Common Council - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Alderman Christa Marks. Here. Alderman Holliday.

Here.

Alderman Collins. Here. Alderman Carpenter. Here. Alderman Marticello. Here. Here.

Motion to adopt. Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

So we're here to have a public hearing on the ordinance modifying section 1674G of the Amsterdam City Code eliminating the requirement of contracting with off-duty police officers with a requirement for special permit for service of alcoholic beverages at parks and playgrounds and eliminating requirement for roped off areas. So we'll declare that meeting now open. Anyone like to say anything, please approach the podium. State your name.

Good evening. My name is Mike Palmarino. I'm a detective with the city of Amsterdam Police Department. I've been employed by the police department since 2012. I'm the current vice president of the Amsterdam PBA. I'm also speaking on this meeting on behalf of our PBA board, our president, AJ Fiorillo, who unfortunately couldn't make it tonight, but would love to be here. And I just want to bring some concerns that the union has in regards to this proposal. The Amsterdam Police Department would like to make the public aware that the mayor is proposing to remove police presence at Amsterdam Mohawks games at Shuttleworth Park, which is a city park. The proposal is expected to come before the council this evening for a vote. As an organization, the PBA, representing the members, some who are here behind me, who protect and serve this community, we have serious concerns with the change of this city code. Mohawks games regularly draw large crowds consisting of families, children, community members, Many games also involve the alcohol consumption on premises. Certain events, like fireworks nights, bring significant increased attendance as well as activity levels. Let me be perfectly clear when I say this. Police presence at these games is not simply ceremonial. It's not. Officers are there to respond quickly to emergencies, disturbances, medical incidents, traffic concerns, fights, intoxicated individuals, lost children, and any other unforeseen circumstances that could arise where there's a mass gathering of hundreds or even thousands of people within a city park. In the proposed city code modification, it states, and I quote, the applicant must demonstrate that it has adequate security in place to aid with crowd control. Let me say that again. It states, and I quote, applicant must demonstrate that it has adequate security in place to aid with crowd control what i asked the council tonight is what is more adequate than a uniform on duty city police officer in a city park we fully fully support community events we fully fully support the amsterdam mohawks and the wonderful things that the mohawks bring to this city every single summer we are not blind to that however we do believe that removing law enforcement presence, it creates a unnecessary risk for attendees, staff, players, and families just wanting to enjoy a baseball game. Public safety should never be an afterthought. We also find this proposal troubling in light of repeated statements claiming support for law enforcement and officers of the Amsterdam Police Department. Unfortunately, when issues directly impact our officers, impact public safety operations, impact our working conditions, or impact the PBA, the actions and positions taken by city leadership have too often reflected the opposite. The Amsterdam Police Department remains committed to advocating both for the safety of our officers as well as the community we so proudly serve every single day. We encourage members of the community to stay informed and make their voices heard. We also would ask that the Common Council carefully considers our concerns as this moves forward to a vote tonight. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak? Anyone from the Council wish to say anything? I'd like to say something. There's no doubt in my mind that the PBA wants our city to be as safe as possible, and there shouldn't be any doubt in the mind of the PBA that this administration wants the very same thing. But I also feel it's naive to believe that addressing the priorities of public safety and addressing the demands of the PBA are necessarily one and the same, always one and the same. In the last six years of our administration, Mr. Palmarino, our administration has made a conscious effort to achieve a productive balance between those two with our actions to introduce overtime and more city events. We are the administration that created more overtime at city events in response to the safety of your police force and the safety of our city. A better pay structure for recruits. We are the administration that increased the salary of first-time recruits and second- and third-year people. Permitting the authorization of hiring new officers when other officers were on liability. Before, they didn't hire cops until those guys retired. We permitted that to happen. You talk about body cameras. You talk about security cameras. You talk about new police vehicles. You talk about new software. And my administration pledges to continue to do so. And there are times like right now with this issue that the PBA is going to present this as a life or death situation at the park. And as matters of urgent public safety when the facts don't support that. They don't support that. My job as mayor and your job as a council, guys, is to be able to tell the difference and make policy accordingly. We are giving the Mohawks, you know, what happens on May 3rd, I find out about this proposal. On May 3rd, the season starts on May 28th. This is the first I'm hearing that we want to change things. We have an agreement with the Mohawks that says they pay for security. They pay for security inside the stadium. Okay, so the cost of what you want to do now And the cost of what they were paying last season and expecting to pay again this season is pretty significant. So the only change in code that I was suggesting and that this council unanimously agreed to introduce was to give them a choice. It's their money. That was a choice. And if everything that you say is true, then the Mohawks would be crazy not to pick you. But to give them a choice, why would you be against that? I don't mean to, are you asking?

No, yeah, go ahead. Well, like I just said in my short speech, there's no better public safety for anything in a city park than the city police department. I want to be completely clear on something else. Yes, it is an increase in cost to the Mohawks, a private company, not a city company, a private entity. However, there's 37 people in our department. I'm 11th in seniority. Okay, so... I am on the top half of our department. If I were to take overtime for a Mohawks game, I'm making less money than I do how it currently stands. That's going to be the same for everyone in seniority below me. So the narrative of we're asking for more money because we're padding our pockets is completely false. I understand that there's other costs that come with the increase in money that we're asking for the Mohawks. But again, this is an issue between The Mohawks in the city and where the money is going to come from to pay us, who I feel is the best security option for the Mohawks. We're not asking for more money from the Mohawks to pad our pockets. We're actually making less money. But what I am saying is that although it does cost the Mohawks more money to have us, we're their best option. Giving them an option to have private security as... security in lieu of the police department i feel is very foolish with the issues that have arisen in the parks in the past this is a city park it's our largest reoccurring gathering that we have in the city for the summer it's a wonderful thing that they mohawks bring to the city we're not blind to that let's not ruin a good thing but why not give the mohawks that choice giving the mohawks a choice is one thing but completely repealing the name i'm not really doing anything this is giving them that choice Giving them a choice. Yes, it's giving them a choice to not have the police.

Correct.

In a city park where we want police.

Where you said yourself we want police. Where you want safety. Where you're saying incidents need to be addressed. And you're saying they aren't being addressed. They wouldn't be addressed by a private security department. I didn't say that. Okay, then I'm not saying you did say that, but I'm just saying, I'm trying to get the idea that you're saying don't give them this choice.

Even though May 3rd, they were telling them. And again, the council may not be aware of this. We are not reinventing the wheel. Every time a police officer works a city, excuse me, a greater Amsterdam school district event, football, lacrosse, baseball, we're there and they pay our overtime. They do. We're not reinventing the wheel. All we're asking is that the Mohawks do the same exact thing that the greater Amsterdam school district Already does. That's all we're asking. And, again, we're taking home less money.

We have a contract with them that says they are required to do that. Correct. But they do not. That's what I'm saying. We have that contract. And you're changing the terms of that contract on them now by changing the payment method for the safety and the benefit of the city and for the department. And I'm not arguing with that.

I'm just saying you're changing their contract. Well, the contract the Mohawks have with the city, it's not with the VA. That's right. It's not with us. That's right. So this is an issue that the city and the Mohawks would need to address.

Which we're trying to do. Which we're trying to do by giving them a choice, and you're against that. That's basically what you're telling them.

Yes, because their best option is for the police department to be there as security. If I may jump in for just a second. I, too, believe that having a police department there is the safest option. They're in uniform. They're trained on how to handle situations quickly. I would like to see a change in the ordinance to say that we have on duty police officers. You cannot replace the professionalism and the security of our own police officers. When we have private security forces, keep in mind they're hired security forces. They handle things differently. Taking people down makes everybody liable. I don't believe they can put handcuffs on people. And what's the end result? They have to call APD, and APD has to go up there anyway because they can't arrest anybody. If we change the charter to on-duty police officers, they're covered with what they need to be covered for for their own personal security. And if there is any other incidences within the park itself, they're already there to respond to it quicker than calling up other officers to come up and handle a situation. I, you know, a lot of times when we get these introductions and ordinance and stuff, we put them out there and then in between meetings, we get together and we discuss a lot of the particulars and we investigate what are the best options. And sometimes like this, we change our perspective because we learn from each other and we learn from the public and how they feel. Mayor, I, this is in no way a disrespect to the mayor's office or, or, or anything that you want to do. I've had a lot of calls, especially today from people within my district, telling me that if we do this, they will stop going to city parks because they feel that they're unsafe. Last year, we had shootings in a park. This year, okay, it doesn't matter if it's a year or two years ago, we've had instances. And I realize that you've done an amazing job to help protect those things. You all have. Okay, you've done, okay, we've done a great job. install cameras and have better securities and everything, and I feel like this is a step backwards. Did you talk to the other side, Chris? Did you talk to the Mohawks? Mayor. I'm just asking. My obligation is to the city, not the Mohawks, although I respect Brian. I respect the Mohawks. They're a private business making a living on that, and we welcome you to discuss a contract with them, but as far as this particular ordinance goes, Thank you.

I think, you know, for me, this is something that predates all of us in that setting this system up of paying city employees cash and wearing uniforms at the games. Like none of us invented this. It was something that everybody that, you know, everybody kind of inherited. And we've come to a point where we need to kind of write the wrong, write the ship on it. And so our choice is, Do we no longer require police or yes or no? And when I look at it, we can look at it through the lens of the Mohawks, a group that we trust who've been good to our city for years. But the problem is this needs to apply to everyone. And it has to apply to the people we don't trust. and the people we don't think have our city's best intentions at heart. So when I look at it from that perspective of, well, what if this was somebody else at a different park? Would I be comfortable with this? No, I would want police there. And I think we need to keep it as is going forward and we need to get it on the books so that everybody gets the same treatment. We have talked about ways that we can be supportive in this first year. of the Mohawks, and we can do that, but I think we need to have our uniformed police officers being paid on the books with all the protections that come with that.

