[0:05] [music]

[0:27] Heat. Heat.

[0:30] [music]

[1:16] » [music]

[1:28] » Heat. Heat.

[2:05] Monday, July 6th.

[2:07] Um, I know it says that we have two

[2:08] presentations. We are actually going to

[2:10] remove the cancer screening, have that

[2:12] postponed to a future committee meeting,

[2:15] and we're going to proceed with the

[2:16] audit presentation. Mr. Lup,

[2:21] » good evening, council. I have uh Mr.

[2:23] Talowski here with the Kuzac and Company

[2:25] CPAs. Uh, before uh we start the

[2:28] presentation, I would just like to thank

[2:30] our accounting supervisor, Liz Nelson,

[2:32] and also our accountant, uh, Eric

[2:34] Munchie over here in the corner. uh just

[2:36] for the great work they do uh throughout

[2:38] the audit process. Um John, pass the mic

[2:41] to you.

[2:45] » I just want to start off by saying thank

[2:46] you to the mayor and the city council

[2:48] for having me here tonight and also to

[2:49] um echo Derrick's comments on all the

[2:52] help we received during the audit.

[2:53] Everybody that we work with here does a

[2:55] really great job. We're really pleased

[2:56] with the results overall. Um, so our

[2:59] ultimate responsibility during the audit

[3:01] is to be able to issue an opinion on

[3:03] your financial statement as to whether

[3:04] they're materially stated and whether

[3:06] they're in compliance with generally

[3:07] accepted accounting principles,

[3:09] otherwise known as GAP. So our audit

[3:11] takes place in three main phases. So our

[3:13] first phase is our pre- audit phase.

[3:15] This takes place in December. So during

[3:17] this time, we review the internal

[3:18] control processes. We test those

[3:20] internal control processes. We perform

[3:23] uh variance and budget analysis. We

[3:25] review the council city meeting council

[3:27] city meeting minutes and we complete our

[3:29] internal risk assessment procedures. Uh

[3:32] the next is going to be our audit

[3:33] fieldwork phase. This takes place in

[3:34] mid-March. Uh we use the information

[3:36] gathered in the pre- audit phase to plan

[3:38] our audit audit programs and to test our

[3:41] account balances to verify if they

[3:42] appear materially stated. And the third

[3:44] is our reporting phase where we review

[3:46] the financial statements prepared by

[3:47] your senior accountant and report on the

[3:49] final results. So the financial

[3:51] statements that you have in front of you

[3:52] are a 79page document overall and they

[3:55] consist of several major parts. So the

[3:57] first major part is going to be on pages

[3:58] 1 through 8. That's your management

[4:00] discussion and analysis. This is a

[4:02] required un audited section of the

[4:04] financial statements which summarizes

[4:06] operating results and other financial

[4:08] highlights during the year. So if you're

[4:09] unfamiliar with the financial

[4:10] statements, this is an excellent read.

[4:12] Uh pages 9 through 11 auditors report.

[4:16] This is where we issue our opinion on

[4:17] the financial statements. It is

[4:19] important to note that your financial

[4:21] statements are presented on the fund and

[4:22] account group level only exclusive of

[4:25] the non-current governmental asset

[4:26] account group. Uh I am pleased to say

[4:28] that we have once again been able to

[4:30] issue an unmodified opinion on your

[4:31] financial statements. So this is

[4:33] considered the highest level assurance

[4:34] we can give you. It's considered a clean

[4:36] report. We had no report on issues and

[4:38] no findings during the audit. On pages

[4:41] 12 through 14, these are the

[4:42] governmental fund balance sheets and

[4:44] statement of revenues and expenditures

[4:45] and changes in fund balance. So

[4:47] approximated operating results for the

[4:49] year ended December 31st, 2025.

[4:52] The general fund had a deficit of $5.3

[4:54] million. Water fund had a surplus of

[4:56] $2.3 million primarily due to the PFAS settlements from 3M.

[5:06] Uh the sewer fund had a surplus of

[5:07] 285,000.

[5:09] Recreation fund had a deficit of

[5:11] 591,000.

[5:13] Special grants and revenue had a surplus

[5:14] of 178,000. and your capital projects

[5:17] fund have a deficit of $11 million

[5:19] primarily due to capital expenditures

[5:22] which will be funded with bond proceeds

[5:23] going forward. So some highlights of

[5:26] your 2025 general fund activity and

[5:28] these are approximated figures. Your

[5:30] prior year tax collections exceeded

[5:32] expectations by 1.5 million. Casino

[5:35] revenues exceeded expectations by

[5:37] 192,000. Property sales fell low

[5:39] expectations by 2.6 million. Sales tax

[5:43] revenue exceeded your expectations by

[5:45] 1.6 6 million insurance recoveries.

[5:47] These exceeded expectation by 1.4

[5:49] million and adult use cannabis revenue

[5:51] fell below expectations by $212,000.

[5:54] The city did receive $1.3 million in

[5:57] budgeted AIM funds and federal ARPA

[5:59] funds utilized for the year were $8.5

[6:01] million, $4.6 million of which were

[6:04] taken as lost revenue in the general

[6:05] fund. Um overall, we feel that

[6:08] management does a great job managing

[6:09] your reserves. Total uh fund balance in

[6:12] the general fund is 13.7 million. That's

[6:14] 6.2 $.2 million of restricted fund

[6:16] balance. Uh the details of the

[6:18] restricted and assigned fund balance are

[6:19] going to be on page 55 of the notes.

[6:22] Your band borrowing increased by $16.2

[6:25] million to fund capital projects.

[6:28] There was an increase of $10.5 million

[6:30] in the city's net pension liability.

[6:32] This is for the underfunded ERS and PFRS

[6:35] liabilities at year end. $8.5 million

[6:38] for ERS and $44.8 million for PFRS.

[6:43] Um there was in an overall so for 2024

[6:46] the city elected the section 384E

[6:49] benefits for police officers um this is

[6:52] over a 10-year period at $910,000 per

[6:54] year balance as of December 31st 2025

[6:57] was $6.2 million. Your total OPED

[7:01] liability for other postemployment

[7:02] benefits this increased by $37 million

[7:05] to $278 million. The OPED and the

[7:08] pension liabilities are for Gazby

[7:10] statements 68 and 75. These are required

[7:12] to be recorded for your financial

[7:14] statements. These are considered um

[7:16] paper liabilities for lack of a better

[7:17] term. These are required to be part of

[7:19] your non-current um liability account

[7:22] group. Page 14, that's going to be your

[7:24] custodial fund. Um this is required by

[7:27] Gazby 84. The custodial fund represents

[7:29] your property taxes which have been

[7:31] collected but not remitted yet. Um pages

[7:34] 17 through 61 of your financials. These

[7:36] are the footnotes of your financial

[7:38] statements. What these do is they detail

[7:40] the significant county policies of the

[7:41] city and also the material account

[7:43] balances on the face of the financial

[7:44] statements. Pages 62 through 68, these

[7:48] are your required supplemental financial

[7:50] information. These are your budget to

[7:52] actual reports, your ERS, PFRS, pension

[7:55] assets and liabilities and also your

[7:56] OPED detail and related ratios.

[8:03] Um pages 69 through 79, this is your

[8:06] federal single audit. Since the city has

[8:08] expended more than a million dollars in

[8:10] federal funds, we're required to have

[8:11] what's called a single audit. Total

[8:13] federal expenditures for the year were

[8:14] for 14.5 million. So, we are required to

[8:18] rotate your major programs every third

[8:20] year. Um, the major pro, excuse me,

[8:23] major programs for this year were the

[8:24] community development block grant and

[8:26] the ARPA funds. Um, we did note that

[8:29] during the audit we had no findings, no

[8:31] material weaknesses and we were able to

[8:33] issue an unmodified opinion overall.

[8:35] also is also considered a planning

[8:36] report on the fails in the water

[8:38] portion. Remaining ARPA funds that were

[8:40] required to be obligated by the city by

[8:42] December 31st, 2024 required to be

[8:44] expended by December 31st, 2026 and the

[8:47] city is in the process. They have

[8:48] obligated all those funds and they will

[8:50] be paid by December 31st, 2026. Um from

[8:53] an overall control and accounting

[8:55] standpoint, we feel that there are very

[8:56] good systems at the city, very good

[8:58] people in place overall and that your

[9:00] controls are operating as designed. Um

[9:02] the only remaining item for our 2025

[9:05] engagement is going to be the federal uh

[9:07] Census Bureau form. That's the SFSAC.

[9:10] It's to be filed with the Federal Census

[9:11] Bureau. That will be done once the

[9:13] financial statements are complete and

[9:14] accepted. Um as I said, the audit went

[9:16] very well. I know we have, you know,

[9:18] other meetings meeting agenda items. So

[9:20] if there's any questions, I could take

[9:21] them at this point.

[9:24] >> Thank you. Uh questions or concerns?

[9:25] Council member Baron.

[9:26] >> Thank Thank you for the detail summary

[9:29] there. Thank you for you know the work

[9:31] that you do and your office and thanks

[9:33] to our finance department for their um

[9:35] support. Um going back to last year when

[9:38] we when we invite you to our budget u

[9:40] present um presentation uh we you

[9:43] mentioned to us that you were going to

[9:45] do um an audit of the CDBG and the ARO

[9:49] was that 100% audit or was that sample?

[9:53] >> Well that's part of the federal single.

[9:54] So the community development block grant

[9:56] was one of our major programs that we

[9:58] were required to test because of the

[9:59] size of the program. If the program

[10:01] expended more than $750,000 in federal

[10:04] funding and it was considered a higher

[10:06] risk program, we have to select that

[10:08] program. So that program was selected as

[10:10] part of that federal sum. What we do is

[10:12] we do various sampling techniques or um

[10:15] you know testing procedures over those

[10:17] funds. So we're not testing 100% of the

[10:20] balances of all the activity that in

[10:21] those funds. what we're doing is a

[10:23] representative sample of the more

[10:25] material items. So, we're looking at

[10:27] material items within that grant. We're

[10:29] also looking at the controls within that

[10:30] grant to see if they're operating um as

[10:33] designed and if we see any major flaws

[10:35] in the program. So we felt that overall

[10:37] the controls were operating as designed

[10:38] and they were they were designed to

[10:40] support the risk level that we had in

[10:42] the office. So we had no major findings

[10:44] or any problems with any of the

[10:45] information that we

[10:48] another question regarding I mean we

[10:50] talk about this every year um to fix

[10:52] that. Yes. Um I think you know we keep

[10:55] asking you know how we going to do it.

[10:57] made we discussed last year to start um

[11:00] you know creating a list of inventory of

[11:03] the asset the fixed asset in the city.

[11:06] Is that something that we can start into

[11:08] next year? The council would like to

[11:10] appropriate the money to do that

[11:12] inventory and do it but a lot of it

[11:16] is like a water and sewer system unless

[11:20] we're going to look to sell it.

