[0:38] [music]

[9:59] » Woo.

[11:16] » [music]

[14:41] » Cuz Kim can't stay long.

[14:45] All right. So,

[14:48] just talking out loud, I know Kim is on

[14:51] a time crunch as well.

[14:54] So, government operations and we have

[14:57] the full complement, you know, just

[14:58] myself and Kim. Okay. So, it's the out

[15:01] of the pressing issues. I mean, having a

[15:03] conversation about trash can stay on the

[15:04] side. Stay on the timeline.

[15:07] Yes, government operations can do that.

[15:10] Um any other pressing issues government

[15:13] operations?

[15:52] Yeah.

[15:55] All right.

[15:56] So, you're going to do

[16:03] So, Kim, are you there?

[16:06] Just talk about those

[16:08] and then we'll adjourn after that.

[16:12] What do you want me to do? No, no,

[16:13] sorry. We'll just use this seat.

[16:15] Yeah. Okay.

[16:28] So, you want to prioritize those issues?

[16:30] Yeah. Uh

[16:31] cuz Kim's on a time crunch as well.

[16:43] And this is a fine committee.

[16:47] Any others?

[16:48] And clean and government operations.

[16:51] Do you need one of Kim's chairs? I have

[16:53] a stack of chairs. Okay.

[16:59] And

[17:00] the further conversation.

[17:02] And so, we can you know, we can keep

[17:06] Okay, perfect.

[17:13] Okay, right.

[17:19] Yes, everything else can be discussed.

[17:21] Okay.

[17:22] All right.

[17:23] Good evening. I'd like to call this

[17:24] Grand Rapids City Council Committee

[17:26] meeting to order. Today is May 4th,

[17:28] 2026. I apologize for the delay and the

[17:32] rearranging due to some quorum concerns.

[17:35] We are going to be readjusting some key

[17:37] priority items

[17:38] for consideration with respect to Ms.

[17:40] Wiggins' time, which is a

[17:43] uh limited for tonight. So, everyone

[17:45] please bear in mind for the slight

[17:46] adjustments. Uh so, moving into

[17:49] government operations, we will be doing

[17:52] uh item number one out of Health and

[17:53] Rec, authorizing the mayor to enter an

[17:55] agreement with the USTA for the

[17:57] installation and operation of a smart

[17:59] access lock and system in coordination

[18:02] with the Serve Tennis Management

[18:04] Program.

[18:05] Additionally, when we are moving into

[18:07] government operations, are three items

[18:09] from the Finance Committee.

[18:10] 2026 to 2027

[18:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[18:19] Um

[18:20] We are also going to moving into

[18:22] government operations is 2026 to 2027 US

[18:27] Department of Housing and Urban

[18:28] Development allocations.

[18:30] Call for public hearing for 2026 to 2027

[18:33] annual action plan.

[18:35] And the call for public hearing to amend

[18:36] section 186-25

[18:38] of the Central Park Tennis Courts fee

[18:40] and reservation system.

[18:42] And the last two items we'll be moving

[18:44] into government operations are from City

[18:46] Development and Planning. The first two

[18:48] items to review amending section 9-6 of

[18:51] the Schenectady City Code to increase

[18:53] membership of the Downtown Special

[18:55] Assessment District Board from 9 to 15

[18:57] members and to amend such membership

[18:59] qualifications.

[19:00] And the call for public hearing to amend

[19:03] chapter 161 of the Schenectady City

[19:05] Code.

[19:06] Those are the items that will be moving

[19:07] to government operations.

[19:13] So, these five to government operations.

[19:20] Thank you.

[19:29] So, I'll start with that.

[19:38] At this time, I'd like to call to order

[19:40] the Committee on Government Operations.

[19:44] First order of business is authorizing

[19:46] the mayor to enter into an agreement

[19:48] with the USTA for installation and

[19:49] operation of smart access lock set

[19:51] system in coordination with severe

[19:53] tennis management programs. Presenting

[19:55] Chris Waller.

[20:04] Good evening.

[20:05] Um in your packet was provided

[20:08] contract draft contract and information

[20:11] deck on the system. It is a algorithm

[20:15] based access system that we are looking

[20:17] to put at the newly reconstructed

[20:20] Central Park tennis facility.

[20:22] The locks will allow only those who

[20:25] access them through the Surf tennis app

[20:28] to have access.

[20:30] Um it is a basic form of security, but a

[20:34] form of security nonetheless, whereas

[20:36] right now our tennis courts do not have

[20:38] any forms of security. It will allow us

[20:41] to not staff the tennis courts, allow us

[20:44] to charge the rates that we want and

[20:47] track data and monitor who's using the

[20:49] courts on a daily annual basis. Uh this

[20:52] is a USTA based program, one that the

[20:55] USTA uses on all their courts. USTA is a

[20:59] partner on this project, so we thought

[21:01] it would be in the interest of everyone

[21:03] to use the USTA sponsored program. Um the contract through the

[21:08] contract it states that the USTA will be

[21:10] paying for the two lock sets in the

[21:12] first year of operations for the lock

[21:15] sets as well as the giving us $1,250 for

[21:18] the installation of the gates.

[21:20] And then uh after the first year the

[21:23] costs are $500 for the one lock and $300

[21:28] for the second.

[21:29] Um which we'll have to put into our

[21:31] operating budget.

[21:32] Um

[21:34] and the idea is is that these will help

[21:37] us just keep out you know people who use

[21:39] tennis courts as

[21:41] dog parks or skate parks or things like

[21:44] that and try to just keep the the courts

[21:47] in a pristine condition. Um there is no

[21:51] term. It is a just rolling contract that

[21:53] we cancel there that this is not a

[21:57] binding

[21:58] contract where we're signing it for a

[22:00] minimum period of X amount of years. It

[22:02] is just a year to year contract with the

[22:04] USTA.

[22:07] And those two numbers again you said

[22:08] you're looking at how much?

[22:10] So this year will be zero.

[22:12] Next year will be for the two $830.

[22:17] And then the increase after that the

[22:18] year after that or stay at that amount?

[22:23] You've heard the presentation by Mr.

[22:25] Waller.

[22:26] Any questions?

[22:28] Comments, concerns? Council President

[22:30] Waller. Uh thank you Mr. Waller. I know

[22:33] there were three options to consider for

[22:34] the doors. Did you have a preference or

[22:36] I didn't know what the options were.

[22:37] >> Yes, we will be working with option

[22:44] No, padlock. We will be working with

[22:46] option three the code lock system.

[22:50] And then the so the gates will be

[22:51] fashioned as shown on option three

[22:54] with the reinforced handles

[22:57] and lock set.

[22:58] So that that's what we're doing with

[23:00] that facility. We'll have two uh gate A

[23:03] and a gate B. All the other gates will

[23:05] be locked with a typical city standard

[23:07] lock cuz that is not for the public. We

[23:09] really want to

[23:10] treat this facility as it has two main

[23:12] entrances and everyone going through

[23:13] such. We uh city will have access

[23:16] um to the facility with our own private

[23:18] code that's programmed into it and then

[23:20] for large tournaments and events where

[23:22] the whole facility is open you can with

[23:24] a master key turn off the system so that

[23:27] the locks are just like a door so that

[23:29] you don't have people coming for a

[23:30] tournament putting in locks.

[23:35] And then I'm sorry.

[23:37] Uh I had an additional question that

[23:39] kind of loops into the fee and

[23:41] reservation system all together since

[23:43] you're already here.

[23:44] Um I do have some hesitancies with us

[23:46] charging our residents to use community

[23:48] facilities and resources.

[23:51] Is there any ability for us to provide a

[23:53] code without someone having an account

[23:55] to request that if that makes sense?

[23:58] So

[23:59] uh for the next portion where we talk

[24:01] about fees, but if we wanted to create different tiers

[24:06] there are ways to do that. So

[24:07] essentially what you what we would have

[24:09] to do however is put that information in

[24:12] there to show that they are a member or

[24:14] a resident into the system and then when

[24:17] they log into the system they wouldn't

[24:19] have that charge, but we would have to

[24:21] do that in the back office end of it.

[24:24] Otherwise it would do it's essentially

[24:26] proving the residency. That's something

[24:27] that we would have to work out. So there

[24:29] would have to be some kind of an

[24:30] application for someone to make to say

[24:32] that yes I'm a resident and I want to be

[24:35] in the system as a member resident so

[24:38] that I have a zero fee. Perfect. Thank

[24:40] you.

[24:41] Uh the one thing just to point out to

[24:42] you with the the Surf tennis just want

[24:44] to give you the overview.

[24:45] Surf tennis and smart access they are

[24:47] they work in conjunction. So what it

[24:49] allows us to do is we now have 18 courts

[24:52] and you will reserve the court that you

[24:53] want as long as that court is available.

[24:56] So that's what we would go to the

[24:57] facility and you would say I want to

[24:59] play court six for this hour or two

[25:02] hours and then program and then it would

[25:03] say okay and then give you the code so

[25:05] that

[25:06] that's important because it's a back

[25:08] office system

[25:09] and that's similar to what we have at

[25:11] the golf course where you'll be able to

[25:12] reserve the courts and manage the courts

[25:14] as an asset whereas before um it was

[25:17] kind of a few would look all the courts

[25:19] are taken I don't know what we're going

[25:20] to be able to actually be able to

[25:21] reserve and know when the courts are.

[25:23] Um additionally because of the new

[25:25] layout of the courts it's a very

[25:27] efficient

[25:28] uh layout using the pod system of access

[25:31] we'll be actually able to run small

[25:33] events and sectional events if there's

[25:35] not 18 and actually have the public

[25:37] available to play other courts and

[25:39] they'll be completely separate from each

[25:41] other. So the utilization of the courts

[25:43] should be very high.

[25:47] Any questions, comments, concerns? Mr.

[25:49] uh what's the staffing cost right now or

[25:51] would it be if you just had the staff

[25:52] without the lock and gate?

[25:54] Do you have that number? Uh Paul do you

[25:55] remember what that number was?

[25:56] >> We would have to staff a seasonal at the tennis courts. Well we staff a

[26:01] seasonal you need to staff more than one

[26:02] because usually the courts start to play

[26:04] kind of 7:00 in the morning and in the

[26:06] summer hours it's late up until 9:00 so

[26:09] 8-hour shift ends and then people come

[26:11] in and break for lunch. So usually we

[26:14] staff with seasonal employees.

[26:16] Um so

[26:19] But in excess of probably $25,000 for

[26:21] the summer. Yeah.

[26:22] Oh.

[26:23] Thank you. Yep.

[26:25] Any comments, other comments, questions,

[26:26] concerns? Seeing none Mr. President

[26:29] Committee.

[26:31] I'm good.

[26:32] A motion to

[26:34] authorize the mayor to enter into

[26:35] agreement with the USTA. Second.

[26:37] It's been moved.

[26:40] Second.

[26:42] It's been moved properly seconded. All

[26:43] those in favor? Aye.

[26:45] Motion carried. Thank you.

