[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,