[0:02] and we're ready whenever you are, mayor. >> Thank you.

[0:05] » Good evening and thank you for attending tonight's city council meeting. For

[0:08] those who are attending remotely, the camera and council chambers is set up to

[0:12] show those attending in person tonight. The platform we are using has a raise

[0:16] hand feature. You will notice a picture of a hand in the lower lefthand corner.

[0:21] When we reach the point in the meeting where the public has the opportunity to

[0:24] address council, you can click that button to be given your opportunity to

[0:29] address council. Uh before we stand for the pledge tonight, um I would like to

[0:35] uh state that we will have a moment of silence uh for two former uh city

[0:42] officials. One being uh Frank Lame uh career firefighter in the ars fire

[0:48] department. He retired as his assistant chief in 1998. Mr. Rene passed away

[0:53] recently as did Tim Davis, former city councelor from 2016 to 2019. So

[0:59] following the pledge, we will pay our respects to both those individuals.

[1:03] Please stand.

[1:08] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic

[1:13] for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:19] justice for all.

[1:31] » Thank you.

[1:34] » Cath, please call the role. >> Mayor Chulie

[1:37] » here. >> Councelor Sy

[1:38] » here. >> Councelor Lefay

[1:39] » here. >> Councelor Scamperly.

[1:42] » Councelor Stevenson >> here. Councelor Tibo

[1:44] » here. >> Councelor Tren

[1:46] » here. Quum present. >> I know councelor Scanley is away for

[1:49] family reason tonight. He's asked to be excused meeting. Uh any objection?

[1:54] » No objection.

[2:00] » Uh we do have not have any presentations tonight. So brings us to one public

[2:04] hearing. It is regarding ordinance to sell tax map number 59.022-14-7

[2:09] 022-14-7530 Runler Avenue tax map number

[2:14] 59-022-7-9615

[2:18] Ford Avenue to the Auxburg Land Bank Corporation is going to be bill number

[2:23] 82 and I will open that public hearing now. If anyone attending in person would

[2:27] like to speak regarding the public hearing, please come down to the podium

[2:30] and you will have five minutes to speak.

[2:36] » Hey folks, Greg McNamera. Uh, as far as this land bank stuff, I would just like

[2:41] some transparency here now, tonight, in the future, maybe during your discussion

[2:46] tonight, because there's been none of it thus far during this administration. Uh,

[2:50] why are they buying the properties? What's their plans with them? Uh,

[2:59] those are the two best questions. I guess I'm I'm going to stay away from

[3:02] the rest of it, but I would like someone from that committee to come up to the

[3:06] podium or do a council meeting one day and uh express why they want to do what

[3:12] they are doing your sales with them and all that stuff in the future. Thank you.

[3:16] » Thank you. Anyone else in chambers?

[3:24] Now, if anyone attending remotely would like to speak regarding the public

[3:27] hearing, please use the raised hand feature in the lower lefthand corner of

[3:30] your screen. You will have five minutes to speak.

[3:36] » I do not see any hands raised, sir. >> All right. Having noted that, I am going

[3:40] to keep the public hearing open. The resolution, if it is to be adopted,

[3:44] requires six yes votes of counsel. Uh, it's my understanding Deputy Mayor

[3:49] Stevens of being recusing herself, Council Stanford being absent tonight.

[3:54] Six votes won't be available. So, we will not be introducing that resolution

[3:57] tonight. At the next meeting where we do have seven uh counselors here at the

[4:02] table, we will uh we will reopen the public hearing uh and before we put it

[4:09] on the table for action.

[4:17] That brings us to personal appearance. At this time, if anyone attending in

[4:20] person would like to address council, please come down to the podium. You'll

[4:24] have five minutes.

[4:29] [clears throat] Hey, I wanted to hop up here first for personal appearance. I

[4:32] see there's a pile of firefighters behind me, all sitting out of the camera

[4:37] area from the council chambers. The city employees all do that, too. It's really

[4:40] strange. It doesn't happen in other uh cities, villages, etc. towns if you look

[4:47] at their videos. I don't know why we do it here. And uh you can also hear what's

[4:52] going on from the crowd in a lot of other places. You can't hear, but I'll

[4:56] move on from that. Uh recently in the media, there's this battle going on,

[5:00] another battle with uh the fire department and the city. I commend uh

[5:06] Fond Cronis for making the suggestion that he did with

[5:11] the contract situation and the overtime. I honestly think it was a little light

[5:16] how he came down on them. Um now before I go back to that, let's rewind to

[5:22] before the Skelly administration and Sarah Perie was on her way out of

[5:26] here. Uh there was a group of individuals that worked on the contract

[5:32] then which gave our fire department the most lucrative contract in New York

[5:38] State and I believe in the United States of America that was pointed out by uh

[5:43] John Ree in the last administration. He did say he found one in Arizona. I'd

[5:48] assume they have a lot more fires there than we do here too. and it was probably

[5:52] in a city or an area where it was prosperous and they weren't in the

[5:56] financial situation that we're in. But anyways, uh

[6:01] they passed that contract to tie the last administration's hands. So, they

[6:05] couldn't do anything with the fire department and it went how it went.

[6:09] There was a battle. The fire department won. I'll congratulate anyone who wins

[6:13] the battle of court. Here we are today. Uh the city management comes back. The

[6:19] city's in a disaster financially and here all they are. They I never see any

[6:24] of them in the meeting. Their chiefs here. I wonder if the chief goes back to

[6:26] the station and says, "Hey guys, look it. You know, here's what's going on.

[6:31] The city's in a huge financial disaster. We need a new roof.

[6:35] uh we're probably going to have to more or less quit manipulating vacation time

[6:40] so we all get a half a million dollars in extra overtime a year or you know 300

[6:46] then 250 but it adds up. Uh I think they have a very good job. I think the city

[6:52] and the fire department should work together instead of be polarized. And uh

[7:00] if I was the chief of the fire department, I'd tell him, "What do you

[7:03] think's going to be left after this?" And these battles keep going on and this

[7:06] that and the other thing. Uh at one some point in time, the gravy train has to

[7:11] hit the brakes and slow down a little bit. And with unions, that's what it is.

[7:15] And it takes trains a while to slow down when they're way out of control and

[7:18] overloaded like our fire department in its union. Um,

[7:25] that's all I'm going to say during this part of my speech and I can't wait till

[7:28] the decorum discussion and the next time I get up to the podium. Thank you.

[7:53] Yes. Uh Dan Dhy. I'm the second district vice

[7:59] president for New York State Professional Firefighters Association

[8:03] uh which Oinsburg falls under. Um I'm also a uh firefighter in Watertown, New

[8:10] York. Um I'm the president of their union. Uh and I'm an individual who

[8:16] testified at the arbitration here in Ogdensburg about uh the specific two in

[8:21] two out rule um which is an OSHA law stating that for every two firefighters

[8:27] that go in that you will have two firefighters standing outside, one can

[8:33] be an incident commander. uh and then one has to maintain uh clear

[8:41] uh uh view of the entire scene uh and can

[8:46] at a moment's notice go into help. Uh, and I testified on how with the fiveman

[8:53] minimum that you currently run, uh, you can have an incident commander and a RIT

[8:58] team, you can have two going in to protect life and property and then you

[9:02] can have somebody running the pump and then if you were to take somebody away,

[9:08] more likely than not, the pump operator, you now are have become ineffective in

[9:13] firefighting. Uh, I was handed uh when I got here

[9:17] tonight a new SOP that essentially states that you will operate with four

[9:23] and that you'll just stay outside unless there is a clear life hazard.

[9:33] [clears throat] >> Please refrain.

[9:37] » That's the SOP that the chief came out with,

[9:40] » not the firefighters. >> Please address C.

[9:43] I I think what you are uh about to undertake here is dangerous. Uh you're

[9:50] in the middle of an interest arbitration over the contract to address some of

[9:54] these issues and to forward something like this during those interest

[9:59] arbitration hearings or during the deliberation of that with the board is

[10:04] extremely disingenuous. This department has already gone from 28

[10:08] down to 24 saving the city money. The last time this was tried, it cost the

[10:14] city $519,000. You're headed down that same road. I

[10:19] haven't heard the chief speak about this publicly.

[10:23] And I think that council should be asking those questions of the chief

[10:29] about how he thinks it's going to operate with less men to do a

[10:36] life-saving job. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr.

[10:49] Good evening, members [clears throat] of city council. My my name is Eddie

[10:53] Santiago and I'm secretary treasurer for the New York State Professional

[10:57] Firefighters. We represent 18,000 professional firefighters throughout New

[11:01] York State, including the members of Hinsburg Fire Department.

[11:06] Prior to my role with uh New York State professional firefighters, I spent 30

[11:11] and a half years with the Rochester Fire Department. Of those 30 and a half

[11:16] years, 10 were as union president representing 500 firefighters, but

[11:21] overall I spent 20 years on the executive board.

[11:25] I'm here tonight to address some of the issues that are being considered by

[11:28] council and also some of the mischaracterization

[11:32] being shared. members [clears throat]

[11:37] members of the uh New York State professional firefighters first concern

[11:41] is always public safety above above all all else.

[11:46] Our members get up every day and go to work to face any challenge from

[11:51] dangerous structure fires to auto accidents and medical emergencies. They

[11:56] put their lives on the line and risk physical harm to themselves to help

[12:01] other citizens in the most vulnerable moments.

[12:07] Our members face physical and mental physical mental and emotional stress

[12:12] from the situations they face on the job and they are being asked to do more with

[12:17] less. All of that is against the backdrop of everinccreasing call

[12:21] volumes, more complicated fire response and the

[12:25] advent the advent of electrical vehicles and battery fires which require

[12:33] continued advanced training and aging population with complicated medical

[12:38] needs.

[12:41] Each year, fire and emergency responses response call call volume across New

[12:47] York State fire departments have gone up. In spite of those challenges, our

[12:53] members show up to work and fill the 24-hour shifts 365 days a year. When

[13:01] people are at home celebrating the holidays with their families in all

[13:04] types of weather, we are on duty to answer the call.

[13:09] So when I heard that our members who negotiated a contract in good faith are

[13:14] now being attacked legally and publicly and facing accus acc accusations

[13:21] and false I'm sorry and false accusations are being spread. I needed

[13:25] to come up here and set the record straight.

[13:29] It is common knowledge in New York that the amendment to the Taylor law

[13:34] makes it illegal for public employees to change the terms and conditions of an

[13:39] expired collective bargaining agreement until a new contract is negotiated.

[13:44] It is simple, uncomplicated, and it's the law. I believe the city council is

[13:50] re receiving bad advice from their attorneys.

[13:54] I won't speculate why. I won't speculate why they're

[13:59] getting bad advice, but I will note that our members are simply asking for the

[14:03] council to honor the law and negotiate in good faith.

[14:09] We negotiated minimum staffing according to NFPA standards

[14:14] for staffing with five firefighters on duty and every shift. All we're asking

[14:20] is for a city to honor the contract that was signed and negoti and negotiate

[14:25] a new contract in good faith. Sadly, we've been down this road before with

[14:32] the previous administration. It is my hope that we can all learn from

[14:36] the failures of the last administration and come to a fair and equitable

[14:41] conclusion that maintains the safety of the citizens of Ogdensburg without

[14:46] wasting precious taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits that will only enrich

[14:51] the city's lawyers and will eventually fail like the last one did. We are ready

[14:56] to come to the bargaining table and we ask that you do the same. Thank you for

[15:00] your time. >> Thank you, sir.

[15:10] Please refrain from speaking until we have another opportunity during personal

[15:13] appearance later. You can may not address may not

[15:18] interfere with the meeting and address those people who are speaking to us.

[15:24] » What people specifically

[15:27] » the gentleman you just addressed as he returned to his seat.

[15:30] » Thank you for clarifying. >> Sorry. I won't address them again.

[15:34] » Can I address any of my other neighbors? Or

[15:36] » if you do it respectfully and quietly,

[15:42] » please. >> Good evening, council. My name is Scott

[15:45] McCormack, resident taxpayer, vice president of the Augsburg Professional

[15:49] Local 1799. I'm a proud 14-year member of the city of Agingsburg's fire

[15:53] department. Currently hold the rank of captain. The issue before us is not a

[15:57] political preference or administrative convenience. It's whether Ogdensburg

[16:01] will continue honoring a daily minimum staffing requirement that was put in

[16:04] place for one reason and one reason only, to keep firefighters and the

[16:08] public safe when the worst happens. Although the provisions at excuse me,

[16:14] the provisions at issue here do not expressly mention safety as a reason for

[16:18] the minimum staffing requirements, the safety considerations are self-evident

[16:22] from the nature of the work to be performed. the quintessential dangerous

[16:26] task of addressing conflrations that from time to time beset communities. It

[16:31] goes without saying in such situations having adequate personnel on hand

[16:37] would essentially ensure firefighting safety as well as successful fire in

[16:42] fight excuse me success in fighting fire in fighting fires. This quote from the

[16:47] unanimous January 13, 2022 New York Street State Supreme Supreme Court third

[16:53] appellet division ruling clearly states that five member daily minimum staffing

[16:57] requirements are built upon exactly for safety of firefighters. This contract

[17:02] provision was constructed by national safety standards, most notably NFPA 1710

[17:08] and OSHA 29CR1910 to ensure the adequate personnel are on

[17:12] hand to ensure firefighter safety in the event of a structural firefight.

[17:17] With such a strong ruling on such important contractual provisions, the

[17:21] question has to be asked, who's gone above and beyond the New York Supreme

[17:25] Court, the National Fire Protection Agency, and the Occup Occupational

[17:29] Safety and Health Administration and deemed the in deemed it failing to

[17:34] maintain this daily minimum staffing requirement is in fact actually safe.

[17:38] Who in the room? Who on this council? Who in our city management team has the

[17:42] experience or expertise to necessarily overstep two national safety agencies in

[17:47] a Supreme Court?

[17:51] Who made these decisions? This is a question to this point is completely

[17:54] unanswered. No public comment, no com no council discussion, no comment from the

[17:59] fire chief. There seems to be a pattern here. so-called operational change which

[18:04] was which enacted behind closed doors and as and as a union understands it

[18:08] without the presence of a fire chief the head of the department which this

[18:11] so-called change will decrease our minimum staffing 20% of a response it

[18:17] would appear that there is a gag order in place stop me when it begins to sound

[18:21] exactly like 2020 all over again it would

[18:26] again daily minimum staffing declared to not be enforceable council and

[18:31] department heads gag order and one person speaking for the city is a city

[18:35] manager. We've all been here before. We've all done this before and we know

[18:39] the outcome was then and what it will be now. The last administration quote

[18:44] declared daily minimum safety requirements uninforceable, costing the

[18:48] city $519,000. How much will it cost this time around?

[18:52] You may only ask one thing. Put the safety above politics. to see the men

[18:58] and women in this room have sworn an oath to serve community as more than

[19:02] numbers on the bottom of a ledger, but see them as who they are. Fathers, sons,

[19:06] mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters, they are all human beings. Human beings

[19:11] and deserve to know that when they show up to work knowing they have taken an

[19:14] oath to protect those in the city of Agingsburg, even if it means giving

[19:17] their life in an effort to save anothers, that they can perform their

[19:20] job the safest and the most efficient way possible. noting that if they have

[19:24] to face that ultimate choice to risk their own life for another there's

[19:28] someone outside ready willing and able to save them to come to their aid ensure

[19:32] that we all get a chance to go home safe at the end of the shift so again I ask

[19:37] who made these decisions we haven't even heard from the fire chief on this matter

[19:41] and as far as the union knows wasn't in the room when the decision was made all

[19:45] it takes is one counselor one person to spark the conversation why not just ask

[19:50] the fire chief for his input on the matter why not seek out the answer to

[19:54] the question that plaguing all of us and should be plaguing all of you. Is this

[19:58] actually safe? Thank you. Thank you, Scott.

[20:05] Anyone else in chambers?

[20:20] My name is Tammy Bush and I am a lifelong resident of Agensburg. I'm here

[20:25] tonight to share my concerns on the direction we are going in

[20:28] [clears throat] as a city regarding development. I want to begin with a

[20:31] simple question. As a community, are we strategically planning for growth? And I

[20:36] want everyone to think carefully about that question, especially about the word

[20:39] strategically. If you ask me, my answer without hesitation would be no. Not

[20:44] because the recent ideas presented for the n national diamond site are not

[20:49] attractive, but attractive does not necessarily mean sustainable. My opinion

[20:54] is based on experience. From 2019 to 2026, I secured more than 30 million in

[20:58] capital and service grant funds for projects in this city. I had to research

[21:02] and analyze local demographics, incomes, poverty rates, employment, education

[21:06] levels, family sizes, housing inventory, and much, much more to be able to submit

[21:11] winning applications. I have a degree in sociology and advanced research methods.

[21:15] I co-ressearched a project and I co-authored a paper on mental health in

[21:18] North Country that was published by the American Psychological Association. I

[21:23] mention these things only because I have spent years studying what our community

[21:27] needs. I've been involved in virtually every phase of project development from

[21:31] planning, funding, contract closing, construction and completion, working

[21:35] alongside developers, contractors, architects, and project managers on

[21:39] development teams. So when I talk about strategic development, I'm not speaking

[21:43] theoretically. I'm talking about what I've done.

[21:47] » Not right now, sir. >> I'll tell you again.

[21:52] » I believe that our desperation is shaping.

[21:55] » Please suspend. This push please suspend. I've asked asked management to

[22:00] restore order and chambers.

[22:04] » Right. Relax. Okay. >> Let the meeting go on.

[22:10] » Let the meeting go on. Okay. >> Sorry.

[22:24] » Yes. Here we go. >> It's got to go.

[22:28] » All right. I'll sleep on my No problem. Thanks. That's fine.

[22:33] » You guys enjoy your job. They won't be here very long. [snorts]

[22:44] » Please >> don't need interaction.

[22:50] Again,

[22:59] I would remind people in the audience, please let us conduct the business of

[23:04] city government to see.

[23:09] » Thank you. You make it too. >> Thank you. So, when I talk about

[23:13] strategic development, I'm not speaking theoretically. I'm talking about what

[23:16] I've done. I believe that our desperation is shaping some common false

[23:20] beliefs. One, that we need an outsider to come save us, and two, that the best

[23:23] way to develop in Ogdensburg is to build something big that makes people come

[23:26] here. And that brings me back to the Diamond National Site. We have been told

[23:30] this property is extremely valuable, and it is. But what is more valuable as

[23:34] members of this community, we should not be asking what does a developer want to

[23:38] bring. We should ask what does our community need and how can we use this

[23:41] property to satisfy that need? Because this is not just another piece of vacant

[23:45] land. It is waterfront. And to us who have been raised by this river, it is

[23:49] gold. And I do not believe we should be selling it for chump change. The people

[23:53] who have stayed here, worked here, raised families here, opened businesses

[23:56] here, and invested their lives here deserve to benefit from its from it as

[24:00] it is our asset. I'm not asking you to not develop. I'm asking you to pause

[24:04] long enough to consider different models of development. I submitted a proposal

[24:08] in response to the Diamond National RFP knowing it did not stand a chance, as I

[24:12] only found it less than two weeks before the deadline. But I wanted to show the

[24:16] city what strategic community centered development looks like. And even though

[24:20] the actual proposal was not competitive, I stand by that project 100% as being

[24:24] sustainable and viable while improving the quality of life for all community

[24:27] members, not just filling the pockets of a few. Imagine a roller rink that easily

[24:32] transforms into a venue with a dance floor. An art center where people can

[24:35] walk in and discover a passion they didn't know they had. A marketplace with

[24:39] affordable low rent yearround shops that provides residents with place to buy

[24:43] while giving local entrepreneurs a place to open business without going in debt.

[24:47] A small amphitheater where local bands and emerging artists can perform with a

[24:51] capacity that our streets, roadways, infrastructure, and resources in the

[24:55] city can handle. A high quality on the job training program that provides the

[25:00] city with an attractive and capable workforce, ultimately attracting

[25:03] businesses with better jobs and better pay. A solar garden that demonstrates

[25:07] sustainability and becomes part of an art installation that lights up the

[25:10] riverfront at night for our neighbors to wander at. And a boardwalk that tells

[25:14] the story of the property itself, recognizing it in its early years as a

[25:17] shipyard to its industrial era and to then to today. A benefit corporation

[25:22] model, an alternate philosophy of development can create responsibility

[25:26] that expends extends beyond simply max maximizing profit while returning the

[25:31] property to the tax role. It is my guess that while many of us agree on many

[25:35] things, getting properties back on the tax roles to get the city out of debt is

[25:39] one thing we could all stand together on. We are not going to grow from

[25:42] starting big, nor are we going to grow from people coming to us. We're going to

[25:46] grow when we start looking at the skills, talents, and passion that we

[25:49] have right here in every single person that calls Agensburg their home. Because

[25:53] when people have a place where they can open a small business, perform on a

[25:57] stage, sell something they created, learn something new, teach a class,

[26:00] attend an event, walk along the river, watch the sunset, or simply spend time

[26:04] with their families. They've developed something that cannot be measured on a

[26:07] spreadsheet. They've developed ownership. Development is not bringing

[26:11] something to Ogdensburg. It is about bringing Agensburg to the people who are

[26:15] already here. Let's create something that belongs to the people who call

[26:19] Agensburg home and not simply trade in a piece of our leg our legacy for someone

[26:23] else's profit. This this should be our strategy. Thank you.

[26:27] » Thank you.

[26:30] » Anyone else in chambers?

[26:36] » Now, if anyone attending remotely would like to address council, please use the

[26:39] raised hand feature. The city clerk will recognize and unmute one person at a

[26:43] time and you will have five minutes.

[26:49] » I do not see any hands raised. Mark >> brings us to correspondence. You have

[26:52] any correspondence this evening? >> We do not.

[26:55] » Brings us to the consent agenda that the claims is enumerated in general fund

[26:59] warrant number 16-2026 in the amount of $748,213.50

[27:05] 50 and library warrant number 16-2026 amount of $0. Capital fund warrant

[27:11] number 16-2026 in the amount of $51,91061.

[27:18] And community development fund warrant number 16-2026

[27:21] in the amount of $0 and community renewal fund warrant number 16-2026 in

[27:27] the amount of $0 is audited. Be it same hereby are ordered paid. I so move.

[27:32] Second. >> Second.

[27:33] » Please call. >> Mayor Tulie.

[27:36] » Yes. >> Councelor Silly.

[27:37] » Yes. >> Councelor Lefay.

[27:39] » Yes. >> Councelor Stevenson.

[27:41] » Yes. >> Councelor Tibo.

[27:42] » Yes. >> Councelor Trim.

[27:44] » Yes. >> Approved.

[27:45] » Do not have any appointments tonight. Princess items for council action. The

[27:49] one item that was on the agenda. I've already indicated we are moving from the

[27:52] agenda to be placed on a future agenda to the city council.

[27:57] So, that brings us to old business and we'll begin with city manager Father

[28:01] Cron. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, council asked

[28:04] for legal guidance about uh the procurement process uh for waterfront

[28:09] properties and how that guidance shapes the selection process moving forward for

[28:12] shade roller. Um, so I did consult with the city attorney. Um, and obviously

[28:18] questions have came up uh from council uh whether council could hear a

[28:23] presentation from a group outside the RFP process or reach an agreement with a

[28:27] specific developer outside that process. Um, so I did want to share with council

[28:32] and with the public what the city attorney's legal opinion is. Um, and so

[28:38] I I do have a few bullet points here that I'd like to share. So the first

[28:41] bullet point says uh the city should not engage with an individual or developer

[28:46] who failed to timely submit a response to an RFP when other parties responded

[28:51] on time. Doing so exposes the city to legal action from those who followed the

[28:57] rules. The city attorney did not find any credible reason for the city to be

[29:01] sued over its diamond national RFP process or any pending decisions that

[29:06] may come out of it. An open competitive process, an RFP or an auction exists to

[29:13] prevent backroom deals and to maximize the benefit to the city, whether

[29:17] financial or otherwise. While a parcel

[29:23] the city acquired for back taxes, is not legally required to go through the city

[29:28] codes auction process. The city attorney advises that

[29:34] transferring such a large parcel without an RFP or an auction carries some legal

[29:40] risk. The city retains discretion to sell only a portion of the parcel for an

[29:46] RFP respondent when the city's interests are are deemed so by the council and

[29:52] it's done something similar in the past. So, in short, council's advice is that a

[29:56] competitive documented process is both legally sound

[30:01] um and one that best protects the city's uh financial interests.

[30:06] So, that guidance is very consistent with the process we've put together uh

[30:10] for Diamond um and the process that I'm sure that I will recommend for Shade

[30:15] Roller when the time comes. um that protects fairness for everyone u

[30:19] everyone interested in the site and keeps us aligned with the legal

[30:22] realities of the situation. Uh so I do want to take just a moment in time uh to

[30:27] give a status update on shade roller if that's okay. Uh mayor um I think I've

[30:32] shared with council uh that DEEC which is department of environmental

[30:37] conservation uh previously did approve the city's uh remedial investigations

[30:43] report which is a positive step in the process.

[30:46] Last week, I was told that the Department of Health on the state side

[30:49] issued a negative uh threat assessment determination for the site. And that's

[30:53] very good news because it means the city can choose the remediation of that land

[30:58] to process um as opposed to it being dictated by state regulators. So, that's

[31:03] always a bonus. Uh today, as a matter of fact, I received comments on the city's

[31:08] submission on what's called the alternatives assessment report. That's a

[31:12] AAR is what that stands for. Um, and so I've consulted with the engineer on the

[31:16] project and we both consider the comments quite minor. Uh, so we should

[31:21] be able to turn around uh a second draft of the AAR pretty quickly. Um, so now we

[31:27] have a pretty good idea what the remediation at shade roller is going to

[31:30] look like. we have a pretty good idea uh what the estimated costs are going to

[31:35] be and that will help us in our whatever future RFP or whatever future

[31:41] procurement process council determines it is highly likely um but this is not

[31:46] official but highly likely that that site will be zoned resident uh

[31:51] restricted residential that's uh what it looks like at this moment in time but

[31:55] again not official so the next step is for the city to ressubmit that AR and

[32:03] have GEC approve it. Um then the city will need to develop what's called a

[32:09] site management plan and we'll have to file environmental easements on the

[32:13] property. Those are standard things. Um and they just take a little bit of time

[32:17] to put together. Um, while all of that is happening in the background, my

[32:21] recommendation is for the city to begin soliciting proposals for developers on

[32:26] on the shade site using a similar process to diamond.

[32:33] What the city was going to want to do is identify a preferred developer for shade

[32:38] prior to any certificate of completion and and we would need to add that

[32:42] preferred developer to the city's BOA application so that any tax credits that

[32:48] would go along with remediating whatever is is I call it dirty dirt but you know

[32:53] whatever contamination is on the site those tax credits can get conveyed to

[32:57] the preferred developer and there is plenty of time to do that because we

[33:02] don't expect the certificate of completion to come to us from DEEC uh

[33:06] probably until Q2 of 2027. So I I do want to repeat the fact that this gives

[33:12] us plenty of time gives the city plenty of time to run a full RFP process. Um I

[33:18] can definitely see an RFP being issued in Q4 of this year um and the process

[33:24] running through Q1. Um, and that still gives plenty of time for the city to add

[33:29] a developer on the application well ahead of any certificate of completion.

[33:35] So, I would do want to set an expectation on timing.

[33:39] None of this goes quickly. I think we've all realized that. I think we all want

[33:42] it to go quicker than it is. Um, but it doesn't. And if there's any developer

[33:46] out there who's looking to leverage state funds to augment their investment,

[33:51] that's going to add to the uh the time frame. If you think about it, um, you

[33:55] know, one proposal was to leverage the LWRP program. Well, LWRP grant, uh,

[34:01] solicitations won't be out until May of 2027. They'll be due July of 2027. You

[34:07] won't hear a decision on the LWRP until December of 2027. By the time the state

[34:13] contracts out, it'll be late Q2 of 2028. By the time you do bids, by the time you

[34:20] do bid awards, we're talking Q3, Q4, um you won't really be able to get into the

[34:26] ground until spring of 2029. If there is a developer out there that has um their

[34:31] own financing and and isn't going to rely on the state, we can compress that,

[34:35] but I do want to set some expectations on timing because that's that's

[34:39] realistic, right? That's realistic. So there really is no timing pressure that

[34:44] should push anybody or any process towards a shortcut. Once the AAR is

[34:50] approved, uh my office will be ready to bring a formal RFP uh to the public for

[34:55] shade. We'll run it the same way as we have with diamond. Um and all of that is

[35:00] consistent with the legal guidance we received from the city attorney.

[35:05] » Uh thank you, F. Before we proceed with council questions or comments, I do have

[35:12] a statement I'd like to um looking back over discussions over

[35:17] the past month or so. I think it's important to remind

[35:22] ourselves as a city council and public in general that in the city manager form

[35:27] of government there are distinct roles delegated to city management to the

[35:31] governing body regarding economic development matters and particular

[35:35] proposals of developers for economic development of city-owned property. The

[35:40] operational role of professionally vetting such proposals is administered

[35:44] by management. In performing this responsibility, management follows the

[35:49] procurement process agreed to by management and council.

[35:53] In its administration of the procurement process, it is manager's responsibility

[35:58] to develop the information, conduct the analysis, identify the risks and

[36:02] opportunities, and make a professional recommendation to council so it can make

[36:06] a policy decision. This collaborative approach is essential if the city

[36:11] manager form of government is to function efficiently and effectively.

[36:16] Whatever process is chosen, I think it important that the vetting process is

[36:20] performed in a non-public forum. Private personal and business financial

[36:24] information is shared and discussed during the vetting process.

[36:36] process requires the evaluation of a proposal to determine if it is

[36:40] financially, operationally, and strategically viable. It can take time

[36:45] to evaluate multiple proposals as follow-up discussions occur between the

[36:49] evaluation committee and the developers to allow them time to respond to

[36:54] committee questions. Once the evaluating committee completes

[36:58] its work, it forwards recommendations to city council for its consideration.

[37:04] Personally, I believe the vetting process agreed to by management and

[37:08] council in marketing the Diamond National property has been a sound

[37:12] process. A request for proposals was issued that management and an

[37:16] independent development consultant reviewed and scored the responses

[37:20] submitted within the established timeline.

[37:24] A subcommittee consisting of representatives of management, our

[37:27] development consultant, and council reviewed the evaluations proposals. They

[37:32] have had follow-up communications with developers of proposals selected for

[37:36] consideration and the vetting process continues.

[37:40] So, having said this, um I guess I'd rather not wait. I encourage city

[37:45] council to recommend to the city manager use of the same procurement process that

[37:50] being an RFP and marketing shape property.

[37:54] The RFP process provides information about the parcel, details community

[37:59] goals and objectives for the parcel, lists RFP requirements, including

[38:04] selection criteria and process, and details submission information required.

[38:11] And I find the RFP process is a fair process for all developers interested in

[38:17] the project. So with that, I'll turn it over to council for comments.

[38:23] Mayor, I I agree with uh everything you said this evening. Our RFP process works

[38:28] very well. Um it is fair to all. Everyone has the same timeline, same

[38:33] expectations. Additional question, Fonda, if you would

[38:37] please explain. I understand what restricted residential is, but the

[38:41] public may not understand that. Sometimes they think that we can just

[38:44] build single family homes on that land. And if you would explain that a little

[38:49] bit, I'd appreciate it. Who who sets that regulation? It's not us. It's the

[38:54] process. >> Correct. The process will dictate that.

[38:56] Um and then the state regulators, mostly DEEC, but in in partnership with

[39:01] Department of Health will determine what the zoning can be in those situations.

[39:05] Restricted residential uh is anything but single family residential.

[39:10] » Thank you.

[39:17] » Anyone else? council prepared to make a recommendation to management tonight

[39:23] with regards to shape procurement process.

[39:26] » Yes. >> Yes.

[39:27] » That being RFP process for Dational.

[39:32] » Absolutely. >> So I think you have your direction.

[39:36] » Appreciate that. Thank you for the guidance.

[39:44] I I I have a an additional comment to make and again reflects back on some of

[39:49] the discussion over the past couple meetings.

[39:53] Um so having given this direction to management, I repeat my comments from

[39:57] the last meeting in appreciation of JK Strategic's interest in developing the

[40:02] shake property. I note they clarified in their response

[40:06] for the record handed the council at our last meeting that their proposal

[40:10] specific to the shade roll of property that quote the proposal before the

[40:15] council is not a late bid into the diamond national process and does not

[40:19] depend on it. So I encourage JGK and other interested developers to provide a

[40:26] response to the shade roller RFP when it is issued and to abide by the process

[40:31] that will be outlined in it. Uh, and as Father said, I remind the

[40:35] public the city government has made you aware there remain issues with the

[40:38] property pertaining to its remediation that need to be addressed with the DEEC

[40:42] and state department of health. I think it's fair to say city council is anxious

[40:47] to move forward with this process, but we must do so responsibly and time is

[40:53] needed to resolve these issues with these state agencies.

[40:58] Uh, any further discussion at this time? Any

[41:05] other old business to come for council? >> I have one item of old business. Um,

[41:11] it's been discussed for a number of years. Um, is a skateboard park. Um, we

[41:17] have one. It's in very poor condition. We have promised our skateboard

[41:21] enthusiasts for many years that they would be

[41:25] um on the front burner for us to look at as far as development. um that was

[41:30] supposed to be a temporary location, a temporary situation. So, I would ask

[41:35] that we revisit this perhaps with the rec commission and ask them to give us

[41:39] some recommendations. Perhaps we could look at that as a future uh grant that

[41:44] we apply for. Um but I do think that it's time that we step up what we're

[41:49] providing for our skateboard enthusiasts. There's a big group of the

[41:53] of kids and adults that do this. It's it's not just, you know, five or six

[41:57] people that are down [snorts] there wanting to do it, but um I went down and

[42:00] walked around and it's it needs help. So, I'd appreciate it if we could uh as

[42:05] a council have consensus to at least look into this and see if there's

[42:08] anything we can

[42:13] » do some research on this issue. >> Sounds good.

[42:17] » We'll send it to the rec commission for their thoughts.

[42:19] » Thank you. >> Any other old business?

[42:23] » I've got one. Yes, please. >> Um, the revenue comparison breakdown by

[42:29] Angela, I think it was three meetings ago,

[42:33] » she mentioned 11 million more gallons of water metered use. Was there ever a

[42:40] did we ever look into that? Why? >> We we are looking into it. It's not as

[42:46] easy as as uh as here's where it is. So, yeah, the analysis is being done. Sure.

[42:52] Okay.

[42:56] other old business

[43:00] brings us new business. We'll be giving city manager FUS with their fiscal year

[43:05] 2027 budget process update. >> Sure. Thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to

[43:08] let everybody know that um department heads have submitted their uh budget

[43:12] requests. I received them on Friday of of last week. the

[43:17] controller and I will be meeting with department heads all week to uh go over

[43:22] those numbers and go over the budget line by line. Um we've got a lot of work

[43:27] to do um to balance spending over uh anticipated revenues. Our big challenges

[43:33] uh are really cost of health care, retirement costs and energy costs which

[43:38] we basically say every year. Um the numbers I think are just a little bit

[43:43] bigger than than they have uh in the in the past. Council's been clear it's

[43:47] looking to lower the levy by $117,000 and reduce the reliance on fund balance

[43:52] as a revenue source. So, we are trying to bake all of that in um with the uh

[43:58] upward pressures on costs and I would uh encourage council to begin discussions

[44:03] on identifying workshop uh dates for October, middle to end of October so

[44:10] that we can get those on the calendar and uh and get everybody scheduled.

[44:15] » Questions?

[44:20] » Thank you for that update. Any other new business?

[44:26] Uh hearing none, that brings us to items for discussion that will begin the city.

[44:32] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. At last week's council meeting, a member

[44:37] of the public verbally attacked and slandered a member of my family for no

[44:41] other reason than just to get back at me. That behavior is really not

[44:45] acceptable. Um it targeted someone who has no role and no voice in the business

[44:51] of the city. The remarks were cruel, insulting, and really had nothing to do

[44:56] with any of the issues that we were discussing at the moment in time. And

[45:00] they do reflect poorly on what some people apparently believe uh passes for

[45:05] constructive public discourse these days.

[45:09] No one here is more willing than I am to take criticism from the people of this

[45:13] city. I'm a strong believer in the First Amendment, even when I am the target

[45:18] um in the butt of those criticisms. I expect criticism. I have accepted that

[45:22] as part of being the city manager of Ogdensburg. Um, but my family did not

[45:28] sign up for this job. I did and so they shouldn't have to answer like I have to.

[45:32] And I want to remind everybody in the room in in this room, anybody watching

[45:37] the video live or watching it later um what the rules are that govern how these

[45:42] meetings should be conducted. And in case you want to look them up, it's

[45:46] Ogdensburg's Administrative Regulations AR17G7.3.

[45:51] And I'm going to read that to everybody. Any person making personal impertinent

[45:57] or slanderous remarks or who shall become boisterous while addressing the

[46:02] council may be requested to leave the meeting and may be forth with by the

[46:06] presiding officer barred from further audience before the council. Anybody

[46:12] here can say whatever they want about me. Criticize my work, my record, my

[46:17] judgment, all of that's fair game, and I accept it. Don't always like it, but I

[46:21] accept it. Um, but leave my family and the family of other public servants out

[46:26] of the discussion. Basic decency ask that anyone addressing this council

[46:32] treat everyone else like a human being. If somebody in the audience doesn't want

[46:37] to extend me that courtesy, that's your choice to do. But I demand that it be

[46:43] extended to my family and the family of every public servant. They didn't sign

[46:48] up for this. Thank you. >> Uh thank you father. Let just me make

[46:54] just an initial comment response. Um uh obviously I think on council

[47:01] felt that the comments uh at the speaker's conclusion last meeting

[47:06] inappropriate, strongly inappropriate. Um, and it was my failure to gather her

[47:14] to recognize that at that time um that I think um caused some cause some within

[47:21] the city manager and his family and I can I respect that. So um I think

[47:26] overall the court council meetings has been a little bit more professional

[47:33] during the course of the three years this council's been together. Um but I

[47:37] did fail last week for that. I apologize uh you know and I will just continue as

[47:42] best I can uh in chairing these meetings um to um uh ask speakers to uh respect

[47:51] the uh guidelines that are provided to them on the back of the agenda for every

[47:56] council meeting as required in the administrative regulations.

[48:01] Um, with that say to make a comment on this.

[48:09] Okay. Um, next I'd like to ask the city manager to address the public with

[48:15] regards to the operational changes being at the fire department.

[48:20] » Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I've listened carefully tonight to the

[48:24] statements uh made by the union and their representatives and I think the

[48:28] public deserves a little bit greater context here. I want to make clear that

[48:32] we're not attacking the fire department. I know council does and I know I do

[48:37] value the work that they do and the work that every uh member of the city

[48:42] employment team does. And this is not about safety. This is about outdated

[48:47] contract language that generates unnecessary overtime year after year

[48:52] after year. Let me explain the situation. The union contract allows two

[48:56] firefighters to take vacation on the same shift on the same day. And there is

[49:02] an expired contract provision that required a minimum of five on duty.

[49:09] That was all fine, well, and good when we had seven or eight firefighters

[49:13] assigned to a shift. But full staffing now is six. So whenever there are two

[49:19] firefighters on vacation at the same time, the city prior to the expiration

[49:25] of the contract was required to call in a fifth firefighter and that person had

[49:30] to come in on overtime. That cost taxpayers roughly a quarter of a million

[49:35] dollars a year. The five person minimum expired in 2025.

[49:40] The city is no longer obligated to bring in a fifth firefighter when there are

[49:44] only four on shift. Uh going forward, this is what the

[49:50] policy will be, right? Every shift has six firefighters assigned to it. When

[49:54] one firefighter is off on vacation, that leaves five to fill the shifts. We will

[49:59] staff with five. When there are two firefighters on vacation at the same

[50:04] time, that will leave four and we will staff with four. I understand the union

[50:08] objects for, but there's a very simple fix and one that literally comes from

[50:13] the union itself. In 2020, the union itself proposed limiting vacation leave

[50:19] to one firefighter off at a time. In a letter dated December 9th, 2020, I have

[50:24] that letter right here. The union said allotting two off together would

[50:29] generate, and I quote this, generate considerable overtime. And they put a

[50:33] number to it. It's not my number. It's their number. $196,227.

[50:39] Six years later, that number is a little bit higher. We're calling it around a

[50:43] quarter of a million dollars. So, I have a very simple question and one that

[50:47] taxpayers should be asking. Why is the union's own 2020 solution no longer

[50:53] acceptable in 2026? The city is not contemplating layoffs or

[50:57] staffing cuts. There's no cuts to vacation. Every firefighter still gets

[51:02] two cycles of 28- day vacations. Two cycles of 28-day vacations. The city is

[51:08] simply trying to preserve that benefit and the services that go along with it

[51:12] without costing taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars every year.

[51:18] Firefighters can keep their vacation. Taxpayers can save a quarter of a

[51:22] million dollars and we can still have five on a shift.

[51:30] So there's been a lot of talk from the union and from others about unsafe

[51:34] operational changes. I [snorts] want to point out that there are similar

[51:37] communities, those that are similar in size to Aguinsburg and similar

[51:41] demographics that run with four, but we should have that conversation.

[51:46] We talk about increasing calls, but let's talk about those calls in detail.

[51:50] More than 90% of those calls are EMS calls. And when we get an EMS

[51:56] call, we send two firefighters to answer those calls, not four or five. Structure

[52:02] fires are fewer and farther between as time goes on. Yes, structure fires

[52:07] require more firefighters. There's no question about that. But those instances

[52:11] are rare. As a matter of fact, in 2025, there were three structure fires that

[52:17] recorded property losses. So if you want to average that out, that's a structure

[52:23] fire with property loss one every roughly 120 days. Four versus five on

[52:28] staff only matters in those circumstances.

[52:34] The public should be aware that in a structure fire, five is probably not

[52:38] enough to proactively fight a fire. That's why we call everybody in. When

[52:44] there's a structure fire, there's an all call out. And that's why we call for

[52:48] mutual aid for structure fires. So we have enough manpower to make sure we can

[52:52] fight the fire. This isn't about forcing staff down to four. It's not what it's

[52:57] about. This is about no longer paying overtime when there is a simple common

[53:02] sense solution to all of this. I'm not saying safety doesn't matter. But before

[53:07] spending $250,000 a year on an expired contract provision, we owe taxpayers a

[53:12] conversation. And this is again not about

[53:15] disrespecting firefighters or putting them in more danger just to save a buck.

[53:20] This is a proposal reasonably balanced between safety, staffing, and what

[53:25] taxpayers can afford. And the ironic part of all this is the solution is

[53:30] already on the table. It's the union solution from 2020. One fighter fighter

[53:34] off at a time, not two. If it was reasonable then, it's reasonable now.

[53:39] Um, and just as an aside, Mr. Santiago said the union is ready to negotiate any

[53:43] time. I'll be in my office before 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. I'll clear my schedule.

[53:50] Thank you. Uh and and mayor, I I I see that in many of the uh union statements

[53:56] here, uh the chief was called out and and I think it might be appropriate to

[54:00] allow him to at least answer some of those call outs.

[54:05] Be >> before you do that, chief. Okay. Just

[54:07] just in followup to the city manager's comments, um the day after the city

[54:12] manager informed union leadership about these changes in operations,

[54:17] um city council received a letter from their union president, Jacob Thornton,

[54:23] uh in which uh he informed council of these changes, uh expressed the union's

[54:30] extreme unhappiness and strong opposition to these changes, uh

[54:34] requested city council intervention to try to persuade the city manager to

[54:38] reverse direction. So, subsequently on August 6th, um on

[54:45] behalf of city council, I submitted a letter to President Thornton um which

[54:49] I'm going to read to the in the record at this time.

[54:55] President Thornon, in response to your email, the city council received July 29

[55:00] and your July 31 text to city council. Please be advised, city council

[55:05] continues to fully support the operational changes communicated to you

[55:09] by city manager Fonda Crooks on July 20th.

[55:13] I believe city government's position in this matter focuses on affordable public

[55:19] safety. We seek resources required to maintain

[55:23] current level of staffing within the Augsburg Fire Department while dealing

[55:27] with other budgetary challenges and trying to maintain the goal of a modest

[55:32] reduction in the city property tax levy for the third year in a row in 2027.

[55:38] A reduction in the number of firefighters on vacation each shift from

[55:42] two to one results in savings of more than $200,000 in overtime expense

[55:47] annually for fire department operations. This does not result in a reduction in

[55:52] the number of firefighters in the department. It does not reduce the prior

[55:56] staffing minimum of five per shift. It does not reduce the number of annual

[56:01] vacation days for each firefighter. We believe this resolves the safety

[56:05] concerns outlined in your communications to city council.

[56:10] It is my understanding local 1799 previously suggested this very approach

[56:15] as a means of helping the city reduce cost during challenging financial times.

[56:21] If that is correct, I respectfully encourage the union to revisit this

[56:25] proposal since the city continues to face challenging financial times. I

[56:32] believe citizens would welcome the positive impact on the city budget

[56:36] should union agree to this compromise. This action benefits the long-term

[56:42] interest of operations within the fire department.

[56:46] City council and management team remain committed to working collaboratively

[56:50] with local 1799 to reach a fair and sustainable agreement. We remain hopeful

[56:55] the union will join us in implementing a solution that benefits firefighters,

[57:00] taxpayers, and the community at large. Accordingly, the city council encourages

[57:04] local 1799 leadership to meet with the city manager to continue discussing this

[57:10] proposal and to work toward a mutually acceptable resolution. Thank you.

[57:16] » Right. So, with that, I'll invite the the uh the chief chief stall to the

[57:21] podium if you'd like to make any comments.

[57:27] » Good evening. Um just here because apparently it's a popular one tonight.

[57:31] Uh just a couple things. I just want to make the public and council and the fire

[57:36] behind me aware that I have no authority over the staffing at the fire

[57:39] department. This is determined by the city manager and the governing body.

[57:43] However, my stance has always been five firefighters. I've said this to this

[57:47] council on numerous occasions. Um both in executive session and publicly. City

[57:51] manager is aware of it. Contrary to what some of the outside representatives are

[57:56] saying, um it's always been my stance at the fire department with the exception

[57:59] of approximately 20 years ago when the staffing level was reduced to

[58:04] reducing us from six to five. I was standing at the podium back then as

[58:07] union president was fighting for six. Ultimately, that was collectively

[58:11] negotiated to go to five. As far as a new SOP that I put in place, um it

[58:16] wasn't a new SOP. I put it into writing um to prepare to establish my

[58:23] expectations as for firefighters tactics if and when staffing levels are below

[58:29] what I believe is necessary to follow OSHA 1910. This SOP which previously was

[58:33] not in writing has always been the standard we have followed for all of my

[58:37] career. We have followed for all of my career

[58:42] the greater possibility of responding initially to a structure fire with less

[58:47] than five as a result of the newly imposed minimum staffing during

[58:52] vacation. I felt it imperative to put this in writing to protect all

[58:56] individuals rather than just verbally. For the record, my stance on minimum

[59:01] staffing has been five as I just stated. That hasn't changed. It hasn't wavered.

[59:06] [clears throat] The council, the central syn, sorry, city manager and the union

[59:10] are all aware of that. All I can do is give my recommendation to assist with

[59:15] the decision process. It is my obligation

[59:19] to ensure the safety of the firefighters and the citizens while providing the

[59:23] best possible service to the city of Agensburg. I am responsible to do so

[59:28] with whatever resources that are provided to me.

[59:38] With that being said, my dedication and accomplishments for

[59:42] the past 26 years for this department in the city of Augensburg are well

[59:45] documented and easily proven. [clears throat]

[59:50] And essentially as the middleman, I will not allow myself to become a public pawn

[59:55] or a scapegoat. I will not be bullied into changing my opinion on my staffing

[1:00:00] levels, nor will I be bullied into going against my supervisor. What I will do is

[1:00:05] continue to lead this department by providing the highest level of safety

[1:00:08] and service to all with the means I am given. I will remain committed to assist

[1:00:14] with accomplishing a collective resolution to this current situation.

[1:00:19] Are there any questions, >> questions or comments for the chief?

[1:00:24] I'd just like to um make sure I'm understanding this. I think most of us

[1:00:29] agree that five is optimal and it sounds after listening to everything that

[1:00:34] that's attainable as long as only one firefighter is on vacation at a time.

[1:00:39] So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the real request of the firefighter

[1:00:43] union is to have the prerogative to allow two firefighters to be on vacation

[1:00:48] at the same time. Am I understanding that correctly?

[1:00:52] I believe so. >> So that's the real issue just so that

[1:00:56] we're know what really addressing. >> Correct.

[1:01:06] » I'm sorry.

[1:01:12] » Nothing. >> Anybody else? I just want to thank the

[1:01:15] chief. Um, you have been extraordinary in all of your service to us and I

[1:01:21] appreciate everything you do and I know it's a tough position that you're in.

[1:01:25] So, thank you. >> Yes, I would like to echo that degree of

[1:01:30] professionalism is to be respected. So, thank you very much.

[1:01:37] Um, any other discussion on councel um on this issue?

[1:01:45] » All right. Any other items for discussion?

[1:01:47] » I have one your honor, please. Um, I received a text recently from a citizen

[1:01:52] and I'm going to read parts of that to you. Um,

[1:01:56] reaching out to you as a city counselor. If T-Rex ever comes up in a meeting,

[1:01:59] please let them know the Bounce Houses Arts and Crafts program this summer was

[1:02:04] amazing. More importantly, the staff that they had working were phenomenal.

[1:02:10] It's rare to see an entire group so involved with kids. There's typically

[1:02:13] one or two that are always on their phones, etc. This group did not do that.

[1:02:17] They were always paying attention to the kids, and again, they were amazing.

[1:02:22] Next, I want to mention Harrison. were uh the girls do most of the camps and

[1:02:26] they are usually separate sessions. I saw Harrison at each session of every

[1:02:30] camp checking on water and other needs. It was a lot better um this year and we

[1:02:35] really do appreciate all his work and they just wanted to say thank you to

[1:02:40] that and they don't typically commend people but this time this person felt

[1:02:45] that they needed to say that the recck department went above and beyond any

[1:02:49] expectations they had. So if you pass that on I'd appreciate it. Good news to

[1:02:54] hear. Thank you for sharing. >> Any other items for discussion?

[1:03:01] I do have one and that's to give an update to the public with regards to the

[1:03:05] uh second local planning committee meeting for the DRRi that was held last

[1:03:10] Wednesday. Um at last Wednesday, the vision statement for the uh Agnesburg

[1:03:17] downtown revitalization initiative was established. Uh, it was developed with

[1:03:21] input from the community and committee members. But I'd like to read that

[1:03:25] vision statement. Downtown Agensburg will emerge as a

[1:03:30] dynamic civic and cultural district that celebrates the city's historic

[1:03:34] waterfront heritage and unique setting along the St. Lawrence and Ashwagotchi

[1:03:38] rivers while fostering community life, creativity, and economic opportunity

[1:03:44] by revitalizing key public spaces and underused properties, supporting

[1:03:49] sustainable local businesses and the arts that can excel in every season,

[1:03:54] strengthening connections to the waterfront, and enhancing walkability

[1:03:58] and housing options. Agensburg will offer a vibrant, inclusive environment

[1:04:02] where residents thrive, visitors are inspired, and community life flourishes

[1:04:07] year round. The goals and strategies established by

[1:04:11] the committee were four. First, preserve and reinvest in historic downtown.

[1:04:18] Second, create a walkable and connected downtown. Third, grow local businesses

[1:04:23] and activate private properties. And four, strengthen community life and

[1:04:27] culture. uh uh the vision statement, the goals and their bullet points are

[1:04:32] available at the city's website and I would encourage uh anyone interested in

[1:04:37] the process to look at those but particularly anyone who's interested in

[1:04:40] submitting a a proposal for the committee's consideration

[1:04:44] because when the committee goes to score the uh the proposals that are made to

[1:04:48] it, it's going to score them based on their ability to achieve the goals and

[1:04:52] strategies that are listed. So, it's vital for for those uh developers uh and

[1:04:59] businesses and entities looking uh to submit a DRRI application to read this,

[1:05:05] understand it, and work these this information into your proposal.

[1:05:14] Any other items for discussion?

[1:05:18] All right. So, that brings us to citizen participation. At this time, if anyone

[1:05:22] attending in person would like to address council, please come down to the

[1:05:25] podium and we'll have two minutes [clears throat]

[1:05:35] for Augsburg. Uh the question was asked, I just wanted to bring up uh they

[1:05:40] thought the stumbling block was the request of the fire department for

[1:05:44] having two people on vacation. That is not a request. That's a contractually

[1:05:48] obligated negotiated contract. That was not a simple question that's in our

[1:05:52] contract. And a little bit of background on that. It was not a problem when we

[1:05:56] had 28 firemen, but prior to the 2025 contract, we negotiated if the city so

[1:06:02] choose through attrition could draw lower our Manning by four positions.