[11:24] spending time and effort putting a value

[11:26] on it really becomes uh an esoteric uh

[11:31] effort. You're not there's no practical

[11:34] application of it.

[11:35] >> But based on the statement there, we're

[11:36] not in compliance because you don't have

[11:39] a fixed asset.

[11:40] >> No, you you are in compliance with the

[11:42] financial statements as they're

[11:43] represented. So they're represented on

[11:45] the fund level and the non-current

[11:47] governmental liability account group

[11:49] only. So we do not include the

[11:51] non-current governmental asset account

[11:54] group which would include the fixed

[11:55] asset and any of the long-term assets.

[11:57] So though we just don't report that as

[11:59] part of the financial statements. So to

[12:00] be fully GAS34 compliant which would

[12:03] require you to have essentially two sets

[12:05] of financial statements within your

[12:06] financial statements. You would have one

[12:08] at the fund level, you would have one at

[12:09] the full governmentwide level and that

[12:12] would include all assets, all

[12:13] liabilities, everything that the city

[12:14] has. So we chose years ago just not to

[12:17] report that um fixed asset count because

[12:20] we didn't really have a way to value it

[12:22] from a historical cost basis standpoint

[12:24] and you'd have to not only value it, you

[12:25] have to depreciate it as well. So all

[12:27] the buildings, infrastructure, roads, it

[12:29] would be a bit a large undertaking and really not a cost effective thing.

[12:33] So I think at the time it was more cost

[12:34] prohibitive to do that because why spend

[12:36] the money when it wasn't required. So I

[12:38] think that was always kind of the

[12:39] approach to to that that fixed asset

[12:42] account group. So we have a historical

[12:44] we have an insurance value on those

[12:45] which we do report in the financial

[12:47] statements not the actual number but we

[12:48] do report that these are these do have a

[12:50] value so you do know where things are

[12:52] that are insured your property is

[12:54] insured so that's not an issue from that

[12:55] standpoint but for the financial

[12:57] statements it's just something that we never did because of the cost. So, so

[13:01] we can substitute the insurance of

[13:03] previous value instead of a company.

[13:06] >> You could, you could not. No, you would

[13:07] have to go from a historical cost basis

[13:09] and then depreciate those items and

[13:11] track them on a full inventory

[13:13] valuation. So, you'd have to essentially

[13:14] go through the entire city. You could do

[13:16] that. There's companies that do that,

[13:17] but the cost to do that would have to be

[13:19] done every year and kept up. You'd have

[13:21] to manage the database of all of the

[13:23] assets of the city. Um, and not only the

[13:25] assets of the city. I mean, we're not

[13:26] just talking fixed assets, buildings,

[13:28] furniture, equipment, also the roads,

[13:31] bridges, things that the city owns and

[13:32] takes care of. One more uh question on

[13:36] page 78

[13:40] liability. Um, you have a line that

[13:43] says, but the line is u probably

[13:47] $580,000

[13:49] or

[13:50] with a large number like this.

[13:52] >> Say page 78.

[13:53] >> 78. No, sorry. Sorry. Page 35.

[14:03] » Sage 35.

[14:04] >> 35.

[14:15] You have a line listed here

[14:19] uh with a with a value of almost

[14:21] 580,000.

[14:23] Should that be um itemized rather than

[14:25] lump into one line? I can show you.

[14:28] >> Yeah. I don't know if it's because of

[14:30] the front back there.

[14:33] >> Yeah. So, see that right there that says

[14:35] represents asset related liabilities.

[14:39] So maybe I kept like this one rather

[14:41] than just

[14:43] >> we we could I mean we could itemize

[14:45] those if we wanted to but I think

[14:46] overall we just didn't feel like that

[14:48] was material enough to finance things to

[14:50] break those out individually because the

[14:52] vast majority of it is the seized asset

[14:53] funds.

[14:55] So those would be items that are are

[14:57] previously in the the old trusted agency

[14:59] funds but that change that and move

[15:02] everything into the general fund. So now

[15:03] that has to merge into that number

[15:05] that's that's primarily what that's

[15:06] going to be.

[15:07] >> Thank you.

[15:09] Like any other questions or comments?

[15:12] >> Just to note, one additional item you

[15:14] will have in the audit packet is the

[15:15] post governance letter. That letter is a

[15:17] required communication at the end of the

[15:19] audit. Um what it does is it it would

[15:21] let city council know if we had any

[15:23] disagreements of opinion with your

[15:24] staff, any issues that we encountered

[15:26] during the audit. And I'm pleased to say

[15:28] that we had no issues during the audit.

[15:30] It's really just a formality boilerplate

[15:32] stock language letter that we have to

[15:34] issue at the end of the audit. So you

[15:35] will see that as part of the audit

[15:36] packet going forward. Thank you. Did you

[15:38] have your hands raised? Council member

[15:40] Dor um so I had some questions. Thank

[15:42] you again for being present. I

[15:43] appreciate the detailed um synapsis. Uh

[15:47] I did have similar concerns to council

[15:48] member Varant. I know during our

[15:50] previous budget cycle we had a sticking

[15:52] point around the CDBG and Oracle funds.

[15:55] Um I wanted to ask separately from my

[15:57] already uh written down questions.

[16:00] Is there any instance where something

[16:03] that raises to a heightened level of

[16:04] concern for the council, would that

[16:06] prompt you to have a more detailed

[16:08] auditing process? So, what I'm

[16:09] referencing is for the CDBG funds, there

[16:11] was significant delays in getting

[16:13] information back to the council um weeks

[16:15] over weeks. Um not identifying that as

[16:18] an issue, but there were some just

[16:20] concerns raised from the council. Is

[16:22] there any indication that we can make to

[16:24] request a more comprehensive evaluation

[16:27] of that um major funding report

[16:31] >> from our audit standpoint? So, a lot of

[16:32] times you know people hear the word

[16:33] audit and they think that we might be

[16:35] digging into every single transaction or

[16:37] everything that's going on with that

[16:38] specific grant. Typically, we're what

[16:40] we're doing is we're looking at it from

[16:41] a materiality standpoint. Is this large

[16:44] enough and material enough to sway the

[16:46] judgment of a reasonable user? So, is a

[16:48] person going to look at the information

[16:49] that we're presenting? Are they going to

[16:50] be swayed by that information? So the

[16:53] numbers that we're presenting, will that

[16:54] mislead them in any way? So part of our

[16:56] audit test of the CDBG fund is that as

[17:00] we're going through those grant

[17:01] documents, we're looking at to see if

[17:03] are they spending the money within the

[17:06] reasonable time frame. So there's a lot

[17:07] of different compliance aspects that we

[17:09] go through and we're required to by the federal regulations. You know,

[17:13] are you spending it within the proper

[17:14] time period? Are you spending it on the

[17:16] proper um the proper budgeted items? are

[17:19] you spending it in the proper categories

[17:20] or proper approvals things like that we

[17:22] go through you know as part of audit so

[17:24] it's not necessarily the delays and you

[17:27] potentially getting the information it's

[17:28] more of you know are you submitting the

[17:30] requests on time to take the draw down

[17:32] the funds are you submitting the request

[17:34] you're purchasing are you submitting the

[17:36] checks properly are you following the

[17:37] processes that are designed within the

[17:39] city um that's more of our concern from

[17:43] that standpoint

[17:44] >> and I would say glad you brought that up

[17:45] because as you were highlighting

[17:46] verifying the controls one of issues

[17:49] were the encumbrances and how when the

[17:51] years were closed, there would still be

[17:53] open items that we were identifying here

[17:55] as a council. Um there was lost

[17:57] opportunities to recoup a lot of um

[17:59] potential federal dollars and I'm

[18:02] hesitant to see that there was not a

[18:04] greater detail into that aspect. Is that

[18:06] anything you can talk to?

[18:07] >> I don't I don't know know if it was

[18:08] necessarily I mean I would without

[18:10] seeing the full detail of it I don't

[18:11] know if it's necessarily not recouping

[18:13] federal dollars. We just I think the

[18:15] main issue that was at the root of that

[18:18] was when we had talked to December as

[18:20] well was just that the money wasn't it

[18:23] wasn't spended it wasn't spent

[18:24] immediately. So you do have a long

[18:27] period of time for these block grant

[18:28] funds to be spent. So there is you have

[18:31] 5 years to spend them initially with

[18:33] another three a three-year period to

[18:35] obligate those funds. So you have three

[18:37] years to oblige them and then five years

[18:38] to expend ultimately eight years from

[18:40] the inception of that grant to the end

[18:42] of the grant to disperse those funds for

[18:44] their intended purpose. So if some of

[18:46] those funds are ultimately never used,

[18:47] they get cycled back into those fund

[18:49] codes and then they can be reused in

[18:51] later years for different projects. And

[18:53] that was part of uh my audit when I

[18:55] dealt with the development department

[18:56] and interviewed the individuals that I I

[18:58] sat with. We went through their systems

[19:00] and they showed me exactly how it

[19:01] worked. I went through walkthrough

[19:02] examples. So it was going through a lot

[19:04] of different examples of how do you do

[19:06] this? How do you do that? And how do you

[19:07] get how do you how do you get across

[19:09] this issue with potentially not spending

[19:11] the funds on time? But I think they had

[19:13] a really they had they had a really good

[19:15] um handle over what was going on overall

[19:18] and and it's in and identifying those

[19:19] funds and and expending them. But there

[19:21] might have been a little bit of a gap

[19:23] that concerned the city council, you

[19:24] know, in the past, but that wasn't

[19:26] something we're looking at a a period in

[19:28] time which might not necessarily be

[19:29] representative of the time period you're

[19:31] looking at. So, I don't know if that

[19:33] answers your question, but it's more of

[19:34] I'd have to see the actual full detail

[19:37] of what was going on.

[19:38] >> Okay. Um, and then just a comment to

[19:40] that last question. So, we would be able

[19:41] to still send you kind of inquiries or

[19:43] questions to review after this. Oh,

[19:45] >> absolutely. Yeah.

[19:46] >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so final

[19:48] question would be regarding the tax uh

[19:51] consortios. It should be page 46.

[19:56] Let's go there.

[19:58] Uh it was in long-term debt continued

[20:01] and it was just talking about how the

[20:02] proceedings we're currently at 4.2

[20:04] million give or take some thousands of

[20:06] dollars. Um we appear to be receiving

[20:10] more of those. We'll be discussing

[20:12] another one tonight. Is there a balance

[20:14] that you would recommend for a city of

[20:16] our size and there should be like

[20:17] evaluation to understand equalization

[20:20] rate within our city or is that anything

[20:22] you

[20:23] >> feel? I'm sorry. Are you talking about

[20:24] the taxes receivable

[20:26] >> uh concerns your proceedings?

[20:28] >> Oh, okay. Um I mean is there if there's

[20:32] a certain balance that I I don't know if

[20:33] there's necessarily a certain threshold

[20:35] that you reach because a lot of these

[20:37] here, you know, these are these are just

[20:39] our best estimate at the time. So your

[20:41] financial statements incorporate the

[20:43] entire aspect of estimates. So these

[20:46] estimates are these these are the cases.

