[0:05] [music]

[9:59] » Woo.

[10:05] » [music]

[18:34] » Meeting for Mark Lawson.

[18:37] April 6th,

[18:39] 2026. Almost got me.

[18:43] Uh the first item is going to be a

[18:44] presentation, uh Mr. Mayor.

[18:47] Thank you, Mr. President. Uh

[18:49] Schenectady had a long-term relationship

[18:52] with the Center for Technology and

[18:53] Government, which is the applied

[18:54] research unit at the University of

[18:56] Albany.

[18:57] And uh they're here tonight to uh

[19:00] talk on uh community asset tracker and

[19:05] working with our code enforcement.

[19:07] With that, I'll

[19:09] Eric's leading us off for the Yes.

[19:12] Thank you.

[19:17] So, I'd like to just

[19:19] uh walk through uh some of the brief

[19:21] history that we've had with

[19:24] You said 2026.

[19:26] People at home can't

[19:28] hear in this room.

[19:34] You want me to stand up? Just your

[19:36] camera so they can see who's talking.

[19:37] All right.

[19:38] It's for the people at home.

[19:42] This council's tricky.

[19:45] Uh brief history of the center working

[19:48] with the city. Um talk about our uh our

[19:52] community asset tracker innovation that

[19:54] we've been working on.

[19:56] >> [clears throat]

[19:56] >> And, um,

[19:58] currently working forward with Project

[20:00] Connecticity.

[20:04] Uh, so we have a nice long, you can see

[20:06] 20, uh, 15. We started working with, uh,

[20:10] the city on, um, some urban blight

[20:13] projects. So, uh, the mayor came to the

[20:16] center and and,

[20:19] talking about, uh,

[20:22] information challenges around, um,

[20:24] finding the blight. And, uh, so we had a

[20:28] project that ran for a number of years,

[20:31] funded by the, uh, near the Department

[20:33] of State local government efficiency

[20:36] program.

[20:38] And that system was is, uh, a designed

[20:41] to give the code officers technology in

[20:45] the field, so the information could flow

[20:48] quicker. Instead of using, uh,

[20:50] clipboards to collect data for

[20:52] inspections and things like that, they

[20:55] have were given technology in the field

[20:56] that was linked with data back in the

[20:58] office,

[21:00] so that they could more easily collect

[21:02] data in the field, as well as look up,

[21:06] um, information that they needed while

[21:08] they're out on the site.

[21:10] That project also,

[21:12] uh, included a couple other city

[21:14] Cloverhill and Amsterdam in that project

[21:17] with, uh, similar technology, similar

[21:20] challenges.

[21:22] Um, and as a result, one of the other

[21:25] results of that was this, um,

[21:27] information sharing platform that was

[21:30] created called code to help similar,

[21:34] um,

[21:35] code departments across the state to

[21:38] share information about, um, different

[21:41] programs that they carry out and how

[21:43] they carry them out and the benefits of

[21:45] those,

[21:45] as well as the opportunity to share data

[21:49] amongst each other.

[21:54] So, at the center, we use, uh, workshops

[21:59] and interviews as ways to better

[22:01] understand the context of problems.

[22:04] And in this last project that I

[22:07] just described, we were meeting with the

[22:09] city and, um,

[22:12] there was a garbage truck driver at this

[22:15] meeting.

[22:16] We had, uh, some code officials there,

[22:18] also.

[22:20] The garbage truck driver knew so much

[22:23] about what was happening in the

[22:25] community just by the fact that he's out

[22:28] in the community doing his job.

[22:31] Uh, however,

[22:33] his responsibility was to drive the

[22:35] truck and make sure that, uh, the people

[22:37] working with him was safe. He didn't

[22:40] have the opportunity to share that

[22:42] information with the codes departments

[22:45] and other departments, uh, DGS

[22:48] departments that could use that

[22:49] information.

[22:51] And at that time, I

[22:53] think it as a computer scientist, maybe

[22:55] we can teach a computer to do this.

[22:58] Maybe we can teach a computer to help

[23:00] collect this information right along

[23:03] with the vehicle, in the vehicle, to

[23:05] collect that information so that it can

[23:07] be shared in, uh, with other

[23:09] departments.

[23:11] Taking advantage of the fact that

[23:12] they're in the field.

[23:15] And so that's what we have. We call it a

[23:16] community asset tracker.

[23:19] Um, there's a, we call it a sensor that

[23:21] goes on the vehicle that is already out

[23:24] in the field carrying out its, its, um,

[23:27] its work.

[23:28] And it, uh, is trained to collect

[23:32] information that, um,

[23:35] the code department or DGS department

[23:38] find deems important and necessary.

[23:42] And, um,

[23:44] that initial work is is also funded by,

[23:47] uh, SUNY technology

[23:50] grant.

[23:53] So, where we are today, um, we've been

[23:56] meeting with the mayor and, uh, some of

[23:59] his team,

[24:00] uh, for the past, uh, several months and

[24:04] understanding

[24:05] what types of objects and issues do they

[24:09] want

[24:10] this system to be able to collect. What

[24:13] would be useful for their teams? What

[24:15] would enable some new efficiencies

[24:18] that, um,

[24:19] that we could, uh, explore with this

[24:21] technology. So, we've been developing

[24:23] that list and training our system. And

[24:27] we're in the process of setting up a

[24:28] pilot to give this a go, to give it a

[24:31] try, set it up, let it run,

[24:35] give the the, um, staff an opportunity

[24:37] to make use of this data and to see how

[24:40] it can be improved and measure its

[24:42] impact.

[24:47] Um,

[24:49] so, this is, um, this is a system

[24:51] that's, uh, that we, have. There's many pieces to it, um,

[24:58] and since I've been talking kind of that

[25:00] in abstract about the work in the city

[25:02] because it's not together yet, I thought

[25:05] it would be good,

[25:06] uh, to show,

[25:07] um, an example. So, we have this

[25:10] technology,

[25:11] uh, being used by CDTA.

[25:14] And CDTA is very interested in, um,

[25:17] using this technology to

[25:20] monitor the cleanliness and safety of

[25:22] their bus shelters.

[25:24] Okay?

[25:26] And so we're piloting that with them and

[25:29] we've been doing that for about 2 years

[25:31] now, a year and a half, and

[25:34] we've got two buses on a single line,

[25:36] the red line goes from Albany to

[25:38] Schenectady. And so we've got a short

[25:41] list and of things that they wanted us

[25:43] to keep track of and that's trash,

[25:46] broken glass, graffiti, snow and ice,

[25:49] um, and, uh, one that's not on there is,

[25:52] uh, the garbage bin, is it full or not?

[25:55] And this is really to help, uh, they

[25:58] have, uh,

[25:59] 380 shelters

[26:02] and they have a staff that is

[26:04] responsible for cleaning these shelters

[26:06] and

[26:07] they need a way to help direct their

[26:10] staff to figure out, well,

[26:13] um, where should they go,

[26:15] um, at what point and how to manage, you

[26:17] know, they if they what they don't want

[26:19] to do is have, guys, just go on a

[26:21] regular schedule to shelters that are

[26:23] already clean

[26:25] and and then miss the ones that need

[26:27] attention. And so that's how they want

[26:29] to use this technology.

[26:33] So, what I have here is kind of an

[26:35] infographic. If we look in the top left,

[26:38] that is, uh, the side of the bus and

[26:40] that's where the sensor is mounted. The

[26:43] next one over to the right is a map in the long line is that's the bus route

[26:47] and the dots are where the stops are.

[26:49] So, as it goes by a stop,

[26:51] it knows that it's at a stop, it takes a

[26:54] picture and the AI looks at that picture

[26:57] and determines, hey, that garbage can,

[26:59] is it full or not? Um, is there any

[27:01] trash on the ground? How what are the

[27:04] other indicators that they're interested

[27:06] in monitoring?

[27:07] Um,

[27:09] the So, that's what we see in the top

[27:11] right and the bottom left, um, we also

[27:14] see the shelter and we can see that, um,

[27:17] it's not meeting their standard for, um,

[27:20] cleaning up the snow between the shelter

[27:23] and the street. So, that's identifying

[27:25] that.

[27:28] Uh, what's on the right is, um, a piece

[27:31] of their dashboard and that shows the

[27:34] things in red are the things that, um,

[27:38] uh, they have different levels that they

[27:40] wanted to be notified about and so when

[27:42] it reaches a certain level, they're red

[27:45] and that's what we see there is the red

[27:47] items.

[27:48] And that gives the,

[27:50] um, the staff the ability to,

[27:54] validate. So, they can look at that

[27:56] entry and then

[27:58] look at the detail. So, they can see

[28:00] what they the computer was doing and

[28:02] then they can make an informed decision.

[28:04] Am I going to change my route and go

[28:07] take care of this or is, yeah,

[28:10] this is fine, I'll get to it later or

[28:12] I'll pass that on.

[28:15] So, this is a,

[28:16] um,

[28:17] you know, their their their example is

[28:19] much more simple than the city's. The

[28:21] city's example is is much more

[28:23] complicated, it's a lot more items and

[28:25] they

[28:26] the, uh, the region is bigger,

[28:29] um,

[28:30] but the idea is the same. The the

[28:32] process is the same and the outcomes

[28:34] we're looking to do something very

[28:36] similar, uh, dashboard level,

[28:39] uh, of information for staff.

[28:45] So, where we are now, like I said, we're setting up the pilot. We want to

[28:49] continue this,

[28:51] um, and we want to build this out. We

[28:53] want to see this, uh, functioning and

[28:55] supporting the staff at

[28:57] in the city here.

[28:59] Um, mayor's team has submitted a,

[29:03] uh, Department of State grant, uh, the

[29:05] beginning of the year

[29:07] and the goal is to use that as a way to,

[29:11] um, build this out and include,

[29:14] um,

[29:15] other cities which were also in the

[29:17] application, Albany and Village of

[29:20] Richfield Springs.

[29:22] Um,

[29:23] and the focus is, um,

[29:26] you know, OGS and code enforcement ex-

[29:30] exterior property maintenance type of

[29:32] issues.

[29:34] And, of course, like the past project,

[29:37] the goal is and and I think the mayor

[29:40] and his staff did well last time, too,

[29:42] in this project was

[29:44] being an example. They they're leaders

[29:47] in many regards and what they've done

[29:50] and learned here, they've shared and so

[29:53] we're looking to do something very

[29:55] similar here.

[29:57] So, thank you.

[30:00] Any questions or comments? Mr. Mayor,

[30:01] thank you for giving me the opportunity

[30:02] first.

[30:04] Again, this has been a long-term

[30:05] relationship that's evolving but one of

[30:08] the practical applications of it

[30:11] on the agenda tonight also is

[30:14] in terms of garbage collection to be

[30:16] able to

[30:18] size

[30:20] profile things that are on the curb for

[30:23] garbage collection and to incorporate

[30:26] that in an automated manner and also do

[30:29] it in a manner that

[30:31] would be reflected in the code so that

[30:33] it would improve our overall efficiency

[30:35] in terms of

[30:36] uh garbage collection, managing uh

[30:41] recyclables

[30:44] Now we're picking up more of the uh yard

[30:47] waste that's coming up. But there's an

[30:50] element of randomness in what we do and

[30:53] this would allow to be

[30:55] much more sophisticated in terms of the

[30:57] tracking and

[31:01] just improving [clears throat] the

[31:02] overall delivery of services.

[31:05] Thank you. Any other questions or

[31:06] comments? Mr. Chairs?

[31:09] With uh reading this uh looking at your

[31:10] presentation I got to look at a little

[31:11] bit earlier as well. I want to

[31:13] appreciate what you guys have already

[31:14] done in data collection along the way

[31:16] and I agree with the mayor on the way of

[31:18] it would help ease the concern as we

[31:19] talked about our last committee meeting,

[31:21] right? That

[31:22] our OGS workers don't know when there's

[31:24] bulk items that are going to be there.

[31:26] They can't prepare for the night before

[31:27] where technically your technology would

[31:29] allow us that opportunity to prepare the

[31:31] staff for what they can pick up so they

[31:32] can adjust their timing. Um one more

[31:34] question is I know we're getting grant

[31:36] funding for it now too with the pilot

[31:37] program. If the city was to implement

[31:39] this long-term, I believe it's going to

[31:41] be very successful. If you don't have

[31:42] grant funding, how much does it cost for

[31:44] the city to operate something like this?

[31:48] We don't know yet.

[31:49] So, we're we you know, we're piloting a

[31:52] single sensor.

[31:53] Um and we haven't figured out we don't

[31:57] have a model yet for well, how many does

[32:00] the city need?

[32:01] Um so, that depends on that. We don't we

[32:03] don't have a model yet for you know, how

[32:05] much data is needed to be collected.

[32:08] Uh so, that's what we're hoping to

[32:10] learn. You know, the pilot that we're

[32:12] this small pilot that we're doing is

[32:13] going to continue regardless of the

[32:15] grant. The grant is well, it would help

[32:17] speed things up.

[32:20] Thank you.

[32:22] Any other questions or comments? Mr.

[32:23] Doran? Yes, thank you. You mentioned

[32:24] that the mayor and staff had put

[32:26] together what might be useful for us

[32:27] here in the city. Can you elaborate on

[32:29] what what

[32:31] they're thinking the mayor [music] can

[32:33] say that what what it what what

[32:35] specifically are we working on here

[32:37] that's useful?

[32:38] >> Um okay, so like high-level categories

[32:41] of things well, exterior prop exterior

[32:44] property maintenance items.

[32:46] Um

[32:48] there was some like road infrastructure

[32:50] type of things um like uh street cuts

[32:54] and those kind of things um

[32:56] to alert OGS that hey, work is going on

[32:59] perhaps permitted or not permitted.

[33:04] I'd also like to thank the mayor and

[33:05] everyone else on our smart cities. I

[33:07] know he's looking into technology to

[33:09] help our staff and workers just move

[33:11] forward in an easier way making things

[33:14] easier for us to work. Move forward as a

[33:16] city. Thank you.

[33:19] Call up there any no further questions.

[33:20] Um I had two.

[33:22] The first one before I get into that

[33:24] definitely any considerations because

[33:26] this is very very exciting cutting-edge

[33:28] technology. I think Schenectady has

[33:30] always been on the forefront of these

[33:32] types of

[33:34] policy changes where we're turning into

[33:36] the fold with technology.

[33:39] And my question was about the

[33:41] data-driven improvements and we talked

[33:44] about some of the issues that the CDTA

[33:46] was identifying with its two sensors. Do

[33:49] you have any statistical findings

[33:50] speaking to just the improvements or

[33:52] cost savings or just time savings,

[33:54] anything just numerically?

[33:57] So, CDTA has not they don't have this in

[34:01] their hands yet. Their staff

[34:04] So, the dashboard that I showed you,

[34:06] that is

[34:08] going to be released to them next week.

[34:10] So, they're like I said, they're ahead

[34:13] but not that much ahead.

[34:15] And then the only reason why I mentioned

[34:16] that is that I think as you pitched this

[34:19] initiative to the city, I think we all

[34:21] grapple onto that and we're like, "Oh my

[34:22] gosh, this could really solve a lot of

[34:23] our issues." But really wanted to make

[34:25] sure we're realistically looking at what

[34:28] we can achieve especially if it's a

[34:29] single sensor model.

[34:31] Um my other question was you talked

[34:33] about how the device captures just the

[34:36] quote unquote issues that are

[34:37] identified. Is it able to capture those

[34:40] while the vehicle or apparatus it's

[34:42] attached to is in motion or does it have

[34:44] to be at a stop?

[34:46] Uh no, this works um up to 60 mph.

[34:51] So, we will not be driving that fast

[34:53] within the city.

[34:54] >> [laughter]

[34:55] >> That's right. Or shouldn't be. Or

[34:56] shouldn't be.

[34:57] That's the issue.

[34:59] Um

[35:01] and then Mr. Chairs spoke of a question

[35:03] but wanted to make sure if the city

[35:05] wasn't able to secure the grant for this

[35:09] are [snorts] we able to or are we

[35:10] confidently recommending this moving

[35:13] forward regardless, Mr. Mayor?

[35:15] We're going to continue to move forward

[35:17] on this. We're also this is one aspect

[35:19] of it. We're also working with Civil

[35:22] uh

[35:23] the company that primarily [snorts]

[35:25] focuses on

[35:29] street surface. So,

[35:32] their cameras point directly down.

[35:35] Even though they also have side view

[35:37] which will track uh other assets, street

[35:40] signs, uh fire hydrants,

[35:43] uh

[35:44] other municipal infrastructure.

[35:46] And it's how do you take the uh

[35:49] work that we're doing with Civil

[35:51] incorporate it with

[35:53] the uh platform that CPG is working with

[35:58] and then other data that we collect and

[36:00] maintain. And it's that

[36:03] just the work in the city of

[36:04] Schenectady. The real value is the

[36:06] ability to have a platform that would be

[36:09] uh implementable on a state-wide and

[36:12] nation-wide basis.

[36:14] Thank you.

[36:15] Uh if there are no further questions or

[36:17] comments, I think the I can at least

[36:19] speak for myself really excited to see

[36:21] next steps and what this could really do

[36:22] to beneficially impact uh just our

[36:24] ongoing struggles.

[36:26] Um thank you, sir. Thank you.

[36:30] Uh so, due to Mr. Murnane being out, I

[36:32] will call to order the Finance

[36:34] Committee.

[36:35] Uh we have five items on the agenda for

[36:37] discussion. The first of which is to

[36:39] award a bid contract for the Globe

[36:41] firefighting gear. Chief Burns, it looks

[36:44] like you're here. Just on vacations.

[36:56] Good evening. Hope everybody had a good

[36:57] Easter and good holiday.

[36:59] Um this is pretty straightforward. We

[37:01] put out the bid 10 sets of Globe turnout

[37:03] gear or for 10 sets of Globe gear.

[37:06] Um Garrison Fire and Rescue Corp came

[37:08] back with the uh the bid.

[37:10] Uh they were the only ones who got back.

[37:12] So,

[37:13] pretty easy bid budget for us this year.

[37:15] So, it's in our budget so nothing to

[37:16] worry about finding money.

[37:20] Um one thing Chief Burns did put in

[37:21] there, he's he's requesting that uh the

[37:23] council considers that we look at the

[37:25] option of

[37:26] adding another four years to this

[37:28] contract just to consider because we've

[37:30] been dealing with Garrison's the local

[37:32] supplier for Globe. Globe meets our

[37:34] standardization requirements in the city

[37:36] of Schenectady.

[37:37] So, it's just something for you guys to

[37:38] consider.

[37:40] Uh opening up for questions or comments.

[37:42] I think my only immediate question was

[37:44] have there been any previous issues with

[37:46] securing if we were not considered I

[37:48] guess proceeding with the yearly

[37:50] review?

[37:52] No, they

[37:53] This is uh so, we try to rotate

[37:56] how many sets we buy every year because

[37:57] it's pretty expensive. So, we don't want

[37:59] to

[38:00] hit hit you guys with a you know, we

[38:02] need 120 sets of turnout gear you know,

[38:04] every five years. So, we try to stagger

[38:06] it every 10.

[38:07] Um that's why we're asking for 10 sets

[38:09] right now.

[38:10] Okay.

[38:10] Uh at the four-year

[38:13] singular year

[38:14] and like allowing you to proceed with

[38:17] additional four one-year periods.

[38:21] Right. So, that's he's basically he's

[38:23] asking for a five-year contract with Garrison. That's what I think his

[38:27] intention is here with this.

[38:30] Got you. Thank you. Any questions or

[38:32] comments?

[38:34] Uh hearing none, um Corporation Counsel

[38:36] here?

[38:37] Yeah, does it need to be different or

[38:38] what?

[38:39] Put your time in here. I mean, the the bid

[38:42] did they have the four-year option in

[38:44] that bid? I know it wasn't really

[38:46] attached a lot of materials to that.

[38:48] >> I would have to look. Yeah, so I'll have

[38:50] to look. But in the short term, we can

[38:52] get by with the purchase of this

[38:55] you know,

[38:56] 10 sets of firefighting uh

[39:00] jackets. Yeah, jackets. Jackets. And

[39:02] then we can take a look at

[39:04] you know, next time

[39:06] for options to extend that out. Okay.

[39:09] So, for the short term, I just recommend

[39:11] we award the bid one-year contract and

[39:13] then we can take a look at that

[39:16] the document if we need to or

[39:20] put it out again for the time period

[39:22] requested.

[39:23] Thank you.

[39:24] Any questions or comments? So, hearing

[39:26] none with that adjustment to just

[39:28] consider this one-year period, is there

[39:29] a motion? I'll move it. I'll second. All

[39:31] those in favor? Aye. Thank you.

[39:34] Uh moving to the next agenda item, it's

[39:36] a grant award 2025-2026

[39:38] Discover form.

