Transcript
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.
[0:00]
This government meeting is brought to
[0:02]
you by Eastworks and our local cable
[0:04]
subscribers.
[0:20]
Good evening and welcome to the East
[0:22]
Hampton City Council meeting for August
[0:24]
12th, 2026. The meeting tonight is being
[0:26]
recorded and broadcast by E Media on
[0:28]
Charter channel 193 and live streaming
[0:30]
on their web page eastampton media.org.
[0:33]
Councilors and participants in this
[0:35]
meeting are gathering hybrid on the
[0:36]
order extended until June 30th, 2027,
[0:40]
allowing us to do so. I remind both the
[0:43]
members of city council and the public
[0:44]
participating remotely to remain muted
[0:47]
until recognized by the city council
[0:50]
vice president. Also for the members of
[0:52]
the public, please remove your camera
[0:54]
for the duration of the meeting unless
[0:55]
you are participating in public speak
[0:57]
time or the public hearing. Thank you.
[0:59]
This meeting is now called to order.
[1:00]
Maryanne
[1:01]
» JP Quisinski
[1:02]
» Here.
[1:03]
» Connie Denim.
[1:06]
» Tamara Smith
[1:07]
» Here.
[1:08]
» Felicia Jazzik
[1:09]
» Here.
[1:10]
» Tom Peak
[1:11]
» Here.
[1:11]
» Jonathan Schmidt
[1:12]
» Here.
[1:12]
» Amanda Newton
[1:13]
» Here.
[1:14]
» Kaam Jamrock McQuade
[1:15]
» Here.
[1:15]
» Nathan Marque
[1:16]
» Here.
[1:18]
» All right. Um, I'm going to take a
[1:21]
motion to go ahead and open the public
[1:23]
hearing.
[1:24]
» Second.
[1:25]
» All right. Any further discussion?
[1:27]
Seeing none, all those or actually we
[1:28]
have to do a roll call vote. Marian.
[1:30]
» Yeah. Felicia Jazzic.
[1:31]
» Hi.
[1:32]
» JP Guinski.
[1:33]
» Hi.
[1:33]
» Tom Peak.
[1:34]
» Hi.
[1:34]
» Tamara Smith.
[1:36]
» I.
[1:36]
» Jonathan Schmidt.
[1:37]
» Hi.
[1:38]
» Amanda Newton.
[1:39]
» Hi.
[1:39]
» Nathan Marquee.
[1:40]
» Hi.
[1:41]
» Cam Jamrock McUade.
[1:42]
» Hi.
[1:42]
» Connie Denham.
[1:44]
Say that.
[1:45]
» All right. Motion passes. So, this
[1:47]
public hearing is for an interdep
[1:48]
departmental transfer for an annual
[1:50]
stipen for the licensing clerk. Um, and
[1:52]
as such, I'm going to turn it over to
[1:53]
Chair Peak to introduce this.
[1:55]
» Thank you, Madam Vice President. Um,
[1:57]
yes. So, this is an item to transfer
[2:00]
$1,200 from the reserve fund to the
[2:02]
licensing board stipen. It's part of a
[2:05]
broader uh conversation that we've been
[2:07]
having about that topic for a while, but
[2:10]
I'm kind of do my best to just stick
[2:13]
with the matter at hand. Um so we met uh
[2:18]
and uh briefly discussed this uh at 5:15
[2:23]
uh that by we I mean the finance
[2:25]
committee or those of us who were who
[2:27]
were present. So we voted two to zero uh
[2:30]
to recommend this to the full council.
[2:32]
Um I think uh you know our our general
[2:36]
view is that whatever one's general
[2:40]
feelings are about the
[2:44]
sort of the the broader discussion
[2:46]
around stipens and uh salaries and when
[2:50]
what you know one is appropriate or the
[2:52]
other that right now we're at a
[2:54]
situation where uh we need a licensing
[2:57]
clerk and this is the fastest way to get
[3:00]
somebody into that position.