[20:47] This is our potential settlement.

[20:49] Whether that goes forward or not, we

[20:51] really don't know at the time. So, we're

[20:52] just putting our our best estimate forth

[20:55] to try to capture that value of what we

[20:57] think it's going to be going forward.

[20:58] That that might change dramatically

[21:00] going forward. You know, it could go up,

[21:01] it could go down. It depends on what's

[21:03] going on during the year. So, to really

[21:05] I mean, I think that balance right there

[21:06] is something that is definitely

[21:07] something that we look at during audit.

[21:09] We pull a sample of that and look at the

[21:10] tax rates. We look at the documentation

[21:12] that's coming through the department as

[21:14] well. So, that is definitely an account

[21:16] that we look at.

[21:18] >> Thank you. Are there any other questions

[21:20] or comments? All right, Councilman

[21:22] chairs, can you just quickly like

[21:24] briefly speak to the bond rate that we

[21:26] received the A+ rating for um the serial

[21:29] bond application?

[21:30] >> Yeah, so those those ratings are put out

[21:31] by the bond rating agency. So you have

[21:34] Moody's and then standard reports. They

[21:36] put those out individually. So we obtain

[21:38] a copy of that report um from finance

[21:40] and they each have an individual report.

[21:42] I think I might have these mixed up, but

[21:44] I one was Moody's in 2021 and the most

[21:46] recent one in I think I think it was

[21:48] recent 2026. So, the uh other thing I was looking for

[21:54] here and of course I couldn't find it

[21:55] when I was reviewing a little earlier

[21:56] for private investments and equitable

[21:58] holdings. It says that I audit is not

[22:01] required um through your Let me see is

[22:05] I'm not I guess I misunderstood because

[22:06] I know that at some point the state does

[22:08] require an audit for any private

[22:09] investment holdings for deferring

[22:11] payments or um pensions or liabilities.

[22:15] So, I'm just confused why it's not

[22:17] required and I was trying to find it

[22:19] here to give you a page number and I

[22:20] couldn't.

[22:20] >> Yeah. No, if I knew exactly where you

[22:22] were looking at, I could speak more to

[22:23] it, but I don't know if you're talking

[22:24] about view the Gazby liabilities, the pension liabilities for the RSC.

[22:30] So, those valuations are actually done

[22:31] by New York State. So, those those

[22:34] valuations are done by the actuaries at

[22:35] New York State. We receive the reports

[22:36] from them. So they're doing this

[22:38] valuation on the entire pension system,

[22:40] whether it's overfunded, underfunded,

[22:42] and then your respective portion of that pension system. So you might be at

[22:47] 1% of the entire state's pension system.

[22:50] But that's going to be your

[22:51] representative liability should the

[22:53] pension system theoretically fail,

[22:55] >> right? And but for the city's part of it

[22:56] for that's wondering for you. I know the

[22:58] state does their own, but for us, right,

[23:00] for going through process, making sure

[23:01] that we don't have any unnecessary post

[23:03] uh postemployment benefits going out

[23:05] that shouldn't be. I was just confused

[23:07] why we didn't look into that as well.

[23:09] >> That's not so the other post employment

[23:11] benefits that's also an actuarial

[23:13] evaluation that's done by an outside

[23:14] consultant as well. So as part of our

[23:16] audit, what we do is we're doing an

[23:18] assessment on the use of specialists. So

[23:20] whether that be New York State or um you

[23:22] know any of the specialist that you're

[23:23] using for your gas 75 reports, they have

[23:26] a separate entire report that they do

[23:28] and they those companies specialize in

[23:29] only doing those valuation reports. So

[23:32] we're relying on the information that's

[23:33] in there you know given the risk

[23:35] assessment of that company. So they

[23:36] these might be a very large company like

[23:39] cornfairy or you know some plans like

[23:41] pen flex things like that.

[23:45] >> Appreciate you.

[23:46] >> Any other questions or comments? Hearing

[23:48] none. Thank you again for the

[23:50] presentation.

[23:50] >> Thank you.

[23:51] >> There's any questions you have please.

[23:54] >> Thank you sir. Mr. President will have

[23:56] to move. We'll have to add an item on

[23:58] the under finance to move it.

[24:03] >> Uh the first committee call to order

[24:05] will be finance.

[24:07] >> Thank you. I would like to call the

[24:09] finance committee to order. The first

[24:11] item is a rescue one replacement

[24:13] purchase chief.

[24:22] » Good evening, Mr. President, council

[24:23] members, Mr. Mayor Corporation council.

[24:26] Uh before you tonight is the request to

[24:28] replace Rescue One. Uh Rescue One is our

[24:31] little leng I say little, it's our

[24:32] smaller apparatus that has two

[24:34] paramedics, does about 5,000 calls plus

[24:37] a year. So it's is the busiest rig in

[24:39] the city. It's also one of the busiest

[24:41] rigs in the nation. Uh we bid this out.

[24:43] Uh the winning bidder was and the only

[24:46] bidder was Premier Fire Apparatus

[24:48] Incorporated. Total cost is $235,500

[24:52] which we have capital uh expenditure

[24:54] for. Um that includes two service

[24:58] preventive maintenances a year and a

[25:00] 5year bumper-to-bumper warranty. It is

[25:02] an F350 with a 10-ft box on it. Uh the

[25:05] current rescue one has 67,000 m on it.

[25:08] usually replace it around 70,000 but due

[25:11] to the length of time to manufacture

[25:13] this uh I believe Premier said we get it

[25:15] about March of 27 and then settling the

[25:18] local 28 contract with two additional

[25:20] members a day would be assigned to a

[25:22] rescue rig we mean that rig a little bit

[25:24] early. So rescue one will become rescue

[25:27] 2, rescue three that we have now will be

[25:29] our backup rig for when something

[25:30] unfortunately does break down and then

[25:32] this new rig will be our rescue one.

[25:36] >> Are there any questions? I'll move it.

[25:38] >> Second.

[25:38] >> Seeing none, may we have a motion to

[25:39] move this?

[25:40] >> Move it.

[25:41] >> Second.

[25:41] All in favor? I. Thank you, J.

[25:44] >> Thank you.

[25:45] >> The next item is the bulletproof vest

[25:47] partnership grant.

[25:54] Good evening everyone. Good evening.

[26:00] All right. Uh I'm here tonight to

[26:03] present on our bullet bulletproof vest

[26:05] partnership. Um,

[26:08] it started in 1998 uh by the Department

[26:11] of Justice. It provides critical

[26:13] resources to state and local law

[26:14] enforcement. Uh, this year we've been

[26:16] awarded $19,32527.

[26:20] Um, through the Bureau of Justice

[26:23] Assistance. Um, there were

[26:27] over 80 pages of awards, but if you uh

[26:31] if you printed it all out, New York is

[26:33] between page 50 and 54. Um, It's not

[26:37] really an award letter. It's literally

[26:38] just the city of Skenctity with the

[26:40] award amount of 19,300.

[26:43] Um,

[26:44] so what this is going to go for is about

[26:47] 20 or so new vests. Um, how this works

[26:50] is ultimately, uh, this covers about 50%

[26:53] of the vests. We cover the other half

[26:55] and as soon as we pay the other half,

[26:57] the state reimburs us for that amount.

[26:59] So ultimately it's no dollars out of

[27:00] pocket in the end.

[27:03] >> All right. Any question? Seeing none,

[27:05] may I have a motion to move this item

[27:07] forward?

[27:08] >> Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. The

[27:11] next item is a gift grant.

[27:13] >> Thank you.

[27:18] » All right. And [clears throat] this is a

[27:21] grant. I believe it is our 13th year

[27:23] running. Um the Gun Involved Violence

[27:27] Elimination Partnership. Um give it's

[27:31] funded by New York State Criminal uh

[27:33] Justice Services, DCJS. the grant

[27:35] application. Uh it's a partnership

[27:37] between us, the county district

[27:40] attorney's office, uh county probation,

[27:43] and the county sheriff's office. The

[27:45] total grant award is uh a little over

[27:48] 1.1 million. Of that, the Skenctity

[27:50] Police Department is going to receive

[27:52] 46693

[27:56] uh excuse me, $466,193.

[28:01] Um

[28:02] it if you remember from last year I

[28:05] think it only went up maybe like 10 or

[28:07] $15,000

[28:09] um approximate and that's just due it's

[28:11] basically the same grant. It's just due

[28:12] to uh salary increases that they

[28:15] requested and this uh also has no

[28:17] matching funds from the city.

[28:21] Are there any questions? Seeing none

[28:23] they have a motion to move this item

[28:24] forward.

[28:25] >> I'll move it.

[28:26] >> Second.

[28:26] All in favor? I the next item is

[28:29] the SPD budget amendment.

[28:33] >> All right. So, this one um is not a

[28:37] grant. We are actually asking uh

[28:39] permission to make some modifications to

[28:42] our current 2026 uh departmental budget.

[28:46] Um the proposed adjustments pertain to

[28:49] personnel allocations and position

[28:50] related changes within the department.

[28:52] Um just to accurately reflect our

[28:55] current staff and operational needs.

[28:57] One of them would be the field in the

[29:00] field services bureau FSB the assistant

[29:03] chief would be uh moved to a deputy

[29:05] chief in professional services bureau

[29:08] the deputy chief would move to a

[29:09] lieutenant um and in the administrative

[29:13] services bureau we are looking for an

[29:15] IPS4 position to move to a payroll

[29:18] clerk. Uh all in all with these three

[29:21] movements um there is a uh net savings

[29:26] to the city that comes along with it. So

[29:34] » do you have the dollar amount for the

[29:35] net savings?

[29:36] >> Um I 63

[29:40] >> was it 63? I I have broad numbers here.

[29:43] I don't think these are specific but

[29:45] >> two numbers J. one that would be the

[29:47] savings this year and then on an

[29:49] annualized basis

[29:52] or 63,000

[29:54] >> I can get it uh I can get it to you but

[29:58] I know the general amounts uh the

[30:01] assistant chief to deputy chief it's

[30:03] about $4,500 savings. I think it's just

[30:06] a hair less than that. It might be

[30:07] around 43. Um the deputy chief to

[30:11] lieutenant it's going to show an

[30:12] approximate savings of about 40,000.

[30:15] Um, and then

[30:18] this current year only 20 cuz we're more

[30:20] than halfway through. And then the IPS

[30:22] board to the payroll clerk uh is about a

[30:26] 10,300

[30:28] savings.

[30:29] >> Okay. Thank you. If you don't mind, you

[30:30] can share those numbers with us.

[30:32] >> Getting the specifics. Yes, of course.

[30:34] >> Are there any other questions? Go ahead,

[30:37] please.

[30:37] >> Thank you. So, are there individuals I

[30:39] need to know who are there individuals

[30:40] that are in these positions now?