Whatever the thing, Meredith. The Mohawks have a mechanism of raising money through alcohol. If they don't serve alcohol, I don't think there'd be an issue here, but they do serve alcohol, and because they do that, they do reap a profit. And just like we do with our budget, we have to increase taxes to MAKE THINGS WORK, PUBLIC SAFETY. THERE'S NO REASON WHY I DON'T THINK AND I KNOW TO THE ORGANIZATION THEY HAVE ACQUIRED A LOT OF MONEY THROUGH DIFFERENT KIND OF GRANTS FOR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. I MEAN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO ME AND SAY WE CAN'T GUARANTEE SAFETY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY, TO ME I FIND THAT'S A PROBLEM. THEY ARE RAISING MONEY, THEY ARE SELLING ALCOHOL, AND I WOULD ONLY THINK IF I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT THEY WOULD WANT Police presence, safety, kids. I mean, there's enough incidents in the city of Amsterdam that you can read about last night what happened, that you would want a police officer right there. And talking to a security individual, they can't do anything if a fight breaks out. They can't even restrain anybody. They can make a phone call and call the police. That's what they're going to do. And what kind of safety, what kind of guarantee when you have little kids running around, like Officer Pomeroy said, You know, there's a lot of different issues here. Just the fact that there's a policeman there and they can drink doesn't give them a free brain to drink, get drunk, because they know when they leave that park a lot, there might be a DWI waiting for them. So just that kind of incident right there is worth any kind of money you want to spend. There's probably people out there right now listening to say, I'll give them the money, if that's the issue.

But As far as I'm concerned. My only point is we have a contract with an organization, which we are now.

There's a lot of contract. There's a lot of issues in that contract.

We have a contract. This code would give them a choice. And I'm just saying that this code would give them a choice. And I would think they would make the best choice possible. And again, we've got Port Jackson Bocce Club. We've got... Listen. We do. You know, if you guys are going to be consistent, be consistent. You got the golf course. You want to be consistent? We can exempt the golf course.

That was brought up. There's not children at the golf course. There aren't children at the golf course.

I'm just saying, if you're going to be consistent.

There's as many people at the golf course as there is at the mall game. No. And they're playing golf.

Downtown or Riverlink Park. Riverlink Park? They do have big presence. When you have Riverfest or Fishman Island, I'm just saying, you guys, I'm not trying to take away the APD from the Mohawks games at all. I'm trying to suggest that we give the Mohawks a choice. They are going to have to pay for it. It's their money, and everything that you're talking about with private security guards, I don't know if it's true what you're telling me. It's absolutely true. How do you know? Have you talked to them?

Yes, I talked to other security officers in the last couple of days. That's between me and them.

But I'm just saying. St. Mary's Hospital security do not restrain patients. They call us.

Mr. Romerino, I'm just saying. You're telling me things that I've heard exactly the opposite from other people involved in this.

So when they've got a drunken, disorderly person that assaulted somebody, what are they going to do at the end of it? Are they going to call the police? I don't know.

But they have to call the police, right? They're going to have to call the police. So they're going to have to call the police. We're going to have to send police officers up there. You guys made your points. I'm just telling you my opinion. We are breaking a contract. I'm ready to call the question.

Well, we can renegotiate contracts.

I'm ready to call the question. I am. I just called the question. Go ahead. Is there any other discussion?

You have anything you want to say? No, I just called the question.

That means we're in discussion.

Ready to move it. Listen, if I may for a quick moment. We haven't closed up here. Is there anyone else that wants to... SO LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE, AT 5.48 P.M. ALDERMAN LARGESELL IS CALLED TO QUESTION. IS THERE A LAST CALL FOR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL THE ROLL. READ RESOLUTION. CALL THE ROLL.

ORDINANCE E OF 2026 TO BE KNOWN AS ORDINANCE 5 OF 2026, IF ADOPTED, TO BE VOTED UPON. An ordinance modifying section 167-4G of the Amsterdam City Code eliminating the requirement of contracting with off-duty police officers as a requirement for a special permit for service of alcoholic beverages at parks and playgrounds and eliminating requirement for roped off area by Alderman Carpenter.

So moved. Any questions? Call the roll.

Alderman Carpenter.

No.

Alderman Marticello.

No.

Alderwoman Quistomars. No. Alderman Holiday.

No.

Alderwoman Collins. Yes.

Okay. Is there any other business? Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Alderwoman Collins. Aye. Alderman Carpenter.

Aye.

Alderman Marticello.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cuesta-Mars. Aye. Alderman Holliday.

Aye. Thank you very much, guys. Thank you. Yay.