what you that's what you get

[1:08:40] told.

[1:08:40] >> Okay. So, the thing is that some of

[1:08:42] those positions are are very specialized

[1:08:44] position and I don't know how you know

[1:08:46] when the last time that you've been to

[1:08:47] Ellis um and I don't know if you're

[1:08:50] aware um that the

[1:08:52] >> I have had to go down.

[1:08:53] >> Right. Right. So, yeah. So I think you

[1:08:56] know I don't know if you're aware that

[1:08:57] we have some of the uh longest wait

[1:08:59] times in the state are right here in the

[1:09:01] capital district. So, so the information

[1:09:05] um and and what we were told and and was

[1:09:08] really highlighted was the fact that you

[1:09:10] know um the consolidation of services

[1:09:12] there um to an already overburdened

[1:09:15] understaffed uh facility can have really

[1:09:18] dire consequences for people who are

[1:09:20] there to seek these sometimes very uh uh

[1:09:23] you know life-threatening uh uh

[1:09:25] complications. So I highly doubt that uh

[1:09:31] the people who you know often we talk in

[1:09:33] this space about listening to the staff

[1:09:36] and the people and and and give off here

[1:09:39] in city hall and offering them a level

[1:09:40] of difference because they have the

[1:09:43] close you know proximity to the work

[1:09:45] that they do. Um I don't think that

[1:09:47] there's anyone who uh has more close

[1:09:49] proximity uh than the nurses um and the

[1:09:53] specialized nurses who have been in in

[1:09:55] work in the wellness center some of them

[1:09:57] for well over 15 years um who had very

[1:10:00] uh clear um issue and were outlining it

[1:10:03] really really clear to us. So I just so

[1:10:05] I guess the point I'm trying to make

[1:10:06] here is that we often give a level of

[1:10:08] difference to people based on their

[1:10:10] proximity to an issue when we do it

[1:10:11] in-house here. And I would think that

[1:10:13] they would deserve their deserve that

[1:10:15] same level of difference. Um, in fact,

[1:10:18] even more, I think that we have to, it's

[1:10:21] not, when you say that we shouldn't be

[1:10:23] making, you know, decisions about a

[1:10:25] hospital, it's not really the decision

[1:10:28] we're making the decision I'm bringing

[1:10:30] this forward because of the impact that

[1:10:32] it has on the people that live in the

[1:10:33] city of Connecticut. Um, if this was a

[1:10:36] decision that was based on what type of

[1:10:38] food that they want to have in the

[1:10:39] vending machines, I definitely wouldn't

[1:10:40] be bringing this forward. Even though I

[1:10:42] do have strong opinions on snacks, I

[1:10:44] would just say that the people that when

[1:10:45] this is something that can be um life or

[1:10:48] death situation for the women,

[1:10:50] especially lowincome women from

[1:10:52] marginalized community and cities

[1:10:53] connected, we can't ignore that there's

[1:10:55] that through line and how and our

[1:10:58] obligation to make sure that we're

[1:10:59] advocating for them. That's what I would

[1:11:01] say,

[1:11:03] >> Mr. Williams. Yeah, I think it was a

[1:11:05] point important designation to make that

[1:11:07] Miss Porterfield uh captioned slightly

[1:11:11] the truth that Ellis and what we know of

[1:11:14] it to exist in our community no longer

[1:11:17] exists and that amid these merger

[1:11:19] discussions there are two entities but

[1:11:21] one of those is going to convert to the

[1:11:23] other and in this respect that is

[1:11:25] Trinity Health Systems and St. Peters

[1:11:27] Health Partners which is a functioning

[1:11:30] under that. Um, so I think it's our

[1:11:32] responsibility as a community to

[1:11:33] understand what that means and what that

[1:11:35] means for our residents. Um, I'm glad

[1:11:38] you referenced previous discussions

[1:11:40] around Ellis Hospital with respect to

[1:11:42] staffing. We had an opportunity as a

[1:11:44] council to support legislation to

[1:11:47] empower or influence those discussions

[1:11:49] for the nurses and we have seen for

[1:11:51] whatever reason that those conditions

[1:11:53] are getting worse. Um, we are now

[1:11:55] presented with another opportunity to

[1:11:56] advocate for the uh remaining of

[1:11:59] services within this facility that saw

[1:12:02] birth my daughter, my my youngest

[1:12:04] daughter. And as we've heard from that

[1:12:07] meeting in that event uh at Sunni

[1:12:10] Skenctity, uh there's cause for more

[1:12:12] concern that those services will not be

[1:12:14] present. And I know that we have two

[1:12:16] different um sources of information. I

[1:12:19] would happily welcome a special meeting

[1:12:21] where both parties were invited. Um

[1:12:23] because as elected officials within the

[1:12:25] city of Skenctity, I sincerely believe

[1:12:28] it is our utmost responsibility to hear

[1:12:30] these concerns with uh an open and

[1:12:34] responsive ear and knowing that we have

[1:12:36] to use these positions to benefit the

[1:12:37] residents of the community. And I do

[1:12:39] believe this is well within our our

[1:12:41] purview. And I think we're starting to

[1:12:42] see these types of discussions promoted

[1:12:45] more um with sincerity to the to the to

[1:12:47] the understanding of community schools

[1:12:49] and that if we leave these types of

[1:12:51] decisions to one agency that is when we

[1:12:53] do ourselves a disservice. I think it is

[1:12:55] as we remain responsive and continue to

[1:12:58] receive information. I think we should

[1:13:00] welcome these types of conversations. Um

[1:13:02] but I agree having both entities present

[1:13:04] and and capturing that and a framework

[1:13:06] that includes us all at the table. I

[1:13:08] think that is important and I would

[1:13:09] happily support that.

[1:13:12] Yeah, Mr. B. Yeah, I would just uh I

[1:13:16] would just add that, you know, I think

[1:13:19] as we're listening and gathering

[1:13:21] information, you know, we also have to

[1:13:23] look at, you know, what, you know, the

[1:13:26] intentions are um and really the

[1:13:29] messenger matters on this, like what,

[1:13:30] you know, someone's intention is and

[1:13:32] what the how they're making

[1:13:34] calculations. And I think that in this

[1:13:37] uh entity right now has made some uh

[1:13:41] some decisions that might be really

[1:13:44] based on revenue and other parts of the

[1:13:47] state that have really impacted uh

[1:13:50] communities and especially uh lowincome

[1:13:52] communities um and communities of color

[1:13:54] in particular. And based on that, you

[1:13:57] know, I think that, you know, we really

[1:14:00] want to look at how are people making

[1:14:02] their decisions. And me personally, I'm

[1:14:06] going to make decisions based on

[1:14:09] in in not not only kind of leaving

[1:14:12] things at the baseline, but increasing

[1:14:14] access uh to healthcare for women in the

[1:14:17] city of Skenctity. And I respect that

[1:14:20] this is a private company. I respect

[1:14:22] that they have, you know, their quotas

[1:14:25] to meet, if you will. However, um I'm

[1:14:28] always going to make sure that um I'm

[1:14:30] making the decisions based on people

[1:14:31] over profits. And I think that they have

[1:14:34] demonstrated um that they make their

[1:14:36] decisions um not in align with that

[1:14:39] based on previous decisions that they've

[1:14:40] made. I think we're going to have to

[1:14:42] agree to disagree on that last point

[1:14:44] because I definitely think that the

[1:14:46] folks are interested in and concerned

[1:14:49] about the health of people in this

[1:14:51] community. And I think in particular um

[1:14:54] the fact that the services will remain

[1:14:55] at Belleview um in terms of women's

[1:14:58] health services um that's you know

[1:15:02] basically showing a concern for women's

[1:15:04] health. However, I also have to say that

[1:15:08] again we have to respect the fact that

[1:15:11] we want to make sure that this hospital

[1:15:13] remains open and we know that they've

[1:15:15] been having fiscal stress. We know that

[1:15:17] the issues that are happening in DC

[1:15:19] around Medicaid and Medicare are going

[1:15:21] to just bring more financial instability

[1:15:24] um to hospitals around this country. Um

[1:15:27] so I think I I remain in my mind um in

[1:15:30] my viewpoint I mean I need to um

[1:15:34] continue supporting um that that

[1:15:36] hospital will stay open. So that's where

[1:15:38] I'm coming from.