[30:42] So how this uh how this kind of broke

[30:45] down, I can give you the the the broad

[30:48] cliff version is uh as far as the

[30:50] assistant chief moving to a deputy chief

[30:52] on under chief Clifford uh he ultimately

[30:56] wanted the staffing levels to look like

[30:59] this having a chief, an assistant chief

[31:01] and then three deputy chiefs. Um

[31:04] we did some analyzation within chief

[31:06] football doesn't see the need to have um

[31:11] he thinks resources could be better

[31:12] spent elsewhere. So we don't see the

[31:14] need to have that third deputy chief. So

[31:16] he wants to reduce it down to one chief,

[31:18] one assistant chief, and two deputy

[31:19] chiefs.

[31:21] >> [snorts]

[31:21] >> Um, as far as the professional services

[31:24] bureau, um, the position originally was

[31:28] held by a lieutenant and we don't see

[31:32] the need for it to be held like there

[31:34] was a captain in there who was promoted

[31:35] to deputy chief. We don't see the need

[31:37] for it to be held anywhere higher than

[31:39] the lieutenant. It can be handled at the

[31:41] lieutenant level.

[31:43] Um, and

[31:46] as far as the IPS4 goes, um, currently

[31:49] we have a person in the position.

[31:50] There's no IPS4 list. The person is

[31:55] pretty critical part of our department.

[31:57] Um, they unfortunately failed the test

[32:00] twice and due to the rules, they can no

[32:02] longer hold that position as an IPS,

[32:04] right? So, we're asking to knock it back

[32:06] down to a payroll clerk given the fact

[32:08] that there's no uh there's no active

[32:10] list. So, thank you. Go ahead,

[32:14] >> please.

[32:14] >> And I think it's worth noting, I know

[32:16] you're not chief liberal, but sincerely,

[32:18] one of the concerns that I had with the

[32:19] individual assuming these duties as in

[32:21] chief of the police in the sky was the

[32:24] financial budgetary constraints that

[32:26] were outlined. Um, and truly up to this

[32:29] point of the year, he's been very uh

[32:31] innovative and open-minded to how we can

[32:33] work within the means. And I'd like to

[32:35] at least make clear I appreciate that. I

[32:38] know it can imagine it's very

[32:40] challenging. Um, but due to the [cough]

[32:42] concerns throughout the community, I

[32:44] think he's been able to do that rather

[32:45] well. So,

[32:47] >> I'll pass that along. Thank you. Are

[32:49] there any other questions? Seeing none,

[32:51] we have a motion to move this item

[32:52] forward.

[32:54] >> Second.

[32:54] All in favor? I thank you. Uh,

[32:59] >> the next item is home ARP

[33:02] substantial amendment.

[33:06] Perfect.

[33:08] It's all yours.

[33:14] is

[33:16] on uh Alexandria Congress. She is out

[33:20] this week. She asked me to stand in. So

[33:22] we are proposing a substantial amendment

[33:24] to our consortium our home consortium

[33:27] home arc American rescue plan funding

[33:32] uh based on the needs that we have seen

[33:35] over the past few years that there's a

[33:38] greater need for funding for non non

[33:41] congregate shelter activities than there

[33:43] are for some of these other activities

[33:45] and we are we are looking to reassign

[33:49] funding from one category to another

[33:51] category. We're going to we would like

[33:53] to reallocate $344,224

[33:57] from tenant based rental rental

[33:58] assistance to non- congregate shelter

[34:01] activities. Uh 260,000 from supportive

[34:04] services to non- congregate shelter

[34:06] activities. And

[34:08] last year we received an amended home

[34:13] award of $5,729.

[34:15] Apparently, HUD decided to make a they

[34:18] made a mistake originally a few years

[34:19] ago and gave us another $5,729.

[34:23] We'd like to reallocate all three of

[34:24] those to the non- congregate shelter

[34:28] activity.

[34:34] Are there any questions regarding this

[34:36] item?

[34:40] » See, may I have a motion to move this

[34:41] item forward?

[34:43] >> So, second

[34:45] Hold on. Since this is a substantial

[34:47] amendment, do we need to call for a

[34:49] public hearing on this?

[34:50] >> Um, do they have a uh does HUD require a

[34:53] public hearing?

[34:54] >> We will, right? This is anticipation of

[34:56] I'm assuming.

[34:57] >> Oh, okay. So, next next Monday's

[35:00] >> All right. So, you're calling for a

[35:01] public hearing call for the substantial

[35:04] amendment. Okay.

[35:06] >> So, a motion to call for public hearing.

[35:07] I'll move it. Second.

[35:09] >> All in favor? I.

[35:10] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[35:13] >> Thank you.

[35:16] The next item is review amending section

[35:19] 186-25

[35:20] Central Park tennis court fees and

[35:22] reservation system. Mr.

[35:26] >> Yes, thank you. Um, tennis court fees

[35:28] have been a matter of discussion for a

[35:29] number of weeks um at the council. Um,

[35:31] it's definitely something that leaves a

[35:33] lot of our organizations impacted and a

[35:35] sense of worryment. Uh, we heard from a

[35:37] very impactful community just

[35:39] identifying some of the issues with the

[35:40] current proposed fees. I can speak for

[35:43] the conversations that I've had. Uh it

[35:45] definitely appears that um there's a lot

[35:48] of apprehension to any increases beyond

[35:51] the 2022

[35:53] um adopted fees which haven't been

[35:55] collected on. Um so at this point I

[35:57] think it's abundantly clear that we do

[36:00] not have a consensus any which way. Um

[36:03] so I'd like to pull the rest of the

[36:04] council. Uh I think at this point my

[36:06] recommendation would be to allow the

[36:08] current fees to stand and see what

[36:11] adjustments we need to make to

[36:12] incorporate the gates uh if anything

[36:14] else um and allow those to be collected

[36:16] on. I want to wait to hear any comments

[36:18] or questions but also would like to get

[36:20] an update from the mayor corporation

[36:21] council on the status of the signed

[36:23] contract.

[36:28] I'm

[36:28] >> ready to sign it. So

[36:30] >> you can sign it.

[36:33] That was easy.

[36:35] There's your

[36:48] sorry

[36:53] go ahead please.

[36:55] >> I'm looking at you guys.

[37:00] » No. So with that, so still don't have a

[37:02] signed contract, but I think definitely

[37:04] giving the perception of what direction

[37:05] we'd like to move as a council. I think

[37:07] rather than having just a continuous

[37:08] circular conversation, I know we all

[37:11] received an email from the USA just

[37:13] outlining some of the learned lessons

[37:16] throughout the first month. I think

[37:18] there's a lot of room for improvement.

[37:19] So I think rather than kind of placing a

[37:22] greater burden on the city beyond the

[37:24] individual that's currently maintaining

[37:25] that system and implement in inputting

[37:27] accounts I think it is definitely more

[37:29] responsible just to continue in a pause

[37:33] setting but recognizing that there are

[37:36] fees that currently exist in the code is

[37:37] allowing those to continue and then once

[37:40] the contract is signed then we can

[37:42] collect

[37:48] any

[37:49] Go ahead, please.

[37:50] >> For um as we discussed from the last

[37:52] committee meeting and council meeting

[37:54] and the mayor has made all that we're

[37:56] able to adjust those fees as we need to

[37:58] correct based on the system that we

[38:00] would be signing into. So current fees

[38:03] would stay inside the structure that you

[38:04] already put in place back in 2022. And

[38:07] if the council makes the choice to make

[38:09] the amendment later this summer, we're

[38:10] still able to make that adjustment to

[38:12] the fees as we so see with legislation

[38:15] collaboration with your office. And I

[38:17] quite understand what you're saying.

[38:18] There's a fee structure on the books.

[38:20] You have to

[38:21] >> right adjust that if you want,

[38:23] >> right? But we're

[38:24] >> And then there were recommendations made

[38:25] over the weekend, too, which may build

[38:28] in some free play and it reflects the

[38:35] uh demand cycle where there's periods of

[38:37] time during the day that the more people

[38:40] there. And so to balance that out,

[38:43] that's when the fee structure would be

[38:45] put in place. and it's slower and

[38:47] there's not that level of utilization

[38:49] that it would basically be free.

[38:54] >> You answer. Thank you.

[38:58] >> Go ahead, please.

[39:00] >> I'm So, Mr. President Williams, please.

[39:05] So, right now we're on pause. You want

[39:07] the pause to continue throughout the

[39:09] year? No. or start right away with the

[39:13] 2022 fees for non-residents

[39:17] and residents alike.

[39:19] >> Go ahead, please.

[39:20] >> You start after the contract signed,

[39:22] >> right?

[39:26] » I I

[39:30] was hoping to to look forward to uh what

[39:32] we got from Amber this weekend on the

[39:34] USA. Um because I was always open to

[39:38] some free time. um which I think is

[39:41] important for young families and and

[39:43] individuals to come out. But um I I you

[39:47] know and her fees were that she

[39:48] recommended. I don't know if any members

[39:51] um outside of the council and the mayor

[39:53] and corporation council received them,

[39:54] but I I thought they were pretty

[39:56] reasonable for what she wanted to do uh

[39:59] what she recommended. But um if you'd

[40:02] like to go ahead

[40:04] with the piece from 2020 after the

[40:06] contract signed.

[40:08] >> Yes.

[40:10] Oh, go ahead.

[40:11] >> So, it's not that I I would choose to

[40:14] neglect her words and comments. I think

[40:16] every email we've gotten, I've

[40:17] definitely followed up with those

[40:18] individuals. I appreciate all the input

[40:20] we've received regarding this topic. I

[40:22] think it's acknowledging that the reason

[40:23] why we continue to hear and get these

[40:25] emails is because there hasn't been any

[40:27] switches or incorporating their feedback

[40:29] into our direction. So, I'm hedging that

[40:32] there will be no four votes any which

[40:34] way. And if not, just giving a clear

[40:37] message to all users of this facility

[40:39] that should we not be able to reach a

[40:41] consensus, the fees stay the same. And

[40:44] then as soon as the contract is signed,

[40:45] then the mayor will be able to collect

[40:47] on those. But I'm all open to any

[40:49] comments or opinions. I'm just going to

[40:51] vote.

[40:51] >> I'd like to hear from

[40:57] say I mean I understand what you're

[40:58] saying. I I want to be very clear in

[40:59] saying that I would be perfectly fine as

[41:01] we continue to bring in that

[41:02] information. I thought it was a very

[41:03] helpful email and another suggestion as

[41:06] well to take into account of the fee

[41:07] structure. Um I was on record asking the

[41:10] mayor if he was okay with holding the

[41:12] pause up uh excuse me maintaining the

[41:14] pause that he put in place um for the

[41:16] fee structure as we continue to work

[41:18] through this. Um I'm sure he would hate

[41:20] to do such but I would have no problem

[41:22] continuing as we work through it so we

[41:23] can kind of come to a final resolution

[41:25] on this situation.

[41:29] » Go ahead please. Um, I think that we

[41:31] should move forward with the 2022

[41:33] amounts. You know, they were put in

[41:34] place by previous council members. And I

[41:37] think that while we continue to go

[41:40] around and around in a circle, um, I

[41:43] think that at least it lets

[41:45] the um, we can make the adjustments to

[41:49] the code like Mr. O'Brien had outlined

[41:50] and then we can always change the fee

[41:52] structure by resolution.

[41:57] » RD, any other questions?

[41:59] Okay.

[42:01] So, this is this is going to be put on

[42:04] pause until

[42:07] is that what you're recommending for

[42:09] that?

[42:10] >> I'm not recommending we do anything. So,

[42:12] if there's no clear direction that the

[42:14] council's willing to take, um I continue

[42:16] to make myself like available not just

[42:18] um in person, but also by email and

[42:20] phone just to ensure that this community

[42:22] feels that they have a strong advocate

[42:24] and not minimizing any actions any other

[42:26] council members are taking, but I think

[42:28] we have to be very honest and

[42:29] transparent whether the council is going

[42:31] to make a direction. Um I'm always

[42:32] willing to take in any feedback to

[42:34] ensure that our actions don't negatively

[42:36] impact like our users, our end users of

[42:39] our determinations. Um and it's apparent

[42:41] that proceeding with the recommendations

[42:44] um beyond the code is going to have a

[42:46] financial impact

[42:48] barring people from not only using these

[42:51] facilities but also still being members

[42:52] of these organizations and that's

[42:54] something I am not in agreement with. Um

[42:56] my opinion initially was to withhold any

[42:58] fees for um but knowing that that has

[43:03] less consensus around it. Uh, I think at

[43:05] this point this is just acknowledging

[43:07] that if we're going to continue on this

[43:09] path, I would like to hear a

[43:11] [clears throat]

[43:14] I'd like to to hear a strong opinion

[43:16] that people are going to be interested

[43:18] in swaying beyond their initial

[43:20] opinions. If not, I would prefer that we

[43:23] stop kicking this can down the road to

[43:24] Councilman Inger's point and just allow

[43:27] this to continue on.

[43:30] >> Are any other question, comments,

[43:32] concern about this item?

[43:34] Okay. The next item um I have to add is

[43:38] to under the finance committee accept

[43:40] the 2025 audit. May I have a motion to

[43:43] accept the 2025 audit?

[43:47] >> Move it.

[43:47] >> Second.

[43:48] All in favor?

[43:49] >> I. Thank you. A motion to adjurnn on

[43:52] finance committee.

[43:55] >> Move it. Motion to

[43:57] >> second. All in favor?

[43:59] >> I thank you. Council, can you call to

[44:02] order the publication? Sure. Thank you.

[44:10] » I'd like to call Health and Recreation

[44:13] to order. We have one item on the

[44:15] agenda.

[44:17] Central Park Pool illumination project

[44:20] old pool list.

[44:34] Good evening. Um, so I was requested to

[44:37] come. I don't I know we brought this

[44:39] forward to award

[44:41] um the session before was not awarded. I

[44:45] don't know if you have any questions on

[44:46] the pool, what we're going to do in the

[44:48] pool. I know I did get an email to ask

[44:51] if there were some um bacteria in the

[44:54] current pool.

[44:56] is just a black top

[44:59] sweep. Um, years ago it was a mud pond.

[45:03] It was a swimming hole. It was rain. It

[45:05] was black put on the bottom. City water

[45:08] put in. Now it gathers water. It's

[45:10] lowest spot in the park. So it will

[45:12] gather rain water, snow melt. Um, as

[45:15] that water sits there, animals,

[45:17] creatures, turtles, bucks are notorious

[45:22] geese, they're in there. um whatever

[45:25] other animal you know is on the edge

[45:28] rainwater washes and whatever their

[45:29] droppings are on goes into that water.

[45:32] So is it contaminated? I don't like the

[45:35] word contaminated. Is it got some things

[45:37] in there we don't want to swim in or

[45:39] Yes. So there is you know

[45:43] some area of concern with regards to

[45:46] it's just a

[45:48] it's a trap for water and any other you

[45:51] know animals who want to go in and leave

[45:54] their deposits. So, um, again, I don't

[45:58] know. It' be a long question whether or

[45:59] not we can move forward with awarding

[46:01] the bid. Time has elapsed. I don't know.

[46:04] You know, we had a substantial

[46:05] completion date. Obviously, we wouldn't

[46:08] meet that completion date. So, I don't

[46:09] know if there would be an amendment to

[46:11] the contract. I don't know if we have to

[46:12] rebid it. We have to rebid it. It's

[46:14] going to go out on the street for a

[46:15] couple of weeks. It's going to go

[46:16] through another cycle. We'll be well

[46:18] into September by the time we start or

[46:20] August uh by the time we award and get

[46:22] all the paperwork to insuranceances. So,

[46:25] I'm here to answer any questions uh on

[46:28] what you want to do with the pool. Um

[46:31] it's your decision.

[46:32] >> Anyone questions, Mr. Le?

[46:35] >> Uh thank you, M. Stan for that analysis

[46:37] on the the contamination report. Um can

[46:40] you speak to whether the contracts had

[46:42] that understanding in mind when they're

[46:44] submitting their bids and are there any

[46:45] health concerns with us having

[46:48] individuals using that space as a

[46:50] recreational? No, I mean the the

[46:53] contamination and like I said, I don't

[46:54] like,

[46:56] you know, there's obviously going to be

[46:58] feces in the water from the geese. We

[47:00] had to close down before we built the

[47:02] new pool. How many times we closed down

[47:04] the old pool because of geese? Um, it's

[47:07] going to happen. So, the water is going

[47:09] to get pumped out. Um, if you look at

[47:12] Duck Pond now, the same thing's

[47:13] happening in Duck Pond. You still have

[47:15] turtles, fish, animals. You have

[47:16] everything that's in there. Um, you

[47:19] know, the pond, the hopeful will be

[47:20] pumped out. there's not a lot of water

[47:22] in it, it'll be filled. Um, it's not a,

[47:25] you know, it's not a contaminated site.

[47:27] It's not a super fun site. Um, you know,

[47:29] it's a stagnant pond.

[47:35] » But it's a it's a runoff. So, in a

[47:38] similar fashion, it ran off. You

[47:40] couldn't close down the green space. Or

[47:42] am I just not understanding?

[47:44] >> When it when it's filled, you know, that

[47:45] level will come back up. There is um an

[47:48] underground system that will go in just

[47:50] like You know, like we see on the

[47:51] streets, I mean, you have dogs, you have

[47:53] everything else on the street. Things

[47:55] end up in the storm drains. Okay, there

[47:57] will be a storm drain there. The pump

[47:59] will still remain just to take out any

[48:00] excess water, you know, if the water

[48:02] gets, you know, if if the ground gets

[48:04] too central. But just like any other

[48:07] part of the park, I mean, it's it's

[48:09] going to be a green space. You know, the

[48:11] pond will not be there anymore. It'll be

[48:13] filled in appropriately. It'll be

[48:14] compacted. There'll be some um some

[48:17] drainage systems put in, a couple of

[48:18] catch basins um to catch any water that

[48:20] will go there because naturally you

[48:23] still have the road and you have um the

[48:25] sea diamond and the you know the tenant

[48:28] or the uh courts are still up high. So

[48:30] water will still come down in that area,

[48:32] but it comes down in the area anyway.

[48:34] We're going to be right now there's no

[48:35] drainage. It's a blackout. So the water

[48:37] has nowhere to go other than just sit

[48:39] there and every time it rains it gets a

[48:41] little bit deeper and you know it'll be managed. Um,

[48:48] yes, Mr. Williams.

[48:49] >> And a follow-up question. Part of my

[48:51] hesitation with funding this project was

[48:53] with respect to other ARPA uh

[48:55] conversations uh and projects as they're

[48:57] coming to their close,

[49:00] you know, um I don't know if there's

[49:01] representative from the

[49:04] uh planning and office of planning and

[49:06] development kind of speak to the status

[49:07] if they just leave. [laughter]

[49:09] All right. Um, so I think I would have

[49:11] no issues with uh

[49:14] continuing with consideration. I just

[49:16] want to ensure that the other is here.

[49:19] Oh,

[49:20] >> no.

[49:23] >> I would say that if this was moved out

[49:24] of committee, just wanted to have just a

[49:26] degree of confidence from Miss Carver

[49:28] with respect to any other outstanding

[49:30] projects for consideration.

[49:36] » Any other questions?

[49:38] >> Mr. Okay. So, if I may, we we're okay to

[49:41] move forward with this item as is. Is

[49:44] that what I'm hearing?

[49:47] >> Mr. Williams.

[49:47] >> So, I'm not on this committee, but one

[49:49] of my concerns was are we considering

[49:52] this in totality like the other ARPA

[49:55] projects um now that they're coming to a

[49:58] close um I know Miss Carver is not here.

[50:00] Um but if she can give us the great

[50:02] confidence that those projects are

[50:03] coming to completion uh there are no

[50:06] larger scale items.

[50:09] >> Mr. Mayor chair you have to remember the

[50:13] talk about some of the other projects

[50:14] which were

[50:16] uh different organizations there was

[50:19] different funding sources uh different

[50:22] scenarios with it where ARPA was a

[50:24] component. The city swimming pool was

[50:27] 100% ARPA.

[50:29] We built it and this is completing that

[50:32] project. It's filling in that space and

[50:34] eliminating the negative potential from

[50:38] discontination and it's creating green

[50:41] space which the park needs. The

[50:44] utilization of that park has grown over

[50:46] the last several years and it's because

[50:48] of the investment that the city council

[50:50] has made in terms of uh a diamond. Uh

[50:53] you look at the work the rose garden has

[50:55] their the greenhouse, the tennis courts

[50:58] now. Uh I don't know when we're going to do some upgrades to basketball

[51:03] courts, but there's something there for

[51:06] everybody in the park and it's a great

[51:08] story. And so to leave this,

[51:12] you know, unfinished and this is solely

[51:15] a city project solely funded with ARPA,

[51:18] I just think it's a mistake and I would

[51:20] ask the council's favor favorable

[51:22] consideration to move forward with this

[51:24] and filling it.

[51:27] >> Mr. Williams,

[51:28] >> uh, I completely agree. I think just

[51:30] there were a lot of deviations. I think

[51:33] one that's glaring is the fact that the

[51:35] pool was 100% over budget and we had to

[51:38] consider that. So it was originally

[51:39] projected at 5 million. That was not the

[51:41] case as we completed that project. So I

[51:43] think some of those financial

[51:44] considerations need to be taken into

[51:46] account. I know it's the crown jewel of

[51:48] this the city of Skenctity, but everyone

[51:50] doesn't go there. So I think we just

[51:51] need to be considerate. Um I am going on

[51:54] record as being a meetable to this

[51:56] project, but I want to make sure that it

[51:58] is not coming at the expense of other

[52:00] considerations with AR funds.

[52:02] >> Let me be clear. The swimming pool did

[52:05] not double in budget. The swimming pool

[52:07] had a cost. It's all the peripheral

[52:10] around the pool. It's the splash pads,

[52:11] the other improvements that we made that

[52:14] added the additional cost to it. And we

[52:16] ended up with a project that is

[52:19] uh a huge success. The problem today is

[52:22] we have to turn some people away because

[52:25] it's overly successful.

[52:28] >> Mr. um chairs,

[52:30] >> uh Mr. I appreciate just saying awesome.

[52:32] That was a great compliment to the prior

[52:33] council on the work that they did making

[52:35] it happen at Central Park and being such

[52:36] a success. Um Mr. Fond if you could that

[52:39] information if you can just put that in

[52:41] the email. I had requested um during the

[52:43] council meeting that I wanted just get

[52:45] an idea of what that looks like even if

[52:46] it's a small report. Um cuz I know when

[52:49] we fill in any kind of a building,

[52:50] property, building land, we have DEC

[52:53] reports that are supposed to come in and

[52:54] it's been raised by um upper Union

[52:57] Street Association and other resident

[52:58] members of that issue of runoff. I'll

[53:01] use a different word, not contamination,

[53:03] but you know, things that we don't want

[53:05] in that area to make sure that us

[53:07] filling this in will then not destroy

[53:10] the other land around it, the wildlife

[53:12] land, cause more issues going forward

[53:14] and allow for that low point to then

[53:15] begin to deteriorate the other green

[53:17] spaces that we've already invested so

[53:18] much in.

[53:20] >> I don't know what DEC report we would

[53:22] have to have a sweater because we would

[53:24] disturb more than an acre and that's

[53:25] about it. We do have a a consultant on

[53:27] board who did the plans, who did the bid

[53:29] specs, so they're very familiar with it.

[53:30] They've done a lot of projects for us

[53:32] and big projects. So, um, whatever you

[53:35] need, I mean, I feel our consultants

[53:37] going to follow through and make sure

[53:38] it's done correctly. Um, so if they can

[53:42] share that information with me and I

[53:44] feel more comfortable with

[53:45] >> I'll see what they have and I'll get it

[53:46] to everybody.

[53:47] >> Thank you.

[53:48] >> Questions? Um I I can just say that um

[53:52] as far as completing the pool project,

[53:55] uh when we started the pool project, the the inground pool, um which warms my

[54:00] heart. I'm sure everyone's been there. I

[54:02] bring my granddaughter there. I see the

[54:04] people waiting in line. And I usually

[54:06] say, "Come on, let's go. Let's have

[54:08] somebody else go to the splash pad, get

[54:10] someone else in line." Um it's just a

[54:14] huge um

[54:16] benefit

[54:18] to the adults and children in our city

[54:21] who a lot of times we know we have a lot

[54:24] of rental properties there children

[54:26] don't have access to a hose to cool off.

[54:28] So it's very important. Uh one of the

[54:31] things about the old pool was the flight

[54:33] pattern. Why we didn't put the new pool

[54:35] uh in in the position where the old pool

[54:38] was the flight pattern of the geese

[54:39] coming in. Um, so we moved the pool, but

[54:42] I think at this point it's been three

[54:44] years. Um, the pool, as you stated, was

[54:49] drained three, four, six, 10 times a

[54:51] season and cleaned out because of the

[54:54] contamination in there so people so the the the residents couldn't get in

[54:59] there. I think it's time we just move

[55:01] on. As far as ARPA, um we've heard from

[55:03] Miss Carver and and with no disrespect

[55:06] several times, we're talking 377 some

[55:09] odd thousand. Uh we were blessed to have

[55:12] the Hamilton Center get a um a grant

[55:15] from from Angela Santa Barbara from the state as well as the um other

[55:21] uh the co-op which we were considering

[55:23] uh issuing some money to. So, at this

[55:25] point, um, barring anything else, I'd

[55:28] like to move this on the agenda.

[55:32] >> Madam Chair, just a question for your

[55:34] clarification. Um, the bid spec bid

[55:38] price expires on July 11th, but you've

[55:40] got it. You've got something to extend

[55:42] that price for the council's action.

[55:45] [clears throat]

[55:46] >> We don't have nothing because nothing

[55:48] was approved. So I don't know if we can

[55:50] do an amendment to the contract to

[55:52] extend the um substantial completion

[55:55] date.

[55:55] >> No.

[55:56] >> Or we have to go out to bid again.

[55:57] >> Yes.

[55:58] >> Okay. So what we'll do is take the same

[56:00] bid specs and we'll keep our fingers

[56:02] crossed if the prices didn't go up

[56:04] because it's a substantial the

[56:06] substantively date is a substantial

[56:10] aspect of the job based on you know the

[56:14] other uh biders and contractors lining

[56:18] up their subcontractors etc. So that's a

[56:20] substantial aspect of the the bid.

[56:23] >> And what's the date there to award by

[56:25] >> the my understanding is on May 27th the

[56:28] bid was over. They have 45 days to hold

[56:31] that bid price open which expires on

[56:33] July 11th. They can they can agree to

[56:37] extend that pending action by the

[56:39] council. However, if the council doesn't

[56:41] take any action on it, then it we've

[56:43] rejected all bid in effect rejected all

[56:46] bids and the matter will have to go out

[56:47] to the out. So if I'm correct, then we

[56:50] would need a letter from the low bidder

[56:52] that day

[56:54] >> at this point.

[56:55] >> Pricing until their pricing right now is

[56:58] only good until July 11th, which is 45

[57:00] days pursuant to the bid specs after the

[57:03] bid was open.

[57:04] >> Okay.

[57:04] >> So I if they don't if they have not

[57:06] agreed to that then it's

[57:10] >> that is correct.

[57:11] >> So you you would need action from us.

[57:12] I'm sorry chair. You need action from us

[57:14] this evening with the July 11th date

[57:16] being before our next

[57:18] >> committee contingent upon the date being

[57:20] extended.

[57:21] >> Well, council everybody's going to be

[57:23] here Friday night for summer night. It's

[57:26] called for a special meeting to come in

[57:27] and vote it through. That's the 10th.

[57:34] » Uh so I will not be here on that Friday.

[57:36] Uh but I just want to make a point of

[57:37] consideration. This is one of the

[57:38] reasons why I really appreciate Mr. Seca

[57:40] and what he's identified as some just

[57:42] learning lessons and the role he's

[57:44] fulfilling right now as the parks

[57:45] director. He's highlighted that just as

[57:47] we put these types of projects to bid,

[57:50] we fail to incorporate maintenance costs

[57:52] and we fail to incorporate other just

[57:54] tangibles that impact just funding for

[57:56] these new and improved areas throughout

[57:58] the city. And I I think that is an

[57:59] important consideration.

[58:01] When the project for the pool was

[58:03] initially presented, it was $5 million.

[58:05] And although we added other amenities,

[58:07] when you add more, it costs more. But

[58:09] truly it then doubled in cost and I

[58:12] think that is a point to make sure we

[58:13] recognize and had this initiative of

[58:16] filling the pool been included the pool

[58:18] would have been filled by now. So we are

[58:20] adding in more elements and then just

[58:22] referencing Mr. Masea I think as we

[58:24] start to plan and think of strategy

[58:26] moving forward for the city we need to

[58:27] do that in totality so that we are not

[58:29] peacemealing these efforts together and

[58:31] then putting the council at the expense

[58:33] for just improper planning at the

[58:35] beginning. So again, I'm confident that

[58:37] we'll be able to move, especially with

[58:38] his leadership in that role. Um, but

[58:41] that is an important consideration. If

[58:42] it wasn't incorporated, it would have

[58:43] been done.

[58:44] >> Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairs,

[58:46] >> appreciate council member's statements.

[58:48] I just want to go back to that point and

[58:49] I appreciate the mayor's um volunteering

[58:52] of the council's time on Friday. So, we

[58:54] need to make a vote for this now so they

[58:56] can go back out to bid before the 11th

[58:59] regardless if they choose if the lowest

[59:01] bidder chooses to give us the extension.

[59:02] Correct. If if a lower bidder gives the

[59:05] extension then we can this will be on

[59:07] council on Monday night. If the bidder

[59:09] does not agree to give the extension

[59:11] through that that period then then you

[59:14] know you know the action the last

[59:16] council meeting means that the there was

[59:19] no no award. But by the same token if if

[59:23] you you would have you would still have

[59:25] to pass it if you had a special meeting

[59:27] on Friday you would still have to pass

[59:29] it with four votes.

[59:32] If you have a special meeting, in other

[59:33] words, if you have it on the 10th of

[59:35] July, special meetings, if he doesn't

[59:38] want to extend it, but you still want to

[59:40] award the project, that's the other

[59:42] alternative. You 10 July, have a special

[59:45] meeting to accept the award. [snorts]

[59:48] >> I think the first step then is to see if

[59:50] they'll extend the um the price.

[59:53] Correct.

[59:53] >> What's that?

[59:54] >> So, the first thing is to reach out and

[59:56] see if they'll extend the the price.

[59:59] that would extend

[1:00:00] >> the correct quote to us

[1:00:01] >> right if they would extend it briefly to

[1:00:03] extend the quote if not then then this

[1:00:07] action on 10 July or the action at the

[1:00:10] last council meeting means that all bids

[1:00:12] were rejected

[1:00:17] » yeah the council can choose a different

[1:00:19] date before the 10th if you would like

[1:00:22] to

[1:00:22] >> so

[1:00:25] can we can we move it out of the

[1:00:27] committee contingent upon was um

[1:00:29] reaching out to see if they can uh give

[1:00:31] the letter of extension. If not

[1:00:33] tomorrow,

[1:00:34] >> if not, we can then um call for a

[1:00:36] special uh meeting Thursday, this

[1:00:37] Thursday, and pass this item.

[1:00:41] >> Sure.

[1:00:45] » You can do that.

[1:00:46] >> Yeah, we can do it.

[1:00:47] >> It's 3 days,

[1:00:49] >> but that's up to the rest. So, that's my

[1:00:51] recommendation. The rest of four others,

[1:00:56] >> but is that that's not 3 days?

[1:00:57] >> I'm sorry. It's not 3 days.

[1:01:00] >> Oh, three Wednesday, Monday, Tuesday,

[1:01:02] >> Wednesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

[1:01:12] » Tonight, this

[1:01:14] >> the notice would have to go out this

[1:01:16] evening.

[1:01:18] >> Factor in into Thursday.

[1:01:21] >> If it's tomorrow, the notice gets out,

[1:01:23] then it's Friday. But if you recess

[1:01:25] instead of adjourn, couldn't you just

[1:01:27] have the meeting?

[1:01:28] >> Just cancel the meeting if the

[1:01:31] contractor agrees to go to the

[1:01:33] extension.

[1:01:35] >> Yeah, you could recess it. I don't see

[1:01:37] why not. That's another idea.

[1:01:43] So, at this point, we'd like to make a

[1:01:47] motion to move it out of committee

[1:01:49] >> to move it out of committee

[1:01:52] with clarification from the contractor

[1:01:55] that he would honor that they would

[1:01:56] honor the bids past

[1:01:59] uh July 11th.

[1:02:01] >> Okay.

[1:02:01] >> And Mr. Chair gets a letter from

[1:02:06] uh the Weber saying the DEC doesn't need

[1:02:09] to get involved. Any questions?

[1:02:13] >> And if the if we don't receive the

[1:02:14] letter from the contract, then we'll

[1:02:17] have to call for a special

[1:02:18] >> then we'll call for a special meeting

[1:02:19] for the DEC.

[1:02:23] >> Um do I have a motion to move it?

[1:02:26] >> So move.

[1:02:27] >> Second. Second. All in favor? I motion

[1:02:30] approved.

[1:02:31] >> Thank you, Mr.

[1:02:36] Good evening.

[1:02:39] Uh, seeing nothing further in health and

[1:02:41] recreation, I make a motion to close.

[1:02:44] So,

[1:02:45] >> second. All in favor? I

[1:02:47] >> I

[1:02:48] >> Health and Recreation is closed.

[1:02:51] >> Like to open committee on government

[1:02:52] operations, 6:31 p.m. Only one item on

[1:02:55] the agenda, ceremony resolution for

[1:02:57] March for Jesus 2026. It's connectity

[1:02:59] church's 21st year. In doing such, this

[1:03:02] resolution just recognizes the efforts

[1:03:03] that are put together by a faith-based

[1:03:05] community to unite all our communities

[1:03:07] across the city of Skenctity.

[1:03:09] I have a motion to carry the CR. So, I

[1:03:13] second it. All those in favor.

[1:03:14] >> I motion carried. Seeing all the items

[1:03:18] on the agenda, government operations is

[1:03:20] closed at 3:31 p.m. So, I'd like to call

[1:03:23] to order city development and planning.

[1:03:24] We have three items on the agenda for

[1:03:26] discussion. The first of which is to

[1:03:27] award a bin contract for the

[1:03:29] construction of two concrete foundations

[1:03:31] to Jerson Construction Group LLC in the

[1:03:33] amount of $219,100.

[1:03:36] Mr. Wall, thank you. Um, the city is in

[1:03:40] the process of constructing or

[1:03:42] assembling two different facilities. The

[1:03:45] first is a dog kennel at our wastewater

[1:03:48] treatment plant, 300 Anthony Street, and

[1:03:49] the second is uh two new production

[1:03:52] green houses at Central Park greenhouse

[1:03:55] area. Um the both the kennel and the

[1:03:58] green houses were procured material-wise

[1:04:01] through state contract and they are

[1:04:03] ordered and on their way. The

[1:04:05] foundations however need to be

[1:04:07] constructed uh so that they can sit on

[1:04:09] them. So we decided since they were very

[1:04:11] similar work that we would bid the two

[1:04:12] together. Um we put out the bid for the

[1:04:15] two foundations. We received six bids

[1:04:17] and a low was seen from juris

[1:04:19] construction. Um, so just for your note,

[1:04:22] the reason that these are itemized is

[1:04:24] because each will be charged against its

[1:04:26] own budget code. The dog kennel uh will

[1:04:29] be essentially $60,000 to the dog kennel

[1:04:32] project and the concrete foundation

[1:04:34] green houses uh will that'll be to the

[1:04:37] greenhouse project. The greenhouse

[1:04:38] project was the capital project that was

[1:04:41] moved in the budget from capital to

[1:04:44] CDBG. So just so you're aware of that.

[1:04:47] So that would be a CDBG code and the dog

[1:04:49] kennel is a facilities code along with a

[1:04:52] grant that the PD did get.

[1:04:55] >> Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:04:57] Hearing none. Is there a motion?

[1:04:59] >> I'll move this.

[1:05:00] >> Second.

[1:05:02] >> All those in favor?

[1:05:03] >> I.

[1:05:04] >> Thank you.

[1:05:05] >> The next item for discussion is the

[1:05:07] planning commission recommendation

[1:05:08] regarding Boulevard. Uh for everyone

[1:05:11] it's not up to speed in this area. This

[1:05:13] is where there was a determination made

[1:05:15] by Judge Valto regarding interpretation

[1:05:18] of the zone code um in the absence of

[1:05:21] there being a drive-thru definition. Uh

[1:05:23] so at this current point, I would like

[1:05:25] to request uh that we receive a

[1:05:28] recommendation from the planning

[1:05:29] commission uh to help us as we consider

[1:05:32] an amendment to that zoning code.

[1:05:33] Specifically is looking to have an

[1:05:35] established working definition for what

[1:05:37] a drive-thru is. Um I've spoken to Mr.

[1:05:40] Brian more than I have

[1:05:42] this entire year. So, thank you for your

[1:05:44] time. Um, but if there's any

[1:05:46] clarification,

[1:05:47] >> no, no problem. Uh, uh, Mr. uh, Mr.

[1:05:50] President, just to follow up on your on

[1:05:52] your thoughts and it was was just for a

[1:05:55] correction. That was Judge uh, it was

[1:05:57] Judge Pers, sorry.

[1:05:59] >> Yeah. And in and in his decision, he he

[1:06:01] clearly states the city code does not

[1:06:04] define drive-thru or drive-thru

[1:06:05] establishments. So therefore, our zoning

[1:06:08] code needs to get those definitions. I

[1:06:10] spoke with Mr. Connelly and the planning

[1:06:12] department and uh he reached out and got

[1:06:15] def, you know, working definitions from

[1:06:17] the city of Troy and city of Albany

[1:06:18] regarding that. They're somewhat similar

[1:06:20] but also different. So, uh, our

[1:06:23] recommendation is that you, uh, pass a

[1:06:26] resolution that this matter is referred

[1:06:27] for the definition out to the planning

[1:06:29] commission, uh, for their review and

[1:06:31] their recommendation back to you by the

[1:06:33] first, uh, with their with the cycles of

[1:06:36] your cycles and the cycle of the

[1:06:37] planning commission. You'll have a

[1:06:39] recommendation by the first committee

[1:06:40] meeting in September.

[1:06:47] [snorts]

[1:06:49] >> Thank you for that clarification, Mr.

[1:06:51] Brian, um just another additional point.

[1:06:53] I know that there was consideration at

[1:06:55] least for myself of wanting to put in

[1:06:56] place a moratorum. The challenge there

[1:06:59] is uh is that without a working

[1:07:01] definition of what we're going to

[1:07:02] restrict, we can't restrict it. Uh so

[1:07:05] unfortunately, we're unable to pause any

[1:07:09] pending or incoming projects, but very

[1:07:11] much confident uh that everyone touching

[1:07:14] this issue understands the matter of

[1:07:15] urgency. And I think September is a

[1:07:19] timeline that's not too extended. So,

[1:07:21] any questions or comments?

[1:07:24] Hearing none, uh, may I have a motion to

[1:07:27] move that resolution forward request?

[1:07:29] >> Second.

[1:07:30] >> All in favor?

[1:07:30] >> I.

[1:07:32] >> And the last item for discussion is the

[1:07:34] appointment of Hillary Snare to the

[1:07:35] Civil Police Review Board. Um,

[1:07:39] I can turn over you, Mr. Mayor, but I

[1:07:40] think the consideration was at previous

[1:07:42] meetings, uh, this individual was

[1:07:44] brought forward, um, just to fill one of

[1:07:46] the absent vacancies for the NAACP

[1:07:48] organization. um with further

[1:07:51] conversations. Uh there wasn't

[1:07:52] necessarily a reach out to that

[1:07:54] organization to see if they had an

[1:07:55] additional

[1:07:57] individual that they themselves would

[1:07:58] like to push forward. Um in my personal

[1:08:00] conversations with mayor uh who's trying

[1:08:03] to identify another pathway for this

[1:08:04] individual to still sit on the CPRB.

[1:08:07] However, in my four or five years of

[1:08:10] being on the council, never has the CPRB

[1:08:12] been fully uh fully uh haven't

[1:08:17] representative supported. Uh so

[1:08:19] unfortunately at this point in time

[1:08:20] there is not a potential landing spot

[1:08:22] for this individual. Truly all other

[1:08:24] positions would be uh supported. Um so

[1:08:28] at this present time there are

[1:08:30] considerations from the NAACP for their

[1:08:33] representative and also from I think uh

[1:08:36] the Sycamore Collaborative for their

[1:08:37] representative. And the knowledge that

[1:08:40] we had from our previous conversation

[1:08:42] was that the mayor um would move those

[1:08:44] items if we officially had a response

[1:08:47] for this individual. I although I'm not

[1:08:49] in agreement with that. We didn't move

[1:08:51] it. I don't know why we need to

[1:08:52] intentionally not move it. Um but please

[1:08:55] correct me if I'm wrong. Corporation

[1:08:56] Council, I think we're just here to

[1:08:58] formally not accept this nomination. Is

[1:09:01] that correct?

[1:09:02] >> If there's no vacancy, is that is that

[1:09:05] what the issue is here? here I mean is

[1:09:06] there there are no vacancies regarding

[1:09:08] that

[1:09:09] >> there is a vacancy

[1:09:11] >> okay

[1:09:11] >> scenario until fill that vacancy is

[1:09:13] changed

[1:09:15] >> in what manner

[1:09:17] >> uh other names have come forward

[1:09:20] >> so it's withdrawing that nomination

[1:09:22] >> at this point I get that

[1:09:24] >> so it's before the council

[1:09:26] >> right they can either vote to accept it

[1:09:28] or vote to decline it and then we'll

[1:09:31] move on

[1:09:31] >> the person has not withdrawn their

[1:09:33] nomination correct

[1:09:34] >> correct

[1:09:36] uh council chairs. Um I think at this

[1:09:38] juncture and this delay this comes back

[1:09:40] to almost March when we originally seen

[1:09:43] this name the first time. Um I'm not on

[1:09:45] this committee. I would um

[1:09:49] pursue it to my colleagues to

[1:09:52] vote this nomination down so we can take

[1:09:55] in the actual recommendations of the

[1:09:57] organization whose committee seat that

[1:09:59] this actually is that they're trying to

[1:10:00] fill. since that organization has

[1:10:02] reached out to myself and other council

[1:10:04] members that they do have someone and

[1:10:06] multiple names that they would like to

[1:10:07] put forward to actually fill their

[1:10:09] vacancy.

[1:10:11] So delaying it further I think at this

[1:10:13] point is uh once again as you know to to

[1:10:16] still councilman ingerts going in

[1:10:18] circles over and over again when this

[1:10:20] should have been an easy we took no

[1:10:21] action and let that organization

[1:10:23] actually fill their respective seat

[1:10:27] council. So there is one vacancy if I'm

[1:10:31] getting this right correct there's one

[1:10:32] vacancy on the civilian police board and

[1:10:35] that um vacancy belongs to the NAACP.

