City Council - Regular Meeting

We have to get done. I know. You have more help to raise.

That's right. We're thinking positive thoughts. Who bought Fresca?

That is so sweet. Look at that. You don't like grapefruit? You opened it up. Thank you.

Welcome, everybody. This is Binghamton City Council business meeting. Today is Wednesday, August 12th. It is 6.06 p.m. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Madam Clerk, could we do a roll call, please?

Councilmember Murray is absent. Councilmember Middleton? Present. Councilmember Cavanaugh? Present. Councilmember Hotchkiss?

Present.

Councilmember Matavetsky? Present. Councilmember Rathmell? Present. Council President Dundon?

Present. Thank you. Can I entertain a motion to approve last meeting's minutes, please?

I'll make the motion.

I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Are all in favor to approve the minutes?

Aye.

Moving on, any reports from committees?

No.

All right, I see that they did add an agenda for Traffic Board tomorrow, so it is happening. There was a question earlier today whether or not Traffic Board was happening tomorrow, but there will be Traffic Board tomorrow, and there is public comment at Traffic Board. I see that they have posted an agenda.

Are those, do you know if those, I gotta look at it again. Are those things on there that I, that thing on there that I asked about or no?

I do not see the one way on here.

Okay, I guess I'll come and make some noise. Yeah, sorry. Thank you.

Is that all for any updates on any committees? So we have no public hearings to set. We have no public hearings tonight. We will move on to public comment. Residents wishing to submit public comment may do so electronically by emailing their comments prior to 1 p.m. on the day of the meeting to clerk at cityofbinghamton.gov or in person during the meeting. If anybody would like to come down and speak during public comment, please come on down now. Please state your name and if you live or work in the city of Binghamton.

Oh, all right, now it's lit up.

It's green, but it wasn't lit up.

Hi, my name is Salka Valerio. I work and live in the city of Binghamton on the east side. So I'm here tonight because I wanna talk about the expansion of the SROs to the elementary schools. um so i believe every child deserves to feel safe at school but i also believe that when we make decisions about the safety of our children especially our youngest children we have a responsibility to ask difficult questions before we act I want to acknowledge that what the mayor said about his proposal that having SROs in elementary schools could straighten relationships between police and young people and create a positive ripple effects into our neighborhoods. I understand the goal. Positive relationship between young people and law enforcement can be valuable. But if strengthening those relationship is the goal, then we need to ask important questions. What kind of relationships are we actually trying to build? Because there's a difference between building trust and simply just increasing police presence. I'm not arguing that schools should not be safe or that police should never respond to schools. Of course, there are situations where law enforcement is necessary, but my question is whether placing an armed police officer inside an elementary school is the best way to create safety and build trust with our youngest children. Before this council approved this expansion, I believe the public deserves answer to some basic questions. What specific problem are we trying to solve? How many serious incidents have occurred in Binghamton Elementary Schools that actually required police intervention? How many involved an immediate threat to someone's physical safety? And what evidence do we have that placing an SRO in elementary school would reduce those incidents? Because there is a difference between having police available when there is an emergency and having an armed police officers in the school every day. We also need to be clear to define the role of the SRO. Will this officer simply respond to serious threats, safety threats, or will they investigate student behavior, participate in searches, question students, make criminal referrals, or make arrests? Where will the line be drawn between school discipline and criminal enforcement? That distinction matters enormously when we're talking about elementary school children. A five, six, seven year old having a behavioral crisis should not automatically be treated like a criminal simply because there's a police officer in the building. So I want to know what specific safeguards will prevent normal childhood behavior, behavioral health crisis, or school disciplinary issues from becoming police matters. If the goal is truly to build relationship between police and young people, then those relationships must be built on trust and not fear. And trust requires accountability. If an SRO is a city employee, who has the authority to remove that officer from the school if a principal or a parent believes the officer acted inappropriately? What happens when a parent has a complaint? Who investigates it? Will student and parents have a meaningful voice in evaluating the program that they're gonna be doing? And will the city publicly report the data on arrests, criminal referrals, searches, use of force, physical restraints, or other police interactions with students? I also believe we need to examine whether these interaction disproportionately affects black and brown students or students with disabilities by the way which the school district has been on investigation with the ag office for disproportionately disciplining black and brown and disabled students If we're going to police officer into school, we need to know what impact that it has on every group of children, not just whether the program exists. And finally, we need to talk about priorities. If the city and school district have money available for additional school safety, why is it an armed police officer first investment? Why not counselors, social workers? Why not behavioral specialists? Why not mental health professionals, nurses?

