Common Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're live. Okay, good evening. It is August 31st, 7 PM. This is our caucus for September council meeting. The first resolution is 129, City of Kingston authorizing the mayor to authorize the expenditure of grant funds in the first instance Authorize the match of $109,192 from Dazney New York Swim's Kingston Point Beach project and set up a capital investment.

Michael, do you want to talk about this? Yep, pretty much what the title says. It's coming out of the Red Fund.

Okay. Any questions? Chris?

I just want to make sure you... Yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, it seems like there's three resolutions tonight, um, referring to, um, the local waterfront redevelopment project, um, funding. I was wondering if there was just a list somewhere that said what all the sources of funding were for a visit. So the first one, uh, is DASNY, New York Swims, and then, uh, the

our recreation fund. And then resolution 130 of the council is approving matching fund of the $982,000 from New York Department of State for the Kingston Point Beach.

And then... That one is local or comprehensive revitalization program funds. So, statement of the state.

Yeah. There was a match for 106 in one area and 109 in another area. Are those two separate sources or was one of them a typo?

109 is the first grant, 106 is the second. The first grant's match, 106 is the second grant's match.

Okay.

Resolution 131, this is authorizing to allocate the match funding of $45,000 to for the DASNY New York Swims and DRETA pool improvements.

Also similar, $45,000 match for the total project through New York Swims. This is also coming out of the DRETA fund. It's also, all of these are maximum awards. So assuming we get the maximum award, that's what our match will be. Could be less.

Next is resolution 132, and this is approving a memorandum of agreement between the City of Kingston and the Kingston PBA Police Benevolent Association Police Union dated July 16th, 2026 for the time period from January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2029.

Uh, this is the new contract for, uh, random file in the police department. Uh, it is a 3.75% base wage increase for from now until, uh, end of 2029. It also represents a $500 increase in the employee's share of the health insurance. Meanwhile, ours went up about $2,000. So I think if I'm reading this right, I would just, for anybody who was not at the finance committee meeting, this represents on its own a 3% tax increase each year. If

A 3% tax increase each year.

This on its own, if we approve this tonight, that will increase taxes for the budget by 3% for the 2027 budget. Are you talking about property taxes? The tax levy. Wow. Every $250,000, I think it was one point.

Rude.

Doesn't it? I mean, we don't know that that will mean our taxes will go up because we could get income from, say, a tax or some other source, right?

Certainly, but all things being equal right now, it means about a 3% tax increase for the 2027.

Just to clarify, but it could come out of general funds. We have a general fund surplus, so we would take the monies out of that?

We could certainly take some of it, yeah. Yes, okay. I'm not sure where we are in our fund balance policy. That's a question that we could talk to John about for the findings. Okay.

And this is retroactive to January 1st of this year. So expenditures going back. Okay. The next two resolutions, resolution 133 and 134 are... authorizing the transfer of two properties from auction. The first is 305 Lucas to Brittany Brocco. And then, Andrea, I'm sorry.

Yes, we actually need to make an amendment on the floor for that one to change the name. Okay. So I'll need somebody to do that. It's to upstate Platinum Reimagined Properties 1 LLC, and I'll extend that if somebody is willing to.

I'm willing to do that.

Okay.

Great.

I'll send you the resolution. So what it will be is I'll have the lease of three, the resolution that passed out of finance. Okay. Then you'll make a motion. We'll change it and the resolution is already ready to go.

Do you have a question? No. Okay. Thank you.

So then the second resolution 134, this is authorizing the transfer of 55 West Chester Street. to 55 West Chester LLC for $110,000. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Resolution 135, this is authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with GOVQA for a public records request management system.

This is the GovQA software provided by mega conglomerate Granicus LLC, which is a private equity company. This will cost between now or December 21st, 2026 and April 5th, 2027. It will cost about $7,700. The following years will be $23,789.89. The third year will be $25,405.28 a year. I do just want to say how refreshing it is to actually be approving a contract.

Just so you know, there is an amendment on that when we originally built an AMIA instead of an SAFI, which reduced the amount of the contract by approximately $200. So they have an updated We're just changing the approximate values. Another first one is $7,500. All the time in my head, I have the other ones.

You should have the blended resolution. Michael, do you want to make that change or report? I'm also about to confirm the ways that I'll take it away.

Any other questions? And that goes for the budget transfer too. It'll be from $7,700 to $7,500. What resolution number is that? That one's 141.

141? Yeah. Thank you. And I'll send both of those to you by public change.

Okay. Next is... I have a question. So do we currently not have a public records request management system? Interesting. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And there's a title. Yeah, the South River Valley.

Okay. The title does not matter unless it was in the actual resolution. Okay.

Thank you. Next, Resolution 136. This is authorizing the amendments to Chapter 360, Taxation, Article 2, Veterans Tax Exemption, Section 36019 of the City of Kingston code to include a hundred percent exemption for permanently and totally disabled veterans.

So what it sounds like permanently and totally disabled veterans, let's not have the Trump, how Trump would tweet something that is a legal definition of the VA. So that's a permanently and totally disabled veterans need to go through and prove that they are in fact that.

And according to Dan Baker, this would only apply to about maybe 16 veterans in the city of Kingston. Andrea?

Yeah, just I'm hoping everybody saw my email. I'll confirm as we get to each of them, but this one is good to go. No problems.

Next, resolution 139. This is authorizing a bond ordinance for improvements of the feeding system at the volunteer farm in at 365 Ferris Street for $255,000. A lot of us actually went up and saw the firehouse, the museum. Any questions on that one?

I just want to remind everyone that the planning office is seeking grants to cover this, so hopefully the final cost will not be $230,000. The cost is actually $1,200,000.

All right. And then Resolution 140 is the bottom ordinance for that, for now, for the 250,000. All right. Resolution 141.

Can we go back to do 138, please?

Yes. Oh, okay. Sorry. Resolution 138, Resolution of the City of Kingston authorizing the amendment of Chapter 360, Taxation Article 8, this is the senior citizen tax exemption, increasing the maximum income exempt eligibility level and expanding the maximum exemption to 65% for senior citizens.

So this is the one that the committee report also had the senior citizen and.

So we need to amend this on the floor as well, and we need to.

We could, if everybody wants to, we could take the whole thing back. We could just take the part out for persons with disabilities. I think that's what I recommend doing and sending that part back to the committee, but passing the senior exam.

Yeah.

So you're going to do, okay. And you have the language for letter D. I can do that.

Okay. Just in case.

And then we will have to do a public hearing on that one.

But the senior... Not the senior, the person. So just let me explain. So originally, we passed both things as one amendment, but they were both at 50% exemption. And now it's the senior citizens are 65%, and the people with disabilities and limited income is 50%. So we had to separate them out.

Okay. Michael? I think it's also important for us to keep in mind that these exemptions just mean that the pie does not get any larger or smaller and that everybody else has to cover the slack.

Okay.

Resolution 139, this is authorizing a bond ordinance for improvements of the heating system of volunteer 141. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Kingston. Approval for a budget transfer from contingency in the amount of $7,715.79. This is to purchase the public records management system. This is the budget transfer will now be $7,500. And it's from contingency. Next, Resolution 142. This is the Council reappointing Matthew Branford to the City of Kingston Board of Assessment Review. Any questions? He's been on, so just reappointing. And then moving on to resolution 143, authorizing the mayor to execute a license agreement with Golden Hill Housing Development and Golden Hill Owner LLC for the installation and maintenance of a monument sign. Any questions on that one? Golden Hill will get a nice sign.

Yes.

Resolution 144, amending chapter 208 of the electrical regulations. CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS. CHAPTER 8, ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD. CHAPTER 60, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. CHAPTER 79, MERIT AWARD BOARD. CHAPTER 180, BUS FAIRS. SO THIS CAME OUT OF LAWS AND RULES. THIS IS WORK THAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT SHAW DID CLEANING UP OUR CODE. RESOLUTION 145, THIS IS COMMON COUNCIL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,959.78 in the city clerk's office to balance accounts. I don't know if there's anything specific on that, Michael.

Sorry. We're on number 145. 145. Sorry. There was a lot out of finance that night. 145, Lisa?

Yes.

Oh, this is to expense of insurance claims.

Okay. 146 is resolution recommending approval for modifications to the 2026 Office of Grant Management budget.

This is moving funds from, sorry, this is moving $4,425 to personnel for separation of service payments.

Okay. Resolution 147, this is adopting the standard workday for elected and appointed officials for the retirement system for someone in Corporation Counsel's office. That's just standard housekeeping that we do every year. Resolution 148, this is Common Council recommending approval for a budget transfer from contingency in the amount of $22,000 in the wastewater treatment facility to cover the cost of an emergency repair. Pretty cut and dry. All right, resolution 149. This is authorizing the mayor to expend funds in the first instance related to the New York State Department of Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, sorry, LWRP awarded in the amount of $167,160 for the updating the local waterfront revitalization program. Any questions?

On that one, Ruth? Okay, that's huge. Michael? Yes. But that'll be provided by in-kind services through the work of the planning department.

Okay. Okay.

Resolution 150, this is the council recommending approval for a budget transfer from contingency in the amount of $10,000 in the housing initiative office for materials and supplies to support stabilization and security work for properties acquired via Article 11 foreclosure proceedings.

This is us buying a lot of particle board to shore up the windows and egresses of presently vacant city-owned properties.

Any questions? Okay. Resolution 151. This is an ordinance relating to the traffic on the public streets of the city of Kingston, adding handicap parking on Yeoman Street.

Actually, I thought it was Yeoman. Yeoman.

There should be four resolutions on handicap work.

Fair.

One from Ruth Adding. Does that feel right? No. That's my word, but I didn't know if you got it.

Nobody. Okay, so 150. What we have here is 151 and 152. 151. 152 minutes, 151. Yeah, and I got a note from Elisa that she's fixing that. Okay. And so, 151 Yeoman Street.

Yeah, but there should be four. Uh, they weren't there. Yeah, right.

There's only three. And you're just an addition addition. Mine is an unremovable and then the mayor and the mayor.

So there should be just a handicap.

That's why it should be one from Ben, one from Tara, one from Bruce, one from Steve. I'm only seeing three, so I don't know what is missing. So can the three of you check?

Okay.

It's ABA.

The other one was Elmendorf. We moved ABA parking from 68 Elmendorf, and it didn't have a resolution number next to it. There was just the backup material, but there was no resolution.

I thought we already did that last month, though.

So for this month, you had me add a handicap sign. Where was that? Do you remember? I'm going to go back. It wasn't Yeoman. It was someplace else. I'll have to look it up.

Oh, you're right. I did ask.

Yeah, send me an email. Can I email you tonight about that? No, because we need to fix it. Okay. I mean, don't worry about it. I'll look it up right now. Oh, okay. So everybody's taking care of it.

Yeah, I have to be at risk in life. Oh, okay. But you're supposed to bring them both. I was impressed. That's awesome.

where is just the street 68 68 on the door yeah okay and then clinton clinton um that was yours that was me yeah okay thank you All right. So that's, I guess, Charles. So we're missing that. That's Bruce. That's Steve. So we're missing the removal on 68 Elmendorf. Was that in the packet?

68 Elmendorf.

I'll work with Lisa on it tomorrow and we'll have that. It's not as much of an emergency since it's a removal versus a attention, but.

Right.

And it was in the packet. It was, it was, I have it in front of me, 68 Elmendorf.

Is there a resolution? No. Wait, the packet of caucus or the packet for public safety?

Packet for public safety.

68 Elmendorf is in the packet for tonight, for caucus, on page 48 of the first packet. But there's no resolution accompanying it. Okay, so that's just one way it's, that will be, yes.

Based on that, they don't know.

So Resolution 153, this is adding handicap parking on Ferris Street. Resolution 154, this is naming the Broadway Roundabout after Tommy Keegan.

Can we just spell that now? Yes. Do we have a process for naming? Because it just seems like it could be kind of arbitrary. I mean, I don't know the history of Tommy Keegan, but I trust what people are saying and good things about him. It's just that it seems like there should be more of a process because people could name their buddies and it could be willy-nilly. and there's a lot of people doing really good things in the city, and how does all that get prioritized?

We're pretty sure we do have a statutory process.

No, I don't think we're naming streets. I think that's for just the parks. I think the only thing statutorily we have is they have to be streets. But I can't quote where the law is on that.

I certainly support this resolution, but I think it's, like, the resolution itself is rather vague in the sense that it says that the, like, the result says, shall be named after Tommy Keegan, when I think it should say, it shall be named the Tommy Keegan Memorial Roundabout, or whatever we decide it is. I think just saying that it shall be named after him is just extremely unfair.

That's a good point.

I think that came from the first office.

I'm not saying anything. I think if we're legislating it, it should be exactly how we want it to be said. So I just don't know.

What is the sign for it to say?

So it says talking to you in person.

That's not what it currently says. It doesn't mean... There's a sign that says... There's a sign that says...

There's a sign that says... Yeah. Can I explain what happens with this for the people who run out of public safety? So, it was brought to my attention along with the mayor that... there were folks who didn't know that there was a process to get a street name and the sign was placed. So it was made and purchased by a community member, just not understanding the process. And it was also placed on a sign, again, not by our staff. It was a mistake that they apologized for, but that is what happens. And then when it was brought to my attention, I, Steve and I made the decision to just keep the sign there depending on what this council wants us to do. Instead of having DPW take it down and then maybe put it back up. But it's really this council's decision. If we leave it, if you want to name it after Keegan, it's not interesting. We can, we can leave the sign, we can change the sign, but that's how the sign happened. And, you know, the person who did it apologized and I said, well, I will, bring this forward to the Common Council to see what they want to do. And so that's where we stand.

All right, so it's Michael, then Marissa.

So I would just, the sign says Tommy Keegan Traffic Circle. I would be happy to make a motion that says I would amend the resolution. Section 1 of the resolution to read that the Broadway roundabout be named the Tommy Keegan Traffic Circle. I just think that's more of a precise name.

So, just to be clear, this is not just a sign of approval, because we have another sign of approval with folder no. That's like our suffix and our authority have a sign placed on the same property. This is the same thing, but we're also, there's only two things, we're approving the sign and renaming of the traffic circle. To me, I thought we were, I didn't know we were officially renaming a circle.

We're approving rename or not. It's up to this, you know, it's up to you guys of renaming. That was the request. Typically, or when we do that, we place one. So the Joe Fay way, is that what it's called? Yeah, it's a way. That was, the sign came with the pre-name. So it kind of, they go hand in hand. So it's not two, but it is, the request is to name the roundabout after Tommy Keegan.

And just one, sorry, if I may ask, there is a Tommy Keegan way on Tate and James.

One block. I don't think it's official.

I was not aware of the sign that says Tommy Keegan Way. Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

I was not aware of the sign, but I was not aware of that.

All right, Cheryl and then Michael. So you've referenced, you know, Joe Faye Way. That was the whole process. That was, you know, talking to the neighbors. That was getting, you know, DVW involved. I understand, and I think remaining of a roundabout, which is an essential feature in the city of Kingston, we need to sort of slow this in my opinion. I don't mind having the sign remain as is, but to call that entire traffic circle which is, for a lot of people, the first entry into the city of Kingston, I think we need to sort of step back a little bit and understand, to Ruth's point, what the correct process would be.

Michael? I mean, what do you call the bridge going over the Westchester? Attacked. What's it actually? It doesn't matter what it's officially called. People are going to call it what they want to call it. So I think most people would say it's the traffic circle and the friends of Tom Keegan would say that's the Tom Keegan traffic circle. I, you know, I think it's just like a big deal.

Yeah, I mean, it's been alluded to the correct process. We all are following the correct process. I mean, if you want to have more like DBW got involved because of the sign and where to put the sign. We could get them more involved for the Joe face way, not like sunscreen. Yeah. That's why they were involved. This, we're just saying, we're going to keep the sign where it is. If we want to change that, but I'm just saying like, there is nothing that we're like, we want to change the policy. I think that's a different conversation, but we're not, we're not not following something.

I think what Tara was trying to say is like it lacks a public feedback kind of process, right? Is that what you're saying? It's the public one.

The rethinking of the actual traffic as opposed to just having a sort of inconspicuous sign there. I think that we need to follow a process that would involve sort of public input.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that we haven't, because you said that we haven't followed the correct process. We are following the correct process. It doesn't matter. So, yeah, I mean, we haven't done anything wrong, but if the people on this body want to have more public participation, I think that's always a good thing.

So I am not supporting this with Tommy Keegan, Traffic Circle, Traffic Roundabout, whatever you want to call it. I think my question would be is, How many other people throughout the city of Kingston get to put up any sign they want to and then come to this council and ask for forgiveness?

Yes.

Okay. So that's what we should be looking at. Yes. You talk about policy. That should be directly put in there. Once again, you know, the sign is the sign. It's there. It's a legal sign. So that's what it comes down to. It wasn't authorized by this council or anybody. So it was put up. I think what you got to do is curb that action.

Okay. I agree with him.

Michael? Did DPW make this sign? No. Okay.

Can I ask maybe constructive criticism? I mean, like I said, I didn't know about it until it was pointed out to me. I guess I'm not an observant tracker of signs, but there's too many signs, exactly. But I mean, that was my decision to just say we have to sign. I mean, and I didn't, you know, press criminal charges, but should I have done something Different that you think we have to curb that behavior. What should I have done to tell you that? Correct? Yeah. Yes. Yes.

Yeah.

Until the problem is, I know I didn't want to get them and, you know, absolutely.

I understand. Okay. I'm willing to go one at a time. I'm willing to vote in favor of this, but I do think in the, in the future, we should develop a policy that at least requires a public hearing of naming. Yeah. Sorry, I'm not public hearing what in the future. Ruth?

Yes. Since it is kind of a prominent place, and if there's already a Tommy Keegan street sign, we might want to, you know, spread the love and have a traffic circle named after someone else. I think it would be. I can show everybody if they want to see it.

That might be illegal too. Yeah, that is illegal. That's not Canada.

If there's a street named after him, that is illegal. Oh, okay. So anyway, I don't know what the processes are, but I would like to see a process and a chance for maybe running around the Navy.

Oh, yeah. Well, that's what. So I went wrong. There isn't a common heat in the way. I just wanted to correct the word. So I saw that, and now I think I went on Google Street View, and so everyone has Google Street View. All right. So you want to see it one more time? Yes, so one last thing.

It sort of reminds me of the Parkland situation where people just sort of convene and decide that they want to do this, and then the city ultimately says, is left to sort of, you know, either corrective action or removing it or, in this case, actually blessing it and causing, in that process, the city to have an additional liability. And in as much as we want to change the code to reflect, you know, because that's sort of like a new thing, the Parkland situation, if people... are desirous of having streets and bridges and whatever named after loved ones. And, you know, listen, Tommy Keegan was a wonderful person, I get it. But you can't just post signs anywhere you feel, you know, that it would be in honor of them.

All right, I'm going to take a straw poll. Who would be in favor of passing this tomorrow night?

All right. I won't be present.

You won't be present. Oh my goodness, I get third time.

I want to speak for the individual who did this, but I think it should be a unanimous decision. So if we want to send it back to community, it would certainly support that.

I think we should send it back because there's a lot of... Yeah, I think we need to have a cleaner process and a better discussion on this.

And also if we vote it down, it goes away. Great. I don't think that's the intention. So we'll just do that. But I will direct DPW to remove the sign, which actually I realized that I did direct DPW to remove the sign. Another leader in the city said not to. And then I said, okay, that's fine. Not the DBW guy.

Why do you want the roof of the sun?

What? Why do you want the roof of the sun?

Because that's what I thought you guys just said. No, you told me that's what I should have done.

That's what theoretically is supposed to happen. Right. I think the consensus is we're saying moving forward, we need the actions of any kind of science going up without the approval of it.

You didn't say to the exception of the sign, so I thought that it's. Can I ask again? Should I leave the sign? Rebecca?

I'm just going to throw my input to hearing everything that was said. If the committee is going to reconsider it, and part of that process may be put into a public hearing or something like that, it may improve it to remove the sign. And the person who put it up understands the process and what's happening and why it needs to be removed. And then let the process happen and either use their sign and put it up and save some money and not create our own sign or create our own sign. And then it may be that there must be a process involved. There's a, what we do with signs, you know, we're doing about something. If the idea is to truly honor this person, there might be some, that'll, celebratory if there's one with it, obviously. So if it's a legal sign, then yeah, it should be different.

That's just... Everybody on the panel? Sorry, one more thing. It's been our practice, it's mostly in the instances to do the ways, like you were taking it away, there was some other way, and I mean, St. James, I don't know why we're naming the track after him. It's not a beloved feature of the city of Kingsham or some, but that block of St. James, you know, that's Keegan-Salem's territory, so not entirely their neighbors there. But why are we not doing the way? Yeah, that's a good point. Yes.

So I will ask DBW to remove it. I'll ask them to save it. I'll make a case we decide to do that, but we can decide otherwise. Sound okay?

Yeah. Okay.

We'll need somebody to make a motion to send it back.

Just to potentially add to the process, I'm not on that committee, so I would just suggest maybe if we do honorary naming of the streets, waves, roundabouts, parks, then maybe it's just one per person. You know, You don't get a street name and a round back name? No, I clarified. I was mistaken. Oh, yeah.

Oh, okay. Okay. All right. All right. Oh, can you send that back? Yeah, she said she would.

No, I asked her to make a motion. You'll make a motion to send it back to the committee?

Oh, sure. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Moving on. Resolution 155. This is a common council city Kingston amending the code of the city chapter 135 air pollution and smoke control to add a new section, which creates a temporary burn ban during high fire danger periods. So we had a public hearing. We had a resolution that was introduced by President Schott and Alderman Marbelli. So you, Heather, would you like to speak on it, please?

I will. Okay. So, you know, the biggest concern was the charcoal grills. But it seems at the committee meeting that The committee, at least, wanted to make sure that they were, let me see if I say this correctly, they were not excluded. So, I said that wrong again, didn't I? Yes. When there is a temporary burn ban, folks can still use propane and charcoal grips. So, the public, hearing there were a lot of public members who wanted to ban them, but the committee... ultimately decided that we will not place them in the van. Correct.

Yes.

So that is, that was the decision. So that's where we stand.

Michael? Does that kill smokers? I didn't think about it until this morning.

Well, smokers are contained. I think that you are contained. I wonder if there's going to be a question.

Yeah, but they're contained. But I didn't know that. I would vote for it because it brings us one step closer

you know, a slightly more safe situation than we currently have. But I would prefer to have the ban on grills as well. But I will vote for it because it brings us closer to a safer situation. Anyone else?

The way I read the resolution actually means that smokers would be.

What's a smoker?

Like a barbecue. You see those days.

It's not open. There's not an open. During periods of high fire danger is identified by the New York State DEC. A temporary birdman shall be impacted throughout the city means.

When I would read it, shall ban all outdoor fires takes precedence over what's included. which meaning that there are things that may not necessarily be on this list that are also prohibited. So in my mind, that also means those barbecue smokers.

But do we... I mean, do people use smokers often that we want to? Yeah, we have in restaurants too. Yeah, should they do that?

I mean, you talk to your team.

There's wood and bark. And you use wood chips, like flavored chips in a smoker. But it's clipper. Yeah, it's clipper.

Right. All right. If it's the legislative intent that's allowed. Yeah, it's fine with me.

But I didn't hear what Bob said Saturday.

Propane is not protected. So if the propane fires, then they're okay.

And if it's covered, it's completely covered.

Right. It's a chain. It's not an open fire.

It says all outdoor fires. It doesn't say open fires. It says all outdoor fires. And if you have a smoker, it is covered outdoor. Outdoor. I don't want to be language infertile. Thanks for trembling.

Well, we exclude. This prohibition does not... You know what? I think it comes down to enforcement. I mean, it's not going to be enforcement.

I mean, there's pizza grills, too. Like, people have pizza. Yeah, firewood.

I mean, yes. And it's not such a small fraction of how many days out of the year, right? So... And we could always change it, right? We could always amend this later if it's things that you have. DECBAP says there is high fire more often and it is messing with people's dinners. We could come back and change it.

Ben? I just want to speak to specifically for a lot of folks cook over charcoal and mostly charcoal as part of just tradition, culture and a way to prepare food. So I think, you know, as much as there's an argument made to reduce or eliminate charcoal grills from being employed on these days, I felt strongly that we should keep them going because it is a way of life for a lot of people, especially in World War and other countries. So I felt strongly about that.

And that is how the language is. Correct.

They're exempt.

Correct.

Is there any exemption for where these grills can be stacked? Where, like, can they be worn? Because what I've noticed is that they're really close to porches and to railing and to mulch. And so is there, and I think I should know this, is there any position requirements during times of...

There is... in some of the fire safety laws where grills are not allowed on porches or balconies of anything over two family dwelling, like multiple dwelling, you can't have it. It has to be so many feet from the building, but that we don't have anything that I've seen in the code that's for one family or two family house where that is prohibited. But how do we go into that chat room?

We could have a conversation.

That's you, Matt.

Okay.

Yeah. I mean, we should, because from what I, when I was doing research on this spam, like, fires that happen to, there's more gas grills. Yes. Where the grill hasn't been cleaned, or there's gas leaks. Mm-hmm. All right, moving on. We are now up to first reading of local law four of 2026.

Yeah, so before that, we'll all remember, I think 157 of the 68 Elmendorf and the charter commission that we just did, but the local law four, So we have, as this is all detailed in the email, we must do a public hearing before we vote. So we have two options. We can do the first reading and have the public hearing sometime before next month before you vote. That is still okay. Or we can send this back, do the public hearing, and then move forward. Either way is legally fine. We just have to... decide, because we're either going to send this back or we just have to, like I said, get a public hearing before at some point we do the second reading of the book.

Can we just do it during, right before office next month? I mean, this is just taking so long to get.

Well, that's what I just said. We could do it between. Yeah, so like next month.

First reading. Yeah.

I'm just giving you the options at work. I don't care what you decide. If you want to do the first reading, we do the first reading and then we'll just call the money.

That's a public hearing on the finance committee or who?

Yes. It's a legislative body, so I think that there would be okay. Or it should be council. It should be council. Yeah, and then the mayor does not have to do his normal public hearing. Yes, there's some cross-reference we have to do with the law, so we'll do the first reading, and then we'll I guess I'll send an email, or if you want to pick a date now, you know.

What is the next? Here is the nine.

Well, it's going to be a council meeting, so this will be a council meeting.

The council meeting is October 6th. October 6th, okay.

Why don't we just do it through our caucus because everyone will be...

I'll find the vote and say 6.30 on the 5th. 6.30 on the 5th, okay. Now we also have to do the public hearing on persons with disabilities. Should I do both of them? Yeah. Okay.

So the same day?

Yes. So would that be 6 o'clock? Can I do it from 1? I don't think they're going to be. I don't think they're going to do it.

Let's say I'm going to do 4 o'clock. I have a two-step right here. I just have to pay $6.45.

I will do $6.30. I'll do $6.30 for one, $6.45. And if things are pushed back, then they're pushed back. Okay. So that will be the plan. I'll send an email.

isn't it a good time that you have to keep her covered here, and we're hoping we're going to fix some of that?

No, because . Right. OK. Thank you all. OK. That's it? That's it. All right. It's 7.50. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Mm-hmm. All in favor?

Aye. Thanks for bringing me to the end of the panel.