[26:47] Mr. Waller. Second on the list

[26:49] we have 2026-2027 US Department of

[26:51] Housing and Urban Development

[26:52] allocations with Miss Alexandria Harper.

[26:59] Good evening city council members. I've

[27:01] come before you today requesting that we

[27:03] adopt a resolution authorizing

[27:05] acceptance of our 2026-2027

[27:09] HUD funding as listed for CDBG which is

[27:12] our community development block grant.

[27:14] We received $2,032,803

[27:18] for our home funding, $1,263

[27:22] and

[27:22] ESG $180,000

[27:25] $125,095

[27:27] just round it out my apologies. Um this

[27:29] is our

[27:30] um annual allocation. We received our

[27:33] final award letter from HUD so just our

[27:35] resolution so that we're able to move

[27:37] forward with our application

[27:39] allocations.

[27:41] Any comments, questions, concerns on

[27:42] this?

[27:44] Seeing none do I have a motion? So

[27:45] moved.

[27:47] Second. Second. It's been moved properly

[27:49] seconded. All those in favor? Aye.

[27:51] Motion carried. Thank you. Item number

[27:52] two CPHB 2026 annual action plan Miss

[27:55] Harper.

[27:57] I come before you again. It

[27:59] I am asking to call for a public

[28:01] hearing. Our final

[28:03] our draft allocations will be available

[28:06] to the public on May 11th and in an

[28:08] effort to stay on our federal government

[28:10] timeline I'm asking today to call for a

[28:12] public hearing at the next council

[28:14] meeting. Again that information will be

[28:16] available to you and public on May 11th.

[28:24] Any comments, questions, concerns?

[28:26] Mr. Chairman just for the record that

[28:28] the public hearing would be in May 26th.

[28:30] is a holiday. May after

[28:32] Memorial Day. And that that's plenty of

[28:35] time for the for the to be posted.

[28:37] May 11th it has to be posted prior so

[28:40] May 11th is will be our posting to May

[28:43] 11th is the posting May 26th is the

[28:44] actual public hearing. Yes. Thank you.

[28:48] Any comments, questions, concerns?

[28:50] Seeing none do I have a motion? So

[28:52] moved.

[28:53] It's been properly moved and seconded.

[28:54] All those in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

[28:57] Thank you.

[28:59] Third action Excuse me fourth item on

[29:00] the list CPHB amend section 186 Central

[29:03] Park tennis courts fees and reservations

[29:05] with Mr. Paul LaFond.

[29:11] Good evening.

[29:16] Hello. This is a call for a public

[29:17] hearing to amend

[29:20] Again call for a public hearing to amend

[29:22] chapter 186-25.

[29:24] Um

[29:25] some of the language is outdated in the

[29:27] current city code and the new language

[29:29] that would be added would um

[29:31] with regards to fee structure and pod

[29:33] structure. Pod structure is for the

[29:35] tournaments and league play and then

[29:38] there currently is a fee structure for

[29:41] residents, non-residents,

[29:42] um non-profits and

[29:45] myself

[29:47] City Engineer Chris Williams, Parks

[29:48] Director Billy Masika, and Deputy Mayor

[29:51] Williams met with Caesar Corporation and

[29:54] went over some of the language. And we

[29:55] do have some of the language.

[29:58] So, it is to amend and start charging a

[30:01] fee that we feel is adequate for the

[30:04] playtime. And we did do some research,

[30:06] looked around in Escanaba,

[30:08] smaller places, the school district, and

[30:10] um

[30:11] the school district and and we are under

[30:13] what they would be charging for their

[30:14] park. It's the same number of courts

[30:16] that the city school district

[30:17] but they do charge

[30:19] more money per hour.

[30:21] Thank you, Mr. Williams. What was the

[30:22] fee charged? Just for the difference.

[30:25] Um did you get the Did you copy it?

[30:26] >> not get a chance, unfortunately, to see

[30:28] it.

[30:29] Uh page 38.

[30:36] $15 per hour per court. Correct. And

[30:39] then there's the half-day charges. For

[30:40] three courts, it's $50 per hour for

[30:42] three courts. $250 half-day for five to

[30:45] six and a half hours for three courts.

[30:47] $500 full day 10 to 12 and a half hours

[30:49] for three courts.

[30:50] Correct.

[30:52] I just wanted to do that to make sure

[30:53] that we know and it's on record and said

[30:55] out loud for those that are watching at

[30:56] home. Any comments, questions, concerns?

[30:59] Council President Williams. Uh so,

[31:01] definitely thank you uh Mr. LaFontaine

[31:03] for providing the legislation changes

[31:05] and also the fee structure. I do have to

[31:07] admit very hesitant charging residents

[31:11] to use facilities. Um

[31:13] I know this can very much be interpreted

[31:15] as

[31:16] charging them twice. So, I'm paying

[31:18] taxes and then having another fee

[31:20] associated with it. Uh

[31:22] I think that's something that I don't

[31:23] think that's something I do not feel

[31:25] comfortable

[31:26] uh voting in favor of. My one question

[31:28] is, do we currently have a fee structure

[31:30] in place for the tennis courts? Yes.

[31:33] And then comparison, do these adjusted

[31:36] costs exceed those or are they still in

[31:38] line with them? And my my question I'm

[31:40] getting to is, is there the ability for

[31:42] this current fee structure to absorb the

[31:44] cost for the residents so that we are

[31:46] definitely having financial expectations

[31:48] for outside members coming in and

[31:49] enjoying our recreational facilities? Um

[31:52] but I I would like to ensure that we are

[31:54] protecting our residents from, again,

[31:56] asking to pay twice for city resources.

[31:59] Well, Mr. Chairman,

[32:01] the current fee structure has not been

[32:03] in force for a number of years. So, we

[32:05] were not getting any revenue.

[32:07] We've made

[32:08] huge investments in this and if the

[32:12] correlate this more like to the golf

[32:14] course, so yes, the city

[32:16] uh

[32:18] has created the environment and done

[32:20] some financing so that the golf course

[32:22] is there, but individuals pay when they

[32:26] play

[32:27] golf. There is variance within that

[32:30] structure for either residents or

[32:33] non-residents.

[32:34] And so, the tennis courts for

[32:39] uh last

[32:40] eight years, 10 years,

[32:43] the fee structure has been in place. Uh

[32:45] anybody that wanted to voluntarily pay

[32:47] could

[32:48] have been more than welcome to do that,

[32:50] but

[32:51] the cost of collecting it and

[32:53] maintaining it was just too complex and

[32:57] we wouldn't have made money on it. So,

[32:58] now

[33:00] we're looking to go back to a system

[33:01] with some of these controls. We have

[33:03] taken what was a nice facility and

[33:06] really made it a world-class facility

[33:08] when it opens. And so, looking to have

[33:11] some fee structure in place so that

[33:13] there's going to be revenue to do some

[33:16] of the maintenance for uh the nets, uh

[33:20] cleaning the surface of the courts,

[33:22] other

[33:23] uh ancillary maintenance items that will

[33:26] allow the facility to

[33:28] uh again be utilized in a manner that is

[33:32] uh consistent with all the great work

[33:35] we've done in Central Park. There is so

[33:38] many offerings there. It's uh

[33:40] just uh another addition to uh

[33:44] you know, past record of

[33:46] municipal investment.

[33:48] And

[33:49] could there are courts available on

[33:51] Michigan Avenue, uh Jerry Baraga and

[33:54] Karoub Park has tennis courts that there

[33:56] are no fees associated with.

[33:59] Thank you. What's the fee structure

[34:00] difference as it relates to non-resident

[34:02] to resident for playing the playing for

[34:04] tournament, playing for court, playing

[34:06] on a regular basis?

[34:07] >> Correct. Yeah, correct.

[34:08] I That was passed through uh

[34:11] an amendment to the code. It's I have it

[34:13] down on my wall. I don't have it right

[34:14] here. And I know non-profits were I

[34:17] think we were $14 for

[34:19] non-city residents and

[34:22] I'm not sure. I mean, it's I do have it.

[34:24] There is a resolution for that from a few years

[34:27] ago, several years ago.

[34:30] Thank you. I could forward that to you

[34:31] and scan it.

[34:32] >> If you could, please. Councilman

[34:33] Williams. Thank you. I think what I'd be

[34:35] more comfortable with is if we

[34:37] previously had the expectation of people

[34:39] voluntary paying voluntarily paying, I

[34:41] can imagine those numbers are very very

[34:43] low to non-existent. Um what I can find

[34:46] myself supporting

[34:47] definitely have no issue with pushing

[34:49] this forward for a call for public

[34:50] hearing to hear officially, formally

[34:52] from the community. Although I imagine

[34:54] there'll be a lot of angst. Um what I

[34:56] could find myself supporting is having a

[34:58] tiered roll out where having this

[35:00] initially proceed with non-residents and

[35:03] the tournament fees. And I would like to

[35:05] see a further assessment of what money

[35:07] is brought into the city and if there

[35:08] are additional considerations we need to

[35:10] make for residents. Uh I think it'd be more appropriate to to

[35:14] have that kind of tailored roll out

[35:15] rather than saying altogether one thing

[35:17] on our residents

[35:18] to

[35:20] fee structure that hasn't been

[35:22] previously expected. I think it's

[35:24] different than golf. You don't expect to

[35:25] golf for free, but this has been a

[35:27] resource that has been extended to our

[35:29] community and I know it is a nice

[35:31] resource and there are other options. I

[35:32] think very much that comes across poorly

[35:34] as a you can't play at this nice

[35:36] facility, go to the other ones for free.

[35:39] I don't think optically there's a nice

[35:40] way to communicate that to the to the other facilities are

[35:46] first class also. We've done that.

[35:48] All of the

[35:49] pickleball and tennis courts in

[35:52] Bellevue, we're doing some of the crack

[35:55] sealing maintenance on the ones on

[35:57] Michigan Avenue.

[35:58] Uh

[36:00] and again, they shouldn't be viewed as

[36:04] inferior, second rate, but this is now

[36:09] top of the line and the surface is

[36:11] different than the other courts.

[36:16] Mr. Mayor, I appreciate you standing on

[36:17] that. I do think that just

[36:20] based on

[36:21] easy optics as Councilman Williams has

[36:23] stated, obviously our new facility is is

[36:27] going to be completely different than

[36:28] the other facilities even when we

[36:29] resurfaced it and the work that's been

[36:30] put into it. I don't want to belittle

[36:32] the work that's been put into the new

[36:33] Central Park facility area

[36:35] on Arthur Street place, but uh Mr.

[36:37] LaFontaine, if you could potentially

[36:38] provide us I mean, this is obviously

[36:40] just a vote for public hearing. If you

[36:41] could provide us with a little bit of

[36:43] language that would um prove what that

[36:45] would look like for that tiered system

[36:46] for residents to be able to access that

[36:49] at a much reduced cost um

[36:53] compared to what you have currently have

[36:55] now. Uh

[36:57] and this is just for the internal

[36:58] working as well to kick around. If you

[37:00] could email that with me and Councilman

[37:02] uh Council President Williams just so we

[37:03] can have an idea of where we stand as we

[37:05] get to public hearing. If the public

[37:08] comes forward and says that they hate

[37:09] this concept, I want to be prepared to

[37:10] move forward with something else. Okay.

[37:12] Thank you.

[37:13] And then I'm

[37:14] Councilman Williams, I'd recommend

[37:15] sending that to the same just so she

[37:17] could push Miss Mike Lucy to push that

[37:18] to the rest of the council people.

[37:21] Mr. Chairman, so this will be a

[37:22] resolution calling for a public hearing

[37:24] on May 26th. Um what's before you is

[37:28] the draft language

[37:30] reflecting the new smart gate system and

[37:33] deleting the old language which well,

[37:35] the whole section really needs to be

[37:37] redone in light of the smart gate system. So, the uh

[37:42] proposed amendment to the code 16186.25

[37:47] bracketed language is deleting all that

[37:50] old language. The new language is

[37:52] underlined and that's reflecting the

[37:54] smart gate system. And then regarding

[37:57] the the the fees which are

[38:00] uh they are to be set by resolution by

[38:02] the council going forward that rather

[38:03] than having two separate pieces of

[38:05] legislation because it's a new system,

[38:08] the public hearing will cover both the

[38:10] amendment of the ordinance as well as

[38:12] the fees and which is attached to the

[38:14] proposed ordinance. Perfect. Thank you.

[38:16] This will be posted May 11th as well for

[38:17] the public hearing on May 26th. It it

[38:19] would be posted in the interim time. If there's any updates to the fee

[38:23] schedule based on the comments here

[38:25] tonight, the you know, the

[38:27] Mr. LaFontaine can give it to the the

[38:28] city clerk to for posting onto the

[38:30] website for the city. Thank you much.

[38:33] Councilman Williams. I have a final

[38:35] question. Thank you. Any uh unforeseen

[38:37] timelines? I know the tennis season is

[38:39] essentially now got to be we have

[38:41] another snow day which very much feels

[38:43] like that.

[38:45] Um just so we're aware to expedite her.

[38:48] Well, the the tennis courts themselves

[38:49] are scheduled to

[38:51] be open When will they be open first?

[38:53] June 1st.

[38:55] Providing weather accommodates the the

[38:57] last Final question, please.

[39:01] Thank you.

[39:04] And that gives you a little time to

[39:05] install the new lock system as well.

[39:06] Yeah, the lock system is will be

[39:07] installed shortly after. Correct? The

[39:10] lock system is with the June 1st opening

[39:12] at the tennis company and should be in

[39:15] the next week. Perfect. Thank you so

[39:17] much. Any other comments, questions,

[39:19] concerns?

[39:21] Seeing none, do we have a motion? Uh

[39:23] call for public hearing. Yes. Motion to

[39:25] call for public hearing has been moved.

[39:26] Properly seconded. All those in favor?

[39:28] Aye.

[39:29] So moved.

[39:31] Next order of business, CR for National

[39:33] Police Appreciation

[39:35] This is a resolution just recognizing

[39:38] the officers that have laid in line for

[39:39] our city area across the nation. This is

[39:41] nationally recognized

[39:43] resolution is ready to be put forward.

[39:46] Comments, questions, concerns?

[39:49] Seeing none, do I have a motion for

[39:50] resolution? So moved. Is there a move

[39:52] properly seconded? All those in favor?

[39:53] Aye.

[39:54] Second, National Teacher Appreciation

[39:56] Week, which kicks off tomorrow. This is

[39:58] a resolution recognizing our educators

[40:00] inside of the school system,

[40:01] particularly here in the city of

[40:02] Schenectady. Is there any comments,

[40:04] questions, concerns on this?

[40:06] Seeing none, do I have a motion? So

[40:08] moved.

[40:09] Is there a move properly seconded? All

[40:10] those in favor? Aye.

[40:12] Last of the resolutions is Memorial Day

[40:14] resolution in the city of Schenectady

[40:15] recognizing Memorial Day on May 25th of

[40:18] this month.

[40:20] It is a yearly nationally recognized

[40:23] occurrence.

[40:25] Nothing special here about this

[40:26] resolution. Is there any comments,

[40:28] questions, concerns?

[40:29] No.

[40:30] Do I have a motion? So moved. So moved.

[40:32] Is there a move properly seconded? All

[40:34] those in favor? Aye.

[40:36] Next, we have the dumping site to small

[40:38] park and recreational pilot program.

[40:40] I'll do it by myself, chairman of this

[40:42] committee. This program would allow us

[40:43] to take a

[40:46] piece of land. Per the legislation that

[40:48] was written, it would take the Wyoming

[40:49] Street access where we know there's been

[40:51] an issue of dumping and turn that into a

[40:54] recreational {slash} small park area,

[40:57] which would allow for the area to be

[40:58] fenced off for trail cams to be put up

[41:00] to negate dumping sites and would access

[41:04] a small, if allowable per budget,

[41:07] [snorts] small gravel path, table, and

[41:09] no swing sets to create a small

[41:11] recreational area to deter dumping on

[41:13] that site.

[41:15] Comments, questions, concerns?

[41:20] Councilman Owens. Uh sincerely, I think

[41:22] we need to evaluate these types of

[41:23] spaces which linger and present variety

[41:26] of options, one of which is just prompt

[41:28] for dumping absent true enforcement. I

[41:30] think looking at them with a alternative

[41:33] lens of how do we

[41:34] provide more green space in a natural

[41:37] way that makes them more engaging and

[41:41] open

[41:42] to other activities besides illegal

[41:43] dumping, I think is important. Uh

[41:45] definitely we can do it with a cost

[41:47] consideration in mind. Truly being a

[41:50] part of this cleanup as I know a number

[41:51] of other council members have been you

[41:53] know, the chairs being present here

[41:55] tonight. Uh

[41:57] truly the community feels hostage

[41:59] to these types of behaviors dumping and

[42:02] I think if we remove that opportunity

[42:05] from individuals misusing the space and

[42:06] realigning it with something that's very

[42:07] positive, beautiful, beautifying, I

[42:10] think truly it has us look at

[42:11] Schenectady with a different lens. So, I

[42:13] could be in favor of this. I would

[42:15] definitely like to see different plans

[42:17] and expectations for how our chief

[42:19] engineer or also

[42:21] Mr. Misika

[42:22] might potentially have ideas as well.

[42:25] Thank you.

[42:27] Uh my only question was it says low

[42:28] cost. I'd like to know what

[42:30] you're defining low cost as cuz I know

[42:33] when we looked at something for Mr.

[42:35] Johnson a couple weeks ago,

[42:39] there was a a number associated with it.

[42:40] So, I would just like to know what we

[42:42] are considering low cost. Uh certainly

[42:43] low cost for considering for a small

[42:45] park and recreational area, the number

[42:46] was right around the $60,000 mark. By

[42:49] designating that area as a small park

[42:50] and recreation, we can actually use the

[42:51] grant funding that is allowed to be

[42:53] moved over. If I'm speaking incorrectly,

[42:55] Mr. Brown, please feel free to stop me,

[42:57] but with that grant money that we have,

[42:58] say that we're filling up the pool with

[43:00] $260,000 left over money could be used

[43:02] for something like that, which would be

[43:04] at low cost to remainder money of the

[43:06] city. So, we could swing that money over

[43:08] for the grants. We don't lose that grant

[43:09] money. The pilot program is successful,

[43:11] we can continue to use it going forward

[43:13] as we receive different grant money so

[43:14] we want to build it into the budget. So,

[43:16] you're talking specifically the ARPA

[43:17] funding that we recaptured. I'm talking

[43:19] about that funding for this project, but

[43:20] any funding going forward will allow you

[43:22] to do such as you label it as parks and

[43:23] recreation.

[43:25] Uh Ms. Carver is not here. Um

[43:28] Mr. Mayor, are we allowed to use that

[43:30] ARPA funding for a project like this?

[43:32] Have to check uh

[43:35] the if it falls inside the scope and

[43:37] follows the scope, then so.

[43:38] I'm in this area,

[43:39] but in general comments,

[43:42] I appreciate all the time and effort

[43:44] that went in there to clean it up. Uh

[43:47] makes a big difference. We then had a

[43:50] complaint of somebody dumping after

[43:54] uh

[43:55] cleanup has been done. The

[43:59] making more generic comments as opposed

[44:01] to specific ones here because the

[44:03] follow-up is still being done. It was a

[44:05] property owner on the street who was

[44:08] just dumping stuff over the back of

[44:10] their fence.

[44:11] And so, it becomes very hard to

[44:15] maintain property like that if you have

[44:17] the people who are living there who are

[44:21] part of the problem and creating the

[44:23] issue in place.

[44:26] I think to your point, I I agree with

[44:29] you that is part of the problem being in

[44:30] the city. That's why as well as in the

[44:32] LR that I put in is for the trail cam so

[44:34] this way you can see who's actually

[44:36] allowing for an enforcement process to

[44:38] be in place. It's not just a feel good,

[44:39] it's practical um as well as allowing

[44:41] for officers to enforce that process.

[44:43] Then if we find that it's a homeowner

[44:44] that is doing this dumping after so many

[44:46] people have volunteered their time to

[44:48] clean up a neighborhood, I think that

[44:49] the the officers as well would be in

[44:51] favor of making it easy enforcement

[44:53] going forward.

[44:56] Councilman Owens. Uh I'd say to that

[44:58] point, definitely like giving credit

[44:59] where credit is due. If I'm correct,

[45:01] there was kind of a legislator who kind

[45:02] of forwarded that comment to Chief

[45:04] Whipple. Truly a testament to both of

[45:07] them for taking upon themselves to

[45:08] vocalize those concerns. And I say that

[45:10] for a number of reasons, the one in

[45:12] which is

[45:13] if you see something, say something. I

[45:14] think a lot of people around the city

[45:15] just think that if I even if I do say

[45:17] something, nothing is going to happen.

[45:19] That is the only way to ensure that

[45:20] nothing happens. By vocalizing the

[45:22] issues or the pain points in our city is

[45:24] how we identify these issues, not

[45:26] assuming what people know or don't know,

[45:28] and then allowing the appropriate

[45:29] parties to respond in a manner that is

[45:32] indicative of us running a city

[45:33] effectively. So, I think in this

[45:35] scenario, definitely think that most

[45:37] homeowners would know what you can and

[45:39] cannot do. Uh

[45:41] chalk that up to as a lack of

[45:42] understanding.

[45:43] Uh but sincerely, I think once notified,

[45:45] this individual quickly uh

[45:48] cleaned up that area and I hope will

[45:50] understand the gravity of containing

[45:51] that type of behavior moving forward.

[45:53] Um and in the grand scheme of things,

[45:55] this is essentially one less resident

[45:57] that we have to deal with in addressing

[45:59] these types of behaviors. Uh so, I

[46:01] applaud this effort and I look forward

[46:02] to seeing how it can continue uh so that

[46:04] we can look at not just this area, but

[46:06] also other potential areas throughout

[46:07] the city. Councilman Owens. I think

[46:10] Comments, questions, concerns?

