[0:03] All right.
All right, I'll call to order the
[0:06] regular meeting of the common council
for Tuesday, June 9th.
[0:10] Uh will the clerk please call the
attendance roll?
[0:13] » Alderman Benion.
>> Here.
[0:14] » Alderman Carey.
>> Here.
[0:16] » Alderwoman Coloni.
>> Here.
[0:18] » Alderwoman McColl.
>> Here.
[0:20] » Alderman Crawford.
>> Here.
[0:22] » Alderman Esteja.
>> Here.
[0:23] » And Alderman Robinson.
>> Here.
[0:26] » Uh please rise for the invocation and
pledge allegiance.
[0:38] » Heavenly Father,
we come to you today asking for
[0:41] guidance, wisdom, and support as we
begin this meeting.
[0:45] Help us to engage in meaningful
discussion.
[0:48] Allow us to grow closer as a group
and nurture the growth of this
[0:52] community. In your name we pray.
>> Amen.
[0:57] » Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the
[1:02] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:08] justice for all.
[1:20] Reading, reading, correcting, and
approval of the minutes of the previous
[1:23] regular meeting.
>> The regular meeting of the Holyoke
[1:26] Common Council was held
on Tuesday, May 26th, 2020 at 6:15 p.m.
[1:33] » Present.
>> Alderman Robinson, Alderman Benion,
[1:37] Alderman Alderman Carey, Alderwoman
Coloni,
[1:40] Alderman McColl, and Alderman Esteja.
>> All right, I'll make a motion to approve
[1:46] the minutes. Can we get a second?
>> Second.
[1:48] » Seconded by Carey. All in favor?
>> Aye.
[1:51] » Aye.
>> Opposed?
[1:53] Committee reports and unfinished of
business.
[1:56] » We have none.
>> Communications from the mayor.
[1:59] » Yes.
[2:02] So,
I have two proclamations
[2:06] for June.
The first is a special proclamation for
[2:10] Juneteenth.
Whereas the year 2026 marks the 161st
[2:16] anniversary of this pivotal moment in
American history, serving as a time of
[2:21] profound reflection on our nation's
journey from the shadows of slavery
[2:26] toward the light of liberty and justice.
And whereas we observe Juneteenth 2026
[2:32] during a landmark year designated as a
century of black history commemorations
[2:39] for the study and celebration of black
life and history. And whereas as a
[2:44] nation approaches its 250th anniversary
of independence, Juneteenth reminds us
[2:50] that the American story is incomplete
without acknowledging the resilience,
[2:55] culture, and indispensable contributions
of black Americans who have fought to
[3:00] make the promise of freedom a reality
for all. Now, therefore, let it be
[3:04] resolved that I, A. E. B. Sherburn,
mayor of the city of Oakland,
[3:09] proclaim Friday, June 19th, 2026
as Juneteenth and call upon all citizens
[3:15] to observe this day as a second
Independence Day honoring the endurance
[3:20] and triumphs of the black community,
reflect on their historical significance
[3:25] and the long-delayed news of freedom,
educate ourselves and our children on
[3:30] the accurate history of our nation,
ensuring the legacy of the enslaved are
[3:35] never forgotten, and build a future
where freedom for all is not just a
[3:39] slogan but a lived experience.
And also for the month of June, LGBTQ
[3:46] and Pride Month. Whereas the month of
June is recognized as LGBTQ and Pride
[3:52] Month, a time to celebrate the vibrant
diversity and enduring spirit and rich
[3:57] history. And whereas Pride Month
commemorates the anniversary of the
[4:01] Stonewall Uprising, a pivotal moment in
history that ignited the modern movement
[4:06] for LGBTQ
and civil rights and reaffirmed the
[4:10] fundamental truth that love is love. And
whereas we honor the activists,
[4:15] pioneers, and everyday individuals who
have fought and continue to fight
[4:19] against discrimination and prejudice to
build a more inclusive and equitable
[4:23] world. And whereas our com- community is
strengthened by the contributions of
[4:29] LGBTQ+
individuals in every field, from the
[4:33] arts and sciences, public service, and
business, proving that when people are
[4:38] free to be their authentic selves, we
all thrive. Now, therefore, let it be
[4:42] resolved that I, A.D. Server, Mayor of
the City of Olean, hereby call upon our
[4:47] communities to embrace the spirit of
Pride as we reflect upon the progress,
[4:52] celebrate the cultures that make our
community a tapestry of diversity,
[4:57] acknowledge the challenges that still
remain today, and champion a future that
[5:01] every person shall be treated with
dignity, respect, kindness, and equality
[5:07] for everyone.
And also, we have some good news to
[5:11] deliver today um
for the
[5:15] If you recall back in March, you
approved that we applied for the lead
[5:20] service line replacement
study. Our projects are
[5:25] eligible, and
I'll have um James complete that good
[5:30] news for you.
>> So, we we actually got two awards from
[5:35] uh two award announcements from the New
York State Department of Health.
[5:39] Um
first is
[5:42] They're actually both under the 2005
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
[5:48] for the lead service line replacement
funding.
[5:51] The first is a grant for up to $2
million.
[5:55] And the second is interest-free
financing for up to $2,776,000.
[6:06] So the way it's presented, those are two
separate chunks of money. So we should
[6:10] have essentially 4.8 million
once we get contracts in place available
[6:18] to start attacking this problem.
[6:23] » All right.
Thank you very much.
[6:27] That is good news.
[6:31] All right.
Miscellaneous communication?
[6:34] We have none.
City reports?
[6:37] We have none.
Proposed legislation and referrals?
[6:41] » PL 62-26
by Mayor Schuman.
[6:45] Referred to strategy committee by
Council President.
[6:52] » All right. Finance and bills?
>> We have none.
[6:56] » All right.
Before I open up public
[7:00] the floor to public, any council members
have anything they'd like to discuss?
[7:05] » I see you have a comment.
>> Yeah, I just have a couple things I'd
[7:08] like to bring up. First,
it affects my ward, so that's good news.
[7:12] We got word I think a couple days ago
from the Diocese of Buffalo
[7:16] where St. John's parish that had been
located down in North Tonawanda since
[7:21] 1896
is not going to close anymore like it
[7:24] was scheduled. It's going to remain
open, and it's not going to be merging
[7:28] with St. Mary's. So it's going to be an
independent parish. So that is great
[7:33] news for North Tonawanda residents who
would attend that parish.
[7:37] And the second comment I'd like to make
is
[7:42] Second comment I'd like to make is uh
I was checking an email the other
[7:46] uh actually this morning and there were
some emails from our city attorney
[7:50] addressed to the common council.
Uh
[7:53] basically saying that the council
members aren't allowed to communicate
[7:56] solely with uh city employees.
So, it's like
[8:00] I don't like to have concrete examples
of uh
[8:03] who who in the city attorney is trying
to pinpoint on the common council
[8:07] that uh is trying to get the blending. I
mean, I've been up here for 17 years.
[8:11] I've worked with uh three mayors and now
four.
[8:14] And I've never received such an email
like this before.
[8:17] Uh we're up here to represent our
constituents and protect the city's
[8:20] taxpayers' dollars as long as the mayor
is.
[8:23] So, it's like I took uh exception to
that email and it's like uh I think it
[8:29] should be put on the meeting and have
those emails brought forward and
[8:32] discussed as why they were sent to us.
[8:37] Anyone else?
[8:40] » Well, I think uh
yeah, we can bring that up in committees
[8:43] and uh discuss
uh see what that be
[8:47] city app or we can do it under committee
of the whole city app.
[8:51] City app?
>> City app.
[8:52] » Is that good, you?
Stephanie, [clears throat] can you put
[8:55] that on for city apps?
Discuss those
[8:58] uh emails that we received today.
Uh that way we can shine some light, get
[9:04] an explanation on that.
[9:09] All right, anything else?
On that?
[9:11] All right. Uh seeing none, uh
will the clerk please read the
[9:17] public comment statement.
>> The public comment portion of the
[9:21] council meeting
is established to provide members of the
[9:24] community with the opportunity to
publicly state their views, pose their
[9:29] concerns,
or to provide input pertaining to any
[9:32] issue affecting city government.
Additionally, the mayor, common council
[9:37] members, and city department heads
encourage any personal questions to
[9:42] contact them at their offices.
>> All right, thank you.
[9:47] All right, at this time, if you have uh
public comment uh for the council,
[9:51] please come up. You will have 3 minutes,
and please be mindful of each other's
[9:56] time.
And state your name and address for the
[10:00] record.
[10:07] » Terry Chapman. I live at 136 South Pitt
Street. I own property also 130 and 134
[10:16] South Pitt Street. I will be also um
purchasing 133.
[10:24] Um
[10:28] I just
uh couple things I have is um
[10:34] the house that's next to 130,
it's not well-kept.
[10:41] Um it's not maintained.
And the shingles have been coming off
[10:48] for the past 5 years at least.
And
[10:54] the fence also in the back is not
well-maintained,
[11:00] and it has um dogs, and my neighbor's
dog
[11:06] is only five, and the dog um digs
um at the fence, which I always have to
[11:14] maintain to make sure
he doesn't This dog does not get out.
[11:19] So, I'm always worrying about his
welfare.
[11:23] The other um
comment I would like to make is feral
[11:28] cats uh that is in our neighborhoods.
Um they spray on our porches.
[11:36] That's all you smell.
They literally poop on our
[11:40] uh yards.
And um
[11:45] it's it's
uh kind of sad that we cannot enjoy our
[11:50] own front porches.
Um
[11:53] the other issue in the neighborhood is
cars um speeding down our our street.
[12:00] There's multiple kids
out and about living in the street.
[12:05] And um
I am not quite sure why all of a sudden
[12:10] people are
going so fast down our street. I don't
[12:14] » [clears throat]
>> think we can put up a speeding limit.
[12:17] I don't personally think 30 miles per
hour going down a side street is
[12:21] appropriate.
Um
[12:24] and uh
another issue I've been away and I saw
[12:31] that you're um
putting out an initiative to encourage
[12:36] people to live here and giving five
families $4,000.
[12:41] I basically moved back here in 2019
um by choice and that
[12:49] and um
I didn't get anything
[12:53] get uh
money to come here. Personally, I think
[12:57] you should really focus on getting
businesses to come here
[13:03] to help with the
um taxes down.
[13:08] And the other is the Olean Center Mall.
I worked at West End Development Center
[13:16] um for 30 years and I'm very aware of
what people think and um I would
[13:23] rather promote to get
uh
[13:26] for the VA
and that
[13:29] um
we
[13:32] I feel we need to
give back to our veterans.
[13:38] And then
thank you.
[13:42] Anyone else?
>> Hey guys.
[13:45] I'm Dr. Kennedy.
[13:49] I know Dr. Marcus. Captain Marshall and
Lenny belong to him.
[13:53] I decided I'm going to put him on the
board. We're going to have him on the
[13:56] board.
Hopefully he stays the attorney general.
[13:59] Um there's four properties where we lose
the office. See what I've done.
[14:05] Work with y'all.
[14:09] Work with y'all.
I'm going to
[14:11] try to get a little bit wet in the rain
so I'm on my way down.
[14:14] Um
Basically I just want my rights back
[14:18] y'all.
I did nothing wrong to Mr. Harris. I
[14:21] came to this city
to this building to file a complaint on
[14:25] Mr. Harris. I was brutally and violently
assaulted
[14:28] by Captain Marshall.
I do do feel as though I deserve rights.
[14:33] I thank all the men that did speak to me
last council meeting. Mr. Robinson, you
[14:37] know I much appreciate you.
Um
[14:41] On other news, um if y'all remember I
was going to clean up last year and I
[14:44] offered to paint the bridges.
Mayor Sheldon's family last year had
[14:48] offered to help support me and buy the
paint.
[14:51] With the mayor's permission I would like
to carry on with that. I would like to
[14:55] continue painting the bridges if
I have the support of that mission.
[14:58] And the help of her family.
Um in other news, smoking here is still
[15:03] not permitted.
I was
[15:06] um
This woman here
[15:09] is um
This bathroom here called in the police
[15:12] department.
She's smoking out our back steps back
[15:15] here.
And it's been into the police
[15:17] department.
I have asthma, emphysema, to see a
[15:22] How am I supposed to get in there if I
have to go through cigarette smoke?
[15:25] These laws were put in place to stop
people like me. I smoke cannabis. If
[15:30] you're going to allow her to smoke
cigarettes there, I'm going to get the
[15:32] city to come out. I got so many friends
to smoke cannabis. We'll surround this
[15:36] building, we'll smoke cannabis through
all day. We will smoke you people in, I
[15:40] swear to god.
Get a handle on these people smoking
[15:43] around this building. 25 people in this
building, I don't care if they have to
[15:46] put up a parking area out a bench on the
parking area for them.
[15:50] 25 people in the building, that's what
the city law says. That's what the state
[15:54] law says, and that's what our county law
says. Let's keep it in check, okay?
[15:58] Thank you. Y'all have a good day.
>> Thank you.
[16:03] Anyone else?
Anyone else?
[16:07] Anyone else?
All right, at this time we call the
[16:11] public comment portion closed.
Moving on resolutions.
[16:18] » Resolution 46-26,
ordinance 40-26,
[16:23] revised
by Alderman Payne, seconded by Alderman
[16:26] Robinson, to amend the city of Holyoke
code of ordinances section 24-136,
[16:34] seasonal restrictions,
to amend parking restriction for street
[16:38] sweeping.
>> All right, this one we've already voted
[16:41] on.
Problem was is there was a street
[16:44] omitted, and that is now
added in, so we're have to re-vote on it
[16:49] again.
Uh we already have the sponsors, so any
[16:52] other questions on this one?
Seeing none,
[16:55] clerk, please call the roll.
>> Alderman Payne?
[16:58] » Yes.
>> Alderman McGee?
[16:59] » Yes.
>> Alderman Fournier?
[17:01] » Yes.
>> [clears throat]
[17:03] » Alderman Women McCall?
>> Yes.
[17:05] » Alderman Foster?
>> Yes.
[17:08] » Alderman Anastasi?
>> Yes.
[17:09] » And Alderman Robinson?
>> Yes.
[17:12] » Motion carries 7-0.
[17:17] Resolution 50 that 26 PL 49 that 26
to authorize the mayor to execute the
[17:25] intermunicipal agreement for the
Allegheny River Trail between city of
[17:30] Olean, town of Olean, and town of
Allegany.
[17:34] Who would like to sponsor that?
>> All right. This one was passed out of
[17:40] committees pending response from the
city attorney. City attorney responded
[17:45] in an email to us, I think it was 2
weeks ago,
[17:48] with a response. Everything was
favorable.
[17:52] Any other questions or comments on this
one?
[17:55] » Should I send it back to committees to
get it sponsored, is that correct?
[17:58] » No, we're moving it forward because of
the fact that there is a couple of
[18:02] others that are on here that we were
going to go through that did not
[18:08] There were discussions that we wanted to
go through, so
[18:12] if we pull this one, we're going to pull
the rest.
[18:16] I think Anastasia won't like that.
[18:21] So,
yeah.
[18:23] » So,
just to clarify though,
[18:26] procedurally though, do we need to?
>> Procedurally, I mean, we can
[18:32] It's To me, it's similar to
>> I was going to say, did we ever vote it
[18:36] out?
>> Yeah, we voted it out pending the
[18:39] response from the lawyer.
So, it was voted out.
[18:43] It was a discussion. It was never
appealed,
[18:45] so
>> [clears throat]
[18:47] » that's where we're at.
So, if we can get the sponsors, we can
[18:50] go on.
We are looking to
[18:54] I didn't mention this part, but we are
looking to work on getting uh
[18:59] that particular portion of the
code of ordinances amended because there
[19:05] are some errors in there, but yes, we do
want to stay with the format, so
[19:10] um
[19:13] So, sponsors?
>> I'll sponsor.
[19:17] » All right.
Alderman Crawford, can I get a second?
[19:21] » I'll second.
>> Seconded by Anastasia.
[19:24] Will the clerk [cough and clears throat]
please call the roll?
[19:27] » Alderman Benion?
>> No.
[19:30] » Alderman Carey?
>> Yes.
[19:32] » Alderman Foley?
>> Yes.
[19:34] » Alderman McCall?
>> Yes.
[19:37] » Alderman
Anastacia? Alderman Crawford?
[19:38] » Yes.
>> Alderman Anastacia?
[19:40] » Yes.
>> And Alderman Robinson?
[19:42] » Yes.
>> Motion carries 6 to 1.
[19:52] Resolution 52-26,
PL 51-26
[19:57] by Alderman McCall, seconded by Alderman
Foley.
[20:02] To amend the City of Olean Code of
Ordinances Section 13-376.
[20:08] Conditions for maintenance of license.
To amend the requirements for a
[20:13] contractor's license in accordance with
the New York State Coalition Law Article
[20:18] 23-A.
>> All right.
[20:22] Are there any questions on this one?
All right.
[20:26] Seeing none,
uh we already have sponsors. Uh will the
[20:29] clerk please call [clears throat] the
roll?
[20:31] » Alderman Benion?
>> Yes.
[20:33] » Alderman Carey?
>> Yes.
[20:35] » Alderman Foley?
>> Yes.
[20:37] » Alderman McCall?
>> Yes.
[20:39] » Alderman Crawford?
>> Yes.
[20:41] » Alderman Anastasia?
>> Yes.
[20:43] » And Alderman Robinson?
>> Yes.
[20:44] » Motion carries 6 to 1. [clears throat]
[20:49] Resolution 55-26,
PL 54-26
[20:54] by Alderman Robinson, seconded by
Alderman Benion.
