Common Council - Regular Meeting

Hi, Ethan. Do you think you're going to need to screen share? Hi, Alisa. Uh, no. I don't think I need to. I I think the committee members should have the materials at hand and I think that will be sufficient tonight.

set. Okay. Okay. So, um we welcome the laws and rules committee meeting March 18th. It is 6:30 Saturday. Um present. We have um all the persons um like Marissa Marlli, Ruth Catz, not on this meeting, right? Well, yeah, Bob Det for Michelle Hersh. Those are the it so we have quum and we also have President Sha obviously in attendance and is anybody viewing online?

No, not yet. Um, so good evening and like I guess we'll start with new business that being uh well not Sue I thought it was going to be Sue K Hill but we have Ethan here um who will be discussing support for the um historic preservation commission designation of JN courts building as a local event. Take it away.

All right. Thank you all for having me here by Zoom. Um, let me begin by saying I uh I'm the historic preservation administrator. I work with the Historic Landmark Preservation Commission. Um, in January, the commission uh as well as the public had learned about the uh pending um uh auctioning of 207 Delaware Avenue, the JN Courts Engine Company building. There was some outreach by community members to the HLPC as well as the HLPC's interest in the building. Um, the HLPC had previously learned of its uh potential eligibility for state and national register listing through the uh 2023 intensive level survey of Wilbur and Pinkaki. And so, uh, there was a motion by a member of the committee to hold a landmark, uh, designation hearing on the matter. And some information was produced on the building. And uh there was some public uh comments in that process in February at the public hearing. And ultimately the commission found that the building met the code requirements under um criterion A for community development as a a fine example of a fire volunteer firehouse in a workingclass neighborhood of the uh late 19th and early 20th century as well as an association with persons of uh local and regional prominence uh JN courts a state senator and an individual who was critical in the uh volunteer company's establishment as this first president and also as a fine example of a modest municipal firehouse um featuring some

neo uh features and its pediment as well as um a number of other fine um treatments across the facade. Um, the commission unanimously recommended it for designation and forwarded that to you for consideration here this evening. Any other questions? Uh, what does a local landmark actually mean?

Well, um, that's a good question. It is a uh basically it is an honorific designation that recognizes uh a building for uh a number of different factors uh community development uh potentially persons of significance and architecture as well as the ability to yield information. Um on the local level preservation uh finds its greatest strengths also in ensuring um the management of change. So, for example, um um it it basically would require property owners to come before the Historic Landmark Preservation Commission for uh review for things like uh exterior modifications, though Kingston's uh landmarks code is uh a little bit more advanced than other communities. So for example, inkind alter uh repairs for example uh painting of woodwork in the same colors or historic color palettes restoration of features in kind can be reviewed at desk level but insure in short it ensures a degree of protection for the resource in the community.

Thank you uh Ethan. So this would only concern the interior and rather it the exterior of the building and not concern itself with any interior renovations. That is correct. And can you tell me a little bit about the um the existing bell and why there is a protection for that?

Correct. Yes. So um the existing bell is uh understood to be the original bell to the building. Um when the city built a number of these firehouses back in the late 19 19th century and early 20th century it it invested in bells as the alert system. Um a number of them are still in situ in the uh firehouses across the city. There are some examples where they have been removed and so the landmark commission uh recognized the critical importance of the the bell to the building and felt that it should remain on site in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Ethan? Okay. So, um there being no further questions, I'm going to read the uh committee the committee report. Um the resolution of the common council concurring with the historic landmarks preservation commission and pursuant to FBC section 405.26 26 L7 to to designate the JN courts company engine number 8 house 207 Delaware Avenue as a local landmark to address setting a destructive covenant or similar landmark protection in place for the existing bell and to install a black a brass plaque at at ground level on the building street facing facade which will be provided by the HLPC. Can I get a motion?

Um, any discussion? I'm happy. Absolutely. Historic Americans in my award and it's beautiful. Okay. So, yeah. You just have to make sure you mark. Yes. Yes. You see the two initials. So, RK is the motion. Bird second and Ruth and Oh, no. Ruth did the motion and seconded by Marissa. Oh, Marissa, of course. Marissa.

All in favor? Anybody else? No. No. Thank you, thank you, my pleasure. Thank you all. Have a good evening. I met the owner randomly last week very happiness.

Yeah. Seeking to Okay, so we're going to move into the next one. I'm sorry. So old materney seeking to add Kingston business league zone as the list to the list of city officials that have to submit financial disclosures.

Uh yes. So this is the new position that the mayor uh announced last month. The municipal uh business liaison I think is the official title in the press release. Um so the committee report should read that if we choose to get forward. Um this is just adding them to the list of uh people who need to file an annual statement of financial disclosure um that we file the same one that we file that members of the planning board and the zoning board file. Um so volunteers also on the planning and zoning board fill out this position. And I just felt like based off the you know we didn't get a job description in the uh press release but they have a city email address. Um, and I feel like there's a lot of opportunities for the perception of a conflict um, with that position. So, I just think it would be better for the city and for the public um, if they filed financial disclosure.

Yeah. So, I agree. My hesitation or I guess I want to understand like I would want to know the job descriptions. I wish I saw the application if there was any. Um because as a person who was on the the team that rewrote the ethics code, one of the things that we talked about in great detail was that list and it was anybody who makes a decision. It's not an advisory. So like the planning department, that's why some of the boards and commissions have to fill them out and some of them don't have to fill them out. So it's advisory versus actually doing that. But I don't I don't know if his position like what that role looks like. I just wanted to explain everything behind that list and where involved in the ethics.

I was under the same, you know, conflict about it. Um because I don't know what they do. You know, I don't know if they're subject to our employee sexual harassment policy or other compliance policies that should be answered in my opinion. Um, but I just felt like there's um so many opportunities for them to, you know, you see it in like a lot of things like the county tourism manual that highlight a certain business over another business. And I I feel like there's just a lot of opportunities for a business to say, why did my competitor receive this treatment or highlight in a city, you know, social media post and I did not? Um, I just feel like there's a lot of perceptions of a conflict that could arise out of this position and I felt like it was important. And then even, you know, I filed this communication with you before this happened, but I spoke about this last week in our finance committee meeting. I felt like I was being directly lobbyed by the person in this position in opposition to what the mayor has in our introductory meeting about what this position should be which just in my opinion cemented the belief that this position should require a statement of financial disclosure.

Yeah. I mean, I feel this is different than an advisory like a member serving on an advisory board where they part of a group of people and they're not out there having direct one-on-one conversation with the business and elected officials. And so, it's not the same category. It's um it's and and and they're representing the city's interest. So, I I think we need to know what their exactly is.

Yeah. I don't disagree with anything. I don't necessarily disagree. I just wanted the understanding of where the ethics code was. I want to see a job description because I think that I mean cuz yes, this I think this would be helpful, but I would really like to see what he's act this position was dealing and also

description. Uh no, there was an email that was asked um that was sent out by Michelle and we didn't get an answer. Wait, or did you send it out? No, I I did not. And I think that the mayor would act being that he's not a paid this position is not paid. I if I were the mayor, I would tell us that's operations and that I don't need to give you a job description. Um but I mean there are job descriptions maybe not for individuals on the like planning board and acting, but there's still, you know, we know what they do. And also every volunteer, I know I'm like fighting you and we're on the same side on this issue right now, but volunteers have to fill out applications and get selected. And I I would also like to know that that occurred here, too, because that I would find that to be problematic. And this has nothing to do with the person who was there, by the way. I don't think it has to do with any any of us saying that. But, you know, this even though it's a volunteer position, so are all our other boards who we have people apply for. So, I do think that's problematic, too. So, I think it's all like tied in. And, you know, I think that we could argue that, yeah, we don't know if this is advisory or not.

I think those are all great questions. I would love to know what how many hours they dedicate. You know, did they go through a compliance training to get a city email? Um, do they follow our does this volunteer position have to go through sexual harassment and those other kinds of trainings that any other city employee would have to go to? I would love to know that information. I don't think that requires us. I think all of this can happen independent of this moving forward or not. And if the mayor even announced that he was pursuing this position, I would have still filed the um that he was seeking a business leaison rather than appointing a business leaison. I would still think that this requires statement of financial disclosure.

I even if even I think that we should have a job, I think that would be great. I'd like to know what this what he's doing. But that doesn't preclude my desire to do uh ethics a uh financial disclosure reform today. I am I agreed with that too and like I said I just wanted to get the understanding behind since I was part of that team that wrote the epics code and that's where we kind of went to this position I feel is like we don't know. So therefore it does make sense but I would still like to get the the job description and start a job.

No no no that's okay. Um I guess what I'm wondering is would this discourage other people from seeking okay this is the first time that we have that person appointed in this particular position. So let's say the person is resistant to financial disclosure. Um would would you be okay with that? No. I think that's all reason to require financial disclosure. Well, I'm I'm just wondering what would we get out of the financial disclosure

the same thing that we get out of you know we have to put business or businesses that we have interest in people who owe us money or that we owe money too. Uh I mean I personally find our statement of financial disclosure extremely broad and very you know not the most like informative document but I think it lays out any kind of reason why somebody would have to recuse themselves or take out you know not that this person is casting any votes or anything but it would just I think engender a lot of public trust that this position is um is operating at the same level of personal transparency that the That's still a sign to die.

In my opinion, you wouldn't want someone doing this job who's a lobbyist for somebody and it could be if unless there's a financial, you know, if if this person is a lobbyist for some interest in town, I'd like to know that. I think that's important to know. Yeah, I write that report. Is everybody in favor of making this change to the code? So, it sounds like we're talking about two separate things, though. Yeah. I don't want this to, like I said, I'm not I was not opposed my you know, saying what I said wasn't saying I was opposed to this, but I also want a job description

and I also think that moving forward there should should be an application process, but again, that's operational, but um the job description would be really good. So I don't think we should put the specific title. I think it should be like for the mayor like any mayor appointed liaison or that we have to do that every time you create another. Yeah, I agree. I think that's harder to define.

