[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.

City Of Olean Common Council Meeting (06/09/2026)

Transcript