You have about 30 seconds left.

restorative practices so all this to say five-year-olds four-year-olds six-year-olds do not need police officers in their elementary schools thank you thank you ask questions would anybody else like to come down and speak during public comment

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comments that need to be read into the record? All right, we will move on. We have no mayoral veto to review, so we're moving on to second read legislation. This is introductory ordinance 026-54, considered in finance, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Cavanaugh.

I'd like to motion to approve 026-54, an ordinance to amend the 2026 DPW budget for over budget items.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Discussion, please.

So there was a question about the use of contingency money in particular to fulfill part of this need. There's around $100,000 left in the contingency line. So we're taking less than half of it for this use. I think they would leave adequate adequate funds left for other other possible uses. Council the city may have in the upcoming months. As the commissioner outlined during the initial presentation for this, we are running low on some critical supplies in the DPW. And I think Councilman Medovetsky may have run into this, in fact, if you'd like to speak to that. We do need to put some money back in these lines for ongoing consumables and equipment needs. And this, I think, is the right way to do it at this time.

I'll just add a little bit of context for those who are following along. So originally this ordinance proposed to pull funding reserved from a contingency account for over budget items about $40,000. We held this over two weeks ago for the purpose of hoping that the finance team could identify an alternative budget line. That contingency account started at about $213,000 at the beginning of this year. Council chose to allocate just over 100,000 for Binghamton Fire Department equipment in quarter one. And again, we had discussions regarding reserving the remaining amount to support the rollout of the first phase of the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program. We have one full-time hire in the mix and a mass mailing to support that rollout to cover. But as council member Kavanaugh represented with that 100 grand still in the account and only needing to support that full-time hire for the remaining months of this year, couple of months in Q4 likely, we should have enough to do both. So I appreciate Councilman Kavanaugh kind of going back and forth and also chatting with me about the possibility of making both work. And I mean, DPW has one of the toughest jobs in the city, so I'm thrilled that we can support both.

Anyone else have anything they'd like to say? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Maria Zapson? Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 6-0.

We're moving on to introductory resolution R26-45, considered in planning, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Rathmell.

Thank you, Council President Dundon. I won't be motioning, but happy to introduce R26-45, a resolution to enter into an agreement with GPI for corridor ID technical support.

Do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

We have a motion.

Second.

And a second. Discussion, please.

So again, this was another holdover. It's a $60,000 agreement to support GPI. Corridor ID is essentially a feasibility study starting the process of considering whether or not an intercity rail, whether it's Scranton to Binghamton to New York City or Binghamton directly to New York City The holdover largely was in question relative to Oh 2654, you know, where we gonna parsing out using Trying to figure out where to pull 40 grand when we were considering 60 grand for this I do remain of the opinion that this is a I don't have a better word than silly, but in terms of prioritizing the 60 grand, it's not a hill I'm gonna die on, but in terms of prioritizing funding, I just don't agree that now is the time.

Anyone else have anything they'd like to add?

um yeah so I know um that I haven't been at the last meeting when you guys are voting but when it was introduced I know we talked about is it really possible so I know that we have to get us we have to do a study and we have to do certain things but is it really possible so are we going to waste that money I don't want to say waste are we going to spend that money for something that is not possible so I don't know if anybody else has any thoughts on that

then it's it will take I think layers of considering the feasibility there seems to be an indication that the likelihood of possibility is somewhat enhanced given that Scranton is moving forward with the also with corridor ID and Looping Binghamton into that process could make it more likely that Binghamton can kind of hop on. I don't think there's any hard data. There are still multiple layers and likely hurdles to navigate. That's the only update that I've seen in terms of feasibility.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything, so I was just wondering if anybody had any other thoughts that they might think that

