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