[1:15:39] >> So do you want to move forward with the

[1:15:41] um Miss Miss Porterfield? So

[1:15:43] >> okay so just sorry back for clarity sake

[1:15:48] you said that the services are going to

[1:15:49] remain. So they're saying there's going

[1:15:50] to be surgical cuts. So what is what is your understanding of the cuts

[1:15:55] that will be made?

[1:15:56] >> Well, what I'm saying is that the

[1:15:58] women's health services that are in in

[1:16:01] happening around mimography, other

[1:16:03] women's health services, those are going

[1:16:04] to be remaining at Belleview. If there

[1:16:06] was emergency surgery that needed to

[1:16:08] happen at Belleview, that too would

[1:16:10] happen at Belleview. But otherwise, yes,

[1:16:12] they're they're consolidating the other.

[1:16:14] We all know that that's what they're

[1:16:16] doing, right? They're they're having to

[1:16:17] move the rest of their surgeries.

[1:16:19] they're having to consolidate to try to

[1:16:21] be more efficient from a cost

[1:16:23] perspective. Um I, you know, it's not my

[1:16:26] area of expertise, so I can't speak

[1:16:28] specifically about that. Um but that's

[1:16:31] my understanding of of what's happening.

[1:16:33] Um so

[1:16:34] >> let me Did you have a comment if you

[1:16:36] wanted to make this?

[1:16:38] >> Yeah, I I would like to hear from local

[1:16:40] parties. Um I'd hate to see women's uh

[1:16:45] health center, but that's where I was

[1:16:47] born.

[1:16:49] it's going to stay

[1:16:50] >> lose capacity. But I I I would like to

[1:16:52] hear more about what that what does that

[1:16:55] mean? Maintain full surgical services. I

[1:16:58] don't know enough about the cuts to make

[1:17:00] a determination. I'd like to hear a

[1:17:02] little bit more information, but I you

[1:17:05] know, I do support us um doing something

[1:17:09] in support of Belleview Women Health

[1:17:11] Center that I could get on board with if

[1:17:13] I have some more information.

[1:17:15] >> Mr.

[1:17:16] So my question was just you said earlier

[1:17:18] that um that the folks are

[1:17:22] committed to um I might want to

[1:17:25] paraphrase but I was trying to figure

[1:17:26] out those folks are you talking about

[1:17:28] administration at Ellis right now

[1:17:31] >> and doctors physicians and

[1:17:33] administrators. Yeah.

[1:17:34] >> Okay. So for that

[1:17:36] >> and the nurses I'm not saying that the

[1:17:37] nurses aren't

[1:17:38] >> I'm not I'm not suggesting any way that

[1:17:40] you're saying that. Um I guess what I'm

[1:17:42] trying to figure out did have you spoken

[1:17:44] to anyone from Trinity Healthcare or

[1:17:46] just the administrative Okay. Okay.

[1:17:48] >> So shall we bring the discussion to a

[1:17:50] close here?

[1:17:51] >> Well, I think that I'm sorry.

[1:17:55] >> Just you know just you know hearing the

[1:17:56] comments from the the council members.

[1:17:58] There's only two members of your

[1:18:00] committee here tonight.

[1:18:01] >> Mr. Farley, if you don't, as you know,

[1:18:04] if if it doesn't pass out of committee

[1:18:06] tonight, which sounds like it won't, you

[1:18:08] can get a co-sponsor to bring in the

[1:18:10] legislation to the full council on on on

[1:18:13] Monday night as long as the resolution

[1:18:16] is before the city clerk by noon on

[1:18:18] Thursday. But um we have to go through

[1:18:21] whether you want to make the motion now.

[1:18:22] If it fails then it then then then it

[1:18:25] ends or if you wish to

[1:18:28] have this brought up under discussion at

[1:18:31] a next meeting. It's up to you if you

[1:18:33] want to go move forward with resolution.

[1:18:36] It's going to fail because you're not

[1:18:37] going to get a second. However, there's

[1:18:39] the the the mechanism under 20 2821

[1:18:42] under the city code that allows you to

[1:18:44] get a co-sponsor who's not a member of

[1:18:46] the committee. then it it can be

[1:18:48] borrowed before the full council on

[1:18:49] Monday night. So, it's it's it's up to

[1:18:52] what you want to do.

[1:18:53] >> Thank you.

[1:18:54] >> That's I'm overly optimistic that Miss

[1:18:56] Patrick is going to uh um side with um

[1:19:02] the city of connectity as far as uh

[1:19:04] these these medical services. So, um I

[1:19:07] I'll I'll make the motion.

[1:19:16] » Yes. Say

[1:19:18] >> I'm I'm not going to second it.

[1:19:19] >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So,

[1:19:21] >> so the motion fails because of the lack

[1:19:23] of a second, but as I indicated to you,

[1:19:25] Mr. Farley, if you want to get a

[1:19:26] co-sponsor with with another council

[1:19:29] member, you can do so and and bring the

[1:19:31] legislation before the council on a full

[1:19:33] council on Monday night.

[1:19:35] Okay. I would like to I think

[1:19:40] u maybe hearing um from some more people

[1:19:44] I think that maybe you'll be able to

[1:19:45] make a more informed decision. So I also

[1:19:47] between time kind of encourage uh see

[1:19:50] what we could do around that cuz this is

[1:19:52] um

[1:19:54] quite frankly I thought would support.

[1:19:57] So

[1:19:57] >> Okay.

[1:20:00] So if you can and just be advised that

[1:20:02] you can always bring it at the next

[1:20:04] meeting or any subsequent uh council

[1:20:06] meeting.

[1:20:07] >> Oh certainly.

[1:20:08] >> Okay.

[1:20:08] >> So thank you.

[1:20:09] >> All right.

[1:20:10] >> So is there any other business to come

[1:20:12] before health and recreation?

[1:20:15] >> Hearing none. I'll look for a motion to

[1:20:17] um adjourn health and recreation.

[1:20:21] >> Second.

[1:20:24] >> All in favor?

[1:20:26] >> I thank you. I'd like to call order city

[1:20:29] development and planning. We have nine

[1:20:30] items on the agenda. Um

[1:20:36] oh government ops almost skipped over

[1:20:40] >> I guess you go.

[1:20:43] >> I'm sorry.

[1:20:45] >> I'd like to call the government to order

[1:20:46] government operations. We have one item

[1:20:48] on the agenda today that is uh the

[1:20:51] selection process of the city housing

[1:20:53] stability task force. Mr. Mancini.

[1:20:55] >> All right. So I I sent out a draft

[1:20:59] application

[1:21:00] and I'll go over the selection process

[1:21:03] that I'd like to propose. Again, the

[1:21:05] structure is nine members. All members

[1:21:08] will be volunteer. Um, one city council

[1:21:11] member will serve as chair. Remaining

[1:21:13] eight will be appointed by the council.

[1:21:16] Um then they are to represent

[1:21:20] tenants, a landlord,

[1:21:23] someone from local government.

[1:21:28] Um

[1:21:31] » okay,

[1:21:33] and uh

[1:21:36] I should have memorized right now.

[1:21:40] >> 30 nonprofits.