[39:40] Uh Chief

[39:41] Oh,

[39:42] sorry. Chief Palombo.

[39:45] » Thank you.

[39:47] Good evening everyone.

[39:48] Here to present the 2025-2026

[39:52] discovery reform grant award.

[39:54] This is through the Department of

[39:56] Criminal Justice Services DCJS

[39:59] >> [clears throat]

[39:59] >> and Schenectady County received money

[40:02] through this for discovery reform.

[40:05] We ultimately came up with a memorandum

[40:09] of understanding MOU with the county

[40:12] that they are going to allocate $75,000

[40:14] to the police department

[40:17] to assist in this endeavor.

[40:19] Ultimately, the money is going to go

[40:22] um

[40:23] to help us better for lack of better

[40:27] explanation save space in the

[40:28] department.

[40:29] Space is a premium. We're running out of

[40:31] it especially with all the documents

[40:33] evidence that we have to collect and

[40:35] maintain over the years.

[40:37] So in keeping with the times and

[40:38] supporting compliance with the discovery

[40:40] law requirements that were enacted in

[40:42] 2020

[40:44] um

[40:44] ultimately we're going to use this money

[40:46] to and we're working with the IT

[40:48] department to

[40:49] get servers and a bunch of scanners and

[40:52] other

[40:53] tech items. Ultimately scanning and

[40:56] preserving the evidence digitally so we

[40:59] don't have to maintain a physical copy

[41:01] of it. Again all in compliance.

[41:04] So the breakdown would be $75,000 to the

[41:07] department, $20,000 would go to the

[41:09] digital storage and then $55,000

[41:12] would go to overtime costs and labor

[41:15] costs um

[41:17] in

[41:18] doing so and scanning everything in

[41:19] digitally.

[41:21] Thank you. I'll see any questions or

[41:22] comments. Hearing none I'll entertain a

[41:24] motion. I'll second. All those in favor?

[41:27] I.

[41:28] Thank you.

[41:29] The next item is the Dury Community

[41:31] Foundation ARPA funding recapture and

[41:34] reprogramming. Ms. Carver.

[41:40] Good evening City Council.

[41:42] I come before you today I had brought

[41:44] this mentioned this earlier this year

[41:46] about coming before ARPA reallocation

[41:49] and reprogramming of the Dury Foundation

[41:51] ARPA funds in the amount of $339,000.

[41:56] Um

[41:57] we after review we realized that this

[42:00] organization does not have the capacity

[42:02] to manage the funds in a timely manner

[42:04] so that they can spend the money by the

[42:06] ARPA deadline.

[42:08] I don't have the supporting documents

[42:10] for my recommendation which the

[42:12] Department of Development is really

[42:13] recommending that we use these funds

[42:15] towards Central Park

[42:17] for several reasons. It gives us more

[42:20] control um to make sure that we spend

[42:23] this money

[42:24] on time versus putting this money out

[42:26] into the community which will require

[42:28] environmental reviews and just levels of

[42:31] complexities that we don't have um time

[42:33] for.

[42:35] The Central Park project is to fill the

[42:39] pool but on the old pool the old pool

[42:43] sorry to fill the old pool in Central

[42:45] Park but the goal is to to handle those

[42:48] issues so that we can create more family

[42:49] friendly green space in the park. Picnic

[42:52] tables, maybe single pavilions.

[42:54] The possibilities are endless but we we

[42:56] have to address the the the old pool

[42:58] before we can move forward.

[43:02] Thank you Ms. Carver. Any questions or

[43:04] comments?

[43:05] I just like to comment that that we can

[43:08] decide that now but on any given night

[43:10] during the summer park is just full of

[43:12] families and sometimes they bring their

[43:15] dogs and they tie their dogs up to the

[43:17] tree and they have barbecues and

[43:19] very respectful of everything that's

[43:21] happening but to the right of tiny tot

[43:24] land it's like I don't want to say

[43:26] overcrowded so I think this is a

[43:29] beautiful idea to to fill in the old

[43:31] pool, put in a drainage system where you

[43:32] need to to create more space for

[43:35] individuals to enjoy the park.

[43:37] Yeah, thank you.

[43:39] Ms. Chase. I I actually agree. I want to

[43:41] thank Ms. Carver for getting this back

[43:42] to us so fast.

[43:44] We're looking through details so you and

[43:45] your team thank you so much for doing

[43:46] this and

[43:48] I think that's a great project. I know

[43:49] myself and the Council President had

[43:50] talked about that space and where how it

[43:52] can be used or developed properly to

[43:54] something else that we can benefit the park as an entirety. So I appreciate

[43:58] the work you've done and getting this

[43:59] back to us quickly. Thank you.

[44:01] And then I'll Mr. Brian. Yes as Mr.

[44:03] Chairman and Ms. Carver I said regarding

[44:05] the resolution since it's been

[44:07] reprogrammed back to the city and

[44:10] recapture back to the city. Do you want

[44:12] the resolution to say that that we

[44:14] reprogram for for for for efforts in

[44:17] Central Park the

[44:19] Schenectady Central Park? Do you want to

[44:20] delineate that now or just at this point

[44:23] just

[44:24] have it brought back for reprogramming

[44:27] for this space?

[44:28] >> to the council to make that decision. Uh

[44:31] Mr. Mayor.

[44:33] We're working up

[44:34] >> [clears throat]

[44:34] >> the actual costs on that

[44:38] and so

[44:39] if the council

[44:41] wanted to move ahead with

[44:43] tonight conceptually

[44:45] we should have some better numbers by

[44:49] Wednesday or Thursday to

[44:52] The engineer's estimate is about

[44:53] $250,000

[44:56] to fill in the old pool, put some

[44:58] drainage in so we don't end up with a

[44:59] marshy area there because that is a low

[45:01] lying area.

[45:03] So

[45:03] they are working up to do a a bid a

[45:06] package for so it'll go out to bid. So

[45:09] their estimate right now is around 250

[45:11] to

[45:12] 280,000 dollars is their estimate.

[45:15] Got you. Thank you. Mr. Brian. Yes I

[45:16] would I would just recommend that you

[45:18] the resolution for the short term

[45:20] recapture that money because we want to

[45:22] get that money

[45:24] into the city, recapture it and then in

[45:26] 2 weeks when those numbers are more

[45:28] flushed out then that money that you've

[45:31] recap captured in this upcoming

[45:33] resolution can be then reprogrammed out

[45:36] 2 weeks out. At least this way you're

[45:38] getting the money.

[45:40] You're you're you're saying that that

[45:41] project's not there but you're going to

[45:44] put it there for reprogrammed use.

[45:46] And then definitely to note Mr.

[45:47] Terrell's excitement.

[45:49] >> [laughter]

[45:49] >> I would err on the side of caution. I

[45:52] think to to Mr. Brian's point of seeing

[45:53] those numbers um not reflective of me

[45:56] taking a position um but also wanted to

[45:58] make sure to consider there was another

[45:59] program that reached out for

[46:01] consideration of these monies as well.

[46:03] Uh so I wanted to ensure that as we

[46:04] receive like the formal recommendation

[46:06] that it reflects the spirit of everyone

[46:08] that made an attempt to ask. Um what I

[46:11] did want to point out though is

[46:13] beyond appreciative to Ms. Carver and

[46:15] her team for identifying this money and

[46:17] although very remiss that we could not

[46:18] use this for the Dury intended use

[46:21] um I wanted to make sure it was noted

[46:22] this is in no way a reflection of

[46:24] Reverend Doctor Solomon sincerely just

[46:27] recognizing the uh

[46:30] situation she walked into with Dury and

[46:33] hands full immediately and identifying

[46:35] some of the barriers or obstacles that

[46:36] was before the church to be considered

[46:39] of additional funding streams was not an

[46:41] option moving forward.

[46:42] So I appreciate the conversations that

[46:44] you and your team had to ensure this

[46:45] money was not lost and I I think in the

[46:48] spirit of just addressing the

[46:50] recapturing

[46:51] um I would like to entertain a motion

[46:53] but want to put out another any further

[46:55] questions or comments.

[46:57] Um Ms. Toro. I would like to also agree

[47:00] that we recapture it but

[47:03] even without the numbers I would like to

[47:04] at least specify that it'll be used in

[47:07] Central Park

[47:10] um

[47:11] for that specific reason at this time.

[47:12] >> It's up to the council.

[47:13] >> Yeah I know it's up to us but again

[47:16] there are individuals reaching out

[47:18] whether they can meet anything within

[47:20] the timelines for ARPA and we may as

[47:22] well not you may as well but I think

[47:24] it's very efficient that we keep it for

[47:26] ourselves for the benefit of everyone in

[47:27] the community. You know and I don't

[47:29] disagree with that. I think that we do

[47:31] have time and the 2 weeks is not going

[47:34] to negatively impact the the funding

[47:36] availability. Is that correct Ms.

[47:38] Carver?

[47:38] >> Correct. Uh so I think just wanted to

[47:40] have the numbers in front of us. I think

[47:41] it's

[47:43] the but wanting to ensure that we're not

[47:45] split in the understanding of

[47:47] recapturing it. So we can agree on that

[47:49] first and then proceed with the motion.

[47:52] >> I've heard it so we can entertain a

[47:53] motion to at least recapture the funds.

[47:55] I'll make a motion. I'll second. All

[47:57] those in favor? I.

[47:58] Thank you Ms. Carver. Thank you.

[48:01] Uh the next item for discussion is the

[48:03] revised green fees and rates at the

[48:05] Schenectady Municipal Golf Course.

[48:06] That'll be discussed by Mr. Wong or Mr.

[48:09] O'Brien.

[48:14] How are you tonight? Pretty good.

[48:16] Uh what you have in front of you is the

[48:18] increase for the

[48:20] green fees.

[48:22] It is recommended that they increase the

[48:23] 9 hole by a dollar so

[48:26] the 18 hole will be $2 for the time a

[48:28] dollar for 9 holes.

[48:29] $50 across the board for the seasonal

[48:31] rates and there's a $2 increase for the

[48:35] double cart cost for 18 holes. This will

[48:38] keep this at a level

[48:40] based on regional

[48:41] courses

[48:43] and this will help cover the costs that

[48:44] go up on a yearly basis at the course.

[48:48] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[48:50] I'll make a motion. Um I know in these

[48:52] instances we usually are uh

[48:55] have the opportunity to see Mr. Daley. I

[48:57] think both of them are on vacation

[49:00] but I did get a chance to send Mr. Wong

[49:02] a text that he answered on vacation and

[49:04] they're both very confident in these

[49:05] recommendations so I'll make a motion.

[49:08] I'll second. All those in favor? I.

[49:10] Thank you Ms. Carver. Thank you.

[49:12] And the last item for discussion is the

[49:15] Empire State Development Connectivity

[49:17] Mobile Service Incentive Proposal for

[49:19] approval. Mr. Cannon.

[49:24] The sheet passed out.

[49:33] Thank you.

[49:38] very much.

[49:44] » All right. So, I'm seeking approval for

[49:47] the New York State Empire State uh

[49:50] Connect I'm sorry, development

[49:52] ConnectAll mobile service program. This

[49:54] builds off of the uh already smart city

[49:57] initiative that we started, the digital

[49:59] equity initiative, if you will.

[50:01] Um this goes into the Bellevue

[50:04] neighborhood so you can see as noted

[50:06] there in the third bullet.

[50:08] Um

[50:09] demonstrates high demand and usage, so I

[50:11] think this is something that we can all

[50:13] agree that it can really go to that

[50:16] other level once we get to the other uh

[50:19] neighborhood here.

[50:20] As for evaluation analysis, we're

[50:22] addressing digital divide in the

[50:24] low-to-moderate income areas. Um

[50:27] expands access to education, health

[50:28] care, workforce, job opportunities, and

[50:31] reducing the cost of burden for mobile

[50:33] data.

[50:34] Um

[50:35] it's a proven model, as you see there,

[50:37] scalable, repeatable,

[50:39] um using the infrastructure that we have

[50:40] in place already.

[50:42] Got community support, Bellevue

[50:43] neighborhood, city school district, and

[50:46] uh the Reformed Church, and local city

[50:48] leadership.

[50:49] Emphasis on quality of life, student

[50:51] access, and equity. Now, this all comes

[50:53] down to the grant that we did receive

[50:55] from New York State, ESD, if you will,

[50:57] uh 1.6 million. There is a city match of

[51:01] 180,900,

[51:03] which is 10% of that over the 2 years

[51:05] that we're going to be working here, so

[51:07] full 1.8 million, and uh real slam dunk

[51:10] in my eyes, but want to see what you

[51:12] guys think.

[51:13] Thank you. Uh any questions or comments?

[51:15] Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this

[51:17] to us, and uh ConnectAll obviously is a

[51:20] proven model works well. We see it

[51:21] downstairs as well. Right. I'm excited

[51:23] that we are considering bringing it to

[51:25] the city of Schenectady. You know, I

[51:26] would sit on the Finance Committee. I

[51:28] think the ability that you're putting in

[51:29] the infrastructure of 70 miles of fiber

[51:31] is outstanding. So, thank you. All

[51:32] right. No problem.

[51:35] Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[51:37] Um what neighborhoods have been

[51:38] complete? I've been over to the little

[51:40] Alamo over there with all kinds of

[51:42] stuff going on, so Neighborhoods we have

[51:44] to date, it's uh yeah, North Side,

[51:47] downtown, we're into the Stockade,

[51:50] um

[51:52] Center State there that we got. So, test

[51:55] my neighborhood knowledge in general.

[51:57] Um

[51:57] yeah, that's the lion's share there. I

[52:00] think with you know,

[52:02] uh

[52:02] what's happening today, they're going to

[52:04] be you know, beneficial to all the

[52:06] residents in Bellevue area, so

[52:09] thank you for what you're doing.

[52:12] Uh any other questions or comments?

[52:15] I think my uh one question just came to

[52:17] the uh accurate reflection of immediate

[52:19] expenses. I know it said the application

[52:21] fee was $250. Um I also recognize that

[52:24] there was a 1% commitment fee and

[52:26] expenses. Can you talk to us some of

[52:27] those uh additional costs or what the

[52:29] estimates could potentially be? I

[52:31] believe the $250 will come out of my

[52:33] department. Um

[52:35] and yeah, any other fees that really

[52:38] need to get reconciled, I'll

[52:40] kind of probably take from my

[52:41] department. All right.

[52:43] Mr. Chair. Just as I'm thinking out

[52:46] loud, I'm I'm very excited for Bellevue

[52:47] getting it as there are the plans that I

[52:49] heard you say that different areas

[52:50] already have and you know, we're excited

[52:52] to build we have.

[52:53] Are there plans in ways to look toward

[52:55] Hamilton Hill and then to extend that

[52:57] Bellevue into Mount Pleasant as well? I

[52:59] think that's the connection. Hamilton

[53:00] Hill is covered

[53:01] already.

[53:03] Into Mount Pleasant, so this is kind of

[53:04] taking from downtown building out.

[53:07] So,

[53:08] Bellevue becomes the next

[53:10] through

[53:11] with this grant, and the last

[53:14] section we do is Woodlawn.

[53:17] Okay.

[53:19] And those lines don't quite

[53:22] line up perfectly with the perceived

[53:24] neighborhoods, but

[53:26] trying to build it out. And again, this

[53:29] has two platforms. One is the public

[53:32] side, and then there's the secure side

[53:34] that's used to support police, fire, and

[53:36] other municipals

[53:38] municipal services.

[53:40] Thank you. And then just for clarity,

[53:42] you said these uh those expenses I

[53:43] mentioned, you should be able to use

[53:45] your funds coming from your department,

[53:47] correct? This will largely use up the

[53:48] remainder of the smart city money that

[53:51] has been budgeted in the past.

[53:54] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[53:56] Uh if there are no further questions or

[53:57] comments, uh may I entertain a motion?

[54:00] I'll make a motion. I will second. All

[54:01] those in favor?

[54:03] Aye. Aye.

[54:04] Are there any other items to come before

[54:06] the Finance Committee? May I have a

[54:07] motion to adjourn?

[54:08] Motion. I will second. All those in

[54:10] favor?

[54:11] Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you.

[54:14] We can turn off.

[54:17] Perfect. I'd like to call to order City

[54:18] Development and Planning. We have 18

[54:21] items for discussion.

[54:24] The first of which is a call for public

[54:26] hearing regarding the zoning of battery

[54:28] energy storage systems. Ms. Carver.

[54:37] Good evening again.

[54:38] Uh we came before City Council in

[54:41] December, and we did refer it to the

[54:43] county. Uh we're asking to amend the

[54:45] zoning code to include

[54:50] » [laughter]

[54:51] >> battery energy injured battery energy

[54:55] storage systems.

[54:57] Forgive [laughter] me.

[54:59] Uh today we're asking City Council just

[55:01] to consider that addition um

[55:03] to the code. And the attach was the

[55:05] referral and the draft of the

[55:07] legislation from my corporation counsel

[55:10] for your consideration. Thank you. Any

[55:12] questions or comments? Mr. Chair, once

[55:14] again, Ms. Carver, thank you so much for

[55:15] your for your team getting this back to

[55:16] us super quickly. BESS is beyond needed,

[55:18] especially as we see across the state

[55:20] with what's going on with energy costs.

[55:22] Um everything's costs are going up, so

[55:23] being able to have this, being able to

[55:24] employ it inside those peak hours that

[55:26] we need it most in the city has been

[55:27] helping people with driving their bills

[55:29] back down.

[55:30] Um so, though I'm not on the committee,

[55:32] I vote for it. I mean, full support of

[55:33] being able to have that battery

[55:35] technology that we can use it as we

[55:36] need.

[55:37] Thank you.

[55:40] Mr. Chairman, just a follow-up. You just

[55:41] We seek a seeker resolution to go along

[55:44] as it's amending the zoning code.

[55:46] The seeker it's a non

[55:49] non-listed action. So, that will be the

[55:51] companion piece of legislation, the new

[55:52] ordinance that's already been before

[55:54] you. It's been to the Planning

[55:55] Committee, it's been to the county, so

[55:57] it's ready for a final vote. Perfect. Uh

[55:59] if there are no other questions or

[56:01] concerns, may I have a motion? I'll make

[56:02] a motion. I will second. All those in

[56:04] favor?

[56:05] Aye. Aye.

[56:07] Uh the next item for discussion is the

[56:08] recognition of Arbor Day in the city of

[56:10] Schenectady. Ms. Carver. Um no longer

[56:12] still, each year we recognize Arbor Day.

[56:15] This supports our community partners

[56:17] that do the work um around preserving

[56:20] trees and green space within the city of

[56:22] Schenectady. So, the recommendation

[56:23] today is um that City Council consider

[56:26] marking April 24th

[56:29] Arbor Day.

[56:35] Perfect. And I believe uh there's no

[56:38] ceremonial action that we need to take

[56:40] as a council, correct?

[56:43] Perfect. Okay. I believe they're looking

[56:46] to present it at another day

[56:49] with re-treeing

[56:51] some of the other

[56:52] activities. Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh

[56:55] if there are no further questions or

[56:56] comments, may I have a motion? I'll make

[56:58] a motion. I will second. All

[56:59] [clears throat] those in favor? Aye.

[57:02] The next item for discussion, thank you.

[57:04] is award bid contract for the signage

[57:06] and wayfinding bid.

[57:08] The base bid and alternative number one

[57:10] to Grafton Data Systems Incorporated in

[57:13] the total amount of $218,482.50.

[57:17] Mr. Falcone. Okay. Mr. Falcone is on

[57:19] vacation, so he's asked me to present

[57:21] this to you today.

[57:22] Um

[57:24] the low bid will be awarded to the

[57:26] second bidder.

[57:27] Uh the low bid was an incomplete

[57:28] package, so it was rejected by um the

[57:31] Purchasing Department. The low bid will

[57:33] now go to um

[57:35] uh

[57:36] the data Grafton Data Systems in the

[57:38] amount of $218,480.50.

[57:42] And this is the um the design locations

[57:45] and the contents of the sign were

[57:46] decided by the Finance Committee,

[57:47] including members of Metroplex, the SIC,

[57:49] the first meeting with the local

[57:51] business community for the areas around

[57:53] downtown, Little Harbor, and

[57:57] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[58:00] Hearing none, may I have a motion?

[58:02] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[58:05] Thank you.

[58:06] The next item for discussion is a call

[58:08] for public hearing, amendment of section

[58:10] 9-2 of the Schenectady City Code. Ms.

[58:12] Brouse. Um

[58:14] Mr. Chairman, I'll take this one. Um

[58:16] this is a follow-up on the appointment

[58:18] on the resolution from a couple of weeks

[58:20] ago, snafu on my part regarding the names there, but as a follow-up to

[58:25] that,

[58:26] um

[58:27] in to conform with the the the

[58:29] amendments to state law, our ordinance

[58:31] needs to be changed as far as the

[58:32] membership amount and the membership

[58:36] um

[58:37] who are the membership should come from.