And I think I think we will just have to do that. And I mean the mayor has not done this very often and he's welcome to veto it and in his veto message maybe provide a job description or why a financial disclosure is not necessary and we can determine whether or not that's satisfactory or not. um if he doesn't want to provide this in job disclosure uh job description what he just renames the expedition why would a governmental leaison

because we don't want to discourage what ter was saying that is something that again this is the ethics task force she's talking about we don't want to discourage people who are volunteering who really don't have they still have to go through another layer before a decision is made So to put it out too broadly to say liaison and then that could you know I think that's too ambiguous too I should say um to include here especially looking at this list it's very direct fire chief mayor members of the board of ethics I think we should follow that language and it really isn't that hard to amend this

and that's actually why we wrote it and the ethics task force wrote this in a way that the council can consistently make changes and things going to have to be changed. Why can't we just make this request of this appointment? Because only the people who have to um give financial disclosures are on this list and are not good. So if we ask others to do so that's problem. Why are we asking? We have a new person who was performing a service for the city. He's not in that he's not in the list. Is it anybody who had a say email address?

Well, why can't we No. Why can't we ask for a financial disclosure for anybody who's in a position that could that in our opinion could present a conflict of interest. But then that's I mean that I think that is way too Yeah. And this reads this is from the ethics code. City officers employees who must file annual disclosure forms are as follows. So nobody else who's not on the list or anybody else who's not on the list does not need to. There's no law or regulation that says that they need to do it except if you're on this list. And I think leaving it too open is not a good idea. Like a little bit.

Um and and what's that? Is it a short list? Can you pick up? I come in and all the department heads.

Um so all the men at large um assessor, assistant corporation council, city clerk, city engineer, city planner, controller, corporation council, the directors of the following arts and cultural, building and safety, civil services, communication, community development, grant management, health and wellness, housing initiatives, human rights, IT, parks and recreation. So all those are department heads, fire chief, mayor and then the members of the following boards. Board of ethics, the county council, members of the human rights commission, um Kingston local development corporations, members of the planning board, members of the zoning boards, board of appeals, the police chief, and then the superintendent of the department of public works and the superintendent of the Kingston water department. So we would just add in um

municipal business. Yeah. What is the title in the press release is municipal business leaison? Kingston business. In the title of the press release it says Kingston city of Kingston business leaison but in the body it says municipal business. Aka our very first municipal business liaison.

So should I start writing this? Is everybody okay with us? Did I just have to think about wording? But please bear with me for a couple minutes here. You send that to me. What John sent you? Yeah.

Well, there's a little bit of a description here. As the city of Kingston's municipal business liaison, Stu Meers will build and maintain relationships between local government departments, citystate agencies, business owners, and nonprofit organizations. In his role, he will foster communication and advocate for the needs of local business community and identify opportunities for city government to strengthen its supports for business owners. I think that's a that amounts to a job description to me. Good.

Does it specify advisory? No, that's right. None of all of those make decisions that don't have to go through somebody else. So for example like complete streets it would be advisory to the mayor or to the common council. They would move forward or something. It would be an advisory comment

and that was the decision of the ethics task force which you know to make a change. Okay. Can you tell me the two names? Municipal business leaison and city of Kingston. City of Kingston's municipal business leaison.

The title of the press release says city of Kingston business liaison. I literally did the other one. The city of Kingston business liaison not

leaison. I always spell I spell it two different ways. Is it two? Two eyes.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Off the persons. The committee report reads um resolution of the common council to amend the city code chapter 49-5C to add the following role to the list of employees who must file annual disclo annual financial disclosure forms or annual in a code says annual disclosure.

Oh okay. um who must file annual disclosure forms. Municipal business liaison aka city of Kingston business liaison. Do I hear a motion? Motion second. Okay. So you can serious.

So all in favor? Anybody against? Nothing. Okay. So I want this. Yes. This is moving along swimmingly. Don't say that. Jay, well, I'm up next. If I can mess this one up. Think I'm up next, right?

You are up next. Oh, yes. We have President Sh seeking an addition to the council rules specifically in the process of letters of support. Yeah, I sent an email but it was much later than my lawn through I copies too if anybody wants support. Did anybody else see one? Extras.

I got it on mine. So, do you want Yes. So, that you just pull. So, this was just an idea. Um, I'm happy to I wasn't even anticipating it passing out today since I'm giving it to you. I gave it to you an hour ago or so. Um, and our rule is you have to have the longer time if it's something substantive. Um, this this is a proposed policy.

Yeah. Not something we're No, it would go into our council rules and the idea is just to establish a process so that we we always do it the same way. So there therefore mistakes still don't happen was the idea we talked about why we're doing this. I wrote this just to get something out there. As I say I am not married to anything on this. Um you know the only thing that I would say is I'm really not comfortable if if not all 10 of us signing it that it should go on the official council letter head. Okay. That was one of my concerns. But

um so I really like the second part of standardizing the letter head. I think that is important. Um and I think that if it's more than five, five or more members, that is the position of the council and should go on letterhead. But I think that if there's fewer than five, it could rather than send our individual ones, we just sign onto a letter with the author's letter head on it. Like I don't think that needs to be us. I I just I don't want it to be where there's like three council members and then sending it on the letter head, especially if it's, for example, me and Michelle are on the letter head right now. Yeah, totally. And if I'm not supportive of it, I don't want my name on the letter head. Yeah.

Um, you know, that just doesn't make sense to me. Um, but again, this was just like getting an idea out on paper. So, I'm I love to hear some feedback. So I think um like either like combining the first and second points and then there's just no reason for like the third point we could just you know I sent out a letter I don't know if I'll you know I'll get five signatures on it. If I get less than five I would just put my letterhead on it with the other signatures and the recipient would know

that okay only ex member of people assign it. It's not a position of the comm council. it's a position of x number of of members of the council. I think for us to send our own individual letter that's like letters gets complicated and that was a suggestion from somebody who wasn't here. So, um I'm fine with whatever. I thought that's what everybody wants and I could delete that last bullet. Um, sorry.

I think I just wanted to say that I think at one point you were saying that when the Olter County legislature sends out a letter, if it's a majority of the legislators, then they use the the letterhead. So, I think that makes I think that makes sense. And also I think as far as sending out a letter individually. I mean I I have personal experience with this because I was circulating a letter and I did send it out on my W one, you know, sort of email because it was an email letter, but I did put in, you know, the return address as just city hall. I didn't say it was from the common council, you know, just so there's a, you know, if there's a printed letter, it has the address of city hall without it being on city hall letterhead. Right? So that seemed to work because they're not going to reach out and send response letters if one is, you know, forthcoming. They don't want to send it to everyone, but they could email it, you know, to everyone.

My my only hesitation is so if there's I just changed it so I combined the two. Um it's between five and 10 members a fixed letter head. But how about Michelle and I again just using our our names now at least we're in there our don't sign the wrong right do we just white out the no I mean why nobody could do it should we have that in in here or would that just be like common courtesy that we'll watch it I mean obviously if it's going through me I'm going to notice that but just like just have that thought out there I don't know if it really necessarily matters to put it into the rules maybe um

excuse like me. Um G given that our chair is of this committee is not here today. I would strongly suggest that we table. We could this is a great start. If you should definitely think about it and wait until our chair is here to weigh in on this with all of us. I I got to Michelle, but I also earlier I said I wasn't anticipating cuz I got this last minute so I wasn't Yeah. But I Michelle and I have spoken about this. Oh, I I I didn't expect me, but I had it. But I I'm curious what she thinks. So I sure

Yeah. Um, so if if it's not all the council members that are in favor of the letter and if you or currently you or Michelle are any one of them and your names are on the letterhead that you could the letter could be phrased um this letter um indicates that the majority of council members are in favor of blah blah. Um so and then you don't sign it. the only ones to sign it. That might be a way to get around. Yeah. And I also think I'm just gonna write something in here and that it'll the council will be addressed accordingly.

Accordingly is my favorite word. It'll be addressed accordingly. Govern yourself according that's the way. That way I could or whoever's in this my position can make the adjustments. Oh yeah. Right. Right. but without being very specific. Michael, um, so I don't necessarily agree with that drafts need to be sent to the president of the council. I think it's just a unnecessary step that I feel like it's our right as independently elected officials to just send out a letter to the body and say you want to sign it or not. Um,

can I explain the reasoning behind this? This Michelle and I did talk about this. The reason behind it wasn't was to keep things organized and to make sure that they get sent out appropriately if one person is doing it. I would prefer a clerk to do it if we had one. I'm not going to ask our clerk, you know, city clerk to to do it to add to her to her um her office's plate, but that's who I think would best be suited for it. But that was my reason. That's kind of the thought process was just to keep it better somebody to track it them all.

I think if we had our own clerk who we could even ask to assist in this process of like drafting these letters, I think that's totally reasonable that like that would then go through the president of the majority leader. But if we're taking the onus ourselves to write a letter to try and get folks to sign on, I would assume that the author of that letter would want to see it followed through to be sent out. And I I just view it as like an unnecessary step in the process. Like if I have a letter, I feel confident about it that it's ready for prime time. I'm just going to send it out to everybody and who signs it signs it and who doesn't. and it goes I send it out and the world moves on.

Yes. I would say part of you know as as someone who initiated this part of the challenge I found was that people would say write to me you know since they were I would you know as the initiator of the letter I was the one people were writing to with questions right so people were writing to me with questions and then after we had you know some back and forth they would say okay I'll sign on but then they didn't reach out to you to say that they were signing on and so that became a little complicated well I think that's just because it was the first it was new we were trying something. So,

yes. No, I understand that. But I'm just pointing that out that it's, you know, going to like it would say that in some ways the person who is sending the letter is the one to whom the communication is going back and forth. It's not going through the council president or the majority leader. So, maybe there's some, you know, compromise that could be worked out. I don't know. I mean, I think if we if we're going to do it the way that we have been doing it, then we don't need to change the rules. We don't need to add this. The way we've been doing, but it's the way we've been doing it. Well, just somebody saying, "I want to do this. I'm going to do it." And then and sending it out and doing it. I just feel like things have slipped in the cracks, which is why

um this was brought I don't even remember. It might have been you, me, and Michelle. I don't know. It just like it just kind of came up. Um so that was the reason. But if we're going to keep it as like just kind of random, then why put it in the rules? I'm just going to I'm sorry. She You're going to go first. Go ahead.

Yeah. Um I I'm not sure I'm totally following what the process currently is, but um I like the idea of like if I initiate a letter that I want everyone to sign on to. I would want to send it to everyone, you know, even including you, including the president.

Yeah. again. And um and and plus, you know, with some alderman having like a lot more experience or knowing more about, you know, legal issues or whatever, I would want that to be, you know, a part of it. And um and I would want back and forth. I even if I deliver a letter to everyone that I think is great, definitely, you know, Marissa could say, "I think you forgot about this or that." you know, somebody could say anything and and improve the letter. And so part of what I would want to see is for it to not be real last minute, but for there to be some time for some back and forth to make it the best letter possible without it being, you know, laborious or anything, but you know, having, you know, if we're going to ask for a sign on letter, I don't want to be left out if I don't see it right away. I don't want to be left out. And I also might have input that's like gosh, you know, you forgot a comma there, you know, that changes the meaning or whatever, you know. Okay. Um, I'm going to beat myself.

So, I I I can I I see both sides here. Um I see where if there is not a majority of um alderman that want to sign on to a letter that it should not go out on um

you know official letter head. Um, in which case I think that the whoever initiated that letter should take the responsibility for sending it out on their own letter head with the undersigned names and support and I think that I think that's what we've been doing for the most part. Um, so I, you know, we we can table this, but um, I I don't know that it necessarily, I mean, I understand your concern because there have been some recent issues that have come up where it seemingly got a letter seemingly got dropped and it there was a deadline attached to it. So, I I understand that, but if we can all commit to taking ownership of the dissemination of that letter and then the final sending it out, like that's your job. Um, I think we'll I think we'll be okay. But, Michael,

I agree. But I do think that we should codify the letterhead policy. I do think that that's important for not just us but future councils and it sets that stage for when we have our own clerk to sort of create their process. Michael, you keep angling for a clerk and a lawyer. You got to use any opportunity to to state your position. So, um are there any more questions? Well, are there any more thought? I mean, yeah. figure out how to work this cuz I was just thinking of getting if you know if you don't want to streamline the process to make it so it's consistent.

Thank you and uniform. I don't think we need any amendment to the rules at all is what I'm thinking. I don't I mean if we're just going to do the way it is I think like codifying the official letter format I don't think is necessary and that's fine. I mean, but I just don't think it's necessary if we're not going to have like an actual process. So,

well, I I was going to say I think there should be a process because I think if the entire council is is behind sending a certain letter, then I think it gives it more weight if it is on letterhead. So, I think it is something that we would want to do. I think the question comes to me in the back and forth, you know, because I learned a lot, you know, in the back and forth that happened when I was reaching out to people and people were writing back and then the letter was changed. And I think this is where, you know, how what are the logistics going to be between the time the president sends out the letter and then the back and forth with the council person, should the president be copied on all of that correspondence to sort of stay in the loop so that there's a general understand, you know, it's that kind of logistics of how does the actual process work from the time the first draft goes out until it's finalized for people to say, "Okay, yes, I see the changes. I can sign out." That's just my question which we can

wait what is your question? No I mean that's just my thought. No no no just how are the logistics right? And I think we did that as like a test run, but it wasn't great because not everybody was following it because brand new. So it's hard to then use that as a test offering, you know, the feedback from that experience cuz maybe it could guide how it goes forward. which is one of the reasons why I figured if it's uniform. But again, like I'm not

I no hard feelings. No matter what we decide, if we get rid of this, it's one less thing on my to-do list. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Um but that was the thoughts is keeping it uniform. proof. Yeah. Um, one thing that I would like standardized is um, if there is a letter because I know this almost happened with that best letter um, that I thought I missed the dead the deadline before it went out. It was something that we sent. Yeah, there was a deadline.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There was a deadline in that case. There's not always a deadline, but sometimes there is. And um and I was upset at first because this is an environmental issue that I care about and I would have been really bummed to find me hadn't been on it. So maybe if it says, you know, in the in the subject line deadline, please comment by X date for delivery by Y date. Well, I I do put the important on anything that has deadline. Yeah. So, and

I really I to be on the be on the lookout because I I only use that when there is some kind of depth line or I need your attention to it like immediately because that is what I do and then I'll I'll even write the subject line task required. Mhm. So that is so I do do that. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then and then like right at the top it could say please comment by which date because we want to deliver it by Y date you know. Yeah cuz then I mean the deadline is in there in the email. So

I didn't put the deadline in the email. We're not talking about you could say that my test I did I did have the deadline in there but I'm just saying that would be a good thing to include where you know cutting it I think that it's yes so it's kind of it's two things right like there's the complication of how it goes out what it looks like and then there's the internal process of how we you make sausage should be given.

I I think it seemed like the sausage making might require a bit of back and forth to figure out how to do that right. But I do think that having having official letterhead makes a lot of sense if we're all supporting something or a majority of us that that makes perfect sense to me. But again, that is how we've been doing it. So that wouldn't be a change. Okay. So just take the moment think about it. Yeah. Um and uh I will just leave this here and I'll follow up with Michelle again. Yeah. Thanks for your comments.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So moving right along Thank you. Yes, I know. Actually, can I just go back Carol? Sure. Sure. Because another thing is and this was um a suggestion from Barbara is that perhaps we also define when we would go to a memorializing resolution because that is and that is something for the new members. We have done more memorializing resolutions and we're trying to go more towards letters of support versus yes

memorializing resolutions. However, sometimes when I was saying resolution as tonight when we just passed one it that is the process that we should follow. So defining that I didn't get to that point. I wanted to see where this would go. So I don't know if you guys want me to try and I'm not a guess. Yeah, I know. beautiful. I mean, so we'll do the same idea and rate something that we could then talk about because I don't really want to be the one that decides

when it goes from letter to I don't want to be the only one to decide. So, we are going to table this in for Michelle to Yeah. Fine as well. And for everybody to stop it, it was easy. Only had about an hour. Okay. Okay. So, um, moving on to the next issue. Uh, well, in absence of Alderman Hirs, uh, Alderman Tyranny, you're going to present the city of Kingston. I don't think Bow Kingston. No. Uh,

he was sitting in for Michelle, but I don't think Michelle I'm sure if we wanted to go into executive session and talk about it, we could call Michelle. Um why was he going to executive session? What's the reason?

Perhaps I may send us. Yeah, I don't think it does. Can Can you just give me one chat? But I don't think there's a reason. You're not going to go there. A reason to do this here. A reason to go into exactly I'm used to meeting except we're going to follow the law and the law doesn't allow us to go into a closed door. Um okay table it in comparison she's correct.

That's true. Yeah, I believe the purpose of this resolution, not to speak from Michelle, is to um sort of state the council's position on this proposed or existing nonforprofit um that the housing development nonforprofit that the mayor and our director of housing initiatives seems to have created over a number of concerns of the common council regarding financial impact as well as governance that we have not gotten satisfaction for sport. Um, I personally do support this resolution. I I understand some folks to take any position on this, but it feels like the city's position is being taken regardless of how we feel about it. And I think it's important as the policy makers and the financial um really the financial officers of the city that we do say that we want nothing to do with this. Um because at the end of the day, I'm still not convinced that the city will be on the hook if one of these developments goes belly up. Yeah. And I feel like the goalposts have gotten moved every single time where we talk um or we we receive a presentation from the director of housing initiatives. It feels like our concerns are not being answered. Um I I appreciate that the director of housing and the director of housing initiatives responded to all of Ham's very good questions. Um but I still am not personally satisfied with the answer or feel that this is um an appropriate path that the city will walk to know

position is we could have no it's like this it's like the king city land trust it's like the kingston city land bank it's not a city agency I don't want the city financially engaged or involved at all I think that we keep this at arms length you don't get involved Well, we let them do their thing is my position. So, I'm opposed to this resolution because I don't want to say a word on it. Did the common council have any sorry, did the common council have any uh involvement in the creation of the teams and land bank?

Well, the case land trust we did not. The case in land bank we did and the only connection we have is that the mayor appoints the board members which I don't think is necessarily a great idea. It's a separate authority need to be connected to us. But did we approve the creation of the entity of the Kings Olympic? I don't think we have to. Then we need to say legislature. Well, because authority separate authority. It's not a city agency. It's a subsidiary of the city. Not really. It's a separate authority.

So, they don't they aside from the mayor's involvement in the board appointments, which I don't understand. Uh, it's not a city agency. This is just information, not my opinion on the natives. But, um, Michelle doesn't want this tabled. Um, she does not want this tabled. If there, you know, there's support, she would like to have this move forward if possible. Um, because this is timesensitive, which is why I added as a late communication. So, I just want you to get that out and I have it. If if you don't trust me, I'd be No, no, no. But this is today.

Yeah, she just said otherwise she's into um um so I do this already has a city connections. They've posted their meetings on our website. It seems like city staff time has been used to develop this. Um I have concerns about, you know, if somebody is clocked in at work for city business and they're doing this, that to me is

inappropriate. Um I don't know what the involvement of the city attorney has been on this. I would assume there has to be some being that these that we saw documents through the the attorney general's office that that a process has been followed and that I would assume requires an attorney where they or if they are having outside counsel. I don't know how they're paying for that. If that's coming out of the housing initiatives budget, those are all serious concerns for me to make me want to move forward with it. And I, you know, I want to like this nonforprofit, but it just seems extremely opaque. It seems extremely, you know, I don't know, I don't even have appointment letters um on how these board prospective board members were chosen. I've sent an email to the director of housing initiatives um in which I asked for us to get those appointment letters um in which he responded um there are no appointment letters and then how were they chosen um they were invited by the director of housing initiatives so there's clearly city staff time um being used for this so I think the horse has left the barn that the city is involved with this and I think it's our responsibility to say that we do not approve of this one. Well, I can yes I can answer some of the question because I did go to the to the initial sort of board meeting so to speak

orientation

orient no it wasn't a meeting an orientation in which I learned a lot of information you know that I'm happy to share and um what I've learned is that funds that were used were ARPA funds so again that raises the question of if there were ARP of funds that were left over you know ones that were not spent on certain projects does the mayor you know does the mayor have the ability to assign what's you know what happens with those arba funds or not but that's what I that's what I learned it was ARB funding that set it up arba funding hired an outside attorney to come in to set this up so you're right it was it was city funds that were used to set it up but the but from what I understand in a conversation that I had uh with bartekch yesterday is that the board the the bylaws had not been ratified so even though there was there was a filing you know with uh with the state but at the next meeting which is taking place I guess it's a week from a week from today on a Wednesday morning uh 9:30 on the 25th the group is going to have its next meeting to talk about governance and I had you know said I don't think that the city should be involved I don't whether it's appointee of the mayor on the board or appointee of the common council the city I feel like Bob there should be no we should just have it be a hands-off, you know, relationship so that there are experts on the board who are qualified to make these decisions who are housing finance people who can then run off and do their own their own thing. But there I would say there is an opportunity for us to be involved to give input because the the bylaws have not been ratified. And I also, you know, have put out to the the community development and housing committee that if people want more information cuz I know there are new people here who may not have been through what some of us went through last fall, you know, in terms of how this is presented that there's an opportunity to learn more because

there's a lot of there's I would I would say that there's a lot up in the air to to me. I mean, I don't I'm confused about what's happening. I'd like to know, you know, I'd like to know more. I think more will come from the next discussion of governments and I will go to that meeting. It's open to the public. But you're right. I mean it's at this point it is confusing. So what's happening? Artekch told me that he has spoken with our city attorney. I would like to have her come and talk. I would like to find out about this. What does the city think about it? I would not like to have us be implicated in things. And yet I'm fully supportive of any way that that there could be more opportunities for housing to happen in this city and for money to come in to finance those the projects that we really need here. So I'm just throwing that out there.

Yeah. Um from what I understand so far about the model, I like it a lot. um but do have problems that you're all um discussing about the process and and if Kingston Land Bank and you know those other entities have done well being completely independent um then that seems like a good um piece to insert into the model. So, um maybe what we want to say is not only um say that in time for their meeting a week from now that um do not include uh uh an alderman on your board. But um but also that we want assurances that the city of Kingston won't have any financial liability. that the city of

King and oh and the oh the other thing I want to say which is sort of an aside but connected is I can understand why like someone from the mayor's office like Bartekch would be a part of helping to launch a new program you know there is staff time involved in that and you know up to a point so um it's sort of a natural flow the creative process you know problem solving and and type of thing. So, I don't mind that. But then if like 25% of his time going forward or some solid percentage going forward is going to be devoted to that project, um that's got to just be clear that that's, you know, part of his job description or something. Marissa.

So the bylaws already assigned a role to the common council. So wait, I don't think that they voted on but there's still like there's there's still the funship and even in the draft the articles of incorporation that we found would have had three board directors through. So do we know who those people are? Yes. Do we have a copy of the articles of incorporation? That I don't know. But see like this is the thing. It takes three directors to file an article of incorporation. Who are those people?

We are expending our city money on us. Even ARPA money is our city money household appropriate the ARPA money. Um we are spending staff time on this and and we're not even getting clarity. So by not saying anything, we're saying something. Michael,

so I am perturbed that ARPA funding is used for this. And you know, I was not on the council when ARPA funds were originally assigned. that don't think really any of us but the president was but I was under the impression that ARPA funds were dedicated to hire the center for public enterprise to examine the possibility not to create this. Um so it just like that to me feels like we are not even being allowed to appropriate funds. They are operating off of a now

5-year-old, fouryear-old assumption that this is the position of a council that doesn't exist anymore when it feels like they are going far beyond what the scope of what those original funds were dedicated to. And I have a problem with that. I have a problem with these random individuals being chosen by our director of housing initiatives, not even by the mayor, uh, based off of one-on-one conversations according to what he sent to to me, which I I could forward to everybody and I apologize for not doing that already. Um that this to me is just feels so in the shadows and not public when it feels like every time we're presented that this is that you know the city or the nonforprofit will own 51% of these developments which means that we are financially on the hook for um that I just can't allow us to do It feels like not taking action is seeding one of our most critical powers.

Yeah. My understanding is that and one of the problems with housing development is the pre-development costs. Yes.

Okay. You can't to get started you have pre-development costs that are difficult to come up with. My understanding of what this entity is design is to do is to create an opportunity for people to get pre-development costs which they will pay back as soon as they get their financing. So we're going to have a long-term relationship with this. We'll do free development. We get paid back. See you later. Um I I hope they're successful. It's a very difficult thing to do. Um I don't think I think our money our money went well was grants. to gave up money to a lot of people, you know, for without any connections, which I think we need to keep that in mind.

You know, I I think I want to stay away and watch what happens and not get the city involved and not get us financially involved. We shouldn't be financially involved at all of this in my opinion. What about time or staff time? I think your point about vortex time starting something I don't have any problem but that doesn't that doesn't elevate the city to pay somebody's debt or if somebody goes you know one of these developers goes goes bad which you know development is a dangerous business it can happen I don't want us to be involved in that I don't want a liability I don't want exposure for involver

so couple of things um you mentioned about pre-development cost and that this would be some sort like bridge finale seeming to take youth development which necessarily means that it will be unsecured because there's nothing to secure it. So it's it's the city taking a risk with predevelopment, you know, covering pre-development costs. Now, yes, if all turns out well, no, the city is taking a risk. Well, this entity is taking is taking a risk and and that's part of the problem because we don't know how it will be capitalized.

Um and so we discussed with um BK whether or not there'll be a bond issuance or you know, where is this initial capital coming from? and he's been, you know, kind of unclear to my thinking as to where this money is coming from. There's been some thought about, you know, a not for profit coming in and just, you know, dumping a bunch of money um into this uh not for profofit. But again, I I don't know enough about about where that was coming from. And I think uh Mr. Ham's questions sort of, you know, discuss that as well. Um, personally, I think the model itself is too oversized for a city of Kingston's size. Uh, all the examples that we've been given were communities and and municipalities that would triple our size. M

um I I see this as an exercise to build someone's resume to be able to say that well yeah I sat in you know we developed this this plan you know I know about this stuff but it it it we can't we can't bring it to scale fast enough to make it um to make it workable in this environment um at this point with the if he's talking about um funding 25% of a project these pro and he and he mentioned votech that he sees um this not for profit being able to fund 200 units 200 units at no less than $400,000. That's a lot of money and it doesn't make any sense. Um, so I I still have a lot of issues with, you know, the model itself. I think it works well when when it's in a larger environment, but I I don't see it working here. I I have a problem with, as Michael has pointed out, the resources, the city resources that have already gone into making this happen. Um and uh and I think that the process has been you use the word opaque. I mean that I you know I that's what I think of it. It's it's uh it has they have not been forthcoming with a lot of information. Um Michael

um thank you Carol. Those are all really great points and I think that this would be a great initiative for Olter County to take on. I think that they have the capacity. There's 180,000 people that live in Olster County. That is a fantastic initiative for them to carry this to fruition. But and even for with the goals of what the project wants, I don't think it's reaching the affordability that we need. There's no guaranteed tenant protections. Um we don't know who will be managing the day-to-day operations of these um facilities when they're made. I I just think there's too many concerns. um both of product both of government governance both of finance for feel comfortable having anything to do with this and I do think that we should vote for this resolution.

Yes.

So again more points of I information I did email you all the articles of incorporation s you actually sent it out a few weeks ago. I missed it. So, I I just forwarded it to to everybody in um at the table. Um but I also want to go back to something Ruth said because it was a good thought and I agree with you. I just wanted to explain. So, that um you mentioned we should say that we don't want to be financially liable. We can't just say that and then have legal teeth. I mean, if we want to add like we would like them to figure out a diff, you know, a the corporation council to figure out something, but it wouldn't have any legal teeth in in something like this. So, we could say that we don't want to be financially liable, but that would just be our opinion that we don't want to be financially liable. I just want to explain that. And I do agree.

What is the assurance that we would not like? We have a current rate of that. Yeah. Yeah. What does that look like? Just further your conversation, the Kingston City Land Bank. Yes. Was funded by a philanthropist. Mhm. No. By the way, that's where they got their seed. I could explain the ARPA funding if anybody want like I appreciate that because I thought that Okay.

Yeah. So yeah, we hired um the consultant to come up with the plan. Then they presented that to the council. This is for six years ago. So I'm just and I didn't refresh my memory on those. They presented it last year. They finally they did cuz I was at the No, no. This was when they this was before.

Oh no. So what the idea was we came up they came up with they were calling them buckets of where we would want the money to go and there were very specific projects in those buckets but it had like the categories of it and they they said they designed it that way so that there were some wiggle room because it was a lot of money

there it was a pumpkin it was going to expire and that they didn't want to come back if one little thing wasn't working. So, there was a little bit of builtin leeway. I do have But it wasn't supposed to be just take this and then do whatever you want. There were definitely categories through those. But they published a book. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And wreck and housing and Yep. So, you had those infrastructure um business.

Yeah. So they and they would have like a specific project that we wanted, but again because he had those buckets, it was some wiggle space. I don't know if this went beyond that wiggle space and how much that's gone. We've never really went back for any oversight on that, which we probably should have. So Marissa question for So I'm still I'm still stuck on the they have well the B haven't been adopted but in an official document filed with the department of state it's pretty like yeah I you say that the

they're not ratified. They're not ratified, but there is it's still like the assumption within the department of state has been set up by laws that assumes that the city common council has a role on this governing body and that that should be I think that should be removed. I think that can be changed at the next meeting when this group is getting together. I want to see that gone. I'm not I'm not this is

this this is what's so frustrating about this process is like we did it but we didn't do it but you know it's like it's up to us to figure out what's what's actually happened and what hasn't and what money had spent and what hasn't and what where how this thing will function like we don't know it is I can't tell you how much frustration I have gotten means I'm trying to follow this. Then you're good. Yeah. It's and and not giving straight answers, right? Welcome to the council. Okay, Michael.

Um I also want to say like it just feels like we're creating like legacy job security because this non for profofit will require an executive director who's probably saved no less than $120,000 because it's a big job. It's huge to manage these um manage this revolving loan fund, manage the the construction of these facilities, these construction projects. Like this is somebody who will easily make six figures and it feels kind of like something is being designed. Yes, I agree. I agree. And I don't think that at present we have the skill set in the off office office of housing and institutes um despite what they may think of their skills. I mean they they they are handling so much now and so you can it doesn't take a a leap of imagination to uh to to think that yeah this is going to involve at least one or two other additional positions. Um, and this may not be the time that Kingston can take this or well the not for property could take it along but not how they being funded. But my question I guess is if the council is is not involved and the city is not involved then is where the the money is going and all of that does that become our problem if we're hands off and the nonprofit is a separate entity sort of organizing and running itself. The question is city money. What we can control is really what how our city money is used. Correct. But other than that, if if we're not involved, then don't they just go ahead and

That's right. So they couldn't come before us with a bond issuance, they would have to come before us with a bond issuance or um I mean presumably if the b if the land bane was you know started with some philanthropist money if they can get some philanthropist to come in and give money and set up the whole thing and we're out of it then what what relationship do we then have right we have with it and I would say god bless yeah me too but yeah the the other mo the other municipalities that have taken on this model, they've been involved. They Yeah, they've had to float um float bonds. Um and they have the capacity to do that,

right? Um there was no, you know, um philanthrop philanthropist that came in and just gave them a bunch of money. That's right. So that's a big difference, right? Yes. You know, he hasn't asked us for money. I'm sorry. They haven't asked us for money. No, Michael. In the first presentation, we were told that this would be and then in following presentations, we were told it would not be Michael, right? And I just simply don't know which way is up anymore in regards to this. So, I think it is the only responsible decision is to vote for this resolution right now. Yes. thing

in my conversation with bart I asked him specifically about and he said that at no point would this go to the scene before bonding because this wasn't a very important and selling question um and the sense that I got from our was that this is an ever evolving process to satisfy the various stakeholders or not stakeholders as the case may be in this development of this nonprofit um and I asked well you know where is the seed money going to come from? And you know, at this point, they don't know. It's it's a there's there's it's just setting up the the nonprofit so that if seed money were to come in that this could actually

be a vessel. Yes. Be a vessel for it. Yeah. At this point, it was still a hypothetical if this then that. Um, but it's not too hard to stretch your imagination to guess where there might be some maybe some large capital stakeholders. Well, that's the thing. We I don't know who those who's on the board and who's going to that. I'm just curious what do you mean by stakeholders?

That might have been a word that I that I put in just to build a place of how this thing would be. Does this does this model not depend on the city contributing property to a development to develop? Possible. He said it's possible. It's not required. It's not a requirement, but it's possible. It's possible. Right. Okay. Yes.

I'm gathering two points for this. Maybe it's a resolution that has these two points in it. One is that no council member should be on their board and the other one is requesting that they halt advancement until we have legal language that provides assurance that the city of Kingston will not be financially liable or financially involved in any way. We can request that request.

Yeah, we're request until the day. That would be very similar to this last stony run resolution that we asked the mayor to withdraw the um article 78 lawsuit. Well, except except well I'm further advancement until but it's still a request they could continue to go right even if we pass that resolution. I just so I just wanted to make that perfectly clear so that there's no false expectations.

So, Michael, um, so I feel like the resolution that Michelle wrote does say those things. Um, and I just wanted to add that like it's important for us to pass this and it be shared with the Secretary of State to see that there is not the legislative buy in at this moment. Can you point to where you think it says we're asking them to hold because I agree I'm reading that we formally oppose. So the results say the common council of the city of Kingston we formally oppose the mayor's formation to develop housing without the necessary legislative reading that is we're asking of them the whole

I I would say that you know again not to speak for the author who's not here um I would say that that's a pretty you know select opposition you know there is a world where I would support this for this entity of the city of Kingston or separate authority Um, but we just have not been given any real information on it or any real buy in. So, I I I don't know. I read this as pretty open-ended to course correct.

I do I think it should be I think it shouldn't be as I I'm fine with that language, but if we actually want them to halt and add roots language, I think it should be more specific to saying these form. I mean, just adding it in. And we don't need to. So, I just don't think that this reads as we're asking them to.

We're just saying we don't like this. They could they could take it as halt, but they could definitely take it as not. And again, we might not even want to put the halt language in there because it's just a request. So, but I think if we actually I guess what is our goal? If we really want them to halt, then we should be more specific. If we are just really want them to know that we oppose then I think this was fine. I think if we don't want to identify our liability in this. So by talking about introducing that clause financial liability into this it's I think introducing a new

right we're not talking about that we're just talking about the request to to pause. Well, yeah, a pause is a better friendly or worse, but but um but but it's to pause until we are have those legal asurances about the financial stuff. So, well, I Okay, so maybe I heard you because we we still can't be worded slightly differently. So, I don't know if it's worth it again because it's just to me I would say just keep it as written because I don't think that and this is just my opinion, but I don't think

putting your request the pause is is going to be a backwards. Mhm. So, oh, I'm just seeing an email from Michelle from earlier today saying that she fixed the language in the first line to take out opposing only in the only in the first out first. I see. The first line now says it's requesting the removal of a council member instead of it. But then it goes on to say why we're not we would in the committee report we would want to reflect all three of the be it resolved in some manner.

I I would prefer to keep the endatives. I mean that was my suggestion. So we say you're good with that but see I think I think what I'm hearing is people want to know more about this right people don't know enough about this resolution says forget it for opposed to this I I so that's the way I now maybe I'm wrong but you know learning more about it would be a good thing I think you've been trying to well I understand I want you my head against the It also says be it further resolved that the common council encourages the mayor to collaborate with council

to explore viable housing op solutions in ad to established financial and legislative protocols. So that leaves that door open

and I also think that clause I disagree with you about the language of that first clause. I think it it's not just we formally oppose the marriage formation. It's we formally because of the we didn't have the necessary legislative support. So, but the first time I read it, I did read it differently, but the language is is quite clear that it's we're opposing because we didn't this didn't happen. So, it could potentially be worded differently to move that language up earlier. But if you read the whole thing, it does say that's what we're opposing is because it didn't have legislative support and appropriated funding. No, I just don't agree.

So, I don't see that and and so don't want to collaborate with the No, I want them to do it and I wish them great success. Well, we we don't all have to agree. Um and the author did want this to be voted on tonight. So, she did. She did. Yes. Yes. Um and I'm happy to start writing a committee report, but I have just in case. Um it'll take me a few minutes. Should we take up all of them?

Yeah. I I kind of want to be beat to this conversation. I feel like beating though. Do you have it, Brandon? It's short, so why don't we just It's a little bit say something.

I'm sorry. Can I say something? Sure. Um, when I in my rereading of this, um, it doesn't mean that we're involved in the entity once it's set up, but it is saying we want to know what's going on. um kind of in the formation of it.

Well, it raises the issue of if staff time is if significant staff time is being used toward it to create it, you know, to jumpst start it. Um wouldn't you want to know that? explained through an article. You know, just that it's a project in the works. You want to stop it? No, no, not to stop. If there's time, why? Okay. Well, I'm doing um Michael. No, no, no. Oh, okay. It's like a tangent.

Um Go ahead. uh staff is already involved. How does the director of housing initiatives where in his job description grants him the authority to make these appointments? Like it really should come, you know, the mayor in his view has the ability to appoint anybody under the sun to anything. But I don't see how a city employee has that authority unless it's in the charter and it's not. Um, so I I to me there's already far too much city involvement down to an employee level. You know, there's no appointment from the mayor saying, you know, to the the appointees or the prospective appointees they've been appointed. There was no solicitation. There's, you know, there's just too much background. And the way that our employees track their time is not I spent an hour on this. They just have the time sheet that says they clocked in and clocked out for the day. That's a problem.

Um uh you know for all we know enormous part of their department heads don't even have to clock out. There you go.

Yeah. But so all of that to me is even further cause for concern. This is an enormous city endeavor to the likes of which we know who is abused and involved. Um and it's easier to just vote to say we want to back away. And I do think it's important to be sent to the Secretary of State. Okay. Yeah. And and I just want to clarify that um I you know I partly agree with Bob that I would want to I would want to see it be independent go off on his own and do a great job but I also would want to be involved when formation so that we know where the city's not financially liable and that we agree with that thing that's going to go be birthed and go off. So,

yeah. So, I I think somebody mentioned earlier that they would like to have a conversation with court counsel on that perhaps. Yeah, I thought I think and that could that should be where the conversation happens about talking about liability.

Um, so we could, you know, see where this goes, but also maybe plan on asking her to come and having, I think, some meeting about that. But also, I think to Michael's point, at the end of this resolution, I I actually read this earlier and I didn't think it was clear enough where it says this resolution shall be shared with the mayor. I agree. Relevant city departments, we should probably be more specific and community stakeholders. We should be more specific, but we should also include any it should be on the Yeah, more specific because otherwise Elise is going to be tasked to do this and she won't know who to send it to. So I think we could add in um you know kind of think I don't know I could talk to Michelle to see what she was thinking when she mentioned community stakeholders but adding secretary of state also makes sense

but also I think when we originally when this model was originally proposed it was in contemplation of the city contributing sitting on land and so that's

yeah um so that kind of puts us on the hook do you know what I mean that like those are our resources um not to mention people's time and um and efforts in in getting this off the ground there's also the other end which is we are going to attract developers um and and and these don't necessarily have to be. Um I think one of the draws that that that uh Bartekch was talking about is that these would be deeply affordable units. Everybody wants that

but it but in exchange for that we would have to support the project by um sort of giving them the value of the land um in addition to the revolving loan fund. It's a lot But then the recent proposal is talking about that the bonding and but he's not doing anything that well where where is it being built then? That's not in that's not what he's that's not before us. I agree with you. Some affordable housing has to have a land donation to be successful pretty much. That's been my experience. Right. That's not what he's asking for. That's the only way the model works.

I understand it but that's not what he's asking for. But that's what he asked for at the time. And he asked for bonding. He asked for a lot of things at the time. I agree. Well, I wrote to him that reflects what we've been talking about. I changed. They added a couple words that I mean, you may still oppose this, but that it brings us a little closer to what you were think, you know, against the opposing. Um,

okay. So, resolution of the common council requesting the removal of a council member from the Kingston Forward Incorporated housing nonprofit formally opposing the mayor's formation of Kingston Forward Incorporated, considering it commenced without the necessary legislative support or appropriated funding and encouraging the mayor to collaborate with the council to explore violent housing solutions. C attached

we don't swap out considering with because we're doing this because not considering that like among other things but we're giving a very specific reason because of this not considering considering it okay formally opposing the mayor's formation of Kingston because

it's a very specific thing. Okay. So from the top, resolution of the common council requesting the removal of a council member from the Kingston Forward Incorporated housing nonprofit formally opposing the mayor's formation of Kingston Forward Incorporated because it commenced without the necessary legislative support or appropriated funding and encouraging the mayor to collaborate with the council to explore viable housing solutions. See attach motions I just know discussion discussion

discuss this is really the city's proposal versus I mean because we're talking about a bartekch sort of set this in motion is it really the mayor's formation of this or would we just say the city's formation the city administration's formation administration it should be the administration because but not the mayor the administration

I think it's the mayor because if we Say city of Kingston and the word city of Kingston city administration if you hear I have a motion get a vote. All right. One. So, no. Oh, I'm checking off Michelle. Oh, you are excuse my ideas, Michelle. Where are we? You make a suggestion. Can you grab the two codes? Use yours and mine together. I'm talking about that one.

Maybe I maybe start with pre-ordinance update and then do the other two. Well, Marissa and I sort of have an update. The tree ordinance next.

Yeah, this is No, we're going to do the tree ordinance. Or at least that's fine. that way. I I can So, um I did an email today updating the council about the latest draft of the board. We have a public hearing scheduled on Monday, April 6th, which uh I would encourage I will help work with friends to create a social staff that hopefully if you have Facebook or email list you can disseminate and let people know about the upcoming hearing. I think a lot of people will have their opinions about this. One thing, um, I've been working with Brett, um, and resident Shaw to, uh, strengthen the language of the ordinance and clarify the ordinance. uh particularly uh understanding the audience and trying to get the um information that will be most relevant to most people, the general public. Um grouped together at the head of the ordinance and then sort of the technical details of site plan um review and tree production during construction project and utility line work utility work. Uh that's at the end. Um something else that we clarified that Brent clarified last week that I did not mention in the uh email which um greatly relieved of he had a conversation with corporation council's office and they agreed that the DBA would serve as the review by um Alderman.

Sorry I'm just listen who who would service the board.

Okay. Um, uh, so I I won't belabor the other point I've already made in the email other than I did say that we would get a draft circulated by the end of the week and then Brent who can't be here tonight. Something came up. He said that he would have it ready by early next week. I I have responded by we really can't have it any later than next week cuz it is a long word and I want to give my colleague good two weeks to read this and it gets wonky. It's a little wonky. Um, but the improvement is Yeah, it's getting there. We're getting closer.

The Can I just add before one thought from Brent's email is he asked if council members want him to present an ordinance overview at the beginning of the public hearing on April 6. So, I don't know. part of the conversation. I think everything else Marissa covers in her email or just now. Yes. Thank you. Questions? A lot of questions. Questions? Oh, yes. So, oh, sorry. I I thank you, Marissa and Andrea. Um, so the public will get the the updated ordinance before the hearing.

Oh, yes. and and I really am of two minds about our forester presenting before the public hearing because the public hearing is ultimately to hear from the public, not from our forester um about their kind of unadulterated feelings on it. And I I feel like that approach is lobbying, right? It's it's our public hearing and he's a member of the administration. Um, the mayor is also welcome to hold public hearings on on things and and I think that's where that would be more appropriate. Um, because our job is not to pass the tree ordinance. Our job is to examine the tree ordinance and and hear from the constituents.

Totally agree. Um, how about I also get that people might have questions. So how about instead of that because I we that happened once we did one public hearing and I think it was a housing thing sport bar did a presentation and it was uncom in my opinion it was uncomfortable so I don't necessarily like the idea but how if we ask him to be there and then at the end of the public hearing I could say if you have questions for any of us or the urban forester also I don't need to do that we'll have to go right into caucus so just another idea I'm just more would you be comfortable with that or not even

I I think it's just at the end of the day it's our public hearing and it's our responsibility to pass something and it's clear that the administration wants this and it's their job to sell it to the public. It's not our job to sell it to the public. Does everybody agree? I just want to make sure Mars and I know how to respond to Brent whether he should or should. So if he wanted to put a public information meeting together on another day um Yeah, I mean he's offered to have work meetings with Yeah. And he has done that. I think that when he first started going, but I it's just my opinion that this has been offered by the executive branch of government. It is their responsibility to inform the public on what they want to do.

I'm fine. I agree with that. I just That's our responsibility in the public hearing. We hear from them. I guess my question is where will it be posted? Because if the public is going to come and and address what's in the the ordinance, they need to be able to see it and read it. So post it on calendar agenda, but maybe we could also ask somebody that can point to that. That would be great because I know I have constituents who are very interested in the tree ordinance and they would want to be able to go find it. The calendar can be hard to find things. So I think that would be unless you know how to operate through the calendar. So yeah, we could put forward.

Yeah, he's coming out a new but it was too late. Um I would also um because there are so many positions that that don't go online and you could have some art copies made in color that will be great because I I'll I'll hand them out. Yeah. Yeah. that that would come with communication swaps. I would imagine

Yes, I have a couple questions. Um, I didn't get to read the whole thing super thoroughly, so maybe it's in here, but um, I was wondering if there's anything on, um, one, informing people, making sure people know if they're responsible for trees on their property that are street trees in front of their homes, and two, if there's any kind of financial aid for helping people deal with tree removal.

Yeah. So that's part of the tree program, but it's not in something that we would put in an ordinance. It's Yeah. So if you want to reach out to Brent and ask him about the programs that we have available, um the street tree um has always been an owner responsibility. Uh and I don't know where else in the you know in administrative code. Why wouldn't this go in the tree ordinance? It seems so comprehensive. And if you know if I'm looking at this as a member of the public and I have the tree that is bugging some of my constituents and it's a big old tree

septic system. They don't have money, you know. Isn't it in there? the you're you're asking if it's in there that um street trees are property owners are responsible for street in there and don't do a thorough read yet and so the language will be better for it financial stuff like programs aren't something to go anywhere else

could it just say that there is such a No, we can't cuz if that program goes away, then we have to reit ordinance. So it it it is on this it is within this tree or tree plant the planning office tree area of the planning office manages their programs is on the website but that's not typically you don't put financial programs in the ordinance. Okay. But we do have something. Yeah. Yeah. soon. I'm going to press on Brent. Yeah. Take I wanted it by I actually really wanted it by Monday this past you know.

Yeah. For the time versus spends a lot of time on us. She's deep in the trees. Okay. Um is that it on this subject all noise or what? So, you want to look Do you want to end with a bang or start with a bang? My sub. Okay. Okay. How about you go and I and I'll end cuz you might say Well, I haven't finished 300. No, that was a hard one. I also wanted to see where this conversation

Oh, okay. Good. Then then then I will start. So, you Okay, go ahead.

Okay. So um last month uh I presented some changes to the noise ordinance which is chapter 300. Um the first thing was to review um the construction start time. The second one was special permit for hardships and the third one was an increase in fees for noise violation. So the first one, construction start time. Interestingly enough, and and you all might recall that um Mike Ham had a lot to say about um the needs for an early start time for construction purposes and you know that made a lot of sense. But I did a little digging and apparently we have conflict in the code

and that is why I'm working on the code. There are a lot of conflicts. Please take point out. Um, so let's prohibitive acts. What chapter? 300-5. Prohibitive acts says construction operating or permitting the oper the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, or demolition work between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 800 a.m. on weekdays or any time on Sundays, weekends, or holidays. So that starts at 8:00 a.m. for construction. It can only start at 8 a.m.

Does that's considered by uh No, it does not. But now

it's contra it's contradicted by section six which is loading and unloading which says loading unloading you know building materials handling with boxes do garbage containers and compacting refues by any persons engaged in scavenging or garbage collection whether private or municipal between the hours of 10 p.m. 68. So you have construction that can only start at 8:00 a.m. and you have building materials that can be loaded or unloaded at 6 a.m.

But those are two different things, right? Yes. except that it's it was the point was being made that you have to start before you have to start at 6:00 a.m. because he needed that hour's time, right? And wouldn't that kind of be he was using building materials kind of what I can't remember the word term he used meaning you're also into your garbage trucks. Yeah. and and so so that's fine but construction which is what the constituents are complaining about the noise that's emanating from construction activities can only be started but what about backup alarms

backup people that would be part of it says and that's part of my in my experience backup alarms are what most people are concerned about

I think people understand that they can't eradicate the the backup alarms I think I think that's that's okay. I think it's the the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling or demolition work that the complaint comes in. So to my constituents, to their point, they keep complaining it's starting before 8:00 a.m. Construction noises are starting before 8:00 a.m. And it is. and they are in violation. So then they should have KPD go up.

Yes. And is that what you I'm assuming they're going to Exactly. Yes. Yes. Yes. So but I am concerned because you know Mike Ham is of the opinion that you know they they need that time from 6:00 to 7. I would speculate and I don't know this to be the case but you could roll by Mike. I suspect that he's more concerned with the second the the staging staging stage than he is the first. Okay. But you could ask I mean 8:00 pretty late but I think I think that's that's the ordinance. I think he's probably more concerned about not allowing the first activity.

Right. So what what I what I would like to do here is work with you to sort of um coordinate the time better. I I sat I spent a lot of time with Sue on this and so she recommended taking out of the first section building materials and the staging part and we would want them to have that time stage. Maybe that's that needs to happen at 7 because you're only allowed to start at 8. I also So you need additional staging time.

Yeah. I also recommend talking with um our engineer about this because one thing that I've been thinking about um that makes me a little nervous is if this could affect work that we're paying for, infrastructure work that we're paying for, then we won't get you know as many bids and he will know more because he's he is the person who tracks that. So, I would recommend I mean Sue, you know, does the waiverss and everything, but John's on in in the street. So, I would definitely recommend talking to him. You're also talking about garbage collection. You want to talk to No. And garbage collection that stays that day 6:00.

It's just the construction noise. I mean, I can tell you what I would say. I remember Mike saying that he they need an hour prep time. Exactly. Yes. But an hour time would be 7 a.m. not 6 a.m. under construction. So there's there's an hour off which is what I was actually like asking for.

So um so I'm not a contractor. I don't know if I would be able to tell the difference between construction noise and the allowable usage because the issue is from what I've heard is the the debang. But I think it it's also worth part of the conversation that John or the mayor for city projects is that, you know, for an RFP or not for a bid, but for an RFP, you could ask the respondents if they have the the lower decel um cam noise because that's what the DOT is employed on Barry Street, Coffee Place, whatever the DOT garage is. um in the first word, they they had received for years complaints about um

again the backup uh beeping and they actually switched statewide because of the complaining and uh in that neighborhood to the quieter um alert system. So it's something that could also be examined in the RFP process, I would think. For at least uh projects, right? Right. Yes. So, I can speak to the project of the library right now. They show up, they open that gate at 6:00 a.m. every morning. And to the minute, you do not hear a thing until 8:00. Oh.

And drilling, hammering, whatever they're going to do that's loud, that's when it happens. Um, but to to your point, a lot of the equipment that they bring in, they bring in as a rental from various places. So those have backup alarms that have to be the same. Uh but they can't reduce those in ways. So there's a lot of it's just a lot of moving parts and I can understand where they can try their hardest to like, you know, make sure that everything is lined up so that they're not making noise until 8:00 a.m. But early truck that's arriving from someplace farflung, they don't know what's going on exactly and they're just doing their job. So I think it's a it's a tough nut to crack for sure, especially in a city that's like has so many things that need to be fixed.

Yes. But the other distinction is that for construction noise, you can't work on weekdays or any time on Sundays and weekends. I'm sorry. So, you start at 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and and you can't work on Sundays or weekends or holidays. What does that mean? That is why I'm reworking this code because of that. And that's why it's taking me so long. Weekends, Saturdays,

it's it's weekend. what I believe is the practice from um what I've been told is weekends, which is what that language basically. So, you could just take out Sundays cuz weekends is Sunday. So, if I'm a home improvement person working on my house, I have to take time off from work to do it.

Well, you could get waiverss. Remember all of it? I'm I'm a little with Bob that it is, you know, I gotta take off time for work to go ask the planning board if or the planning department if I can take off work so that I don't take more work. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is Saturdays that you can people I know who got the tickets, it's been on Sundays. So then I but then that means the code is written wrong or shouldn't say anything. It should just say we're not practicing what we

Okay. So that that still remains open. So um there were three questions um that uh the committee asked last time. One was does the planning department currently have a definition of what a circumstance constitutes hardship? I'm I'm reading this because I sent these questions to Sue Ko. Um and so she said no, there's not a set standard. So that would be something that we could come up with.

Um how many special permits have been granted as an example in the last two years for how many projects? She told me that they she gave me a list. So in 20 thou in 2024 there were and these special permits are the hardship permits. Um there were 29 issued in 2024. 13 for public events, 10 for private parties, five construction related and one cancellation. In 2025 it it the noise permits went up to 48. Oh, uh, public there were 17, parties 12 and construction related 19.

And how many were the first? Uh, for construction only. For construction only five in 2024. And in 2025 construction

there, I'm sorry, that was 2026. In 2025, construction 19 to the top and in 2024 construction five. So 5 to 19. So that answers that question. And then the question was how many fines had been issued during that same period? She did not know. I spoke with um KPD and they said that for the last 5 years from 11 120 to 11 126 there were six dockets meaning total fines six total fines that only came up to $450.

That was between what years? Uh five years. five years. So, in other words, they're not issuing right fines. Let me go another way. I've got a I've got a I've got factories in my a factory recently in my or that's got a new air purification system. That makes noise. And I get complaints from people who are who complain about the fact that this factory is operating an air purification system all the time here. So this is not going to be addressed. Is this a new um air purification system? I you know I don't know.

Did you go through planning? Well, we've talked to planning. We're talking to building. We're going to figure figure it out. But, you know, it's an interesting issue for factories. Yeah. I know. I've spoken to construction. Yes. I I've spoken to Sue about, you know, air purification systems with um a new uh it's light manufacturing that's opening up in my ward. And she was particularly concerned about that. So, um so yeah, she might be helpful. And I suspect that it's below the dustful level in the noise. They don't like the fact that it's a constant.

Yeah. Michael, I I I do think defining hardship is a is a learning endeavor in the code. I would personally like it to be on the broader side. Um because I think there are a number of exception you know of true hardships that we may not anticipate you know old city the line archaeological discoveries to be made anytime you dig more than 2 ft in the ground. Uh, so I just think that that I would support the idea of the hardship definition in the code because that I shocked to find out that there really is no operating

procedure on what hardship is. Um, but I do think we should keep it rather on the open-ended side to account for possibilities that we're not even at this moment. Yes. And so would you be in favor of a 7-day advanced notice when an applicant is applying for a special permit, the hardship permit? But how if there's an emergency that's different that um emergency and hardship are two different,

you know, I don't know. I I don't want to slow down, but I I do think that it is important for the neighborhood to be notified that something's going to happen. But I would assume that that part of that would come through the planning process to begin with.

You know, the planning I would assume that this would go any kind of major construction go through the planning board in which that could be discussed the amount of noise. So, I just worry it's a little it could be duplicative and it could slow down construction. Like to me, I'm I know I live uptown. I live where there's noise all the time. um constantly in your face all the time city at the end of the day. And I would rather have something be accomplished faster than have it linger on

for months just get like I lived through Clinton Avenue redeveloped was brutal but the city accomplished that in extremely quick time just to build what Michael's saying I agree with that the hardship definition needs to have right the level that we faces is the hardship time or is the hardship money those really the hardships that you're going to describe. So goes to what you were saying about fin if you if you want to define time and say no I don't care that it takes two years instead of one year that's a that's a quality electricity you know money is is time

almost eas but it's almost easier than time say it's going to cost you more money I don't care but you know time is an interesting problem I think you're absolutely right that is it Yeah, because which you could argue both ways which way is the hardship, right? It's a hard thing to Yes, it is.

Though I will say having lived through last summer the gas line replacement in Ward one, the fact that it was only Monday through Friday, even though it went on for months, if it had if they had shortened that time period, I think the the whole ward would have erupted in, you know, they because it was very very loud. It was very very disruptive. But the fact that it was just confined to those those five days meant that on the weekends there was some peace. So that's how the whole area was able to get through it.

So yeah, so I think starting with that as base is is a really good thing Monday through Friday and then other things. I would also say I was looking into construction noise on weekends about a year and a half ago and I did look at some ordinances in other cities and they talked about weekend construction being more like homeowner just to your point of homeowners or building a back deck or something. They have a permit to do it. They're doing it themselves. Some of these cities had ordinances that allowed for uh they described the kinds of tools that could be used on weekends which are basic construction tools as opposed to jack you know the sort of big construction vehicles and tools that are used for major construction when you're building a building. So I think I'm just throwing that out there. It's just more more information from some of the research that I've done. There was no resolution.

Right. Okay. But and then of course the last thing is the increase in fees. So where it had been a maximum of $500, I'm looking for an increase to $1,000. That's when you're in violation. My thoughts on that though, I think this is why the question was raised and it wasn't raised by me is it you raise the price to deter the bad behavior but if they're not getting the fines aren't being issued right how many years I

you know I think we try to encourage more enforcement and before we go up the price because I think it's I don't know. I don't want more incentive to issue fines if they were higher. Maybe we find out why they maybe we find out why they don't do more cuz Yeah. I mean, I don't think that they that KD thinks about that though or less. I give you a warning this time. It's a thousand bucks. So, I give you a chicken. Okay.

I would think maybe KD wouldn't take it more if it was still because they you know tend to be they are community pleasing and yes they are sympathetic. So I wish we could maybe try my suggestion would be to cut that out. Yeah. to see what they uh what it takes for them to issue a fine and maybe encourage them to do more. Okay. And we could always revisit

revisit. Okay. So I did some about half of like the language of greener. Um I'm not I wasn't able to get it on time do that review on that one. I'll definitely send ahead of time and then it's complicated and you I'll reach out to you. We can work through some of that. So that's will come eventually. Um 50 I'm going to work my way backwards. 55 is I'm I'm going through every single one eventually. So, a lot of these words were the simple ones to include the flag in seal and I have no changes. I think the wording is just fine, but I was thinking about the design of our official flag. And I I don't know. I it struck me that there is nothing in our flag, which I've never actually seen in person that there is.

It's very ripped. Okay. there to Native Americans that have lived here and I thought that you know we should address that and then I was thinking back right when I first started on the council during the ice age somebody do you remember there was it was I looking at him some guy moved in and he redesigned the flag and it was in the freeman for you my work. Okay. It's still but it also hurt by that.

Yeah. I don't I it was like right before I joined. So I don't know exactly the story. I just remember reading about it in the paper and I went to look at his design. It also didn't have any um reflection of Native American culture. So I don't know. There's nothing I'm not asking for this council to change. I thought the language is okay. But I wanted to point that out to see if maybe that's something that we want to um I premise if we I don't know when the last one was the one that we have was approved of the flag but we never approved of or the council or the city never adopted his library. No. Yeah. Kind of like big number. You remember? You don't remember?

I remember. Yes, I remember the It was just a post flag. There was a post flag. There was It's like having a contest right after we do the chart. Give him about all the artists we have in this community. I'm sure it could be a design competition that we don't. Yeah. Well, that's what something I was thinking and maybe talking to Kit about it, but I didn't, you know, if I could maybe start ball rolling if people Not the seal just the flag. Yeah. Well, our flag is just our seal on a cloth on with three print strikes, but then we have to change all we'd have to change all of the collateral, but there's not that many flaxs. But isn't is

we don't change. We all change which I get so many compliments on the seal cuz it is very pretty. But yes, very nice seal. If we just change the flag to better reflect our true culture, different colors and stripes. I would not be I think a contest would be great. Yeah, you should be able to draw your flag from memory. She can't focus. I'm not bringing back. Yeah, I have to go back too much garbage. Too much garbage on consumer like the board of elections. iPhone.

I just gave my niece my old laptop that has my so I'm losing this. It's better. All right. So, Michael, it's just better. ask around and see if people are interested in because I can't take on this. I was just going to ask you. I mean, because we need something else to do. Yeah. Say no. No. Um, all right. And then going to 32. So, good news here. Again, no changes. I did. This is the cross guards crossing. Why do you What's 32 in the code? The code. Where is it? I'm looking at

You're in one. You got a ways to go. Well, I'm I'm looking at the pages that were part of the notes. Simple, aren't you? Oh, yeah. I make change. I Okay. You'll see on the agenda which ones I'm doing. So, um yeah, crossing cards. I talked to KPD. They said they had no problems. They're full right now. I asked them if they need anybody, you know, to for us to recommend any not recommend get the word out that they are good at crossing guard. I would say I would say that I have had nothing but problems with crossing guard problems.

The problem because the crossing guard they hired doesn't show up um all the time. Oh, that is not. And so I just have to call KPD to have them, you know, if the guard doesn't show up, then the parents call KPD and they send somebody over. She's been very unreliable. But I'm happy to tell you I think the problem may be fixed by getting some flashing beacons installed at this um Bluetooth because then anybody crossing at any time whether it's during school islands or otherwise press the button and cross hopefully people will stop but the crossing guard I mean yes but um the crossing guard has lucas has not been reliable.

Wow. Oh yeah. And I but I spoke to the police about it like a year and a half ago. They said they can't they have a hard time finding. Well, that's what they asked, but the information that I got, I could send you the email. So, if you So, I'm going to just say if you know anybody who might be interested in doing it, it won't hurt to have an application. Maybe if they get more they even senders and a bunch of other things. I forward it to parents, you know, in the school and they, you know, it's like if they're weird hours, you know, and it's twice a day and people don't want to commit to that time. Code. Yeah. And it is clear they'll like they're okay, but

there's some the newer ones are they're fine. Um 22 is will need some work. Um, one thing that I noticed was that they still have the heritage area commission in there,

which we still I asked we should say make that change because we already did make that change. Um, Tana Washington is going to be working on the commission of rights and we're going to work on that next month, but nothing right now. Um, eight is the assessors, the board of assessors, and that one the only, again, it's well, it's super super short, but the language is clear. However, it's not clear that um that the council actually selects the board of assessment review,

which is the only board that we do select and it's actually because of state law that requires the legislative body to do it. So, I would like that could be more clear in our code. So, I'd ask just like pursuing it soon and have the language someplace. So, that's one change. Um, chapter three, adopt the pieway. Also, I asked um I asked if this was still the process and nobody has actually gone through and has ever done that a dodging highway for blind program.

You know what? Somebody asked me about that years ago. you know, to look at that because you have a huge insurance, so nobody's going to do it. That makes sense. Well, because the language is the language is quite clear of this and it's, you know, if we haven't done it, we don't know if we're really we would follow the process, I would imagine. Um, so there's nothing really to change unless that we want to learn to do it. just going to do it without

Can we not have as much? Sorry. Just um I know I said I was going to be boring, but you sign it. Um do you want me do you is anybody interested in No, no, no. I mean about what Bob was talking about with the adopted highway. Adopt the highway. Nobody does adopt the highway because we have a huge insurance program and nobody wants to buy the insurance to do adopted highway. Right. I get is that specific to the city of Kingston or is the Well, the state does not do that. State does not require a huge insurance policy which is why they have adopted highway.

Do we need it? Do we need adopt or do we need insurance? No. Do we need that adoption or people that's why when I went to send this to say hey is this the process that we follow it came back we don't know because we don't do this it's also fairly new

and part of the code that's why the language is good um so I was actually going to just comment on it just to say let people know but if that's the reason why people are feeling it then they don't know I mean just uh I don't think I find people are going to do that stupid so you could I it up okay so do we take it out we just leave it or do we change insurance think about the attorney change insurance

I I would say make you know changes because maybe in the future we don't want to close on the program delay at this time but it's just not perfect for me and then this I see her last one just got too long was chapter one so most of this was just changing language not stuffed except to amend it so that it fit into what our procedure is. And I don't know if the red came out on the Yeah. on the agenda. Yeah. Yeah, for the most one is the code on file. This is chapter one section six. We weren't we wanted to make it so it's 21st century and what we actually follow. So it's the copy shall remain on the city of Kingston website and be available for new person there. um just makes more sense. Alisa and I did talk about potentially but I haven't talked to Mary. I don't know if she had that follow up with her about setting up a computer in city hall so people could use

and kind of like you know yeah we don't have the hard copy but you know if you don't have access at home you could ask or put questions. So Oh I see. I see. I see.

But that wouldn't be in the code. This is something that I felt the combination because the first one um one step it just says where the changes will be reflected because it didn't say that um yeah we don't sell the phone book so I'm suggesting that just deleting hierarchy this is one nine and we also in one change the numbers The penalties for tampering the bitcoins included the high electronical tamping. So you got just modernizing.

Yeah, I think yeah $50 with the code. I don't want to include not limited to I mean think about it in you think that's the I think that's that I mean if I'm your neighbor and I think you're starting your um your alarm too early I'm going to edit a PDF that removes the part of the code That says I'm right. That's ham crank.

Is too low as I'm saying I'm saying 250 is too low. It's not discouraging. But also in person well that front payment we could we could definitely change that. I would definitely change that to at least $1,000. Does anybody ever? Well, you know, they they almost I I look at what happened during when people were like bombing us um and attacking us and bombing. Would that be part of this

during the ceasefire thing? Oh, you mean the Zoom bombing? That's not the code. Oh, yeah. That's true. Yeah, let's just leave that.

Are we moving up to a th00and maybe 500? Well, let's start with the $5,000.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, Bobby, you go for the pound. Sure. Michael, why not? Marissa, Sarah. Yeah, sure. I was going to suggest it goes. Do I hear up to 15 days? Yeah. Okay. So, any questions? partner levels. Thank you.

I I have a bunch that'll I'll have a green for next time. So, I'll take your time. Depends how much this last one. Well, we do have to vote on this unless you want to do it all like we'll have more next time. Do we want to do it in one month or you want to do it tonight? I feel like everybody is moving on. Um, we can we can do one tonight. Very simple.

These are they will go back and then we go. Oh, so this collection I think this is collection. I think this is collections. Let's see.

Oh, he's signing some I'm doing because of I'm feeling guilty for you on

you got twos. These will be all these cuz this is the third pick some meeting or no guarantee. All right, I'll send you.

So, I'm assuming there's no other questions. Thank you. You really done it. It's a necessary thing and it really needs to be done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So, resolution of the county council to replace chapter 1 general provisions one adoption of would be attached. I'll clean up this copy and send it to Sorry. So, all in favor?

Anybody opposed? Two seconds. One down. We're ready to go. We might be able to make a motion to make a motion to adjourn. Motion second. All in favor? I stop. All right. Meetings adjourned. Thanks, Alisa. Yay!