[3:02]
And if we don't act, we're going to lose
[3:05]
a lot more money than what we're talking
[3:06]
about here as a city. So, I felt I think
[3:10]
that I don't want to speak for my
[3:12]
colleague, but my feeling that it was
[3:14]
it's a good idea for us to move forward
[3:15]
on this tonight. Um, that's all that I
[3:18]
have to say on the subject. I do uh
[3:21]
Mayor Derby is could not be present, but
[3:23]
did ask uh that somebody uh read a
[3:26]
statement that he sent to us into the
[3:28]
record. Uh, and given that I'm chairing,
[3:31]
I volunteered to do it. So, these are
[3:34]
uh, Mayor Derby's words. Um, members of
[3:37]
the city council, I am submitting this
[3:39]
testimony in writing. I am unable to
[3:41]
attend in person. I respectfully ask
[3:43]
that this be entered into the record.
[3:45]
The licensing work is real. It has grown
[3:47]
and it deserves fair compensation. The
[3:49]
licensing board's workload has increased
[3:51]
substantially with the growth in liquor
[3:53]
licenses and the city anticipates eight
[3:57]
new alcohol licenses in the near future.
[3:59]
The clerk prepares uh and processes
[4:03]
applications, coordinates with the ABCC,
[4:06]
conducts site visits uh and manages
[4:08]
renewal season for dozens of licenses.
[4:12]
Uh this is substantial ongoing work and
[4:14]
I agree with those who have said that it
[4:16]
should be fairly compensated. Please see
[4:18]
the attached job description prepared uh
[4:21]
by the former clerk, which I'm not going
[4:23]
to read the job description or the memo.
[4:25]
I'm just going to read the cover page,
[4:26]
but you all got this. And if anyone
[4:28]
wants to see it, I guess email us. Um
[4:32]
the stipend is the fiscally conservative
[4:34]
structure of this function for this
[4:37]
function particularly in this budget
[4:38]
year. A stipend of $2,400
[4:42]
compensates a discrete set of
[4:43]
responsibilities that allows the board
[4:46]
to function at a cost far below a new
[4:49]
salaried position or a permanent base
[4:52]
pay adjustment uh in a year when the
[4:55]
city is asking departments to find
[4:57]
reductions. This is the responsible
[4:59]
interim tool. uh it matches the cost uh
[5:03]
to the discrete scope of the work and
[5:06]
preserves flexibility should the
[5:08]
workload change. Uh it is consistent
[5:10]
with how the city compensates other
[5:12]
distinct functions and/or
[5:14]
responsibilities that fall outside of a
[5:16]
position's base responsibilities. A
[5:19]
stipend also preserves flexibility and
[5:22]
avoids unnecessary costs going forward.
[5:25]
Structured as a stipen, this function
[5:26]
can be assigned to any qualified
[5:29]
employee through a simple side letter.
[5:31]
By contrast, writing these duties into
[5:34]
the base job description of an ASME
[5:36]
covered position would make the change a
[5:39]
mandatory subject of collective
[5:41]
bargaining requiring formal negotiation
[5:44]
and associated legal costs. The stipend
[5:47]
accomplishes the goal uh fairly
[5:50]
compensating this discrete work and
[5:53]
keeping the function assignable uh by
[5:56]
the more efficient and more fiscally
[5:58]
responsible route. Uh for the
[6:01]
committee's convenience, I have attached
[6:03]
a short memo reviewing how the city's
[6:05]
2019 compensation and classification
[6:08]
study performed by the Collins Center
[6:10]
addresses stipens for distinct board
[6:13]
functions of this kind. I respectfully
[6:16]
request that the committee and full
[6:18]
council approve this appropriation so
[6:21]
that the licensing board's uh function
[6:24]
continues without interruption and the
[6:26]
work is fairly compensated. I am glad to
[6:29]
provide any further uh information the
[6:33]
committee requires and to work with the
[6:35]
council on the longer term question of
[6:36]
how this function is best structured
[6:39]
going forward. Respectfully submitted
[6:40]
Salem Derby mayor city of East Hampton.
[6:44]
» Great. Thank you. Uh, Chair Peak, and I
[6:46]
just want to make a quick note for
[6:47]
council here tonight. Um, just to be
[6:49]
clear about what we are discussing
[6:51]
tonight, the mayor's memo does reference
[6:53]
a higher stipen amount, but just noting
[6:55]
for the record and for us that the item
[6:57]
before council tonight is the posted
[7:00]
$1,200 transfer, and that is what any of
[7:03]
our vote will be limited to. Um, if the
[7:05]
administration wishes to pursue a larger
[7:07]
amount, then that will need to come back
[7:08]
to us as a separate properly noticed
[7:10]
appropriation at a later date. So, we
[7:12]
can approve this $1,200 amount tonight.