Yeah, to sort of rewind, this is essentially a pilot study to become eligible for a larger chunk of federal money to identify and develop this transportation corridor. there's no chance of getting to that next level without somebody investing this sort of pilot money. Given that Scranton has moved forward in this program, and just a general increased interest in trains and passenger rail in general as an ultimately affordable way to move goods and folks, The development implementation of this program at federal level, even though it's been stalled somewhat by the current administration, I think means that there's better chance for rail expansion up to Binghamton than any time since we lost passenger rail in Binghamton. Someone has to take this for a step. I think I... Is it a gamble, is it a longer shot than planning to redo one of the bridges in town or one of the flyovers in town or something that we, there's a discreet state pipeline that we get into and we do designs, we submit them and we can expect some sort of funding in two or three years. No, it's not that. It's much more of a gamble. It's much more of a long-term shot, but if nobody starts this process, we have no chance at it, and a lesser chance of seeing passenger rail in Binghamton in our generation. So yeah, it's, I don't wanna say it's a crap shoot, but it's a small investment that could have a very, very big payoff. And yes, it's money out of our capital budget that we use for planning, and this is longer term planning than we are typically involved with, but I just think you gotta start somewhere, and maybe that's a little, vibes, vibey of me for saying that rather than hard data driven, but it's a long term process that has to get off the ground if we're gonna have any shot. And I would be proud in 10 years if Binghamton is the people, is the municipality of New York that got this rolling. But it is not a sure thing for sure. For sure it's not a sure thing. It's a known unknown, but in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, is that it's a path worth pursuing, at least for now.

Okay, thank you for that. I really hope someone quotes you on Vibey.

Anybody else have anything they'd like to say? I guess my piece here is that I completely agree that this isn't the highest priority for the city, but I think it's important for us to tackle multiple things at the same time. and I think our residents would would enjoy being able to get to other places through rail systems and maybe this turns out to be a an opportunity to begin that and then it expands throughout New York State hopefully ideally and I think a lot of people would would enjoy having that interconnectivity that isn't solely reliant on vehicle transportation and the highway system That's all, thank you. Anyone else?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I do feel a bit mixed on the likelihood. I think there's, clearly the mayor has some energy behind it and wants to put in the work into this. And we know from council, when council members, like Councilwoman Rathmell's initiative with Center City, that when somebody puts in the work behind stuff, we see results. So I guess on the vibey side, let's just keep rolling with it, that this is clearly something that has, somebody's energized and wants to put in work on it. and therefore I feel is more likely something comes of it. In terms of the funding side, the barrier that I see is that the distance between Binghamton to Scranton is almost all in Pennsylvania. So state funding, all of those things are going to be more complicated if it goes that direction. Federal Funding would be necessary. It's not clear as a blue state how much federal funding is gonna come this direction even if we do the study and have everything lined up and it looks good. So yeah. The other direction going through New York doesn't already have the rails, so it doesn't build off of what Pennsylvania's doing. So there's definitely some big barriers and for folks who have transportation and want to go down to New York, they'll be able to drive to Scranton and take the train as it is. So the question is, in terms of feasibility, not whether or not folks in Binghamton want a train to New York. I think basically universally everyone wants a train to New York. I've heard no one say they don't want a train to New York. But how much of that market is folks that wouldn't already be accommodated for the most part by being able to drive to Scranton? Obviously a lot of people fly out of Scranton or Syracuse instead of our own airport, so I think that There's significant challenges. I wanna be optimistic, and I'm leaning towards voting optimistically on this, and seeing what energy and hard work can do to make this move forward, but I just kinda wanted to make sure that everyone goes into it clear-headed from the way I understand at least the challenges that need to be overcome.

Thank you, Council Member. Anybody else? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rathmell? No. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh?

Aye.

Council Member Middleton?

No.

Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon?

Aye.

That's 4-2. Thank you.

So we're moving on to first read legislation. I would like to entertain a motion to move introductory resolution R26-61 up to the top of the list and do that one first. Actually, I'll make the motion on that. I'll second. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

Oh, I'm sorry, I asked if we could move that up because we have some people who are waiting for that resolution to be read and voted on, so I asked if we could move that up, if that's possible.

Did you, oh, R26, not O26, all right, thanks. Yeah, yeah, okay.

If anybody doesn't, go ahead, Council Member Hotchkiss. All right, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call to move R26-61 to the top of the list?

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is six-zero.

So we will be doing introductory resolution R26-61 that's considered in municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

Thank you so much, President Dundon. I'd like to make a motion for Introductory Resolution R26-61, a resolution to designate Major Barnett Senior Way.

I'll second the motion. Okay. So we have a motion and a second discussion, please.

