[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]