[20:57] To amend the City of Olean Code of
Ordinances Section 24-173.
[21:03] No blocking of driveway. To include 1615
West State Street.
[21:10] » All right, this is the one where there
was a sign and then the sign was removed
[21:15] and there was nothing in the books on
that particular one, so we're now
[21:19] putting something in the books and
getting that sign put back up. This was
[21:22] requested by the property owners down
there and they are remodeling and
[21:28] updating everything down there
for that big building there. So.
[21:34] Any questions or comments?
Seeing none, will the clerk please call
[21:38] the roll?
>> Alderman Bingham?
[21:40] » Yes.
>> Alderman Kairis?
[21:41] » Yes.
>> Alderman Folding?
[21:43] » Yes.
>> Alderman McColl?
[21:45] » Yes.
>> Alderman Crawford?
[21:47] » Yes.
>> Alderman Anastasia?
[21:49] » Yes.
>> And Alderman Robinson?
[21:51] » Yes.
>> I think that is 7-0.
[21:57] Resolution 56-26,
PO 55-26
[22:02] by Alderman Bingham, seconded by
Alderman Anastasia
[22:05] to amend the City of Holyoke Code of
Ordinances Section 24-24
[22:11] to restrict parking on Forest Street of
Holyoke.
[22:15] » All right, this one was discussed in
committees and was a PO, so that's why
[22:20] it moved forward.
Any questions or comments on this one?
[22:23] McColl?
>> So,
[22:25] I'm in agreement with this, but I would
like the city not to become mediators
[22:29] for
disputes between neighbors as a
[22:33] as a rule. Um, I I understand the need
for this one, but I also
[22:38] really
I know that I know that the alderman
[22:42] there did everything they can to try to
to manage this, but I don't want to see
[22:46] us mediating through legislation.
>> I agree on that one. We should not be
[22:51] mediators, but at the same time, you
know, this particular one uh
[22:57] the parking restrictions for that for
that area is uh
[23:01] warranted.
[23:04] Any other on this one?
All right, seeing none, will the clerk
[23:08] please call the roll?
>> Alderman Kiley?
[23:10] » Yes.
>> Alderman Keding?
[23:12] » Yes.
>> Alderman McFooley?
[23:14] » Yes.
>> [clears throat]
[23:15] » Alderman McCall?
>> Yes.
[23:17] » Alderman Crawford?
>> Yes.
[23:19] » Alderman Anastasia?
>> Yes.
[23:20] » And Alderman Robinson?
>> Yes.
[23:22] » Motion carries 7 to 0.
>> All right.
[23:27] Resolution, I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> [laughter]
[23:31] » I just had to do it.
>> Resolution 57-26,
[23:36] PL 56-26
to amend the City of Olean Code of
[23:40] Ordinances Section 24-134
to restrict parking on East Pine Street.
[23:47] This one was sponsored
>> All right, this one was discussed but
[23:51] was not a PL. Uh so therefore it would
have to go through another week of
[23:55] waiting. So Anastasia wanted to push
this one through.
[23:58] Uh so they can satisfy his constituents.
>> You had that the old sponsors were JR
[24:04] and myself.
>> That was to move it out from it was a
[24:07] discussion not a PL.
>> I'd like to sponsor this.
[24:12] » Yeah, it's sponsored by you.
>> I'll second.
[24:16] » All [clears throat] right, Anastasia
and Benjamin.
[24:20] Will the clerk please call the roll?
>> Alderman Benjamin?
[24:23] » Yes.
>> Alderman Kiley?
[24:24] » Yes.
>> Alderman McFooley?
[24:27] » Yes.
>> Alderman McCall?
[24:28] » Yes.
>> Alderman Crawford?
[24:30] » Yes.
>> Alderman Anastasia?
[24:33] » Yes.
>> Alderman Robinson?
[24:34] » Yes.
>> Motion carries 7 to 0.
[24:39] Resolution 58-26
PL 57-26
[24:44] to amend the City of Olean
char- charter Section 3.078
[24:51] budget transfers to require
Alderman McFooley?
[24:55] » Yes.
>> Alderman McCall?
[24:57] » Yes.
>> Alderman Crawford
[24:59] » Yes.
>> Alderman Anastasia
[25:01] » Yes.
>> and Alderman Robinson
[25:03] » Yes.
>> Motion carried. Simmons has voted
[25:06] » All right.
>> PL 60-26
[25:11] I'm sorry. Resolution 60-26, PL 59-26
to amend the City of Holyoke Code of
[25:17] Ordinances Section 21-35
maintenance of sidewalks to include
[25:23] sidewalk maintenance with 5 minutes or
shared use paths.
[25:28] Mr. Mayor, is this possible?
>> All right. This one was discussed in
[25:32] committees and uh we are looking to
ensure that for the shared use paths
[25:39] that the
persons the individuals will be
[25:43] responsible from their house to the
first longitudinal joint is the way the
[25:50] wording is in here.
[25:54] All right. Any questions or comments on
this one?
[25:58] » [clears throat]
>> All right.
[26:00] Uh I'll entertain sponsors.
>> I'll second.
[26:03] » Damien
>> I'll second.
[26:07] » Will the clerk please call the roll?
>> Alderman Bannon
[26:10] » Yes.
>> Alderman Carey
[26:12] » Yes.
>> Alderman Foley
[26:14] » Yes.
>> Alderman McCall
[26:16] » Yes.
>> Alderman Crawford
[26:18] » Yes.
>> Alderman Anastasia
[26:20] » Yes.
>> and Alderman Robinson
[26:22] » Yes.
>> Motion carried.
[26:24] Simmons has voted
>> All right. And I'll make a motion to
[26:27] adjourn. Do I hear a second?
>> Second.
[26:29] » Second.
>> Quick questions. I know I have some
[26:31] follow-up questions
regarding So you're just I guess
[26:37] So everyone knows you've been the head
uh lead project manager really on the
[26:42] splash park, correct?
>> Yep.
[26:44] » And now you are going to be the lead
project manager on the pool?
[26:49] » That's correct.
>> Okay.
[26:51] Um so
did uh uh we received some
[26:57] information from the administration. Uh,
did you, just to help me get caught up
[27:04] take some requests back to uh for a
change order to the contractor?
[27:10] » For the pool, yes.
>> Can you Can you talk a little bit about
[27:13] that, please?
>> Yeah. So, bids came in. Uh, low bid was
[27:17] about $1.1 million.
Um, after the fact, we had talked about
[27:23] the need for additional scope.
Um, the sentiment that I understand is
[27:27] that the city wants to If they're going
to do work on the pool, they want to
[27:30] make sure they do it right. Um, and they
want to make sure that it it's
[27:35] long-lasting, it has a
you know, more than a 20-30 year life
[27:38] cycle.
Um,
[27:41] now, Chris pointed out to me that it
seems that the pool walls behind the
[27:47] pool, number one, are um,
have voids in them.
[27:52] So, that's something that we
wanted to get a quote for to
[27:56] investigate. Now, the only way you can
investigate this is if you remove the
[28:01] existing tile and marcite off the walls.
The original scope scope included
[28:06] um
pressure washing the existing tile after
[28:09] all of this tile.
[28:13] And then,
the existing marcite,
[28:18] um they included a new marcite service
for top of the existing marcite.
[28:23] So, if we're wanting to investigate the
pool walls to determine how many voids
[28:28] are there, we'd have to remove the
existing marcite and the existing tile,
[28:33] perform the inspection,
fix the voids,
[28:37] and then new marcite. So, that's the
quote that I have for you guys. It's
[28:41] that includes that work, and then it
includes the new winter cover, which
[28:45] wasn't included in the original bid.
So, in total, with the credit for
[28:52] the with the credit for like uh
the
[28:56] the original bid work,
the total the new total for that change
[29:00] order would be $375,000.
So, that's on top of the original $1.1
[29:06] million.
And that doesn't include any potential
[29:10] cost for fixing the voids themselves.
So, that includes the investigation and
[29:16] then the new marcite on the entire pool
and the winter pool cover.
[29:23] So, I think it it would probably be my
recommendation to have
[29:29] probably about $100,000
in contingency ready to be spent
[29:35] uh on on repairs to the voids.
Again, we don't know what these kind of
[29:39] new voids potentially are.
Um so, that's just
[29:44] off of whatever and prices and the
prices that
[29:47] Stevens Passam the prices Stevens
provided us, um that's what I would
[29:51] recommend.
[29:55] And then also, my understanding is that
we have a you guys have a grant for
[29:58] about $750,000.
This puts This puts the city on fronting
[30:04] about $800,000,
a little bit more than that.
[30:12] » Okay, and I think that's kind of what
where we're at right now with the
[30:16] discussion is um trying to take all of
that information. And I wanted to just
[30:21] um
confirm that the additional quote for
[30:27] the change order was to indeed
essentially remove the existing walls,
[30:33] do an inspection of
all of the structure, look for the
[30:37] voids, correct and fill them, etc., and
then put all new uh marcite walls in.
[30:43] » Um that's right.
The only thing The only thing in there
[30:47] that that you mentioned is the only
thing that's not included is the cost of
[30:51] repairing the voids.
>> Okay.
[30:53] » You know.
>> And you think
[30:55] You think $100,000 worth of contingency
would be acceptable for that?
[31:01] » It's That That's what I would start
with. It's It's really tough to know.
[31:05] Uh I mean I I believe the pool was
constructed in 1970.
[31:10] Uh but you know, who who knows
um
[31:13] how well it was constructed, what's
happened in the area since then.
[31:17] Um
I I would hope I had hoped that $100,000
[31:22] could cover any of the costs for the
voids. But again, worst case scenario is
[31:28] that we find that this wall has degraded
so much that it needs to be replaced
[31:33] entirely.
And that's something that I had talked
[31:36] about with Jim Sprague as well.
You know, we could get to a point where
[31:40] it it may not be beneficial to the city
to go for a repair.
[31:46] So,
my initial my initial uh thought
[31:50] was that
if one wanted a new pool,
[31:55] we we do the work in phases, and we
start with just investigation of the
[31:59] walls
to determine if it's even worth it to
[32:03] keep the pool. Now again, that's going
to That's going to cost some, too.
[32:07] I asked
uh that team to break that out. I
[32:10] believe they had that cost at about
$150,000.
[32:15] » You can't just take like a sledgehammer
and find out what it's like?
[32:19] » Well, the question is
>> $100,000
[32:21] » if the
the city forces has the ability to
[32:26] to to remove marcite and the tile, I
definitely think that that would be the
[32:31] route to go.
>> Yeah.
[32:34] Um
All right, I'm just taking some notes as
[32:37] I think most of us are.
[32:41] Um, I have some additional questions uh
and I know some of my counterparts as
[32:47] well in our discussion. I mean, you
know, we're we're faced with kind of a
[32:51] obviously this is a big ticket item and
and we have some tough decisions to to
[32:57] to make. Um,
but questions that
[33:01] have come up again and again is given
the the dollar value associated with a
[33:05] project like this and it sounds like
almost a full rehab as it is.
[33:10] Uh,
what are the
[33:13] what's the possibility the feasibility
of reducing the size and scope of what
[33:17] the existing
really monstrosity of pool into
[33:22] something that would be more efficient?
>> Just reducing the size of the pool, what
[33:27] do you mean?
>> Well, that was that's one of them and I
[33:30] and I I think another item that was
brought up uh was the possibility of
[33:34] like a zero entry type pool. I mean, if
we're talking about a major renovation
[33:39] of the pool,
what type of cost are we faced with to
[33:44] and and and if at that point, would it
change the scope of the project so much
[33:49] that you'd have to go out to bid again?
>> I don't I don't believe um I don't
[33:54] believe making the pool smaller would
reduce the total cost of the project at
[33:58] all. I think it would actually increase
the cost. You have to bring in all the
[34:01] additional billing and have to set up
with the new concrete wall that portion
[34:05] of the pool you'd be cutting off.
Um, you still need to pour new concrete
[34:10] or excavate. All you'd be doing is
reducing the amount of bars that's going
[34:13] to be installed in the existing pool.
>> And I don't necessarily think that we're
[34:19] expecting it to reduce the cost.
How much does it additionally increase
[34:24] the cost? And and the the logic is, you
know, if you if you reduce the size by
[34:29] 33 or 40%. If you you instead of having
an L-shaped pool.
[34:35] » Yep.
>> That that certainly reduces the cost to
[34:39] in chemicals, in um
on and on and on, right? The the number
[34:44] of
number of lifeguards, etc. etc. I mean,
[34:47] so would it not make it more
and a a more efficient pool to operate?
[34:52] » This seems like a life cycle analysis
issue. Um
[34:57] I don't think that's something that I
can
[34:59] » Yeah.
>> uh
[35:00] probably quantify right now just off the
top of my head.
[35:02] » Yes. Possible.
>> Um
[35:05] but it could be over a 20-year life
cycle.
[35:13] » So, as we kind of contemplate, um
there's a cost to everything. So,
[35:18] clearly to investigate the walls of
150,000,
[35:22] um looking at like it looks like the
city's responsible for maybe 224
[35:26] or 724,000
plus
[35:30] if we went forward.
>> But there's also a cost to to getting
[35:33] rid of the pool, too. Do we have any
idea of what the cost to the city would
[35:39] be if we didn't
do this project with the pool and we we
[35:45] got rid of it? What would the cost to
the city be for that?
[35:48] » Um
I think I think defining what getting
[35:52] rid of the pool would be if if it's just
simply filling the pool in with stone,
[35:57] um I don't I mean, I don't have a number
off the top of my head.
[36:02] Now, $200,000,
I mean, I could be highballing it. Um
[36:07] if I knew the pool volume, I could I
could definitely get you a number of
[36:09] what it would cost, but you'd basically
just be filling it in. If you wanted to
[36:13] go get rid of the pool and reuse that
area for any other purpose,
[36:19] um assuming you're filling in the
existing pool and you're covering it
[36:24] with new concrete and then
using the pad or area for something
[36:28] else.
Um I can definitely get you guys a more
[36:31] concrete cost if you guys want.
>> Well, I think that we need to kind of as
[36:37] we weigh that, look at, you know, if we
choose not to to do the pool, you know,
[36:43] what what's our cost? Because there's a
cost either way. And I think
[36:46] understanding that helps us to make some
decisions, too. Because we can't just
[36:51] leave
the
[36:55] pool
for obvious reasons.
[36:58] » Of course, yeah. I Let me get Let me get
you guys the numbers on that. And I'll
[37:03] just give you a number just for the cost
material to fill in the existing pool.
[37:07] Um
and then I'll add in the the cost of the
[37:11] of a concrete deck over top of it.
>> I mean, looking at the bid,
[37:16] that was the highest portion of the
cost, right? Is the concrete the size of
[37:22] the scope of of
Because most of that million dollars was
[37:27] going towards replacing the pool deck,
correct? So, is
[37:29] » Yeah, a lot of that goes towards
replacing the pool deck. I think
[37:31] probably about $400,000 goes towards
replacing the pool deck.
[37:38] » So, yeah, if you could at least so we
have
[37:41] I guess all of the information available
to us.
[37:44] Um I think that's a
valid question to follow up with.
[37:48] Brandon, if you get us a number on what
what would it be what would the cost be?
[37:52] I would even still say if it's even
allowed
[37:55] um
given the
[37:59] um
the covenant that still sits on that
[38:03] pool. That's still something that um
Miss Carrie Cooper pulled out and looked
[38:08] into for us. Um given grant money that
was received when that pool was put in
[38:13] place. So, if it is allowed to even be
diminished, that's another question that
[38:17] that I still haven't really
found an answer to.
[38:21] Um but if we could get a cost on that,
Brandon, that would be great.
[38:25] » Okay, yeah, no problem. I mean, you guys
you guys have
[38:29] » So, just also what I'm hearing from you
is the the idea of reducing the scope of
[38:34] the pool, that is probably
not in the realm of not feasible.
[38:41] » Yeah, I don't I don't believe making
that consideration would would result in
[38:45] significant cost savings.
>> Okay.
[38:50] Other questions?
[38:59] » When would the work on this pool be
started if if we go ahead and with this
[39:03] project, when would you start this pool
and when do you think your earliest
[39:06] completion date would be?
>> Um so, given the fact that we delayed
[39:12] the award of the project, and if we were
to award the project with the additional
[39:17] scope changes,
uh I believe that they mentioned that
[39:20] they would request an additional 8 weeks
for the scope changes,
[39:25] and they would probably request an
extension on the delay that we've had
[39:28] because we've taken I think it's been
about a month now maybe over a month to
[39:33] award.
So, with the
[39:36] uh initial
uh substantial completion date of
[39:38] Memorial Day Memorial Day 2017,
and the coinciding
[39:44] uh
you know,
[39:47] extensions that they would probably ask
for, I think that you're probably
[39:50] looking for at around
maybe August of next year, possibly
[39:55] September. So, we'd be outside of next
year's window.
[40:05] Again, that's that's just from what I
the conversations I've had with the
[40:10] contractor. Um
if
[40:14] they if they had had the ability to get
something done, sooner they would.
[40:22] » I've got one more question for you
gentlemen. Um,
[40:25] is Marcite still the best finish?
Or so if you're talking about a full
[40:31] uh tearing down all the walls rather
than just making repairs,
[40:35] uh adapted direction, is that still
considered the best finish uh to to use
[40:39] today or should there be alternatives
that should be considered?
[40:44] » Um, we can definitely consider all other
alternatives. I think it's the most one
[40:48] of the most economical options,
especially for public pools.
[40:52] Um, it's essentially just colored
cement.
[40:56] Um,
so it it's it's pretty durable.
[41:00] Um,
and it it looks
[41:04] I guess relatively well
relatively good. Okay. Um,
[41:09] if you if there's any interest in
exploring any other alternatives that we
[41:13] can do
[41:19] » Do we have any questions?
[41:23] So,
uh
[41:25] I guess we'll wait on that additional
information so we have all the options
[41:32] in front of us and
can make the
[41:35] decision about options
and where those funds are going to be
[41:40] coming from.
Um,
[41:46] so
we can put that
[41:50] I don't even remember coming.
>> The end of June?
[41:53] » Our next meeting?
>> Next meeting.
[41:56] » Brandon, is 2 weeks good enough to get
that information or
[41:59] » 2 weeks is fine.
>> Oh yeah, I I might get it to you by the
[42:01] end of the week. Um,
so I'll get you the cost of just filling
[42:06] the pool in
and then I'll separate it out another
[42:08] cost for new not over top just to see
how much proper maintenance and what
[42:13] that would cost.
>> Brandon, we're meeting again on
[42:16] 23rd, [clears throat] so just so you
have a date.
[42:20] » Okay.
>> Send that over. Thank you. Appreciate
[42:23] that.
Um
[42:26] Okay.
That's all we have on the pool.
[42:29] » No, I want to add something about it. We
don't need We don't need
[42:32] » Okay.
Thank you. We appreciate you joining.
[42:35] » Thanks, guys. Thanks for letting me call
in.
[42:37] » Thank you.
[42:40] » All right, Jeremy.
>> Yep. So, a couple of things. One, what
[42:44] he had mentioned about the concrete.
I do
[42:47] recall
in my youth going to a pool where it did
[42:51] not have the tile sides. It had a
concrete finish, but it was a rough
[42:56] finish. I don't So, I don't know if
that's a smoother concrete or
[43:00] or but I I do recall being in a pool
with a concrete finish, rounded bottom.
[43:06] We'd put our feet up there. It gave you
a grip, you know, if you wanted to kick
[43:10] and kick back or whatever, but
So, if that was
[43:14] cheaper
or less expensive, I should say,
[43:18] option and had it dyed, then maybe
that's something we should entertain,
[43:23] but um as far as the pool itself, I went
back in my emails to try to find more
[43:29] information. Went all the way back to
2022 where I found information on this
[43:33] topic. Uh but first, I want to talk
about how
[43:36] this government works, how the city of
Olean government works. Uh we tend to
[43:41] bring a topic, we introduce it, uh
and we find out about project costs.
[43:46] Then we start to ask questions, we
meaning the council, and then we're told
[43:50] we'll get the information, we meaning
the city.
[43:53] Uh weeks, months later, the topic comes
back on the agenda, and then this is
[43:57] where the redundancy begins. We
literally start repeating ourselves and
[44:01] asking the same question and saying the
same thing over and over and over
[44:05] second, third meeting.
Uh
[44:08] usually responses will come in the day
of, as we had today,
[44:12] uh
uh or the the day before the meeting,
[44:16] with no time to analyze and digest
anything. Then these responses or
[44:20] answers lead to more questions, more
delays, more postpone, like we are now
[44:24] with this pool.
Uh project has been delayed for a lack
[44:27] of response or counselors being
pressured to action, or we get blamed
[44:31] for inaction.
Uh the city doesn't like the response of
[44:36] the council, and then there's more
delays, or we're slow moving to bid, or
[44:40] we're lack of response to the questions,
uh excuses uh for delays on the council
[44:45] requests, and so on and so on and so on.
We get the gist, but I want the public
[44:50] to hear this because this has happened
with almost every project since I've
[44:55] been on this council. And it's one of
the things that actually I found an
[44:59] email from 2022, where I was complaining
about that very thing.
[45:03] Uh
so, proof is in.
[45:06] Uh some of the committee agendas, if you
look at them, we're littered with some
[45:09] of the unfinished business uh of things
that are coming back and forth over and
[45:13] over and over.
Uh so, I want to pivot
[45:15] because uh most recent article in The
Olympian Star,
[45:19] uh where information was presented to
the public or to The Olympian Star,
[45:24] uh granted, I don't know if they reached
out to the city or if the city reached
[45:29] out to them, but the fact is is that
uh information was presented to an
[45:35] outside source, and here the council had
received zero information whatsoever. Uh
[45:42] there was I've learned more in this
piece right here than I knew of what was
[45:47] coming up for our agenda, and I came
here
[45:51] uh
Thursday, Friday to meet with the uh
[45:55] council clerk to discuss this week's
agendas. So, haven't heard anything
[45:58] about it.
Uh I think that's uh just just straight
[46:02] wrong.
We should be informed. I'm going to say
[46:06] after 6 months, I've had enough
evaluating and I believe that
[46:12] this administration is worse than the
previous when it comes to communication.
[46:18] We are not receiving information or
we're receiving it at the last minute.
[46:23] We've had numerous
incidents that have popped up
[46:27] since the beginning of year where we
were the last to know and I believe that
[46:32] needs to change. So when we look at this
pool
[46:37] of
some notes that I wrote down that were
[46:40] mentioned during this previous
presentation or Q&A with Brandon.
[46:47] We're addressing that the city, why
aren't we addressing
[46:51] the neglect to the pool?
We literally had department heads say
[46:57] that they had x amount of years of
experience, but yet the pool was
[47:00] uncovered and then there was damage to
the pool.
[47:03] Why is that? And these are just
rhetorical questions. I'm not looking
[47:06] for an answer.
And then we had
[47:12] responses to the in the paper
as you read the article, it it seemed
[47:18] that we are in dire we are just in dire
doom and gloom.
[47:22] And I and I asked, how do we get to this
position? How do we get to this point?
[47:27] And since we are in a doom and gloom
why weren't there quotes for removal?
[47:31] Why weren't there potential solutions
provided? Why haven't we mentioned
[47:36] advertising? We have the funding for
that. Why haven't we mentioned a quote
[47:40] for downsizing? So these are all the
things that I thought of right off the
[47:43] top of my head after reading this
article. I thought to myself, well, none
[47:47] of this other stuff was mentioned. It's
to me
[47:50] and I
I tell people all the time I I like to
[47:53] stay in the middle. I don't like have
lean one way or another,
[47:57] but to me,
that's more politics when you start
[48:01] coming with the doom and gloom end of
the world type scenarios, and I don't
[48:05] have patience for that.
Uh so, what I do have patience for,
[48:09] fact, Olean has determined that the pool
is uh something that they want. Uh I did
[48:15] dig up old emails. Uh I read some of
them. I saw where people's concerns
[48:19] were, they wanted to keep the pool. I
saw comments with if you go to my
[48:23] Facebook,
uh my old new Facebook page, and you go
[48:27] to search this page, and you type in
pool, you'll see the notes that I wrote
[48:31] in there on the pool and the comments
that people wrote, but you'll also see
[48:35] where I was against the pool prior to
everyone stating that they wanted to
[48:39] keep the pool, because I have believed
for the longest that we spend more than
[48:43] we
uh can bring in.
[48:46] Uh
just to provide a little insight on
[48:50] that. Uh at the time we were told, at
the time, mentioning 2021, 2022, uh we
[48:56] were told that there was 14 to 15,000
people
[49:00] uh per season,
and the pool also ran Memorial Day to
[49:05] Labor Day. It's Memorial Day to Labor
Day.
[49:07] Uh so, this equates to 14 people per
day, and that was my uh reasoning for
[49:12] saying, "Hey, we should get rid of this
pool."
[49:15] But again, the people have spoken. They
said, "Hey, we want to keep this pool.
[49:19] We need it. It will go good with uh
uh
[49:23] advertising of the splash pad. So, I'm
on board with that. I pivot. I'm good
[49:27] with that. Uh but options are available
for this pool without any negative
[49:34] narrative whatsoever. Uh I believe that
we should all be able to move forward,
[49:37] come together, find a solution. Uh we do
have uh
[49:41] monies out there available, and we can
always do that, and we always have the
[49:46] option of uh band bomb. Granted, we
don't want to do that, uh but again, we
[49:51] do have other options available. So,
hopefully we can work more efficiently,
[49:56] try to get this done. We're coming back
to this topic in 2 weeks. Uh, that'll
[50:00] give the council members an opportunity
to see Branding's response, come up with
[50:04] something, and then we can talk during
the committee meetings and have
[50:09] something more concrete and then put the
onus back on the city to get going so
[50:12] that we can get something moving. And
then, as Anastasia has already
[50:15] questioned, we're looking at next year
now, yet another year
[50:20] of waiting for the pool to get done. And
as I said, this started in 2022. So.
[50:26] » Thank you.
>> Thanks.
[50:27] » May I have a moment to respond, Marilyn?
It's a point
[50:30] » It's not my committee.
>> Uh,
[50:34] sure. Okay. So, firstly, I did not share
any information ahead of this meeting.
[50:40] Um, any information that was written in
that article was already public
[50:45] knowledge. When I was asked, "Do I know
a number?" I said, "No, I will not be
[50:49] giving any number. We are going to
present it to the council. That would be
[50:53] premature. It goes to the council
first."
[50:57] Um, the reporter is present and I think
that I would not be saying anything but
[51:01] the truth if that wasn't the truth.
So, as far as the article goes and you
[51:06] saying that this administration is worse
than the last in communication, I
[51:11] absolutely disagree with you. I have
given you more than enough information.
[51:16] Actually, at the encouragement of me,
you have in front of you the capital
[51:21] projects in a folder that we update
continuously because I recognize that we
[51:28] all have busy lives and you're not going
to be stopping in the office and asking
[51:32] what the status is. We've provided that
to you. I am trying to finish a project
[51:40] that was started way before my
administration.
[51:44] And I think if everyone can
can step back and realize
[51:48] as far as I'm concerned, if you want the
pool, it is your decision. This is the
[51:53] council's decision. I have moved this
forward in less than 6 months,
[51:59] which this administration has done, and
the past administration allowed it to
[52:04] sit languishing for what, 3 years? So, I
think that there's some fairness that
[52:10] needs to be shown for the fact that not
only did this administration have a a
[52:16] budget that they had to develop,
three contracts negotiated, along with
[52:22] all these unfinished projects that now I
have sitting in my lap.
[52:26] So, I don't really appreciate the fact
that this is being pointed out that I'm
[52:31] stalling or not communicating. I think
I'm doing a very good job in
[52:35] communicating everything that needs to
be communicated, especially about this
[52:39] pool.
>> Thank you.
[52:46] » David is in the back.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
[52:49] » No, the only thing I'd just like to say
is I agree with Vernon. We talked about
[52:51] this pool for several times throughout
the past administration.
[52:55] And uh no department heads or nobody has
spoke against the pool while we were
[52:59] discussing it under the earlier
administration.
[53:02] And as far as the funding goes, yeah,
the costs are a lot longer wait, the
[53:05] longer costs are going to go up. But I
just want to remind the council, don't
[53:08] forget
in August or late September, early
[53:11] September, we're going to be getting
$500,000 to TMI funding.
[53:17] And it's a one-time gift from the state,
and this would be a perfect
[53:22] funding source to use to put towards
this pool.
[53:25] And it's going to be a great marketing
tool having that pool along with the
[53:28] splash pad, because that's that's what
we wanted
[53:32] did to discuss.
And it's the splash pad is smaller than
[53:36] I thought it was originally going to be,
and if that pool is removed, it's going
[53:39] to look ridiculous over there. So, and
the public wants it at at least the
[53:43] people that I talked to. Some people
call us the common council, who would
[53:46] have cared. But,
the calls I got, people want the pool.
[53:55] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um so, he did bring up a good
[53:58] point and you know, I
think I
[54:01] just threw that out there in the past
discussion and I think at some point
[54:06] um
as we are looking and I'm just doing
[54:09] some rough math here
to to do
[54:13] that reconstruction correctly, we're
looking at 1.5 to 1.6 million with about
[54:19] 700 750,000 in grant funding from New
York Swims.
[54:24] Leaving the city portion around
$750,000.
[54:28] Um but, you know, I I think it's
something that I would ask the council
[54:33] members um as
you know, the mayor's doing the best she
[54:37] can with the amenities projects. She
said, "If we want the pool, it's the
[54:41] council's decision."
So, I guess the decision is what's the
[54:46] appetite of the council to take the
additional $500,000 that we knew we
[54:50] would not include in the budget.
Um and as Alderman Anastasia pointed
[54:55] out, we could this is a one-time cost
that
[54:58] would serve the benefit of the community
and it would complement the splash park
[55:03] and it would check that box for the next
20 to 30 years.
[55:07] So, I'm I'm actually looking for for
feedback on this.
[55:11] » Yeah, and I think I agree. I think
that's an appropriate use of the funds
[55:16] as a one-time
uh investment that we have to put into
[55:21] the pool.
I mean, I know there's yearly costs and
[55:25] maintenance and but that's expected. And
I know, you know, the mayor said, you
[55:30] know, this is the
the council, you know, pool wants the
[55:35] council wants it, it's the council
decision. And I I think
[55:39] and I know
this I'm going back to the previous
[55:42] administration. We did make that
decision.
[55:45] Uh but I think
and just the public knows the council
[55:49] can only take it so far once we approve
it,
[55:52] you know, it's out of our hands. We're
not the ones doing the construction.
[55:55] We're not the ones, you know,
controlling the operations or part of
[56:00] the project planning. So,
you know, when we're making these
[56:03] decisions and then it goes into the city
or the administration's hands. So,
[56:13] Um
Yeah, Jared.
[56:17] » So,
I still think that, you know, one
[56:20] question that could be asked is the most
economical way to to do the pool. But I
[56:25] would still be open to looking at the
idea of reducing the footprint because
[56:29] there is future costs.
Uh you know, we received today, I
[56:33] believe, from something. I guess I had
some questions on like, you know, we got
[56:37] staffing needs, three lifeguards,
obviously we haven't had them. One
[56:40] recreation attendant, one part-time
cleaner. Well, I thought we were still
[56:43] staffed with the same numbers of
part-time people at the rec center. So,
[56:48] these aren't really an addition, are
they? Currently there, I guess at the
[56:52] closure of the pool we didn't lose any I
think we even added some in the past
[56:56] couple of years. So, that was just a a
question I had. But regardless of those
[57:00] questions and and whatnot, you know,
you have something to add now, Chris?
[57:06] » I I I just didn't understand your
question.
[57:08] » Okay, then just say
>> Please please say it again so I can
[57:10] answer it for
>> Okay, I'll be glad to.
[57:13] My question is is this thing that you
sent out from on your letterhead
[57:17] stated that we would need three
lifeguards, one recreation attendant,
[57:21] and one part-time cleaner.
>> Correct.
[57:23] » And a certified pool operator to to
operate the pool.
[57:26] » Correct.
>> My question is, aren't those people
[57:29] already on staff?
>> No.
[57:31] » Okay, so what we
>> think
[57:32] » the CPO is on staff.
>> Okay, so
[57:35] » are not cuz we don't have the lifeguards
and we can't
[57:37] » Okay, let me back up.
So,
[57:41] you had those people on staff in '22 or
whenever the last time the pool was
[57:44] open, but you still have the same number
of staff. So, what are those people
[57:48] doing now?
>> They've gone on to better jobs.
[57:53] They're kids. They're lifeguards.
>> All right.
[57:56] » They they go to college and they come
back.
[57:58] » I'm asking about I'm not asking about
Jimmy Joe that did the job. I'm asking
[58:01] about the position. You don't have a
name here. You said one recreation
[58:05] attendant. That person was already
employed. That position already exists
[58:11] here.
>> had that position in 3 years because we
[58:13] haven't had a pool.
You understand that position is not in
[58:17] this year's budget. The budget that
started 10 days ago or whatever.
[58:21] » Don't you have the same number of
attendants at the at the rec center
[58:25] right now that you had back then?
>> I don't have any attendants at the rec
[58:28] center right now.
>> You don't have any part-time people?
[58:32] » I don't have any part-time people today.
The part-time people that we're going to
[58:37] be hiring will be for the splash park
when that opens. I have no seasonal
[58:43] part-time people at the recreation
center since the end of March when the
[58:46] ice rink closed.
That is the cost that I sent on that
[58:50] email, what it's going to cost to
operate that pool.
[58:53] Based on $20 an hour for the lifeguards,
based upon $16 or probably $17 an hour
[58:59] for the attendant
at noon to 5, 5 and 1/2 hours a day for
[59:03] a 75-day season.
>> So, right now that rec center is
[59:06] completely staffed by you and John and
or there's no part-time like skate
[59:11] people or anything?
>> The ice rink's not open.
[59:13] » No
>> When when that season ends, when that
[59:16] season ends, they get laid off. It's a
seasonal position.
[59:20] So, when the pool if the pool were to
open or the splash park were to open,
[59:24] that's when they they hired. When that
season ends, they go bye-bye.
[59:28] » All right, I'm done asking you questions
cuz you clearly got an issue answering
[59:32] them. I just asked a simple question. If
you want to be arguing about it, then I
[59:35] can answer it right back.
>> that. You don't like seeing employees.
[59:38] You don't respect what we do. All I hear
up here is that we neglected the pool.
[59:42] That's a bunch of lies.
>> of line, Mr. Shirah.
[59:44] » You're out of line. You're out of line.
>> I'm not I'm not out of line. I'm a
[59:46] elected official of the town of Canton
meeting.
[59:49] » You don't like it. You don't like it.
>> Chris
[59:50] » Goodbye.
Goodbye.
[59:52] » Thank you.
[59:55] » So
>> So, my question was is it at that
[1:00:00] additional cost cuz I thought they were
already there. So, that was the question
[1:00:03] why I had this question on the document
that was received at like 10:00 this
[1:00:07] morning.
>> Okay.
[1:00:08] » So, that was part of the question. I
still would like to entertain the idea
[1:00:12] of reducing the footprint. So, when we
talk about somebody wants to get upset
[1:00:16] about something, we talk about patching
concrete deck. I've never thought that
[1:00:20] it was a good idea and I think I've said
this a few years ago that now we have
[1:00:23] the concrete deck issue, but we have
every day. So, it's not disrespectful.
[1:00:28] I'm asking you, why would we park a I
think I asked it with those here. Why
[1:00:31] are we parking a vehicle on a 4-in
concrete deck that now we're saying is
[1:00:35] bad? Every night, we park a vehicle
a 6,000-lb vehicle. I was an engineer
[1:00:41] right there, Jim. I don't know if you
think that's the best idea. I mean, I I
[1:00:44] don't. I don't I don't need you to
answer. I'm just saying. I asked that
[1:00:46] question and you possibly have a vehicle
that's leaking oil and gas directly on
[1:00:50] top of your pool.
So, sometimes when somebody asks a
[1:00:53] question about, "Hey, something could be
done." It's not about disrespect. It's
[1:00:56] just saying, "Hey, is that the smartest
thing?"
[1:00:59] That it's not built for that. So,
people can get upset when the council
[1:01:04] has to ask questions. Sometimes they're
[clears throat] asking questions based
[1:01:07] on the finances that go along with it.
So, yes, I'm in favor of the pool. John,
[1:01:11] you asked your question. I would gladly
have spent $500,000 to that end, but I
[1:01:16] would still look at reducing the
footprint for future because possibly,
[1:01:20] and you're right, Vernon, you you quoted
email that made people upset.
[1:01:24] You could extend that with, you know,
they do heat pools. I don't know what
[1:01:28] the cost is, but you could look at that
to extend that. And yes, I do believe
[1:01:32] that we should be looking at marketing
that with the splash park.
[1:01:36] And to the local
uh recreation departments to get them to
[1:01:39] come. I asked the question before, what
are all the buses in the summer months
[1:01:43] doing down there if there's nobody ever
using the pool? When the pool was open,
[1:01:47] you saw school buses that said Port
Byron and stuff and whatever else. But
[1:01:51] what were they doing? They were down
there utilizing the pool. And then maybe
[1:01:56] we should do that more often because now
you can bring the whole family because
[1:01:59] of the
older kids pool, younger kids splash
[1:02:02] park. We had said that a while ago.
>> It's fine.
[1:02:08] At this point in time, you guys
Right. I I just was going to say that
[1:02:13] encapsulating it what I think between um
Alderman Bynum's and um Chris's
[1:02:20] is that those positions that they sent
us. And here it goes to the issue of
[1:02:25] getting information the day before the
day of, which is I think one of the
[1:02:29] things that we struggle with. I mean, I
had a little extra time today because I
[1:02:33] was I was up in the pavilion instead of
working.
[1:02:36] So I could look at some things, but I I
think that that's where we struggle is
[1:02:41] getting things the day before the day
of, trying to digest them. You don't
[1:02:46] have time to send out um questions ahead
of time to say like, "Oh, do we have
[1:02:50] those positions here?" And and I think
that that that's been a long-standing
[1:02:56] issue that that we just need to continue
to work on to to correct because now if
[1:03:01] I get what Chris is saying is that
the three lifeguards, obviously we know
[1:03:05] they're not there. The one recreational
attendant and the part-time cleaner is
[1:03:10] not there, but the CPO,
I think he said is is on staff.
[1:03:15] So and
so I don't know what the CPO does if
[1:03:19] they operate the pool staff.
>> pool operator.
[1:03:22] » Right. So they're still there.
>> I believe it's him.
[1:03:25] » Oh, okay.
>> I believe he's
[1:03:27] » Okay.
>> certified pool operator. He said it in a
[1:03:29] previous meeting.
>> Okay.
[1:03:31] » You can ask him.
>> That's what we kind of gathered is that
[1:03:34] the CPO was on staff and the others
aren't if I understand correctly.
[1:03:39] » But we'll be hired back when this splash
pad opens.
[1:03:44] » So I did want to add to this because I
was curious about those positions as
[1:03:48] well and if they are not here, they're
not in the budget, then there should
[1:03:53] have been a drop
uh between '22 and '23 in the budget.
[1:03:58] So that's something that maybe we could
go back and revisit and see if that
[1:04:03] funding was removed or if that funding
stayed miraculously and paid for other
[1:04:09] things as
we know has commonly happened in the
[1:04:12] past.
Uh and then something else I did not
[1:04:16] mention previously that I see in my
notes is that back in 2022, May 2022,
[1:04:22] the email that I came across it said
that the operational cost of the pool at
[1:04:27] the time were 50 to 60,000 and as you
see there's a little bit of a
[1:04:32] increase here.
Uh
[1:04:36] doesn't coincide with the increase that
we've seen with other things, but it
[1:04:40] does say 57,000 60,000 here
>> [clears throat]
[1:04:43] » uh for
uh for current projected costs for the
[1:04:48] pool.
Granted, I think that's
[1:04:52] part of the that that's part of what's
needed for the pool. It's plain and
[1:04:56] simple,
get the pool and those numbers get
[1:04:59] worked into the budget and then we have
those things for the for the pool. I
[1:05:04] know the issue that Buffalo that Buffalo
has is something that Buffalo has had
[1:05:07] and some of the other major cities have
had is obtaining lifeguards. And to me
[1:05:13] one of the biggest issues with trying to
obtain a lifeguard is you're talking
[1:05:16] about paying someone 15 bucks an hour
when you can [clears throat] go to
[1:05:19] McDonald's and work and make much more
and have more hours. So, I mean, I guess
[1:05:25] it all depends on your cup of tea and
what you're interested in doing. If you
[1:05:29] want to volunteer a summer cuz you're
basically volunteering at that type of
[1:05:33] uh salary and getting a certification
and working with kids and children and
[1:05:36] so forth
or going to work at some type of
[1:05:40] customer service or something like that.
So,
[1:05:43] but I think that was all I wanted to
mention. Then, we were presented an
[1:05:47] email on the pool hours.
Well, we didn't get the hours, but the
[1:05:52] Olean
school
[1:05:56] offers
free public swim
[1:06:01] twice a week, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
And, I did have that information. My
[1:06:04] wife provided it to me. She's an Olean
school teacher.
[1:06:08] But, that is not
that is not a substitute. I think that
[1:06:13] should be in addition to.
I believe the city should have a pool.
[1:06:17] That's it.
>> All right.
[1:06:20] That is my question. I wanted to know
was this being offered as a substitute
[1:06:23] or information to the public, which is
valuable information. And, if you have
[1:06:27] the times, I'd appreciate that.
>> And, Jen, I just question that goes
[1:06:31] Guy had a question.
Does that go all summer?
[1:06:36] » I
>> It does go all summer.
[1:06:38] » I will find it. I have the
>> Yeah, I'm just saying, yeah.
[1:06:41] » Is it twice a week?
>> In the summer, too? Oh, okay. I didn't
[1:06:44] know it was Saturday.
>> All year. All year.
[1:06:46] » Well, I just figured it was the summer
just with people being out of work.
[1:06:49] » Yeah.
Um all right. So, yes.
[1:06:54] » Are you going to wrap it up?
>> I was.
[1:06:56] » You can wrap it up.
>> Oh, I I had one more thing because of
[1:06:59] the grammar school background and I'm
sorry for this guy.
[1:07:01] » Um
again, if we are I I the ultimate goal
[1:07:06] really for all of us is to try to
problem solve this and to
[1:07:11] to try to come to an agreement.
What will best serve our citizens
[1:07:16] without
stressing our financial the financial
[1:07:20] burden associated with the renovation.
And some options have been put out here
[1:07:25] tonight.
I've got it down to needing $250,000
[1:07:31] of which
Cattaraugus County has always expressed
[1:07:35] interest in in helping Olean.
Maybe I don't want to hear a time time
[1:07:41] frame with a variety of major projects
that serve people that just don't live
[1:07:45] in Olean.
So I don't know of any major municipal
[1:07:48] pools
in the county.
[1:07:52] Maybe there's something south of here
perhaps, but certainly around around
[1:07:56] this area. It's fairly limited, right?
So
[1:08:00] corporate sponsors.
There's a number of businesses that
[1:08:03] we've talked about in the past. There
are a number of ways that
[1:08:06] I wish that this is what we were all
working to is is trying to come up with
[1:08:12] a solution on how
to pay for this. And
[1:08:18] hopefully that's something we can work
on over the next month or two.
[1:08:25] » Just add the John R. Oishei grants which
are available. If you look at the
[1:08:29] project early enough, you might be able
to get one of those cuz that's exactly
[1:08:33] what they're looking for.
[1:08:37] » So I was just going to say I was
one of the few who were
[1:08:41] not in favor of the pool.
And we talked about you know, where this
[1:08:47] is where compromise comes in in in terms
of what we were looking at the splash
[1:08:52] park and we were looking at
um
[1:08:56] the overall project in building it
almost into you know, like a
[1:09:03] a complex, so to speak, right?
Um as I looked at Listen, nobody is more
[1:09:08] enthusiastic except for maybe John about
this splash park and and getting that
[1:09:12] project done.
Um
[1:09:14] is that it became aware I became aware
that, you know, we're probably talking
[1:09:21] 12 and under for given the size of the
the things and
[1:09:25] that if we do have a family that I've
come to appreciate
[1:09:30] that having a
a complex would be family-friendly, not
[1:09:37] just for our residents, but residents
outside of the community.
[1:09:41] However, having said that, we still need
to make sure that we are fiscally
[1:09:44] responsible
um and good stewards of the dollars that
[1:09:48] we have within the the city and
and the cost attached, hence my question
[1:09:56] around what is the cost if we don't go
forward because I think that we need to
[1:10:00] have that information
to be able to make a good fiscal
[1:10:04] decision about
about that. So, that's kind of where I'm
[1:10:08] coming from. Um cuz I know I was not one
that was in favor of the pool, but
[1:10:14] in looking at compromise and in trying
to get projects through,
[1:10:18] I I think that's where we all try to
come from at this point. And
[1:10:24] that questions are not meant to be
um
[1:10:29] inquisitions,
but rather to get the information we
[1:10:33] need to be able to make
the decisions that that do affect our
[1:10:38] residents and affect the city, not just
for now,
[1:10:42] but long past everybody except Dave, who
will be on forever.
[1:10:47] Right? It passes at 17 years, but but
right? So, the next council has to live
[1:10:53] with this, the next people, whoever that
is, has to live with these decisions. so
[1:10:56] I'm really mindful of that.
[1:11:00] » Well, thank you for everyone's comments
and
[1:11:03] you know, there's other verifications
that you need, you know, I'm sure we can
[1:11:08] send them via email to ask that.
Um we'll wait on the information from
[1:11:13] CPL and hopefully we'll get that in a
timely manner before our next meeting on
[1:11:18] the 23rd, so we have time to review that
prior cuz I know at least for myself it
[1:11:24] takes a while to I'm not a
construction person, so just kind of
[1:11:28] reading all that information and being
able to digest it would be helpful.
[1:11:33] Um okay.
So, let's move on to the next um
[1:11:38] piece of unfinished business was which
uh was PL 4726 to designate admission
[1:11:45] fee for the splash park to be $5.
And then PL reads for 2 hours,
[1:11:52] uh
but there was discussion to be per
[1:11:54] session
to be changed to per session that was in
[1:11:58] the in the conversation, so do we want
to talk to that?
[1:12:01] » So, I was just suggesting it and I kind
of had to shut that up quickly so that
[1:12:05] we don't tie
the hands of of like the park
[1:12:10] of Chris with that stuff that because
that may adjust or change over time,
[1:12:15] too.
Um so, we did meet briefly and honestly
[1:12:19] this has been John driving the the bus
on this and and I appreciate that but I
[1:12:25] do think you know, we we do projects
that are for our city residents and we
[1:12:30] do projects that benefit not just the
city residents, but the splash park is
[1:12:35] one that will bring people into the
city. They will spend money in in our
[1:12:38] restaurants, they will spend money in
our stores. So, you know, as we look at
[1:12:43] that. So, we looked at it cuz I know the
the concern can come up what about you
[1:12:47] know, how are we making it feasible? We
really need to make sure that we we pay,
[1:12:53] right? And that we are hopefully
um
[1:12:57] balancing out the the cost. So, $5
per session.
[1:13:04] But with the caveat that we will look
into other things, um corporate
[1:13:08] sponsorships, um local agencies that may
have um individuals that are un-
[1:13:14] under-served or individuals who who have
some lack of financial resources to be
[1:13:19] able to sponsor, whether it's
um a block of tickets or a um
[1:13:25] block of um
a block of time so that individuals um
[1:13:31] we also would like to look at, you know,
inviting, [clears throat] you know, how
[1:13:34] do we invite um city of Raleigh
residents first to be able to come and
[1:13:40] um
participate in it. So,
[1:13:43] I think we've we've heard the concerns
about um we want to make sure that
[1:13:47] everybody can enjoy it. And I know that
Alderman Robinson has brought that up,
[1:13:51] and that's near and dear to um I think
all of our hearts. So,
[1:13:56] I think we can do that at $5 um
per person per session.
[1:14:01] And um
the details to be worked out by um the
[1:14:06] director. I see you looking really
skeptical there, but I I have promised
[1:14:09] that I will myself go out and see what
we can do for for corporate sponsors and
[1:14:15] for agencies that that serve that
population to make sure that that
[1:14:19] everyone can enjoy it.
>> Yeah, so uh just as a follow-up to that,
[1:14:24] so the uh request was to go to uh per
session basis uh because initially uh
[1:14:30] tentatively we're told
at least what we're being told is this
[1:14:34] is mid-July at this point. Um
there's that's a big tentative, right?
[1:14:40] Uh we are waiting on public parts for
Vortex.
[1:14:44] Um and and then uh firing up with vortex
present um
[1:14:49] but with that being said
for sure Marie and the mayor would like
[1:14:55] some flexibility.
Is it 2 hours? Is it 2 and 1/2 hours? At
[1:14:59] least for this
first
[1:15:02] year I guess for the remainder of the
summer as a
[1:15:05] learning process. Is it 3 hour session?
And so rather than just lock it into 2
[1:15:11] hours they they wanted that that asked
for that flexibility. So
[1:15:15] um I'll make a motion to amend this.
Additionally we had a pretty lengthy
[1:15:20] discussion about
[1:15:24] again learning when low occupancy occurs
and then offering
[1:15:30] you know half price days.
If Tuesdays are slow, Thursdays are
[1:15:34] slow, right? Just using business 101 to
be able to offer discounts throughout
[1:15:39] the course of the summer
to
[1:15:43] incentivize usage of the facility.
And also to give families that
[1:15:50] might have multiple children that $5 a
piece is is too much. As a comparison
[1:15:55] sake
cost $7 to go ice skating, right? So
[1:16:01] something that our ice skating rink
which I believe
[1:16:05] in the meeting told us generated almost
$300,000 worth of revenue this past
[1:16:09] year.
It pays for itself, right? It more than
[1:16:13] does that. And at the end of the day
you've got to
[1:16:16] find a balance.
You don't want to price yourself out.
[1:16:19] You don't want to overprice your your
residents, those that use it. But at the
[1:16:23] same time you can't do a dollar a piece.
So you got to find that happy medium and
[1:16:28] then look for alternative ways to offer
affordable fun
[1:16:33] in the summer time. Additionally
at least for the foreseeable future
[1:16:38] branch out is still open and available
and is a low cost. I don't even know if
[1:16:42] we charge for that or not.
Um Um, so that is still
[1:16:46] a low-cost option that is is available
today. So,
[1:16:50] these are things that we've taken into
consideration and and I think
[1:16:55] I think the only way you can learn is to
to do it and to to have that experience
[1:17:00] for a month and a half, 2 months, you
know, hopefully half of July, August and
[1:17:04] then in the September we can learn a lot
from that and then roll things out such
[1:17:09] as online ticket sales or online
reservation systems, things like that
[1:17:12] going going forward.
Um, so at this time, hey Tiffany, do we
[1:17:18] need to suspend the rules to change PL?
>> Uh, no, you just need a motion.
[1:17:22] » Okay.
Um, so at this time I would like to make
[1:17:26] a motion to amend PL 47-26
uh, to say uh, to designate the
[1:17:33] admission fee for the splash park to be
$5 for one session.
[1:17:38] Okay? Per per person.
And then additionally, uh, two and under
[1:17:45] free.
So,
[1:17:50] two or under, you're free. So.
>> Okay. Can I get a second?
[1:17:55] » Second.
>> By it.
[1:17:58] » Um,
all those in favor?
[1:18:01] » Of the amendment.
>> Of the amendment. Not of the PL, but
[1:18:04] just of the amendment of the PL.
I.
[1:18:07] » I.
>> The vote is
[1:18:10] I.
So, I just want to add also I also agree
[1:18:13] with the flexibility. It can't be free.
Um,
[1:18:17] and we don't know what we don't know and
so there has to be some flexibility and
[1:18:24] I think this does a great job in the
winter season. You know, there's people
[1:18:29] who, you know, pay to go ice skating and
pay for rentals and then there's
[1:18:32] opportunities for free skating um, those
times when kids are off school and
[1:18:38] holidays and so I think there is a
really good balance but again we don't
[1:18:42] know we don't know
who our market's going to be is it going
[1:18:47] to be all little little ones is it going
to be full on families I mean we just we
[1:18:52] don't have any data for that right now
and so
[1:18:55] I think this provides a really good
starting point and then knowing that
[1:19:00] that will be evolving as the next season
comes about.
[1:19:05] So that's just my two cents. Yeah, okay.
>> Uh, while I am in favor with the
[1:19:10] changing it to the one session and uh,
two and under for free I'm still not in
[1:19:15] favor of the $5 uh,
period. Uh,
[1:19:18] numerous reasons uh, that I've stated
previously but uh, I I and I know it was
[1:19:23] been mentioned that we're going to look
for other avenues and uh, vouchers you
[1:19:27] know, some type of packages stuff like
that but until I see that that's what I
[1:19:32] want to see uh, then I'm going to be a
no until that part is done.
[1:19:38] » So here's what I said I appreciate it I
I don't think we can know that though
[1:19:44] until we we have some structure in place
and then um,
[1:19:48] you know
Listen I think Chris is going to do a
[1:19:51] bang up job of this just like he does
with with the
[1:19:54] with the skate park. Um,
but I don't think we'll know that piece
[1:19:58] until we're actually into it but
more than happy to do my part in terms
[1:20:04] of corporate sponsors and and go out and
utilize you know, our resources I said
[1:20:10] you know, that's where something is our
ultimate goal is to be out there.
[1:20:13] And we may find some individuals who are
willing to sponsor and stuff and and
[1:20:17] John had a great suggestion I thought
which is kind of like the 12
[1:20:21] um,
days of skating in the in the summer
[1:20:25] over Christmas.
Maybe we can get corporate sponsors to
[1:20:28] do like the 12 days of
[1:20:32] Black Friday yeah,
right? So I think that we can be very
[1:20:35] creative and I think that as always
our parks and rec have used the rec have
[1:20:42] been creative in that and we can do our
part then as all of them to all of us.
[1:20:49] » I'll make a motion.
>> I'll second.
[1:20:51] » Okay, so I'm I'm sorry. I just need to
know cuz are we voting to move this to
[1:20:57] like
>> Resolution. Yeah, resolution.
[1:21:00] » Okay.
Okay, so John makes a motion.
[1:21:04] » I'll second.
>> Uh I'll second.
[1:21:07] All those in favor? All right. Any
opposed?
[1:21:11] » Here.
>> One opposed.
[1:21:15] » It would be all of them wrong.
>> Just Robin and I.
[1:21:19] » Okay.
So,
[1:21:21] uh then that will go on our next
uh regular meeting. Correct?
[1:21:27] Okay.
>> On the
[1:21:29] 13th. Okay.
>> Good.
[1:21:31] » Yes.
>> As you're talking about just completing
[1:21:33] that, I had a question. I'm not sure if
I got it answered, but
[1:21:37] um Jim, what is
as you're completing the splash park
[1:21:42] thing,
who's responsible for the damage to the
[1:21:46] sidewalk
from the parking lot that led into where
[1:21:50] all the workers parked vehicles and
broke the sidewalk and ruined the
[1:21:58] the tops of all that?
>> I would personally I'm I would be
[1:22:01] putting that on the punch list for the
contractor.
[1:22:05] » Okay. I just just an aspect cuz there's
quite a bit of sidewalk damage because
[1:22:10] we were re-routed to park in the parking
lot
[1:22:13] and walk there.
>> Yep.
[1:22:16] I mean, obviously for the vehicles
moving materials and whatnot.
[1:22:21] » I wasn't even talking about that. I was
talking about that. I was talking about
[1:22:23] » I I agree with you. They
It's turned it into a parking
[1:22:28] and we need to inspect that and
discuss that with them for the final
[1:22:33] functions.
[1:22:36] » Thank you.
Um okay. No
[1:22:41] uh new referrals for consideration. No
committee reports. So, we can push into
[1:22:45] adjournment. Can I get a second?
Thank you.
[1:22:49] Uh all in favor?
>> Aye.
[1:22:51] » Great.
[1:22:54] All right. No opposed.
[1:22:57] » Oh goodness.
I'll make a motion I'm sorry. I'll
[1:23:01] call the order of public safety
committee for uh Tuesday, June 9th. Uh
[1:23:06] let the record show all all the persons
are present. I'll make a motion to
[1:23:09] approve the minutes. Can I get a second?
>> Second.
[1:23:11] » Seconded by Anastasia. All in favor?
Aye. Opposed?
[1:23:16] Uh first on the agenda, unfinished
business, [clears throat]
[1:23:19] uh North Union Street lighting.
Uh I'm assuming this will move to uh DPW
[1:23:24] director.
>> Yes. So, following the input we got on
[1:23:28] my uh first test head that we had up,
our electrician has been working with
[1:23:33] this uh second vendor
um and
[1:23:37] um in particular talking about the light
spread that could be achieved with an
[1:23:44] LED board actually designed for our
situation.
[1:23:48] Um that vendor has not yet provided uh a
test head for us to install, but they
[1:23:54] gave us
still working on that.
[1:24:00] » Oh.
Any questions or comments or anything?
[1:24:09] Just for the record, this is a another
example of what I was talking about
[1:24:13] earlier.
If we just keep going and keep going and
[1:24:16] keep going, but that's just my personal
uh
[1:24:19] thing here.
Uh
[1:24:21] Tiffany, can we so
breakfast break
[1:24:26] about how much time you think we need
a month, 2 weeks,
[1:24:30] 2 months?
>> month to begin with.
[1:24:33] Actually, I meet with Dave tomorrow.
Okay.
[1:24:36] I can communicate with Tiffany directly
if he's got something
[1:24:40] um more current and put it on in 2
weeks. Okay.
[1:24:44] Okay.
All right, so we will push this out for
[1:24:46] a month to receive an update on this and
the second vendor and the potential
[1:24:51] lighting there.
So, 1 month 4 months.
[1:24:59] All right, moving on to school zone
changes.
[1:25:02] I believe this was brought upon for
numerous reasons to include safety
[1:25:07] issues around
that
[1:25:10] school property area. I guess I'll say
to stay broad.
[1:25:15] I don't know if you want to believe or
maybe the city.
[1:25:18] » So,
I can tell you what we did and then they
[1:25:20] can fill in. So, we actually kind of had
a
[1:25:23] very productive meeting with um
Jeff and Diana from the school, mayor,
[1:25:30] and
Jim was there and
[1:25:33] » Dan Kolaski.
>> Yes, thank you.
[1:25:36] » Oh, and
>> Dan Kolaski.
[1:25:37] » Yes, thank you.
Um and and that's very important too
[1:25:41] because they're there every day and so
getting their feedback because they see
[1:25:45] the students, they see the parents drive
up and just drop kids in the middle of
[1:25:49] the street any and everywhere. Um we've
had some residents who have had some
[1:25:53] concerns about being able to get out of
their driveways. So, basically instead
[1:25:58] of saying like, "Hey, we're just going
to look at this piece." We said, "Let's
[1:26:02] look at the whole complex." And we ended
up extending it down to the middle
[1:26:06] school so because
uh I forgot. I looked it up but it was
[1:26:10] what was it? Within 1,200 ft or
something that you can look at it and be
[1:26:14] able to see. So, we do have school zone
um speed limit signs up there, but I
[1:26:18] think much like anything else
not everybody even recognizes they're
[1:26:23] there. So, that was one thing.
Um the mayor had a great suggestion,
[1:26:28] which was to designate a a drop-off
zone.
[1:26:32] Um we looked at what might be feasible
because as you know
[1:26:37] it is just a madhouse, particularly
around the high school, and it is not
[1:26:41] safe. I That is the driving force. It is
not safe for residents who are going
[1:26:45] down there at any point in time during
that the drop-off particularly drop-off
[1:26:50] and pick-up time, and it's not safe for
uh the students. And then as you go back
[1:26:55] around Reed Street and up Third Street,
um it is
[1:27:00] it is very narrow, and two cars cannot
fit there with the parking as it is.
[1:27:06] Um
so,
[1:27:09] I think that we, you know, I I
I'll let them if they want to go into
[1:27:13] more specifics
because there's always going to be
[1:27:16] somebody who's not going to be happy,
but right now it's kind of fact-finding
[1:27:20] to look in and and see what is going to
make the most sense for the residents,
[1:27:25] for the safety of the students.
Um but first and foremost, we have to
[1:27:29] look at it at safety and the safety and
security of the the students. And I want
[1:27:33] to say that
I don't think there was anything put on
[1:27:36] the table by by the city that the school
wasn't receptive to. So, that was that
[1:27:40] was very nice. So, for my part, I
thought it was an incredibly productive
[1:27:44] meeting.
So, this is you guys
[1:27:47] what we need to do.
>> I can do that.
[1:27:52] So, unfortunately I don't know if Jerry
can we kill those lights?
[1:27:56] » Hey, do you have a clicker?
[1:28:12] » Sorry, I didn't get close enough. Sorry.
I can get a
[1:28:14] diagram
Okay.
[1:28:18] The last diagram is the last better.
Thanks, John.
[1:28:24] Um so, first
traffic direction
[1:28:29] um proposal is to make North First
Street one-way going north.
[1:28:34] And then Reed Street will be one-way
going east.
[1:28:37] And Third Street one-way coming back
south to West Sullivan.
[1:28:42] So, we have one-way loop around the high
school
[1:28:45] » [clears throat]
>> um building.
[1:28:47] Um
Over here on North First Street the
[1:28:51] parking on the east side of the street
would be um eliminated. That would
[1:28:57] become
a drop-off space
[1:29:01] for parents dropping students at school
and the school bus drop-off space, which
[1:29:07] I think it is now the school bus
drop-off space, and it would just
[1:29:11] continue to be that.
Um
[1:29:14] so, that's that's the big change there
in terms of traffic direction and
[1:29:20] traffic flow.
Um
[1:29:23] what this uh drawing shows you is this
this yellow line is the school district
[1:29:28] properties.
Um
[1:29:31] not the proposed school zone, which I
think still needs
[1:29:36] to be discussed and thought about some.
Um
[1:29:41] you know, like particularly over here on
North First Street, my initial thought
[1:29:45] was to start here at First and West
Sullivan,
[1:29:49] but when you look at it, when I was
looking at it today,
[1:29:54] I think
that's overly aggressive because of
[1:29:59] Excuse me.
If you're northbound on
[1:30:03] North First Street
right in here, and you all of a sudden
[1:30:07] see a school zone sign and a school zone
um speed limit.
[1:30:13] You look around,
you can't see a school anything
[1:30:17] anywhere. So, I think getting compliance
with the school zone over here is going
[1:30:23] to be very difficult, and
we don't want to establish a zone that
[1:30:28] everybody's just going to ignore.
Um so, you know, over here, I think if
[1:30:33] we're going to do a school zone, we have
to make it very rec-
[1:30:36] uh re- globalize right along the edge of
the tennis court complex.
[1:30:43] Um this is an existing school zone sign.
This is an existing school zone sign.
[1:30:50] You know, I think this is one that
um has been discussed that is, you know,
[1:30:57] it's really too close to the school. We
need to back that up probably by a full
[1:31:01] block, so we have some warning
for the
[1:31:05] um motorists, and we can get their
speeds down before they're actually in
[1:31:09] the area of the school.
>> [clears throat]
[1:31:12] » Um and and probably that's more what we
need to be doing on North First Street.
[1:31:18] Um
same thing up here on Wayne Street.
[1:31:23] Uh
I have to confess I can't read that.
[1:31:27] Um these are school crossing signs, I
believe, and this is those uh school
[1:31:34] speed limit sign.
Um again, we would probably back them up
[1:31:38] a little bit, so we have a little more
space on Wayne Street for the motorists
[1:31:43] to slow down and get down to the school
zone speed limit.
[1:31:48] Um
this has been an area of a lot of
[1:31:50] conversation. This is North Seventh
Street.
[1:31:53] Um particularly here at North Seventh
and Reed. Um
[1:31:59] Dave Crandall, our engineer, has shown
on here in new crosswalks
[1:32:03] and he's proposing uh rectangular rapid
flashing beacons for those crosswalks.
[1:32:10] Um cuz they are essentially mid-block
crossings even though they are at the
[1:32:16] end of of Reed Street.
[1:32:20] And this is the area that Alden Rue
property spoke about
[1:32:24] where the parking is essentially across
the existing parking is essentially
[1:32:30] across the sidewalk.
Um
[1:32:32] so for a pedestrian path from Wayne
Street down 7th
[1:32:37] wherever you're going whether to the
school or anywhere else
[1:32:41] uh
that path is interrupted right in here.
[1:32:45] Um
I did have a conversation today with
[1:32:49] um code enforcement group.
Uh there is apparently some work going
[1:32:54] on on the site um
right now.
[1:32:57] So they're going to look into
uh what that work may
[1:33:03] imply for this parking and I also asked
them about this part of the building
[1:33:07] [clears throat]
which looks to me like it's an addition.
[1:33:11] And if the parking adjoining it was any
part of the approval of that building
[1:33:17] addition
whenever that happened. Um so they're
[1:33:21] going to dig into their records
and see if something from that building
[1:33:26] going up can enlighten us about
what here was approved in the past for
[1:33:31] that parking or if that parking just
occurred.
[1:33:36] So for the overall school zone
[1:33:41] you know, my initial thought was like go
big or go home, right?
[1:33:46] And I think looking at it in more detail
then we're asking for establishing a
[1:33:53] school zone where people aren't going to
comply with it.
[1:33:56] So I think we need to pull it in a
little bit
[1:33:58] and
you know, look at sort of all the
[1:34:02] all the corners independently.
Um so, we'll adjust some signage or we
[1:34:08] would propose to adjust some signage on
West Second Street,
[1:34:12] add some signage on North Seventh
Street,
[1:34:15] adjust signage on Wayne Street, and
probably add signage over here on First
[1:34:21] Street.
Um
[1:34:23] and then working with the school,
actually all of this area is just going
[1:34:28] to be in the school zone.
>> Jim, didn't we talk a little about
[1:34:34] extending that though all the way to um
Wayne Street from Yeah.
[1:34:39] » This area, yep.
>> Right, so that that would then it be
[1:34:42] encapsulated within that yellow line.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:45] » Okay.
>> So, I I think
[1:34:48] I think this is this is an area where I
need to really
[1:34:51] um
you know, work with our attorney or work
[1:34:54] with the school zone
uh
[1:34:57] or with the school district
um
[1:35:01] to make sure I get the definition of the
school zone correct
[1:35:05] cuz I think we can, you know, like draw
the school zone around the perimeter,
[1:35:10] but then put our signage where it makes
more sense, where we'll get more
[1:35:14] compliance from the traveling public.
>> Cuz theoretically there should be a
[1:35:19] sidewalk there.
>> Right. There should be a sidewalk all
[1:35:23] the way up this side.
[1:35:27] So,
um
[1:35:29] and you know, the school district was
was
[1:35:32] as was said, is was on board with the
proposal
[1:35:36] and we're willing to pursue what they
need to do to get this declared a school
[1:35:41] zone.
Um was
[1:35:44] » Quick follow-up, Jim. I apologize I
couldn't attend the meeting. I
[1:35:48] appreciate everybody that came together
to to do this. Uh obviously Sonia and I
[1:35:52] share North Seventh Street and you know,
comments and Washington Street from a
[1:35:57] lot of my side, the residents of along
the way.
[1:36:01] But,
any talk about
[1:36:05] I know there have been some conversation
about a stop sign perhaps coming down
[1:36:10] the hill of Reed Street hill.
Um
[1:36:14] Was there any talk about here?
>> Nope, for
[1:36:18] over here. Nope.
Right in the middle of S6. S6.
[1:36:24] » You see the intersection of Sixth and
Reed?
[1:36:26] » Yep, right there. Right there.
>> Down the hill there.
[1:36:29] » Cuz it turns a corner, Jim, and a lot of
kids cross right there and a lot of the
[1:36:34] high school kids come whizzing down that
hill and it's
[1:36:38] Um so, I didn't know if that had come up
in conversation with Sonia.
[1:36:42] » I don't recall that being really a
question from our meeting, but
[1:36:46] » I actually asked Dave Crandall and he
said he didn't recommend that the
[1:36:51] stop sign go there, that it would hold
up traffic. It would be
[1:36:55] » Yeah. A bottle neck. A bottle neck.
Okay.
[1:36:58] » And that with the flashers and have he's
proposing, you know, like flashers you
[1:37:04] can initiate to be able to
cross safely.
[1:37:08] Um yeah, and so I did ask him that.
>> Was he talking about maybe putting a
[1:37:12] flasher there, too?
>> Uh right where you see the white
[1:37:16] » he's talking
>> Yeah. There.
[1:37:18] » Okay. He's talking about here on S6
Street.
[1:37:22] Uh
>> I'm talking about coming down the Reed
[1:37:25] Street hill, the back entrance from the
high school and you come down behind the
[1:37:28] track there.
>> So, some of that may be helped by we
[1:37:33] also talked about the about where the
students would park. So, instead of
[1:37:37] parking on Reed Street because now it
also will be going um towards Third
[1:37:42] Street, but having them park in the
parking lot to kind of help with some of
[1:37:46] that. Traffic, too, and requiring that
they do that and and and they were open
[1:37:53] to that, too.
>> So, eliminating the parking on Reed
[1:37:56] Street?
>> For students.
[1:37:58] » For students.
>> Cuz we asked that they limit where the
[1:38:00] students were able to park because I we
thought that would potentially help that
[1:38:04] actually.
>> Which Which where would they park?
[1:38:09] » In In the parking lot where the church
used to be, the one with the church
[1:38:13] there on Fourth Street.
[1:38:21] » If you let any If you let any parking on
Reed, that lot's full. And then if you
[1:38:24] let any parking on Reed and on Fourth
>> Eliminated for the students to park
[1:38:28] there.
So, students couldn't park there. It
[1:38:32] would be We would ask them to park They
would ask them to park
[1:38:36] in the the parking lot versus where Reed
is. And I don't know if they would
[1:38:40] designate that
[1:38:46] So, they're going to look into that.
That was one of the things that was left
[1:38:48] over just
>> The biggest thing is is
[1:38:53] the
how unsafe it is around the school for
[1:38:56] drop-off.
Every Every reason why they feel that
[1:39:01] the one-way should be enacted around the
school.
[1:39:06] The rest of it was just secondary. They
were happy that we're going to address
[1:39:10] Savage Street, but really it's their
school. That's where the big crowd was
[1:39:15] by
the back.
[1:39:17] » But yes, we went over all of that. They
were in favor of it. I think
[1:39:22] You You suggested that, so I had it and
they they seemed you know, like it was
[1:39:26] not That part was not an issue.
>> I mean, really if if if that speeding is
[1:39:32] there, at some point we might want to
look at speed humps.
[1:39:35] » Right. Right.
>> Cuz there's bigger ones versus,
[1:39:38] you know, bumps. So, there's I think
some other ways that But I think first
[1:39:42] if we do some of these and see if it
helps.
[1:39:45] » Okay.
>> Hopefully with the one-way traffic, that
[1:39:48] will eliminate some of that clogged,
very fast traffic at the bottom of the
[1:39:53] hill. You know, you're you're kind of,
you know,
[1:39:57] lessening concentration, sending people
to Sullivan, which,
[1:40:03] if they need to go back down and, you
know, they can do so, but obviously it
[1:40:07] will slow things down.
>> Is all of that section of Reed Street
[1:40:11] one-way or just by the school?
>> Yeah, just by the school.
[1:40:15] » I got you.
I got you.
[1:40:16] » So, you can go left or right at that
>> One way at a time, yeah.
[1:40:19] » I got you.
>> Yeah,
[1:40:21] but if this is actually using students
for the uh
[1:40:25] » Got you.
[1:40:29] » In less than an hour, by the way.
>> Wow.
[1:40:31] » Oh, yeah.
30 minutes.
[1:40:34] » Yeah.
[1:40:39] » I mean,
you know, from our from our meeting,
[1:40:41] that's really the update.
[1:40:45] All right.
Thank you.
[1:40:47] » Yep.
>> Thanks, Jerry.
[1:40:49] » I know uh personally, I don't have kids
in the school at the Oley High School
[1:40:52] anymore, but uh I I do like that thought
process and uh just the fact of
[1:40:57] identifying those safety [clears throat]
issues uh that they were having over
[1:41:01] there and getting them addressed,
working collaboratively with uh City of
[1:41:05] Oley School District uh I think is a
great idea. Great great great idea.
[1:41:10] All right.
>> And one other thing though, um just so
[1:41:12] you know that that that that drop-off
zone, we we did talk about being
[1:41:17] sensitive to the residents of the
neighborhood. So, that would be kind of
[1:41:20] designated between like, I don't know,
7:00 and 5:00 or something, right? So,
[1:41:26] that on weekends and after school hours
that residents that park along that that
[1:41:32] need extra parking would be able to park
in there, in the drop-off area.
[1:41:37] And you know that there'll be they'll
have to be I think public hearing,
[1:41:41] right? Regarding any changes. So, for
anyone who's like, "Oh my gosh, they
[1:41:45] want to change all this stuff." No,
there it's proposed at this time.
[1:41:50] » Jared,
just had a question. Jim, do you know
[1:41:54] Well, I get the need for the school
zones, but
[1:41:57] do you know can you
pass legislation where you can actually
[1:42:03] just do it during certain points?
Like times of day?
[1:42:08] » Um for like parking?
>> No.
[1:42:11] » For the the speed the school zone?
>> I ask cuz like I know ours are like all
[1:42:15] day long.
>> Yeah.
[1:42:17] » I get that there's the morning and the
afternoon, but at 11:00 in the morning
[1:42:21] while they're all in the school,
you know, is there a need compared to
[1:42:26] » That's a That's an interesting question.
I have never seen a school zone speed
[1:42:31] limit that varied,
but that doesn't mean that it could not
[1:42:35] be done.
>> Well, I believe
[1:42:40] I
>> I think Wayne I think Wayne does does it
[1:42:42] » No, Wayne plays all day long.
>> All week long, too? Even on weekends?
[1:42:46] » No, not No, not weekends. School days,
I'm sorry.
[1:42:50] I believe Fillmore's does. I know
there's some out there and you'll see
[1:42:54] them and post them right on there for
like 8:00 to 10:00 or
[1:42:58] » Okay.
>> specific times.
[1:43:00] » Particularly with modern digital
signage,
[1:43:04] » so that way it's not going to I get the
point of it, but like during you know,
[1:43:07] at 1:00 you're more likely to hit a kid
on the street at 6:00 p.m.
[1:43:12] » Yeah.
>> than you are at 1:00 p.m. cuz they're in
[1:43:15] the classrooms. That's why I asked if
that could be
[1:43:17] especially if you're looking to expand
the size of it, could it just be then be
[1:43:21] cut down to drop off and pick up?
>> I don't I don't know if I would agree
[1:43:27] with that because
they're in school all day. So, you have
[1:43:31] kids coming and going at different
times, especially when you get to the
[1:43:34] older class kids. [snorts] Um
they're coming and going all day.
[1:43:38] Some are going to fourth period or fifth
period and and done for first and second
[1:43:42] period, you know, so
having it recognized for the full school
[1:43:47] session
may be
[1:43:50] more beneficial than sticking with
otherwise. I believe then you start
[1:43:53] getting to the point where you start
trying to remember if I had like AB
[1:43:57] days, you know, oh, I better slow down
now. Oh, I'm good now. So,
[1:44:01] that's just my thought process, but
>> You'd have to put I think you'd have to
[1:44:05] put lights up there to do that, wouldn't
>> Yeah, yeah. So, what and then when the
[1:44:09] lights are off and not working,
uh and then you have or the ones that
[1:44:13] supposed to do the speed limit and they
don't. Uh so, now, you know, you want to
[1:44:17] slow [clears throat] down and not speed
up, you know what I mean? So, to put the
[1:44:21] onus back on the driver and have them be
the responsible party, especially when
[1:44:26] it comes to children, whether they're
older or younger, I think the focus on
[1:44:31] to set the parameters, set the hours,
and then have them
[1:44:35] uh
abide by those hours. Uh if on holidays,
[1:44:39] that light should not be blinking. On
weekends, it should not be blinking.
[1:44:42] After what, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 p.m., it
should not be blinking. So, um but
[1:44:48] that's just my thought. So,
anyone else can
[1:44:51] share or jump on that. But, uh so,
definitely appreciate the feedback and
[1:44:56] information. Now, to ensure that we
don't let this drop off, uh are we
[1:45:01] waiting on the school for more
information, so
[1:45:05] » did we get that from
>> Yeah, we're we're all good with the
[1:45:07] school. They gave us, you know, the red
zones. It's pretty much what we're
[1:45:11] looking at. They are just, you know,
hope hope that we can get this done
[1:45:16] before school starts.
>> That was my next question. So, with
[1:45:19] that, we want to make sure that we get
another discussion to be finalized, and
[1:45:25] then get it on for a PL, then get it
posted, then do a public hearing. So
[1:45:29] everything is done before the first week
of September. So we don't want to wait
[1:45:33] until mid-August. We want to make sure
we can move forward. So
[1:45:42] okay, so we can
we can get this so we can put this on
[1:45:45] for committees to discuss moving forward
to resolution and wait, get it posted,
[1:45:51] the whole nine yards. So Tiffany, would
you do that for me, please?
[1:45:55] That way we can keep that going.
[1:46:01] » Hey Jim, the now that will the RF what
is it RRFB, will that take time because
[1:46:08] does New York State still have to
approve those or can the community
[1:46:12] » No, we that's our street. We can put
them in
[1:46:15] » You can? Okay.
>> As far as I know.
[1:46:17] » I just I I
at one point in time I thought that
[1:46:20] there was uh that they were
traffic vehicle traffic law said that
[1:46:25] they were
>> not a
[1:46:27] » I think they said that actually.
>> Was that for a state road?
[1:46:29] » I think that was the state road.
>> Okay. Okay, so we can put that in there.
[1:46:33] » Yeah, they they are. I guess you know,
the point to be made about them is they
[1:46:38] are not a vehicle a traffic control
device. They are simply an informational
[1:46:45] device. So
>> And I think you said that the school
[1:46:49] could actually designate kind of like so
we asked them you know, 2015 whatever it
[1:46:54] is in terms of that.
>> They could pay for it or did we have to
[1:46:58] pay for it or was that not discussed?
>> We had the signs. I think it would
[1:47:04] depend on what we were looking at. If
we're looking at flashing light ones and
[1:47:07] those kinds of things.
So to your question, the answer is no,
[1:47:12] we did not discuss who would pay for
signage.
[1:47:16] And that probably goes back to if we
look at
[1:47:20] the designating and I don't know who
traditionally pays for those signs, but
[1:47:26] I'm sure that's a quick Google search
and figuring that out. And then, if
[1:47:30] there's a cost attached, when we come
back with the PL, then we can
[1:47:34] include that in there.
And we'll be able to utilize as much of
[1:47:37] the existing signage as we can.
>> I'm not worried about the signs. The
[1:47:41] flashing beacons are going to be
like $10,000.
[1:47:46] Yeah.
Just curious.
[1:47:47] Thanks.
All right. Anything else?
[1:47:50] » Yeah, I just had a question. So, there
is the city or the school going to put a
[1:47:54] sidewalk in along 7th Street?
>> So, what we discussed and and there
[1:47:58] needs to be some ongoing conversation
with that business is
[1:48:02] » Not the business.
>> Even
[1:48:05] Which one?
>> Right there where those two crosswalks
[1:48:08] go. There's
There's no sidewalk.
[1:48:11] » There is now.
>> There is now?
[1:48:13] » They just put it in.
>> Oh, okay.
[1:48:15] » Oh, I was going to say by the business
we talked about even if it was set on
[1:48:18] the side.
>> Okay.
[1:48:21] Uh the school the school district owns
Yeah, is that now or is that
[1:48:24] » There is a sidewalk.
>> Okay.
[1:48:28] All right.
Nothing else? All right. Moving on.
[1:48:32] Uh resolution 15-26 remove no parking
signs East Elm Street. Uh this is the
[1:48:38] one where we have been receiving emails
uh on uh continuing issues uh down in
[1:48:45] that area after uh no parking signs were
removed
[1:48:51] » Yeah, at the request of that
school down there, they said they'd pay
[1:48:55] for those signs when they were having
school buses drop children off.
[1:48:58] And there's no longer school buses down
there anymore, so that's when we they
[1:49:02] asked us to have them have the signs
removed.
[1:49:05] And we agreed and we removed the signs.
Um I did get a couple calls, I'm sure
[1:49:10] you're This is back on the agenda
because of somebody named
[1:49:14] Jeremy that is one of the neighbors that
lives across the street.
[1:49:18] Uh he is stating that uh
that the parents are dropping off kids
[1:49:22] in the same area where the signs were,
but they're blaring loud music. He works
[1:49:26] third shift. He's trying to sleep. His
baby sitter is at it.
[1:49:30] Anyways, it's a little dispute he's
having with the school saying that the
[1:49:33] loud music is being played at 7:00 and
8:00 in the morning and
[1:49:38] uh he would like that stopped. And so I
went over to the school and spoke to
[1:49:43] their administrator. She said she was
sending a letter to the parents. Uh
[1:49:47] there is a parking lot that they also
rent that used to belong to the old
[1:49:50] transit duration school. She was going
to uh
[1:49:54] ask the parents if they would use that
parking lot because it goes into a U
[1:49:57] shape where they can pull in one side
and come right out the other side
[1:50:01] and drop the children off there. She
informed me that school was done for the
[1:50:05] year, June 17th.
So, she would send that letter out and
[1:50:09] hopefully that would resolve the issues.
So, we'll just have to wait and see, I
[1:50:14] guess.
>> And then the noise can be addressed.
[1:50:17] » And I did tell I did tell this Jeremy
guy that
[1:50:20] if it is a loud noise to call the police
and have them down and monitor the
[1:50:24] situation.
And he said he would do that, so I'm
[1:50:27] just hoping that he follows through with
the police and I follow through with the
[1:50:30] school.
>> But that is a violation of noise
[1:50:32] ordinance.
[1:50:35] » All right. Anything else? Any questions?
All right. We just wanted to get that
[1:50:39] back on the agenda and discuss
considering the email communications
[1:50:44] we've received. Uh moving on to
assistance to firefighter grant, uh fire
[1:50:50] engine, and radios.
>> Somebody's
[1:50:55] coming to work now.
[1:50:59] Hi. Uh so, this is the same AFG grant
that I apply for every year. Uh I'm
[1:51:04] going to be applying for a fire engine
um for the main grant. And then you also
[1:51:09] get to apply for a $75,000
uh
[1:51:12] mini grant, they call it. So, those
would be for portable portable radios.
[1:51:16] There is a 5% match from the city.
[1:51:24] Okay, thank you.
>> Thanks.
[1:51:26] » I guess that's the beauty of coming in
late late and having a meeting go late,
[1:51:29] the questions get less.
All right, so yeah, that's the same
[1:51:33] thing we normally do. Uh so, I guess
we're going to be presented with a PL in
[1:51:37] the future and then we'll have to get
sponsors.
[1:51:39] » Mhm.
>> All right.
[1:51:42] Uh nothing else, no committee reports.
I'll make a motion to adjourn. Do I hear
[1:51:45] a second? Seconded by Danny. All in
favor? All right. Opposed? We are
[1:51:49] adjourned.
>> Okay, I call to order the finance
[1:51:52] committee meeting for Tuesday, June 9th.
Let's do a
[1:51:55] roll call to see if all of you are
present.
[1:51:57] Approvals of minutes from the previous
committee meeting, which is Tuesday, May
[1:52:00] 19th. I'll make a motion. Do I hear a
second?
[1:52:03] » Second.
>> Seconded by Alden.
[1:52:06] » Yes, hearing.
All in favor?
[1:52:09] Opposed?
Okay.
[1:52:12] Um
Unfinished business, capital fund
[1:52:15] closing and reserve creations.
[1:52:20] » Are you guys here for school?
>> What?
[1:52:38] Oh, okay.
Um so, I have started
[1:52:43] um looking into
uh reserve funds.
[1:52:47] Um
it
[1:52:50] seems like there are probably several of
our capital funds
[1:52:55] that should be converted to reserve
funds.
[1:52:59] Um
I have uh kind of started a list um that
[1:53:04] I would be happy to send to all of you
to um review.
[1:53:09] Um
projects
[1:53:13] um that should be closed
um
[1:53:17] fund 119 and 186, the Oats Bus Reserve,
Oats Capital Account. Um they were
[1:53:23] closed
um in September of last year for
[1:53:27] resolution 9325.
Um we just need to confirm the final
[1:53:32] accounting of those and they can be
closed. Um there's a few other ones that
[1:53:37] um
[1:53:40] there hasn't been a lot of activity in.
Um so just whether it's something that
[1:53:46] we want to keep the
keep it open for
[1:53:50] um
or if we want to close down those
[1:53:53] projects and move them into our
operating accounts.
[1:53:57] Um
the big thing with
[1:54:04] reserve funds.
Um
[1:54:08] there's there's two types of reserve
funds that we can use. Um the first
[1:54:12] being a capital reserve fund.
Um
[1:54:16] that is
um it will there's a specific or type
[1:54:22] for those. Specific would be for a
single named improvement or item of
[1:54:26] equipment. Um type would be for a
category of equipment or improvements
[1:54:32] um such as the I believe it's capital
fund 1
[1:54:38] 18 uh for Chief Morard that he has the
ambulance reserve um emergency services
[1:54:45] vehicles.
Um things of that nature. Uh there's
[1:54:48] also a repair reserve fund that we can
use um does it designed for repairs to
[1:54:55] capital improvements or equipment
such as um funds 242 and 243 for our
[1:55:01] sewer line repair and replacement, water
line repair and replacement.
[1:55:05] Um so, like I said, I've started working
on this. It has much more detail um than
[1:55:11] kind of what I'm giving you now. Um it's
something that I uh
[1:55:16] started working on over the weekend.
Um so, I didn't want to throw it at you
[1:55:22] last minute.
Um but I uh tomorrow I would be happy to
[1:55:26] send that to all of you to review. Um
the reserve funds do have to be created
[1:55:32] via resolution.
Um so, that's something that um would
[1:55:36] have to be part of that process as we
get these funds classified correctly,
[1:55:41] whether they're capital funds
cap and capital projects or whether they
[1:55:45] are reserve funds.
>> Any questions here?
[1:55:51] So, when you um so, you're going to send
this out Will you Will you send this out
[1:55:55] then with the description then of of the
state
[1:55:57] » Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I have here
working out. It's got um every
[1:56:03] um
[1:56:06] So, there's like a These are projects
that should be turned into
[1:56:10] uh reserve funds based on um
some analysis that I've done. Projects
[1:56:17] um that need to be reviewed by council
for either closure or reclassification,
[1:56:22] depending on which way we're going to go
with them. And then projects that can
[1:56:26] remain as they are as active capital or
capital funds and capital projects.
[1:56:31] » So, when you send that out, would you
just do us the favor of just sending us
[1:56:35] out the description of the different
types of the repair reserve at the um
[1:56:41] » Yep, I will This is this document that I
have here has an explanation of the two
[1:56:46] right at the beginning, and I'll make
sure I send the entire thing to you
[1:56:48] guys.
>> Sounds great. Thank you.
[1:56:50] » Absolutely.
>> Any other questions here?
[1:56:53] Okay. So, new new referrals for
consideration, funding grant position,
[1:56:59] and you know, I spoke briefly with the
mayor on this and and I was like
[1:57:04] part of this is making sure that um
one there's two focus. One is the you
[1:57:09] talked about
doing the part-time position kind of
[1:57:13] after the budget was done out of some of
the sewer and water funds. So, that was
[1:57:17] one and the other is in essence
looking at the American fill in the
[1:57:21] blanks here.
Um
[1:57:24] in part succession, right? And taking
one of the positions that's already in
[1:57:29] the um
community development and kind of um
[1:57:34] designating it a little bit different
and better for what we actually need.
[1:57:37] So.
>> Yeah, so so basically the grant position
[1:57:41] that you see is in Carrie's office. We
have a person that is her assistant
[1:57:46] that's retiring. So, with civil service
you have to come off of the title and
[1:57:52] this was the title that fit what she's
going to need. But, basically
[1:57:56] um as when that person retires in July,
this is what this
[1:58:00] uh was already discussed before and
agreed upon that she needed. Um we made
[1:58:06] sure that, you know, everything is
according to the union, according to
[1:58:10] civil service. It's a whole process. So,
that's the title. And that's essentially
[1:58:15] what she needs is, you know, the
coordinator of the grants to
[1:58:20] is part of her office
um and also an assistant. So, that's
[1:58:24] what that is.
>> And then the second one that we had
[1:58:27] discussed um during the budget, which
was to create potentially a part-time um
[1:58:33] maybe finding somebody in the community
to write the grants and be able to
[1:58:36] utilize um for the most bang for our
buck cuz we talked about about 30,000.
[1:58:41] Is that something that you would still
like to have on the table then?
[1:58:45] » I yes, I believe so because this is a
different totally different thing what
[1:58:50] we're going to be doing now. Through the
process of the last 6 months, what I
[1:58:54] have discovered is we we do have um
uh municipal solutions that we can use.
[1:59:00] They have grant writers. Obviously,
there's there's fees that then they
[1:59:04] usually will pull those into the grant
that we're seeking. Um but above and
[1:59:09] beyond that, there might be other
options that we want to
[1:59:13] uh we have a grant writer for. It just
depends. It's It's each project might be
[1:59:18] able to
uh be fulfilled by a grant writer with
[1:59:21] the municipal solutions, or there might
be a different type of uh grant that we
[1:59:27] need
that we need there will be funds
[1:59:30] available for for contracting services
or professional services, that sort of
[1:59:36] thing. But I think our best bet,
especially with some of the projects
[1:59:40] that we need to be going after grants
for, should be done through municipal
[1:59:44] solutions because
they take it from the very beginning all
[1:59:48] the way to the end for us. We
the grant writing, the grant seeking,
[1:59:52] and they include that into the total
package of of, you know, what grant
[1:59:57] we're seeking, whether it's for
infrastructure or, you know, cycling
[2:00:02] project, all of those things
is what we've always used in the past,
[2:00:07] municipal solutions, that we need to
start moving towards again and and
[2:00:11] allowing them to help us with the
infrastructure grants.
[2:00:16] » Any questions?
[2:00:19] John?
>> I know we've used them Mayor, I know
[2:00:22] we've used the municipal solutions as
our our financing agent in the past for
[2:00:28] a long time.
Do we have a history of using them to
[2:00:31] help write grants?
>> Yes.
[2:00:33] » We do?
>> Yes.
[2:00:34] » Okay.
Um
[2:00:36] Yeah, I just you know, I I want to just
reiterate whether it's through municipal
[2:00:40] solutions uh as an option. I guess I
would like to know what the cost
[2:00:44] effectiveness This of of that. Um I
don't know what
[2:00:48] I'm sure they will just charge one
blanket price as far as we go based on
[2:00:51] the amount of hours they put into
pursuing and securing grants. But,
[2:00:56] I do want to just reiterate the
importance of having those are two
[2:00:59] separate positions, community
development and the grants that they're
[2:01:03] going after and the administrative tasks
for that position is totally separate
[2:01:09] from the DPW and the water and sewer
infrastructure grants that we should
[2:01:14] really be exploring. When I first was on
the council,
[2:01:19] I want to say we were getting sizable
grants and that was good news that we
[2:01:22] heard about the um
lead the lead line, right? But, these
[2:01:28] are the things that we should be
applying for constantly
[2:01:31] with with regards to our infrastructure
and
[2:01:34] and that has slowed over the past really
four years. So, I would encourage
[2:01:40] for the mayor to use the funds available
to apply for these these infrastructure
[2:01:45] grants whether we
hire someone internally part-time or or
[2:01:48] whatever. But, those are two separate
positions.
[2:01:52] » So, I would
um
[2:01:56] I think we need to put in a a PL of the
15,000 from sewer 15 from water that we
[2:02:03] discussed from the fund balances to
create this part-time grant position.
[2:02:11] That's what we discussed prior to the
budget. We said we would do it after the
[2:02:14] budget. So, um
you're looking critical.
[2:02:18] » I cuz I thought that was already
put into the budget.
[2:02:22] » We did not. We did not put that into the
budget at all. We said that we would
[2:02:26] discuss it after the budget.
Um just because we were trying to
[2:02:31] not add more into it and increase the
tax rate. So, this was a way to be able
[2:02:36] to um meet the needs because
unfortunately, it seems like in the past
[2:02:42] that this had fallen a lot on Carrie to
be able to do and it was really
[2:02:47] not necessarily hers to do. Um
so, I would say yes, so it's not in the
[2:02:52] budget. I did talk to them and I said we
would do this after that.
[2:02:55] » I probably should have encumbered that.
[2:02:59] » Well, we're going to take the goal was
to take it out of fund balances.
[2:03:03] » Right. Oh, okay.
>> That's what we had talked about taking
[2:03:05] it out of
>> I thought we had money left over in
[2:03:07] contingency. Yes.
>> Yes.
[2:03:10] But to take it 15 and 15 out of out of
the fund balances.
[2:03:16] Okay?
>> Okay, so
[2:03:18] » Okay,
cool. Ed, yeah.
[2:03:21] Okay.
Um
[2:03:24] » Yeah, speaking of fund balances, I mean,
I know we're sitting here now early in
[2:03:27] the second week of June, but when can we
expect to get some preliminary results
[2:03:32] on on how this will be wrapped up?
>> It's too early to put that on.
[2:03:38] Do I have to answer?
>> Just just just a We can put it out at a
[2:03:41] future date. I understand.
>> I'm sorry, what was the question?
[2:03:45] I so
Well, when when Mercers is
[2:03:48] » So, Mercer is going to be coming down
tentatively, I believe the third week of
[2:03:54] July. Um are the dates that they gave
me? I have been asking
[2:03:59] for about 2 weeks now for them to send
us the work papers that they had from
[2:04:05] previous just so I can kind of know what
to expect from them going through this
[2:04:10] for the first time. Um
I'm still waiting to receive those, um
[2:04:16] but I am
>> Good.
[2:04:19] » I I know that there was a resolution
passed previously for the books to be
[2:04:23] closed in September.
That is my goal.
[2:04:26] » All right, thank you.
>> So, kind of if we could go Ed to the
[2:04:31] next finance committee meeting, kind of
a follow up to that is we had been
[2:04:35] provided a number of 384,000 that we
were over budget and that we still had 2
[2:04:40] months to go. So, even if we could kind
of get a tentative where we're going to
[2:04:45] end up, not holding you to the numbers.
Um
[2:04:49] on our
next
[2:04:51] meeting, that would be great.
>> have expenses to be
[2:04:54] » Yes.
>> Yep. Yep. Um once I I plan to have a
[2:04:58] better year-end picture
um in the beginning of July um once the
[2:05:04] final
um I believe Connie will be you know,
[2:05:08] the fourth Tues- the fourth Wednesday
after the fourth Tuesday or however the
[2:05:12] all of that works.
Um once those final expenses for the
[2:05:16] previous fiscal year are into the system
and good. Um I plan to have a
[2:05:22] um better picture for all of you um at
that first meeting
[2:05:27] um in July.
>> Okay.
[2:05:31] Um I had asked to have promotions and
new positions put on. Um
[2:05:37] there was some concern, you know, what
we were looking to do is to ensure that
[2:05:40] the positions um
are consistent with what was in the
[2:05:45] budget cuz we did go line by line, we
went position by position. Um
[2:05:51] And given our financial constraints, we
wanted to ensure that that we were going
[2:05:55] to stay within our personnel line costs.
Um so, I did talk briefly to the mayor
[2:06:01] and I had to go back and and take a look
um
[2:06:04] at uh one of the positions that that
came up, there was a question and she
[2:06:08] said it was in our last year's budget.
So, I guess I would like to um put this
[2:06:13] on hold and then I'll go back, research
it, um get something out to you guys on
[2:06:19] it in terms of because one of the things
we were saying is we were told that the
[2:06:25] um 101 line was for um
costs uh
[2:06:30] for
contractual and um
[2:06:34] oh gosh, I forgot the other word I
wanted there. Contractual and
[2:06:38] » longevity
>> longevity. And we wanted to just ensure
[2:06:42] that that all of those things were
captured since we had gone line by line.
[2:06:47] Um and then Councilman Foster had he had
a question about it. So, I'm going to go
[2:06:52] back, look at the budget after talking
to the mayor,
[2:06:56] um and then if we still have questions
about it, we probably will need to go to
[2:06:59] an executive executive session on Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, basically, I think what you're
[2:07:04] referring to it's an internal
um for one of the employees again with
[2:07:09] the title and a matched
pay. And the fact is that this was all
[2:07:15] done prior to the end of the budget. It
is allocated in the budget.
[2:07:20] This position is
for the same I mean, basically, it's for
[2:07:25] the same department. Nothing has
changed. We made sure that any kind of
[2:07:29] adjustments we needed to make for this
year was included in the budget and and
[2:07:34] it is. And so, further discussion, yes,
we could go in executive session. We can
[2:07:38] get a breakdown of the information, but
it's it's been allocated.
[2:07:43] » I mean, no no new issues were made
for
[2:07:47] » Questions for you?
>> Do you have your documents that were
[2:07:50] given to us from the city?
>> I have them all at
[2:07:53] » Okay.
>> Yes.
[2:07:54] » I think I just [clears throat] threw
mine away last
[2:07:56] » Oh, no. Literally, I have every single
budget piece of paper sent to me.
[2:08:00] » Oh, good. That's why you're the chairman
of this.
[2:08:02] » Absolutely. And and so, after talking
with the mayor, I'll go I will back,
[2:08:06] I'll look at those, and then I can get
the answers out to you guys, and if we
[2:08:10] need further discussion discussion, I'll
bring them back.
[2:08:13] » Yeah, Mayor, maybe if you can or sign it
kind of when she's looking, just going
[2:08:19] backwards really quick to the
conversation about the youth and rec, I
[2:08:22] took the time here and I then just
please clarify where that money has ever
[2:08:26] come out of that budget cuz going back
to the budget of 18-19 it started at
[2:08:31] $190,000
and it has climbed all the way up to
[2:08:34] $275,000.
[2:08:37] » Uh
clarify, you mean just overall the cost
[2:08:40] for the department?
>> For the youth recreation payroll
[2:08:43] department. When I was asking about
those positions, I just now sat here and
[2:08:48] went back to 18-19, that budget
allocated $190,000
[2:08:53] just on the 100 line.
>> Mhm.
[2:08:55] » I'm only going to tell you the 25-26
line at 275
[2:08:58] cuz I'm going to give the grace of we
added for the splash park attendants in
[2:09:02] this year, which
>> increased wages
[2:09:05] » [clears throat]
>> Correct, which went up to 309,000.
[2:09:09] So, I'm just saying like
I'm allowing you for that, but even if
[2:09:13] you add 4% per year cumulatively, it
should have only, you know, that's 270
[2:09:19] and I don't think there was 4% raises
every single year, especially the
[2:09:22] part-time people.
>> So, you're looking to say basically, did
[2:09:25] we remove the one recreational attendant
>> I'm just saying
[2:09:29] I'm just asking cuz what we were told
tonight is they were all taken, then
[2:09:33] that number should have gone down, not
kept rising.
[2:09:36] » The only thing though that did change in
that, which
[2:09:40] I don't think we agreed to but I don't
think we were necessarily in favor of
[2:09:43] it, we went from a two part-time
positions to a full-time position. My
[2:09:47] memory is that's the only one that that
we really made any change in in terms of
[2:09:52] the that. In terms of adding anything is
what I'm saying. So, yeah, so you're
[2:09:57] looking to say how did we go from that
and what were those dollars for the
[2:10:01] recreational attendant and the part-time
cleaner
[2:10:05] um
effectively removed or have they been
[2:10:08] kind of hanging out in there?
[2:10:12] Did I capture it?
>> Just overall in general cuz like I said
[2:10:15] when I asked it was said that they were
kind of all gone. All these positions
[2:10:18] were taken but that number kept going
up. If the positions were taken then
[2:10:22] that number should have dipped at some
point.
[2:10:26] » Well, I'll go back in history and see
what made the change. So, you're saying
[2:10:30] in 2019
it was
[2:10:33] » 190.
>> Well, okay. So, we're comparing 2019 to
[2:10:37] 206.
>> Last year's was a 275. I'm giving you
[2:10:41] that grace of a big jump this year to
Splash Park 10.
[2:10:45] » Okay.
>> It's probably going to be similar to the
[2:10:48] one we had in the budget where we found
that the money was still there. They
[2:10:52] just didn't fill the position.
I think that was Fleet.
[2:10:57] So, it's probably the same thing. The
money has been there.
[2:11:00] They just been adding positions.
But, maybe I'm giving them that too. So,
[2:11:04] I don't know.
>> And that's a whole another issue if we
[2:11:07] have that.
But, [clears throat] yeah, there
[2:11:10] shouldn't have been anything allocated
in this budget for ghost positions. No,
[2:11:14] I think we went through it all trying to
comb.
[2:11:18] So, but I guess we can see why there was
a jump.
[2:11:22] You know, in these last seven, is it
seven years?
[2:11:25] Basically six years.
>> it was started in 2022.
[2:11:29] I think it's when the pool closed from
the county.
[2:11:32] » I have a note that says, "Was there a
corresponding decrease from 2022-2023
[2:11:36] in personnel lines
with the removal of the three
[2:11:40] lifeguards, the recreational attendant,
and the part-time cleaner?"
[2:11:44] Cuz that those dollars should have been
removed.
[2:11:47] » Yep.
>> That's the question.
[2:11:54] Okay.
Meeting, um,
[2:11:57] so Mary, you'll
want to email You want to email that to
[2:12:01] us?
>> Uh,
[2:12:03] okay. So, basically you want to know
what the how the progression of the
[2:12:08] positions went along with the costs in
2019 2019 until now.
[2:12:13] Basically.
>> Yeah, basically. And And was there a
[2:12:16] when the pool closed in that 2022, were
those corresponding
[2:12:20] um positions
cost dollars, those dollars removed?
[2:12:26] » The only thing I would ask is
when was the last time the pool was
[2:12:29] open?
>> Well, we had it open briefly one summer,
[2:12:33] so I think it was this 2022-2023.
>> It was only open one year post COVID,
[2:12:38] right?
>> Yeah, we had one summer.
[2:12:40] » It was 2011.
>> We had
[2:12:45] » It's all right.
>> Post COVID we had one summer.
[2:12:48] » I just guessed John, and that's why I
went back that kind of
[2:12:52] We can keep going.
>> Okay. Committee reports, we have none. I
[2:12:55] make a motion to adjourn. Do I have a
second?
[2:12:57] » Seconded by Alderman Klein. All in
favor?
[2:12:59] » Aye.
>> Opposed?
[2:13:01] » Opposed.
>> Do we know who
[2:13:03] » Thank you.
>> One opposed.
[2:13:06] » One.
>> Call the order of the City Operations
[2:13:08] Committee. Let the record show that all
members are present. I'll make a motion
[2:13:11] for the approval of the minutes from
Tuesday, May 19th. Do I have a second?
[2:13:16] Sorry. Seconded by Alderman Stachon. All
in favor? Opposed? Carried. Unfinished
[2:13:21] business, ash tree reimbursement issue.
Jim, this one was up for just the
[2:13:25] question that was on that ash tree, was
it inventoried in the city's ash tree
[2:13:30] report?
>> Great.
[2:13:33] And unfortunately, I haven't solved that
part of the rule yet. I do have an
[2:13:37] update for you
that I got from the staff while I was
[2:13:40] out on vacation, but
that specific part is an entirely
[2:13:45] different issue.
Um
[2:13:47] so, the ash tree capital fund currently
has $37,247
[2:13:53] in it.
Um
[2:13:56] and we have currently identified a total
of eight dead or dangerous ash trees
[2:14:02] that are in the public space.
Um so, we certainly have enough funding
[2:14:08] available once we have a a a tree
contractor for the new fiscal year,
[2:14:13] and enough funding available to address
the ones that are identified as as
[2:14:19] dangerous.
>> Yeah, and I have a question. So, you
[2:14:21] have
>> Yep.
[2:14:22] » You said eight that are dying in the
public space.
[2:14:26] » Yes.
>> Correct?
[2:14:28] So, where are you going to find those
public spaces?
[2:14:31] » Uh
So, we have two in the public
[2:14:34] right-of-way,
two in Gargoyle Park,
[2:14:37] um
>> My question was you were I was asking.
[2:14:40] So, you're including the right-of-ways.
>> Yes.
[2:14:42] » Yes, that's all.
Thank you.
[2:14:44] » Great.
Um
[2:14:47] So, we have that. We have the RFP. The
RFP is actually uh been released for the
[2:14:53] new tree removal contractor.
So, hopefully we'll have that contractor
[2:14:58] uh much sooner than we did last year.
Um
[2:15:04] Now, as far as the
question about who did we reimburse
[2:15:09] what, and do we need to
refund
[2:15:12] um certain homeowners,
I can tell you that we have 13 ash trees
[2:15:17] that were removed from the public
right-of-way in fiscal '25 and '26.
[2:15:22] Um or fiscal '25, '26.
>> How many was it again? I'm sorry.
[2:15:25] » 13.
But, I did not get a breakdown of where
[2:15:29] all those were, and what reimbursements
we made,
[2:15:33] or whether we carried the cost.
So, I will put my staff back on that,
[2:15:39] and just send that out to you in an
email.
[2:15:42] » That would be great. And then, um
also, for burning us, I see you. Um
[2:15:48] how many are on the inventory for
remaining
[2:15:52] not dead or dying? Because I thought
when we did the grant, it was to handle
[2:15:56] all of the ash trees in our inventory.
[2:16:01] » Okay, that number I don't have right
here. The last I had heard, we had we
[2:16:06] believed 60.
So, just doing the math backwards,
[2:16:10] we should still have like 52
healthy ash
[2:16:15] » Okay, if I'm not mistaken,
Vernon or John, somebody may remember,
[2:16:19] but I believe that we ended up
inventorying the entire county saying
[2:16:23] that we were just going to do it all
because that was the
[2:16:26] » Yep.
>> direct.
[2:16:26] » That was the goal.
>> Okay.
[2:16:28] » 170,000
and whatever we did was supposed to take
[2:16:31] care of every single ash tree in
the city.
[2:16:35] » and then forward.
So, then your next update and then run
[2:16:38] out of will include the not just kind of
that, but also those 13, who paid for
[2:16:43] them?
>> Yeah.
[2:16:46] » Okay, Vernon.
>> Yeah, this is spiraling. Um we we
[2:16:51] started with this months ago because we
learned that there was one resident. All
[2:16:56] we were looking for is to find out about
the one resident. Yet, every time we
[2:16:59] talk about this, no one writing anything
down. We have a video that's recording
[2:17:04] everything. No one's going back to we
come back and we still don't have
[2:17:08] information. Again, this proves what I
stated earlier and what I said. So, now
[2:17:13] we know that it wasn't just one, but
there's 13. That's troubling. So, I'm
[2:17:19] I'm just I would just like to know
if I mean, for the sake of I mean, for
[2:17:23] the sake of transparency, if we owe
these people this money, then we should
[2:17:27] reimburse it. If not, then the money
that was used from the previous, just
[2:17:32] that one person, that money came from
one fund, it should have came from the
[2:17:36] other.
That's all I was asking and that it
[2:17:39] really wasn't innocent thing. I didn't
know it was going to turn into months
[2:17:42] and months of of this. So, at this
point, hey, I feel bad for that
[2:17:46] resident. They they probably Who knows?
I'm not even going to say about
[2:17:50] » I get your
I get your point. I get your point,
[2:17:52] Vernon. I mean, I agree with you and I'm
just I get your point. I just My belief
[2:17:57] is that this money should be reimbursed.
I mean, clearly they just added that
[2:18:00] into that right away that right that
right away into that inventory.
[2:18:04] Uh Amy?
>> Well, I asked specifically that very
[2:18:07] question. Is there someone that is
that is asking to be reimbursed? And the
[2:18:13] answer I got was no, there is no one
that is being asked to be reimbursed
[2:18:19] that had it in their subway. So, does
anyone have a formal complaint or did
[2:18:25] someone contact you?
>> I don't know.
[2:18:28] So, when you get the capital fund rates,
uh when Lens provided that information
[2:18:33] to us, in that information in the packet
he gave us,
[2:18:36] there was
uh money removed from the capital fund.
[2:18:40] When we asked what that was in reference
to, it was mentioned that that was a
[2:18:44] resident that paid their portion
uh and we paid the other half. So, then
[2:18:48] the question became, right? So, then the
question became
[2:18:52] if that was an ashtray, it was part of
the inventory, and we already set money
[2:18:56] aside for that, should that resident be
paying for the removal of the tray?
[2:19:01] We know that the policy states that the
resident pays half, but if we had money
[2:19:05] set aside for that ashtray to be
removed, the resident should not have to
[2:19:08] pay for that.
We already had money set aside.
[2:19:11] » Does your did the TL say including
subway or did it just say
[2:19:16] parts?
>> All All we got in our information was
[2:19:20] the typical blanket information.
>> City it was just the generic generic
[2:19:24] ashtrays, and I think we are on the
when you ask the PPW director, we asked
[2:19:30] them.
>> Lens said city owned, correct?
[2:19:32] » City owned, yes, which was not
>> So, then So, thank you. So, if it was
[2:19:38] city owned, right? So, that means that
there isn't an issue with the
[2:19:44] resident that paid the money. The issue
is now the money came from the wrong
[2:19:49] fund.
So, if it was not this one, then it was
[2:19:52] going to be this one. So, either way,
money had to be moved. It was just a
[2:19:54] matter of were we going to pay the
resident
[2:19:57] » Let me just ask this to maybe clarify.
So, regardless of what variety of trees
[2:20:02] in the subway, whether it's an ash or an
oak, we share 50% of the responsibility
[2:20:08] because it's public right-of-way, so to
speak, right?
[2:20:11] So, following that concept, I I would
think that whatever PL was
[2:20:18] passed for the removal of ash trees,
unless it says also subway, if it just
[2:20:24] says we need to remove them from our
park spaces, city-owned properties,
[2:20:30] maybe the clarification should just be
that
[2:20:33] » No.
>> It didn't include that.
[2:20:35] » a second. Cuz it says city-owned, and
actually
[2:20:39] number or letter C
sitting here has also not been
[2:20:44] reconvened, and part of the question in
that is who owns the right-of-way.
[2:20:49] Because questions in the past is
when it's convenient for the city, I own
[2:20:54] it as the right-of-way. When it's
not convenient for the city, you know,
[2:20:58] or vice versa, you know, then we do
that. So, to your point about the the
[2:21:02] city-owned right-of-way, well, now we're
just the city is just shirking
[2:21:05] responsibility and say, cuz I maintain
you put it there.
[2:21:09] You should be responsible for it. We
also said in the previous administration
[2:21:13] about trees in the subway, we said we're
not doing it anymore, but yet we're
[2:21:16] still doing that. We also have codes
that say no permanent things in the
[2:21:19] right-of-way. Tree's pretty permanent.
So, we have all these codes talking
[2:21:23] about this stuff. So, but it says
city-owned, and I believe to to your
[2:21:28] question, the ash tree was kind of
something different. That's why we also
[2:21:33] allotted money to take down not dying
and dead trees. It was an ash tree
[2:21:38] thing. So, I would just be prepared to
say just, you know, that person should
[2:21:42] just have, unless you can show that the
13, those people all went halvesies and
[2:21:47] the ash tree didn't do it, just refund
their money and then it comes out of the
[2:21:50] ash tree fund.
>> No, but they're they just answered it.
[2:21:52] They said that it was it was uh
right away. So, if that was the case,
[2:21:57] we'll we'll just roll with that. If it's
right away, that means that that money
[2:22:00] should not have come out of the ash tree
fund, it should have come out of the
[2:22:04] other fund that we use for trees.
>> Is that right?
[2:22:07] » And that means money needs to be
transferred from the one tree fund to
[2:22:11] the other to reimburse because you're
just going to come to us and say, "Hey,
[2:22:14] we're short X amount of dollars for
these trees." Well, that's because you
[2:22:17] just used the wrong fund for the wrong
treatment.
[2:22:20] » You feel that?
>> So, that's where I was going with that.
[2:22:22] It's either this person is reimbursed or
we need to transfer the money back to
[2:22:26] the proper fund. That's all it was. It
was it really was a minor living with
[2:22:30] 1,900 bucks or something like that or
but I mean, hey, I'm good. I don't do
[2:22:34] the audits here. Right.
I'm good.
[2:22:39] We can we can we can literally just drop
it.
[2:22:41] » [clears throat]
>> And and be done with
[2:22:43] » I did that get that answer. I mean, it
makes sense by you, but I mean, if we
[2:22:47] were allocating money for the ash tree
removal, then why were they charged
[2:22:51] themselves? They're just going to come
to us for more money.
[2:22:53] » [clears throat]
>> So, the whole question was
[2:22:57] were the true ash trees in the subway or
your way included in the overall count?
[2:23:05] If we know that answer, we know the
other.
[2:23:08] » Mhm.
>> That's all we need to know. Is were the
[2:23:11] ash trees in the subway in the right
away
[2:23:14] counted in the total number of trees
that we were looking to take down with
[2:23:19] that money? That's that's actually that
answers the question.
[2:23:24] » I believe it was.
If you could confirm that.
[2:23:28] » That's all we need to know cuz then we
can figure out the answer.
[2:23:30] » says, "I believe that it was in all
public spaces, parks, right of way, city
[2:23:35] properties, all
city owned."
[2:23:38] » I thought I thought they just I mean,
didn't Giant didn't they go all over the
[2:23:42] city?
>> Yes, they
[2:23:43] » I I thought they did.
>> They walked up and down streets.
[2:23:45] [clears throat]
>> Every last tree. They took months.
[2:23:47] » They went and did a They went and did an
inventory and they went and did an
[2:23:50] inventory of the entire city. Drove the
streets, went to the park, went to any
[2:23:56] lot you own, the city owns, and they
inventoried every single one of them.
[2:24:01] That was included in that.
>> So, if that was included, then we owe
[2:24:06] that resident their cash back. That's
what I'm hearing.
[2:24:09] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:24:11] » Make sure.
[2:24:17] So, you can have that by the next
committee meeting, Jim?
[2:24:21] » I I'll have it tomorrow, ma'am.
>> Please, Stephanie.
[2:24:26] Paperless water bills. Vernon, was this
you?
[2:24:29] Or what what was it? Amy, did you put
this on?
[2:24:31] » Um yeah. So,
So, we were coming up with a plan. The
[2:24:35] the fee for sending people water bill is
in the mail. How it's, you know, a sort
[2:24:41] of
uh
[2:24:43] a thing that we want to get away from
because you can do everything online.
[2:24:47] You can uh
check your water bill, you can set up
[2:24:51] your payment plan, all those things. So,
moving forward, we're we're going to be
[2:24:58] sending we'll close we'll be sending out
starting July 1st with the
[2:25:03] uh water bills.
This additional flyer, which will not
[2:25:07] cost anything but the but the paper and
the printing, we want to add another
[2:25:12] public service announcement to that.
Um we're still figuring out what that
[2:25:18] might be, but we think it might be
please disconnect your uh downspouts
[2:25:24] because that will be part of our consent
order. So, we want to do both things at
[2:25:27] once to let everyone know.
So, basically, this is what we're
[2:25:31] proposing so that they have July bill,
August bill, and then they make the
[2:25:36] decision. If they haven't gotten to us
by then to say, "I just want to go
[2:25:41] paperless, save a buck, keep the paper,
whatever. If they If we don't hear from
[2:25:47] them, they'll continue to get their
water bill, but then there's the dollar
[2:25:51] fee, which is to cover postage. As we
know,
[2:25:55] we exceeded our postage, and
you know, um
[2:25:58] this is a normal occurrence in the
industry of everything, pretty much,
[2:26:04] including municipalities. We're just
sort of late to the game.
[2:26:08] » So, what do you need next from us?
>> Uh I don't really need anything. I just
[2:26:12] wanted to show it and share it.
And and and so that you're familiar with
[2:26:16] it, in case anyone should call you, what
what does it mean? It just simply means
[2:26:20] they have to be proactive to make
change, so that they save their buck.
[2:26:25] And if they want to just continue as is,
then you're basically looking at $12
[2:26:30] a year to continue to get your uh
bill in the mail.
[2:26:36] » Looks great.
>> Okay.
[2:26:38] » That's all I was going to say. Looks
great. I like it. I'm not a tree hugger,
[2:26:42] but this is something that I believe we
should be doing.
[2:26:46] » Yeah, I think we can do that.
>> Yeah.
[2:26:52] » [clears throat]
>> Are you good with that, Jamie?
[2:26:55] » What's that?
>> You good?
[2:26:56] » Yeah, that was good. As far as everybody
else is good, I'm good.
[2:27:00] » And then we're going to advertise early.
>> Yep, it's going to July Jerry and I, our
[2:27:05] goal is July 1. The water bills go out,
they're going to get it July, they're
[2:27:09] going to get it August, and then it will
not start happening until I guess
[2:27:14] September, that they'll be
charged a dollar.
[2:27:16] » Socials, too.
>> What's that?
[2:27:18] » Socials.
>> Social media.
[2:27:19] » Oh, yeah, and social media.
>> [clears throat]
[2:27:22] » Thank you. Jared, just I just like to
make a comment now.
[2:27:25] I I know there's no vote on this, this
sounds like it's already a done done
[2:27:28] deal, but I am against that. Uh
and I brought this letter that I got
[2:27:32] from Community Bank
back in April, stating that starting
[2:27:35] given coupons out, we're going to be
mailing you
[2:27:38] uh your your billing statement, your
loan statement
[2:27:42] via mail no additional charge.
And it's like
[2:27:46] I think the residents [snorts] in the
only end pay taxes that's that and the
[2:27:50] water
water has a huge surplus in it and I
[2:27:54] know it's only $12 a year and it's kind
of petty to be bitching about $12 a year
[2:27:59] but it's just just the principle that I
mean what else are you going to nickel
[2:28:03] and dime our taxpayers for?
Uh and postage is what? Uh 70 cents?
[2:28:08] It's what is it 70 cents? We're charging
a dollar so we're charging them 30 cents
[2:28:11] too much.
[2:28:16] » Well, I would argue by the time you put
staffing costs and stuff in there that
[2:28:20] we're probably
>> All right.
[2:28:22] » losing 12 cents an hour so
>> Duly noted.
[2:28:24] Um
all right. Finally, C is the
[2:28:28] right-of-way committee. Jim, it's
imperative that we get this. It was the
[2:28:32] ad hoc committee with Jay Spano, myself,
and then Joe. Can we please get some
[2:28:36] dates so we can start kind of talking
about these issues that kind of keep
[2:28:41] coming around with the right-of-way.
There was a lot of issues in the past.
[2:28:45] There was some stuff for the
clarification, permitting, etc. So, can
[2:28:49] we get that going?
[2:28:56] » Well, I was going to say frame this out
for me. Something that already you had
[2:29:00] established but you haven't met,
haven't had any meetings.
[2:29:04] » It's yes.
It was established. It's not There's
[2:29:07] nothing Jim to be answered but there's
no new appointment. It was just It was
[2:29:10] in a committee created from here to work
with two council members and and at the
[2:29:14] time it was Ben Slotman.
>> And
[2:29:18] so, we're on monthly meetings?
Is it quarterly meetings? What What do
[2:29:22] you like?
>> Just get one set up and then we can keep
[2:29:26] it going and kind of get these things
The idea was not to cause issues. The
[2:29:30] idea was to get the code to mask cuz
there's many things in there
[2:29:34] where there's things that aren't right
or they
[2:29:37] contradict each other in terms of like
permitting process. Like who does this
[2:29:41] then, you know, you give them a permit
the code enforces the code and then
[2:29:45] there's something else contradicts that.
So it's
[2:29:47] to work together and try to clarify all
that stuff. To take out all of that
[2:29:51] ambiguity and get it streamlined.
>> Yeah, our goal was
[2:29:55] » In the codes, in the process and and
everything. Like where do they go for
[2:29:58] this permit? Like it says it says to go
here for this one but this one and so
[2:30:03] it's it's there's a lot of just issues.
>> Okay.
[2:30:07] » That's that's all it is. It's not some
big
[2:30:10] thing where it's, you know, a war. It's
just we're trying to figure out all the
[2:30:14] issues the BM and try to fix them.
That's what the role was.
[2:30:18] » And who do you want included in within
that?
[2:30:21] » It's just Joe, me and it was just Joe,
me and Jim. It was really just it's
[2:30:26] informal like a work
thing. That's it.
[2:30:31] » A work group.
>> Sure.
[2:30:34] » Okay.
Work session.
[2:30:36] » Work session.
>> A real think tank. All right.
[2:30:40] Um
No new referrals, no committee reports,
[2:30:43] motion for adjournment. Second.
>> Second.
[2:30:46] » Zack, are you on the line?
Are you on there? Can I get back to
[2:30:49] » No, I'm not even on your screen.
>> Zack, are you on the line? Say yeah. All
[2:30:52] those in favor? All right. Opposed?
>> I should have left.
[2:30:57] I told her to leave.