[58:39] You have a draft piece of legislation

[58:41] there. The underlying materials are the new language. No less than nine

[58:46] members, no more than 15 members,

[58:48] staggered over 3 years. 3 years is what

[58:51] our our city code has, and that goes

[58:53] into the next part of regarding the

[58:57] actual appointments. And then the new

[58:59] language uh

[59:00] um the deleted language was at least uh

[59:04] after the word "least", seven members of

[59:06] the committee must be uh

[59:08] the owners of uh property within the

[59:10] district and such and and or agents of

[59:13] such owners.

[59:14] The uh law was changed and to say

[59:17] three-quarters of the then uh uh

[59:21] current complement of committee members

[59:23] shall be owners of assessable real

[59:24] property within the special assessment

[59:26] district or agents of such owners. So,

[59:29] we had to

[59:30] in order to conform with the state law

[59:32] changes, we're amending our ordinance

[59:34] accordingly. So, therefore, it has to be

[59:36] go for a public hearing regarding those

[59:38] changes to conform to the law.

[59:40] Thank you.

[59:41] Any questions or comments?

[59:43] Hearing none, may I have a motion?

[59:45] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[59:48] The next item for discussion is the

[59:50] appointments to the Board of Downtown

[59:52] Schenectady Improvement Corporation, Mr.

[59:54] Mayor.

[59:55] Again, this is being carried forward to

[59:58] comply with that change.

[1:00:00] The first name is forward and uh

[1:00:04] I don't know if this has to be called

[1:00:06] No, it doesn't. It's we we we

[1:00:08] just doesn't have to be changed. But,

[1:00:11] the the resolution will have the actual

[1:00:12] names. We can go forward with the

[1:00:15] appointment resolution.

[1:00:17] It includes the the the terms of their

[1:00:20] appointment and then we can have the

[1:00:22] resolution for the public hearing and

[1:00:24] then the ordinance can be amended, but

[1:00:26] that's later days.

[1:00:28] It's clear all those

[1:00:30] names are either residents in the

[1:00:32] district or representatives of property

[1:00:36] owners.

[1:00:37] Perfect. Thank you.

[1:00:39] Uh if there are no questions or

[1:00:40] comments, may I have a motion?

[1:00:42] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[1:00:45] The next item for discussion is the

[1:00:46] appointment to Civilian Police Review

[1:00:48] Board, Mr. Mayor.

[1:00:51] Again, you want that held for

[1:00:53] 2 weeks.

[1:00:55] Um so, I I think we can proceed with the

[1:00:58] SMHA

[1:01:00] uh SMHA

[1:01:02] recommendation. I

[1:01:05] had conversations with the NAACP. They

[1:01:08] are recommending someone and I think you

[1:01:09] might have that in your inbox right now.

[1:01:11] Um I was leaning towards um reaching out

[1:01:14] to the Sycamore Collaborative. After

[1:01:16] talking to uh Mr. Aldo, they have an

[1:01:18] individual in mind that they would like

[1:01:20] to proceed with.

[1:01:21] Um

[1:01:22] I don't know if there's an ex officio

[1:01:23] member that we could potentially put

[1:01:26] certain name.

[1:01:27] Uh

[1:01:29] Not her name.

[1:01:30] Miss Snear.

[1:01:32] And at least to get them on to the

[1:01:34] board. I think if you're in agreement

[1:01:35] with that, we could proceed moving

[1:01:36] forward.

[1:01:38] This point, your call. Move ahead with

[1:01:40] it, it's fine. We can hold it.

[1:01:42] All right. Um

[1:01:44] so, Mr. Mayor, if you're in agreement

[1:01:46] with us proceeding with the SMHA

[1:01:49] recommendation and then proceeding with

[1:01:51] the prior NAACP recommendation, moving

[1:01:53] them into the ex officio uh

[1:01:56] agency.

[1:01:58] Yep. All right. Uh Mr. Mayor, do you

[1:01:59] have any comments?

[1:02:01] >> [clears throat]

[1:02:02] >> Um

[1:02:03] Is there a motion? Yeah, I'll make the

[1:02:05] motion. I will second. All those in

[1:02:07] favor? Aye.

[1:02:09] Uh the next item for discussion is a

[1:02:11] ceremonial resolution honoring the

[1:02:12] Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians, Mr.

[1:02:14] Mayor. Yes, thank you. So, uh I think

[1:02:17] the staff put it on there. I think I put

[1:02:18] it in last 2 weeks ago. Anyway, the uh

[1:02:21] resolutions are done. I'll be presenting

[1:02:23] it

[1:02:24] um on April 18th down at the Edison. Um

[1:02:28] from what I understand, one of the uh

[1:02:31] highest members of Ladies Ancient Order

[1:02:33] of Hibernians from Ireland will be

[1:02:34] there. There's a mass at 5:00 at St.

[1:02:37] Luke's Church.

[1:02:39] And

[1:02:40] then followed by the uh a 1:00 mass at

[1:02:43] St. Luke's Church and followed by the

[1:02:44] celebration

[1:02:46] of 125 years down at the Edison Club.

[1:02:49] That's it.

[1:02:50] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:02:52] Hearing none, may I have a motion?

[1:02:54] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[1:02:56] And then just to go back to the

[1:02:58] appointments to the Civilian Police

[1:02:59] Review Board, there was an individual we

[1:03:02] um inadvertently skipped over, Megan

[1:03:04] Hasek from the League of Women Voters.

[1:03:07] Um Corporation Counsel, we can include

[1:03:08] that.

[1:03:09] Okay.

[1:03:10] >> [clears throat]

[1:03:10] >> As well. If we can have the the names in

[1:03:13] Yes, we can do

[1:03:14] So, Mr. Mayor, there's three names? Yes.

[1:03:17] Uh would you like us to move that as

[1:03:19] well? Um just amend the previous one.

[1:03:22] Move to amend the previously adopted

[1:03:24] resolution. Okay. Uh motion to amend the

[1:03:26] previously adopted.

[1:03:28] Yep. All right. So, I will second. All

[1:03:30] those in favor?

[1:03:31] >> Aye.

[1:03:32] Thank you.

[1:03:34] Uh the next item is going to be a

[1:03:35] ceremonial resolution recognizing Earth

[1:03:37] Day, Mr. Cheers. Uh yeah, so you know,

[1:03:40] Earth Day is a big national event. It

[1:03:42] was originally established in 1970 by uh

[1:03:45] Senator Nelson.

[1:03:47] We're going to be having a celebration

[1:03:48] at Central Park as well as there's

[1:03:50] cleanups scheduled all over the park.

[1:03:51] Also, they're all around the city of

[1:03:52] Schenectady for that day.

[1:03:54] Um we will be at the Central Park event

[1:03:56] and coordinate with them to present this

[1:03:58] resolution with them at the Central Park

[1:04:00] after the program in the morning.

[1:04:02] Any questions or comments?

[1:04:05] Hearing none, may I entertain a motion?

[1:04:06] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[1:04:09] The next item for discussion is

[1:04:11] ceremonial resolution

[1:04:13] uh You, Me, and Poetry Festival,

[1:04:15] Literacy, Liberation, and Community, Mr.

[1:04:17] Cheers. As some of you know, that this

[1:04:19] is National Poetry Month and we do have

[1:04:21] our city and our local Schenectady Poet

[1:04:22] Laureate who's hosting an event. He was

[1:04:24] here at the other committee meeting

[1:04:25] talking about his event. It is a

[1:04:27] festival that goes spans over several

[1:04:28] days from April 29th to end of National

[1:04:32] uh Poetry Month to May 2nd, which is a

[1:04:34] Saturday. I'm looking to present him and

[1:04:36] the entire group that's been helping him

[1:04:38] with the You, Me, and Poetry uh

[1:04:40] celebration at May 2nd 6:00 p.m. event

[1:04:43] at Proctors Theater.

[1:04:48] Thank you.

[1:04:49] Any questions or comments? I entertain a

[1:04:51] motion.

[1:04:52] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[1:04:55] And the next item is going to be

[1:04:58] Excuse me. Call for public hearing

[1:04:59] adopting a community police hiring

[1:05:01] panel, Mr. Cheers. Uh those of you that

[1:05:04] know that Schenectady has put on the map

[1:05:07] by Mr. Will Rivas for his initiative

[1:05:09] with the new hire panel allowing for

[1:05:11] community residents and organizations to

[1:05:13] be a part of the hiring process for our

[1:05:15] new officers that come in transferring

[1:05:17] or want to get in to SPD. Uh this

[1:05:20] program has proven successful. It's a

[1:05:22] great partnership with the police force.

[1:05:24] I believe that myself and Chief Mason,

[1:05:26] our conversation we had, we'd like to

[1:05:27] see this continue to live on even if Mr.

[1:05:29] Rivas has to step away at any point. I

[1:05:32] believe that it gives the community a

[1:05:33] voice and opportunity to continue to

[1:05:35] work and see who's going to be

[1:05:37] protecting and policing their areas. So,

[1:05:39] with this public hearing, we'd like to

[1:05:41] amend the code to make sure that this

[1:05:42] continues beyond

[1:05:45] um just the initiative and becomes part

[1:05:46] of the city standard.

[1:05:49] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:05:50] So, just to confirm, it was an

[1:05:52] initiative that was put forward by the

[1:05:54] council or by No, this individual had

[1:05:57] worked with the council in collaboration

[1:05:58] before 2020 to 2021. I'm starting it in

[1:06:02] multiple Two members of this council had

[1:06:04] sat on the new hire panel as well to

[1:06:06] various degrees, myself included when I

[1:06:07] was an NAACP member.

[1:06:09] Um and now we are looking to ratify this

[1:06:12] pretty much in to make sure that it

[1:06:13] continues to go forward. Okay.

[1:06:17] Uh Mr. Mayor.

[1:06:18] I incorporated that in the hiring

[1:06:21] review. You can't do anything to

[1:06:23] minimize my authority to hire police

[1:06:26] officers during the term of office. So,

[1:06:28] if you want to formalize this or do

[1:06:31] something that

[1:06:33] hinders that ability or puts a

[1:06:35] restriction on it has taken effect in

[1:06:37] January of 28.

[1:06:44] And

[1:06:44] >> And I fully support this panel. We've

[1:06:46] brought it in. We've made it part of the

[1:06:48] process. It's been extremely successful.

[1:06:51] But,

[1:06:52] again,

[1:06:53] sometimes I disagree with the council in

[1:06:55] terms of where the lines are drawn in

[1:06:57] terms of the authority.

[1:06:58] Mr. Mayor, I want to apologize to you

[1:07:00] that indeed did not intend to step over

[1:07:02] the line on this one in any way or to

[1:07:04] mitigate what's been done or currently

[1:07:06] in practice

[1:07:07] uh that we use right this second. So, I

[1:07:09] didn't look at it in a way of mitigating

[1:07:10] your power of hiring um because we use

[1:07:12] it right this second. So, I do

[1:07:14] apologize, but I would have no problem

[1:07:16] amending it if Corporation Counsel to

[1:07:17] take effect in 2028 if that's something

[1:07:19] that needs to be done. Or Mr. Brian. Uh

[1:07:22] members of the council and and and

[1:07:24] mayor,

[1:07:26] the mayor is the appointing authority

[1:07:27] pursuant to the city charter. So, any

[1:07:29] sort of changes in that will have to be

[1:07:30] amended by the city charter. So,

[1:07:33] however, this is a an an advisory

[1:07:36] committee, then and if and if you're

[1:07:38] looking as an advisory, but the mayor is

[1:07:41] still having his authority under the

[1:07:42] charter and it's just an advisory. In

[1:07:45] other words,

[1:07:46] taking what you have now, but just

[1:07:48] putting in the code would still giving

[1:07:50] leaving the mayor's authority the same.

[1:07:53] Um we would have to draft legislation

[1:07:55] that actually

[1:07:57] put that before you and then call for

[1:08:00] the public hearing if we're going to

[1:08:02] amend the ordinance. So, we need some

[1:08:04] time and Mr. Cheers, if you've got some

[1:08:06] language, we could do that and then look

[1:08:09] at what is currently being used, but

[1:08:12] understanding that the mayor has the

[1:08:13] authority as for hiring and and firing

[1:08:16] pursuant to the city charter. And if

[1:08:18] it's just an advisory board in whatever

[1:08:20] context it's currently being used,

[1:08:23] that's what you're looking at. Is Is

[1:08:25] that That that is correct. So, we're not

[1:08:27] looking to to change what we have or to

[1:08:29] mitigate the mayor's authority in any

[1:08:31] way to make sure that this initiative

[1:08:32] doesn't disappear if Mr. Rivas chooses

[1:08:34] not to head it up right now. He's the

[1:08:35] top person on the new hire panel that

[1:08:37] runs it. We'd like to make sure it lives

[1:08:39] on past him if he chooses to step away

[1:08:41] at any point as we think it's a vital

[1:08:43] I rephrase my statement. As I believe it

[1:08:45] is a vital step in making sure that the

[1:08:47] community has the say in saying who's

[1:08:49] coming in to police their area.

[1:08:52] I at no point was trying to take

[1:08:54] authority away from the mayor or

[1:08:56] supersede the code of our city charter.

[1:08:58] So, I'm perfectly fine with working with

[1:09:00] the mayor's office and you in creating

[1:09:01] language to make sure that his power is

[1:09:03] not mitigated and the advisory board

[1:09:05] remains and remains successful going

[1:09:07] forward past Mr. Rivas

[1:09:09] if that makes sense.

[1:09:10] >> Yeah, that makes sense.

[1:09:12] And then if there are no further

[1:09:13] questions or comments, what I would like

[1:09:14] to add to that is I support putting in

[1:09:16] place just structured and legislative

[1:09:19] backing. I think everyone to the point

[1:09:21] of the conversation right now is in

[1:09:22] agreement, but as of now, it's just kind

[1:09:24] of ad hoc. There's no formal legislation

[1:09:27] beyond the desire to have this

[1:09:30] panel

[1:09:31] staffed with willing and ready members

[1:09:34] of our community.

[1:09:35] So, I appreciate Mr. Chairs for taking

[1:09:37] the initiative to head this and look

[1:09:39] forward to seeing something included in

[1:09:41] the code that supports the mayor's

[1:09:43] authority but puts in a clear

[1:09:44] understanding so that the community can

[1:09:46] understand what this panel is charged

[1:09:48] with doing and how we ensure that it

[1:09:49] lives beyond any individual.

[1:09:53] Mr. Alston. Just a reminder of what Mr.

[1:09:55] Bryan said, can you

[1:09:56] provide our office with information that

[1:09:59] you'd like included so that we can put

[1:10:01] something together? I will certainly

[1:10:03] can. Thank you.

[1:10:07] So, at this next step recommendation for

[1:10:10] having this back.

[1:10:12] Can you solution?

[1:10:19] The next item for discussion will be

[1:10:21] discussion of city code chapter 161.21

[1:10:25] public collection and disposal of solid

[1:10:27] waste and next steps.

[1:10:29] Our last committee meeting we had

[1:10:32] very, very open and productive

[1:10:34] conversation of next steps

[1:10:36] for recommendations to Mr. Mayor and Mr.

[1:10:39] Lafond. I think at this time do not you

[1:10:41] have any of those findings to present to

[1:10:44] the council.

[1:10:47] And I do um

[1:10:50] And I did send a couple of questions

[1:10:52] over and

[1:10:54] sat down with some members of the

[1:10:56] waste department also the commission one

[1:10:58] and trying to come up with something

[1:11:01] that would make a little bit more sense.

[1:11:04] Um

[1:11:05] But the still the decision is going to

[1:11:06] be on the city council on that day. The

[1:11:08] current rate is $422.50

[1:11:10] per unit. That's what we're charging

[1:11:12] currently.

[1:11:13] And there is no limit on the amount of

[1:11:15] trash that's put outside for us to pick

[1:11:17] up.

[1:11:18] There is a 45 gallon limit on the cans

[1:11:22] that is currently in the

[1:11:24] within the bargaining and so we got

[1:11:25] entries from our staff.

[1:11:27] If you look at that and you make some

[1:11:30] arrangements, what my recommendation

[1:11:31] would be and again this is a

[1:11:33] recommendation, would be to stay with

[1:11:35] the 45 or possibly a little 50 gallon

[1:11:36] can trash. That would allow anywhere

[1:11:39] maybe 50 would allow maybe seven bags.

[1:11:42] 45 you can really get five bags in

[1:11:43] there.

[1:11:44] >> [clears throat]

[1:11:45] >> Um at the rate that they're currently

[1:11:46] paying the $422.50.

[1:11:48] Um

[1:11:50] The question would become now again

[1:11:52] about 22,000 units. And that would

[1:11:54] equate to about 3.5 million dollars to

[1:11:56] purchase two cans, one recycle can and

[1:11:58] one trash can for every unit.

[1:12:00] Now the

[1:12:02] residents of the units that need two

[1:12:04] cans or three cans because they have

[1:12:05] larger families,

[1:12:07] um those are additional cans that would

[1:12:09] have to be purchased and they would have

[1:12:11] to pay for those cans just like an

[1:12:12] outside commercial person does. So, we

[1:12:14] provide one can. If you've got all bags

[1:12:17] of trash every week, you're going to

[1:12:18] need two cans. You're going to have to

[1:12:20] pay for that because it's additional

[1:12:21] trash and the city's currently paying

[1:12:23] for that $2.50.

[1:12:27] Bulk items

[1:12:28] and going back to cans again when they

[1:12:30] get damaged, we're going to have to have

[1:12:32] an inventory. So, you would probably

[1:12:34] think that if they are damaged, these

[1:12:36] are heavy duty cans. This is based on a

[1:12:38] $79 can.

[1:12:40] If you look at and research the cans,

[1:12:42] the weighted cans with the flip lid and

[1:12:44] the wheels even at 50 gallons will range

[1:12:47] from low range

[1:12:49] $60 to $155 a can. So, if you you put a

[1:12:54] bulk order and you get them for 125,

[1:12:56] you're talking about 5.something million

[1:12:58] dollars just in the available cans for

[1:13:01] the units we have. No additional cans

[1:13:03] for anybody who wants a third can or

[1:13:05] fourth can. And we would have to keep

[1:13:07] some cans in stock so when they're

[1:13:08] damaged, they can be returned.

[1:13:11] Bulk items which seems to be a a subject

[1:13:15] suspended right now. We did look at

[1:13:17] doing maybe one to two bulk items per

[1:13:20] unit once per month. If you did one,

[1:13:23] that's 12 bulk items a month. If you did

[1:13:25] two, that's 24. That's a lot of bulk

[1:13:27] items, okay? And that would be part of

[1:13:29] the the current fee structure $422 and 50 cents.

[1:13:35] And we would look at doing one bulk one

[1:13:36] bulk and then next month you put

[1:13:37] another.

[1:13:38] Um

[1:13:41] The two and three personal did talk to

[1:13:43] some of the residents,

[1:13:46] um some of the landlords.

[1:13:47] Um

[1:13:48] we could offer what we would call a

[1:13:50] premium service. So,

[1:13:53] rentals that we know people come in,

[1:13:56] they move.

[1:13:57] Landlord puts everything out. They have

[1:13:59] you know, they have furniture that they

[1:14:01] buy and then they don't want it. It all

[1:14:03] comes out on the curb. Landlord could

[1:14:05] purchase a premium service. It would be

[1:14:07] a fee that would be determined and that

[1:14:09] would be

[1:14:10] delineated by a different color can. So,

[1:14:12] if you had an apartment building with

[1:14:13] two units

[1:14:14] and you want us to take everything and

[1:14:16] there might be five bulk items that are

[1:14:19] there's a prepaid fee per year. Whatever

[1:14:21] it comes out to is it $590, $600 a year

[1:14:24] per unit. And then when those we know

[1:14:27] there's a

[1:14:28] green can there,

[1:14:29] we know those units are paying for that

[1:14:31] premium service and we'll pick up all

[1:14:32] the bulk items. So, that way it's

[1:14:34] understood. If you look at doing bulk

[1:14:36] items just once a month, anything out

[1:14:39] there, you're going to have the same

[1:14:40] problem you have now. Everybody and

[1:14:41] their brother's going to bring it all to

[1:14:42] their friends, relatives. They're just

[1:14:44] going to put it all out there because

[1:14:45] it's going for free. If you limit it,

[1:14:48] it's only going to be maybe one bulk

[1:14:49] item or two bulk items.

[1:14:51] Um

[1:14:53] The transfer station's already done.

[1:14:55] It's always available for us. So, if you

[1:14:57] clean out your garage and you got a

[1:14:59] bunch of stuff,

[1:15:00] you can go down to the transfer station,

[1:15:01] dispose of it. But there is a fee even

[1:15:03] on the transfer station because

[1:15:05] everything that goes to the landfill has

[1:15:06] a cost.

[1:15:08] You know, somebody's paying for that.

[1:15:12] And and

[1:15:14] I know it's not going to be decided this

[1:15:15] year. It would go on the 27 calendar

[1:15:17] where we could put the bulk items like

[1:15:19] we did with the white goods.

[1:15:20] Certain a month we do white goods,

[1:15:22] another day a month we do the bulk items

[1:15:24] and you put two out, we take it.

[1:15:26] Um

[1:15:28] But again, there's an initial upfront

[1:15:29] cost. If you look at doing anything

[1:15:31] bigger,

[1:15:32] the cost on modifying the trucks gets

[1:15:35] really way up there.

[1:15:37] We have four trucks right now that have

[1:15:39] the hook on the back to pick up a can.

[1:15:41] Um but we typically put out about nine

[1:15:42] trucks. The other thing the bulk item

[1:15:44] would do is we can start to separate. We pay fees for yard waste. Yard waste

[1:15:50] season's started. So, we have a yard

[1:15:51] waste We have two yard waste trucks out

[1:15:53] there every day picking up just yard

[1:15:55] waste. We pay the county to dispose of

[1:15:56] that.

[1:15:57] We pick up trash. We pay a rate to get

[1:15:59] rid of trash. We have usually eight to

[1:16:01] nine trucks out with trash and we have

[1:16:03] recycle trucks out. We pay a higher rate

[1:16:05] to get rid of recycle. What we would do

[1:16:07] is put a truck out once a month to pick

[1:16:08] up the bulk items so we can now track

[1:16:11] what we're really picking up in tonnage

[1:16:13] for bulk items versus trash versus

[1:16:16] recycle versus yard waste.

[1:16:19] We'll have that data to make decisions

[1:16:22] in the future.

[1:16:24] But again, if you want to put a working

[1:16:26] group together to further do, discuss

[1:16:28] it.

[1:16:29] We have some time because these changes

[1:16:32] are going to take a while. And we do

[1:16:34] something with a can, it does prevent

[1:16:37] there's an one extra bag or two extra

[1:16:38] bags to get charged, be read a

[1:16:41] violation. It's in the can, the top is

[1:16:43] down, that's what we take.

[1:16:47] Thank Mr. Lafond. Would you be able to

[1:16:49] supply that those recommendations to the

[1:16:51] council? Sure, I can present out the

[1:16:53] email to you.

[1:16:54] That's my cue.

[1:16:55] Um

[1:16:56] Before we get into questions and answer

[1:16:58] if you don't mind staying up front,

[1:17:00] I did have the opportunity to talk to

[1:17:01] Mr. Lund part of which is Mr. Toro and I

[1:17:04] attended the slick meeting where I

[1:17:06] wasn't able to stay for his

[1:17:07] presentation.

[1:17:09] But sincerely this scope of time, he

[1:17:11] said one of his recommendation

[1:17:13] recommendations at that was two-tier

[1:17:15] approach

[1:17:16] wanting to incorporate a lot of the

[1:17:17] feedback from the landlords about how do

[1:17:19] we continue if we love the

[1:17:22] ability to put everything out as

[1:17:24] previously. So, tier one if you can

[1:17:27] follow me is everything and that come

[1:17:29] with a cost. That would essentially be

[1:17:30] that premium program you're talking

[1:17:32] about. And then the tier two would

[1:17:34] incorporate a mixture of the 45 gallon

[1:17:37] cans and then two bulk items per pick

[1:17:40] up.

[1:17:41] Part of that was the assumption that

[1:17:43] this technology that we recently that we

[1:17:45] just were presented with has the ability

[1:17:47] to look at any households that are not

[1:17:50] meeting with the threshold of tier one

[1:17:52] or tier two.

[1:17:53] Um and then wanting to also include the

[1:17:55] potential to incorporate multiple

[1:17:57] pickups for our commercial

[1:17:59] uh commercial

[1:18:02] spaces as well.

[1:18:03] So, I know just put it on you right now.

[1:18:06] Um

[1:18:07] He was fairly confident that they could

[1:18:08] build that your department could build a

[1:18:11] fee structure with that in mind.

[1:18:13] Is that something that we take into We

[1:18:15] currently have a fee structure for what

[1:18:17] we'll call commercial which is four

[1:18:18] units or more. So, we do offer a

[1:18:19] commercial

[1:18:21] trash removal for apartment buildings

[1:18:23] with four or more.

[1:18:24] Um

[1:18:26] With the ones, twos, and threes, it's

[1:18:27] just typically the $422

[1:18:30] times one times two times three.

[1:18:32] But you know, we what we do is we seem

[1:18:34] to get the jackpots where we got an

[1:18:36] excessive amount of waste. And by doing

[1:18:39] the premium package where people are

[1:18:41] paying in advance, we know we may get

[1:18:42] the excessive amount now and then if a

[1:18:44] tenant moves in or moves out, but the

[1:18:47] landlord is paying for that. So, we'll

[1:18:48] take that.

[1:18:49] Uh and again, it's

[1:18:51] I think it's more simplified if

[1:18:53] those accounts are just you know,

[1:18:55] delineated by a specific color garbage

[1:18:58] can. Our guys know if there's a red

[1:19:00] garbage can there, we're taking it all

[1:19:02] because they paid for it. Um

[1:19:04] Everybody else,

[1:19:05] it's you know, you're going to get a

[1:19:06] recycle can and whether it's a 45 gallon

[1:19:08] can

[1:19:10] um

[1:19:10] and it's easy to keep them the same.

[1:19:12] They put the sticker on it, that's a

[1:19:13] recycle can. The other one's going to be

[1:19:15] I think

[1:19:16] I'd like to look at a 50 gallon can and

[1:19:18] see if we can make arrangements that

[1:19:19] gives everybody a little

[1:19:21] couple bags extra. Um

[1:19:24] But that's it. The lids are closed.

[1:19:26] The you know, raccoons are out of it,

[1:19:28] the skunks are out of it, the cats are

[1:19:29] out of it. That's what we take. And it's

[1:19:32] going to [clears throat] take more time

[1:19:33] because by taking can on every stop, the

[1:19:36] can has to be put back on the curb.

[1:19:37] Where a lot of times you know you'll see

[1:19:38] our guys grab bags. They'll grab two,

[1:19:40] three, four bags at a time and they're

[1:19:42] going to the truck and throw them in.

[1:19:43] They don't have to go back to the curb

[1:19:44] line.

[1:19:45] So it will add

[1:19:47] cost, whether it's through manpower or

[1:19:49] extra time. It's going to take us more

[1:19:51] time to you know, to dump this trash and

[1:19:54] get it off the curb and return those

[1:19:55] cans. Because now you got Everybody's

[1:19:57] going to have at least two cans.

[1:20:00] Where right now there's just bags and

[1:20:03] you know, they're They're good at what

[1:20:04] they do. They work hard, you know, and

[1:20:07] uh they hustle.

[1:20:09] So it will add some time and may

[1:20:11] increase our labor, may increase, you

[1:20:13] know,

[1:20:14] um a number of different trucks on the

[1:20:16] road. Maybe we can't do it with nine.

[1:20:17] Maybe we got to put, you know, bulk

[1:20:19] trucks out.

[1:20:20] Um but it's going to be a learning

[1:20:22] curve.

[1:20:24] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:20:26] Mr. Sears?

[1:20:28] He's a good guy.

[1:20:29] Go ahead.

[1:20:30] Um so and I'm I'm really speaking more I

[1:20:34] think mostly anecdotally but

[1:20:35] the increasing for like say can size to

[1:20:37] 50. I know we had talked last committee

[1:20:39] meeting right before the COVID last 45.

[1:20:40] Make sure is that something that the

[1:20:42] union would be okay with increasing five

[1:20:44] like five gallons per We have to discuss

[1:20:46] it with them. Okay.

[1:20:48] I think

[1:20:50] you know, it's it's there to so they

[1:20:51] don't get hurt.

[1:20:52] Um but if these cans are on wheels and

[1:20:54] they're going to wheel the can to the

[1:20:55] truck and just take the bags out, then

[1:20:57] maybe it's possible that we go up to the 50 gallon can.

[1:21:00] Um

[1:21:01] you know, and it gives the the resident,

[1:21:03] you know,

[1:21:04] a little more available space to put

[1:21:06] some trash in.

[1:21:07] Is there any way that we could get that

[1:21:09] number as well? I know you had got it at

[1:21:11] 79 and it would have changed the amount

[1:21:12] of the the cash amount for the lower No,

[1:21:14] because again, you know, if you look at

[1:21:16] it, but there are a couple like I said,

[1:21:18] there depends on the kind of can you

[1:21:20] want. You You don't want a can You need

[1:21:23] a the flip top so it stays here. It

[1:21:25] won't roll away. You need a can that is

[1:21:27] weighted. So again, it's not a long day

[1:21:29] at the road. So

[1:21:31] again, you can go towards the lower end

[1:21:32] of the cans around $79 or less. And you

[1:21:35] go to the upper end, you can go to $155

[1:21:38] per can for a 50 gallon can. If you look

[1:21:40] at $155, if we did bulk let's say we got

[1:21:42] them for 130, 125, we're still talking,

[1:21:46] you know, 10 million just to get every

[1:21:48] We're talking 5 million just to get

[1:21:48] everybody two cans.

[1:21:51] You know, homeowners as well, I need the

[1:21:52] extra can and I'm willing to pay the

[1:21:54] additional charge for trash.

[1:21:57] You know,

[1:21:58] who's paying for the can? Is that going

[1:21:59] to be a one-time thing? And we're going

[1:22:01] to need spare cans in case they're

[1:22:03] damaged or

[1:22:05] you know, it's a big capital investment.

[1:22:07] Mr. Mayor.

[1:22:08] Um so I guess I just want to clarify a

[1:22:11] couple points.

[1:22:13] How many trucks right now do we collect

[1:22:14] recycling with?

[1:22:17] Two, sometimes three. Okay. Depending on

[1:22:19] the

[1:22:20] If we were to push recycling collection

[1:22:22] to twice a month instead of every week,

[1:22:25] would that free up some of the resources

[1:22:27] to be able to collect garbage on the

[1:22:28] other

[1:22:29] weeks? Do we collect that much recycling

[1:22:31] that we need it every We do collect a

[1:22:33] fair amount of recycling. For the people

[1:22:34] who recycle. Yes, okay. Yes, and we do

[1:22:36] pay

[1:22:39] You know, like four years ago, five

[1:22:40] years ago, recycling was free. There was

[1:22:42] no charge for it. We actually pay more

[1:22:44] now to dispose of recycling than we do

[1:22:46] the actual trash. Okay. So.

[1:22:49] And I guess I said at the beginning

[1:22:51] April 1st or first work day of April, we

[1:22:53] start yard waste. And there's typically

[1:22:55] two trucks out for yard waste. What

[1:22:56] we've been trying to do now is to put a

[1:22:58] cardboard truck out because technically

[1:23:00] cardboard is supposed to be separated,

[1:23:02] not part of the recycle. It's supposed

[1:23:03] to be flattened and tied. And what we

[1:23:06] did find is we found an opportunity to

[1:23:08] remove the cardboard from the recycle

[1:23:10] stream because we pay per ton. Cardboard

[1:23:12] can get heavy. There's a lot of

[1:23:14] cardboard out because of, you know,

[1:23:16] um

[1:23:16] everybody getting home deliveries.

[1:23:19] Um so we are We did find a revenue

[1:23:22] source for cardboard. It's not much, but

[1:23:23] it's $20 a ton. So if we keep it out,

[1:23:25] we're disposing of that separately and

[1:23:27] getting $20 a ton. But if you think

[1:23:29] about it, it's also offsetting the

[1:23:31] hundred and some dollar per seventy some

[1:23:32] dollars a ton that we're paying to get

[1:23:34] rid of.

[1:23:35] So again, that's two more trucks. That's

[1:23:39] more people in more trucks. So

[1:23:41] everything we do to try and separate

[1:23:43] stuff, to keep it to separate trucks,

[1:23:45] um and Deputy Commissioner Lunn is

[1:23:47] looking at a grant right now.

[1:23:49] Um we possibly get what they call a

[1:23:51] split um box truck. You put recycle on

[1:23:54] one half, cardboard on the other. They

[1:23:55] dump separately. So we are looking into

[1:23:57] a grant to see if we could qualify to

[1:23:59] get a couple of those trucks.

[1:24:01] But that's going to be next year. So as

[1:24:03] decisions are made for next year,

[1:24:05] we'd be in a better place,

[1:24:08] more prepared for it.

[1:24:11] And just to follow up on that, you said

[1:24:12] that to modify current existing trucks

[1:24:15] is expensive. And then you said that

[1:24:16] four trucks we have right now were

[1:24:18] outfitted with the They do have a a book

[1:24:21] to hook on top of your can and to lift

[1:24:23] it. Just understand every time you do

[1:24:25] that, it's time.

[1:24:27] So if you went to a house that had four

[1:24:28] cans,

[1:24:30] you're going to lift one can at a time.

[1:24:32] At the speed of what that truck decides

[1:24:33] to lift it. And then put it down and

[1:24:34] pick up the next one.

[1:24:36] Um

[1:24:37] and that amount of time, our staff would

[1:24:39] probably be down another block picking

[1:24:41] up trash.

[1:24:43] Because it they're moving faster than

[1:24:45] that mechanical arm can pick that up on

[1:24:47] the back. It's not the one arm one you

[1:24:50] see up anymore. You know, this is right

[1:24:52] on the back with a hook. You got to hook

[1:24:53] it to the can, lift it up and dumps it.

[1:24:55] And it goes back down. You want to hook

[1:24:56] it hook another one manually. So.

[1:25:00] It's time consuming.

[1:25:03] Any other questions or comments?

[1:25:05] Uh so um in that same conversation I was

[1:25:07] having with Mr. Lunn, uh

[1:25:09] I think one of his recommendations was

[1:25:11] we have a sticker program where we are

[1:25:13] able to allow individuals that already

[1:25:14] have cans

[1:25:16] uh

[1:25:17] to ensure that as long as it had a lid

[1:25:18] attached to it, you could continue using

[1:25:20] that.

[1:25:22] So I think that could be

[1:25:24] Yeah. If we could have tried to

[1:25:25] accommodate it if we're going to

[1:25:27] standardize the cans

[1:25:28] again, you know, a flop lid and it has

[1:25:31] to be in the can and the lid is closed.

[1:25:34] And that's the amount of trash we would

[1:25:35] take.

[1:25:37] Uh so I think in the spirit of that,

[1:25:38] having options I think allows us to

[1:25:40] respond uh appropriately to anyone that

[1:25:43] prefers bags or people that prefer cans.

[1:25:45] I know it definitely is a

[1:25:47] um

[1:25:49] trash collection's impact varies between

[1:25:51] districts. Uh but needing to ensure that

[1:25:54] we are accommodating and not

[1:25:55] stereotyping any individuals is

[1:25:57] important to find that that balance. And

[1:25:59] I think with a tiered approach, I'm one

[1:26:01] vote. I think and we went to Slick.

[1:26:04] They're very open to maintaining and I

[1:26:06] can tell you from a a trash and just a

[1:26:09] presentation standpoint, I prefer the bin concept also. I do not prefer

[1:26:14] the cost. Uh so I definitely recognize

[1:26:16] that is a big factor of it. But if

[1:26:17] people can incorporate what they

[1:26:18] currently do have with the expectation

[1:26:21] that some people will need to buy new

[1:26:22] cans,

[1:26:23] I think that we can realistically look

[1:26:25] at what that could look like and if you

[1:26:26] could build a fee structure for that.

[1:26:28] Mr. Mayor? Well, I was just going to

[1:26:29] follow up on that. Um

[1:26:31] I don't like the cost of having to buy

[1:26:34] bins. However, I think that

[1:26:37] if we were to move to telling homeowners

[1:26:40] that they had to have bins that with

[1:26:41] lids. Like I know with me specifically,

[1:26:43] I am getting ready to buy new garbage

[1:26:45] cans. So I'm going to buy the garbage

[1:26:46] cans that have wheels, that have the

[1:26:47] bins attached. So if we were to go to,

[1:26:49] you know, telling homeowners you're

[1:26:51] allowed two cans of that size,

[1:26:54] um

[1:26:55] I think that would be

[1:26:57] Only two cans is

[1:26:58] >> Yeah, but we're talking one one trash.

[1:27:00] Um

[1:27:01] but I do agree I'm not a fan of the cost

[1:27:03] of having to purchase bins for

[1:27:05] everybody.

[1:27:08] And also one of the worries was as soon

[1:27:11] as we start allocating bins, this is not

[1:27:13] my thought, this is Mr. Mr. Lunn's and

[1:27:15] also Mr. Toro's, we are now required to

[1:27:18] replace them in X amount of years. So

[1:27:20] this cost does not go away and

[1:27:23] conceivably gets bigger as we

[1:27:25] continue to embrace this. So

[1:27:27] again, I think the the approach of

[1:27:29] leaning into homeowners, saying, "Hey,

[1:27:30] if you have a resource, you can use it

[1:27:32] if it's acceptable and if it meets the

[1:27:33] conditions." Um

[1:27:35] there was also the consideration of

[1:27:38] having the pickups be associated with

[1:27:40] white goods. And I think the worry was

[1:27:42] the volume could be too big and then you

[1:27:44] were then worrying about overtime.

[1:27:48] If If you do with the white goods again,

[1:27:50] you have to look at putting a limit on

[1:27:52] the bulk items because if there's no

[1:27:54] limit,

[1:27:55] you don't know what you're going to get.

[1:27:56] And And we know right now that, you

[1:27:58] know,

[1:27:59] it is an issue. People bring stuff in

[1:28:01] from outside and they they put it at a

[1:28:03] friend's or relatives'

[1:28:05] for bulk removal because it's free.

[1:28:07] So you you have to somehow

[1:28:10] limit it so it can't be done like that.

[1:28:12] By putting a, you know, a limit of one

[1:28:14] bulk item, two bulk items per month,

[1:28:16] you're not going to go to a house with,

[1:28:17] you know, six mattresses, a a dresser,

[1:28:20] you know, that came from three houses

[1:28:22] that somebody was paying at somewhere

[1:28:23] else. We run into that.

[1:28:25] Um this is why we started the sticker

[1:28:26] program to try and eliminate it. And

[1:28:29] I feel it did um because people, no

[1:28:32] matter what happened, if they brought it

[1:28:33] into the city, somebody had to put the

[1:28:35] sticker on it. Whether it was your

[1:28:37] family, whether it was a relative, it

[1:28:39] wasn't going to be picked up for free

[1:28:40] anymore.

[1:28:41] And if we do bags and we don't do cans

[1:28:43] or bins,

[1:28:44] when we get to a house that has bags,

[1:28:47] how many bags are we going to take?

[1:28:50] If we say what fits in a 50 gallon can,

[1:28:53] fits in 50 gallon can. That's all we

[1:28:54] take.

[1:28:55] If we say six bags and you go and

[1:28:57] there's eight bags,

[1:28:59] we're going to send a code officer or

[1:29:00] nuisance officer to the site and we're

[1:29:02] going to pick it up.

[1:29:04] Where does it end?

[1:29:05] All right, I had nine bags instead of

[1:29:06] eight. We took eight last week. We don't want to take the ninth this

[1:29:08] week.

[1:29:09] If you have them measured them out,

[1:29:12] one can. And if And if it's the

[1:29:14] council's choice and you want them to

[1:29:15] have residents at Home Depot,

[1:29:18] Lowe's, wherever. You say you buy a 45

[1:29:20] or 50-gallon can, buy it yourself. And

[1:29:22] that's what we take. We're not going to

[1:29:23] take loose trash bags or anything else

[1:29:26] anymore like that. It's got to be in a

[1:29:27] can, and that's what we're going to

[1:29:29] take. And you're going to have be

[1:29:30] charged for

[1:29:31] that size can. And if you want to, you

[1:29:33] can be start charging for two cans. If

[1:29:35] you want three cans, you can charge for

[1:29:36] three cans because we're paying for

[1:29:38] that. Paying through time, paying

[1:29:40] through the tip fees.

[1:29:44] Mr. Just to follow up on white goods and

[1:29:47] bulk, would we be combining white goods

[1:29:49] with bulk so you would get one or would

[1:29:50] you still separate?

[1:29:52] I prefer not because white goods is

[1:29:54] different than than bulk. We have a

[1:29:55] metal truck that takes the white goods,

[1:29:57] which is typically washers and dryers

[1:29:59] and air conditioners. That's separate.

[1:30:01] It can't be disposed of with

[1:30:04] bulk items like mattresses, couches,

[1:30:06] chairs, ottomans, stuff like that. So,

[1:30:08] you have to keep everything separate cuz

[1:30:09] when you go to the tip floor, they're

[1:30:11] not going to take it. You can't dump

[1:30:12] white goods on the tip floor. That goes

[1:30:14] somewhere else. So, and then TVs is

[1:30:16] another truck we have. We have a TV

[1:30:18] truck out every day. It's TVs are

[1:30:20] separate. You can't mix electronics with

[1:30:22] any other waste.

[1:30:24] So, there's a fleet of trucks taking

[1:30:27] separate material on a daily basis.

[1:30:32] Thank you. Um

[1:30:34] So, one of my last comments was um

[1:30:37] wanting to make sure we don't move away

[1:30:38] too far from wanting to make sure that

[1:30:40] we address the jackpot issues. And the

[1:30:42] picture that we saw uh last session was

[1:30:45] indicative of someone just dumping their

[1:30:47] whole house that they recently

[1:30:48] purchased. And wanting to know if there

[1:30:50] is something we can put in place to make

[1:30:52] it a requirement, a mandate to purchase

[1:30:54] a dumpster moving forward. So, I think

[1:30:56] those are one of the issues we're trying

[1:30:57] to curb. I know that's an option on the

[1:30:59] city website, but I don't know if it's a

[1:31:01] requirement.

[1:31:03] It's not a requirement.

[1:31:04] Council has to make a decision on that.

[1:31:09] So, I think once we get to the like

[1:31:10] recommendation stage, which I think

[1:31:11] we're getting closer to, I think that

[1:31:13] should be a requirement.

[1:31:15] Mr. Engler. Uh I think that's something

[1:31:17] that we should probably address sooner

[1:31:19] rather than later just because with

[1:31:21] the um suspension of the sticker program

[1:31:24] not coming up fast, but as we're

[1:31:26] approaching that deadline, I think

[1:31:27] that's something that we should identify

[1:31:29] first. So, I think we should identify

[1:31:30] what we consider a jackpot. If it's a

[1:31:32] cubic foot, if it's two cubic feet,

[1:31:34] three cubic feet, whatever we decide it

[1:31:35] is, or if it's a mattress, two that,

[1:31:37] whatever.

[1:31:39] Um just so that the guys in general

[1:31:41] services know what to pick up and what

[1:31:43] not to cuz I think we all agree that the

[1:31:45] picture we saw last committee meeting

[1:31:46] was excessive. And we should not be

[1:31:49] asking our our gentlemen to pick up that

[1:31:51] much garbage. Mr. Engler, you can't

[1:31:53] leave it out on the street because then

[1:31:55] we have to go back another day to get

[1:31:56] it. And that just takes more time

[1:31:57] because now we're sending trucks

[1:32:00] you know, what we should have picked up

[1:32:01] today at the curb out tomorrow to go

[1:32:03] backwards. So, we don't you know,

[1:32:05] and I said it 100 times, it's the one

[1:32:08] service we have to do every day. It has

[1:32:09] to get done every day because it just

[1:32:11] blocks us down.

[1:32:13] You know, garbage can't be left on the

[1:32:14] street.

[1:32:15] Um

[1:32:16] so, usually the guys go through. If it's

[1:32:18] a jackpot, they're taking it. We used to

[1:32:20] try and cite everybody, take a picture

[1:32:22] of it, give it to nuisance, send out a

[1:32:23] violation, but we have to pick it up or

[1:32:25] we're going back tomorrow. So, we're

[1:32:27] sending an extra truck going backwards

[1:32:28] through a district we already went

[1:32:30] through yesterday.

[1:32:32] Again, if you have a specific number of

[1:32:35] cans and specific number of items on a

[1:32:37] monthly basis,

[1:32:39] there shouldn't be jackpots other than a

[1:32:42] land landlord is paying for the premium

[1:32:45] rate.

[1:32:49] Mr. Truss.

[1:32:50] Uh so, I think within the spirit of

[1:32:52] that, I think as we kind of purpose for

[1:32:54] what the budget will potentially look

[1:32:56] like moving forward, I know for me, uh

[1:32:58] we have newer council members, part of

[1:32:59] my hesitation was just a lack of

[1:33:01] confidence in our current system. I can

[1:33:03] tell you uh I'm leaning more towards

[1:33:05] that consideration for a tiered

[1:33:06] approach. Um

[1:33:08] what I can do, if you're in agreement

[1:33:09] Mr. Engler, cuz we're the only people on

[1:33:11] the committee, is can draft up a summary

[1:33:13] email

[1:33:14] um and then I can forward that to you

[1:33:16] and the mayor. And if you're able to

[1:33:17] build like a price um

[1:33:20] a uh like a price recommendation for

[1:33:23] both those tiers, also with the ability

[1:33:25] to prorate a second trash can. Um

[1:33:28] the question I'm also asking though is

[1:33:30] what is the true trick What is the true

[1:33:32] cost of our waste collection in the

[1:33:33] city? And I think we can identify these

[1:33:36] two tier approaches,

[1:33:37] what is the difference? Is that a number

[1:33:39] that you can tell us Oh, I think we

[1:33:41] presented that for the '26 budget. We

[1:33:43] gave you a full breakdown. We moved the

[1:33:45] appropriate seasonals that were in a

[1:33:48] different fund over to waste. So, we can

[1:33:51] pull that up um

[1:33:53] from last year because those those costs

[1:33:56] were given to you

[1:33:57] um as part of the budget. And we're

[1:34:00] going to know that those costs will

[1:34:01] slightly change because we're currently

[1:34:03] in negotiations with the union that

[1:34:05] picks up all the trash. So, they're

[1:34:07] still being paid the 25 rate. And those

[1:34:10] contract negotiations are currently in

[1:34:12] the process. So, that will change

[1:34:14] depending on

[1:34:16] negotiations. Great. So, in essence,

[1:34:18] it'd be new numbers because we didn't

[1:34:20] consider the tiered approach. We have

[1:34:22] new council members that weren't part of

[1:34:23] those discussions. And that balance

[1:34:25] would be different. Right?

[1:34:27] >> Well, the tier The costs are going to be

[1:34:29] the same. How you want to allocate the

[1:34:32] revenue would be different. Right. So,

[1:34:34] it'd be different numbers. So, we just

[1:34:35] need to see those new numbers.

[1:34:37] I can give you the new numbers and the

[1:34:38] costs and we can allocate what the

[1:34:39] revenues would change. Correct? Based on

[1:34:42] the tier recommendation. If you're in

[1:34:44] agreement with that. Mr. Engler. Yeah, I

[1:34:46] think that um getting those numbers back

[1:34:48] to us

[1:34:50] would be a great step in the right

[1:34:51] direction. But I also I just want to

[1:34:52] stress the fact that once the moratorium

[1:34:55] or the suspension of the sticker program

[1:34:57] ends in June,

[1:34:58] we're going to go back to picking up

[1:34:59] everything on the curb. So, I think that

[1:35:01] we definitely need to consider

[1:35:03] what we're going to do with bulk items

[1:35:04] cuz I know we keep talking about next

[1:35:06] year and how we're going to address it

[1:35:07] in the next year.

[1:35:09] And but what are we going to do from

[1:35:10] June to December is my concern Well,

[1:35:13] unless you change the city charter.

[1:35:16] We're not going to pick everything up on

[1:35:17] Yeah, that's my question is are we going

[1:35:19] to do something for those 6 months?

[1:35:20] Again, I'm only one vote.

[1:35:22] Um so, I think we definitely need to

[1:35:23] talk about that before we start talking

[1:35:25] about next year because that's the first

[1:35:27] thing our guys are going to be dealing

[1:35:28] with on a day-to-day.

[1:35:30] So, I like the two bulk pick up per

[1:35:33] site. I think that reads clearly for the

[1:35:36] staff to understand

[1:35:38] what is within their ability to pick up.

[1:35:40] And they have to pick up it regardless.

[1:35:42] So, I think it makes it clear how to

[1:35:43] kind of assess fees. Please correct me

[1:35:46] if I'm wrong on that. Um

[1:35:47] and then it's also easier for the

[1:35:48] community to recognize. I think one of

[1:35:50] the stipulations with the sticker

[1:35:52] program was it had too many numbers, it

[1:35:54] had too many labels, and you couldn't

[1:35:56] easily rip it off when you were talking

[1:35:57] to someone about it. It was let me take

[1:35:59] out this dictionary and figure out

[1:36:02] what item you're you're since you

[1:36:04] haven't paid for it. So, I think if we

[1:36:05] clean it up, give them one number, I

[1:36:07] think that makes it more feasible to

[1:36:08] manage. And then that is something that

[1:36:10] I would be prepared to vote on once we

[1:36:12] had numbers.

[1:36:14] Yeah, I agree.

[1:36:16] Great. Mr. Thank you. Um so, I I um I

[1:36:19] like the fact of um

[1:36:21] when you have a jackpot or more than

[1:36:23] your two items or money cleaning the

[1:36:24] house out after someone left,

[1:36:27] um you know, you call for a pick up.

[1:36:29] Whether we send the you know, we have a

[1:36:31] set rate. Again, what's a jackpot?

[1:36:34] Right now, it's going to be two more

[1:36:35] than two items.

[1:36:37] It'd be more than two items and we can't weigh anything anymore. Can

[1:36:41] we weigh anything? No. It gets weighed

[1:36:43] when the truck goes across the tip

[1:36:44] floor. But like the 3 by 3 by 3 is one

[1:36:47] cubic something or a couch or whatever.

[1:36:49] But can you get a a curb amount just by

[1:36:53] what's on the curb?

[1:36:55] Nobody builds it as a cube.

[1:36:59] >> [laughter]

[1:36:59] >> It's not a cubic cube. Not going to

[1:37:00] build your garbage pile in cubic feet.

[1:37:02] Well, I I look at the curb like this by this.

[1:37:06] Um so, I'm wondering, you know, we have

[1:37:07] to have a I think a

[1:37:09] set of set price or we provide them with

[1:37:12] a dumpster at a certain amount at a

[1:37:13] certain cost. I I you know, Well, what

[1:37:16] and

[1:37:17] like I tried to say is

[1:37:19] the people who have, you know,

[1:37:21] apartments, the people who are moving in

[1:37:23] and out of more frequently, that, you

[1:37:25] know,

[1:37:26] they may be the ones that are generating

[1:37:27] more than a jackpot. They have the

[1:37:29] tiered approach. And you pay the premium

[1:37:31] service rate. If you want us to take it,

[1:37:34] whatever number it is, at $600 a year,

[1:37:36] we're going to take it. Okay?

[1:37:38] We know that. Okay? Um

[1:37:40] Who will the higher end service Right.

[1:37:42] And you know, if you if you have a

[1:37:43] two-unit or you have a three-unit, you

[1:37:45] that's what you pay for. You know?

[1:37:48] And schedule of pick up order.

[1:37:51] And the and the and the drivers and the staff would know if yeah, they

[1:37:55] go by the house and

[1:37:56] you know, it's allocated with a certain

[1:37:58] color can. We know this is the they're

[1:38:00] paying in a day. It's paperwork.

[1:38:02] Um and then lastly beyond that, I know

[1:38:04] as we talk about uh

[1:38:06] ways of incorporating new initiatives in

[1:38:08] the city, I really think composting is

[1:38:10] an area for consideration. Uh there's a

[1:38:12] company that is doing it and has

[1:38:14] partnered with Solar Elementary and has

[1:38:17] a uh receptacle at the fair uh farm

[1:38:20] urban farm.

[1:38:22] Um

[1:38:23] if the council is open to that, I'd like

[1:38:24] to schedule a presentation.

[1:38:26] Um I think that is a low threshold

[1:38:28] [snorts] cost for one of these devices.

[1:38:29] It costs about $20,000. They would allow

[1:38:31] them to expand their scope to another

[1:38:33] elementary school and potentially a

[1:38:35] couple hundred households in the city,

[1:38:37] 100 additional households. And I think

[1:38:38] as we look at the cost of waste

[1:38:40] increasing, I think if we reduce the

[1:38:43] waste that our city generates, we can

[1:38:45] not only make a huge environmental

[1:38:47] impact just for future generations, if

[1:38:49] not today, um but really get out some

[1:38:51] fiscal savings as well. So,

[1:38:53] Mr. Truss.

[1:38:54] So, as I'm just saying, one of the

[1:38:56] aspects of it, I think that's a that's

[1:38:57] the thing you do. Saving is also putting

[1:38:59] money back in your pocket right across

[1:39:00] the board. It's like making more Mr.

[1:39:02] Fund. And just as I'm sitting here and

[1:39:03] listening, and I keep going back to the

[1:39:05] one point you said that this is

[1:39:06] something we're going to cans So, I'm

[1:39:08] sitting here thinking that you talked

[1:39:09] about the place you can

[1:39:10] Yeah, no, I just want to make sure I'm

[1:39:11] clear. Now, I'm not talking about

[1:39:12] composting. I'm talking about the can

[1:39:14] part of it. I composted once.

[1:39:18] You know, I I heard you say that this is

[1:39:20] something we're going to have to revisit

[1:39:21] when we talk about replacing it and then

[1:39:22] as you're gathering numbers, is there

[1:39:24] any chance you can just give me an I

[1:39:25] know it's not going to be precise in any

[1:39:27] way, but I've asked before just an

[1:39:28] estimation of what it's going to be

[1:39:30] going forward, right? You can't control

[1:39:32] costs, but give me an idea of what it is

[1:39:33] because if we're talking about replacing

[1:39:34] cans, this is now going to be a budget

[1:39:36] line item over and over again go by 2030

[1:39:39] 2031. We're now we have to build in

[1:39:42] replacing $5 million worth of cans

[1:39:44] inside of the budget. Right? As you're

[1:39:47] I'm using a very over the Yeah, number

[1:39:50] at the moment, but cuz you'll have to

[1:39:51] place them all at once. You can build

[1:39:52] them out of time, whatever you need to

[1:39:53] do, but is there any way that you can

[1:39:55] kind of get us those ideal numbers of

[1:39:56] what that would look like down the road?

[1:39:59] Replacement cans come off every

[1:40:03] What is your What would be your

[1:40:03] recommendation over replacing the can?

[1:40:05] Right, I'm going to I mean some of the

[1:40:07] cans we use right now that are broke,

[1:40:08] cracked, and with holes in them. Our

[1:40:10] people use them too, but To what extent?

[1:40:15] Um what would you say the recommended

[1:40:17] would be the replacement time frame? I'm

[1:40:18] going to rely on expertise with it. I

[1:40:20] also could implement that the you know,

[1:40:21] the residents have to purchase their own

[1:40:23] cans. It's like they do We have

[1:40:24] commercial customers water meters. We

[1:40:27] They're the responsible

[1:40:29] responsibility of the of the of the

[1:40:30] property owner to maintain those meters

[1:40:32] in good working condition. If they

[1:40:34] freeze or they break, they have to

[1:40:35] replace them, but you know, again, I can

[1:40:37] give you the numbers. Yeah, no, I'm just

[1:40:39] so because as I was saying so I'm just

[1:40:40] cuz I want to make sure I understand

[1:40:41] especially when we're talking about

[1:40:43] changing the code and all these little

[1:40:44] things.

[1:40:45] Um if we're going to do it, if we're

[1:40:46] going to replace it, if we break it,

[1:40:48] that same concept, right? I'm just

[1:40:49] trying to think of like what that's

[1:40:50] going to look like. We need stock. We

[1:40:52] need all the things you said. So I'm

[1:40:53] just thinking of numbers out loud and I wanted to ask you while you're

[1:40:56] here if that's something you could

[1:40:57] provide. Yeah, we can do an estimate of

[1:40:59] how many we think we need on hand and

[1:41:00] how many we would be we would replace

[1:41:02] and

[1:41:03] you know, a manufacturer one normal use

[1:41:05] would probably be able to give us a

[1:41:07] you know, age from before replacement.

[1:41:10] Thank you.

[1:41:11] Yes, ma'am.

[1:41:13] These wide variants in the cans from you

[1:41:17] just get a standard can you're picking

[1:41:19] up in up at Lowe's or Home Depot or

[1:41:21] whatever or you can have ones that have

[1:41:24] an RFID chip put in it

[1:41:26] or you can have it coded with a barcode

[1:41:30] so that you know that it's coming from

[1:41:31] your house or my house which adds to the

[1:41:35] management tools that we have. But

[1:41:38] again, that increases the cost. Some of

[1:41:40] these things are integrated

[1:41:43] in [clears throat] with the technology

[1:41:44] that's being deployed with

[1:41:47] CTG

[1:41:49] where again,

[1:41:51] using the artificial technology AI they

[1:41:54] would uh

[1:41:55] artificial intelligence be able to take

[1:41:58] what looks like a random pile of

[1:42:01] debris at the curb and say that yes,

[1:42:03] that is

[1:42:04] 2.7 cubic feet or it's 4.2 cubic feet.

[1:42:09] If they say that they can do that with a

[1:42:12] fairly high degree of accuracy over time

[1:42:15] and that's why they're collecting the

[1:42:17] data now and going forward we'll be able

[1:42:20] to narrow that down and again better

[1:42:22] manage

[1:42:24] relative to both sides to the

[1:42:25] customer putting uh

[1:42:28] something to the curb or what we're

[1:42:29] collecting and what we're charging.

[1:42:32] I'm a big big fan of having data. I

[1:42:34] appreciate the cap of the presentation

[1:42:35] that you brought in earlier today as

[1:42:37] well. So I mean, I would love to see it

[1:42:38] all come together and work perfectly. Um

[1:42:41] I I also

[1:42:42] I hope that it all works out as supposed

[1:42:44] to, but hope is not a plan. So that's

[1:42:45] why I asked the question I asked, but I

[1:42:46] appreciate you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:42:48] Um I think along that line similar to

[1:42:50] the like New York City license plates,

[1:42:51] it wasn't something that went into

[1:42:52] effect overnight. There was a

[1:42:53] transitional period. So I think if

[1:42:55] there's a preferred can for the city, as

[1:42:56] long as you get that information to the

[1:42:58] residents and that's the tier you are

[1:43:01] recommending to go with, if we continue

[1:43:02] with that,

[1:43:03] I think just giving people more

[1:43:04] information options is how we meet the

[1:43:07] varying needs of how people want to put

[1:43:09] out waste in this city and this country.

[1:43:10] Mr. O'Brien. Yeah,

[1:43:12] and members of the council, just

[1:43:13] following up on on your thoughts and and

[1:43:15] the mayor's comments.

[1:43:17] The the ordinance which you extended it

[1:43:19] the suspension uh

[1:43:22] wasn't signed by the mayor, but the

[1:43:24] effective date of that was March 20th.

[1:43:26] So 90 days from that is June 14th.

[1:43:29] So with committee cycles etc., what I'm

[1:43:32] I would recommend that

[1:43:34] uh Mr. LaFont is going to give you some

[1:43:36] more information next time and that you

[1:43:38] at that next meeting

[1:43:40] you

[1:43:41] give directions to Mr. LaFont and and

[1:43:43] then Mr. LaFont and our office the

[1:43:45] corporation counsel will have to go look

[1:43:47] at the code

[1:43:49] to get that where you want to put it

[1:43:51] into the code to make it effective.

[1:43:53] And then the best way would be to bring

[1:43:56] that draft ordinance back to you so you

[1:43:58] see it

[1:44:00] and then you can tweak it and then call

[1:44:02] for a public hearing 2 weeks after that

[1:44:06] and then that would

[1:44:08] give you the time that you need

[1:44:11] for us to draft it, to you review it, to

[1:44:14] have the public hearing, and to make any

[1:44:15] post public hearing

[1:44:18] amendments to the proposed ordinance

[1:44:20] that to get you to that June 14th date.

[1:44:24] So I think your next meeting you

[1:44:28] have to you know, vote on some di-

[1:44:30] vote on a direction so then we can start

[1:44:32] drafting legislation. I do some work.

[1:44:35] >> [laughter]

[1:44:36] >> Um but I can't speak for Mr. Anger, but

[1:44:37] I think the spirit of this conversation

[1:44:39] how it's been going,

[1:44:40] I I'm very well prepared to make a

[1:44:42] determination once we have the financial

[1:44:45] considerations as well. I feel really

[1:44:46] good with how this conversation has

[1:44:48] continued with all of our conversations.

[1:44:50] So definitely looking forward to seeing

[1:44:53] what this looks like on paper with

[1:44:55] finances and your

[1:44:57] wisdom, sir. Mr. Mayor.

[1:45:00] And the widely variant item

[1:45:03] that's still out there is we collected

[1:45:06] the 20-some thousand dollars in revenue

[1:45:09] from the sticker program

[1:45:12] on its initial deployment.

[1:45:15] Jeff,

[1:45:16] everybody's talking about that figure,

[1:45:18] but we printed over 300,000 dollars

[1:45:21] worth of free stickers.

[1:45:23] So there's really no way to adequately

[1:45:26] say we only

[1:45:28] generated 20-some thousand dollars in

[1:45:31] revenue. If we hadn't put out 300,000

[1:45:34] dollars in free stickers, there might

[1:45:35] have been a much more significant uh

[1:45:38] revenue source in there. And so it's

[1:45:41] hard to put a value on that. If we go

[1:45:43] back to some form of sticker program or

[1:45:45] some type of can program,

[1:45:49] uh

[1:45:50] again, there's there is revenue there

[1:45:53] uh and it's just how do you approach it

[1:45:55] in how do you do it in a manner that's

[1:45:57] fair and gets broad-based buy-in from

[1:46:01] the people in the city.

[1:46:03] Uh now are you with that $300,000, was

[1:46:05] that the projected cost of people using

[1:46:07] those resources or

[1:46:08] >> that's what we printed stickers, we

[1:46:10] mailed them out. You know, people got

[1:46:12] free stickers. So that was the value of

[1:46:16] all those. Some of them of course were

[1:46:17] probably thrown out in the garbage.

[1:46:19] Other ones ended up on

[1:46:21] items and were picked up for free where

[1:46:24] they didn't have to buy them.

[1:46:27] Um I would definitely say the

[1:46:30] implementation of programs is definitely

[1:46:32] a consideration that always has to be

[1:46:33] taken to account moving forward.

[1:46:36] Um but I sincerely hope that I think

[1:46:37] this is the best step moving forward for

[1:46:39] our city. I think if you just look at it

[1:46:41] based on just the consideration for

[1:46:43] workers compensation claims, I know

[1:46:44] you're talking about the time, but I

[1:46:46] also heard the time of them hustling. So

[1:46:48] I think if we slow down and we're more

[1:46:49] considerate and if they have items

[1:46:52] bundled together better, I think that

[1:46:54] protects us medically and also ensures

[1:46:56] that our city looks the way that I feel

[1:46:58] that it is which is pristine on the

[1:47:00] rise.

[1:47:01] Um

[1:47:02] so if there are any further questions or

[1:47:03] concerns, I'll summarize this to ensure

[1:47:05] that it captures the spirit of this

[1:47:07] conversation. The expectation will be

[1:47:09] that you and OGS are able to provide us

[1:47:12] the cost breakdown for the two-tier

[1:47:13] approach.

[1:47:15] Um and then I'll include the question

[1:47:16] about the replacement cans and how

[1:47:17] often. Uh if I missed anything else,

[1:47:19] please let me know, but definitely

[1:47:20] getting very excited with how this

[1:47:22] conversation continues to unfold.

[1:47:25] Thank you, Mr. LaFont.

[1:47:27] And then due to the nature in which we

[1:47:28] talked, I think we kind of lumped it

[1:47:30] lump lumped in bulk trash sticker

[1:47:31] program also.

[1:47:34] Um

[1:47:35] so I think

[1:47:37] the remaining 1 2 3 4 5 items

[1:47:42] number 13 through 17 will be discussed

[1:47:45] in executive session. There was a

[1:47:46] component in the request for redemption

[1:47:48] that I'd like for us to discuss the fees

[1:47:50] associated with

[1:47:52] um

[1:47:53] the putting the funds back

[1:47:55] to houses. Is that correct?

[1:47:59] Um yeah, it's on the agenda, but I um

[1:48:01] I'll meet you upstairs to get

[1:48:04] my sheet. I'll have to discuss that.

[1:48:07] Okay.

[1:48:08] Um

[1:48:09] in the meantime, I'd like to get that

[1:48:10] There was another item I was going to

[1:48:11] add. Uh so I can buy you some time and

[1:48:13] I'll

[1:48:14] stretch. So you want to just so I'm

[1:48:16] clear so I know what I'm grabbing,

[1:48:17] you're talking about the spreadsheet?

[1:48:18] Yes, ma'am. That I gave you? Okay, good.

[1:48:20] Perfect.

[1:48:21] Uh in the meantime, there was an item I

[1:48:22] wanted to add on for discussion. That's

[1:48:24] the reappointment of the Board of

[1:48:26] Assessment Review member.

[1:48:28] Um previously this was brought up and

[1:48:30] expectation was either to reappoint the

[1:48:32] individual currently in place or provide

[1:48:34] a recommendation. I think to this point

[1:48:36] we haven't supplied any names for so the

[1:48:39] recommendation is to

[1:48:41] reappoint Richard Jaeger

[1:48:44] for another just term.

[1:48:49] We'll do it. What committee is it for?

[1:48:51] Uh the Board of Assessment Review. Wait,

[1:48:53] what's under city planning?

[1:48:55] Um this is the one I'm asking.

[1:48:59] Uh so if there's no discussion or

[1:49:00] comment, I know Mr. Anger just brought

[1:49:02] that up. I'll bring it back.

[1:49:04] I need to base you.

[1:49:15] » Mr. Anger, it's the second. Yeah. Okay,

[1:49:17] we're waiting on the second.

[1:49:19] I make a motion.

[1:49:23] What's What is the current term of this?

[1:49:25] I think it's 2 years. Is it Is it a

[1:49:28] 2-year term for

[1:49:29] Barsh? Yeah.

[1:49:31] I think I'm not sure of the law. Okay.

[1:49:34] Turn off the

[1:49:35] Just to confirm, do we have any terms?

[1:49:37] How many What is the length of the term?

[1:49:39] What's the length of the term for Barsh?

[1:49:43] I don't know the length of the term.

[1:49:44] Feel like 2 is the default. I would say

[1:49:46] 3 years, but I'm not

[1:49:48] sure of

[1:49:50] Can we just say make a motion? Chairman,

[1:49:52] we'll we'll in the resolution we'll have

[1:49:54] the

[1:49:54] to the appointment. We'll put the term

[1:49:57] in the resolution for the time period,

[1:49:59] so everyone's on the same page. This is

[1:50:02] a new term and not a filling of a

[1:50:04] vacant seat.

[1:50:07] Uh so, right now one of the items I was

[1:50:09] going to add is us to reappoint Richard

[1:50:12] Jaeger to the Board of Assessment and

[1:50:13] Review.

[1:50:14] If there's no issues or concerns, may I

[1:50:16] have a motion?

[1:50:16] >> Yep. I'll second. All those in favor?

[1:50:18] Aye. Aye. And then we're just

[1:50:20] uh waiting for Ms. Barsh to return.

[1:50:23] So, for our last item

[1:50:24] Now, so we can

[1:50:25] Could I

[1:50:26] do the local 28

[1:50:29] Uh

[1:50:30] do we need to be in executive session

[1:50:31] for that?

[1:50:33] Uh

[1:50:33] well, okay. If you have any questions.

[1:50:35] Yeah, I think I think

[1:50:38] I would recommend that you know, if

[1:50:39] there's a

[1:50:40] questions or whatnot, there's any

[1:50:41] further discussion internally. Okay.

[1:51:16] I'm over here.

[1:51:33] Thanks.

[1:51:57] I'm not sure what the deal is, but

[1:52:01] So, we

[1:52:06] special motion.

[1:52:09] And once we confirm with Sigma Plotkin

[1:52:11] whether they have a person to just sign

[1:52:13] it over.

[1:52:29] You didn't fix the sheet. What is this?

[1:52:32] Can you say?

[1:52:43] This is supposed to be brought

[1:53:30] Do you have a prediction for tonight's

[1:53:31] game?

[1:53:32] 10 to 5.

[1:53:35] Let's see.

[1:53:39] They're playing playing

[1:53:41] in the NCAA.

[1:53:43] Either or. I'm feeling like it's busy.

[1:53:45] What does that mean? You're not going to

[1:53:46] rank it.

[1:53:47] But you

[1:53:48] Like all I'm doing is cheating on cuz

[1:53:50] anybody else is doing

[1:53:52] But no, I don't want to cheat.

[1:53:55] I am not

[1:53:56] I'm serious.

[1:54:00] You got to

[1:54:01] do the whole

[1:54:03] I teach a boy to

[1:54:04] cuz I

[1:54:05] I'm not going to

[1:54:06] I think I know what's going I'm not

[1:54:08] going to

[1:54:09] We have a

[1:54:11] Me too.

[1:54:16] That's it. You got

[1:54:18] to have a picture of the

[1:54:20] I'm sorry.

[1:54:21] It's okay.

[1:54:23] 20

[1:54:25] Like CPRB is 2-year old.

[1:54:27] 2 years?

[1:54:28] Yeah, I don't see any other way to do

[1:54:29] it.

[1:54:30] The bar

[1:54:37] I'm not going to

[1:54:38] choose a bar.

[1:54:41] I'm going to say

[1:54:46] » [clears throat]

[1:54:57] » Thank you.

[1:54:57] Can I drop it?

[1:55:00] I think you can take that back. No.

[1:55:02] I was in the packet. Oh, I didn't know.

[1:55:04] Is this a packet? It is a packet. Yeah.

[1:55:06] just in the interest of time I

[1:55:08] just printed a few. If you could just um

[1:55:10] who's going to take one sheet and pass

[1:55:12] it around. Oh, no, no.

[1:55:14] Okay, now one second.

[1:55:23] Um

[1:55:25] Yeah, can you pass one down and then

[1:55:33] You have it all, right?

[1:55:35] Uh

[1:55:36] No. Oh, I thought you had it. Okay, if

[1:55:37] you guys could just share.

[1:55:38] Thank you.

[1:55:40] This is something that you sent me

[1:55:41] digitally, correct? Yeah, I just printed

[1:55:42] a few, but I in the interest of time

[1:55:44] didn't print any.

[1:55:46] I pulled them out. Uh so, thank you, Ms.

[1:55:48] Barsh, for joining us first. Would you

[1:55:50] mind just kind of speaking to the spirit

[1:55:51] in which we have to consider this and

[1:55:53] then not go through every line, but just

[1:55:55] kind of summarize what this represents?

[1:55:59] Um so, it represents,

[1:56:00] as it's written at the top, the cost

[1:56:02] estimate considerations for foreclosing

[1:56:04] on a property

[1:56:06] and returning it to the former owners.

[1:56:09] It goes through estimated costs from

[1:56:13] uh law,

[1:56:14] from codes, OGS,

[1:56:17] receipts, assessors, mayor, clerk,

[1:56:20] council, and explains all the different

[1:56:23] estimations of time and costs that go

[1:56:26] into

[1:56:28] uh when the city forecloses on a

[1:56:30] property and then the city council

[1:56:32] chooses to sell a property back

[1:56:36] to the former owner. Uh this is

[1:56:40] the estimate of what I could come up

[1:56:42] with for the cost.

[1:56:45] And then uh was there a singular number

[1:56:48] or how I know you said per hour, so how

[1:56:50] does that taken into account?

[1:56:53] I mean, it's it's up to the council to

[1:56:55] determine what you want the final number

[1:56:57] to be.

[1:56:58] Uh I put here

[1:57:00] information for you to review. So,

[1:57:02] estimates of attorney time, of the cost

[1:57:05] of police, um

[1:57:08] considerations of what the council and

[1:57:10] the clerk spend in terms of time.

[1:57:13] I don't have an exact number. You can

[1:57:16] see from that these are estimations.

[1:57:18] Every case is different. Like if they

[1:57:20] don't have fire alarms or CO2 alarms,

[1:57:22] it's going to depend on how many rooms

[1:57:24] are in the house, how many we have to

[1:57:26] install. Um

[1:57:29] Many times, unfortunately, they don't

[1:57:30] have these alarms.

[1:57:32] Um

[1:57:32] so, I put an estimate of for for each if

[1:57:36] there's there's basement, bedrooms, um

[1:57:40] code enforcement should go out. Uh

[1:57:42] police and fire sometimes accompany

[1:57:44] them.

[1:57:46] As you can see, the law department does

[1:57:48] a tremendous amount of work um in

[1:57:50] foreclosing and then a tremendous amount

[1:57:53] of work in having to return it.

[1:57:56] Um as does receipts,

[1:57:58] uh our receipts department, um and then

[1:58:01] other departments

[1:58:04] uh put in time as well, so it it adds

[1:58:06] up.

[1:58:07] That's true. So, I know that we had put

[1:58:09] a number on it before in our one

[1:58:12] committee meeting. Um $5,250 is what we

[1:58:15] had generally said.

[1:58:17] >> That was an estimation. I was very clear

[1:58:19] on that.

[1:58:19] >> I 100% I'm not holding you to a final

[1:58:21] number. Okay, thank you. Yeah. I'm going

[1:58:23] to get to the final point of the

[1:58:24] question. Okay. So, I didn't mean to

[1:58:25] interrupt cuz we were in closed before,

[1:58:26] but I just wanted to make sure everyone

[1:58:27] was aware of what we had said. Um

[1:58:30] So, looking at this, I understand that

[1:58:31] you broke it down for hourly. Is there

[1:58:33] any way that you can give us an average

[1:58:35] rate between the two? Say, as any would

[1:58:37] as you would for foreclosure, right?

[1:58:39] Yes. This is we're going to foreclose,

[1:58:40] it could cost you 3,500

[1:58:42] and Once you talk to somebody who's had

[1:58:44] to go through the process, is there a

[1:58:46] way that you And I appreciate this

[1:58:47] information greatly. I want to make it

[1:58:49] on record and saying that. Appreciate

[1:58:50] you putting this together.

[1:58:52] Um is there any way we can get an idea

[1:58:53] so when people are going through this

[1:58:55] process, hopefully they never have to,

[1:58:56] right? Hopefully they can they don't

[1:58:58] fall on hard times, life doesn't get

[1:58:59] bad. We don't have a crazy tear from out

[1:59:02] of situation that's robbing people of

[1:59:04] everything and dignity in their

[1:59:06] household. But since we connected we're

[1:59:07] fighting for them, we're protecting for

[1:59:09] them. And I want to make sure that they

[1:59:10] have the opportunity if they can find

[1:59:12] that money, right? We had a gentleman

[1:59:13] whose community rallied behind him. Good

[1:59:15] citizen, has a court order, all the

[1:59:17] things. And they rallied behind him

[1:59:19] helping him raise that money. I just

[1:59:20] want to make sure that people have the

[1:59:21] opportunity to know exactly what they're

[1:59:23] trying to raise or have an idea of that

[1:59:25] light is killing right now. Have an idea

[1:59:27] of of what they would have to get so

[1:59:30] they have the opportunity to to get that

[1:59:32] property back, right? Cuz as I know just

[1:59:35] being a resident of the city as I've

[1:59:36] been said my entire life,

[1:59:38] household income can be the make or

[1:59:40] break of an entire family, right? A

[1:59:42] matriarch or grandmother who fell on

[1:59:43] hard times and situation Mr. Toro had

[1:59:45] brought up and and in the situation that

[1:59:47] we had gotten went forward, the older

[1:59:49] woman her son came, had no idea what was

[1:59:51] happening, and had all the money

[1:59:53] instantly, right? To to purchase back instantly as in that that

[1:59:57] night but got it to you in a regular

[1:59:59] time that you needed. So I want to make

[2:00:00] sure that if we can possibly if it's a

[2:00:03] that we have that listed so people know

[2:00:05] what that could entail and cost wise on

[2:00:07] top of getting their taxes.

[2:00:09] Do you mean in each particular case or

[2:00:12] do you mean

[2:00:12] >> I I understand each case is unique, but

[2:00:15] from your sheet just an idea of an

[2:00:16] average of what it would cost for us to

[2:00:18] go through the legal process of going

[2:00:19] back, right? Same thing that we just do

[2:00:21] if you have to install the three alarms.

[2:00:23] We have this is the average what it

[2:00:24] looks like so they can have a total idea

[2:00:26] and there's going to be more, right?

[2:00:27] You've broken it down for them they know

[2:00:29] and their house that they got six alarms

[2:00:31] and they need all six replaced cuz the

[2:00:33] house is a mansion whatever it may be,

[2:00:35] then they know it's going to be

[2:00:35] different. But just an idea of an

[2:00:37] average cost or whereabouts, right? Just

[2:00:39] like you gave me an estimate of 5200

[2:00:40] even though that's not We know that's

[2:00:42] not the final number. If there's an idea

[2:00:44] it won't exceed

[2:00:46] $25,000 to buy your house back when you

[2:00:48] owe $400 in taxes, right? Like that's

[2:00:51] that sounds crazy to me.

[2:00:53] So

[2:00:54] all the information that I can provide

[2:00:56] is here. I reached out to

[2:01:00] every department that's

[2:01:02] affected by these cases.

[2:01:04] Um so I

[2:01:06] I'm a lawyer not a finance person.

[2:01:08] >> So

[2:01:10] And this is this is what they could look

[2:01:12] at.

[2:01:12] >> on you, let me be clear. I'm looking at

[2:01:14] just trying to make it simplified for

[2:01:16] people, right? As we just talked about

[2:01:18] like the sticker program of $300,000 and

[2:01:20] all the big like there's there's a

[2:01:22] 85-year-old woman who is going to

[2:01:24] struggle maybe going through all this if

[2:01:26] she doesn't have assistance, right? And

[2:01:28] the community's trying to help her.

[2:01:29] Hopefully she can find someone or a

[2:01:30] young man or a grandson or whatever that

[2:01:32] can help her. I was just asking for if

[2:01:33] there was a more simple I'm reading this

[2:01:35] perfectly fine. I track with you, I do

[2:01:37] the legal side, I understand it. I was

[2:01:39] just saying if there was a way that we

[2:01:40] can have this a simplified version of

[2:01:42] this is what it could entail. That's all

[2:01:44] I was asking. And I'm not putting that

[2:01:45] solely on you cuz I know that doesn't

[2:01:47] fall directly on you either.

[2:01:49] Just saying if you have cuz I know

[2:01:50] you've done the legwork if that was a

[2:01:51] way that you could possibly just give me

[2:01:54] a roundabout. That was all. Sure. Um

[2:01:56] it's

[2:01:57] I can't provide anything further beyond

[2:01:58] this. I've

[2:02:00] put down all the numbers and estimations

[2:02:02] I can think of. The council is welcome

[2:02:05] to

[2:02:06] do the math and add them up and talk to

[2:02:09] the clerk and and and account for the

[2:02:11] council's time and

[2:02:14] get if you want further information from

[2:02:15] other departments you're welcome to uh

[2:02:19] This I spent a lot of time doing this

[2:02:21] and I I don't have anything further to

[2:02:22] add. It's it's all here.

[2:02:24] And uh

[2:02:27] I don't have anything further. This is

[2:02:29] very much appreciated. Thank you for

[2:02:30] putting it together. Thank you. But I'll

[2:02:31] just say as a point of clarity meaning

[2:02:32] to your previous point about

[2:02:35] not a mathematician, the council's not

[2:02:36] timekeepers. So without having an

[2:02:38] understanding of how many hours each

[2:02:39] department contributed to this,

[2:02:41] that is just a lot of numbers. And I

[2:02:43] know you said that you put a lot of work

[2:02:44] into this. I don't want to minimize that

[2:02:45] in any way, shape or form, but truly I

[2:02:48] think we need one number. If we

[2:02:50] recognize that that is not possible, I

[2:02:53] think having two tiers, one of there's

[2:02:55] an excessive amount of work that we're

[2:02:56] going to have to undo and redo, or

[2:02:58] here's a low threshold cost that we'll

[2:03:00] consider for a flight this amount. And I think if you can

[2:03:05] confidently say if this is ever

[2:03:07] challenged legally, I can justify those

[2:03:09] two numbers either way based on that

[2:03:12] breakdown. I can say as a council member

[2:03:14] that is what I was expecting. Um but to

[2:03:16] say

[2:03:17] um

[2:03:18] here's what the hourly expectations for

[2:03:20] each office are

[2:03:21] without the number of hours

[2:03:24] we would be guessing.

[2:03:24] >> But there everything Respectfully, Mr.

[2:03:27] President, it's all right here. The the

[2:03:29] hours are here, the amount of

[2:03:31] the estimated hourly rate is there. I I

[2:03:34] don't have anything further. I I have

[2:03:37] I don't keep track of every single

[2:03:39] minute

[2:03:41] for every single property.

[2:03:43] Absolutely.

[2:03:43] >> It's not necessary

[2:03:46] and I don't do that. And I am

[2:03:49] I'm I'm not hired to

[2:03:52] do financial stuff. This is the best

[2:03:54] that I can give to you.

[2:03:56] I'm a lawyer. I put together every legal

[2:03:59] literally every single legal issue that

[2:04:01] I could think of and there's probably

[2:04:02] more.

[2:04:03] This is

[2:04:05] I reached out to every department. You

[2:04:07] can see all the emails. If they didn't

[2:04:09] respond, I came up with I I sat there

[2:04:13] and tried to figure out what an hourly

[2:04:14] rate would be. This has been a

[2:04:16] tremendous amount of work.

[2:04:19] And no, I don't have two different tiers

[2:04:21] of numbers.

[2:04:22] This is what you can get from the law

[2:04:23] department. You're welcome to do with it

[2:04:25] as you like. You're also welcome to

[2:04:27] reach out to other departments if you'd

[2:04:28] like. This is what I'm providing in

[2:04:30] reply to your original question.

[2:04:33] Interesting. So I appreciate that

[2:04:35] statement and what you're saying

[2:04:37] and breaking this all down

[2:04:39] very nicely for us.

[2:04:41] How often or how how I'll change my line

[2:04:43] of questioning. You've done the buyback

[2:04:45] process, correct? You've done the

[2:04:47] paperwork yourself.

[2:04:48] Um on a basic house, how long have does

[2:04:51] it take you to do the legal paperwork

[2:04:52] per per case? And overestimate, give me an extra hour, give yourself

[2:04:56] like days, takes you 4 days to do the

[2:04:58] paperwork.

[2:04:59] Okay.

[2:05:00] I'm just asking. I'm asking for

[2:05:01] >> but it's it's right here. No, no, I'm

[2:05:03] not asking this. I'm just asking for a

[2:05:04] point. How long does it normally take

[2:05:06] for as a lawyer to to do it? I don't

[2:05:07] know. I'm asking for

[2:05:08] >> But it's on it's on the sheet. That's

[2:05:10] what I'm trying to say. I

[2:05:11] Okay, we'll go through the sheet. I

[2:05:13] think that might be might be better.

[2:05:15] So when we do the foreclosure, I think

[2:05:18] that's going to be the only way to go

[2:05:19] through these numbers.

[2:05:21] >> you don't have to go through line by

[2:05:22] line. I'm I feel like you feel like I'm

[2:05:23] not coming after you. I'm

[2:05:24] >> No, and I I recognize that but I'm I'm

[2:05:27] you're asking a question that

[2:05:29] the answers are here. These are these

[2:05:31] are my answers. So won't supersede this

[2:05:33] bottom line number of the two hours like

[2:05:35] the breakdown of what you're saying

[2:05:37] on the sheet. This is this is I put this

[2:05:39] together specifically in reply to the

[2:05:42] question of what is what amount of

[2:05:45] resources goes into Right. So then I

[2:05:48] guess I'm confused. So if it's right

[2:05:50] here then why would it be so hard to get

[2:05:51] us a simplified number if you broke it

[2:05:52] >> Because I'm not a mathematician.

[2:05:55] I don't feel

[2:05:55] >> Okay, the foreclosure I'm not asking you

[2:05:57] to be a mathematician to if you have it

[2:05:59] broken down per hours. And I I was a

[2:06:01] teacher before this so I don't you know,

[2:06:03] forgive me.

[2:06:04] But if you have it broken down and

[2:06:06] you're saying this is the hourly rate,

[2:06:08] it takes you two hours to do this item, and I'm just asking for a

[2:06:11] base figure. I don't I don't feel like

[2:06:13] I'm asking to be a mathematician and I

[2:06:15] apologize if that's how it comes off. I

[2:06:17] was just saying to start this the

[2:06:18] original question was was there just a

[2:06:20] basic simple number that we could start

[2:06:22] with so people would understand and then

[2:06:24] a top figure. I wasn't asking for two

[2:06:25] tiers, I wasn't asking for anything over

[2:06:27] the top. And I I like once again, not

[2:06:29] coming after you. I appreciate what it I

[2:06:31] look at numbers all day long. So I I

[2:06:33] understand this for myself. I was just

[2:06:36] asking if there was amount of time that

[2:06:39] a lawyer, even if it's not you, someone

[2:06:41] first year coming out, right? Fresh out

[2:06:43] of law school, if they were to sit down

[2:06:44] and do this

[2:06:45] you were assigned a new case. The mayor

[2:06:47] just hired this wonderful young lawyer

[2:06:48] out of law school. Awesome. It's going

[2:06:50] to take him six out her or him six

[2:06:52] hours. That was all I was asking for a

[2:06:54] number. If you feel you can't get that

[2:06:57] number, that's okay. I I understand your

[2:06:59] point. I just you just confused me when

[2:07:01] you said the other statements you made

[2:07:02] after that. I was good until you were

[2:07:03] like I'm not a mathematician and every I

[2:07:05] felt like I had asked something

[2:07:06] completely weird. Okay, so we can go

[2:07:08] through

[2:07:11] it and then you can add the numbers up.

[2:07:13] So it has to be

[2:07:17] We start with the foreclosure.

[2:07:19] We found this number by dividing.

[2:07:23] We have like a running amount of what

[2:07:25] the cost is.

[2:07:27] And then we have to also account for

[2:07:29] some of the other staffs and we

[2:07:31] estimated it at $1,700

[2:07:34] to foreclose. So you can take that as

[2:07:35] your first number.

[2:07:37] And then what you need to do is you're

[2:07:39] going to need to take fire alarms and

[2:07:41] CO2 alarms. Not every house needs them

[2:07:43] and sometimes they need different

[2:07:44] numbers.

[2:07:46] So if you assume that each house needs

[2:07:48] four of each,

[2:07:49] 50 * 4 is 200 * 2 is 400. So 1,700

[2:07:55] + 400.

[2:07:58] Then paralegal time for preparing and

[2:08:00] filing an ejection application for the

[2:08:02] sheriff. That's 1 hour at the paralegal

[2:08:04] time of $82 per hour. However, many

[2:08:07] times the paralegal works on overtime to

[2:08:09] do the foreclosure matters. So if she's

[2:08:11] doing it on overtime it's time and a

[2:08:14] half plus

[2:08:15] the value of the benefits.

[2:08:18] Attorney fielding emails and calls with

[2:08:19] the former owner, their attorney and or

[2:08:21] council members, 1 hour. I estimated

[2:08:24] attorney time at $140 an hour.

[2:08:28] So it's $149.

[2:08:30] Attorney preparing and transmitting

[2:08:31] legislative requests, 1 hour. Again,

[2:08:33] attorney time $140 an hour. Paralegal

[2:08:36] emailing the sheriff and updating

[2:08:38] records for ejections, you have to add

[2:08:40] in 0.75 times paralegal time. And again,

[2:08:44] many times she works on overtime so that

[2:08:46] $82 an hour may be closer to 100.

[2:08:50] Attorney preparing for pres-

[2:08:52] presenting legislative requests and

[2:08:54] fielding related questions from council

[2:08:55] members, half hour at $140 an hour.

[2:08:59] Attorney doing research,

[2:09:01] half hour at $140 an hour. Attorney

[2:09:03] drafting resolution, half hour at $140

[2:09:06] an hour.

[2:09:08] We skipped over the inspection costs.

[2:09:12] Um so I'm going to go back up here. I

[2:09:14] estimated that it would be 2 hours per

[2:09:16] inspection. I've never been on an

[2:09:18] inspection.

[2:09:20] Um I think that that's the amount of

[2:09:22] time it would take.

[2:09:24] Um and then you have to take fire at 2

[2:09:26] hours * $51 an hour.

[2:09:30] That was the number given to me as an

[2:09:33] average by

[2:09:34] uh Chief Burns. Codes,

[2:09:38] 2 hours *

[2:09:40] So codes and OGS,

[2:09:43] if you look there's an email attached

[2:09:45] from um Deputy Commissioner Lund.

[2:09:48] He put a lot of effort into breaking

[2:09:50] down the costs that you'll you'll see.

[2:09:52] Um and I took the number from there,

[2:09:54] $978.51

[2:09:57] as a flat fee

[2:09:59] uh because that's how he provided the

[2:10:01] information. So that has to be accounted

[2:10:03] for and you can look at what the

[2:10:05] specifics are from his email. So it's

[2:10:07] not that it's not that simple to be able

[2:10:09] to say, "Well, here's your perfect

[2:10:11] number." is what I'm trying to show you.

[2:10:12] have to do all of these

[2:10:13] calculations.

[2:10:15] Um

[2:10:17] And again, it's it winds up being an

[2:10:19] average. So we can go further down. Um

[2:10:22] >> But again, I don't think we need to. I

[2:10:23] sincerely I think the spirit in which we

[2:10:25] recently had the conversation it was the

[2:10:27] number that the council was assessing in

[2:10:29] fees didn't adequately represent the

[2:10:31] amount of work that it takes to re-give

[2:10:33] these properties back. Would you agree

[2:10:34] to that?

[2:10:36] the number didn't adequately

[2:10:37] represent? Is that what you're asking

[2:10:39] me? No, not not that number. Previously,

[2:10:41] I'm trying to draw a map of how we got

[2:10:43] here. So you're saying our $1,500 that

[2:10:44] we assessed was not adequately

[2:10:46] reflecting the work your department was

[2:10:47] doing previously.

[2:10:48] >> Right, it's obviously not reflective of

[2:10:50] it because just to do the foreclosure

[2:10:51] we're estimating $1,700 and that doesn't

[2:10:54] even

[2:10:55] That isn't doesn't even start the return

[2:10:57] process.

[2:10:58] >> understand that. So we're still on the

[2:10:59] same page. I would say recently we've

[2:11:01] had a discuss a discussion of what does

[2:11:04] that figure actually accurately reflect?

[2:11:06] And then we identified $5,250.

[2:11:09] It wasn't until your department came

[2:11:11] back and said, "I will not be able to

[2:11:13] legally support this if challenged."

[2:11:15] That is why we're here. So this was a

[2:11:17] question posed by your department so to

[2:11:19] the same conversation. I need to say

[2:11:22] this publicly for the fact that it could

[2:11:23] be misinterpreted. We are all here to do

[2:11:25] a job and if the job requires more,

[2:11:28] that is what we're here to do, to do a

[2:11:30] good service and to ensure that we're

[2:11:32] being responsive to the needs of the

[2:11:33] community. That is the expectation

[2:11:35] around this table. And if we acknowledge

[2:11:37] that, we can't accept anything less than

[2:11:39] that. And I think a basic conversation

[2:11:41] is I don't understand what is being

[2:11:44] outlined because there's a lot of

[2:11:45] numbers. That comes from a spirit of

[2:11:47] genuine genuineness. But if it is met

[2:11:50] with resistance, we're not going to be

[2:11:51] able to put forth a good recommendation

[2:11:53] and you're not going to be able to

[2:11:54] legally support it if challenged.

[2:11:56] >> Mr. President, I never said I could

[2:11:58] legally support the number. That was not

[2:12:00] at all what I said. I said it didn't

[2:12:02] adequately reflect the amount of time

[2:12:04] and the amount of cost. And I have now

[2:12:06] provided it to I am an attorney. I am

[2:12:09] not an accountant. I have gone and put

[2:12:12] together as much as I can for you. I

[2:12:14] have a license to practice law. I do not

[2:12:17] have a license to be an accountant, to

[2:12:19] do anything in financials other than

[2:12:21] manage my own. I would I would say if

[2:12:23] you were actually putting these numbers

[2:12:24] together, I'd be highly concerned. The

[2:12:26] expectation from me would be that you

[2:12:27] delegated and the number that you give

[2:12:29] back to the council represents something

[2:12:32] that you can confidently support as an

[2:12:33] attorney representing the city. That is

[2:12:35] my expectation. And to come back with

[2:12:37] hourly rates with the expectation

[2:12:40] that the council identifies this,

[2:12:42] further contending that it is not your

[2:12:44] role and expectation to do this, that

[2:12:46] comes across very disingenuous to me.

[2:12:48] It's not disingenuous. I'm not licensed

[2:12:50] to do that. You can't ask me to go fight

[2:12:52] a fire. I'm not I don't have any

[2:12:54] training in that.

[2:12:56] Do you want to ask the mayor to work on

[2:12:57] it?

[2:12:58] Mr.

[2:12:59] >> If the council is to make a decision,

[2:13:00] the numbers are there. So you got to go

[2:13:02] over it. It's 5,000, it's 6,000, it's

[2:13:03] 4,000.

[2:13:05] It's

[2:13:07] Uh Mr. Torello, Mr. Chair.

[2:13:08] >> I I agree. I mean the numbers are here.

[2:13:10] It's up to us to decide from well, at

[2:13:12] least to get a baseline of everything

[2:13:14] that's been provided other than the fact

[2:13:16] that the clerk and the council we've

[2:13:18] never put any mock numbers together for

[2:13:20] corporation council. Come up with those.

[2:13:22] We should come up with

[2:13:24] um I don't know. It just So but to your

[2:13:26] question, not to cut you off. So for

[2:13:28] this item that we're going to discuss in

[2:13:29] executive session for 1333 6th Avenue,

[2:13:33] you have that number.

[2:13:34] Where?

[2:13:36] I'm sorry. The request for redemption.

[2:13:39] In this specific instance regarding that

[2:13:42] chart,

[2:13:43] were you able to calculate what that

[2:13:45] number looks like based on the

[2:13:46] information that you have?

[2:13:47] >> First of all, we we need the clerk's

[2:13:49] estimate of how much time you clerk puts

[2:13:51] into it and how much time we're sitting

[2:13:53] around here and what our time is worth

[2:13:55] doing it as well. I mean these numbers

[2:13:57] going line by line by line and every department's provided the

[2:14:01] information. So now it's up to us to

[2:14:03] decide what we're going to put our

[2:14:05] baseline at well, our total because we

[2:14:07] can't do a high and a low. It's every

[2:14:09] foreclosure has to have this number on

[2:14:12] it. So I'd say again to repeat my

[2:14:14] question, you would be able to based on

[2:14:16] the council's

[2:14:17] uh

[2:14:18] agreement to move forward with that, you

[2:14:20] feel confident taking that chart and

[2:14:22] coming back with a recommended number

[2:14:23] based on the information?

[2:14:25] >> Yes, taking the chart and coming back

[2:14:26] with a recommended number. Absolutely.

[2:14:29] >> confident in your abilities to do that

[2:14:31] in this instance, for every instance?

[2:14:34] Whatever number we come up with,

[2:14:35] absolutely. We just threw that $5,000

[2:14:37] out there. Um

[2:14:40] originally,

[2:14:42] it's definitely more obviously than

[2:14:43] 1,500 because the foreclosure alone is

[2:14:45] 1,700. I I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[2:14:48] I think I think we could put a number

[2:14:50] together with the with the facts that

[2:14:52] were given.

[2:14:53] So when we get into this item, I would

[2:14:55] ask that you have that you would have a

[2:14:57] number prepared for us. No,

[2:15:00] But you're saying you can have that

[2:15:01] number for us.

[2:15:02] >> council we can work towards this number.

[2:15:05] Mr. President, the

[2:15:08] issue as I understand it is to come up

[2:15:10] with a flat fee. Yes, so it's not going

[2:15:13] to be exact for everything. If you want

[2:15:16] to

[2:15:17] back off and so we do the internal

[2:15:19] accounting for every

[2:15:23] properties

[2:15:24] >> [clears throat]

[2:15:25] >> interaction,

[2:15:27] it dramatically increased our costs just

[2:15:29] doing the accounting. What it is is to

[2:15:31] come up with some fee that is

[2:15:36] a fair

[2:15:37] reflection of what [clears throat] the

[2:15:39] time and effort is. And we've put forth

[2:15:42] a series of numbers there where the

[2:15:44] council and the council can stay with

[2:15:46] the $1,500 fee if you want. You can go

[2:15:48] $5,000.

[2:15:50] Some of those are probably

[2:15:52] the

[2:15:53] higher end of it when you actually

[2:15:56] put all the time and effort that goes

[2:15:57] into it.

[2:15:58] But it's the council has to make a

[2:16:00] decision on what the number is.

[2:16:03] And it's

[2:16:05] on some properties

[2:16:07] we might make a little bit of money on

[2:16:08] it. Other ones we're going to lose a

[2:16:10] little bit.

[2:16:11] Uh Mr. Chair is then Mr. Inger do you

[2:16:13] have any ways?

[2:16:15] Same vote I I still want to thank Mr.

[2:16:17] Inger. Uh Ms. Barash, I just want to say

[2:16:18] thank you. Um I know that it's a

[2:16:20] tireless job and I really appreciate all

[2:16:22] the hard work you put in. Um

[2:16:25] I sat and did the math just because I'm

[2:16:28] a math guy. I have an accounting degree.

[2:16:30] Thank goodness. So I

[2:16:32] >> [laughter]

[2:16:32] >> I did the 1 hour the 1 hour the 1 hour

[2:16:36] times the rate and I came up with the

[2:16:38] number that came up not including what

[2:16:40] the council and the clerk did. It was

[2:16:42] $5,653.51.

[2:16:45] Um so if we want to assign a number

[2:16:48] based on the city clerk and the the

[2:16:49] council and come up with a per hour, I

[2:16:51] can do the math for us and then give us

[2:16:53] a number. Um but based on the

[2:16:55] information that we were provided, I

[2:16:57] just did the math so that I understood

[2:16:58] where we were standing. So again, I

[2:17:00] appreciate you.

[2:17:01] >> Thank you.

[2:17:03] So if there are any other questions or

[2:17:05] comments, then I'd recommend that we

[2:17:06] stay where we've been at the $5,250

[2:17:09] based on the logic that I do not think

[2:17:11] we should itemize the time of the

[2:17:13] council nor the mayor.

[2:17:17] Oh, the mayor is very valuable.

[2:17:19] >> [laughter]

[2:17:23] » So if there is no pushback to that and if corporation council and

[2:17:31] understanding of that, then I would say

[2:17:32] that that is our fee moving forward as a

[2:17:35] council whenever we are

[2:17:37] reviewing these types of instances.

[2:17:41] I felt this way before.

[2:17:43] Like your $5,250

[2:17:45] figure that you estimated out when we

[2:17:46] did the breakdown prior, I got a number

[2:17:48] a little less than that. I know he's

[2:17:50] added some things and other closing

[2:17:52] costs or receipts to get to the 5,600

[2:17:54] number. But I appreciate Mr. Inger

[2:17:56] putting that together quickly as well.

[2:17:58] And Ms. Barash, I want to thank you for

[2:17:59] your time as I did earlier in the email.

[2:18:01] I appreciate that this was done and that

[2:18:02] you put this out. Once again, I want to

[2:18:04] reiterate my question was not in a way

[2:18:06] of coming after you in any way. It was a

[2:18:08] simplicity to make sure other people and

[2:18:10] residents of the city who don't have an

[2:18:11] accounting degree or don't work inside

[2:18:13] the city center or wherever we may work

[2:18:15] can also understand this that may fall

[2:18:17] on hard times. So I appreciate you

[2:18:18] entertaining the council and our

[2:18:20] questions.

[2:18:20] >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Torello.

[2:18:24] I'm just thinking if if you had these

[2:18:26] numbers prior, I don't want to say why I put her on the

[2:18:29] spot, but

[2:18:31] you knew what the numbers were. You all

[2:18:33] you had to do was add them. I mean, you

[2:18:35] know, I'm just stating a fact. So

[2:18:38] >> I I looked at the numbers. My question

[2:18:39] of putting her on the If I excuse me.

[2:18:41] Mr. Chair, if I may.

[2:18:43] My question and reasoning was to look

[2:18:44] for a more simplistic number once again.

[2:18:46] It had nothing to do with my own

[2:18:47] personal understanding of it, right? It

[2:18:49] was to ask if we would have the ability

[2:18:51] to get us a baseline. It was not a

[2:18:53] coming after her, not a going anywhere

[2:18:54] way. I may understand it, does not mean

[2:18:57] that Sarah Mae Smith may understand it,

[2:18:59] right? So, that's all I was That was the reasoning of asking her

[2:19:02] questions. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr.

[2:19:04] Chair. But again, Sarah Mae Smith isn't

[2:19:06] going to see this breakdown. We are. So,

[2:19:09] we put this break She put this breakdown

[2:19:10] together from all the departments. Here

[2:19:12] it is, and we're going to come up with

[2:19:14] in a month, which is 5600 or 5250.

[2:19:17] So, what Sarah Mae Smith asked us that

[2:19:20] number, excuse me.

[2:19:21] I apologize.

[2:19:24] It was cold until this weekend. I was

[2:19:25] outside, so I'm trying not to get a cold

[2:19:26] and lose my voice now. We have this

[2:19:28] breakdown that you don't. You Are we

[2:19:31] going Are each council member going to

[2:19:32] individually go break this down for

[2:19:34] Sarah Mae Smith? No. Oh, cuz that's what That was the reason for the

[2:19:37] So, we have to come up with a Oh, we

[2:19:38] did. And we did that at the last

[2:19:40] committee. My My concern was making sure

[2:19:42] that that number is available for people

[2:19:44] to see it. And understanding that this

[2:19:45] that why we are doing what we're doing

[2:19:47] is based on these numbers. And we can

[2:19:48] have this all listed out online. It can

[2:19:50] be there for them, but it was making

[2:19:52] sure that people understood how we got

[2:19:54] to those numbers, especially when we're

[2:19:56] doing what we do here as a council. May

[2:19:58] I? Mr. Mayor, uh

[2:19:59] I just have a legal question. Um

[2:20:02] let's say we stick with the 5250. Do you

[2:20:04] think that you could justify that in

[2:20:05] court if it was ever challenged?

[2:20:07] Based on this information. It would be

[2:20:09] based on this and based on the emails

[2:20:12] that are attached.

[2:20:13] >> Okay. That is

[2:20:15] the That is what I came up with as a

[2:20:16] good faith effort. And your good faith

[2:20:19] effort to add them up and make um a

[2:20:21] final number based on that. I think that

[2:20:23] would be defensible. It's not an

[2:20:25] overcharge. Um it's about what it costs.

[2:20:30] Mr. Mayor, well, let me

[2:20:34] What you can do is set a fee.

[2:20:37] Our cost could be $1,000,

[2:20:40] and the council can set a fee of

[2:20:41] $10,000, and that's what it is.

[2:20:45] If you're setting if you're looking for

[2:20:47] what the actual expenses are and we're

[2:20:49] recovering

[2:20:51] the actual amount, then it's variable.

[2:20:52] But it's the prerogative of the council

[2:20:54] to [clears throat] set a fee for this

[2:20:57] process. So, you can say it's

[2:21:00] $1,500, it's $5,000, it's $10,000. It

[2:21:04] doesn't matter what our actual costs

[2:21:06] are. You can make money on it.

[2:21:09] Or you can lose money on it.

[2:21:12] But I I I don't think we can make money,

[2:21:13] but I think to Mr. Engert's point, it's

[2:21:15] just ensuring that

[2:21:17] Don't believe that's true. The council

[2:21:19] has the prerogative. So, you know,

[2:21:21] it's a parking fee. You can say

[2:21:24] If I get a parking ticket out front, I

[2:21:26] pay for my parking, it's fine.

[2:21:29] You get

[2:21:30] It's $10,000.

[2:21:33] It's the council's prerogative to set

[2:21:35] that fee that high. And people say, "Oh,

[2:21:36] that's terrible."

[2:21:38] But

[2:21:39] to some of it, you In fact, you do want

[2:21:41] to

[2:21:42] probably make a little bit of money on

[2:21:43] some and lose a little bit of money on

[2:21:45] another ones. But I thought with the

[2:21:47] foreclosures, we can only recoup the

[2:21:49] administrative costs, and then anything

[2:21:51] beyond that would be held in escrow for

[2:21:53] that designated amount of time, which is

[2:21:54] 3 years. Is that correct? Um so

[2:21:58] This is

[2:22:01] This was taken in foreclosure, but then

[2:22:03] the council is choosing to sell it back.

[2:22:06] So

[2:22:09] That law The new The law is relatively

[2:22:12] new in the state of New York. So, not

[2:22:13] everything has been tested yet, but

[2:22:18] I don't believe that

[2:22:20] those rules would apply

[2:22:23] because

[2:22:25] the council is literally selling it back

[2:22:28] to the former owner. And as the mayor

[2:22:29] said, it's the council's prerogative to

[2:22:31] set the fee.

[2:22:33] And the fee

[2:22:34] can be whatever And that's what I said,

[2:22:36] the council sets the number. So

[2:22:42] No, the money does not need to be in

[2:22:44] escrow to answer that question.

[2:22:46] And I don't think that

[2:22:49] charging a fee

[2:22:51] in the amount of $5,250

[2:22:54] um

[2:22:56] I don't think that that would be a

[2:22:58] um

[2:23:00] I think that would be reasonable.

[2:23:02] But what would happen in court, I can't

[2:23:03] 100% say. I mean, everything in when it

[2:23:06] goes to court becomes a question. But I

[2:23:08] think that this is a reasonable number

[2:23:10] to go with. And um as the mayor said,

[2:23:13] the council has the prerogative to set

[2:23:15] the fee.

[2:23:17] And the council is choosing to set it

[2:23:18] based on the estimation.

[2:23:20] But

[2:23:21] I think it's taking the

[2:23:23] previous recommendation, and now we're

[2:23:24] able to support it. And that is what I

[2:23:27] can say I feel more confident now moving

[2:23:29] forward.

[2:23:30] Um so, I think we

[2:23:31] beat this topic to a pulp. Uh if there

[2:23:35] are any other further questions or

[2:23:36] comments, I know there's a part of it

[2:23:37] that we need to discuss in executive

[2:23:39] session.

[2:23:40] Um

[2:23:41] Do you have another question? Just lying

[2:23:43] going back to the council, Mr. Barash,

[2:23:44] is still Is your recommendation still

[2:23:46] strong at the 55,250 for the fee? I know

[2:23:49] we had charged nothing before, and that

[2:23:50] was the process of the conversation of

[2:23:52] what the city's loss was. Do we still

[2:23:54] feel confident in that number as

[2:23:55] corporation counsel? Mr. O'Brien can

[2:23:57] freely answer as well, so it's not just

[2:23:58] all on me. Mr. Barash, you should allow

[2:24:00] me cuz we spent all this time on it.

[2:24:02] Yes, yeah. Is it Does it come directly

[2:24:04] back to us is what we're saying? No, I

[2:24:05] don't I don't want to I'll I'll donate

[2:24:06] my time. It's okay. Uh so

[2:24:10] we're kind of rehashing what we just

[2:24:13] went through uh respectfully.

[2:24:16] This is what I'm providing to the

[2:24:18] council.

[2:24:19] Mr. Engert was kind enough to make some uh to make a calculation.

[2:24:26] He came up with more than $5,250.

[2:24:29] This doesn't even include the city

[2:24:31] council's time

[2:24:33] in all of this, including the time we're

[2:24:35] spending here. It doesn't include the

[2:24:36] clerk's time. So, I think in terms of a

[2:24:40] reasonable estimation of what it costs,

[2:24:43] I think that that is a reasonable

[2:24:45] estimation. In terms of what fee the

[2:24:47] council wants to set, it's truly up to

[2:24:49] the council. If the council is okay with

[2:24:51] losing with the city losing money and

[2:24:53] setting it at $1,500 or $1,000, whatever

[2:24:56] it was before, that's the council's

[2:24:58] prerogative. If the council wants to set

[2:24:59] it at $10,000,

[2:25:01] I don't think that that's

[2:25:03] um

[2:25:04] not appro- not not allowed either. So

[2:25:08] I think you're asking me if I support

[2:25:10] the number. I think that that's a

[2:25:11] reasonable number if the council wants

[2:25:13] to adopt that number. I hope that

[2:25:15] answers your question. It It has long

[2:25:17] been a day.

[2:25:18] >> [laughter]

[2:25:18] >> Thank you. Great.

[2:25:20] Um so, we're going to come back to this

[2:25:22] item, all other remaining items in um

[2:25:25] city development planning can be

[2:25:26] discussed in executive session. Mr.

[2:25:28] Mayor. On a completely different topic,

[2:25:30] and and just as a footnote to

[2:25:32] for for other other discussions, the

[2:25:34] term uh assessment review is a 5-year

[2:25:37] term. Oh, thank you. 5-year term um is

[2:25:40] not a temporary member, a 5-year term.

[2:25:44] Oh, the board. Okay. Yeah, the Board of

[2:25:46] Assessment Review. There was a question.

[2:25:48] And then going further back regarding

[2:25:50] the schedule for the garbage collection

[2:25:54] issue. So, with the next meeting uh that

[2:25:58] will be committee meeting will be April

[2:26:00] 20th, at which time the committee the

[2:26:01] council will come up with a framework in

[2:26:04] which Mr. LaFontaine, the corporation

[2:26:06] counsel's office, can then work from to

[2:26:08] draft do a draft ordinance. Draft

[2:26:10] ordinance could be presented to you all

[2:26:13] on May 4th

[2:26:14] of And then

[2:26:16] um you can call for a public hearing uh

[2:26:19] for uh May 26th.

[2:26:22] And then the next uh council meeting

[2:26:25] after that would be June 8th with a

[2:26:27] committee meeting on June 1st. So, with

[2:26:29] that cycle, you could make the June 14th

[2:26:32] deadline.

[2:26:33] So, that's the way ahead as far as the

[2:26:36] cycles.

[2:26:37] It just shows that we need to be very uh

[2:26:39] conscientious of time cuz we don't have

[2:26:41] any to spare. So, as long as we stay on

[2:26:42] the timeline, we should be good.

[2:26:44] Thank you for that breakdown.

[2:26:46] And Mr. President, what exactly are we

[2:26:48] discussing in executive session?

[2:26:50] Relating to this?

[2:26:53] Uh the request for the redemption for

[2:26:55] item 18, the recommendation from Mr.

[2:26:58] O'Brien was to discuss the union

[2:27:00] contract in executive session pending

[2:27:01] questions, and then the rest of property

[2:27:03] sales.

[2:27:04] Okay, so it's not relating to this

[2:27:07] spreadsheet.

[2:27:08] No. Okay. We had that back, and we

[2:27:10] approved Well, we not We didn't need to

[2:27:12] approve it. We just needed to publicly

[2:27:14] discuss it.

[2:27:15] Correct. There's no formal resolution

[2:27:17] for that figure.

[2:27:18] But we're not setting a We're setting a

[2:27:20] fee. Do we have to No, no, you just This

[2:27:22] is when you're It's what you're going to

[2:27:24] consider when you're in these these

[2:27:26] cases.

[2:27:27] And that's the support that you have.

[2:27:29] So, it's not a formal setting of a fee.

[2:27:31] This is

[2:27:32] It would If you're setting If they're

[2:27:34] going to set a fee,

[2:27:35] but it's going to be on It's not a

[2:27:37] formal fee ordinances.

[2:27:40] But should it be?

[2:27:43] I think it should be, but it's up to the

[2:27:47] council if they want to set a fee.

[2:27:49] Um that makes it Then there would have

[2:27:51] to be a public hearing and a

[2:27:53] ordinance amendment. Right. So, if the

[2:27:56] council would like to set it as a fee,

[2:27:59] council has to go through the ordinance

[2:28:01] process. If the council would like to to

[2:28:04] use it as

[2:28:05] uh something that is considered during

[2:28:08] these cases, then it it doesn't need to

[2:28:09] go through that.

[2:28:11] I would say what I find with these

[2:28:12] instances, they're so unique and there's

[2:28:14] so many considerations, I think it

[2:28:15] protects us and gives us boundaries to

[2:28:18] function within. There's nothing to say

[2:28:19] that we can't choose to lower that

[2:28:21] threshold, but I think what we recognize

[2:28:23] is that that is the ceiling. Um and

[2:28:25] because there's so much variability, I

[2:28:26] think if we can accept and acknowledge

[2:28:29] this as a group based on my

[2:28:29] conversation, this is what the number

[2:28:31] should reflect. I think rather than kind

[2:28:34] of tying us into the city code where if

[2:28:36] we need to make any slight adjustment,

[2:28:37] it requires just so much legislative

[2:28:39] paperwork, we just accept this moving

[2:28:41] forward without any formal.

[2:28:44] If that makes sense.

[2:28:46] Mr. Engert. I would respectfully

[2:28:48] disagree. I don't think it 5250 is a

[2:28:51] ceiling. I think that that would be the

[2:28:52] minimum just based on the numbers that

[2:28:55] we were provided. So, I think that

[2:28:57] making it an ordinance and letting it go

[2:28:59] to a public hearing lets new members of

[2:29:01] the public at least

[2:29:03] come out and voice their opinion and

[2:29:05] then that holds us to it because I would

[2:29:08] hate for us to say, you know, it's 5250

[2:29:09] today and then in a few weeks it's a

[2:29:11] different number and then in a few weeks

[2:29:12] it's a different number. How is that

[2:29:13] fair to

[2:29:14] somebody that goes through the

[2:29:15] redemption process today or somebody

[2:29:17] that goes through the redemption process

[2:29:18] in a few weeks. I wouldn't say that it

[2:29:21] is something we have to do, but I would

[2:29:23] say because the nature of the council

[2:29:24] can change year to year, that will

[2:29:26] require just so much additional

[2:29:27] legislative just movement. I'm not

[2:29:30] shifting from anyway from that number.

[2:29:32] I'm just saying it allows us to have

[2:29:33] wiggle room should we choose to. And the

[2:29:35] one thing to recognize with these

[2:29:36] properties is taxes are the one

[2:29:38] expectation yearly. We're considering

[2:29:40] this because there's unique

[2:29:41] circumstances. So, I think if we can

[2:29:43] agree as a collective to that number, I

[2:29:45] think we hold ourselves to that. We have

[2:29:47] this discussion transparently in front

[2:29:49] of the community so they recognize and

[2:29:51] we can if requested provide this

[2:29:52] breakdown to anyone that was questioning

[2:29:54] it. But I think to go along the process

[2:29:56] of the city code, my recommendation is

[2:29:58] not to, but we have two other members

[2:30:00] that would like to weigh in.

[2:30:02] Okay.

[2:30:03] Mr. Mayor. I I I you know, what we've

[2:30:05] been through with um with uh people wanting to buy their

[2:30:11] properties back

[2:30:12] um and

[2:30:15] different sets of circumstances for

[2:30:17] each, I don't think we should I think

[2:30:19] the the the fee should be set at the

[2:30:21] minimum of 5250 with a resolution and

[2:30:24] that way there we don't even have to

[2:30:25] worry about dickering um as a council

[2:30:29] and taking in again um

[2:30:32] you know, doctor's notes and things like

[2:30:34] that. It's my personal opinion.

[2:30:36] Mr. Chair,

[2:30:38] once again I'm going to be honest. This

[2:30:39] is the second time this first time we

[2:30:40] discussed it publicly, but we discussed

[2:30:41] it in committee prior. I'm fine with the

[2:30:43] number $5,025

[2:30:45] >> that was recommended estimatedly

[2:30:47] recommended by the Virgin Council prior.

[2:30:50] Um and I I agree that, you know, having

[2:30:52] that number um

[2:30:54] doesn't harm us in anyway. I don't know

[2:30:57] from Mr. O'Brien's standpoint if it

[2:30:58] needs to go to code or so we have to

[2:31:00] change everything, but I I feel

[2:31:02] perfectly fine with setting a flat fee

[2:31:04] of $5,025

[2:31:06] um so people understand exactly what

[2:31:07] they're going to be coming to the city

[2:31:09] hall to pay to purchase their property.

[2:31:15] Mr. Mayor.

[2:31:15] >> a number that we'll review further if

[2:31:17] these need to be codified. You have a

[2:31:18] number in in in in in the short term.

[2:31:20] You have a number.

[2:31:22] With that Unless the mayor wants to pay

[2:31:24] for people to have their house back, in

[2:31:25] which case

[2:31:27] Mr. Rash.

[2:31:28] Um on a related note

[2:31:32] the foreclosure process

[2:31:34] um it it takes a long time until a

[2:31:36] property

[2:31:38] is foreclosed on and

[2:31:41] during the foreclosure process, there is

[2:31:43] a 6-month redemption period.

[2:31:45] It used to be 3 years. It was the state

[2:31:48] law changed um last I think a couple

[2:31:51] years ago um that made it 6 months.

[2:31:54] Perhaps the council can think about what

[2:31:57] the council can do, what the city can

[2:31:59] do, but what can can the members of the

[2:32:02] city council do to help the community

[2:32:06] um

[2:32:09] not get to the point where they have to

[2:32:11] purchase it back because if they just

[2:32:13] pay during the redemption period, they pay um

[2:32:17] the tax the back taxes, they pay the

[2:32:19] foreclosure fee and they pay the

[2:32:21] interest and they redeem it as of right.

[2:32:23] They don't have to go through all of

[2:32:25] this, you know, requests and and closing

[2:32:28] and and and deeds.

[2:32:30] It it gets withdrawn from the

[2:32:32] foreclosure and and it's called

[2:32:34] redeemed.

[2:32:35] And

[2:32:36] once the once the city gets judgment and

[2:32:38] then takes title, it winds up being much

[2:32:41] more complicated and much

[2:32:43] um more expensive. So, perhaps the city

[2:32:46] council can think about what it can do

[2:32:49] to help

[2:32:50] people not get to this point because if

[2:32:52] they came if they were able to to raise

[2:32:54] the money now, if they had just raised

[2:32:57] it during the redemption period, it

[2:33:00] would have been a lot simpler for them

[2:33:02] um

[2:33:02] and for for us, of course, and certainly

[2:33:05] probably um

[2:33:08] you know,

[2:33:10] better um for their circumstances. So,

[2:33:13] perhaps it's just a recommendation,

[2:33:15] think about what what can the city

[2:33:16] council do uh to help people um

[2:33:24] recognize the need to become current on

[2:33:26] their taxes

[2:33:27] and um

[2:33:30] at least redeem during the redemption

[2:33:32] period, which which tons of people do.

[2:33:35] Tons and tons of people do. It's it's

[2:33:36] great.

[2:33:38] But then there are a few that that don't

[2:33:41] and they wind up having to go through

[2:33:42] this much more complicated and more

[2:33:43] expensive process. So, um I just wanted

[2:33:46] to bring to your attention that there is

[2:33:48] a redemption period and

[2:33:51] um

[2:33:52] perhaps there's a way to get through

[2:33:54] your voices get it out to the community

[2:33:56] during each foreclosure, you know, get

[2:33:59] to city hall and and pay those taxes so

[2:34:02] that you don't wind up having to go

[2:34:04] through this much more complicated and

[2:34:05] expensive process.

[2:34:07] Mr. Couldn't agree more. I think part of

[2:34:10] our extended dialogue, which is at the

[2:34:11] expense of all of us watching the NCAA

[2:34:13] game that's on right now, I think it's

[2:34:15] recognizing that

[2:34:17] in these sessions is when I find the

[2:34:19] most value because we're getting to the

[2:34:21] weeds of the issue. I cannot agree more.

[2:34:23] I attended a session in our community

[2:34:25] where had a a presentation by BC9 and

[2:34:28] SNAP talking about the foreclosure

[2:34:31] resources that they provide to residents

[2:34:33] and even with those, the number is still

[2:34:36] far reaching. We are always chasing.

[2:34:38] Um in the cases that we had come before

[2:34:40] us, a lot of it is fear. A lot of it is

[2:34:42] did the information go to the right

[2:34:44] person? And if the expectation

[2:34:45] [clears throat]

[2:34:45] is you need to know as a homeowner, we

[2:34:48] need to make sure that all of our

[2:34:49] communication that's public facing

[2:34:50] reflects that. So, I think we can always

[2:34:52] chase education and enforcement, but

[2:34:55] sincerely just because the city can do

[2:34:57] something doesn't mean that it should

[2:34:58] and that could not be more reflective of

[2:35:00] the fact that we sit here as

[2:35:01] representatives of the community to keep

[2:35:03] our hands on the balance scale. And I

[2:35:05] know that sometimes it seems as though

[2:35:06] we are pitting the city against itself,

[2:35:08] that is not the case. It is just

[2:35:09] ensuring that we are taking into

[2:35:11] consideration those unique moments where

[2:35:13] truly the system did not support the

[2:35:15] resident. And then how do we improve our

[2:35:17] systems moving forward to ensure that it

[2:35:18] does? And to your point earlier, this is

[2:35:20] not every case, but I do think in those

[2:35:23] singular issues, I could have been one

[2:35:25] of those six youth that would have been

[2:35:27] foreclosed on and their house wouldn't

[2:35:28] have been taken away.

[2:35:30] Anyway, it's good. So, I think it's

[2:35:32] truly important to make sure that we

[2:35:33] remain guided by the work and its impact

[2:35:35] on the community and uh I think set

[2:35:37] ourselves up for success. So, I think

[2:35:39] education is key. I think in a special

[2:35:41] meeting we can bring some presentations

[2:35:42] in place to understand what the work

[2:35:44] looks like on the ground. Um but I truly

[2:35:47] I think this conversation, although was

[2:35:49] strenuous, I think we've clearly

[2:35:51] outlined to the community that this is a

[2:35:53] variable process and we're doing our

[2:35:54] best as a city and with that difference,

[2:35:56] we can continue forward.

[2:35:59] Um so, there are no other questions or

[2:36:01] comments. I'll ask for a recess.

[2:36:04] I see the open plane.

[2:36:07] So moved. I will second. All those in

[2:36:08] favor? I have a recess.

[2:36:11] I'd like to call um to order please. We

[2:36:14] have one item on the agenda.

[2:36:16] Um we're going to Long Pond Village

[2:36:18] Apartments LLC.

[2:36:21] Um it will be in executive session. Um

[2:36:26] Uh who's on that committee? Oh, yes.

[2:36:29] I got it right here. Dre, Hayden,

[2:36:30] Justin. Yes. I think the motion to go

[2:36:33] into executive session. Second. All in

[2:36:36] favor?

[2:36:36] >> Aye. We're in executive session. All the

[2:36:38] members of the public would have to

[2:36:39] leave, please and thank you.

[2:36:43] » [music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, April 6, 2026

Transcript