[1:06:07] They chose to do that and took the advantage of the money savings there.

[1:06:11] And now we've forgot about that. now the vacations are a problem and they don't

[1:06:15] want to work to negotiate them out or go through the legal practice to make that

[1:06:18] determination. We don't think that's fair.

[1:06:22] Um with we we said it in the past, some of you were here, some of you weren't.

[1:06:26] We waved hazard pay. We're not greedy. We waved hazard pay to the tune of

[1:06:29] $75,000. We were thanked in this council for that. We wanted Manning. We didn't

[1:06:33] want the hazard pay. Um there was no no attempt to my

[1:06:38] knowledge we asked if there was a safer grant attempted to pay for. If you would

[1:06:42] have got a safer grant, you could have hired four people. It would have taken

[1:06:44] care of this vacation problem and we wouldn't have to pay for this overtime

[1:06:48] for the second set of vacations. Maybe this could have been settled in

[1:06:51] negotiations. All we asked is let it go through the

[1:06:54] process. Don't affect our daily five person minimum. We've got a bunch of

[1:06:58] people 13 to 14 people with less than two to three years experience. Some have

[1:07:02] not been to a major fire yet. and the way overtime works or shift schedules,

[1:07:06] you could end up with one officer and three of those people on a shift

[1:07:09] responding to in a completely new way on a decision that was made last Wednesday

[1:07:13] telling us how we are going to run. I I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people

[1:07:17] back here that are concerned about their safety and how they're going to respond.

[1:07:22] Uh what else did I have? I do commend you for calling the chief

[1:07:27] up and giving his his say. He clearly supports five. since it's the safest

[1:07:32] operational for department. Thank you for letting him do that. Um we also when

[1:07:38] we when we filed for out of title pay um for the officers we come in we we had we

[1:07:43] could have asked for 45 days in back pay because we were working out of title for

[1:07:46] over a year and a half I believe we waved that and took it currently going

[1:07:51] forward. We're not greedy. We just want we just want what's fair. Thank you.

[1:07:54] » Thank you Scott.

[1:08:04] Hi, Dan Jordy. Uh, one last thing that, uh, I believe was pointed out by the

[1:08:10] manager that there were three serious fires in the last year. Um, I would

[1:08:15] encourage him to look back at the numbers and see how many minor fires

[1:08:19] that did not become major fires occurred last year and if going in because you

[1:08:26] had two in two out allowed those fires to be put out before you lost property

[1:08:31] or life. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:08:43] Hi, my name is Aaron Charlton. I'm a taxpayer, firefighter, and union

[1:08:46] officer. Um, I just want to comment on some of the things that Mr. Cronis said.

[1:08:51] Um, when he says that we have 28 days off, 15 of those days are already days

[1:08:56] that we already have off. We're not asking for any more than our 15 days

[1:08:59] that we don't are scheduled to work. Um, so it's actually only like 28 - 15. So

[1:09:07] 13 days we're asking for and yes, we don't want to have those days in January

[1:09:12] and February. That's not too much to ask. Uh, as far as us suggesting the one

[1:09:19] man off, we did uh offer that up. We offered that up when we were dealing

[1:09:23] with Steve Jelly, Mike Fitz, Kelly Skellyy, and all that crew. Um, first

[1:09:28] meeting with Mr. Cronis, he stated he was not Steve Jelly.

[1:09:33] Um, so I don't know why we're still talking about that, but uh, as far as

[1:09:38] the chief talking, I'd like to say thank you, chief. Um,

[1:09:43] he's he's the he's the representative of the, uh, Augsburg Fire Department

[1:09:47] station. He runs it. If he's suggesting five, I don't think a group of guys that

[1:09:53] know nothing about orang women, sorry, that know nothing about firefighting

[1:09:56] should go against him. I don't know. Well, maybe I'm wrong, but

[1:10:02] » thank you, Aaron. Anyone else in chambers?

[1:10:10] Now, if anyone attending remotely would like to address council, please use a

[1:10:13] raise hand feature. City clerk will recognize one person at a time, and

[1:10:17] you'll have two minutes.

[1:10:25] I do not see any hands raised. M. >> Right. So, we have resolutions to go to

[1:10:30] executive session

[1:10:35] whereas city manager find the cronis requested executive session with members

[1:10:38] of the Oxford city council to discuss collect collective negotiations pursuant

[1:10:43] to article 14 of civil service law. And whereas New York state open meetings law

[1:10:47] permits city council to adjourn to executive session for such purpose. Now

[1:10:51] therefore, be it resolved that city council adjourn to executive session to

[1:10:55] discuss collective negotiations pursuant to article 14 of civil service law and

[1:10:59] be it further resolved that any action resulting from this executive session

[1:11:03] shall be taken in open session. I so move

[1:11:07] to please call the rule.

[1:11:11] » Sorry. Councelor Silly, >> yes.

[1:11:14] » Councelor Lefay, >> yes.

[1:11:15] » Councelor Scamperly, I'm sorry. Councelor Stevenson,

[1:11:19] » yes. Councelor Chaup, >> yes.

[1:11:21] » Councelor Trim, >> yes.

[1:11:22] » Mayor Chulie, >> yes.

[1:11:24] » Approve. >> And I will note that the council will be

[1:11:26] inviting uh fire chief st to join us in that exact session.

[1:11:34] » Next,

[1:11:38] uh where city manager Father Cronis requests an executive session with

[1:11:41] members of the iceberg city council to discuss proposed pending or current

[1:11:45] litigation. And whereas new state open meetings law permit city council to

[1:11:49] adjourn to executive session for such purpose. Now therefore be it resolved

[1:11:53] that city council adjourn to executive session to discuss proposed pending your

[1:11:56] current litigation. Be it further resolved that any action resulting from

[1:12:00] this executive session shall be taken in open session. So

[1:12:04] » second. >> Councelor Lefay.

[1:12:08] » Yes. >> Councelor Stevenson.

[1:12:10] » Yes. >> Councelor Tbo.

[1:12:11] » Yes. >> Councelor Trim.

[1:12:12] » Yes. >> Mayor Tulie.

[1:12:13] » Yes. >> Councelor Silly.

[1:12:15] » Yes. approved. >> Right. Resolution to object to executive

[1:12:18] session where a city manager, Father Cronis, request an executive session

[1:12:23] with members of the Oxford City Council to discuss matters leading to the

[1:12:27] appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension,

[1:12:30] dismissal, or removal of a particular person or corporation.

[1:12:34] And whereas New York State meetings law permit city council to adjourn to

[1:12:37] executive session for such purpose. Now therefore be it resolved that city

[1:12:41] council adjourn to executive session to discuss matters leading to the

[1:12:45] appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension,

[1:12:48] dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation be further

[1:12:53] resolved that any action resulting from this executive session shall be taken

[1:12:57] session. >> Second,

[1:13:00] please call. >> Councelor Stevenson,

[1:13:03] » yes. >> Councelor Tibo,

[1:13:04] » yes. >> Councelor Trim,

[1:13:05] » yes. >> Mayor Tulie,

[1:13:07] » yes. >> Councelor Silly,

[1:13:08] » yes. Councelor Lefay. >> Yes.

[1:13:10] » Approved. >> And we do not anticipate any action

[1:13:12] following these executive sessions. So I'll make a motion to adjurnn upon

[1:13:17] completion of executive session. Is there a second? Second.

[1:13:21] » All in favor? I. So the meeting will be adjourned for the completion of

[1:13:25] executive sessions.

City Council Meeting August 24, 2026

Transcript