[7:14]
We can reject it, we can approve less,
[7:16]
but we cannot vote on a higher number
[7:18]
tonight. So, I want to be really clear
[7:19]
about that. And so, while the memo does
[7:21]
advocate for more and for um additional
[7:24]
uh discussion as chair peak mentioned,
[7:26]
the higher figure is not before us
[7:28]
tonight. Um councilors, are there any
[7:30]
clarifying questions before we hear from
[7:32]
public? So, I see a number of hands up.
[7:33]
I did see um I did see Thank you, uh
[7:37]
councelor Marque's hand first and I'll
[7:38]
come back to this slide over after that.
[7:42]
» Two questions. Um, I don't really care
[7:45]
who answers it. Um, but when it mentions
[7:49]
former clerk, are we is that um Evan
[7:51]
Leau?
[7:54]
» No.
[7:54]
» Um, so in the memo that was emailed to
[7:57]
us earlier today, it appears to be a
[7:59]
slightly different memo than the one
[8:01]
Cher Peak read into the record. Okay.
[8:03]
» That language was not in the memo that
[8:05]
was emailed to council. So I do not know
[8:07]
the answer to that, but I know that Evan
[8:10]
is here tonight. if you would like to um
[8:12]
speak to that if he's able to
[8:19]
» Um
[8:19]
» And please just state your name and
[8:20]
title.
[8:21]
» Yeah. Evan Leau, assistant to the mayor,
[8:23]
in licensing clerk. Um as far as the
[8:28]
discrepancies between the two, my
[8:30]
apologies if this may be an earlier
[8:32]
version from what um was sent to you,
[8:34]
but this is the version that I had uh
[8:36]
that I wanted to make sure printed
[8:38]
copies were provided of. Um so
[8:42]
of that that would be the former clerk
[8:44]
prior to myself.
[8:46]
» Yeah.
[8:48]
» Thank you. Um I saw hands over here. So
[8:51]
I'll go to Sorry. Did you have another
[8:53]
question?
[8:53]
» I I did have another question. Okay. So
[8:56]
when it says former clerk, it it is you
[9:00]
when in this memo
[9:01]
» When it is uh talking about the job
[9:05]
responsibilities that was compiled by
[9:07]
the former clerk that was not me.
[9:10]
» Okay.
[9:10]
» Yeah.
[9:11]
» Okay.
[9:12]
» Apologies. I know there has been a
[9:14]
little confusion on that.
[9:15]
» Um I have one more question. I know that
[9:18]
the matter before us is the 1200 inter
[9:21]
departmental transfer. I know there's
[9:23]
been a lengthy discussion around the
[9:26]
clerk. I know that Mayor Derby
[9:30]
mentioned in this thing of $2,400. I
[9:33]
know that we cannot go above that. My
[9:36]
question is
[9:39]
before we had the budget vote was the
[9:43]
clerk stipen set at 1,500.
[9:47]
» Yes, that is I believe that's correct.
[9:49]
But chair P if you'd like to answer
[9:50]
that.
[9:51]
» Okay. Uh yes. So, prior to the budget
[9:55]
vote, there was no clerk statement.
[9:57]
» Gotcha.
[9:58]
» Prior to the budget vote, there was no
[10:00]
statement. And before that, um the the
[10:03]
previous mayor's assistant had
[10:07]
the licensing jobs as part of her job
[10:10]
description and part of her total
[10:12]
compensation. So there was no when when
[10:15]
Mayor Derby won the election like the
[10:18]
the way that that came into be is that
[10:20]
at the time there was a question about
[10:23]
how best to do that and and basically
[10:27]
that Evan when he assumed that role was
[10:30]
assuming that role in essentially a
[10:31]
volunteer capacity for the first five
[10:33]
months until we uh the the $1,500
[10:38]
proposed stipend was included in the
[10:40]
budget.
[10:42]
Um, and also I think when we're talking
[10:43]
about 2400 versus 1,200, I think that
[10:46]
the distinction there is that there is
[10:48]
currently a budgeted amount in the
[10:49]
budget authorized to be spent of 1,200.