[46:12] Seeing none, do I have a motion?

[46:14] So moved.

[46:15] Is there a move properly seconded?

[46:18] The pilot program is going to take This

[46:20] has to have a public hearing, Mr.

[46:21] No, are you are you looking for what

[46:23] taking money out of the ARPA funding

[46:25] that's left over for the first $60,000

[46:27] to do

[46:28] I think it's just a resolution.

[46:30] But not sure that we need to make that

[46:33] We got to make We have to make sure that money that's being programmed here

[46:38] is qualified under the ARPA. Should I

[46:40] amend the motion to include that

[46:42] statement? For

[46:43] you can put it in pending you know, if

[46:46] it qualifies under the ARPA funding

[46:48] program. So,

[46:50] Councilman Owens. No, go.

[46:51] So, I'd say

[46:53] wanting to see the scope of the project,

[46:55] I think having those details in

[46:57] addition, I can

[46:59] formally say I'm in agreement with this.

[47:00] I think but absent having actually just

[47:02] some documentation of what that scope of

[47:04] the project would look like,

[47:06] I would want to see that first.

[47:07] >> You can motion to table

[47:08] Uh I would agree. I would like to see

[47:11] um the detail of what's going to be

[47:12] done. You know, it says in here the city

[47:13] engineer will write a site site

[47:14] assessment.

[47:16] Um so, I would just like to see what the

[47:17] cost like the breakdown would be and

[47:19] then go from there

[47:21] before we move forward with this. Mr.

[47:23] Chairman, do you want to put it off for

[47:24] 2 weeks for those reports? We can do

[47:26] that.

[47:27] At this time, Mr. Brown, I'll take your

[47:28] recommendation of tabling this for 2

[47:30] weeks to the next council cycle so this

[47:32] way we can get the appropriate

[47:35] information and detailing of what that

[47:36] looks like from our city engineer.

[47:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.

[47:41] I appreciate you.

[47:43] Next on the list, second to last, we

[47:44] have re-amending section 9-6 of

[47:46] Schenectady City Codes to increase the

[47:47] membership of the Downtown Special

[47:48] Assessment District Board from 9 to 15

[47:51] members and amend to such a membership

[47:53] qualifications. PH was on April 27th,

[47:56] 2026. Presenting this is Council

[47:59] President Carl Williams. Thank you. Uh

[48:01] this was

[48:02] previously heard. We had a public

[48:04] hearing. I don't believe anyone came to

[48:06] speak. Uh so, it's going to go forward

[48:08] for final consideration. Absent any

[48:10] questions or comments from the council.

[48:14] Mr. Chairman, it's ready for final

[48:16] action by the council. It's

[48:17] housekeeping. It's just conforming the

[48:19] ordinance with the law that was passed a

[48:21] few years ago.

[48:24] Does this Do you need a motion for this

[48:25] or do you need Uh you make a motion just

[48:27] to for final action.

[48:29] So moved.

[48:30] And seconded.

[48:31] Second. I'm sorry. I apologize. I will

[48:34] Are there any comments, questions, or

[48:34] concerns on this action item?

[48:37] Seeing none, do I have a motion? So

[48:38] moved.

[48:40] Okay. been moved properly seconded. All

[48:41] those in favor? Aye.

[48:43] Last on the list, also excuse me, just

[48:45] for

[48:47] to make sure I'm incorrect uh I'm

[48:49] correct, excuse me. Uh Mr. Brown, do we

[48:51] need a motion for that for the engineer

[48:53] to bring that to me in 2 weeks? To go

[48:55] back to that last second to last item

[48:56] for the dumping?

[48:57] You can do that.

[48:59] Yes. Make a motion for the table that

[49:01] for 2 weeks.

[49:02] Do I have a motion to table that for 2

[49:04] weeks to allow the city engineer the

[49:05] time to get us the information on what

[49:07] the pilot program for small parks and

[49:08] recreation would be? So moved.

[49:11] It's been moved properly seconded. All

[49:13] those in favor? Aye.

[49:14] Thank you. Last item on the list for

[49:16] government operations, CPH amending

[49:18] chapter 161 of Schenectady City Codes.

[49:21] Mayor Gary McCarthy.

[49:24] That's me. Oh, I've got the wrong name

[49:26] here. Carl Williams.

[49:28] Uh yes. So, uh definitely this is more

[49:31] towards the conclusionary phase. Uh

[49:33] everyone should have received the

[49:35] language regarding code amendments for

[49:37] chapter 161. I definitely before going

[49:40] into this, I appreciate all of the

[49:42] collaborative discussion that we've had.

[49:45] Mr. O'Brien, if it's appropriate, would

[49:47] you mind just walking us through

[49:49] Okay. Those changes, not just for the

[49:51] council, but also for individuals

[49:53] listening in. Okay.

[49:54] Um what's before you is a draft based on

[49:57] the prior discussions the council

[49:59] committee has had over the last several

[50:01] weeks regarding amending chapter 161 of

[50:03] the Schenectady City

[50:06] which is dealing with the fee-based

[50:08] system for collection of solid waste and

[50:10] recyclables in the city.

[50:12] Um what's before the entire

[50:14] council and what is published online is

[50:17] the that entire section article five of

[50:20] chapter 161.

[50:22] And

[50:24] we the first part of it is really

[50:25] definitions

[50:27] of what waste is, etc.

[50:31] But then you go into the section of

[50:33] 161-21

[50:34] which is you know, a number of

[50:36] discussions

[50:37] over the last several weeks. In

[50:40] particular, 161 subparagraph B, sections

[50:44] one and two. That's dealing with the

[50:48] size of the containers being for no less

[50:51] than 10 [snorts] gallons and no more

[50:53] than 45 gallons in size with lids and

[50:56] that the

[50:57] bags where you garbage would be placed

[50:59] in plastic refuse bags tied at the top

[51:02] for collection.

[51:03] And containers, what is new language is

[51:07] the size of the containers, maximum size

[51:10] of 45 gallons, that's news. And

[51:13] containers uh

[51:15] the size was

[51:17] already there, but now everything has to

[51:18] be placed in the containers and

[51:21] containers containers will be privately

[51:22] purchased and each residence residential

[51:24] collection points will have one

[51:25] container for solid waste and one for

[51:28] recyclable rubbish.

[51:30] So it was 45 gallons was prior was but

[51:33] now it's that the waste will be placed in plastic bags

[51:38] contained in a in a

[51:40] container with a lid. Um and

[51:44] size of 10 gallons and no more than 45

[51:47] gallons, so that's changed.

[51:50] The excess solid waste items that are not can be put into the 45 gallon

[51:56] can. Um there is a schedule set forth in

[52:01] D

[52:02] which is shall be collected in

[52:03] coordination with the city's scheduled

[52:05] white goods collection.

[52:07] And collection of such items are

[52:09] occurring no more than once per calendar

[52:10] year month on a date designated for each

[52:14] collection district as as established by

[52:17] the city of Schenectady.

[52:19] Then we get into the the rates or tiers

[52:21] of service if you will for those excess

[52:24] items.

[52:26] Each single residential property

[52:27] permitted up to two bulky items and or

[52:30] quantities of excess solid waste for

[52:31] collection on the designated monthly

[52:33] collection day.

[52:35] And for a two-family, it'll be up to two

[52:37] can containers for solid waste will be

[52:39] permitted permitted and up to four bulky

[52:42] items and or and or quantities of excess

[52:44] solid waste for collection on the

[52:45] designated monthly collection day.

[52:48] And then for three-family residential

[52:50] property, up to three containers will be

[52:52] permitted and up to six bulky items and

[52:55] or quantities of excess solid waste for

[52:57] collection on the designated monthly

[52:58] collection days.

[53:00] And then white goods which are those

[53:02] items such as stoves, dishwashers, and

[53:04] washing machines shall be collected

[53:06] without numerical limitation. And as as

[53:09] long as such items are placed for

[53:11] collection in accordance with the

[53:12] already city's established schedule.

[53:16] Okay, that was based on discussions that

[53:17] you the committee had with the council

[53:20] had with Mr. O'Brien and and Chris Wan

[53:23] over the past couple of weeks and that

[53:25] language is

[53:28] from them and

[53:29] coordinated in with the corporation

[53:31] council's office.

[53:33] Um

[53:35] Of note is the section C. This is the section that we had the

[53:41] moratorium on the sticker program

[53:44] which is by its own terms that

[53:47] particular provision sunsets on June

[53:50] 14th.

[53:52] Then we get into the bracketed material

[53:55] that's

[53:56] contained. Bracketed material means it's deleted. And what is that? That's

[54:02] dealing with the business of the that

[54:05] fee schedule X

[54:07] and the container and the sticker

[54:09] program. So

[54:11] in there in in what you see, anything

[54:13] that's bracketed

[54:15] and anything that

[54:17] anything that's bracketed is deleted.

[54:20] Anything that's underlined is new.

[54:24] Um

[54:26] Also in in

[54:28] there was discussions

[54:31] at the last council meeting regarding

[54:33] creating a separate solid waste fund.

[54:36] The code already allows for that. Um and

[54:40] that fees are are established by

[54:42] resolution.

[54:44] Um but to underscore that, I am looking

[54:46] at

[54:46] 161-

[54:49] 23

[54:51] uh B

[54:53] where it says the director of finance

[54:54] shall establish and maintain a separate

[54:56] solid waste collection fund to be to

[54:58] record and control the financial

[55:00] activity related to the provision of

[55:02] solid waste collection by the city.

[55:05] The fund shall be maintained on the same

[55:07] fiscal year as the city of Schenectady.

[55:11] Um each year, this is already in the

[55:13] code. Um each year the mayor at the time

[55:17] of the submission of the annual budget

[55:18] estimate to the city council shall

[55:20] submit a statement of estimated

[55:22] revenues, expenditures, and changes in

[55:24] the fund as well as the fund balance for

[55:26] the current fiscal year together with

[55:28] estimate of expenditures for the next

[55:30] fiscal year.

[55:32] The mayor shall also at the same time

[55:33] recommend a basic rate sufficient to

[55:36] meet the estimated expenditures for the

[55:37] next fiscal year taking into

[55:39] consideration the estimated surplus or

[55:41] deficit occurring from the fund

[55:43] operations in the current year and other

[55:46] sources of revenues.

[55:48] And then I would add language said fees

[55:51] are these charged at the

[55:53] will be set the level of collection

[55:55] service for each collection point. I

[55:57] think that is capturing the tier of

[55:59] service that if it's a larger residence

[56:00] a larger

[56:02] collection point, the fee is different

[56:04] like we were talking one, two, and

[56:06] three-family house residential units

[56:08] earlier.

[56:10] And uh

[56:13] the

[56:14] a new section C. Even though the code

[56:17] currently calls for that fund, but they

[56:19] kind of belt and suspenders it and to

[56:21] really emphasize it, commencing in the

[56:23] city fiscal year 2027, the solid waste

[56:26] collection fund will be designated in

[56:28] the 2027 operating budget as a separate

[56:30] fund and such fund shall be in

[56:32] conformance with New York State local

[56:34] finance law.

[56:35] So this is bringing that authority

[56:37] that's already in the code and kind of

[56:40] bringing it forward so it's you're

[56:42] starting in fiscal year 2027

[56:45] just like you have a golf fund, water

[56:48] fund, a sewer fund, it will be a

[56:50] separate line item stand alone there.

[56:54] Um once again, annual determination of

[56:56] funds which is under 161-24,

[56:59] that's already as part of the the city

[57:02] existing city code. A schedule of the

[57:05] annual fee. I will look at the second

[57:07] section second sentence. A schedule of

[57:10] the annual collection fee shall be

[57:11] approved by the city council by

[57:13] resolution, maintained on file in the

[57:15] commissioner's office, and the office of

[57:17] the city clerk. Once again, underscoring

[57:20] what the council was looking at as far

[57:22] as a tiered level of service as said

[57:25] fees to be charged will be set to level

[57:27] collection service for each collection

[57:29] point.

[57:32] Um

[57:33] then going down to 161-25.

[57:37] Um this is for exemptions. Any person

[57:40] because of age or disability shall

[57:42] qualify for an exemption from city real

[57:44] property taxes per and and to qualify

[57:47] for real tax

[57:49] real property tax

[57:51] exemptions and is the owner and occupant

[57:53] of any premises receiving solid waste

[57:55] services provided pursuant to this

[57:57] article shall be charged a reduced fee

[57:59] for solid waste collection and disposal

[58:01] services in the total sum.

[58:03] The existing code is 137. That's just

[58:06] hasn't kept current.

[58:08] There's two type real quick. There's two

[58:09] types of ordinances. There's ordinances

[58:11] that amend the code which are the

[58:13] chapter codes that we're dealing with

[58:15] right now. And then you do your budget

[58:17] ordinance and your your your bond

[58:19] ordinance which are separate stand alone

[58:21] ordinances that don't

[58:23] get into the code. So when you over the

[58:26] years when the council's adopted the

[58:28] various budget ordinances, it's setting

[58:30] the fee for that reduced fee. It just

[58:33] was never captured into this part of the city code. So this is just

[58:39] indicating what that current rate is

[58:41] based on the the most current budget.

[58:46] So it's just that's a housekeeping type

[58:48] thing. Um that's

[58:50] it's already

[58:52] uh recognized in in the budget

[58:54] ordinance.

[58:56] And then the uh

[59:01] the council was concerned regarding

[59:03] violations and updating administrative

[59:06] fees. Um this and the penalties is

[59:08] 161-26,

[59:11] penalties for offenses.

[59:13] Um it's new language um in subdivision B

[59:17] is each and every day that a violate

[59:19] violation continues after notice and the

[59:21] expiration of the time for abatement

[59:24] shall continue a separate and distinct

[59:26] offense subject to the penalties

[59:27] provided herein.

[59:29] And uh

[59:31] that's already in the existing code, but

[59:33] it's just rephrased and renumbered in

[59:36] that section.

[59:37] And then we're getting into the

[59:38] escalating civil penalties and lean

[59:40] enforcement. In addition to any

[59:42] penalties imposed in subsection A

[59:45] um which is hasn't been changed, civil

[59:47] penalties for violations of this chapter

[59:49] shall be assessed on an escalating basis

[59:51] for repeat offenses occurring within a

[59:53] 12-month period at the same property or

[59:56] the by the same responsible party.

[59:58] Now, each violation shall include a base

[1:00:00] administrative fee for uh uh

[1:00:03] $75. You know, Council member would have

[1:00:06] been concerned about that

[1:00:08] uh

[1:00:09] administrative fee. I hadn't kept

[1:00:10] current with the other administrative

[1:00:11] fees that were increased a couple of

[1:00:13] years ago.

[1:00:15] In addition, a cleanup fee shall be

[1:00:16] assessed on an escalating basis. So, in

[1:00:19] other words, a cleanup fee, whatever it

[1:00:20] costs the city to clean up the

[1:00:22] particular amount.

[1:00:24] And then if there's a a set of first

[1:00:25] violation, a $75 administrative fee plus

[1:00:28] a $75 cleanup cleanup fee plus a

[1:00:32] and then a second violation is a $75

[1:00:36] administrative fee and a cleanup fee.

[1:00:38] And then a third violation is once again

[1:00:40] the administrative fee and the $175

[1:00:43] cleanup fee. And the fourth and

[1:00:45] subsequent violations within 12 months,

[1:00:48] $75 administrative fee and a total

[1:00:50] cleanup fee of $275. So, the idea is

[1:00:53] that

[1:00:54] there's a cost to the city. The city's

[1:00:56] trying to recoup its costs, but also the

[1:00:59] just going out there it will be $75.

[1:01:03] Any unpaid fees, penalties incurred in

[1:01:05] connection with the enforcement or

[1:01:06] mediation shall constitute a lien on the

[1:01:09] property may be collected in the same

[1:01:10] manner as real property taxes or any

[1:01:13] other means authorized by law. In other

[1:01:15] words, some other parts of the code

[1:01:17] allow for liens for cleanup to be

[1:01:19] assessed to the property.

[1:01:21] Um and that that's paid as a tax as a

[1:01:23] fee.

[1:01:24] Um and if and it's a lien. In other

[1:01:27] words, when they try to sell the

[1:01:28] property, the city has to be made whole.

[1:01:32] And then there's the administrative

[1:01:34] fee which is in 161-26D.

[1:01:39] Um that's the administrative fee which I

[1:01:41] indicated

[1:01:43] earlier.

[1:01:44] And then in addition to any fines and

[1:01:46] new penalties imposed, the city may

[1:01:48] abate any violation or condition

[1:01:50] constituting a public nuisance nuisance

[1:01:53] or health hazard. This is new section E.

[1:01:55] All costs associated connection with

[1:01:58] such abatement include by not limited to

[1:02:00] labor, equipment, disposal,

[1:02:01] administrative costs shall be charged to

[1:02:03] the property owner. Such costs will

[1:02:05] constitute a lien upon the property and

[1:02:08] may be collected

[1:02:09] in the same manner as the real property

[1:02:11] taxes and civil action.

[1:02:13] These sections were put together by the

[1:02:16] folks who deal with it on a daily basis.

[1:02:20] Mr.

[1:02:21] Lafond and and and Mr. London.

[1:02:25] And their crews deal with these these

[1:02:27] issue on a daily basis dealing with

[1:02:29] those properties that

[1:02:31] are

[1:02:32] non-compliant. Once again, the bracketed

[1:02:35] in you know, the the bracketed language

[1:02:39] B and C

[1:02:41] they're re-re-re-re

[1:02:44] rephrased

[1:02:46] regarding the

[1:02:48] continuing violation and then C was

[1:02:50] dealing with the $50 administrative fee.

[1:02:54] Section F is renumbered. This is

[1:02:56] something the council approved last year

[1:02:58] or the year before making any the

[1:03:00] depositing or placement of collection of

[1:03:01] solid waste not generated within the

[1:03:03] city of Schenectady as an unclassified

[1:03:06] misdemeanor punishable by a fine not

[1:03:08] exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment for

[1:03:10] a period exceeding 180 not exceeding 180

[1:03:13] days.

[1:03:15] That was put into the code of a couple

[1:03:16] of years ago. It's just re-lettered in

[1:03:19] this new section.

[1:03:21] And then

[1:03:23] Article 2, as Mr. London explained, you

[1:03:25] know, our you know, Chapter 161 is

[1:03:29] rather large. So, we have to go into

[1:03:31] other sections that deal with some of

[1:03:33] the material uh

[1:03:35] items that we just dealt with. Once

[1:03:37] again, 161-4H

[1:03:41] is dealing with garbage and recyclable

[1:03:42] rubbish placed in containers with lids

[1:03:46] at the curb and no less than 10 gallons

[1:03:49] and no more than 45 gallons.

[1:03:52] And then penalties for property owners

[1:03:54] and occupants.

[1:03:55] Um this is where we get into the grace

[1:03:58] period. Whether the the council wants to

[1:04:00] institute a grace period regarding the

[1:04:02] enforcement of this

[1:04:04] um when we did this last time there was

[1:04:06] an a grace period from January 1, 2025

[1:04:10] to an enforcement period of April 1st of

[1:04:12] last year.

[1:04:14] That that language is bracketed because

[1:04:16] if you want to put a new grace period in

[1:04:18] that language, but I don't know what you

[1:04:20] want to put in a grace period in.

[1:04:22] So, um I I note that in the my notes in

[1:04:26] the the bottom of 161-24N

[1:04:29] that new time periods for public

[1:04:31] education and commencement of

[1:04:32] enforcement need to be set. Those are

[1:04:34] the old those are the old dates from

[1:04:36] last year.

[1:04:37] And then

[1:04:41] that's um that continues with that

[1:04:43] section. Note the effective date can be

[1:04:45] set for a time period after other

[1:04:46] adoption. This ordi- ordinance can take

[1:04:49] effect immediately or if you want to put

[1:04:51] in a 100 day 120 days after adoption to

[1:04:54] give once again a period of of a grace

[1:04:56] period in in for in enforcement

[1:04:59] education, etc.

[1:05:02] So,

[1:05:03] that's the summary.

[1:05:07] SparkNotes, appreciate it.

[1:05:09] Mr. Brian, I apologize I didn't call you

[1:05:10] Mr. Brown earlier. I don't know where

[1:05:12] that came from. I appreciate you

[1:05:13] answering me and I called you the wrong

[1:05:15] name.

[1:05:17] Hearing all of the information that was

[1:05:18] just brought before you, comments,

[1:05:20] questions, concerns, thoughts?

[1:05:24] I know um I have one that I know that

[1:05:26] Council member Wiggins had brought up

[1:05:28] prior. Is there something that we're looking to adopt or change to

[1:05:32] allow under penalties and fees to make

[1:05:34] sure that we are not penalizing people

[1:05:36] during snow storms, during heavy weather

[1:05:38] times, or ever changing our our

[1:05:40] sanitation code as now

[1:05:42] to make sure that we're not

[1:05:44] just giving people violations at $150 a

[1:05:47] clip

[1:05:48] during those time frames.

[1:05:50] Say the deep deep sets of December.

[1:05:53] I'll you know, I'll let the commissioner

[1:05:55] speak to those to that point directly. I

[1:05:58] mean, certainly the commissioner has

[1:05:59] authority has has made promulgate right

[1:06:02] under the existing authority that he has

[1:06:04] under 161-21

[1:06:07] um

[1:06:09] C of 161, the commissioner may

[1:06:12] promulgate regulations covering the

[1:06:13] items of collection of solid waste and

[1:06:15] fees charged for therefore and such

[1:06:18] other matters pertaining to public

[1:06:19] collection and disposal of solid waste.

[1:06:22] So,

[1:06:24] he has the the commissioner has

[1:06:25] authority under there to waive during

[1:06:28] certain time periods. So, I mean, it's

[1:06:31] you never know. You you

[1:06:33] um

[1:06:35] But we can always put something in more

[1:06:37] in the ordinance. Mr. Mr. Chairman,

[1:06:40] that

[1:06:41] as we try and cover everything, the

[1:06:43] lawyers have gone over and analyzed it,

[1:06:44] I would have

[1:06:46] still expect the staff in the field to

[1:06:47] use common sense.

[1:06:50] You know, so that

[1:06:51] I mean, they can't cover every

[1:06:55] possible scenario

[1:06:57] out there, but we would hope and

[1:07:00] direct the staff to again use those

[1:07:03] parameters of common sense so that it

[1:07:05] works for people, it makes sense, and it

[1:07:08] serves the needs of the people. Tell

[1:07:10] staff we solve problems, we don't create

[1:07:12] them.

[1:07:14] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:07:16] Are there any comments, questions,

[1:07:17] concerns?

[1:07:19] Mr.

[1:07:20] Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this is this is as

[1:07:23] you know as you know you're on a tight

[1:07:25] schedule regarding you know, regarding

[1:07:27] June 14th. At this point, you can call

[1:07:30] for a public hearing which would be on

[1:07:31] May 26th.

[1:07:33] You have one more between now and then.

[1:07:35] You do have one more

[1:07:39] second committee cycle to you know, to

[1:07:41] mark up any changes or anything. And

[1:07:43] they as long as it's marked up and

[1:07:46] changed at least a week before the

[1:07:47] public hearing, that gives the public

[1:07:49] enough

[1:07:50] information to see what what changes. And obviously

[1:07:54] this has been posted already on the

[1:07:55] agenda for tonight's meeting, so the

[1:07:57] public is aware of

[1:07:59] for forthcoming coming changes. And if

[1:08:02] you want to mark this up at the next

[1:08:04] committee cycle, you can do so and it

[1:08:05] will be posted you know, after you it's

[1:08:08] voted out of committee. But at this

[1:08:10] point because of the cycle, I recommend

[1:08:12] that you call for a public hearing on

[1:08:14] the proposed ordinance amendments for

[1:08:16] May 26th. Absolutely. Uh Council member

[1:08:20] I did have three questions. The first of

[1:08:23] which, definitely thank you for that

[1:08:25] synopsis, Mr. Brian.

[1:08:28] Um with regards to stickers that are

[1:08:31] already in circulation, Mr. Lafond or

[1:08:33] Mayor, do you have any do you have any

[1:08:35] comments? I just talked with a few

[1:08:37] residents and I was I paid money for

[1:08:39] these items to throw them away. I think

[1:08:41] it's disingenuous. Is there a way we can

[1:08:42] consider honoring those moving forward?

[1:08:46] All right now.

[1:08:49] Thank you. With the sticker

[1:08:52] program suspended,

[1:08:53] people are putting that bulky items out

[1:08:56] that we're taking. It doesn't matter if

[1:08:57] there's one of them, two items, or three

[1:08:59] items.

[1:09:00] It's suspended. So, if they have bulky

[1:09:01] items right now, we're taking it. Um

[1:09:05] So, if you

[1:09:07] put the sticker program back and you had

[1:09:08] stickers,

[1:09:10] um

[1:09:11] I think they got rid of their stuff

[1:09:12] already.

[1:09:14] If it was if it was in the law in the

[1:09:16] last last couple weeks, it it went out

[1:09:18] over the last you know, over the grace

[1:09:20] period we gave them. A lot of the bulky

[1:09:22] items we took a lot of the bulky items

[1:09:23] out.

[1:09:24] But that's a decision of you. If you

[1:09:25] want me to say if you got three if you

[1:09:27] got four stickers you put it out. How

[1:09:29] you want to do it is up to you. But I

[1:09:31] think most people probably, you know,

[1:09:34] put up their bulk items already.

[1:09:36] Answer your question, Councilman

[1:09:38] Or if I was to say someone is holding

[1:09:40] them, just because they love them as a

[1:09:42] nostalgic heir item,

[1:09:44] when we do transition to this restricted

[1:09:46] program, could we put in place language

[1:09:48] that says you can use your stickers in

[1:09:51] excess of what is currently allowed?

[1:09:54] I don't see why not.

[1:09:55] Uh we just wouldn't we wouldn't sell any

[1:09:57] additional stickers. That's great.

[1:10:00] Cuz if they're holding them, they got

[1:10:01] rid of the free stuff, now holding it so

[1:10:02] we put the sticker program. And they

[1:10:04] spent money on that. So they did spend

[1:10:05] the the $5 per sticker. So we would

[1:10:07] just, you know, uh discontinue the sale

[1:10:09] of the stickers. And if they were on

[1:10:11] there, they would use them all.

[1:10:12] Perfect. Thank you. Um the second uh

[1:10:16] question was uh along the lines of this

[1:10:18] our winter climate months. Um

[1:10:20] individuals definitely have mobility

[1:10:22] issues. Then also houses, based on how

[1:10:24] snow falls off your roof, you might not

[1:10:26] be able to put your trash can where you

[1:10:27] normally keep it, especially if we're

[1:10:29] making that a condition of this.

[1:10:31] Uh is it appropriate to then consider

[1:10:33] people or households being able to put

[1:10:35] their trash cans in front of their

[1:10:37] houses during the winter months?

[1:10:40] In front versus On the side.

[1:10:42] >> side. So I know that people have

[1:10:43] received violations. It's random

[1:10:45] violations if your trash can is on the

[1:10:47] side of the road. If there's rain, like

[1:10:48] we've had that. I know that from people

[1:10:50] talking to me and elders in the

[1:10:52] community. Is there a way to make sure

[1:10:53] that if I'm correct in my

[1:10:56] to make sure we're not giving those

[1:10:57] violations or fees to people have to put

[1:10:59] them on the side of their porch or on

[1:11:00] the side where they can easily access it

[1:11:02] to roll out.

[1:11:03] Well, I think like that the mayor said

[1:11:05] that, you know, we have to use common

[1:11:07] sense. So if there's a pending snow

[1:11:09] storm somebody has their can a couple

[1:11:11] days before in the front, common sense.

[1:11:13] But if it's there

[1:11:14] continuously and constantly,

[1:11:16] you know,

[1:11:17] then again, you know, the city code does

[1:11:18] state that they have to be out of sight

[1:11:20] in the backyard, not on the side. Except

[1:11:22] if you're living in a corner lot, they

[1:11:23] can be visible because it's a corner

[1:11:25] lot. But again,

[1:11:27] you know, if there's 2 ft of snow

[1:11:28] coming, they took their

[1:11:30] trash cans on the porch cuz they don't

[1:11:31] want to shovel it out.

[1:11:34] I think we got more important things to

[1:11:36] do during a snowstorm than to look at a

[1:11:38] trash can that's, you know, by the front

[1:11:40] of the house. But again, you know, it's

[1:11:42] during what we'll call severe storm

[1:11:44] events, not on a regular basis. And

[1:11:46] again, it's it's good judgment or it's

[1:11:48] common sense that we have to use overall

[1:11:49] there.

[1:11:50] My problem is to say common sense isn't

[1:11:52] always common. So we want to make sure

[1:11:53] we cover our bases as well, right?

[1:11:55] Any further question, Councilman Jones?

[1:11:56] And the third question, definitely in

[1:11:57] the spirit of Mr. Mulveyhill, since he's

[1:11:59] not here, my only question is with those

[1:12:02] violations, I appreciate including an

[1:12:04] elevated administrative fee. Can you

[1:12:06] speak to your level of confidence that

[1:12:07] this is going to make a difference in

[1:12:09] impeding these types of behaviors from

[1:12:10] continuing? Someone saying, "I'm just

[1:12:12] going to keep putting these I'm going to

[1:12:13] keep putting my trash out and I'll pay

[1:12:15] the fee because the fee means nothing."

[1:12:18] I think that

[1:12:19] well, as it states now, the $50 fee is

[1:12:21] just a small price to pay if you're

[1:12:22] going to put a whole bunch of garbage

[1:12:23] out there. It has successfully because

[1:12:26] the ones that are taking advantage of it

[1:12:28] are going to continue to do it because

[1:12:30] it's still cost effective to just put it

[1:12:32] out and pay $50. Pay $75. So escalating

[1:12:34] is, you know, after after the fourth, I

[1:12:38] don't know what we do after you get to

[1:12:39] that point. Just, you know,

[1:12:42] Well, it's kind of

[1:12:43] as Mr. Chairman and and

[1:12:44] Council President, it's going to act as

[1:12:46] a lien. This language has a lien on the

[1:12:48] property as a as a, you know, it's this these costs will be assessed

[1:12:54] to the property where you if they don't

[1:12:55] you have to pay your property taxes

[1:12:57] obviously. If you don't pay your

[1:12:58] property taxes,

[1:13:00] we go through foreclosure or if the

[1:13:01] house is going to be sold at some point,

[1:13:03] those liens will have to be cleared up

[1:13:05] before that individual can sell the

[1:13:06] property.

[1:13:09] Thank you.

[1:13:11] Any comments, questions, concerns?

[1:13:15] The recommendation on the table is to

[1:13:17] move this to public hearing for May

[1:13:18] 26th.

[1:13:20] Do I have a motion to do such? So moved.

[1:13:22] Second. It has been moved and properly

[1:13:23] seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

[1:13:27] Does

[1:13:28] And the last item for government

[1:13:29] operations, do I have a motion to close

[1:13:31] out the meeting on government

[1:13:32] operations? Um Mr. uh Chairman and Mr.

[1:13:36] Council President, I know that you asked

[1:13:38] for a report for the city finance

[1:13:39] report. Do you want to have that tonight

[1:13:42] or do you want to put that off?

[1:13:44] Councilman Jones. So I was actually

[1:13:45] considering that, definitely in the

[1:13:47] spirit of how we started the meeting.

[1:13:48] There was a lot of jockeying along the

[1:13:49] schedule. Thank you to the community and

[1:13:51] everyone in the room for being patient.

[1:13:53] Um

[1:13:54] having the time to reassess. I think now

[1:13:56] with

[1:13:57] Councilman Ingram in the room, we can

[1:13:59] proceed with city development planning.

[1:14:01] Um

[1:14:02] my only hesitancy with including the

[1:14:03] conversation around the first quarter

[1:14:06] report, I appreciate being here, Mr.

[1:14:08] Mulveyhill. It's

[1:14:09] two of our other senior experienced

[1:14:11] councilmembers are not present for that.

[1:14:12] So rather than you having to repeat that

[1:14:13] again, I would ask for your just grace

[1:14:16] if we can push that off for 2 months. 2

[1:14:19] weeks. 2 weeks. 2 weeks.

[1:14:23] >> [laughter]

[1:14:24] >> 2 weeks. Excuse me. I would appreciate

[1:14:26] that.

[1:14:27] Thank you, sir.

[1:14:28] Um so do you close all of the same

[1:14:30] meetings?

[1:14:31] Mr. Bradley, do you have any No,

[1:14:33] nothing. I was just a housekeeper today.

[1:14:35] So at this time, I'll take a entertain a

[1:14:36] motion to close government operations.

[1:14:38] So moved.

[1:14:39] It has been moved and properly seconded.

[1:14:40] All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

[1:14:42] Government operations is now closed. So

[1:14:44] I'd like to call to order city

[1:14:45] development and planning. We previously

[1:14:47] had nine items, two of which were

[1:14:49] discussing government operations. That

[1:14:51] was now seven remaining. The first of

[1:14:53] which is going to be the appointments to

[1:14:55] this civilian police review board. Um

[1:14:57] Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, um

[1:14:59] we had a conversation earlier today

[1:15:01] uh regarding one of the individuals that

[1:15:04] was taking a

[1:15:06] seat with the NAACP. After ongoing

[1:15:09] conversations and trying to make some

[1:15:10] considerations

[1:15:12] uh moving forward,

[1:15:14] uh that is a uh consideration that we're

[1:15:16] going to withhold for tonight.

[1:15:18] Um

[1:15:20] it is then

[1:15:21] my expectation to move the other

[1:15:23] remaining two individuals.

[1:15:26] And Mr. Mayor, if I can just confirm,

[1:15:28] there are appointments for

[1:15:31] Excuse me.

[1:15:34] the NAACP,

[1:15:36] the Sycamore Collaborative,

[1:15:38] and the Human Rights Commission that you

[1:15:40] are currently in possession of.

[1:15:44] Correct. In the next cycle, I'll send

[1:15:45] you a letter making those

[1:15:46] recommendations. Appreciate that, sir.

[1:15:50] Um so with the exclusion of uh Hillary

[1:15:54] Sneer, I would entertain a motion to

[1:15:56] move those two remaining uh nominations

[1:15:58] forward. Do it the next cycle.

[1:16:02] But those letters we already have.

[1:16:04] Oh, the ones you have, yes, you can move

[1:16:06] forward on those.

[1:16:07] Thank you.

[1:16:09] Who was the third you said? NAACP,

[1:16:11] Sycamore and

[1:16:12] Uh

[1:16:13] Councilman Jones, it was NAACP, Sycamore

[1:16:16] Collaborative, and the Human Rights

[1:16:17] Commission.

[1:16:21] And you will move all three of those in

[1:16:22] the next cycle. Uh the mayor is going to

[1:16:24] provide Mr. Chairman, excuse me.

[1:16:26] Mayor McCarthy, you're good with

[1:16:27] providing all three of those in the next

[1:16:28] cycle. Is that the statement you made?

[1:16:31] For recommendation for NAACP, Sycamore,

[1:16:33] and Human Rights. I'm not sure which

[1:16:35] letter you should have to

[1:16:39] Mr. Mr. Council President, you what Mr.

[1:16:42] Mayor has is

[1:16:43] the what's before you right now is the

[1:16:45] reps for the Housing Authority

[1:16:48] and the

[1:16:49] and and the League of Women Voters.

[1:16:52] Correct. Okay. Those are the ones that

[1:16:53] are actionable tonight.

[1:16:57] Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

[1:16:58] Uh any further questions or concerns?

[1:17:00] I'll entertain a motion. Uh so just to

[1:17:02] confirm, we're moving forward with the

[1:17:03] League of Women Voters and the Municipal

[1:17:05] Housing Authority. And then in 2 weeks

[1:17:07] we'll have back Sycamore Collaborative,

[1:17:10] the NAACP, and Human Rights Commission. Human

[1:17:14] Rights Commission. Okay. I will move

[1:17:15] that.

[1:17:16] I will second. All those in favor? Aye.

[1:17:18] Thank you.

[1:17:20] The next item is going to be a

[1:17:21] discussion about the Becker Street trial

[1:17:24] stop sign. Sincerely, as we previously

[1:17:26] heard from the King's Road

[1:17:30] um and Woodlawn community, I think there

[1:17:32] was initially hesitation with proceeding

[1:17:34] with a temporary stop sign at that

[1:17:35] location.

[1:17:36] Um

[1:17:37] I know Mr. Wallen was very very uh

[1:17:41] analytical with understanding the

[1:17:42] traffic study and also making sure we're

[1:17:44] not uh

[1:17:45] prematurely installing these resources

[1:17:47] just due to

[1:17:48] the

[1:17:49] uh precedence that this can provide. But

[1:17:52] I think in lieu of us having the ability

[1:17:53] to put in place speed tables throughout

[1:17:55] the community, I think it is appropriate

[1:17:56] to continue entertaining these as I've

[1:17:58] had conversations with members of the

[1:18:00] Woodlawn community that that stop sign

[1:18:02] has been very beneficial to them in that

[1:18:04] area. Not perfect, but better. And I

[1:18:06] think that's what we're striving for as

[1:18:08] a municipality.

[1:18:09] Uh so with Becker Street, um

[1:18:12] had a conversation with Mr. Wallen.

[1:18:13] Would love to hear his recommendation

[1:18:15] for that area. If you're all not

[1:18:16] familiar with that, uh there is two

[1:18:19] intersections, so two two stop lights.

[1:18:21] However, there is an extended gap from

[1:18:24] Elm Street to Snow Road. And

[1:18:26] essentially, we hear throughout the city

[1:18:27] of there being drag strip or drag light

[1:18:29] areas. Wanted to put in place a stop

[1:18:32] sign at the recommendation of our chief

[1:18:33] engineer to uh to

[1:18:35] potentially provide a deterrent from

[1:18:38] people getting up to excessive speeds.

[1:18:40] And what I'd like to say before turning

[1:18:41] over the table to to you, sir, is

[1:18:44] this is not a corrective measure that

[1:18:46] foregoes any involvement and input from

[1:18:48] the community. At King's Road, there is

[1:18:50] absolutely conversations with our

[1:18:52] traffic division, um Lieutenant Dolan,

[1:18:55] who's very responsive. Uh so this is not

[1:18:57] the perfect solution. This is just a

[1:18:58] better solution, a better option moving

[1:19:00] forward.

[1:19:03] Um Mr. Wallen.

[1:19:12] Thank you.

[1:19:13] Yep.

[1:19:14] So I was asked to look at Becker Street

[1:19:17] for the installation of a stop sign for

[1:19:19] speed control, which is not recommended,

[1:19:21] but recommended by the PD. So, we will

[1:19:24] look at it. It is 1,550 ft from the last

[1:19:27] signal to the bend at and Snowden.

[1:19:29] We have several streets that are in the

[1:19:31] middle of that area including Hague,

[1:19:33] Robinson, and Elder. I would guess that

[1:19:35] those three would be the streets that we

[1:19:37] would look at given that they're

[1:19:38] centrally located on the strip. And I

[1:19:41] have not had time to work with

[1:19:42] Lieutenant Dolman on this. However, I'm

[1:19:44] going to have to pull some information

[1:19:45] to see what accidents if any have been

[1:19:49] occurring and then also look at the one

[1:19:51] ways to see which way streets are going

[1:19:53] to just maximize

[1:19:55] the efficiencies of the stop sign

[1:19:57] in that location.

[1:19:59] Because

[1:20:01] I I didn't put on my sketch in a rough

[1:20:03] sketch of what what ways everything is

[1:20:05] going. But I'd like to hear from the the

[1:20:07] police about this corridor or so. I'll

[1:20:09] try to get some information about what we're looking at, I guess.

[1:20:13] Um

[1:20:14] I didn't know that is

[1:20:17] President Williams, are we on board with

[1:20:19] the installation? I thought there was a

[1:20:21] discussion about the installation of So,

[1:20:23] that's what I was here for. If we're on

[1:20:24] board and everyone wants to move forward

[1:20:25] with the installation, then I I will

[1:20:27] forward with a study to pick a location

[1:20:29] and then come to you with the location.

[1:20:31] Thank you. I mean, I'm definitely

[1:20:33] functioning with a amended council at

[1:20:34] the moment. Although I value each of

[1:20:36] your company

[1:20:37] uh each of your contributions.

[1:20:39] Definitely to that point and seeing that

[1:20:40] there is an entertainment. This was

[1:20:42] something we considered with the last um

[1:20:45] format of the council.

[1:20:48] It's not a late consideration, but it's

[1:20:50] something that has been able to

[1:20:53] settle just some angst with people

[1:20:55] questioning whether we're making any

[1:20:56] intentionality with speeding throughout

[1:20:58] the city.

[1:20:59] Um

[1:21:00] not preferred, but it's an option.

[1:21:04] Um Mr. Warner, I think I would like to

[1:21:06] see more of your analysis. I don't know

[1:21:08] if I'm supportive of it yet just based

[1:21:10] on like you said talking with PD,

[1:21:13] talking with the neighborhood, looking

[1:21:14] at the one ways, and seeing if it would

[1:21:15] be something that would work. Like you

[1:21:17] said in the beginning,

[1:21:18] stop signs are not a correct measure for

[1:21:20] speeding. So,

[1:21:22] um

[1:21:23] I think that it's definitely something

[1:21:24] that should be taken into account, too.

[1:21:27] We shouldn't just put stop signs up if

[1:21:28] we're trying to stop speeders.

[1:21:32] Councilman Chairs, and you said you had

[1:21:33] your analysis prepared for this evening.

[1:21:35] Is that what you Is that what you were

[1:21:36] saying? That you had an analysis

[1:21:37] prepared for that earlier this evening?

[1:21:39] No. No. No. No. I was I was under the

[1:21:42] impression that this was going to be a

[1:21:44] discussion if the council wanted to move

[1:21:45] forward with conducting an analysis for

[1:21:48] this area. Um The The only The only

[1:21:51] conversation I had a brief conversation

[1:21:52] with Mr. Williams about this coming on

[1:21:53] the agenda about this location, but

[1:21:57] I you know, I typically don't move

[1:21:59] forward with just one

[1:22:01] >> [snorts]

[1:22:01] >> council person's recommendation to make

[1:22:03] an action. So, I thought this was going

[1:22:04] to be a discussion about if yourselves

[1:22:06] and your other members would like to

[1:22:08] move forward in this regard.

[1:22:09] >> If they choose to move forward on the

[1:22:11] city's development and planning

[1:22:12] committee with this, would you be able

[1:22:13] to provide your personal recommendation

[1:22:16] for it as well as your time is under you

[1:22:17] that would be a corrective manner if the

[1:22:19] stop sign is not the way to go.

[1:22:22] Uh another measure you're talking about?

[1:22:24] >> Yes. Would you be willing to include a

[1:22:25] recommendation when you do this

[1:22:27] analysis, but also a recommendation if

[1:22:28] you feel that area would benefit from

[1:22:31] something else outside of the traffic

[1:22:32] stop sign. Sure.

[1:22:37] Uh Councilman Councilwoman Wiggins, uh

[1:22:40] any comments? Sorry to put you on the

[1:22:41] spot, but I'm just gauging where the

[1:22:43] council currently stands with regards to

[1:22:45] implementing stop signs.

[1:22:49] I know stop signs is not going to help

[1:22:52] speeding, but we have also have to think

[1:22:54] about our children. Summertime is coming

[1:22:57] and um

[1:22:59] summertime with the bikes and everything

[1:23:01] is crucial. So, I'm I'm for a stop sign.

[1:23:06] And then just for clarification, this is

[1:23:07] getting additional information. So, I

[1:23:09] know Councilman Inger wanted to see some

[1:23:11] more of that statistical findings and

[1:23:13] definitely I would be open to hearing

[1:23:14] from the police department as well. Um

[1:23:17] I can reach out to our

[1:23:19] absent council members to see where they

[1:23:21] currently stand and give you an update

[1:23:22] on that as well, Mr. Warner. Thank you.

[1:23:24] Um

[1:23:25] going forward with the the budget, I

[1:23:27] would recommend that um a line item be

[1:23:31] added for studies such as these.

[1:23:34] Um my real recommendation would be to

[1:23:36] study Becker as a corridor

[1:23:39] from Brandywine all the way to Snowden.

[1:23:42] If you all

[1:23:44] recall, we did remove a light

[1:23:46] at Brandywine and Becker. That light was

[1:23:50] um

[1:23:51] there for a school that no longer

[1:23:53] existed. We replaced it with a rapid

[1:23:55] flashing beacon by our signals

[1:23:56] department, which is more appropriate

[1:23:58] for that location. I feel that a

[1:24:00] corridor study might have the same fate

[1:24:03] for Elm,

[1:24:05] which

[1:24:06] also has a signal that seems to be a lot

[1:24:08] of place in the neighborhood. And

[1:24:11] putting a stop sign after a corridor

[1:24:13] with that many signals might be a little

[1:24:14] confusing.

[1:24:16] So,

[1:24:17] I don't know what

[1:24:19] my budget will allow me to look at for

[1:24:21] this corridor as you get bigger, but I

[1:24:23] will see if we can do something there

[1:24:25] because

[1:24:26] I might I think it's worth looking at

[1:24:28] from start to end and not specifically

[1:24:30] just in the middle.

[1:24:32] Thank you.

[1:24:34] Any other questions or comments?

[1:24:36] Uh so, we'll have this back in 2 weeks

[1:24:38] and you give me

[1:24:40] two cycles?

[1:24:41] One month? Yeah.

[1:24:44] I know you guys have been doing a lot of

[1:24:45] this this time

[1:24:46] >> Yeah.

[1:24:47] this is

[1:24:48] I'm going to need to meet with someone

[1:24:49] about

[1:24:50] uh this park.

[1:24:52] On site just to see where the area is.

[1:24:54] So, I'll reach out and then

[1:24:55] I'll reach out to you to set that up.

[1:24:58] Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Warner. All

[1:24:59] right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Warner.

[1:25:01] The remaining five items need to be

[1:25:03] discussed in the executive session.

[1:25:05] Correct, Mr. O'Brien? Yes, they

[1:25:07] generally with ongoing litigation and the sale of

[1:25:11] city property.

[1:25:13] Uh hearing session, I have a motion to

[1:25:15] enter [music] executive session. So

[1:25:16] moved, sir.

[1:25:17] Administrative efficiency?

[1:25:20] Mr. Begin?

[1:25:23] And set that aside before we go into

[1:25:25] executive.

[1:25:26] Uh

[1:25:27] Jason doesn't have anything for me.

[1:25:31] Uh

[1:25:33] So, I will hold that motion.

[1:25:38] And we can move that item from

[1:25:40] administrative efficiency and to city

[1:25:42] development and planning. So, it will be

[1:25:44] agenda item number one for

[1:25:45] administrative efficiency, the city road

[1:25:47] closure forms and access.

[1:25:49] Um Mr. Chairs.

[1:25:51] Um so, this would be

[1:25:54] So, that was created to allow us to

[1:25:55] begin the process of more digitalizing

[1:25:57] the current forms that we have and also

[1:26:00] making it

[1:26:01] a more accessible and more um

[1:26:06] specific fee structure concept when it

[1:26:08] comes to our road closures and planning

[1:26:09] for parades, block parties, and items of

[1:26:12] that. Currently, that form sits at

[1:26:14] almost about 20 sheets. I believe that

[1:26:16] there's a way that we can condense that

[1:26:17] sheet while still getting the

[1:26:18] information that we need to all of the

[1:26:22] respective parties from BMT, fire, and

[1:26:25] police while creating less paperwork for

[1:26:27] our city staffers and making sure that

[1:26:30] there's an access point for all four

[1:26:32] parties prime parties and any other

[1:26:34] essential that needs to be added

[1:26:36] onto it. Um having a 20-page packet, I

[1:26:39] think

[1:26:40] limits and creates unnecessary paperwork

[1:26:43] for our city staff and unnecessary

[1:26:45] expenditures from just buying paper

[1:26:47] alone.

[1:26:49] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:26:53] Councilman Inger. Uh I'm definitely

[1:26:55] supportive of this. I think that

[1:26:58] I'm a big believer in going into

[1:26:59] technology. So, I know

[1:27:01] I agree with you, Mr. Chairs, that we

[1:27:02] need to go away from 20 pages. I would

[1:27:05] like to see

[1:27:06] um

[1:27:07] how [snorts] we would go with this, you

[1:27:09] know, work with the specific departments

[1:27:10] that um

[1:27:13] are included in this packet and then go

[1:27:14] forward with a centralized digital

[1:27:17] system like you're talking about. So, I

[1:27:20] appreciate you bringing this forward.

[1:27:21] Thank you, sir.

[1:27:23] Thank you. Um Mr. Mayor and Mr. O'Brien,

[1:27:25] um regarding that, can we simply or can

[1:27:29] Councilman Chairs just provide you a draft analysis? I know part of it is

[1:27:33] ensuring that it it is It's the way it

[1:27:35] works for me. I'm going to use that

[1:27:37] form. If If you let me finish, so my

[1:27:40] comment I was going to say it all in the

[1:27:41] background. Right. Mr. Chairs, one

[1:27:43] moment. So, my comment was going to be

[1:27:46] with regards to the fire department and

[1:27:47] police department. I know those forms

[1:27:49] have very um

[1:27:51] uh

[1:27:52] important fields that can't be removed.

[1:27:55] I think the mayor wants us to present it

[1:27:57] as how can we reduce some of the

[1:27:58] redundancy in the other departments. So,

[1:28:00] uh I think you're saying

[1:28:03] We spent a lot of time on that in the

[1:28:06] actual collection of that information is

[1:28:08] appropriate. There are some applications

[1:28:12] that don't have to use the full packet

[1:28:14] of forms that are really simple,

[1:28:16] straightforward. There's other

[1:28:18] components that are needed to

[1:28:20] appropriately assess costs and do risk

[1:28:23] assessment for events that may be

[1:28:25] happening in the city of Schenectady.

[1:28:28] Thank you for your your comment, Mayor.

[1:28:29] I agree with you. I think that that is

[1:28:30] extremely important that we have certain

[1:28:32] parts in that's why I made sure to take

[1:28:33] very good care inside the LR as well as

[1:28:35] the other legislation I sent over to Mr.

[1:28:37] O'Brien and Mr. O'Brien when it came to

[1:28:40] incorporating the new hire panel into

[1:28:42] our code to make sure that your

[1:28:43] operations doesn't get superseded in any

[1:28:45] way. I would like to graciously disagree

[1:28:49] with you that there is a way to be more

[1:28:50] accessible, making sure that everyone

[1:28:52] still has all of the information they

[1:28:54] need so that you have what you need. It

[1:28:56] is not straightforward as I've heard

[1:28:58] from multiple city members across the

[1:29:00] world that this information built to us

[1:29:02] who constantly practice and work inside

[1:29:03] legislation look at it every single day

[1:29:06] may say 20 pages is is quick to look at

[1:29:08] and I can write through it myself. I

[1:29:10] know that a lot of organizations have

[1:29:12] struggled with trying to work through

[1:29:14] and access what the fees are going to

[1:29:15] be. It's not properly bracketed, it

[1:29:17] doesn't have a set structure fee based

[1:29:19] on the organization or size, which would

[1:29:21] make your paperwork at least two pages

[1:29:23] lighter just by creating a fee. And it

[1:29:25] will also allow you to estimate how much

[1:29:26] money you're going to bring in per

[1:29:28] capita per year and just the average

[1:29:30] block party that gets thrown. So, you

[1:29:32] could almost time your watch to the

[1:29:34] money that you want to be bringing the

[1:29:35] city.

[1:29:38] And if I can add to that point, I think

[1:29:39] sincerely is a conversation piece where

[1:29:41] you have sitting council members able to

[1:29:43] help. Definitely recognize that we do

[1:29:45] not see everything, but hearing

[1:29:47] continuously year in year out this

[1:29:49] process almost disincentivizes people to

[1:29:52] go about it the right way due to the

[1:29:53] amount of administrative just loopholes.

[1:29:55] I can recognize that that has been a

[1:29:58] transition into a better process

[1:29:59] internally, um but much of the

[1:30:02] conversation we had regarding

[1:30:03] conversations associated with

[1:30:06] the interview process for council

[1:30:07] members.

[1:30:08] It is ongoing. So, the road to progress

[1:30:11] is not a destination, it is a journey.

[1:30:13] So, I think the spirit of this is how do

[1:30:15] we continue to build upon the

[1:30:17] accomplishments to get to more of those

[1:30:19] technological assists that Councilman

[1:30:20] Ingram highlighted.

[1:30:22] And I that is something I can be in

[1:30:24] favor of. Uh so, Councilman chairs

[1:30:27] uh the expectation is that you will

[1:30:29] present a draft packet for plan that

[1:30:32] will be considered by the mayor and then

[1:30:35] corporation council ensuring that that

[1:30:37] is received in the spirit not reducing

[1:30:39] unnecessary or reducing necessary fees

[1:30:43] to ensure that's in compliance with the

[1:30:44] ordinance.

[1:30:45] And I'd like to go on record by saying,

[1:30:47] I know the effort that you put in as

[1:30:49] talking to our former Chief Moreno as

[1:30:51] well as Chief Clifford prior sitting on

[1:30:53] so many different panels inside the

[1:30:54] city. I know that you didn't come to

[1:30:56] those sheets lightly working in it. So,

[1:30:58] I don't want to denigrate anyone's

[1:31:00] efforts inside of your office that put

[1:31:02] that together, but I do look forward to

[1:31:04] working with you and your office in

[1:31:06] making this efficient.

[1:31:09] Perfect.

[1:31:10] Expectation you have this back in 2

[1:31:11] weeks?

[1:31:12] >> 2 weeks. Sounds good.

[1:31:14] Um all other remaining items will need

[1:31:16] to be discussed in executive session. Do

[1:31:18] we have a motion to enter executive

[1:31:19] session? So I'll second. All those in

[1:31:21] favor? Aye. We are in executive session,

[1:31:23] members of the public will have to

[1:31:24] leave.

[1:31:34] » [music]

Schenectady City Council Committee, May 4, 2026

Transcript