City Council - Special Meeting

Okay, I'll keep an eye out.

Welcome everybody, this is Binghamton City Council Special Business Meeting. It is Thursday, August 6th. It is 5.09 p.m. I call the meeting to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Council Member Murray. Present. Council Member Middleton. Present. Council Member Cavanaugh. Present. Council Member Hotchkiss. Present. Council Member Medvedsky. Present. Council Member Rathmell is absent. Council President Dundon.

Present.

Thank you.

So moving on to public comment, there is nobody here in the audience. Residents wishing to submit public comment may do so electronically by emailing their comments prior to 1 p.m. on the day of the meeting to clerk at cityofbinghamton.gov or in person during the meeting. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comments that need to be read in?

We do have one. From Megan Steinle, dear Mayor Cram, my name is Megan Steinle and I'm a lifelong resident of Broome County. I attended the city council discussion last week regarding the proposed renewal of the city's contract with Flock Safety. I learned that while final decision rests with your administration and so I wanted to speak to you directly while also including the city council on this message for the sake of transparency. i've been reviewing the city's publicly available documents to better understand the evidence supporting continued investment in flock in your 2025 budget address you described a comprehensive public safety strategy centering on investing in both personnel and technology you wrote since becoming mayor my work on public safety has been guided by two principles making investments in our police personnel and supporting smart 21st century policing strategies to keep neighborhoods safe Throughout the 2025 budget address, you highlight specific personal measures like hiring additional officers, rebuilding patrol staffing, expanding foot and bike patrols, strengthening community policing, and supporting specialized investigative units. Additionally, you discuss investing in technology, specifically stating, quote, our investments in public safety technology like license plate readers, street cameras, and ballistic imaging are keeping us ahead of criminals and helping the department solve crimes faster than before, unquote. while i appreciate that your approach to public safety is not based on a single program but rather on the combined effect of staffing technology and proactive policing as i reviewed the available information i found myself questioning how much of that success can be specifically attributed to flock safety versus the city's many other public safety investments Because both the police chief and flock safety is representative explained during the City Council discussion The flock is primarily an investigative tool used by detectives not a tool routinely used by police patrol officers I specifically focus my review on the department's investigative resources while reviewing the Binghamton Police Department's annual report the newest being 2024 I learned that the investigative department already has substantial infrastructure supporting detectives. The report describes detectives working alongside an identification unit that uses fingerprints, DNA analysis, crime scene processing, digital imaging, and state and federal fingerprint databases, and the community response team, which monitors the city's public safety camera network in real time, assists detectives with surveillance, helps locate suspects, and has made arrests by directing responding officers. Additionally, according to the report, 2024 Annual Police Report, the Detective Division handled 1,249 investigations in 2024, made 321 arrests, supervised 1,607 cases, including juvenile cases, served 163 subpoenas, completed 754 background investigations, and oversaw hundreds of registered sex offenders. Those numbers make it clear that detectives are handling a substantial investigative workload. However, the report does not identify the types of crimes involved in those 1,249 investigations. Without knowing how many involved a suspect vehicle, it's difficult to evaluate how frequently an automated license plate reader would reasonably be expected to contribute to investigations in the city of Binghamton. That context would help clarify the role flock safety plays within the department's broader investigative capabilities. Taking all of this into account, I was hoping you could help me better understand how your administration has evaluated the specific contribution of flock safety and what data in that evaluation provides evidence that flock safety is effective for the types of crimes that actually occur in Binghamton. And that flock safety helps the police go beyond what can reasonably be achieved through existing police resources and investigative practices. In particular, could you share any data or performance measures that demonstrate FLOC provides investigative value beyond what is already accomplished through ring footage, witnesses, cell phone records, the community response team, the city's existing public safety camera network, forensic evidence such as DNA and fingerprint analysis, the Southern Tier Crime Analysis Center, and other investigative resources already available to the department? For example, does the city track how many investigations involve a suspect vehicle and how often FLOC is used, how many arrests or case clearances were directly assisted by FLOC, or how often FLOC provides information that investigators could not reasonably obtain through existing investigative methods. Because your budget address specifically states that license plate readers are helping the department solve crimes faster than before, I would appreciate understanding the data the administration relied upon when reaching that conclusion and how that specific contribution was distinguished from the many other investments your administration has made in staffing, community policing, cameras, forensic capabilities, and regional partnerships. If these metrics haven't been collected and or show a statistically significant difference, then it's impossible to evaluate how often an automated license plate reader would actually be useful and therefore difficult to justify continuing the city's contract with Flock or any other ALPD company. And so in the absence of this data, I would implore you to cancel the City of Binghamton's FLOC contract prior to the automatic renewal of the contract on the 8th. Thank you, Megan Steino.

Thank you so much. So seeing that's the end of public comment, we will move on to review of mayoral veto. This is introductory ordinance 026-10, considered in planning, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Hotchkiss.

Thank you, Council President. So the mayor vetoed our previously passed Ordinance 026-10, which is an ordinance to authorize the sale of 42 Fayette Street to Paul Sadorski, and I'd like to make a motion to adopt Introductory Ordinance 026-10, same ordinance, an ordinance to authorize the sale of 42 Fayette.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. A discussion, please. Now if nobody else has anything, I have a few things I'd wanna say. So I'm gonna read a paragraph here out of the mayor's veto just because I wanna put this on the record and bring up questions to this. The assessor has not reviewed this sale or determined this purchase price to be valid. An appraisal for the property conducted in November of 2023, less than three years ago, showed a fair market value of $36,000. Furthermore, the $500 sale price approved by city council is less than the $1,000 written offer that Mr. Sadorski made to the city of Binghamton in January of 2025. It is unclear how the sale of 42 Fayette by the city to Mr. Sadorski for $500 could be anything other than an unconstitutional gift to a private individual. So my question to that is, I have an RL, from 2024 that came out of the mayor's office that authorized the sale of the property of 42 Fayette Street to 203 Court Street, LLC for $250. Closer to the actual appraisal than what this is. So I'm curious on which one would be considered unconstitutional. selling the veteran the home for double the offer in 2024, which he even offered quadruple, or the fact that in 2024 it was okay to sell the property to a private developer for $250.

Maybe we should make it for $200.

I'd say we leave it at 500, but the whole unconstitutional gift is really what raised my eyebrow in the veto from the mayor, and it's just kind of weird how one's considered unconstitutional when he brought up the appraisal himself, it's in his own veto, but yet when it was only a year after the appraisal, it was okay to sell it for 250. And I have the RL, it says, Eigenheimen, deputy mayors who wrote it up, that is the mayor's office. So if anybody else would like to add anything to this discussion.

Sure. I voted in favor of the 42 Fayette sale for a number of reasons. It's been stated city policy, it's in our planning policy and code to preserve units of housing in the city of Binghamton and to specifically preserve them over the creation of parking lots, which was the alternative use offered for the lot. According to chapter 136 of the city charter, violation, or violation rather, valuation of properties for public sale is set by city council, which we did. The value I think is justified by the repair costs that have been indicated by various estimates, looks and estimates of the property. Just as the other proposals, valuation of $250 was justified by the cost to tear down and pave. Our valuation is based on the cost to repair and preserve. And in addition to that, the long-term value to the city of the tax money generated by a multi-unit rental property versus either a city-owned lot or a privately-owned parking lot. I think if you factor all of these things in, and particularly add in the mix Mr. Sadorsky, a tenant who has been maintaining the property beyond what a normal tenant would do, who has shown willingness to put time, effort, and money and go through the legal ringer imposed upon him by the city to stay in his home and to preserve and improve his home, I simply say why not give him a chance?

Thank you so much, Councilmember Cavanaugh. Anybody else? Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call, please?

Council Member Rathmell is absent. Council Member Matabetski? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray? Aye. Council President Dundon?

Aye.

Thank you, that is 6-0.

Okay, we'll move on to first read legislation, introductory resolution R26-57, considered in municipal and public affairs, and I'll hand it over to Council Member Middleton.

Thank you so much, President Dundon. I'd like to make an introductory resolution. I'd like to make a motion for RL26-57, a resolution calling upon the mayor to terminate the contract with flock safety.

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

So basically, this is a resolution calling upon the mayor to terminate the city of Binghamton's contract with flock safety into into a step into establish public oversight and any future automated surveillance technology.

So we do actually have two resolutions in the packet that we have to make a decision between which resolution that we are going to vote for and which one we'll end up voting down, because I think the cleanest way is to vote probably on each of them individually, correct, Corporation Council?

Yes, you can choose to vote on them each individually, or you can kind of, well, yeah, you can just take them each in hand and decide which one you want to move forward with.

Take a straw poll.

They're both the same number, you said?

Yeah, call one version A and one version B.

Can we just take a straw poll? Are we allowed to do that?

No, but you can discuss which one you want to vote on first or second. We should probably establish which one we're calling A and B though.

Okay.

So for everybody following at home, since both of these have the same resolution number, the first one in the packet will be listed as A and the second one in the packet will be listed as B. And we'll just start our discussion on A to begin with. Does anyone have any questions or comments on A?

So I guess just for anyone reviewing this, the similarity between both of these is that they both call on the mayor to end the contract with flock safety. So that's the similarity, and then the other differences are what we'll discuss next. Ultimately, I'm in favor of calling upon the mayor to determinate its contract with Flock. I think a lot of residents have pointed out and have done an incredible amount of research about how this technology is very invasive or deemed to be invasive, even though the police department and other police departments have found it to be a useful tool. Ultimately, I think there needs to be a much-needed review of how we're actually utilizing this and how we're allowing this technology to be utilized. I think we can get there. I don't think we're ready. We're obviously not ready to outline that tonight, but at the very least, either one of these are going to... state that we're in favor of eliminating this one contract for seven cameras and look for better guardrails around the use of APLRs in the city, ALPRs, excuse me.

I mean, the part of A that I like that stands out to me is that it says that we support implementing the privacy and accountability standards proposed in New York State legislation as minimum guardrails for governor. So it's something that we could kind of put in there, and then as the state will decide on what they're going to do, we could almost be in line with already being there with the state. I know it's a big commitment not everybody is willing to make, but it is something that I kind of do like in there.

So I authored the changes that created the version B. I don't think we should be putting in the proposed standards that are simply in a piece of draft legislation in the state assembly right now. These are not guidelines, these are not official guidelines, these haven't been through the sausage making process in Albany yet. and I don't think we should be staking out and intimating that these are the things that... I haven't had enough time, and I don't know that anyone else truly has, to... say that these standards are what should be our city standards. And I think if we pass this, we're throwing that out into the public as what we are looking to commit to. And I'm not ready to do that yet. I think it is prudent to ask the mayor to take a pause on this whole situation by not renewing the September contract. That gives us time to study the issue. That gives us time to put together a coherent plan timely, comprehensive response to Flock and ALPRs in general in Binghamton. It gives us a chance to evaluate alternatives to Flock. I think a lot of the I think the public is becoming more and more aware of ALPRs and what they do and what they've done in the past versus what they're doing now and versus what different companies are doing. And I think there's a lot of public mistrust of flock in particular and we need to look at that aspect and not just the ALPR aspect in general. So the state is still developing their response. I don't think we should throw into a piece of legislation these very specific things that are probably not going to make it through the state process. So then we need to take time and look at FLOC as a company versus APRs in general. We can just use this as an opportunity to harmonize our contracts. We have two contracts out there with FLOC, which doesn't necessarily make sense to begin with. So this is just a simple, good governance step to to even look at merging those into one contract. I mean, I think that's pretty non-controversial for the mayor to do that. But mostly it is a pause to evaluate and give us a little more time. This is not final legislation, this is not final rules, but a commitment to undertake the necessary work to develop those guardrails and rules and get them out there by December, by the time we have to evaluate the larger plot contract. So that's why I'm in favor of version B and not version A, but in favor of the overall goal of the legislation.

Absolutely, I think what you pointed out is very good, those are some steps, but I honestly feel like we could do both, like voting on B and still doing those things, because there are some questions that are still out there that do need to be answered, so I do agree with you on that, but I also feel like voting on A is still doable, because we can still, if we look at it, we have a right to really change our mind. I feel like a lot of the times, you learn even after you vote on something, this is one of the things, like we voted, for these in the beginning. We didn't know kind of what was kind of happening when we voted for those. So I think that either way, whatever anybody picks, I'm okay with it, but I still don't see the danger. Also with A's legislation, these recommendations, NYU, legal aid, I can't think of, what's the AL, people, what's it called? Thank you, ACLU, thank you so much. They've already recommended this, so I feel okay with that now, but like you said, we still have a lot of work to do with that. So I agree with what you're saying, but I still, feel like A is a bigger stance.

I just wanted to make sure it was clear that when Councilwoman Middleton mentioned voting for the public, she's referring to the budget votes, the funding of not the, council was not involved in voting.

Yeah, there have been ALPRs in Binghamton since 2017. Yes, thank you.

Okay, so. I'm in favor of A, and the reason why is because of oversight, best practices, guidelines are necessary when we talk about mass surveillance, marginalized, vulnerable populations who could be unfairly targeted if these devices are not used the way that it is intended to be used. I'm still thinking about all of the recommendations that were made and all the work that was done within the police department that I'm still waiting on more information related to to that. Right. There's not a lot of transparency as far as I'm concerned. So. from my perspective and also just thinking about our packed room with public comments, with concerned citizens about data, reporting, oversight. So my vote for A is taking into consideration what many of our constituents are concerned about. Having these tools in place requires guidelines and best practices. And this may not be binding, but you know what? Whoever we're going to be looking at to have a new contract with should have an understanding that these are some of the expectations that we have regarding what we're looking for in terms of how we're going what we're looking for, right? So I don't believe that just saying that, you know, not renewing or ending the agreement now is sufficient, right?

Ending it and... Councilmember, I'm sorry, if I may, that's simply not what... Option B does not end at that. Option B specifically calls on us to work with the mayor and the police to develop these same guardrails. It's just not... adopting this specific set of guardrails which again is not necessarily because we're still waiting information as you said we're still going through the process we're still We're still coming up with those best practices, and I don't know that this list is the best practices, and I think it's bad policy to just vote on them and put those out there in the public as something that we're expecting, but I don't know that they're all viable. These call for judicial review in cases that we might not have that process in place. It calls for public review. We don't have a citizen review board of any sort in Binghamton. Other places do, we don't. That's building an entire infrastructure. I think it's not good to commit to those things in this fashion. um at this time i think it's just it's we have to work on each one of those issues i 100 agree and that's in option b but this very specific list i think is not good policy to commit to to put out there to the public as what we are committing to even though it's not binding and i appreciate that um and if this council wants to send a message of of unanimity on this issue then there's an option I am comfortable with, and there's an option I'm not comfortable with, for the reasons I've just stated.

Is there a bullet point in terms of these recommendations and our guardrails that you are concerned about specifically or uncomfortable with?

I just highlighted two of them. So judicial review of all the requests, one, two, public review of the entire flock program. We don't have any of that infrastructure. I'm not sure that the 48 hour timeline for retention is the right timeline. I'm leaning towards 30 days is too much. I don't know that 48 hours is the right number.

So number two and the other. You said the timeline, right? 48 hours not being enough time. And I'm sorry, can you just?

Let's see. So two, sharing of data without judicial authorization is extremely specific. That might not be. So, could be a question of sharing, so for example, why this might not be the best sort of guardrail, and this again, things that have to be analyzed that take time. So there are jurisdictions that use a geographical radius for sharing, right? Like we're gonna share with each, so like out of state, Maybe it doesn't make sense for us to be sharing stuff with someone in Jamestown or Buffalo that's many, many hours away, but it would be perfect, make perfect sense for us to share with somebody in Silver Lake Township that's eight miles away over the border, but it's technically in a different state. So there are jurisdictions that look at a geographical area instead of by state, you know, for what they share with without, at different standards for sharing. Let's see. So, and again, the public reporting and the public evaluation of all these things, we don't have a public review system. You know, it's like a review board in Binghamton right now. That's a, somebody would have to build up specifically for this, and I think it would, you know, just announcing it like this would trigger a lot of folks in the community and in our local law enforcement community as well who sort of traditionally resist that sort of thing. Anyway, so there's a variety of things to consider that to not immediately commit to. So these are all points of discussion, but in this legislation, we're saying we're backing these specific things as goals, and I don't necessarily do that. I don't necessarily back those. I support discussing each one of them, and these are all options, these are all good points, but I don't specifically support each of those particular things, because I haven't studied them enough.

So I hear what you're saying, Council Member Cavanaugh. I do want to just let you know that when we had our last meeting and the press was here with Flock and then they did some quotes that it did come out of the mayor's office from the deputy mayor that they 100% were going to renew the contract. They had no intention of canceling the contract. So I'm just curious, if they're not gonna cancel the contract, how do you think they're gonna open up the door and have lines of communication with us? Now I'm not saying these guardrails are perfect, but the way it's written is just affirms our support for implementing the privacy and accountability standards proposed, which we can go through and change all of these, but I think leaving the door too wide open they don't ever have to come to us and talk to us. So I'd rather make more of a stance with this being subject to change than leaving a door open saying we want them to terminate the contract, no conversation ever begins, and we really just didn't get anything accomplished.

Amen, and can you say that again, right? So I think that it is beneficial, and I think based off of how things have played out in the past, you learned from that, right? And I think that these bullet point lists can be discussed. They can be modified, but the point with voting for A, from my perspective, is that one, it's symbolic in the sense that we are letting our constituents know that we are in favor of oversight and guardrails. These may not be perfect. They still need to be flushed out. They still need to be discussed. change a little bit based off of other, you know, legal, whatever that's happening, right? So they're not perfect, but I think the point of saying that there are some maybe examples of what we're looking for in terms of oversight, that is important. not just this good faith. We are going to have conversations and work collaboratively, and I hope that that is what will happen. And in case it doesn't, I am in favor of A. So we don't have to go back and forth. I mean, I respect this. That's what we're here to do.

So again, Council Member, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think that A is far more symbolic and only symbolic than B because A is going to tend to raise the hackles of folks in the city administration and in the police department and make them less willing to talk. Option B is simply calling for a pause and then look at policy.

They're not talking now. We are still waiting. We are talking.

We had a two and a half hour committee meeting and we could have more. Everyone is willing to talk about this. Everyone is talking about this. I think A, has absolutely no chance of getting a reaction from the mayor. B, has a shot, is the only one that could practically result in the mayor being willing to pause the contract.

But what about them saying they have no use in that, that they have no use in canceling anything like...

So again, this would not be a full cancellation. Again, the September contract is for seven cameras.

Yeah, he's renewing that.

But this is literally asking him not to do that while we talk.

But... I mean, you know, no shade.

It's asking him to take a step to give us time, to give everybody time, versus do this and do all of these things that we're outlining. One is a measured policy step to give us more time, and one is a symbolic gesture.

I know.

I guess. I'll say I've been reaching out to folks and while there's certainly the crowd that comes here, many of which are not constituents, I just do wanna make sure that's reiterated. Some are. I've received some constituent feedback. I think I'm up to seven or eight now in my district and they're split on what we should do. They're not all cancel. Absolutely, that's not the feedback I'm getting in my district. But I've also been reaching out to different stakeholder groups that have not been in the room. And most of them haven't even thought about Flock yet. And I've explained how the policies and ALRPs and regulations in different states and what different councils are doing that are having roundtables with stakeholders and really trying to develop policy around our community needs are doing. And I'm educating the stakeholders because they haven't even thought about this stuff yet. So they are not in the room, they have not been in the room, and they need to be in the room when we're developing policy. So I'm gonna throw that out there as something that I was completely surprised by the lack of knowledge of what's going on, but.

I will pass on the folks who are ringing down my phone to you, so you can have some conversations with them, so it could be a more well-rounded feedback, so you could hear from some other constituents as well.

Northside, Northside has this, okay. I'm glad you're getting lots of feedback. That's not.

Personally, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to engage in any discussion about either one of these. I support either one, and I recognize they're not binding. Obviously, I think we all recognize that more work has to go into developing policy and studying it including educating the public about what this is so I'm I'm mostly looking forward to to that the development of a local Laura law that has some type of guardrails that can either incorporate some of these recommendations or not incorporate them so I'm not and basically I think mostly it's been very rare that the mayor comes and engages with us or with me at least and the way that we've been able to pass things is like what we just did with the Fayette Street resolution is it goes it gets vetoed and then we override so That's kind of how I would see this move forward when we have a more robust actually binding resolution or local law. So that's my two cents here. Thank you.

Does anybody else have anything they want to add to the discussion? Because if not, we'll vote on A first, and then obviously if that gets four out of six of us, then that would be the one that would be the resolution to pass. If not, then we'll vote on B. Does that sound fair to everybody? So does anybody else have anything they'd like to add to the discussion?

Do you want to? He's saying that he's putting the thumb on the scale for A because we're voting on A first. Right, right. But you could say the other way around. If you voted on B first, if it passes. I guess I it sounds like there are less people that would that well there are more people that might support a than B and that means that the B voters would not get an opportunity to vote in support of something or we could motion to hold over and kill it guess my preference would be to vote on b first and even if it gets voted down at least both will get voted on because it sounds like a will probably pass and that will give the b voters not an opportunity to put on the record in a vote form their support if someone feels particularly strongly about one version or the other they could make a motion to vote on that version first I will make a motion to vote on option B first.

We have a motion to vote on B first, do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. A discussion on voting for B first.

Hearing none, go ahead, Councilmember Hodges. So I understand and I appreciate all the arguments that Councilmember Kavanaugh has made, and I have not fully reviewed the state legislation, so I'd be in favor of supporting B, but I'm also in favor of supporting A. So that's how I'm doing this, that's all.

I have often in the past been reminded of the value of unanimity from council, and there's a version of this that I think can get unanimity, and there's a version that's not going to get unanimity.

That's all. I hear you on that, Council Member Cavanaugh. Probably going back to what we just had to veto and the behind-the-scenes fight and not always an open-door policy to be able to come to any terms or work with the mayor on that. I just struggle to see we're going to get it for this. And you may be right. I could be wrong. I am a human being. but it just it to me i'd like to have some guidelines in place and we can adjust them and go from there versus just hoping their open door policy is going to work through it and we're not just it's his decision i mean neither one of these are honestly binding they're just making a good stand they're all just a good gesture at the end of the day so that's just my opinion anybody else so we're having a conversation on why we want to vote for b first this is what we're doing right now

And the reason why we want to vote for B first is?

So yeah, so if I understood what President Dundon was saying was that if A passed, then we wouldn't get an opportunity to vote on B. which means that the people that may vote against A would not get to have their vote recorded on the record.

So how is that not the same for then the people who?

Well, if folks don't want B, it sounds like you have enough votes for A, so you vote down B, and then you vote for A, and then everyone's votes are recognized.

Which won't be confusing at all.

Am I not understanding what you were planning? I mean, yeah. That's why it sounded like, it sounded to me, without counting votes, that A has enough support to pass. And if that is the case and it's voted on first, then the people who would vote no on that would not get a chance to vote in support of something relating to pausing and not renewing these seven, the specific Decision that needs to be made tomorrow. We will not have a chance to vote on that for that That that's what I'm saying so everyone would get to vote we get to vote on B and a if we start with B if the folks who Want a vote no on B. Yeah, but when you're gonna go make your when you're making your vote if we decided to vote for a first when you're making your vote you can state and Explain at that point.

Can you not? It's just recorded differently, right?

Nobody has anything else. We'll go ahead with a roll call to vote on B. Nothing else? Madam Clerk?

Council Member Rathmel is absent. Council Member Matavetsky?

Aye.

Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Could you say that into the mic? I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, no.

Council Member Murray? No. Council President Dunden.

It's just about moving.

No. So do you guys wanna make any statement on why you voted for B or do you wanna just move on? I know you wanted to make sure you were.

I mean I think we had a long discussion. I think we wanna have stakeholder engagement and community acknowledgement and all of that while we're developing the policy and not jump the gun and state policies without actually having those conversations first. To me that is why B was my choice and I'm not comfortable with A. at this time, and it's time sensitive obviously because the contract is tomorrow.

I agree with that, I just, and I'll explain why I voted no to, I agree with that, but I just feel like we can still do the same with A, so that's why.

Council Member Middleton, we need to back up. That was my mistake. We were only voting to move B first. We were not voting on B. That was, in all the crosstalk, the way I noted this, I screwed up, so we're gonna go back, and we're only voting on moving B first. Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call, please?

The motion on the table is whether or not to vote on B prior to A. So Council Member Rathmel is absent. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss?

Aye.

Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray? Aye. Council President Dundon?

Aye.

That's 5-1, thank you.

So now we're gonna vote on B first. Does anyone have anything they wanna add to the discussion of B or the resolution that Council Member Cavanaugh made some changes to?

I'm gonna vote in favor of anything that it calls upon the mayor to terminate the current contract. Thank you.

So nobody else? Let's do a roll call on implementing B.

Council Member Rathal is absent. Council Member Matabetski? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. What? We already did that. We did that, babe. We did that. Council Member Matabetski? I said aye. Council Member Hotchkiss?

Aye.

Council Member Cavanaugh?

Aye.

Council Member Middleton? No. Council Member Murray?

No, I think over.

Council President Dundon.

No. So B was 3-3 tie?

Fails.

Fails. So we will move on to A. Probably.

It's the next thing on the agenda. I mean, we made the motion to open it before, right? So now it's basically like you're picking it up and moving forward with the vote since we voted on. We picked up B, we voted on it, on motion. B's done, the only thing left now is A.

So is there any discussion on A, which A was the legislation that had the state guidelines that are being proposed in the New York State Legislature? Does anyone have any comments on that? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call, please?

Council Member Rathmel is absent. Council Member Matavetsky? No. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? No. Council Member Middleton? Aye. Council Member Murray? Aye. Council President Dundon? Aye. Thank you, that is 4-2.

With nothing else to discuss, can I entertain a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Motion. Motion. So now I got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned.