[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]