[1:10:40] >> So there are two vacancies one for the

[1:10:41] NAACP and one for the Sycamore

[1:10:43] collaborative at both times as we were

[1:10:45] looking to identify a spot for this

[1:10:47] individual to represent both those

[1:10:50] individual both those organizations came

[1:10:52] forward with representatives that

[1:10:53] embodied their similar their

[1:10:55] organizations. Sorry. So

[1:10:57] >> this this person before us here is this

[1:10:59] person filling the vacancy associated

[1:11:02] with NAACP.

[1:11:03] >> That was the mayor

[1:11:06] >> pending.

[1:11:10] » Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, so the

[1:11:11] NAACP has not formally endorsed this

[1:11:14] person,

[1:11:16] >> correct?

[1:11:18] >> Right. I would say there was similar

[1:11:19] considerations made to reach out to

[1:11:21] other organizations. Um and that was not

[1:11:24] presented to the NAACP. Once it was,

[1:11:27] they supplied a different name.

[1:11:28] >> Okay.

[1:11:34] » So again, if an item is not moved out of

[1:11:36] committee, that is in fact us voting it

[1:11:38] down and it just

[1:11:42] >> before the council then

[1:11:46] » Williams.

[1:11:46] >> Oh, I'm sorry. council.

[1:11:48] >> Thank you. So, did the NAACP knew they

[1:11:50] had an opening at Sycamore

[1:11:52] Collaborative? Did they know they had an

[1:11:54] opening to fill?

[1:11:57] >> I would say the challenges like the

[1:11:58] matter of timing.

[1:11:59] >> Sure.

[1:11:59] >> And again, once this individual is

[1:12:01] brought forward and once the

[1:12:03] conversation was intentionally had with

[1:12:05] the organization that they were trying

[1:12:06] to fill that representative for them,

[1:12:09] that is when just I think the skies

[1:12:11] parted and individuals are now more more

[1:12:13] available than not. Um but I do think it

[1:12:15] is very intentional for us to ensure

[1:12:18] that people sitting in these roles

[1:12:19] supporting these organizations embody

[1:12:22] what these organizations respect. So

[1:12:25] >> and Sycamore their position was filled

[1:12:27] because there were

[1:12:29] >> they have a name and I apologize I

[1:12:31] thought that was going to be forward to

[1:12:32] the council this cycle. So

[1:12:33] >> oh okay so that's that will be filled

[1:12:36] forwarding right there. So, two

[1:12:39] recommendations. I think another

[1:12:40] impending one coming um for Miss Paler

[1:12:45] and the I think it's legal woman's

[1:12:47] orders.

[1:12:50] » Council or councilman chairs. Yeah.

[1:12:52] >> So, just just for clarification um to

[1:12:54] our council just cuz I feel like we've

[1:12:57] done this before. Should this committee

[1:12:59] take the opportunity right now to

[1:13:00] formally vote it down

[1:13:02] >> so we can move forward

[1:13:04] >> exactly

[1:13:04] >> with actually doing what we need to do

[1:13:06] to fill this ending before

[1:13:08] >> getting the resolution signed so we

[1:13:09] don't keep delaying people that want to

[1:13:11] do the volunteer organization of boards

[1:13:13] for us because this civilian board is a

[1:13:15] huge part of his volunteer and we've

[1:13:17] made a very stingent concept about it's

[1:13:20] hard to get people to volunteer for

[1:13:21] items in the city which is the mayor's

[1:13:23] exact words for different things that we

[1:13:24] have in boards so I don't want us to

[1:13:26] continue to delay

[1:13:28] I just want to make sure that we need to

[1:13:30] vote this down right now so we can go on

[1:13:32] with with our

[1:13:33] >> because right now you you've as a

[1:13:35] council president said that you're

[1:13:38] looking for individuals for the spots

[1:13:40] but they have not endorsed this

[1:13:42] individual for that spot. So therefore

[1:13:45] pursuant to the ordinance people have to

[1:13:47] come from their you know as a primary

[1:13:48] and the secondary uh representative for

[1:13:51] the organization. This person has not

[1:13:53] received that. So at this point you

[1:13:56] based on that you can vote you know vote the committee can vote it down and

[1:14:00] then pending any other full you know

[1:14:02] further nominations by by the mayor.

[1:14:06] >> Now would you prefer we do that by way

[1:14:08] of resolution or

[1:14:09] >> No you just have the committee just take

[1:14:10] a vote. He accepted he accepted you know

[1:14:13] accepted the nomination yes or no. And

[1:14:16] based on the fact that the individual

[1:14:18] does not have the nomination does not

[1:14:20] have the uh endorsement of of an

[1:14:23] organization for that particular uh area

[1:14:27] or that particular slot for the pursuant

[1:14:29] to the ordinance. You would say that

[1:14:31] based on that it's

[1:14:33] um you're not going forward the

[1:14:37] nomination. Uh so before I call on that

[1:14:39] vote definitely had all the um

[1:14:42] confidence that we would be able to work

[1:14:43] with the mayor to identify another spot

[1:14:45] that unfortunately did not hold true and

[1:14:47] today I actually made an attempt to

[1:14:48] reach out to Miss Hillary Snare who I

[1:14:50] hope is not reading into this too much

[1:14:52] as though we are taking aim at her. It's

[1:14:54] just ensuring that these organizations

[1:14:56] have the individuals that are members of

[1:14:58] their organizations and can put forward

[1:15:00] their ideals in the appropriate manner.

[1:15:02] Um, so with that, I'll ask for a vote on

[1:15:05] whether we are going to consider this

[1:15:07] appointment to the CPRB.

[1:15:10] Um, Councilman Anger,

[1:15:13] >> I guess I'm confused voting

[1:15:16] into you can make you can vote it down.

[1:15:19] You can make make a motion saying voting

[1:15:21] down the individual does not represent

[1:15:23] any of the named organizations

[1:15:25] endorsements and now you see the

[1:15:27] endorsements of your organization as

[1:15:29] necessary.

[1:15:30] >> Right. Yeah. I'm still confused on what

[1:15:33] so voting yes would be to accept the

[1:15:35] nomination. Voting no would be to

[1:15:37] >> No, no, you're voting the resolution is

[1:15:39] formed by it is saying you're voting

[1:15:41] down the nomination.

[1:15:42] >> I don't think there's been a motion made

[1:15:48] either making a motion for or making a

[1:15:49] motion against but either way you're

[1:15:50] making a mo a motion.

[1:15:51] >> I'm making the motion for

[1:15:53] >> to accept the nominee.

[1:15:54] >> Correct.

[1:15:59] Is there a second for that nomination

[1:16:02] for that motion?

[1:16:03] >> I will not second anything. So

[1:16:04] >> make a motion against motion that

[1:16:07] >> so

[1:16:08] that you

[1:16:11] can add

[1:16:13] solidify and make a motion against and

[1:16:14] just put it on record. I think that's

[1:16:15] the easiest way. So we don't have word

[1:16:17] play anymore. My apologies for speaking

[1:16:18] out of turn, but this is going on too

[1:16:20] long.

[1:16:20] >> Nope. I I would have to agree with

[1:16:22] councilman chairs. I think having that

[1:16:23] point of clarification beyond any

[1:16:25] assumption is important. So, Mr.

[1:16:27] Councilman Mirin, would you mind making

[1:16:29] a mo motion voting this down?

[1:16:32] >> We did. We We did pass it.

[1:16:34] >> I would say it can be interpreted that

[1:16:35] way. I don't think we need to do any of

[1:16:37] this. However, this feels very

[1:16:39] performative right now that we're just

[1:16:40] delaying action. So, if you wouldn't

[1:16:41] mind Mr. Mudarin making a motion that

[1:16:44] we're voting this out.

[1:16:45] >> I mean, that's why it takes you

[1:16:48] the motion didn't it doesn't get out.

[1:16:50] The committee has acted. Yes, they did

[1:16:52] act.

[1:16:53] >> My understanding is we did that in March

[1:16:56] and the mayor held true to his opinion

[1:16:58] and we still that's why council Williams

[1:17:00] has said the conversation was that they

[1:17:02] were going to go back to the table have

[1:17:04] the conversation because it was voted

[1:17:05] down and never passed committee the

[1:17:06] first time.

[1:17:07] >> We didn't act on it.

[1:17:11] >> So that's not what happened the first

[1:17:13] time. Correct.

[1:17:14] >> So we didn't act on it. So it remained

[1:17:16] there as a table for us to act on it. So

[1:17:20] what we did right now we did actually

[1:17:23] committee that's said

[1:17:24] >> I apologize for my extra cautious but

[1:17:26] >> so I don't think there's anything else

[1:17:28] that we need to do at this point in time

[1:17:30] the motion

[1:17:31] >> okay so just to maintain um decorum at

[1:17:35] this point in time when can we expect

[1:17:37] those recommendations Mr. Thank you.

[1:17:41] >> So on again apologize they're going to

[1:17:43] be for tonight so we'll have to put it

[1:17:46] on the next cycle.

[1:17:48] >> Thank you. Are there any other questions

[1:17:50] or comments?

[1:17:52] Hear none. I believe there are no other

[1:17:54] items that are coming before city

[1:17:56] development planning. Ask for a motion

[1:17:57] to adjurnn.

[1:17:58] >> So move.

[1:17:58] >> Second.

[1:17:59] >> All in favor? I. We are joined.

[1:18:01] >> Mr. President just before the committee

[1:18:03] uh the council breaks up. I've had a

[1:18:06] followup conversation with Mr. Gman.

[1:18:08] They did have a uh open comment period

[1:18:11] regarding my budget for the uh change in

[1:18:13] the home art money. So we don't need a

[1:18:15] public hearing. We'll just straight

[1:18:17] resolution.

[1:18:19] And just to clarify the business

[1:18:21] regarding the the pool, the pool was

[1:18:24] voted out of committee pending the

[1:18:27] information that council member chairs

[1:18:28] want and pending a letter from the

[1:18:31] holding open possibly the the the bid uh

[1:18:35] amount until regular council meeting.

[1:18:38] failing that there'll be a a special

[1:18:40] council meeting on Thursday of this week

[1:18:44] and that that meeting can always be

[1:18:46] cancelled and that the notice for the

[1:18:49] council meeting for Thursday the 9th

[1:18:51] will go will go out pending

[1:18:54] confirmations from the uh the bidder. In

[1:18:57] other words, if the bid is if he agrees

[1:18:59] to hold it until next week or what then

[1:19:01] you can have in your regular meeting.

[1:19:03] Thank you for that clarification.

[1:19:06] >> Thank you. I think the Dakota order

[1:19:08] claims. Um, we need to do that in

[1:19:11] executive session.

[1:19:14] >> I'm actually pulling the matter.

[1:19:17] >> Whoops.

[1:19:17] >> I'm actually pulling the matter.

[1:19:19] >> Oh, okay. So, um, I'd like to close.

[1:19:36] Welcome. Best recommendation there.

[1:19:47] [music]

[1:20:03] Hey,

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, July 6, 2026

Transcript