[1:21:42] >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Tenants, man. I'm sorry.

[1:21:45] developers, housing advocates, nonprofit

[1:21:47] representatives, and legal

[1:21:48] professionals.

[1:21:50] Um, so what I'm proposing is that we do

[1:21:53] a public call for applications,

[1:21:56] reach out to housing advocates,

[1:21:57] nonprofits, and neighborhood

[1:21:58] associations. We've had folks email us

[1:22:01] with letters of the I mean emails of

[1:22:03] interest, so we can send them an

[1:22:05] application.

[1:22:06] And then once we receive the

[1:22:08] applications and have a date by um we

[1:22:12] can pick a date with whatever we agree

[1:22:15] on. I'm thinking once we send it out we

[1:22:17] give two weeks to respond

[1:22:23] and then we review the applications and

[1:22:25] ensure that we have a broad

[1:22:27] representation of the outlined um

[1:22:31] groups.

[1:22:38] So looking through the list um my first

[1:22:41] question is and um why we're having

[1:22:43] developers as a part of this discussion

[1:22:48] that was on the um

[1:22:51] resolution for developers

[1:22:54] that those that may be impacted and

[1:22:57] getting their you know perception of

[1:23:00] would good cause impact

[1:23:05] their um view of the city their their

[1:23:09] plans to move forward with apartment

[1:23:11] developing developments of apartment

[1:23:13] units. I know after a certain date

[1:23:16] they're exempt but developers that have

[1:23:19] are already here and that may be

[1:23:20] impacted by that to hear from them.

[1:23:26] » Well, I have a couple concerns. I don't

[1:23:28] let me just say I don't think the

[1:23:29] developers um

[1:23:32] I don't think this would be a forum or a

[1:23:34] task force that would that I think that

[1:23:36] they should be on quite frankly and just

[1:23:38] say it how I feel it. And additionally,

[1:23:40] so we're we've listed six including

[1:23:43] developers and not including the council

[1:23:46] members. So that's nine seats. And so

[1:23:49] right now we have nine

[1:23:52] um excuse seven. And so that means just

[1:23:54] two more people. Um, so I'm concerned

[1:23:57] with the number of nine. I'm concerned

[1:23:59] that this board will be um kind of

[1:24:02] lopsided and and more with people who

[1:24:04] are not as impacted. So I would say

[1:24:07] there may be room room for one maybe two

[1:24:09] tenants.

[1:24:10] >> So we've heard the voice of the tenants

[1:24:12] and so I I have concern that nine is a

[1:24:14] low number for this particular task

[1:24:16] force um first of all. So I would like

[1:24:19] for us to really kind of look at that

[1:24:21] and really look at the value of having

[1:24:23] developers per se as part of this

[1:24:26] particular task force. Additionally, um

[1:24:30] it said that the first meeting can be

[1:24:32] called by at least one council member.

[1:24:34] And I think if if a council person is

[1:24:36] going to chair this, then the council

[1:24:39] the meeting should be called by whoever

[1:24:40] chairs this as opposed to um just one

[1:24:44] person even within our um code in terms

[1:24:47] of a council a special council meeting

[1:24:49] is called it takes at least two people

[1:24:51] to do that.

[1:24:52] Shane the chair and or vice chair. I

[1:24:56] think London should designate a vice

[1:24:59] chair.

[1:24:59] >> Okay.

[1:25:00] >> And secretary.

[1:25:03] >> Okay. Once you you do the interviews and

[1:25:05] then ask if folks volunteer to be a vice

[1:25:08] chair and a secretary to take notes and

[1:25:10] minutes.

[1:25:11] >> Okay. So So we're talk you're looking at

[1:25:14] changing that language.

[1:25:15] >> Yes.

[1:25:17] >> Um in the application I that kind of

[1:25:20] briefly went through it. They have to be

[1:25:21] a city resident.

[1:25:23] >> Yes.

[1:25:24] >> Unless they work for an agency that is

[1:25:28] doing a nonprofit inside the city.

[1:25:30] >> So nonprofit inside the city. Not a

[1:25:32] volunteer group.

[1:25:33] >> No.

[1:25:34] >> But an actual nonprofit

[1:25:35] >> that serves the city.

[1:25:39] >> So that's one that's one part I think

[1:25:42] that we should look at as well. Like I

[1:25:44] think that the people that are obviously

[1:25:46] going to be mostly impacted by this are

[1:25:49] going than the people that live in the

[1:25:51] city. So I think that people should have

[1:25:55] to live in the city to serve in the

[1:25:57] city. Even if you work at a non if you

[1:26:00] work at a nonprofit that serves in the

[1:26:02] city, I still think that you should have

[1:26:06] to live in the city. And I think that

[1:26:08] that's a that kind of opens it up to a

[1:26:10] broader conversation around that we

[1:26:13] don't need to have now, but like around

[1:26:14] like nonprofits um and you know who

[1:26:18] they're hiring and do they represent the

[1:26:22] clients and the population that they're

[1:26:23] serving.

[1:26:24] >> Sure.

[1:26:24] >> So um that's something else.

[1:26:28] I I mean I guess I would have to say

[1:26:30] that I'm okay with the nonprofit if it's

[1:26:34] let's say for example it's the executive

[1:26:36] director of a nonprofit that's a housing

[1:26:38] related nonprofit that person might not

[1:26:40] live in the city. I mean I think we need

[1:26:42] and I also don't have a problem with the

[1:26:43] developers because I think what we're

[1:26:45] looking for along with having of course

[1:26:47] residents tenants um is you know we need

[1:26:52] the developers we've been bringing their

[1:26:54] professional expertise around the

[1:26:56] buildings that they build um for

[1:26:59] apartments um whether it's homeless you

[1:27:01] know shelters for homeless um

[1:27:03] individuals um I think that it's okay

[1:27:06] that there be a developer um that might

[1:27:09] be able to speak from their um place of

[1:27:11] expertise around

[1:27:14] um around those types of structures. So

[1:27:17] I don't have a problem with a developer

[1:27:19] being on it. And I don't have I again I

[1:27:21] think that I I can only base that on my

[1:27:23] own lived experience. Um, you know, I

[1:27:26] remember once, uh, in one of my previous

[1:27:28] roles in in in the city, I was the only

[1:27:31] person lived in the city at one of the

[1:27:33] organizations I worked for, and I thus

[1:27:35] was the person put onto a um onto a

[1:27:39] community group that I think there might

[1:27:41] have been other people, you know, I did

[1:27:42] my my best at representing uh our

[1:27:46] organization, but, you know, there might

[1:27:48] have been people with other forms of

[1:27:49] expertise, but they just didn't live in

[1:27:51] the city. So, with the nonprofits, I

[1:27:53] don't know. I mean, I don't know if cuz

[1:27:55] we don't want to we've got to make sure

[1:27:57] we involve the the appropriate

[1:27:59] nonprofit. I think um whether it's

[1:28:02] Bethesda House or Scap or, you know, I

[1:28:05] don't know, Habitat for Humanity. Um I I

[1:28:08] don't know where the folks live, you

[1:28:10] know, that are on the staff.