[10:52]
This 1,200 would increase that to 2400
[10:56]
total.
[10:56]
» Understood. Thank you.
[10:58]
» Thank you for that clarification. Um,
[11:00]
councelor,
[11:00]
» This is a clarification that I wanted to
[11:02]
make too, just that it this would equal
[11:04]
the 2400.
[11:07]
» Uh, councelor Schmid,
[11:08]
» Same thing. All right. Um, any other
[11:10]
questions from counselors?
[11:13]
» All right.
[11:14]
» I'll just say councelor
[11:15]
» I would like to have further comments,
[11:17]
but I'll do that after.
[11:18]
» Yeah, let's save the deliberation until
[11:19]
after we go to the public, but thank you
[11:21]
for that. Um, all right. So, if there
[11:22]
are no other questions at the moment, I
[11:24]
see none online. Um, I would like to
[11:27]
open the floor to public comment on this
[11:29]
matter. If there's any members of the
[11:31]
public in the room or online who would
[11:34]
like to um to speak, please go ahead and
[11:37]
raise your hand if you are online or
[11:39]
approach the podium if you are in the
[11:40]
room.
[11:45]
All right, I am seeing no public
[11:47]
comment. So, going once, going twice.
[11:51]
I'm going to go ahead and close public
[11:53]
comment on this item. So, back to us
[11:54]
counselors. Um any further discussion or
[11:57]
deliberation? Uh, councelor Schmidt,
[11:59]
would you like to go ahead at this
[12:01]
point?
[12:01]
» Uh, sure. Thank you, Madam Vice
[12:03]
President. Um, as uh the uh individual
[12:07]
who had reason uh originally brought
[12:09]
forward this motion in finance, I
[12:11]
thought it would make sense for me to to
[12:13]
speak a little bit um especially because
[12:15]
there were some uh questions and
[12:17]
confusions from uh individuals who had
[12:20]
watched those meetings as to how um our
[12:23]
thinking had sort of played out. And um
[12:26]
if I'm being entirely honest, a lot of
[12:27]
my thinking has played out outside of
[12:29]
meetings. And so um makes sense that it
[12:32]
it would not have been totally clear. Uh
[12:34]
and so I just wanted to offer some of
[12:36]
that. Um
[12:38]
uh to bring us back to um kind of the
[12:41]
for me anyways, I'm only going to speak
[12:43]
for myself. Um my original concerns
[12:46]
around this particular budget line item
[12:48]
um I brought up um at a previous council
[12:51]
meeting and and first at the the finance
[12:53]
uh budget hearing where this had um been
[12:56]
discussed. Uh and at that time um my
[12:59]
concern that I had brought forth uh was
[13:02]
largely related to um how the the item
[13:06]
was included within the budget. not so
[13:08]
much the the number itself um but the
[13:12]
fact that the the licensing board had
[13:13]
sort of been singled out um within the
[13:16]
the budget. Uh and so um I was already
[13:20]
feeling a little um uncertain about this
[13:22]
particular item. And so, uh, when it
[13:24]
came time to, uh, have the finance
[13:27]
committee discuss potential amendments
[13:29]
to the budget, uh, and, um,
[13:33]
a conversation, you know, began around
[13:35]
this particular item and, um, a desire,
[13:39]
uh, from, uh, councelor Denim had had
[13:42]
been brought forth to to cons, you know,
[13:45]
reconsider the amount. Um, I was
[13:47]
interested in having that conversation
[13:49]
because of some of that uncertainty that
[13:51]
I was feeling. Um, as I've looked back
[13:54]
on that, I think that this is an
[13:55]
instance of, you know, uh, being a new
[13:58]
counselor and and sort of learning the
[14:00]
ropes. Um, and I just want to take
[14:03]
responsibility for that because I think
[14:04]
I can and should have approached that
[14:06]
particular situation better. Uh, and I
[14:08]
think if I were to do it all over again,
[14:11]
um, rather than discussing, you know,
[14:14]
small amounts, um, that ultimately, um,
[14:18]
I felt weren't the right path forward.