Thank you so much. So we spoke about this on Monday, designating an honorary street downtown Binghamton between Carroll and Susquehanna, if I'm not mistaken. I got to look at it again. But we're going to name that after Major Barnett Sr. He was a prominent person in our community, a person of color. He resided. I actually knew him as a young child. woman excuse me and he was a great person and he worked for the city of Binghamton was a great person to a lot of people his children are here and this is a great way to honor him to keep his legacy on um we said in our um we said in our meeting before that it took some time and we into if anyone's watching we are in the process of setting up prop a proper way to honor people So if you have a request, just give us some time. We're setting up a proper way so that way people can be honored for their lives in the city of Binghamton.

Does anyone have anything they'd like to add?

I don't know if you want to read some of the resolution out loud because it is, you know. No, you can, go ahead.

Go ahead, if you'd like, it's fine.

Yeah, so it says, whereas Major Barnett Sr. dedicated his career to serving the city of Binghamton through the Parks Department, where his commitment to public service, mentorship, and community stewardship left an enduring impact on the city and helped open doors for future generations while contributing to the progress of the community in New York State, and whereas the section of Carroll Street between Holly Street and Susquehanna Street borders Center City Park, where Major Barnett Sr. spent much of his career serving the community, making it a fitting location to commemorate his legacy through an honorary street designation. Now therefore, be it resolved, that the Council of the City of Binghamton, duly convened in regular session, does hereby designate the section of Carroll Street between Holly Street and Susquehanna Street as Honorary Major Barnett Senior Way, and be it further resolved that this designation shall not change the legal name of Carroll Street or any other official addresses, records, maps, or governmental designations. Further be it resolved that the Department of Public Works is authorized and directed to install honorary street name signage bearing the designation Honorary Major Barnett Senior Way at appropriate locations along the designated block on Carroll Street between Holly Street and Susquehanna Street. Thank you.

Thank you so much for reading that council member Medvedsky. And I also want to give a big thank you to my deputy clerk, Samantha, well, Sam Costello. She worked really hard on this. So please thank her. Really worked very hard on this with myself. So thank you guys and thank you to his family for support and still believing in us even though it took a process to get this done. So thank you.

The only thing I'll add, I think this, to me, what's really special is it's not only an opportunity to honor your father, but that legacy continues and is so clear in the impact that his family is still having in the city of Binghamton. Been engaged in recent conversations and collective collaborations. I mean you're still Continuing that legacy and it's really neat to be able to identify his impact, but know that y'all are still doing the work And that you're carrying that on so thank you I'm guessing nobody has anything else to add so madam clerk.

Can we do a roll call I?

Council member Rathmell? Aye. Council member Matavetsky? Aye. Council member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council member Cavanaugh?

Aye.

Council member Middleton? Aye. Council member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 6-0. Welcome.

Congratulations.

So we'll move on to introductory ordinance 026-56, considered in finance, and I'll hand this over to Council Member Cavanaugh.

Okay, I'd like to motion approve 02656 in order to amend the 2026 capital fund budget for additional cost of bond council and fiscal advisors specifically.

We have a motion, do we have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and a second, discussion please.

Just as a quick review, Had some, we did some amendments to the bond and an additional bond this year, and so we've not, therefore, adequately budget for the cost of making those changes and issuing that extra bond. So here it is, lined out, but it's still within those capital fund lines. We're not robbing our piggy bank, so to speak.

Anyone else have anything they'd like to add to the discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call, please?

Council Member Rathmull? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, it is 6-0.

So we'll move on to introductory ordinance 026-57, considered in municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand this over to Council Member Middleton.

Thank you so much. I'd like to make a motion for introductory ordinance 026-57, an ordinance to repeal chapter 363, Sunday activities.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Discussion, please.

Our deputy clerk has been going through and finding bits of the charter that are not enforced, don't make sense in this time period that we are in, and helping us reduce the number of laws and things on the books helping us shrink the charter and not grow it. So we'll keep that balance, keep what's in there relevant and try and make it more clear and transparent to the public what the law actually is in the city of Binghamton.

And I think she's gonna be going little bit by little to get a lot of those things taken off, so yeah. Thank you for that.

We've got plenty of exciting ones coming up. Oh, I can't wait. The telephone booth one was fun for me.

If anyone has nothing else they'd like to add, Madam Clerk, we'll do a roll call.

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Radovetski? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Aye. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is six zero.

So we're gonna move on to introductory ordinance 026-58, considered in finance, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Cavanaugh.

I'd like to motion to approve 026-58, an ordinance to amend the 2026 Vital Statistics Budget to increase the salary of the Registrar of Vital Statistics. I'll second the motion. Can we have a discussion, please? Sure, as we covered in work session, the vital statistics registrar has become vacant. There is a salary increase plan for 2027. We're kind of trying to just fast forward that to now in 2026, or as soon as we can get the position filled, to make that hopefully a little bit more attractive to candidates that might be willing to apply and let them know of that. That increased salary. Since we've had vacancy in that position, this increase is easily supported by the funds already in the personnel line and vital statistics. So no ultimate change to the budget.

Does anyone have anything they'd like to add? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 6-0.

We'll move on to introductory ordinance 026-59, considered a municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

Thank you, President Dundon. I'd like to make a motion for introductory ordinance 026-59, an ordinance to accept funding from the NYSDHS for regional K-9 explosives.

We have a motion, do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second, discussion please.

So, I guess I'll talk. You okay, Mike? um so this is just an ordinance to accept funding i think is it from i can't think i don't have my this one's new york state new york state just for regional canine explosives so to be clear the full title is regional explosive detection canine team thank you does anyone else have anything else they'd like to add

I think in the news just recently that these canine teams are used frequently in our community. They're unfortunately so, obviously. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need bomb sniffing dogs, but here we are.

No one else? Madame Clerk will do a roll call.

Council member Rathmell? Aye. Council member Matavetsky? Aye. Council member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council member Middleton? Aye. Council member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. I think that's 6-0.

So we'll move on to introductory ordinance 026-60, considered in municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

Oh, thank you, no, thank you so much for that. Thank you, President Dundon. I'd like to make a motion for 026-60, an ordinance to accept NIS gift grant.

Second.

We have a motion and a second discussion, please.

Sure, so this is, the Give 13 is the NYSDCJS crime reduction initiative that provides funding to the city of Binghamton Police Department and their efforts to stop violent crime included firearm related and aggravated assaults. The award funds the salary and fringe benefits of one civilian crime analyst and BPD field intelligence officer salary and fringe benefits, training expenses, and both overtime money for evidence-based crime prevention initiatives.

I think I'll just add, and I appreciate the outline of what this money is actually going toward. I was gonna add some more, but go ahead.

Oh, sorry, go ahead. No, you do it, no, do it, do it, go ahead.

Are you sure? Yeah. Okay. We did get clarity that none of this funding is going to support any flock safety equipment. Obviously, we just passed a recommendation to cancel those flock safety contracts. We did do due diligence at least to ensure that these funds aren't being funneled that way.

Yep, we took the words out on them. No, that's fine. It's great, no, it's great.

Does anyone else have anything they'd like to add? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we move on to a roll call?

Council Member Rathwell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanagh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is six zero.

We'll move on to introductory ordinance 026-61, considered in municipal and public affairs. And I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

I feel like I'm on the hot mic tonight. I'd like to make a motion for introductory ordinance 026-61, an ordinance to accept funding from the DA for police overtime. Second.

We have a motion, do we have a second?

I second.

I didn't hear you, council member, I'm sorry. Any discussion?

Mm-hm.

No, this is just the DA's office offering overtime for police, which they ask for a lot at the end of the year, too, so that's something that they do ask for, for overtime at the end of the year, so the DA's stepping in to help with that, so.

Nobody else have anything to add? We'll move on to, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rothmull? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 6-0.

So the next is introductory resolution R26-58, considered in employees, and seeing that committee chair, Council Member Murray is absent, I will hand it over to Council Member Matavetsky.

Motion for introductory resolution R26-58, a resolution to authorize city clerk and deputy clerk salary increase. I'll second. Okay.

We have a motion and a second, a discussion.

So this is, basically the charter calls that we have a discussion and vote on whether or not there be a salary increase at this time every year, and then this gets put into the budget, reflected in the budget. So that's what this is, and I will let further discussion happen.

And so for context, this recommendation is that the city clerk's salary be increased to $85,000 annually and the deputy clerk's salary be increased to $80,000. I think it was clear and I appreciate the context we received in terms of the pay parity with other municipal clerks. So there... There is comparison for this as well as the dual management structure that the clerk's office has really already been operating under. So bringing the parity on that level internally as well as compared to other municipalities.

So this is, well for most of us, the third year going through this process. The first year, there was some confusion about dates that was, I don't think anyone on council's or clerk's office fault. But what ends up, and we got through it last year and here we are this year. there I have become each year less and less enamored of how the city is handling raises or compensating and it's not just raises but over compensation for the particularly the management appointed folks having most of the heads of departments and their deputies and in case of city council the clerk and deputy clerk If we most of you that are almost all of you that don't know this yeah, there's a calculated salary pool based on the raises the unions are getting that the mayor's allowed to Distribute to a list of those list of management appointed people as he sees fit or the need arises or the discussion happens. Council has occasionally stepped in when other compensation beyond that pool has been needed to attract candidates and stuff. You've seen us and heard us have those discussions before. This council has really stood by having, trying to, within the confines of a municipal budget and the realities of of taxation and responsible fiscal administration trying to make our salaries in the equitable realm with other folks in other municipalities in similar jobs and in the professions to hopefully do better at attracting and retaining candidates that are qualified and will build the city's institutional skill set and knowledge. In all of this process, we end up having to discuss and debate the clerk and deputy clerk's salary in public, and have them do their own presentation, which is not necessarily fair to them. So having said all that, I don't love the process, but I think I have to sit here and acknowledge that the raises that are proposed, I don't have the 2027 numbers all in yet, but the 2026 raises, the across the board raises, the highest one went to CSEA at 4%. CPI is running around 4.2%. The initial cost of living adjustment here was pegged at around 5%. And then with a further adjustment for the deputy clerk to be more at parity with the city clerk, given how they're running the office. that increase, that's I think a cumulative $11,000 increase between the two positions, is more than what the mayor's salary pool would be averaged out for an increase per person. Certainly the mayor has used the salary pool at his discretion over the years to increase positions as needed. So it's not necessarily... a reason for against, it's just the example I think I need to put out there and to give some context to what other positions the city, you know, have been getting and aren't getting versus what we're proposing here, or has been proposed here. So, I don't know if that says more about what we're doing or what is being done with other folks in the building. I just think it needs to be put on the record that those are kind of the numbers.

I think the difference between, and you pointed this out, between kind of what we're doing and what we have to do per the charter and having a public discussion and making all of this, having all of this be on record, I agree regarding the process and I think if we're going to, if we can't Change the Charter in that regard then we should at least have the opportunity to have more public Conversations around what is happening elsewhere in the building in terms of raises I don't want to speak for the chair of the Employees Committee in her absence, but I'm really Excited and highly respect the fact that that councilmember Murray is taking that on from an employee's support perspective and trying to have conversations gaining clarity from the head of personnel, from others within, at department head levels within city hall regarding protocol, regarding those conversations, performance evaluations or the lack thereof, how those metrics are established. So I think if we're going to land on Landing on a better process overall is a worthy goal, and I think in the meantime, making it as transparent and public across the board is something that we can try to support.

Does anyone else have anything else they'd like to add?

I mean, I guess these positions do vary wildly. I believe the Troy budget, they have a clerk, a deputy clerk, and their- An auditor and a legislative aide. Yeah, they've got a lot more staffing supporting council for kind of a similar budget to what we have. So there are wildly different models, including for comparative cities. It's a challenging thing because there are no apples to apples or oranges to oranges.

Well, I know as a union guy.

But they're doing all of those roles, right? They're doing legislative aid, they're doing clerk. Other places may have more staff and lower pay, but this is where we're at here. It's a different model.

well i know the union guy in me the cost of living is literally the floor that we will never even entertain as a negotiation on the way csc a negotiated their contract instead of having a set percentage across the board and just having a pool of money that could be utilized on an employee by employee basis i don't think was fair even in how their raises are gonna go. So for us to set ourselves to any standard on any other department in City Hall, I don't feel comfortable with. I'd rather set the standard, but I am a union guy and we set the standard in wages across the construction area for Broome County to begin with. So that's just gonna stick to my nature. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to add? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky?

Aye.

Council Member Hotchkiss?

Aye.

Council Member Cavanaugh?

No.

Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 5-1.

Moving on to introductory resolution R26-59, considered in municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

Thank you so much, President Dundon. I'd like to make a motion for introductory resolution R26-59, a resolution to extend the agreement for school resource officers for 2026 through 2027.

We have a motion, do we have a second?

Second.

Having a motion and a second, can we have a discussion please?

So every year we have, we get a contract from Binghamton City Schools for a contract between us and the city for SROs, and this year they added a new one for all the elementary schools. So this is what this resolution's about. Does anyone wanna add on to it?

I need a little bit more detail. So we typically have had, we being the city, and BPD contracts for, and council members can correct me if I'm wrong, but three SROs and this extends, yep.

Two middle schools.

Yes, thank you. And so this would add one more to extend SROs and that program. into the elementary schools. I did come very prepared to talk through data, to talk through reports, to talk through personal experiences, but I also feel like it's important to point out that we did not even receive the contracts that we are supposed to be voting on until today, and what we received is a draft, so it's not a final version of either the middle school or the elementary school agreements and I think to give us the opportunity to actually look through those contracts and what is in them since we are expected to vote to approve them. I would very much prefer to see a final copy executed ideally by the school, the district superintendent. I'd like to make a motion to hold over in hopes that we can have an MPA committee meeting in the interim to get some of those details as well as some of the answers that were represented in public comment earlier.

Hold that thought, because I want to, I'm glad first, I'm glad this happened early, because we've had this issue before. So if we have that, if we hold it over, the next meeting would be August 26, for us to vote on it again, if that's what we if that's what people want to do, I guess the only thing with that is the contracts have to be ready before school.

So

I mean, we can always do a special business meeting. It's not like we haven't done that for anything over. I'm actually going to second the holdover motion because I would like to read through the contracts and cross-reference them. Absolutely. That's something that one of my strong suits is going through contracts, so I'm going to second the motion. But end of August should be before...

Yeah, we're good, we're good. I was just looking at that. But yeah, we could always have a special business meeting, if anything. But yeah, that's fine. I think that's fair, too. We don't have a final draft of it, so it's fair to do our due diligence.

I'm not gonna vote on something that's a draft that I vote on it today and it gets changed tomorrow.

Absolutely. And it's not the final. I don't think it's the final one, so that's fine.

And I've only had maybe five minutes before the meeting to even try to read through all three of them.

That's fine.

So we'll move on then to introductory resolution R26-60, considered in public works and parks, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Hotchkiss.

Okay, that's fine. It's helpful. Thank you.

Council Member Middleton, do you have anything that you wanted to finish?

No, that's fine. I was just making sure it was held over. Oh, I'll be setting up a meeting so that way we can discuss that. It's fine. Thank you.

Thanks. Make a motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-60. This is a resolution to enter into a supplemental agreement number one with Rambo Americas.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

The water plant is getting a brand new generator, and part of that installation requires a lot of engineering. And our original allotment for money with Ramble wasn't sufficient, so this is to cover the extra work that's required.

Anyone have anything they'd like to add? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Council Member Rathmell? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Dunnan?

Aye.

Thank you. That is 6-0.

So now we'll be moving on to introductory resolution R26-62, considered municipal and public affairs. And I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton. Thank you.

Thank you, President Dundon. I'd like to make a motion for R26-62, a resolution to enter into an updated agreement with the Broome County Humane Society.

I'll second the motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

So this is just basically to update the agreement before, I guess, who, I can't think of it, I don't have my papers, but I think, where were they going last time? Were they going?

So the Front Street dog shelter is being now managed by the Humane Society.

Thank you so much, yep. So that's all, just updated. Thank you.

Anyone have anything they'd like to add to the discussion?

I mean, other than, I mean, we don't really have a choice. Number one, Broome County's not gonna do it anymore. Humane Society has a very long track record of running shelters here in Broome County, so I don't really have a problem with that. Just from a finance standpoint, that we check in on the sort of inflows and outflows of the money here and seeing what it's actually costing before waiting a whole year. So that's on me, but just throwing it out there.

Anyone else? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, we'll do a roll call.

Council Member Rathmell. Aye. Council Member Medvedsky. Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council Member Middleton. Aye. Council Member Maria's absent. Council President Dundon.

Aye.

Thank you to 6-0.

Now we'll move on to communications from council and I will start with Council Member Middleton.

Oh, shoot. Hey. Hey. Oh, so, I didn't know I was gonna be first. I had to think. Okay, so, just wanted to update, I, tomorrow is a traffic board meeting i know that some people in my district had asked about some things i'm gonna try to make it to our traffic board tomorrow i had some constituents fill out some i mean i had some constituents fill out some things but it's not on the agenda so i definitely will still try to advocate for those changes on the west side of Binghamton. Summertime, we haven't really held any west side meetings. Starting September, we'll be back on holding our west side meetings. Also, we've been in the process of putting together a youth initiative. It's going well. If anybody's interested in speaking, joining, anything that, you know, anything, your thoughts, please reach out to me or to the clerk's office to join our meetings.

Thank you. Council Member Cavanaugh. Council Member Hotchkiss. Council Member Manavetsky.

All right. The Southside Neighborhood Assembly has their annual picnic on August 18th. It was rescheduled. I think there was rain on the initial date. That's at 5 p.m. at the Ross Park Zoo Pavilion. Bring a dish to pass. That's coming up. Ross Park Zoo has a really nice program in August. On Thursdays, they do reading, art, and they bring out an animal. If you're looking for things to do with your kids, that's a particularly pleasant activity. Touch a Truck is coming to Discovery Center. They just call it Truck Day. That's August 29th from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Usually BPD is there, DPW, some different folks, some for-profit folks with their cool trucks. That's coming up. It's a lot of fun and a lot of city pride with our vehicles out there. If you have kids, it's going to be fun. I think that's, oh, Conklin Ave corridor study that kicked off outward facing this past Monday. The consultants came in. We did like a walk street audit with an app, tracking all the locations, lighting poles, bike signs, potholes, sidewalk inconsistencies, vegetation, plants in drainage areas, fallen light poles, all sorts of things were logged. We're putting that all together. That's one piece. Then we had two pop-ups. One pop-up at Saratoga in the community center there, where they had a basically a small group, but like a good focus group, people talking about what they need on Conklin Ave, and then a second pop-up right after that at Webster Street Park. So I wasn't here at work session, but I did make it over to Webster Street Park to engage with folks through that process. And our future times they're here they're going to be cognizant of scheduling around our meetings so that hopefully won't happen again but yeah it was great to see people come out there's still there's an online survey there's going to be more ways to connect this is the beginning not the end i have flyers i'll put some i guess in the clerk's office for folks that are coming in and if you see me on the street i will try and have some in my bag to make sure you have the link to the survey Info is kind of the main public-facing source for upcoming events is the Binghamton Economic Development Facebook page. I'm going to do my best to like and repost to my council Facebook page so people can see what's going on with the Conklin Ave study. Councilman Rathmell and I were pretty vocal about the need to do a study and to make a plan to figure out how we're gonna reinvest in particularly Southside East, following the loss of our grocery store over there, and this is part of that, and I'm grateful that this was an area of synergy between us and the executive branch, so it's always nice when that happens. can happen um and we're all kind of swimming in the the same direction so i'm pretty excited about this we were lobbying for it we got it into the budget budget passed with it thank you all for your votes of support for that in the budget and now it's rolling out and it's pretty exciting thank you thank you council member madovetsky council member rathmo

Two upcoming events, Binghamton City Council members will join representatives from the Reimagining Center City Group tomorrow, Thursday, August 13th, from 6 to 8 p.m. for a town hall to present the survey responses. to Reimagining Center City's community engagement efforts over the summer. Those partners include Broom Tioga NAACP, Trinity AME Zion Church, Vines Astor D. Rice Foundation, Phelps Mansion Museum, the Broom County Public Library, the Binghamton City School District, and Broome County Urban League among a few others. We directly engaged with community members at events for six weeks between June and July and created a survey that we also took door to door in every neighborhood on every street. Center City so we are gathering for a town hall tomorrow evening again 6 to 8 p.m. At the Phelps Mansion Museum to share the top interests and priority needs that were reported by Center City residents during those surveying efforts and opportunities for short and long-term revitalization in the Center City District. That's tomorrow, one week from tomorrow on August 20th. City Council is hosting a community education session in partnership with the Center for Community Progress. the rollout new requirements expectations and timeline for our proactive rental housing inspections program that was adopted in May 1 to 3 p.m. in the decker room at Broome County Public Library will be hosting a session geared toward property owners and property managers and then 5 to 7 p.m. will be hosting a session geared toward tenants and residents

you so much council member rathmel council member middleton sorry so i forgot two things um on saturday and sunday cares is having backpack um they're back doing their annual backpacking so putting together the backpacks for the following weekend so that's at 21 emma street from 10 to 5 So if you have some free time, please come and help pack bags. I'll be there getting ready for the following week when they'll be distributing those out. Check on their website and they have that up so they have a back to school every single day. And partner with us at the Greater Good Grocery. Also, on Wednesday, August 19th, at the Greater Good Crocery, along with Zoo's Barbecue, we'll be giving out backpacks. We'll have food, music. My daughters are going to face paint. So come out, enjoy some time. It's from 5 to 7. Get some school supplies and some good food. So thank you.

Thank you. I don't have anything to communicate tonight, so I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion? Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye.