Common Council, Informal Meeting

1. 0:02Thank you. That's correct. Thank you very much. Sorry for today. >> So, are you seeing people drawing again? >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. >> Um, all right. Our attorney client session is closed. We were discussing two um uh assessment issues, one for libraries and one for planning and uh that's what that was about. So now we
2. 1:07are going on to uh reports from committees. Um so can we get an update from uh legal does not meet but can we get an update from uh safety uh infrastructure and services infrastructure are you just >> yes go ahead okay uh we met a meetings over today. Um, everyone was in attendance. Uh, explained that the city's feeds permit which is related to sewer and uh, specifically overflows and effluent from the waste treatment plant. um is due for renewal and there stricter requirements.
3. 2:11There's going to be a complicated system to try to lower the amount of chlorine that is residual and leaving the uh the facilities typically headed towards the the river. Um going to be an ongoing process to try to meet that. There's going to be some treatment. it it's substantially lowering and so there's going to have to be treatment with chlorine they'll use chlorine they'll treat chlorine it'll be reduced it'll be and so they're they're going to need some engineering help that's just looking down the road um probably a little bit on the infrastructure project that is going to begin maybe this fall um we wanted to point out that at the intersection of herd Then Columbia, there's going to be a mammal that is 20 ft deep. You dig 20 ft deep. Just continuing to emphasize the amount
4. 3:15of excavation that's going to be done. Um he showed us all all the sidewalks on Columbia Street are going to disappear. I don't know if people been I don't think people have been contacted yet. The sewers are going to connect to their homes. There's going to be tons of excavation going be a major disruption to um oh me dam in in churchtown needs an eval engineering evaluation and um something he's working on that will also cost money. So, uh, in the past we've discussed striping on streets with more than 6,000 vehicles a day. We discussed it at the legal committee, Ken T and I think some of the other members, Margaret. Um, so Rob uh priced uh I listed the streets. he came up with
5. 4:20an estimate of $4,200 a year to strike those streets with both yellow and white stripes. And um I'd like to work with either the finance committee or the BDA to make that happen. And I don't >> be an annual cost of 4100. >> That's what he says. And um we'd like he says we restripe every year. I'm I don't know where my ceiling hangs, but I did see an invoice from last year from 2025 of just under $6,000 that DPW did pay for striking. So, um there is currently a $7,000 line item in its budget and would like to increase that and it'll happen through the VA process. I did talk to Heather. I don't think I know a way to make this absolutely a recurring annual thing, but if anyone else does, when Rob does. Yeah, I don't know why I made
6. 5:23um and I think that's it. >> Safety, >> uh safety was a really fun meeting. Um uh we had a nice quiet month so far with fire. Uh they touched on the bomb threat at the hospital from I think it was Flag Day. Maybe it was Pride Day. [clears throat] Uh which I don't think anybody really knew about. Uh the new truck supposed to be here the end of July hopefully. Uh we moved on to safety which is sorry HPV uh and we had some pretty fruitful discussions on um our lacking code for bicycles and escooters um any electronic mobility device really. Um, and it highlighted our outdated language in the code. Um, leaving us pretty much wide open to
7. 6:26litigation if there hopefully never is an incident, but something we as a council need to address. I know you've taken that on through your load of work. Um, and we touched again on the escooter business. Um, sent it back to Joe. He's trying to get a meeting with us. Um, and really not a lot of activity in town, which is pretty good. Uh, I think actually, yeah, we have the we had the bicycle um event for safety and awareness at Oakill. I did not hear any followup, but I'm assuming it went relatively well. uh any communication between the city and the public on safety of mobility is encouraged and um I think we're doing a pretty good job. I think that's about it. Oh, we had code enforcement. I'm sorry. We touched on chickens mostly. Um and signage. It is
8. 7:31still illegal to post any signage on city property, street poles, um, street lamps, that is actually against code. Uh, so, and it's littering. Let's try not to. Uh, and we touched on the chickens and hopefully we can revisit that a lot at the committee meetings and, uh, clean it up a little bit. >> Okay, >> I think that's it. uh services. >> Yeah. So, um it was informal. We had no quorum. So, it was informal. So, um basically, you know, the senior center is still without a commissioner. Uh as of Friday, I think uh Mayor Harris said he might have someone. Uh but that's still in the works. Um the Jen has taken some great initiative to go over to the senior center to see what we can do. Do you want to just give
9. 8:33brief update? >> Uh sure. I I I pretended I was an older person and I went online [laughter] >> to just try and figure out what was going on with the senior center. And when you actually search online, we can find very little. So I physically went there and I also called the county um to see what they were doing and um I compiled a list of all the things that were there actually all the activities that are available. Um I think we can do a lot better and we uh Dominic put together a wonderful survey. I took the survey down to Nicholas Towers. Um, and Leticia, who runs things in the office down there, is going to make sure that all the um, people in the building know about the survey. And I'm going to write to the mayor's office tomorrow and give them a digital copy so that they can put it on the Hudson hub. I'm also going to
10. 9:37talk with people at Crossman's and at Providence Hall to try and get them to fill out the survey as well. So, it's about the survey is about transportation and um the kind of activities that people would like to see at the senior center. >> Thanks. And then the uh youth you youth department um he did give a June report early. He didn't have anything writing and I apologize. He said he was going to send it and I guess he didn't. Um and um camp started uh the week uh July 5th. So, I'm sure we're going to get an update uh next month. Uh there was no real um issues in terms of, you know, they just did some closing out for June and getting the camp ready in terms of um staff being hired. Uh and um I think they had over 120 uh individuals signed up for for camp. So, uh I'm sure we're going to get an update on um camp and the activities. I do know that in the
11. 10:41first couple days I think they were cancelled due to the weather. Um so we'll probably give an update on how it's catching. That's basically it. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? >> All right. So this evening we have uh three resolutions that we ask you to vote on. Um the first is a resolution that we actually passed last month. However, it was lacking um a couple of This is the code important officer. It had some blanks that needed to be filled in with regards to uh funding uh for this position for the full-time officer. As we all remember, we had someone retiring and was bringing on a full-time person. Um so, any questions on this resolution? The only difference from what you approved last month is that um the mayor's office filled in and the uh filled in the blanks on the dollar. Any questions? So, can we have a vote? >> Second.
12. 11:45>> Excuse me. >> Second. >> So, can I get a motion to vote on this uh on this resolution? A second. Jenny, a second. Uh, no. >> Adam. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Sarah. >> Hi. >> Oscar. >> Hi. >> Roberts. I cousin. Hi. Moren. Hi. >> [snorts] [clears throat] >> Um, all right. So, that has passed. Our next uh resolution is a uh budget amendment. >> Uh, excuse me. >> So, the next is a budget amendment uh in
13. 12:48the amount of $13,500. This is authorizing the 2026 amendment to cover anticipated legal fees for the remainder of 2026. Uh we at this point um the 80,000 that was originally budgeted for 2026 has been depleted. That's at the the city level of of um planning for uh legal costs. Uh we'd have estimates from [clears throat] uh planning board attorney uh and from uh zoning board uh and the historic preservation in the amount of uh and also the labor attorney for the balance of the year 15,000 70,000 75 7,500 and 11,000. Uh, in order to cover these estimates, we need to make a budget amendment of $13,500 from the fund balance to increase revenue. Any questions? Hang on.
14. 13:50>> Our total budget would be $183,500. This is an addition. >> This this 103 is in addition to Yes, we are moving 103,000 from the compulsion. Any questions? >> Board is fixed. >> Is that due to litigation? >> Some of it's litigation. Uh some of it, you know, we have we have invoices here this evening that that gone through to the planning board. Some of it gets paid through uh escro, so that's not a concern. But there is some litigation in here. There's also some litigation relating to assessments. Um there were a number of those. Uh you know, that's [clears throat] that's part of it. Are there any changes that the plan
15. 14:51board can make so that we don't incur as much of the future or we have to stay legal legal services? I think um perhaps we should have a discussion with the mayor's office and the planning board uh from the finance committee to talk about what we can do to rein in some of the cost and last year our budget shortfall was $140,000. So we're looking at taking another category fund balance this year short 13,000 line item on the space point of actually talking now about 183. So, I think that's a good suggestion. Um, I have reviewed this with Heather.
16. 15:55>> I don't know if Heather's online or not. >> Yes. >> Heather, do you want to speak to this? >> Not particularly. I mean, I I I don't think any of us are particularly happy about it, but I also don't see that we have much of a choice short of trying to, you know, as we go forward reduce the amount of activities that are causing litigation against the city. But, you know, we we are in the middle of things and those things are not going to magically go away and those things require legal advice and assistance. So, you know, unfortunately, I think that's where we are in this. >> Okay. So, comments from the public. I thought I thought I saw >> um Yes. See, let's see. My name is Josh Kip from Mil Street. Um we're looking to uh fund the attorney on the fight for
17. 16:58that project. Correct. >> Is that my understanding? the uh you're talking about the litigation. >> No, that's one of many things that are interest. So, this goes across litigation uh support for the planning board, the zoning boards. >> Well, we're continuing to fight that. Wouldn't it be wouldn't our money be better spent trying to get out of the fact that we approved to build on, you know, state park land or city park land? I'm not sure how we label that. Uh >> I don't know. I oppose to uh funding them more to fight this issue >> myself. I'm Lia Wel Street and I just wanted to say publicly I guess that we did meet um in March to try to come up with some kind of settlement and nothing didn't happen and this was one of the reasons why we met on in March was to discuss a plan of settlement because we didn't
18. 18:00want to pay any more of our tax moneyies in litigation for this lawsuit. And so I want you guys to keep that in mind too as moving forward. Like you are in the middle of a lawsuit. We've been paying out of our pockets um to fight this. And so please take that in consideration because we're all exhausted of our money. And we're actually paying twice because we're paying our own lawyer fees and then we're paying our taxes which is also fighting against us. So please consider that. Ch clarification what is the actual deficit for the revenue expenses for 20 over the past year is this year >> uh I don't have those numbers in front of me speaking about the scope of this particular resolution >> but no I put I heard a mention of a different number and I understand it's 400,000 can can you clarify that >> Lloyd what I heard was someone was talking about what is the difference between where we want the fund balance and where the fund balance is. So it's
19. 19:03not the deficit of revenue. >> Well, I'm asking specifically about the deficit. >> No, but I'm clarifying what you heard. >> Well, okay. >> So, can I ask about the deficit just >> I think that's outside the scope of this particular resolution. We're simply addressing we're simply addressing the need to add additional fund balance to cover legal expenses for the balance of the year. Uh there are no other questions on that topic >> and I have a Oh, do you have another question? >> Right. Um >> can you identify person? >> I don't absolutely be. I'm I'm a resident of the first board and I have a question for the common council pursue and that is first to have the bill be independently audited by an outside attorney. it seems very high compared to other equally sized towns with a larger number of planning board activities. That's the first point. The second point is while most of this um is held um in client privilege surely the public should know the ratio
20. 20:07of how much is spent on every issue. And I think before we vote to spend, you know, an entire city block tax revenue for the year pursuing very non-frivolous litigation that survive all motion, all motion of this, but you know, it's a very strong case, not a criminalist, we should first um look at what's the source of it. So, for example, was this the mayor signing a single contract? Was this um someone slipping on the side? Was this someone being bent by and I think um we are now on track to having $20 million budget for the first time in the city in the city's history which is stunning because three times neighboring towns with the same population. And so I uh think it is in the interest of taxpayers and of your voters to poll to get data and see how much do they spend so that taxpayers are not pursuing bad legal strategies that do not help
21. 21:11the greater good. So in reviewing the invoices every month that is something that I do to see exactly what these invoices are for. I didn't go through every uh well she did go through all of the legal invoices. Um I'm sorry. Uh so we have invoices from uh those relate to uh historic preservation that is there that was 133 uh that was specific to I think it was two months worth of uh work with historic preservation. They usually had fairly low dollar amount. There was also monies for uh zoning board of appeals in the amount of 175. Um then I looked at the invoices from um Mr. Ryan's firm. Uh there was $90 for foil. Uh 1687 for Mil Street litigation, 13 for a um collective. I don't know what that particular piece is. Then
22. 22:16there was 630 for another litigation relating to the waterfront. Um then a couple of other items. Zoning board of appeals, planning board professional services was 897. Um so yes, I mean I do go through >> I mean you obviously very diligent council president. That's not what I get what you're saying. Yeah, but just not by board by issue and all other litigation I reviewed that is not privileged and it's very irregular that the city has not released that not the same ruling um is is the first issue and the second like having it reviewed a different like by an attorney. I >> I understand I'm simply you asked a question and I'm simply giving you the information from this month's review of everything that came in. I go through everything to see exactly where it lives on and precisely the concern that you have and I'm looking particularly at a much spending on assessments for example. Um so that is our job. Our invoices are all available in the clerk's office for review certainly by
23. 23:19any member of the county council. You would have to check with the clerk's office to see if they are in fact to be reviewable by members of the public. I do not know but I know that we're always on fire in the heart's office and they're very much but I I get your point. Uh I would myself like to put a spreadsheet together that lists five level topics and just keeps a tracker across the year as exactly what we're spending our money. I don't think it's in one reason. >> Yeah. Sorry. If you want to um just one sentence if any of the council members today can tell us the ratio of how much we have spent on planning board actions amongst the planning board cases. Please tell us now I I can't give you any right. >> Um yeah just that so tonight we don't typically vote and I'm thinking about what do we need to approve to get them paid. Why is it tonight? Okay, I
24. 24:25sent you all an email um I guess about a week ago saying that we were moving the bills to be voted on at the informal meeting up from the former because some of the bills in our old uh thing sequence. They were being voted on um in the third week of the month and because of the shift and you know the departments have over time got things organized so that they know when the votes are coming in. So that that was all time and having discussed it with the clerk's office and the treasurer uh makes sense since we can't vote to simply move it back up to this evening so that we can vote on the clearance. The reason we have these resolutions with uh transfers is because we're voting on the bills and we don't have the money to pay the unless we do these that's why we're doing >> this from Mil Street. I just wanted to say I don't support this resolution. I find it I found it personally offensive