[1:28:12] >> So, I think I'd be okay with that. I I

[1:28:14] guess I I would say to that is that

[1:28:17] again hopefully um our the nonprofits

[1:28:21] especially nonprofits that we are

[1:28:22] supporting um with uh city funding uh

[1:28:27] have enough of an investment in the city

[1:28:29] to see people that live in the city as

[1:28:32] part of a viable workforce. So hopefully

[1:28:35] that they would have representation of

[1:28:37] people that live in the city that work

[1:28:38] at these nonprofits. If not, that's

[1:28:40] again that that'd be troubling to me uh

[1:28:43] in its own. Second of all, there's

[1:28:45] different ways and capacities that

[1:28:46] people could serve. So, in other words,

[1:28:48] a developer could come into the the task

[1:28:51] force and present all of their

[1:28:53] expertise, all of their information

[1:28:56] >> um but then you would still leave the

[1:28:58] decisions

[1:28:59] >> um up to the people that live within the

[1:29:01] city. So they don't need to have a spot

[1:29:03] on the task force in order to contribute

[1:29:05] to the task force if they sincerely um

[1:29:07] have expertise and genuinely want to um

[1:29:11] uh help uh the task force make a more

[1:29:13] informed decision. So to me that's you

[1:29:15] know that's where I would be holding the

[1:29:16] line that way people need to live in the

[1:29:18] city

[1:29:20] >> cuz I I I agree with with the you know

[1:29:22] developers could be part of the

[1:29:23] solution. So so on some level they

[1:29:26] engage in the conversation.

[1:29:31] and I could support them coming in that

[1:29:33] way. But however, I I will say again

[1:29:35] that I don't see them having a seat on

[1:29:36] the task force. I think it kind of it

[1:29:39] leans in a certain direction. But have

[1:29:41] providing the information, the

[1:29:42] framework, the data that we say we need

[1:29:45] now um for them to do that but not to be

[1:29:48] as part of the the group that makes is

[1:29:50] the ultimate decision because you know

[1:29:52] we all have different perspectives on

[1:29:54] this and again we are framing this

[1:29:56] because this came about because of good

[1:29:58] cause whether we want to say it or not

[1:30:00] I'm going to say it.

[1:30:01] >> Okay. So, let's just make sure that

[1:30:02] we're sticking to what good cause is

[1:30:04] really about and not um try to to bring

[1:30:08] in all these groups who may sway the

[1:30:10] decision in a direction that um makes it

[1:30:14] more favorable for for them.

[1:30:20] » Uh so, the two points that I wanted to

[1:30:23] make is uh well actually three. First of

[1:30:25] which, I uh valued the form that you put

[1:30:28] forth on Mr. Mancini. I thought that was a good product. Um I agreed

[1:30:32] with the two comments made around

[1:30:34] developers. So I won't repeat that. Um

[1:30:36] my two additional comments were just uh

[1:30:38] under the official charters of the task

[1:30:40] force uh those three points or the two

[1:30:44] points I the question that I have is

[1:30:47] what new information are you seeking

[1:30:49] from this task force? Because sincerely,

[1:30:51] I mean, all sincerely, this was the

[1:30:54] information that I would have expected

[1:30:55] each of us as council members to review

[1:30:57] and investigate on our own before

[1:30:58] arriving to a a reasoning with respect

[1:31:02] to good cause, which is in this

[1:31:04] legislation. Uh, so we cannot avoid that

[1:31:06] correlation. Um, but if you can ask

[1:31:10] answer what new information you're

[1:31:12] expecting because also this is asking

[1:31:13] for public forums which we we had and

[1:31:16] then one was shot down. um lack of

[1:31:20] better words. Um but then also I wanted

[1:31:22] to just highlight uh I would like to get

[1:31:24] something put into writing that we will

[1:31:27] approve the findings of this count of

[1:31:29] this task force uh once submitted. Um

[1:31:31] because what I would hate to happen is

[1:31:33] we go through all these links and go

[1:31:35] through all these efforts and we have

[1:31:37] just seen in a different regard the

[1:31:39] difficulties with getting volunteers to

[1:31:42] actively contribute on a continuous

[1:31:44] process on a continuous basis. Uh so I'd

[1:31:47] like to ensure that whatever information

[1:31:49] that they put forth is not only factual

[1:31:51] but is information that we're going to

[1:31:53] action on. Um because to me we are uh

[1:31:59] we are transitioning our responsibility

[1:32:02] as a council to act to act and asking

[1:32:05] that there's another agency that steps

[1:32:06] forth to flag by do the work that we're

[1:32:09] supposed to do on our own. Um so I can

[1:32:11] understand that this is where we're at

[1:32:12] as a council. I want to ensure that we

[1:32:15] are not wasting the city's time and the

[1:32:17] resident's time. This matter has clearly

[1:32:19] mattered as we've heard countless times

[1:32:22] uh to just continue to kick this

[1:32:24] football around.

[1:32:29] Well, I I I think that the task force

[1:32:31] can make the recommendations and it's

[1:32:34] and has to be mindful of that the

[1:32:37] recommendations are binding and then

[1:32:38] they can proceed with resolutions to

[1:32:42] affect those recommendations. We come up

[1:32:45] with strategies where your groups

[1:32:49] involve basically landlords, our local and our tenants.

[1:32:54] And there's the good cause law. Well,

[1:32:56] here are the evictions. Here are

[1:32:58] strategies we can implement to reduce

[1:32:59] those evictions. Um, federally with they

[1:33:04] um rental assistance programs have been

[1:33:07] cut from at a federal level. So, this is

[1:33:09] becoming even larger pro a has a

[1:33:11] problem. I I met with um

[1:33:14] Connor out of from Albany last week and

[1:33:18] real concerning information that but he

[1:33:20] gave me some really good information a

[1:33:22] lot of good strategies that we can

[1:33:24] implement if we don't have agreement on

[1:33:26] good cause we I think we can come to

[1:33:29] agreement on good strategies and that I

[1:33:31] think can impact what we're trying to

[1:33:33] do. If it's good cause or nothing and

[1:33:36] that's that's what people are thinking,

[1:33:39] then you're right. Uh it doesn't we

[1:33:41] probably shouldn't come together and do

[1:33:42] any work. But if it's what we really

[1:33:44] want is to let's come up with some

[1:33:46] solutions that reduce evictions for

[1:33:48] those most in need, then it's effective

[1:33:52] and I don't see there'll be any problem

[1:33:53] with implementing those strategies. Um I

[1:33:56] think if we can demonstrate um what's

[1:34:00] worked short of good cause what we

[1:34:03] haven't done um the majority of the

[1:34:07] evictions are for non-active and that

[1:34:10] falls under good cause that's not going

[1:34:12] to make any bit of difference but maybe

[1:34:13] we can come up with ways to to come up

[1:34:16] with um tenant assistance programs or

[1:34:19] look for grants look for other options.

[1:34:21] >> Um that's something that we can do that

[1:34:23] we haven't done. I think there are a lot

[1:34:25] of options that we can take and

[1:34:26] strategies we can employ to reduce that

[1:34:28] number. I mean we can say we can't or we

[1:34:31] can say we can. That's up to us. Um so

[1:34:35] that's where I want to proceed. So

[1:34:38] >> so I just want to clarify you said that

[1:34:40] the recommendations from this task force

[1:34:41] would be binding.

[1:34:42] >> Well I don't have the authority to say

[1:34:44] okay

[1:34:46] we can look at strategies and part of

[1:34:49] that work will be is this something we

[1:34:51] can do?

[1:34:52] >> Yeah. No, they would not be.

[1:34:54] >> That's right. They It would just be

[1:34:55] recommendations and the council can

[1:34:57] accept or

[1:34:59] >> right

[1:34:59] >> not accept those recommendations. It

[1:35:01] could be 10 recommendations. They could

[1:35:02] you could accept five,

[1:35:04] >> right? Just

[1:35:04] >> for example,

[1:35:05] >> I just want to make that clear to all of

[1:35:07] us and everybody that may be listening.

[1:35:10] All right. So, going back to the people

[1:35:12] that the individuals that would be on on

[1:35:15] this task force. Um, and so we have the

[1:35:18] chair. I'm going to point at you. And

[1:35:21] then so that means that we have um other

[1:35:23] spots. Are we going to put a number on

[1:35:26] how many people from each group could be

[1:35:30] there?