[14:21]
Um,
[14:22]
I if I were to do it again, I would have
[14:25]
uh, recommended that we zero out this
[14:28]
line altogether and ask the mayor to
[14:30]
come back for an appropriation um, from
[14:32]
his office to properly fund this amount
[14:35]
uh, or this uh, position. Um I think one
[14:37]
of the things that we heard that we've
[14:39]
heard um previously around this uh is
[14:43]
that we had an individual who was um
[14:47]
doing this work uh on a volunteer basis
[14:51]
uh who and who was willing to do it for
[14:53]
uh an extremely reduced rate um that
[14:56]
everybody seems to agree was not enough
[14:58]
money to adequately pay that position.
[15:01]
Um, and when I heard um when I heard
[15:05]
that being presented as um an argument
[15:09]
for for moving forward as it was, um
[15:12]
that didn't sit well with me either. Um
[15:14]
that felt like we were taking advantage
[15:15]
of um a person in who was in the city's
[15:19]
employment. Um and so
[15:23]
I'm actually very much pleased to
[15:25]
consider the the higher amount here. Um
[15:28]
and uh the information that's been
[15:30]
provided um around why you know having
[15:34]
this as a stipen um
[15:38]
makes sense to me. Um and you know I
[15:41]
appreciated that uh the the information
[15:43]
that the auditor was also in favor of
[15:45]
that approach. Um I think what continues
[15:49]
to not sit quite right with me is again
[15:52]
the way that this is built into the
[15:54]
budget. Um every other stipend is uh
[15:57]
under the responsibility of one
[15:59]
department or another um under the
[16:01]
responsibility of paid employees of the
[16:03]
city. Uh and if we actually look at the
[16:06]
job description that the mayor sent to
[16:08]
us uh along with the memo um it states
[16:11]
that this position is under the general
[16:14]
supervision of the mayor or the mayor's
[16:16]
designate. Uh and so it continues to be
[16:19]
my opinion that this belongs in the
[16:22]
mayor's office budget. Uh and it is my
[16:27]
desire and intention to next year um
[16:31]
revisit this and um I appreciate in the
[16:34]
mayor's memo uh his stated desire to um
[16:38]
work with us to to figure out the best
[16:40]
path forward. Um and so I want to make
[16:44]
that that known. I think um it it it
[16:50]
wasn't a good look to I think you know
[16:52]
take it out of of that particular
[16:54]
section of the budget and to then claim
[16:58]
savings from the cuts that were made to
[17:00]
the position that was doing it. It
[17:02]
didn't feel honest to me. Um, and
[17:07]
as we look at this, um, again, I think
[17:11]
it's important that that a department is
[17:14]
responsible for this, uh, and given the
[17:16]
amount of money that they bring in that
[17:18]
we've heard about. Um, I and the the
[17:23]
interactions that this individual has
[17:24]
with the state and all of the forward-
[17:27]
facing work that they do, um, I think it
[17:29]
really makes sense that it's coming out
[17:30]
of the mayor's office. And so, um, all
[17:32]
that to say, um, I'm not looking to hold
[17:34]
up this vote by any means, um, or, you
[17:37]
know, the the ability for us to move
[17:39]
forward with this position. And so, I'm
[17:41]
in favor of voting in favor of this
[17:43]
tonight. Um, but I want to provide some
[17:45]
of that context and to provide some
[17:47]
information about my future intentions
[17:49]
about how I think we should be
[17:50]
approaching this particular position.
[17:53]
And that's kind of all I got.
[17:55]
» Thank you, Councelor Schmidt. Um,
[17:56]
Councelor Smith, online, I see your hand
[17:58]
raised.
[18:00]
Um thank you. I also wanted to give my
[18:04]
perspective as a sociologist uh
[18:07]
particularly a sociologist that has
[18:09]
looked at uh gender and work patterns.
[18:13]
And one of the things that was really
[18:16]
notable to me when we were talking about
[18:19]
this was that it was being reduced from
[18:23]
a salary rather to a stipend. And in
[18:28]
many jobs which are assistant jobs,
[18:30]
traditionally women have been shortch
[18:33]
changed with an increase in the salary
[18:36]
which would also benefit the retirement
[18:39]
benefits and other you know um domino
[18:44]
effects type of issues. And so 1,200
[18:48]
and500 both felt too much of a low a low
[18:53]
ball number to feel comfortable doing
[18:56]
that. And I hope the clerk can
[18:59]
understand that my position is as a
[19:02]
woman who has studied a lot of these
[19:04]
issues and I felt that it was an
[19:06]
injustice in the way that it was moving
[19:08]
forward at that level. I'm grateful that
[19:12]
it's moved up to 2400. Um hopefully in
[19:15]
the future if it deserves more
[19:17]
compensation than that. Um I'm very open
[19:20]
and hopeful to have that conversation.
[19:22]
So, I just wanted to say that that my
[19:25]
reservations really were from the
[19:28]
context of um what has traditionally
[19:31]
been um deemed as women's work in many
[19:34]
assistant roles and making sure that we
[19:37]
were not creating bias in how we were
[19:40]
looking at how to compensate that. So, I
[19:43]
will be voting yes for this with the
[19:45]
hopes that in the future we will have
[19:47]
more discussions on how to properly um
[19:50]
and fairly compensate this position
[19:52]
since it's a very um heavily um
[19:56]
warranted position with a lot of work.
[19:59]
Thank you.
[20:00]
» Thank you, Councelor Smith. Um,
[20:02]
councelor Krinski,
[20:04]
» I uh would like to thank uh councelor
[20:06]
Smith for the sociological perspective
[20:09]
uh and
[20:12]
councelor Schmidt for his in-depth
[20:14]
analysis of and thinking and reviewing
[20:18]
and careful thought on the subject.
[20:21]
I have given much reflection to the
[20:23]
matter myself and I frankly am sorry
[20:26]
that we've spent this much time over
[20:30]
what was originally a $300 cut and I
[20:33]
think that's uh insulting to anyone who
[20:37]
works for this city and I would like to
[20:40]
extend my apologies to that individual
[20:44]
whoever that may be regardless. Uh I
[20:47]
think we all we all understand that
[20:49]
whenever we have issues we try to deal
[20:53]
with it as a position and not a person.
[20:56]
It is a position. It is a that and
[20:58]
that's what we're working with.
[21:01]
Insults are not what we want to do here
[21:04]
in this council. Uh
[21:07]
with regard to how we move forward,
[21:11]
I think our path was cleared before when
[21:13]
we voted with a split vote. four of us
[21:16]
voted in favor and four against uh the
[21:19]
cut. Uh so at this point it seems quite
[21:24]
clear with what the mayor's lit laid out
[21:27]
that this position is deserving. And if
[21:29]
you haven't been listening and tuned in,
[21:32]
I don't think you understand what's been
[21:34]
going on with the city and with the
[21:36]
licenses that have been in question and
[21:38]
held up. Uh I and I I know that many of
[21:42]
you do. It's important work for the
[21:45]
city. I again will vote yes and extend
[21:48]
my apologies to the individual and I
[21:50]
would hope that my fellow colleagues are
[21:52]
doing.
[21:54]
» Councelor Januk.
[21:56]
» Thank you, Madam Vice President. Um, so
[21:57]
I just have a couple things to say. Uh,
[21:59]
I wasn't there for this original full
[22:01]
council vote. Um, and if I was, we might
[22:04]
not have been here um, doing this again.
[22:07]
Um, but I do I will say that I
[22:09]
appreciated the extra time to really
[22:11]
think about this issue more deeply and
[22:12]
see how it's all played out. Um, I think
[22:16]
my main thoughts are um I definitely
[22:19]
agree with the other members of the
[22:20]
council in feeling like this is work
[22:23]
that needs to be compensated fairly. um
[22:25]
and that given the importance in in um
[22:30]
the litany of things that this uh
[22:32]
position needs to to handle um it makes
[22:34]
sense uh both to to compensate them
[22:36]
fairly through a siphon um at least in
[22:39]
this structure and then also raise that
[22:40]
site. I was happy to see that as well.
[22:43]
Um, I I do think that there are fair
[22:46]
questions about how this position is
[22:48]
structured and I think that that's a
[22:49]
separate conversation and um I think us
[22:52]
as council as we know we have very
[22:54]
limited tools in terms of
[22:57]
numbers in the budget and we can only um
[23:00]
we can only cut um and I think that that
[23:03]
was I personally feel like that was the
[23:04]
wrong tool to use in this situation um
[23:06]
to exercise our oversight over this
[23:08]
position if we have concerns. I I think
[23:10]
that council has a lot of authority to
[23:12]
to potentially weigh into this using
[23:14]
ordinance. Um and we should pursue that
[23:17]
in the future, but I I think that we're
[23:18]
talk if we're talking about this budget,
[23:20]
the question is does this person deserve
[23:22]
to be paid for the work that they're
[23:24]
doing? And and I fully agree um that
[23:26]
they do. So I will be voting yes to
[23:28]
this. Um and yeah, I think that's all I
[23:31]
have.
[23:33]
» Councelor Marque,
[23:34]
» Thank you madame vice president. Um,
[23:38]
I originally made the motion to
[23:40]
reinstate the 300 back to the budget. I
[23:43]
disagreed with the finances committee's
[23:46]
recommendation at the time of cutting
[23:48]
300 from
[23:50]
the position. Um, I
[23:54]
agree with councelor Schmidt with there
[23:56]
maybe and councelor J. McQuade that
[24:00]
there maybe should be a fresh look of
[24:02]
how the licensing clerk is structured
[24:05]
under the mayor's budget. I also want to
[24:07]
echo um councelor Kisinski's
[24:12]
concerns. I I believe the optics are not
[24:16]
great for council and I believe we
[24:17]
dropped the ball on this. Um and I also
[24:20]
want to extend um an apology. Excuse me.
[24:23]
Point of order, council marquee.
[24:25]
veering away from the
[24:27]
» I I I I appreciate what you what you're
[24:28]
saying, but we're what's at hand right
[24:30]
here is a $1,200 appropriation.
[24:32]
» I want to extend my apologies to Mr.
[24:36]
Leau as well. I don't believe that he
[24:39]
was spoken about fairly at our
[24:41]
» That again, Council Mar um I appreciate
[24:44]
that and I share those feelings, but
[24:47]
let's keep the matter to the agenda item
[24:49]
at hand, which is should we transfer
[24:51]
this money from the reserve fund to the
[24:53]
stipen? I will be voting yes.
[24:55]
» Thank you.
[24:57]
» Councelor Newton,
[24:59]
» Um I just want to confirm what uh
[25:02]
Councelor Smith and Councelor Smith each
[25:05]
said. Um I think both of those are two
[25:08]
of the points that I was really thinking
[25:10]
about. I will be voting yes, but I I
[25:12]
agree that this is something we should
[25:14]
consider going forward, the way that
[25:16]
it's structured and how it does affect
[25:17]
retirement um and all of that kind of
[25:19]
stuff.
[25:23]
any other questions, comments.
[25:27]
All right. So, I think um just to add in
[25:29]
my own uh thoughts as well, um I echo a
[25:33]
lot of what has been shared here tonight
[25:35]
with regards to this particular
[25:37]
transfer. Um it's unfortunate the mayor
[25:39]
is not here tonight. Um and we don't, I
[25:41]
believe, have our um any other finance
[25:43]
folks online, but I am curious for
[25:45]
future discussion around funding this
[25:47]
out of the reserve fund as opposed to
[25:49]
another option. So, that's a curiosity I
[25:51]
have. I don't know if um you have any
[25:53]
insights to that, Chairp.
[25:54]
» Sure, I can weigh in. Normally, this
[25:56]
sort of thing would happen out of free
[25:57]
cash. Free cash has not been certified
[25:59]
yet for this year. So, you usually these
[26:01]
sorts of one-time transfers that are
[26:03]
done. We usually don't do any of those
[26:05]
between the start of the fiscal year and
[26:06]
the certification of free cash. We do
[26:09]
have reserves for when things like this
[26:11]
do come up. We did move some money into
[26:13]
reserves during this last cycle, you
[26:16]
know, for when stuff like this comes up.
[26:19]
So, like I don't think that it's
[26:20]
something that we would generally
[26:21]
consider best practice, but um we don't
[26:24]
have any free cash. All the free cash
[26:27]
rolled over, right? Or we we we either
[26:30]
spent it or we put it into reserves and
[26:32]
we won't get any more free cash until
[26:33]
it's certified, which I'm being told
[26:36]
should be hopefully in the fall. Um but
[26:39]
in the meantime, it's uh I I don't have
[26:41]
any um objection to the funding source.