25. 25:27that we organized a settlement conference with the city and we heard nothing back. We've offered to settle our case and we heard nothing back. And when I say nothing, I mean no yes, no, maybe or counter offer. Nothing. We offered that with the goal of settling the case and limiting everyone's exposure to endless litigation. My understanding is that the mayor is in charge of the litigation strategy and from my perspective there is no litigation strategy. When I asked about the case last week or last month when it came up, it didn't seem like the council had been informed as to the status of litigation or the issues involved. And so I asked that you not approve uh an invoice that extends litigation that has no strategy. I I may I just make one comment >> just FYI, there's a lot of these invoices that have nothing to do with registration. Yes, he wants to do this part, but just we have other problems. >> Um I don't I'll speak for myself, but I wasn't informed last month. I don't
26. 26:31think anybody on the council was informed. I don't think Margaret was informed. So there is a You're not wrong. We are not being told what the mayor's strategy is. Possibly because there isn't one, >> but >> well don't know. >> We don't but it's possible. >> We we did on request get a briefing after you came to the to our last meeting. I requested again that we get a briefing from uh the attorney and we did receive said briefing which it was shared with everyone. uh and that you know I have been trying to get that off for some time but yes but we we have been brief and um it was only at the time that uh you brought up your issue that I and I went and researched the issue of whether or not the contract was still current that I discovered that there was in fact an amendment that had been signed. I have not seen that report and I put that on file in the park's office for the time. >> But to the point of this resolution,
27. 27:34this is only a fraction. >> It's a small fraction. >> It's a small fraction of what is on this and it it will impede if we do not advance this fund transfer all the other potential litigation that we're looking at. So >> it's not only one. >> It's not only one. >> It is for all of the attorney fees. >> Yes. all the legal fees that the city faces, not just Mil Street, which I believe is unfair. And yes, you are as a resident of that street essentially paying twice, meaning three times defending yourself and defending yourself against your own tax dollars essentially. But it it does it is not exactly fair on this resolution, but we decide. >> Yeah. Anyway, that's there is a second part of the 70s again. >> Yes, there was one of the ones I read of that was the uh Kiby's waterfront one that Yes, that's also in one of your
28. 28:38>> Yes. Um while you as the atomic council group cannot make certain appointments by controlling the funds of the taxpayers can affect um a just outcome. And so if you use the national analogy if the executive of the country spends money in many ways and the lawmakers of the country do not agree with how 20% of the money is being spent. They have a very long session debating it, reviewing it, cutting things uh before they pass the new budget. This is, you know, we all follow this down and and what you're doing is different from that. Um you're saying, well, surely we all agree that there are some bad apples in this file that we're going to buy, but we're going to say buy all of them because there are some good apples. And I think the moment you do that, you lose a lot of leverage and the people have elected you for balance of power. So, you know, I I won't take more time, but I would encourage you to if there's any if it's possible, take more time and get an independent audit of the time because someone might not be managing the
29. 29:42lawyers very effectively. The few bills that I've seen did not um you know, add up figure. Um and and secondly is um when the city pursues a legal matter that nine out of 10 lawyers for argument sake that the lead they will not win you really have to wonder what is the tradeoff of what else you could be doing and I think what you're seeing here tonight what you're seeing online is that we're saying stand up for the city when the city has been wrong but don't stand up against taxpayers when taxpayers have been wronged and This is an issue that unifies all the all the laws. We have to fight for tax money. It seems to be very odd. So I would take a minute. You can call the lawyers and you can say to them, take 72 hours, hire someone that's not in Columbia County. Hire a good lawyer in Duchess, one of them to say what year was legitimate. >> Any other public comments? >> Um I'm sorry I understand. is the
30. 30:47taxpayers on the amount of the deficit the city has not your main >> okay we're not discussing a deficit uh we're simply discussing this resolution which is taking the money from the fund balance to cover >> yes it's very true >> did this resolution go before finance committee I missed the finance committee >> no this came to us um from the mayor's office and uh I reviewed it with the treasurer. Do you get a breakdown of what are do you get a breakdown when you're in those meetings of like what specifically is in each of the >> So what? >> Um >> I see the I have the resolution up but I'm asking if there's broken down >> the estimates for um the labor attorney were currently in labor contract from the police department. Um Mr. Ryan's company has uh estimated 70,000 that
31. 31:50includes uh planning board taxor attorneys and that includes the assessment stuff uh planning board also go into that it's mitigation um relating both to the two article 78s that we've got. So what the breakout is of that of how much of it is litigation or much of it is standard planning board support I do not know. uh and then 11,000 for historic preservation. So under that mean it's not that we have been having meetings. I got this in this this resolution and so I followed up with the mayor's office and tether to understand exactly why I pulled it when I was reviewing them and said okay I'm not doing anything with this let's discuss it together and so you know I think these are the estimates we've already depleted the 80,000 that the BA allocated for legal services and uh you know we're only halfway through the So, is there more information? We I you
32. 32:52know, we if we do not want to vote on this this evening, we will need to pull some of the bills. I'm not That's where we are. >> Is it possible to revise this tonight? Is there ever done revised numbers? >> Uh divide by six approved. Okay. We we could we could make revisions but the numbers have been arrived up by our treasurer. >> Heather, are you still online? >> I am. >> Hi. So, did you hear Jason's question? >> Uh, I did. I I wouldn't say that the numbers were derived by me. They were derived by interactions between the mayor's office and the clerk's office to request estimates from the various attorneys in terms of how much time they thought they were going to require from now till the end of the year to do the various works that they have been charged with. Um, you know, you as you stated yourself,
33. 33:56you clearly have the ability to change the numbers in that resolution should you want to do so. Um, but I can't really give you guidance on that. I don't know what you're holding in hand in terms of bills that would be delinquent if the budget amendment wasn't addressed. Um, and the fact of the matter and you know, I am not a lawyer. So, you know, um all I can tell you is that I know that the city is in the middle of a variety of different types of litigation covering a variety of ranges of issues. And as far as I know, it's a combination of the mayor's office and the common council that determine if that work is going to go forward. But if we've already committed dollars, you know, I I believe the city is responsible for those dollars. I Heather I can answer uh the first part of the question as to what bills we have in hand that we would not be able to pay without passing this given the funds are
34. 34:58depleted. Uh we have approximately $13,000 in legal fees in this month's uh uh bill summary. Okay. So, uh, I suggest that we cut this for now to, let's say, $50,000 so that then we can take a step back and get a look and get detailed estimates from each of these entities as to what they're basing their estimates for the end of the year on. does that like Heather that 50 would cover this month and hopefully the next two months um but it would give us enough time to actually dig further into exactly didn't let us dig further into the details of how these estimates were arrived and whether or not there's as as uh as uh Rich mentioned you know maybe we talk to meet with the planning board meet with other entities to see how they
35. 36:00can scale back now I can tell you that uh the star preservation I've I did have a detailed conversation with them and they're they're they're building actually very little and there is very you know they are very efficient but I don't see anything there that was $1,300 um for two meetings so you know those meetings quite long um so I don't see anything there but I think probably the big one is is uh planning board and uh it's not just their meetings it's all the other things associated with it. So, Jenny, you have a comment. >> Um, I I would when we are looking at bills from now on, I'd like not just it's usually just the entity that it's going to and it's not the why why >> every dig around in here, but wouldn't it just be nice if it were all just nicely neatly >> every is available for you. The four years that I've been on the council matter in my I I ask him I sit right
36. 37:04next to him. So I ask him, "Can you hand me such and such because I don't know what this is for." >> Yeah. >> But wouldn't it just be nice if it were on the actual resolution >> because some some of these have line items or 20 line items on them? Do you want do you want a resolution with 20 line items for every for everything on this? This is the summary. We have the detail. If you want to look at a particular thing, you just read it and answer your question. That's what I do a month. That's what I've been doing for four years. >> And I have only people and I don't know what some of them is for, but it it just feels like [clears throat] I'm told that it's not to the public, but I don't know how many people are going to run in there and look through all these things. I don't know. I think the bills are appropriation, but when I was commissioner, I had to sign them in person, but I understand how the commissioner signed the bill. >> We do not see any of those. >> I I understand, but I assume all of those >> um as a matter of commission, um the
37. 38:12clerk's office has been terrific and no fault of theirs. there has been a delay in sharing engagement letters in the past in my opinion in a few times and some bills. So actually it's not easy to find out and um and again you guys did not get this problem mostly. So you know don't take this personally but I think just having a simple percentage breakdown by matter and not by law is exceedingly reasonable. Um and um yeah, >> also I would love to for the mayor to come to some of our meetings. He hasn't been to a single county and council meeting since this election. >> Can I see? You could you could request that the attorneys put things in a particular form. >> Everybody has their own way of doing things. And when I do things, I normally have like two columns, two or three columns. Well, in this case, it's just common counseling, but maybe the, you know, the the matter that it relates to and one specific task, but you may get a
38. 39:15very long thing, but you could ask the attorneys to summarize so that there is a simple box that says for this matter >> without having to say every single test like also I do it by day. So, I may do something over three days and it may show up. I may really go into it details, but you could ask the attorneys in their submissions to say >> bottom. Yes, subtotal. this matter we spend a total of this on which would be a lot easier having them produce that because the clerk is going to have a nightmare trying to >> so um what I would like to say how do we feel about reducing to 50,000 so give us all some time to actually dig in is that a reason to remember or are we all okay >> excuse me >> I think we can go lower >> I don't want to put I don't want to put on >> I want to cover at least two months are in our review. Are we going to start challenging line items? I mean, we are >> it's not about the line items. It's about how do they arrive at their estimates? It's not about going back
39. 40:18into the past and challenging line line items. And I do in fact do that. If I look at something and it doesn't make sense to me, I call up and I say, "Hey, >> we need those controls and procedures, but ultimately we're responsible for the entire legal building." >> Okay. So, >> we're kicking the can down the road. >> I do want to say something. I do want to say something here. >> Um, I don't know that very many council members actually review the invoices. Just going to say that you there's a lot of questions about what are we paying for, what is this, what is that? And I took it on myself for the last four years as council me invoices even though we didn't have a finance meeting. I looked them. So if you want to know what's in the courses, they're there. You can look at them. What can I say? But I do think yes, I I think we should get more detail on how where these excellence are coming from. I like the idea of looking at it by getting a category thing with the various
40. 41:20litigations, how much is just for routine planning board work, how much is for litigation, how much is for assessments and so forth. So we have broad categories and we can plan. I think that's a good idea. I'm willing to go for it's fine. I think Jerry's point is it's fine. It's just it's almost you're setting up the process to look into but the number doesn't matter that much. >> Yeah. We we have to revisit this. >> You can separate the two issues. Yes. >> I think is what Jason said. >> So, can we get a motion to amend this resolution? >> Motion to amend. The second from Rich >> to 40,000. >> Now the amendment is going to be that we're going to change this to 40,000. Okay. Can we have a roll? Do we need a roll call on that or one? >> Have a You should have a vote to make the amendment to make the amendment >> on the
41. 42:24>> Okay, good. Anyone Everyone in agreement of making the amendment to 40,000. >> Anyone opposed? >> Sorry, you're opposed. >> I'm opposed. >> Okay, we have one opposed. Anyone else? >> Okay. Uh, so that passes >> real quick because I need a chance to So, in terms of like you said for the estimates, uh, I think that's very valid because most of these if I believe are new attorneys for the city, correct? >> Uh, no. Well, no. So the only new uh firm here, well uh uh Ken is new to us. Well, he's returning. Uh Tabler and Ryan is a new firm. Uh but we have had the same uh labor attorney for a number of years and uh Rodenhousen has been with us for a number of years. They do historic preservation. I'm just curious if having new attorneys here cost is a little bit different than the previous you know treatments that handle those boards but uh that's what
42. 43:28the estimate would come into to compare it to other journeys kind of doing >> that's a valid point >> and if you if you look at the invoices >> and look at the contracts and you look at the hourly rates and what contract pays for compared to previous contracts you will see that there are differences >> thanks I I can summarize them but no two contracts are the same. I think it also depends on how somebody's brain meetings too because of an attorney involved. So the release and and also when I was setting that up uh I was asked what time the attorney should be here and I said don't please just join uh online and we put you at the top of the meeting because I didn't want an hour of time getting here. Yes, there's um one second Gary, but I agree with him that it's not the the council's job to minus information. The software they use, I
43. 44:32just checked is one where you click a button and you get it by issue number, but the attorneys already arranged it not by board but by specific law. So, it'll take no long time to output the data in that way. There's a choice to redact it. That's the first point. The second point, um, we're not asking, by the time I'm not, that we go line by line and micromanage the elected executive. That's not necessarily a job. We are asking you to look at possible conflicts. So, for example, have we used the same council for a long time? Have we bid up the work every two years? I'm not saying this doesn't necessarily happen with Mr. Howard, but hypothetically in Mr. like ours. Someone can sit in a very comfortable seat for a decade, make six figures every year and the the quality of work in say um only parts immigration made up city is going to be low lower in year 10 than in year one. And I'm not saying this is the case here, but there will certainly be a lot more litigation coming down like the road here. So if this is the trend line, then we're going to hit a $21 million
44. 45:36budget next year and not 22. And this is a year before the reassessment. So people care about uh displacement and people's tax bills not going up. It's these days raise their taxes and longtimes get taxed out. >> Excellent. So uh the amendment is to change this to 40,000. Uh Dominic, did are you a yes or a no on the amendment on changing it to 40,000? >> Oh, I I said yes earlier. I think our backs against the wall. We don't want to have others being affected that, you know, >> Yeah. Um Okay. So, uh now we need to vote on whether or not to approve the amendment the resolution as amended to $40,000. Okay. Ready on the amendment resolution? >> Yes. Oh, introducing I'm >> motion is is Henry and second is Mr.
45. 46:43Harris. >> Yes. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Oster Roberts. >> Hi Belton. >> Hi Bolo. Hi Cousin. >> Hi Moranti. >> Hi. >> Okay. So, let me just uh strike through here. Um, we're going to strike this down to 40,000. Sorry. Yeah. All right. Moving right along. Um, [clears throat] that one. Uh, our next resolution. Um this is authorizing um a second budget amendment to cover expenses associated with planning board attorney. Um this is they're estimating 4 hours per
46. 47:46month. Miss Heather, I am going to need to ask you uh the $5400 um there was already money estimated for this is for time professional services. uh this is in addition to the other amendment. Is that correct? >> That is my understanding. My understanding is this is purely for ongoing sort of daily regular work for the planning board and I think some of the reason for that is because they did change to a new attorney. There were um you know a learning curve for the new attorneys that ate up more of the budget than uh was anticipated. And uh the other thing is for litigation which would get charged to a different budget than the planning board budget. >> So the line item on here is not a general uh legal line item. It's specific to the planning board's regular how we basically. Okay. So do we have any questions on this resolution? >> Well, wouldn't that that line item
47. 48:48though is that covered by your escrow? >> No. No. Because not not all uh there there are some uh invoices here that are broker planning board >> um but not everything can be broken down to >> so they you know if they have general discussion and so forth um that can't get broken down >> uh you know so for example um the uh response to our clarification on this on the zoning code um they consult with the attorney on that that's not an espro type thing they're getting advice from their attorney. >> So, can I have a motion to vote if there are no questions on this resolution adding 5400? It's authorizing second 2026 amendment to cover expenses associated with planning board attorney fees. Motion to vote. >> Motion Henry and second is Jason Lawrence. Yes. Hi, >> Hagen. Hi, Rooney. Hi
48. 49:52>> Sarah. Hi Foster Roberts. Helton. Hi >> cousin. >> Hi team. >> Hi. So, we have a couple of additional voting sheets here just in case you needed them, but I don't need to do the next thing we're going to do is um because we went through all that. I didn't get No, you didn't. No, no, my pile. >> Did you get those resolutions that we just spoke about? >> It's stuck in the list. >> No, >> I had Okay. >> Yeah, I didn't see it either. All
49. 51:10right. >> Just curious. >> Sorry. >> Yes. This is the bell sign that was posted. >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anyone got any questions? >> Okay. So, can I have a motion? >> No, no, we're just paying bills. >> Uh, second to pay the bills. Gary and we need a roll call. >> Morris. >> Yes. >> Hi. >> Hagen. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Sarah. >> Hi. >> Foster. >> Hi. >> Robert. Hi >> Belton. >> Hi >> Olo. >> Hi >> cousin. >> Hi >> Moranti. >> Hi. Okay. There you go. So now we have a number of resolutions that we are simply uh going through this
50. 52:15evening. We're not going. Uh first is a uh appointing commissioner of deeds. Uh next is uh designating the register star uh through April 2027 and stop if you have any questions. Okay. Uh next uh which Jason can probably speak to. Uh I did I did review it with um with uh Rob. Uh is the um authorizing direct trans uh it's a funds transfer um in within public works. uh there is transfer from uh building city hall to water codes and then there's a series of 62,000 um and I think it really relates to the purification piece that you were talking about earlier >> but it's the water >> yeah it's it's on the water front so in this particular instance the water is kind of a closed system financially so
51. 53:19everything tallies out at the end this has no impact it's not a budget amendment they were simply moving those funds into um special services from the water fund. Okay, any questions? Um next is uh authorizing the city to accept the treasur's office deposit donations uh to the senior center. Uh this is donation of $530 uh to the senior center using grants and um donations. Next is authorizing the mayor to submit an application uh to New York State Department of Environmental Cons conservation for a climate smart communities implementation grant. Uh this particular resolution relates to um and it does have um this one does have matching. Uh this particular one relates to the sidewalk improvements and streetscape improvements around the the uh public park. Um the total proposed to
52. 54:23be applied for under this grant is 160,000 including a 32,000 city match. So this carries a match. Be aware. Any questions on this? And I do, by the way, the friends of public square, I spoke with uh uh Katherine Mega today. Uh they will be coming. I knew that we had not much space on the agenda tonight, but they will be coming to provide us with an update and um she's aware of this this resolution and wants to review it in terms of how it puts into phase three of the box project which included uh some sidewalk work making aligning it with the size of the sidewalk elsewhere. So, she is following up at the mayor's office on any questions about this one. We will be voting on it next meeting. Okay. The next is the resolution uh to submit an application uh department of state EPF fund for local waterfront LWRP grant. Now I did ask that the mayor to
53. 55:27have someone here this evening uh to speak to us about this. This is one where we are seeking an amount of $200,000 including a 15% 13,000 match. So, Logan, is there anyone on from the U consultants who are working on this particular front? They may be nor is that you? >> Yes. >> Hello. >> Hi there. Can you just introduce yourself and give the uh council some background and very specifically um this is you know we're looking very carefully at anything that requires a match and uh the question that I have posed that I would like to have addressed is what financial benefit is there to the city of doing uh redoing the LWRP. Uh I know that it needs to be updated. I know that it needs to be uh uh it hasn't been touched in some time. However, the last level RP that we did, I believe never finished its way all the way through to getting uh uh accepted by the
54. 56:31state. And so, what about this will be different? >> Sure. Um so, good evening everyone. My name is Norabel Greenberger. I'm a planner with LeBella Associates. Um some background on this. You're correct that the city had last um worked on preparing a local waterfront revitalization plan back in 2011. That was, as my understanding, adopted by the city, but it was never submitted to the state to go through the process to make it an official designated LWRP. Without having that designation, the city is not able to access the substantial implementation dollars that come along with being an LWRP. Um, just some examples, I've seen communities get upwards of $1.2 million for a visitor center. So, it really can be flexible dollars for implementation of items that are in the LWRP plan um that the city's not able to access at this point because it never got through that final step of going to the state
55. 57:34for um approval. Um the funding would allow the city to undertake the full process because of the time that has passed since 2011. So it's been 15 years since that time. The process needs to be entirely revisited in terms of looking at current conditions. Obviously a lot has changed in the city in that intervening time. Um, so this funding request would be to get this process through the finish line so that the city could access those implementation dollars. >> And so to ask my question again, uh, your organization would be working with us to to do the updated LWRP, correct? >> That is not um something that's been determined at this point. So we were simply retained to write the grant application. Um if the city is awarded these funds, the city would go through a competitive RFP process typically. Okay. And then [clears throat] would select a consultant at that point. >> And in that RFP process, um there has to be built into it taking
56. 58:37it all the way to getting it uh registered with the state. >> Exactly. Correct. Yes. Correct. Uh I'm a little gunshy because um we have done things before where you know it just sits on a shop and uh we sp we pay the matching funds for the grant application and there is not necessarily any financial benefit afterwards. Yes. uh made the halls 29 street also planning more member I would also point out that the zoning code is currently incoherent um in in several ways because there is no file that's been like a subject of litigation I believe um and street both have like reference like this is actually there are problems not being filed beyond our inability to get >> that's correct >> um and I think that's an important terms of things. >> That was a part part of the planning
57. 59:39board's deliberations regarding the doc. >> Yeah. Yes. Clear LWRP is good for the city because it I'm not not speaking for anything. I would have been having a clear set of guidelines that we kind of recommend follow. I agree. But last year the planning board asserted that we didn't have enough because it wasn't on the state. >> I agree. And so uh if there's no not much point in us engaging in this activity if we don't actually go all the way through and register that's all you say. >> Any other questions? Okay. >> So there's uh where is just before the therefore does the grant application part of the consolidating funding application the deadline for which is July 31st 2026. Is that accurate? I don't know what you're reading. >> One of the last houses. [clears throat]
58. 1:01:02I I do not I don't know. Can uh uh No, can you speak to that? >> I'm I'm sorry I didn't catch the question before. Can you repeat that? >> The question is the question is on the last whereas the four now therefore be it resolved. It states that the deadline for uh the funding application is July 31st 2026. Is that accurate? >> That is correct. Yes. And so we've been actively working on the grant application, but one of the required components is a resolution of support to include in that application. And so this resolution would be the last key item in order to be able to submit the application. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh our next is our annual um uh night out in Hudson. This year it will be August 4th. We've done this for a couple of years. Any questions on this? Okay. Uh, next is authorizing acceptance of donations to labs in department of youth. Um, uh, and I think that's fairly
59. 1:02:06straightforward. Um, next is long-term cso litigation uh, collection system uh, board authorization W1 funding application. Um, this is this is actually Jason what you talking about earlier. This is the separating uh command sanitary storm systems um and so forth. I believe this is the project you're talking about. >> Yeah, Rob said it's one wants to go for not 100% like wishy-washing weather. It's not a strong case that we'll get it, but if we can get it, it'll be helpful. And >> yeah. >> Okay. Uh next one is um resolution stating the common council's power to authorize sale of real estate. Uh this is resolution that I brought forward. Um and voting directly from section 41.1. Uh no sale or lease um of sale or any franchise uh shall be made or authorized except by
60. 1:03:10voted supporters of the weighted vote. This was back when we had a weighted vote. Now we carry a weighted one. Um whereas uh common council requires that contracts of sale be submitted for review. Uh subsequent substantive change to a contract authorized by the common council is subject to review and federal authorization and that this is consistent with uh chapter 12.7 which states that the common council has the authority to govern city manage uh fairs and provide for the protection, security, welfare of the city, its inhabitants and their property. Uh, so we this is for vote next week. Does anyone have any questions? Go ahead. >> I would love to refer this to legal. I feel like just reading the resolution at face value there are a few different departments that would be affected by this resolution and I would love to hear more from council about what some of those um effects would be. >> Well, can can speak to that? >> Sure. Okay. Well, specifically HCDPA. Um, [clears throat] if that changes, uh,
61. 1:04:15the legal committee hasn't reviewed it. I'm curious if there has been a written legal opinion on this. Um, has have these departments that would be affected by this resolution been notified of something like this or asked how this would change their process and procedure. This is I am simply stating what the current uh what what our current authority is to remind everybody that in fact sale of sitting property requires authorization by the council. >> This is just a statement. This is not asking anything. >> No, it's not changing anything. That's all it is. you have to go back. So it asks should we change the language of the vote of uh three quarter we >> I can go back and well I took that directly what's there I can go back and find um language I just want I you know I didn't want to change because that's what's actually there which is why we also need to be the update I suppose >> yes >> so the questions that I was still asking so this resolution is declaratory it
62. 1:05:19doesn't change correct the process is Is there something that the city has has discovered that makes this verification necessary? >> Yes. The amendment to the contract two things. The contract that was signed in May of 2023 by then mayor Johnson is not the document that this council approved in January of 2023. When I reviewed both documents, I didn't see any glaring substantive differences, but just as a matter of procedure, that should have come back to the common council so that we they say, "Okay, we've made some revisions." And as many of you who were on this council last year and the year before, frequently crystal back, we got some revisions from the resolution, this is the new one, whatever. Uh that did not come back to the council. So, a document was signed that this council did not report. Secondly, the amendment to that contract was a substantive change to the contract that uh well the January contract that we approved that
63. 1:06:23wasn't actually signed but that change in the language for the closing was definitely a substantive change. And so therefore, I thought, let's just be very clear. And by the way, for everybody's information, before submitting this and posting it for tonight's meeting, I sat down with this and showed it to me first uh so that he could see and have any input that he wanted at that time. Um he had no comment and so there it is and it put in security. >> Thank you. >> Any other time, please? So when you say the contract uh that we signed and that was updated, does that also mean the amendment to that contract where half of the funds might is going to the city um school district and not us and we never approve or that's >> discussion. >> Right. So right yeah um okay that's just what I mean one more question. Yes. Um, obviously that's not an exposto type of um resolution, but
64. 1:07:30>> you're um well, this isn't an after the fact decision, so we cannot go back. >> No, we're not going >> and say Mayor Ferris's signature on the Mil Street contract is BS. But >> we're not saying anything other than give us our >> Sorry. >> Should we not also do that? >> If you want to if you want to write a resolution to that effect, you may. I simply wanted to put it on the record as to what our authority is. So I remember what it is and that that's all. >> Yeah, I actually thought we were going to do a resolution to that saying that that is against the charter. It is against what the rule of law is in Hudson. It is a a large substantial book. I keep it with me. It's right here. Um but I did actually think part of this resolution was going to state that we find his signature to be bogus because >> under communication military laws. There
65. 1:08:35is a resolution built into one of the comments, but it's not one of the resolutions we're considering tonight. So, it's in what you're talking about is in communications on our >> Yes, yes, that's correct. Yes, there is. We have communications from >> I didn't finish the communication. >> Yeah, we've got two uh >> I only got time to repart. >> Okay, >> so I think Jack has commenting from the public. Yeah, I'll Jack from Mil Street. I'll comment on this resolution. Um, I think that it's supported by the law based on my research. As you know, last month I brought the issue of the contract expiration to this body. It then went to the mayor. We all found out publicly that this extension had been signed in secret, not filed with anybody, not shared with anybody, not reviewed by anybody. So, that's a problem. That's a problem we all found out together. But, I was looking into this beforehand, and I wanted you to find out, too. So, I read this resolution and I think yes, this is based on the city charter.
66. 1:09:38It's based on the city of Hudson code. It's based on a court case called Hayes v City of Yoners. I continued my research that's in the communications file right now and I think we'll talk about it next week on the agenda because it does include some suggestions, recommendations, and draft resolutions to deal with this situation. But as for this resolution, I just want to say I support it. It's based in the law. The part that I don't support is that it creates an ambiguity of what the nature of that extension, what the legal impact of that extension is. Because if the council presently states that it has the authority to review substantive changes, then that extension as a substantive change is left an open question by passing this resolution. So I would ask that the common council yes the third assert its authority to manage the real property of the city but to do so with specific attention to that extension otherwise that question is just left open and that's its own ambiguity and liability for the city. >> But all this resolution does just declare it was already there. It does. >> My purpose in doing this was to remind
67. 1:10:41us all of what the process is supposed to be >> moving forward. >> Right now, if you you can proceed any way you wish to proceed, but I am simply saying this is the council. >> I'm I'll happily speak to it more next week. >> On the agenda, that's my comment on this resolution. It opens a question without answer. Um, well, I think it makes a statement. I don't think that's a question. >> Code is open to if you would like to submit in a communication an amendment or change or language that you would recommend, feel free to do so. We will consider that. >> Thank you. extensions come up ask the next eight days to review the communication if we can before before taking advice. >> Yes. >> I I'm I'm going I've got to say something here
68. 1:11:44and I'm just coming straight from our own. I'm quoting our charger quote. If we need to to have assistance in understanding that the legislative branch of this city has legislative pardon. What we have been doing for years, every everything that comes to us, every grant application, everything comes our way has to be signed by us. Couple of years ago, there was an attempt to submit an application for a grant which we were not eligible for. uh the mayor's office went ahead and submitted it anywhere. The state came back and said there is no resolution from your council supporting this. We cannot accept this until you get a resolution from your council. If anyone is unclear on this, then go to my next year. >> I I think you misunderstood my call. >> No, I know I Yeah. No, but I'm just I didn't misunderstand your comment and we can get guidance for these people. This
69. 1:12:46is very basic. Yeah, >> there was guidance on the communication that the lengthy communication. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I did understand your point. Earlier in this meeting, we talked about um lawyers being data locked for review time, the phone calls and rejectionings, how efficient the lawyer's time was used. And now 30 minutes later, >> lawyer time will be spent about a decision on a document that was signed that was apparently not reviewed by anyone. >> So let's say um a contract hypothetically is signed tomorrow without authority to sign it. And that leads to $100,000 litigation. And then you will all remember that last year in November there were two contentious meetings here where residents were pitched against one another because the youth center budget there was a an issue with honest paper mistake. I think you set a director made an honest mistake
70. 1:13:47>> on some headcount issue or something and then there was a shortfall of $100,000 and the right thing to do was to honor this guy's employment company >> and that's what we did >> and and we did but then there was this massive fight massive misunderstanding online mob for a month and a half about $100,000 and now here today we probably waved through $300,000 in legal expenses and the last thing I would say as someone that was not born here as an American is that while American culture is more latigious than other cultures, we are in the third department which is the same as other larger cities with much more many more actions. Our courts do not entertain frivolous lawsuits. When a lawsuit like the milary law suit or likely follows suit or likely funding lawsuit for the next six months are filed and they make it past the first six months and the judges allow them and move into either discovery or into argument. It is because they have merit. And that is what you are controlling here is when you say no to spending money on you, you
71. 1:14:51are telling the executive and you are telling the department heads to stop making mistakes, to stop acting outside of the city charter or to stop breaking the law and not be careless. And as we all agree, I I challenge anyone to tell me that you do not think we have spent a legal dollar wrong over the last six, 17 years with the waterfront. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh just a moment, Logan. I just got a text from somebody who's online who has their hands. You see any hands? >> RN Ronald, >> thank you. Uh I have a brief comment. And I just wanted to point out to the council members that uh section C12-13 of the charter which deals with voting by the council and does recognize the elimination of weighted voting points out that land use uh leases or sales require a supermajority of nine and in fact in order to be considered they
72. 1:15:53require a super quorum of nine. So that's just for your >> uh I'm sorry. Matt McGee would also like to add some >> uh Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Uh yes. I wanted to speak to a larger issue that's at uh in question here too. It's the constitution. And as a nation, we are on the verge of destruction of our democratic republican congre uh constitutional way of government. The city council should go against this trend and fulfill their promise to support the constitution by defending their prerogatives against you e usurppation by the executive branch and others. This is the founding principle of our republican form of government. The oath or affir affirmation of the
73. 1:16:57executive and council members and for that matter all of local government to support the constitution should not be forgotten. and they should make an effort to be better recognize the constitutional powers of the branches of government. We can do something to help save constitutional government at the grassroots and should just asking is an action true representative government would be a step forward. Constitutional government benefits us all, although when it is honored by all when it is honored by those in charge. Remember government is representative government is a guarantee in article 4 section 4 and also remember the constitution is the supreme law of the
74. 1:18:01land. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um so Mark to move on to >> Excuse me. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> The very beginning of the charter when this form says that it can basically transfer property that's well point the charter does cover this. So, it's kind of redundant, but if you're going to make a resolution and what Ron just said that you need a super majority, I would recommend that you include that in this resolution. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Then another point, you know, I was a treasury secretary and if there was somebody in my organization that authorized funds that weren't part of the regular process in the organization, the organization would hold that personally responsible. Now, I know this is civic government and we don't do things like that, but there has to be some way of curtailing
75. 1:19:05mismanagement by executives. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so this evening um we also have finally two local laws that we are physically laying on our desks. >> Excellent. >> Uh and and there's a resolution in which when we pass we will no longer need to be physically laying anything on desks. Um anyway the first one uh these were requested by Heather. Uh the first one is a local law regarding transfer of funds uh between budget items. Uh essentially what this is doing uh this has not been updated I think which is about 20 years but it's a long term uh basically it just increases the thresholds um to allow for transfer up to $20,000 from one budget item that pays more than it's required to another that's deficient. Uh so a department can go up to I think we're at 500 right now but a department can go up to 2,000. uh the treasurer then um then uh uh with approval of board of estimate uh
76. 1:20:07transfer some um over two but not to exceed 5,000. So at the moment anything over two you notice that we have to figure that out the council has to approve it and so forth but this gives the BA the authority to do that up to 5,000 and then anything over that as usual comments to the tax. That's what that one is. And uh the next one is revising procurement. This is one that both Heather and Ralph Perry had asked for. Potentially what we're doing here is um simply saying that we abide by uh New York State procurement block. Uh we had if you will hard coders into our into our code and and I think even in part uh language that was very specific about what we have to do and dollar amounts we use. so forth and haven't been updated for over those years. So speaking we are the same with the state by doing this if and when the state changes something we don't have to change this because we're in St. Louis.
77. 1:21:10If you have any questions on that let me know. Uh then we have a uh one last resolution. This is allowing electronic delivery of local laws in final form. This is uh where you know we all have to have emails but we can uh send the local laws. You know the definition of it being laid on your desk will be by email inbox um in a PDF format uh at least 10 calendar days prior to the final passage. So we do have to increase the number of days. This is 8 days for principles. This is 10 days for email. So we will get things out to the full council 10 days prior to any vote. But we will eliminate all of this paper except for Henry who wants everything on paper >> as I think everyone should. >> Okay. So >> this would this be requires unanimous approving. We we'll still give you paper. Okay. You can still have paper.
78. 1:22:12>> I'm still going to vote no. >> Okay then. So then we're all Okay, great. Thank you. Uh it's now it's now 8 o'clock. There were a couple of things that I wanted to do. I did not It's 7:54. Um the finance committee has been working on B schedule. I don't think really that we can go through this tonight. I think it's it's been two hours already. You think? >> Yeah. Perfect. >> If you would review these >> online, >> it's it's if you would review the the feed schedules that you receive, uh doesn't cover everything. I did get some comments back from uh the clerk's office who's been very helpful. Um so there were some discussions, Rich, that you recommended relating to the options. Uh also we have put in a fee for uh fireworks permits which don't actually exist right now. Um because how it is done is that a donation the reason we don't see it the donation is made to the
79. 1:23:14fire department because they're a volunteer fire department and they have to be pressing for any fireworks display. So we will be removing that. So I had a couple of comments from the clerk's office. Um I did send some followup to Calvin asking for periodicity on some of his fee schedules. Uh for example swimming um he gives a you know uh swimming lessons he gives a dollar amount is that for one round say let's say a week of swimming lessons is it four is it six if I enroll for a week and then I have my kid go back for a second week. So just periodically is all I ask. So, take a look. If you have questions, fire me an email and I'll try to get you answers so that we can review this next week. >> Okay. >> Excuse me. >> Yes. Well, no, I don't have to be able to go on next week. >> Um, but it's fairly self-explanatory. I I'll send follow up on uh some of the revisions that the clerk's office recommended. So, fix the thing about the fire department, for example. Uh, let's see. Um,
80. 1:24:19the only other item I want to mention, um, I had hoped to bring a resolution to you this evening, uh, as you know, a couple of months ago I, uh, asked for public input on establishing a charter commission from the common council. Um, I received, uh, feedback and connections from a number of people in the community. Uh I would like to establish a common council uh childhood commission uh uh members will be appointed uh from the community and I have a roster of people uh who have stepped forward that I can I can bring to you once I have the uh the resolution in hand. Um I'm going to propose that I intend to serve on that commission. By the way, um I would like to say that we should have a 2-year term. Hopefully, this commission will have a document ready in time for next summer so that it can be in the event that we approve so that it can be put on
81. 1:25:22the ballot for the fall of 2027. Um but the other part of my vision for this is that uh the charter should be maintained. It should not be something that we do every 100 years as is our long. Um so this is something that we keep current and that you know we have a commission on go. So I will bring something to you next week for that. Um but uh yep that's where we are. Oh and our website uh regard this is the document that I've been working from is uh local government uh revising city charters in New York state. This is what I have been using to map out exactly what our requirements are and how this should be structured. So I can send you all a link to this so that you have that document. >> Thank you. Glad you're pursuing. >> Yes, it has to be done. Um okay. Anybody else got any new business? And I'm not in the room.
82. 1:26:25>> Well, [laughter] >> I'm sorry to say I have a quick new business. >> Oh dear. >> Um I think it was in March, this council voted on one of our only active business ley contracts, which is the soup club. >> Oh, yes. >> For and I think everyone can remember we had a spirited two months figuring that out. And the crux of it was that every 30 days we were due with >> financial sort of sending them to me. He was sending them to the mayor's office. >> Well, that's not the common council, >> right? Well, uh, so I reached out to the mayor's office and we arranged and I would send them to you. >> Great. >> We arranged that he should CC me, uh, going through. >> So, I'll send you, >> but you are the authority that should be the headline of that email. If anyone else needs to get it, I think they should be CC. If Joe has been stepping in and intercepting them, I think that is inappropriate. I
83. 1:27:27>> I I think I I think we don't know. how these things happen. It could be oversight. It could be not realizing that I would like to see you. But I reached out uh he referred me to the mayor's office. I said, "Hey, you know, they want to be kept in the room." I said, "Great. You'll see me in the future." So that >> all right. >> Because they need to find some. >> Thanks. I'd love to see it just so everyone's above board. >> Yes, absolutely. Anything else? I just have a question. Um, >> the answer is no. >> Well, it wasn't a yes or no question. >> Okay. um when I was at the library um at the senior center and then I went downstairs and spoke to Emily um I found out that there's a lot of money that's been earmarked for uh senior activities and also you know we have
84. 1:28:32quite a few donations. Where's that money go? What is there is there for fun? >> Yeah, >> it's fun, right? >> Well, we get senior donations that we authorize and accept and I I think that's a question that you might bring up to the senior. >> There was a large $8,000 >> that was Yeah, that was uh I can't recall that was um that was I think somebody's at something or something. I think depends on also I think that gift has some kind of strings attached to how it's spent. I think that depends on the album money and what's earmarked >> for the donation, right? If it's general and it's general or if it's for a certain thing, then it should be the different. >> So, if you could look into where that money goes. >> Sure. >> I mean, we know. Yeah. >> You uh mentioned briefly at the beginning of the meeting that there's a article 78 of kitties. Is there anything
85. 1:29:35we can divulge that is not >> This is the This is the the lawsuit relating to the dock. Correct. And the it's it's not just I mean that's what we're talking there are like several different entities in a coalition. >> Just wanted to make sure it wasn't separate. And I notice we're not discussing the other potential sale of public property tonight. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me. Yes. Sorry. Sorry. I have >> Yes, I have an update. I'm sorry. Um I have an update on uh the Don Warehouse. Um I have been reaching out to them. Uh sure had a contract. I was expecting a contract for review this evening and for a vote next week. Uh when I followed up um last week, I believe it was. Yes, last week uh with the press office to see where it stood, I found out that the
86. 1:30:38the state had rescended $400,000 in grants for the stabilization of the building. >> Um when I had met with the Bury a few months ago, um we had three issues that we wanted addressed. This they wanted to know about the grant money because it was in the RP contract, >> right? They also wanted the definition of stabilization and I wanted language that said this is contingent upon this being used as a burden. So those were our three questions that we sent forward >> uh and found out on Friday that that did not happen because the state took out that money. So where it stands right now is that um the brewery is currently looking into uh alternate funding so forth. So, I do not anticipate getting anything before the August meeting. May even be as late as September, but they are there uh looking at that. >> Okay. Um was there anything on the initial
87. 1:31:39contract that maybe you're aware of that has a timeline on it that we could >> Well, there's no contract yet. The only thing we got was contract that came here, I guess. Right. >> Right. But it was really a problem because like the word lack of definition of stabilization is definitely an issue >> very much. >> Uh and when I met with uh Bur my understanding was that they also thought of this. >> So you know they they had things that they wanted addressed. >> So we're basically >> we're waiting we you know it's >> our hands tied on waiting to hear back from them. >> It's between their attorney and the city attorney to work out a contract. They they are currently trying to evaluate financing. >> Gotcha. And what is the window that we have are is our council allowing this to carry on? >> I I I don't think that there is a window. We had an RP. We got three responses. We selected them and we're
88. 1:32:46working through doing the contract. I don't know if there's any time on that other than the building is uh >> right. Um I guess I what happens at the end of September if they say you know what we just can't it doesn't it doesn't fit for us. Are we back to us making a decision on where this building should end up or is it back in Joe's court? >> Um, well, I think it's back hopefully it would be a joint discussion as to what do you do? >> Um, but you know, we'll see what that means. >> Okay. I mean, I'm going to keep an eye on it. I've been staying in touch with them. I'll keep an eye on it and if nothing's coming forward in August, I'll check in again and see. Okay. Any progress here? That's all we can. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I'm sorry. >> Ronald is online. >> Go ahead.
89. 1:33:49>> Uh, yes. I just would like to point out that there was a second proposal which although was not the favored proposal I I understood to not have been utterly rejected for the Dun warehouse. >> There had been two proposals. There were three proposals that one was definitely rejected. One was favored. >> Yes. Right. of the three of the three proposals, one was rejected and then of the remaining two, Pete Burray was unanimously considered to be the best fit for us and that's who we proceeded with. So, it's not like there's a formal rejection process when you compete in an RFP process. um you know the ones that I've competed in um if our company didn't weren't awarded the the project we moved on and uh you know if what I would anticipate typically in RP process
90. 1:34:53is if it fails you know we come to some issue then you just reopen the process and you reissue the RP that's typically what I >> but in default of the favored proposal proposal the proposal that had as it were come in second. They they might >> well it's it's it's not it's not really that simple. There were uh there were definitely some um members of the committees who did not feel that that proposal was compatible with the continued use of the riverfront um as a recreational area for residents in the city. So I I think that your interpretation is not necessarily effective. >> Okay. Well, one problem that I find with how this procedure was conducted was that it was not conducted openly. >> That is correct. >> That the unlike >> unlike the original meetings of the DRRi committee when it was had originally been set up by uh Mayor Recctor, uh meetings of the committee that made
91. 1:35:57these decisions were not open to the public. I don't know if any minutes were kept. I'm not sure the exact composition of the committee. So, thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you for that comment. So, may we have a >> we would address the local law that was placed on our desks >> next week. >> Next week. Thank you. >> Do we have to say though? >> No. >> Thank you. The hours late hours late. So, I'm understanding from the county city that there's a BEA meeting tomorrow at 11. Is that true? >> Uh, I I we check with the clerk. Um, >> is that still on or was it ever? >> I I don't have my calendar with me, so check. It's also outside the scope of this meeting. So, >> okay. Well, then something >> something that please allow this public comment. Richard, if I may change was another thing I have not heard about.
92. 1:37:01>> Okay. >> The third thing I would like to bring up, you don't have to be. >> The third thing, >> don't call me out cuz I'm moving. Don't call me out. I said everybody else. >> I'm tired of you now. >> You address me as council member. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Can we please take down thing that I say wrap up with this is the outcome of the gun we're out there as it is now opens the door start all in favor of adjournment I post is

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.