[1:35:33] » I mean, how do you decide that?

[1:35:34] >> Yeah. Um

[1:35:39] I think looking at the applications

[1:35:42] who we receive and what what is not on

[1:35:45] there is anybody from city government.

[1:35:48] you

[1:35:49] >> well I think from department to

[1:35:51] development

[1:35:53] >> I think that's important

[1:35:57] » um

[1:36:00] » and then rate the applications and which

[1:36:03] group

[1:36:04] that we based on the application bring

[1:36:07] that level of of expertise if we have a

[1:36:10] couple in that or tenants tenants

[1:36:15] >> so we right now we have to have on

[1:36:18] taking developers off. Uh we have five

[1:36:20] six with with the chair. Okay. Um so

[1:36:23] that leaves three more seats.

[1:36:25] >> And you're saying that you would base

[1:36:28] who filled those seats based on the

[1:36:30] applications received as opposed to

[1:36:31] based on the categories?

[1:36:34] We could we could decide that we pick

[1:36:36] the nine that we need because we may the

[1:36:39] these categories may be missing somebody

[1:36:41] or someone that would be a good um

[1:36:43] addition. Someone in that has expertise

[1:36:47] in this area that we're missing that

[1:36:49] isn't in one of these categories.

[1:36:53] » And how would you choose that person if

[1:36:54] they're not in the category

[1:36:56] >> based on the application and what they

[1:36:58] where their experience in their body or

[1:37:00] work? say they were passed in volumes or

[1:37:04] some advocacy agency.

[1:37:07] >> Okay. So, we're not holding to these

[1:37:09] categories. Is it because

[1:37:10] >> we have representatives from this

[1:37:12] category going to go over them and say

[1:37:14] then this is what we need

[1:37:16] >> and then some extra then the three other

[1:37:18] seats are based on applications.

[1:37:21] Is that what you're saying?

[1:37:22] >> Based Yeah. based on is this a good fit

[1:37:26] for the task force? is this individual

[1:37:29] looking at their experience and their

[1:37:30] body of work or we can keep it into the

[1:37:33] categories a couple but I think that we

[1:37:37] might be missing if we're missing

[1:37:39] something and it stands out and the

[1:37:42] committee looks at this individual could

[1:37:44] contribute to this task force not

[1:37:46] limited to this

[1:37:50] if we're taking out developers then we

[1:37:52] have one two three four five

[1:37:55] >> plus the city Six.

[1:37:56] >> Six. Sorry.

[1:37:58] >> When I say the city, I'm sorry. I mean

[1:37:59] the city council. Six.

[1:38:02] And then you said the city. Seven.

[1:38:07] » So I I would suggest that we have two

[1:38:09] tenant two landlord representatives

[1:38:12] since that's the most effective group

[1:38:14] with affinity group in there. So we have

[1:38:17] two from each.

[1:38:19] >> That makes sense to me. If we're saying

[1:38:21] if we are staying at nine.

[1:38:24] Well, how would we go higher if we just

[1:38:27] >> we would we would amend our resolution

[1:38:29] if we would go higher. So,

[1:38:32] >> I mean, I'm hoping this is, you know, I

[1:38:33] want to get to the start if I

[1:38:37] >> um Patrick.

[1:38:38] >> Well, I think that I mean, I think that

[1:38:40] we could definitely if we wanted to do

[1:38:42] three tenants, three landlords, you

[1:38:44] know, I think we can make those kinds of

[1:38:46] changes on amendments to the original

[1:38:50] uh resolution. I mean, I think that's

[1:38:52] what we're trying to do here is kind of

[1:38:54] sess out what we see as the best.

[1:38:58] >> I mean, for me, again, one thing I think

[1:39:00] that is not the only thing, but one of

[1:39:03] the things I think is really important

[1:39:04] is that who's ever serving on this task

[1:39:07] force lives in the city of Skenctity. I

[1:39:10] think that that is

[1:39:12] really integral part of the process. Um,

[1:39:17] so, Mr. Mr. Mini, are you um

[1:39:21] open to considering that as well? Like

[1:39:24] making sure that whoever serves on the

[1:39:25] task force lives in the city?

[1:39:28] >> I'm going to give priority if we don't

[1:39:31] have somebody from a nonprofit.

[1:39:35] >> Okay. Okay. That is, you know, doesn't

[1:39:38] is it directly involved in an eviction process?

[1:39:42] >> Okay. So, you're saying give priority,

[1:39:46] not necessarily a

[1:39:50] Okay, let me think about that for a

[1:39:51] minute.

[1:39:53] >> So, let's try to have a level of

[1:39:55] consistency here. We just heard that

[1:39:57] someone could not sit on the CPRB even

[1:40:00] though the agency that's named in there

[1:40:02] because they did not reside in the city.

[1:40:04] And I think that applies to almost all

[1:40:06] of our boards that they don't. So why

[1:40:08] are we going outside of what we do for

[1:40:10] every other committee that we have,

[1:40:13] every other commission that we have that

[1:40:14] says you must reside in the city and

[1:40:16] even uh so I I think that we should take

[1:40:19] a look at that. We just NWACP it's

[1:40:21] written in the ordinance in the city

[1:40:23] code rather but the person who came

[1:40:25] forward from the agency within the city

[1:40:27] resided outside the city and we said no.

[1:40:30] The mayor's office said no. So, let's

[1:40:32] try to have some level of consistency in

[1:40:33] how we deal with who's going to be

[1:40:36] representing this um task force which

[1:40:40] will have an impact upon the city.

[1:40:44] [Music]

[1:40:46] Mr. Williams,

[1:40:47] >> we have a little over 60,000 people in

[1:40:50] the city of Scar. compound we can find

[1:40:53] nine people that live within the city

[1:40:54] that can add that can uh academically

[1:41:00] and then with their experience lived

[1:41:01] experience and professional experience

[1:41:03] weigh in on this discussion. I'm I'm in

[1:41:05] agreement with the expectation that you

[1:41:07] live in a city. He set forth

[1:41:12] peace if holding members are reflective

[1:41:15] of that applicants will actually get

[1:41:19] >> you're doing it for everything else.

[1:41:20] I'll reiterate.

[1:41:23] >> I'm I'm I'm okay with that.

[1:41:26] Um and if it doesn't, we don't get a

[1:41:29] good representative. Um

[1:41:32] you know, any applicants, we have to go

[1:41:34] outside and recruit.

[1:41:41] » Let's start there.

[1:41:44] >> I'm okay with it as long as we have the

[1:41:46] key nonprofits at the table. Who's the

[1:41:49] key nonprofit though?

[1:41:50] >> Well, actually, I can think of more than

[1:41:52] three. So, so I mean, it depends on the

[1:41:55] number of the number that you put in

[1:41:57] that. And if there's, you know, again,

[1:42:00] to Monty's point, if if there's someone

[1:42:02] that doesn't live in the city, we can

[1:42:03] always have them come in.

[1:42:05] >> That's right. That's absolutely right.

[1:42:07] >> Or just Yeah.

[1:42:08] >> Yeah. Draw

[1:42:08] >> because the news will be open to the

[1:42:10] anybody.

[1:42:11] >> Yeah.

[1:42:12] to Mr. Smith's

[1:42:14] earlier point um and I I believe

[1:42:18] presidents as well that like this did

[1:42:21] you know come out of good cause and

[1:42:25] the entire time I brought good cause

[1:42:27] forward um I acknowledge that good cause

[1:42:30] isn't the only solution um I think that

[1:42:34] that's important that we recognize that there's other

[1:42:38] solutions however

[1:42:41] good cause

[1:42:43] does offer

[1:42:45] certain protections

[1:42:47] that some of the other solutions might

[1:42:50] not, you know, offer. So, I want to just

[1:42:53] kind of like be mindful of that, that

[1:42:56] the cause isn't the end all be all, but

[1:42:58] there are some core things that happen

[1:43:00] with good cause that would leave people

[1:43:02] unprotected if we didn't consider that.

[1:43:05] Um, as well as this doesn't have to

[1:43:08] result in good cause based on the

[1:43:11] findings of of of the task force. It

[1:43:14] doesn't have to, but I don't want I want

[1:43:15] to make sure that we're not taking that

[1:43:17] off the table if the findings come forth

[1:43:19] and say support, you know, if the data

[1:43:21] supports it.

[1:43:22] >> Yeah. And I think maybe the timing

[1:43:24] around it we have we can have some of

[1:43:26] the jurisdictions that have opted in

[1:43:27] what their experience is and maybe hear

[1:43:30] from them.

[1:43:34] Okay.

[1:43:34] >> Next step.

[1:43:36] >> Yeah. What are the next steps?

[1:43:39] >> You want to take those

[1:43:41] make changes

[1:43:44] in the language and then we can send

[1:43:47] outations

[1:43:49] post applications and notice.

[1:43:53] So we you're okay with the the

[1:43:56] resolution at this time. At this point

[1:43:57] you're just looking at the application.

[1:43:59] You're not changing anything as far as

[1:44:01] the membership per se, are you? Or you

[1:44:04] may, Mr. Mancini, you may want to

[1:44:06] circulate that with your colleagues

[1:44:08] based on the conversations here tonight

[1:44:10] and see if everybody's on board and then

[1:44:13] uh you know, if if necessary and if

[1:44:16] everybody's on board, send it to the

[1:44:18] Corporation Council's office and we'll

[1:44:20] review the proposed application with the

[1:44:23] resolution and see if anything further

[1:44:25] needs to be done.

[1:44:28] So, uh, Mr. O'Brins

[1:44:33] is proposing and then the changes that

[1:44:36] we talked about, do we need to make

[1:44:38] those changes as well?

[1:44:40] >> Yeah. What he what you all talked about

[1:44:42] and what he the original document that

[1:44:44] he submitted to you and then hand, you

[1:44:47] know, the the the amendments here

[1:44:49] tonight.

[1:44:49] >> Okay. Um, if that can be cleaned up,

[1:44:52] circulated, everybody's okay with that.

[1:44:55] And then once that's okay, we will then

[1:44:58] review it to the legislation and make a

[1:45:00] determination whether it needs to be,

[1:45:02] you know, put in a resolution form for

[1:45:04] Monday night. That's okay with the

[1:45:06] council members.

[1:45:08] >> Yeah, that that's okay with me. Um, so

[1:45:11] >> so are we, so are we looking based on

[1:45:13] that to bring it back or we're going to

[1:45:14] make those changes in the meantime? And

[1:45:16] I think because you know everybody's

[1:45:18] interested in getting this moving along

[1:45:20] as quickly as possible. I think the if

[1:45:22] it's circulated and everybody's okay

[1:45:24] with it then we will u put it on

[1:45:27] Monday's agenda as as agreed to by the

[1:45:31] council members.

[1:45:33] >> So Mr. R, let me just be clear. We

[1:45:34] passed the resolution that we're going

[1:45:36] to establish right

[1:45:37] >> the uh this committee. So we have to now

[1:45:40] pass a resolution for every single thing

[1:45:42] that's going to happen throughout.

[1:45:43] >> No, that's what I'm saying. We don't

[1:45:44] have to do that. I just want to make

[1:45:45] sure whatever was agreed to is in

[1:45:49] conformance with the resolution,

[1:45:51] >> okay,

[1:45:51] >> that you passed last, you know, a few

[1:45:54] weeks ago. So, if it's within the four

[1:45:56] corners of that document, no legislative

[1:45:58] action has to

[1:46:00] >> except the resolution did um include

[1:46:02] developers is what Mr. Mani said and

[1:46:04] that now we're um we're looking at

[1:46:07] removing that. So, is that going to

[1:46:13] » Let's see.

[1:46:17] It doesn't. Is it specific?

[1:46:19] >> No, it is.

[1:46:19] >> No, it's not. No, I think

[1:46:21] >> Yeah, it did say developers.

[1:46:23] >> It hasn't.

[1:46:24] >> Yeah, it specifically said developers.

[1:46:26] >> We would like input

[1:46:28] >> and the second whereas

[1:46:42] » Yeah.

[1:46:44] the top

[1:46:45] >> last sentence of the second

[1:46:51] would like input. Um it's which you're

[1:46:56] going to get you're going to get input

[1:46:57] unless they have those

[1:46:59] >> committees and because we like input

[1:47:02] from stakeholders. So therefore the

[1:47:05] developers would have input

[1:47:07] as part of the the committee going

[1:47:10] around and task force going around and

[1:47:11] getting information. Um yeah I mean what

[1:47:15] it says here that the housing stability

[1:47:17] task force is established with some nine

[1:47:20] volunteer members and uh including one

[1:47:23] member of the city council. So that's

[1:47:24] where it's it's it's specific as to the

[1:47:28] membership. So right now it's just

[1:47:30] saying you would like to get in the task

[1:47:32] force would like to get information from

[1:47:34] developers and other individuals. So

[1:47:36] that's

[1:47:37] >> so the fact that there's input would

[1:47:39] serve would satisfy what we're how we're

[1:47:41] talking about their input happen. Okay.

[1:47:43] >> You like yes.

[1:47:44] >> Okay.

[1:47:44] >> Yep. What about the language around

[1:47:46] having to reside in the city of

[1:47:47] Skenctity

[1:47:49] >> or is that just kind of a matter of

[1:47:51] practice that we do with all of our I

[1:47:53] guess with our committees

[1:47:57] or is it

[1:47:57] >> I think that

[1:47:59] Um, it says here, "We'd like input from

[1:48:03] stakeholders, including landlords that

[1:48:05] own property in the city, tenants that

[1:48:06] live in the city, and housing that serve

[1:48:08] the city's residents." So, what you're doing as far as this

[1:48:13] application is that they have to be

[1:48:14] residents of the city, which which

[1:48:16] broadly you're talking about here in the

[1:48:18] resolution.

[1:48:20] >> Okay. It's always so um you're you're

[1:48:22] looking to keep residents because it

[1:48:25] says right here we're like input from

[1:48:26] state

[1:48:28] and tenants that live in the city.

[1:48:35] » That's the way this reads. A landlord

[1:48:37] who owns property many landlords will

[1:48:39] own property live outside the city.

[1:48:47] » Right. But I think the criteria what

[1:48:49] you're looking for for the people, you

[1:48:51] know, the nine people that you're

[1:48:52] looking for are residents,

[1:48:54] >> right?

[1:48:55] So that's

[1:48:57] >> that's fine. I mean,

[1:48:59] >> the way I'm looking at it, but you can

[1:49:01] do that. You can it's when you're you're

[1:49:04] keeping it residents. You're making that

[1:49:06] makeup of of tenants, organizations.

[1:49:09] You're going to get input from a broader

[1:49:11] part of the community. And the

[1:49:12] applications, you're saying residents.

[1:49:15] >> Okay. Yes. And that's not different than

[1:49:17] any other committee that we have. We

[1:49:19] don't have to

[1:49:20] >> Okay.

[1:49:22] >> And like I said, but circulate it

[1:49:25] amongst yourselves and then once it's

[1:49:28] okay, um we'll take another look at it

[1:49:30] to see whether it needs to have a res a

[1:49:35] small resolution on it. Well, if we're

[1:49:38] going to change anything at all, then I

[1:49:40] don't see if we're going to change

[1:49:41] things, then what would be the not

[1:49:44] changing the language to have people

[1:49:45] that was the city? If we're going to be

[1:49:47] making some changes anyway, I would just

[1:49:48] do it just so it's uh done as clean as

[1:49:52] possible.

[1:49:54] >> Mr. Mr. Ryan is not saying to change the

[1:49:56] resolution.

[1:49:57] >> No, I'm I'm saying that he's saying

[1:49:59] circulate the ideas.

[1:50:03] in the

[1:50:04] >> in the circulation of ideas.

[1:50:05] >> If we end up changing something, then

[1:50:08] let's make sure that we change that to

[1:50:10] if we change something.

[1:50:12] >> Just um so I think right now it's within

[1:50:17] the the four corners of the document.

[1:50:19] >> However, I will need to take one look at

[1:50:22] it again.

[1:50:23] >> I think in in the application that we're

[1:50:25] uh putting out, it should it should say

[1:50:27] that.

[1:50:27] >> Yeah.

[1:50:29] Okay. for the uh recognition matter

[1:50:31] process. Okay.

[1:50:34] Any other thoughts, questions,

[1:50:36] concerns or obnoxious comments around

[1:50:38] that, Madam President?

[1:50:39] >> So, I just want to like give a keep

[1:50:41] track of the timeline that we're going

[1:50:42] to have here. Uh we initially said that

[1:50:44] this is going to be 120 days, but I'm

[1:50:47] guessing that we're this time of

[1:50:49] convening the task force. Uh the

[1:50:52] representatives on the task force is not

[1:50:54] included in the 120 days 120 days, Mr.

[1:50:56] Hansy. Is that correct? deliver a report

[1:50:59] within 120 days of its first meeting.

[1:51:02] >> Okay. So, how

[1:51:03] >> it starts with the first meeting.

[1:51:04] >> So, what's our timeline in terms of

[1:51:06] getting this task force established with

[1:51:08] people on board?

[1:51:13] » No,

[1:51:14] let's do 30 days. Just two weeks. We're

[1:51:17] going to send out the application

[1:51:19] >> for two weeks. So, 30 days.

[1:51:22] >> 30 days.

[1:51:23] >> Yeah.

[1:51:23] >> To establish and have the first meeting.

[1:51:25] >> Okay. With that being said, we'll do a

[1:51:27] resolution, right?

[1:51:29] >> I knew that was coming.

[1:51:32] >> Okay, let's we'll do 30 days because now

[1:51:34] you're you're you're sending a benchmark

[1:51:36] and and that and so

[1:51:39] >> Okay, so now we need a we'll do a

[1:51:42] resolution.

[1:51:43] >> Okay.

[1:51:45] to include

[1:51:47] >> to include

[1:51:48] >> uh 30 days benchmark and and just that

[1:51:51] we'll look at how everything has been

[1:51:54] changed here this evening. We'll put

[1:51:56] that into the resolution too. Since it's

[1:51:58] since you're putting a benchmark right

[1:52:00] now it's it's a broad 120 days. Now

[1:52:03] you're giving them marching orders, you

[1:52:05] know, 30 days, you know, a start point.

[1:52:08] So we need to put that in there. It's a

[1:52:10] followup.

[1:52:11] I think that we should be we should do

[1:52:13] that because we said 100 we said 120

[1:52:15] days and uh the people have expectations

[1:52:17] of when we're going to be doing what we

[1:52:19] said we're going to do.

[1:52:20] >> Right. Right. Okay.

[1:52:25] So we'll take a motion motion to amend

[1:52:30] along those lines.

[1:52:31] >> Okay. Well, I'll only take questions.

[1:52:35] >> Um, so with regard to um, so when we

[1:52:38] write this is the thought with regard to

[1:52:41] the nonprofit since they are going to

[1:52:43] have people who live in the city, is it

[1:52:45] going to be people that specifically

[1:52:47] work at the nonprofits or a an appointed

[1:52:49] representative from the nonprofit that

[1:52:51] lives in the city?

[1:52:53] >> Anyone that serves on the board needs to

[1:52:55] live in the city,

[1:52:56] >> right? uh in terms of the not forprofits

[1:52:58] that um will be represented.

[1:53:01] >> No, there will be for every even the

[1:53:02] nonprofit has to have a city resident on

[1:53:04] every one,

[1:53:05] >> right? But is it that they appoint a

[1:53:07] that they put forth a person?

[1:53:09] >> They work for the they work for

[1:53:10] >> they work for them.

[1:53:12] >> They work for the organization.

[1:53:14] Okay.

[1:53:15] >> Because we're looking for a certain

[1:53:16] level of expertise.

[1:53:18] >> Okay. I just want to make sure we get it

[1:53:19] right.

[1:53:19] >> Gotcha. That's my understanding.

[1:53:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm Yeah. Okay. I think

[1:53:24] we're almost

[1:53:24] >> Well, I mean, I will say sorry.

[1:53:27] >> Um I mean, again, if it was Habitat for

[1:53:30] Humanity,

[1:53:31] you know, one of the homeowners

[1:53:34] could be appointed. I know I'm not

[1:53:37] saying that they would, but I'm just

[1:53:38] saying that person,

[1:53:40] you know, you might want to be open to

[1:53:43] whether the whether the nonprofit I I

[1:53:46] don't know. Can Can I just um Can we

[1:53:48] just like center on Habitat for

[1:53:50] Humanity? Isn't their goal to make

[1:53:52] homeowners and we're really talking

[1:53:54] about renters?

[1:53:57] » True.

[1:53:59] >> I just thought, well, no, no, because

[1:54:01] again, don't forget that the task force

[1:54:02] is not just about good cause eviction.

[1:54:05] The task force is supposed to be looking

[1:54:07] at housing stability in the city of

[1:54:09] Skenctity. So, it's it's the broader

[1:54:11] issue of housing that this task force is

[1:54:14] going to be looking at. So, for example,

[1:54:17] um any of those organizations and

[1:54:19] nonprofits, I mean, they would all be

[1:54:21] concerned with housing stability. I

[1:54:23] mean, and so, you know what I'm saying?

[1:54:26] I mean, it's not just about renting.

[1:54:28] >> This task force is not just about

[1:54:30] renters. We have to remember that.

[1:54:32] >> Well, I think we should remember where

[1:54:33] we started because and let's not ever

[1:54:36] lose sight of that because I feel like

[1:54:38] we're very far a field of what the

[1:54:41] initial intention was to do something.

[1:54:43] we weren't doing good cause but to do

[1:54:45] something that addressed the issues that

[1:54:46] good cause brings forward. So I think we

[1:54:48] should not lose sight of that.

[1:54:52] >> So

[1:54:53] >> well for for my just for my point of

[1:54:56] clarity is that if we're we're asking

[1:55:01] people from the nonprofit to be involved

[1:55:05] in the task force that's based on their

[1:55:08] level of expertise on the issue. So, my

[1:55:12] thing is

[1:55:14] whoever they're assigning to the task

[1:55:16] force

[1:55:18] just has to uh live in the city of

[1:55:20] Connecticut like any of our other

[1:55:22] things. And um I guess Mr. Mini, this

[1:55:26] would be kind of something for you to

[1:55:28] kind of shed some light on because the

[1:55:32] task force was kind of birthed out of

[1:55:36] the conversations around good cause. We

[1:55:40] don't want to make it so that it's

[1:55:42] everything because if it's everything

[1:55:44] it's nothing, right? Like you know um

[1:55:47] you know so I so I just kind of maybe if

[1:55:50] you could provide a little bit I mean

[1:55:54] based on the resolution maybe we should

[1:55:56] look at the resolution.

[1:55:58] >> Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm looking at

[1:56:00] the resolution and it really is dealing

[1:56:02] with local housing trends and eviction

[1:56:04] filings and and rent burdens and vacancy

[1:56:06] rates. Um and and it does in light of

[1:56:10] such a review and public input reporting

[1:56:12] with

[1:56:14] 120 days and we're going to say 30 days

[1:56:16] from next week. Um we'll have their

[1:56:19] first meeting. Correct. Is that what

[1:56:21] we're talking about? And then the

[1:56:23] potential impact of good cause eviction

[1:56:25] recommended. So it's really focused not

[1:56:26] on home ownership. I'm just looking at

[1:56:28] the resolution. It's it's dealing with

[1:56:31] tenants.

[1:56:32] >> It is not you said

[1:56:33] >> it's not dealing with it's not dealing

[1:56:35] with Yeah.

[1:56:36] you know, home ownership is dealing with

[1:56:38] rental and tenant investments, possible

[1:56:41] solutions and tenant protection.

[1:56:43] >> So, I read it I read it differently.

[1:56:46] >> Okay. So, how that wouldn't be in that

[1:56:48] case. So, all right. So,

[1:56:53] » well, I I mean, I supported this. Um

[1:56:57] I I really thought it was going to look

[1:56:58] overall at housing issues and housing

[1:57:01] stability within the city. As it says in

[1:57:03] the first the background information,

[1:57:05] the task force is to consider strategies

[1:57:07] to improve housing stability in the city

[1:57:09] of Skenctity.

[1:57:11] >> Yeah. But they they but the charging

[1:57:13] document the charge what they are

[1:57:14] charged with is conducting a review of

[1:57:17] local housing trends, eviction filings,

[1:57:19] rent burdens and vacancy rates. That's

[1:57:22] the charge.

[1:57:23] >> So, you know, and it says across the

[1:57:25] housing spectrum in the third bullet. I don't know. I mean, I I really want to

[1:57:28] get at I I really thought that this was

[1:57:31] going to have a broader focus, but

[1:57:34] >> Mr. Williams,

[1:57:35] >> I thought home ownership would be part

[1:57:37] of it.

[1:57:38] >> I think what's clear is that just in the manner in which this was presented

[1:57:42] to the council, it was extremely rushed

[1:57:44] and in that degree of urgency, there

[1:57:47] were misunderstandings which we are now

[1:57:50] trying to capture amid having two

[1:57:52] council members not here. So I although

[1:57:54] I was not in support of this task force

[1:57:56] moving forward, I would hope there are

[1:57:58] no continued delays because although the

[1:58:01] work that they are being directed to

[1:58:03] perform is questionable to my standards,

[1:58:06] um it is still more it's still important

[1:58:08] and there's a value to it. So I think we

[1:58:10] have to get this started if this is what

[1:58:12] is presented in front of us and I

[1:58:14] believe the conversation we had here

[1:58:15] tonight is very uh productive and then I

[1:58:19] would hope that this yields positive

[1:58:21] impacts for the community.

[1:58:26] And will, you know, and then will there

[1:58:29] be a amendment to this resolution? Just

[1:58:31] to clarify that this bill will have this

[1:58:33] task force will have its first meeting

[1:58:36] 30 days from

[1:58:39] Monday night

[1:58:40] >> or when the mayor signs it And that'll

[1:58:43] be the first name and the 120 days will

[1:58:48] just to be clear is is is is will be

[1:58:51] added on to that 30.

[1:58:53] >> Right. Correct.

[1:58:54] >> All right.

[1:58:58] » And the residency piece will be a more

[1:59:00] operational piece of the application.

[1:59:04] Um is if you know just just for just if

[1:59:09] you want to have residents that if

[1:59:11] they're you know residents priority

[1:59:13] shall be given to residents of the city

[1:59:16] >> uh to sit on this board

[1:59:18] >> whether they or they they they represent

[1:59:22] a nonprofit and they they are they're a

[1:59:24] resident of the city and they represent

[1:59:26] the nonprofit and they're a resident in

[1:59:28] the city.

[1:59:28] >> Yeah. That they could represent whatever

[1:59:30] they want but they need to live in the

[1:59:32] city. That's All nine members.

[1:59:34] >> Yep.

[1:59:35] >> Okay.

[1:59:36] >> All right. Thank you. So, I'll entertain

[1:59:37] a motion.

[1:59:40] >> So, move.

[1:59:41] >> Second.

[1:59:43] >> All those in favor?

[1:59:45] >> Thank you. With that, I call to adjourn.

[1:59:51] >> You have to second.

[1:59:53] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:59:54] >> You have to second.

[1:59:54] >> You know what? Being that you're being a

[1:59:56] task force, like come on, you're in

[1:59:58] this. Okay. I second that. All in favor?

[2:00:01] Thank you, Madam President. Appreciate

[2:00:02] that.

[2:00:04] Okay. You going to be on committee now.

[2:00:06] All right. So, let's adjourn government

[2:00:08] operations. I'll accept the motion.

[2:00:11] >> I'll motion to adjurnn.

[2:00:12] >> I'll second that. All in favor? I

[2:00:14] >> we are ajourned.

[2:00:15] >> Thank you. I will call to order city

[2:00:17] development and planning. And our first

[2:00:19] uh we have excuse me, we have nine items

[2:00:21] on the agenda. And the first item is uh

[2:00:23] to authorize issuance of a re revocable

[2:00:26] commit number 690 to grand slant grand

[2:00:30] salon hair studio for a sign of

[2:00:33] overhanging right away on the face of

[2:00:35] the building at 98 connect New York.

[2:00:38] Welcome Mr. Wall.

[2:00:40] >> Hi.

[2:00:41] This is a sign overhanging the rightway

[2:00:43] at 98. It's for a salon and new we

[2:00:46] renovated the building.

[2:00:52] » So where um can you just kind of give me

[2:00:54] where the salon is? I know you is like

[2:00:56] this long.

[2:00:58] >> Um where exactly

[2:01:00] >> the building?

[2:01:00] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:01:01] >> It's the building that was across from

[2:01:02] the former Bailey's restaurant on the

[2:01:04] corner of that in the alleyway.

[2:01:06] >> Oh, okay.

[2:01:07] >> It is a brick two-story building that

[2:01:09] was just refurbished and I believe it's

[2:01:11] going to be at the corner entrance.

[2:01:13] >> Okay. So that's that little island that

[2:01:14] takes you out to J Street.

[2:01:16] >> Uh yes. Yep.

[2:01:17] >> Okay.

[2:01:19] Any questions?

[2:01:21] I'll move it. I'll second. All those in

[2:01:23] favor? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wall.

[2:01:27] >> Okay. Uh the next item is just a

[2:01:29] reminder of the U proposed 2025 26 HUD

[2:01:34] annual action plan um public hearing

[2:01:36] which is to be held on August 25th.

[2:01:39] >> So do any emotions for this?

[2:01:41] >> No. No, you're all set. Are we all set

[2:01:42] for that?

[2:01:43] >> All right. Um, the remainder of the

[2:01:46] items have to do with property and

[2:01:48] property sales. So, I would ask for a

[2:01:51] motion to Okay. Recess. So, move.

[2:01:55] Second. All those in favor? I recess.

[2:01:59] >> So, I'd like to call the order of the

[2:02:00] claims committee. We have one item on

[2:02:02] the agenda tonight. It is a tax consu

[2:02:06] [Music]

[2:02:08] discuss executive sessions. We have a

[2:02:09] motion to enter sessions.

[2:02:12] Second. All in favor? I executive

[2:02:15] session.

[2:02:23] [Music]

[2:03:21] Heat. Heat.

[2:03:25] [Music]

[2:03:27] Heat. Heat. N.

[2:03:31] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, August 18, 2025

Transcript