[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]