[26:44]
I don't I'm not aware of a better
[26:46]
funding source that we could use at this
[26:49]
moment without waiting into the fall
[26:52]
which would have serious fiscal
[26:54]
consequences.
[26:55]
» Thank you very much. Appreciate that
[26:56]
clarification. Um all right. So if there
[26:59]
is no further discussion or deliberation
[27:02]
then um I will take a motion to make
[27:07]
this transfer. Chair Peak.
[27:09]
» All right. I'll make the following
[27:10]
request in the form of a motion. Request
[27:13]
is hereby made for the approval of the
[27:14]
following appropriation. Amount
[27:16]
requested, $1,200 to be transferred from
[27:19]
reserve fund, $1,200 to be transferred
[27:22]
to licensing board stipen, $1,200.
[27:26]
The amount requested will be used for
[27:27]
the following purpose. Annual stipend
[27:29]
for licensing clerk LLA.
[27:33]
» Second.
[27:34]
» Great. I have a motion and a second to
[27:35]
transfer $1,200 from the reserve fund to
[27:38]
the licensing board siphon for annual
[27:40]
siphon for licensing clerk LLA. Any
[27:43]
further discussion?
[27:45]
» Seeing none. So Miriam
[27:46]
» JP Quisinski. Hi
[27:48]
» Tom P.
[27:48]
» Hi
[27:49]
» Tamara Smith.
[27:51]
» Hi.
[27:51]
» Jonathan Schmidt.
[27:52]
» Hi.
[27:53]
» Amanda Newton.
[27:54]
» Hi.
[27:54]
» Nathan Marquee.
[27:55]
» Hi.
[27:56]
» Cam Jamrock McUade.
[27:57]
» Hi.
[27:57]
» Felicia Jazzic.
[27:59]
» I
[28:00]
All right. Motion passes. Um. All right.
[28:03]
All right. So, I will take a motion to
[28:04]
close the public hearing at this time.
[28:07]
» Second.
[28:07]
» All right. I have a motion in the second
[28:08]
to close the public hearing. Any further
[28:09]
discussion? Seeing none. Miam.
[28:12]
» Tom Peak.
[28:13]
» Hi.
[28:13]
» Tamara Smith.
[28:15]
» Hi.
[28:15]
» Jonathan Schmidt.
[28:16]
» Hi.
[28:17]
» Amanda Newton.
[28:18]
» Hi.
[28:18]
» Nathan Marquee.
[28:19]
» Hi.
[28:19]
» Caam Jam McQuade.
[28:21]
» Hi.
[28:21]
» Felicia Jazzic.
[28:22]
» Hi.
[28:23]
» JP Guazinski.
[28:24]
» Hi.
[28:24]
» All right. Motion passes. Um, we next
[28:27]
have on our agenda public speak. So, for
[28:30]
any members of the public in the room or
[28:32]
online, this is your opportunity to
[28:33]
speak to us about any items not related
[28:35]
to this public hearing that we just
[28:36]
concluded. Um, anyone who wishes to
[28:40]
speak about the public hearing, um,
[28:41]
unfortunately that is closed at this
[28:43]
time. So, if folks would like to speak,
[28:46]
please feel free to approach the podium
[28:47]
or raise your hand online.
[28:51]
All right. I am seeing no one looking to
[28:54]
speak. So,
[28:56]
» Move to close.
[28:57]
» Uh, yes. Yes, I will take a motion to
[28:59]
adjurnn.
[28:59]
» Move to adjurnn.
[29:00]
» Yes.
[29:00]
» Second.
[29:01]
» I have a motion and a second to adjurnn
[29:02]
the meeting. Miam.
[29:04]
» Uh Tamara Smith.
[29:06]
» I.
[29:06]
» Jonathan Schmidt.
[29:07]
» Hi.
[29:08]
» Amanda Newton.
[29:09]
» Hi.
[29:09]
» Nathan Marquee.
[29:10]
» Hi.
[29:10]
» Cam Jamrock McUade.
[29:12]
» Hi.
[29:12]
» Felicia Jazz.
[29:13]
» Hi.
[29:14]
» JPinski. Hi.
[29:15]
» Tom Peak.
[29:16]
» Hi.
[29:17]
» All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank
[29:19]
you everyone.