City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the City Council business meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, August 26th, 2026. The time now is 6.09. May we please all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Clerk, can you please take the roll? Council Member Murray is absent. Council Member Cavanaugh?

Present.

Council Member Hotchkiss? Present. Council Member Matavetsky? Present. Council Member Rathmell is absent. Council Member Dundon is absent. Council President Pro Tempore Middleton?

Present. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will now begin by approving the minutes for the business meeting on August 12th, 2006. Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Now we will move on to reports from committees and appointments. Are there any committee reports tonight?

I have brought my notes on the agenda from the last traffic board meeting so we had Vista Corp 16 Pern Street had a request for new crosswalk and that was approved by planning and was pending traffic and so that was motion we motioned on that subject to engineering approval so it was approved provisionally um depending on engineering's thought process uh 52 tremont ave corner of tremont and newton there was a request for no parking any time sign and no parking here to corner there was a When that area was reassessed, there's substantially more no parking and no parking here to corner signs that were approved. There's 30 days for feedback that can be overturned. So if people are concerned about that, please reach out or in support of it either way, whatever your feelings on it. If you have feelings, reach out. So that area over by Tremont and Newton. Catholic Charities, Front Street, Valley Street, they had a request for a relocation of Crosswalk. That was tabled. The Mayor's Office requested Main Street between Matthew Street and Crestmont to review on-street parking. That was also tabled. We had Lucy Street request to exempt from alternate side of the street and make south side of street no parking. That was also tabled. 30 Larchmont Road request for a second curb cut for a semicircle driveway. The ZBA denied regarding a garage. So that was tabled for more information. 43 and 44 Highland Ave, mid-block, there was a request for handicapped parking sign. That was passed. We had Hayes Street and Belden Street request for a stop sign. That was denied. request for bike lanes, Riverside Drive request for bike lanes. Those were tabled. So if you have any thoughts, concerns, anything, please reach out to me on any of that.

Did my stuff, did I?

So that couldn't be voted on because it was just being introduced, so that'll be, but thank you for coming and participating in traffic.

So will my stuff be on the agenda for next?

I hope so. So we'll have a new traffic chairperson taking over the next time, which is also part of why a lot of items were tabled since there's gonna be a new leadership coming in. and then so the next traffic board meeting is September 10th at 9 15 a.m. and the next environmental Commission meeting is September 17th at noon okay those are my notes anybody else okay

Okay, now we have no public hearings to set tonight. And no public hearings to talk about. So we'll move on to public comments. Residents wishing to submit a public comment may do so electronically by emailing their comments prior to 1pm on the day of the meeting to clerk at city of binghamton.gov or in person during the meeting. Please come down to the microphone and introduce yourself by first name and indicate whether you live or work in the city of Binghamton. Each speaker has five minutes to address city council and city council issues. Yes.

My name is Jennifer Evans. I live on the west side of Binghamton. I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed placement of SROs in our district's elementary schools. Introducing armed law enforcement into environments serving children as young as five years old is a dangerous reactionary measure that prioritizes the illusion of security over the actual well-being of our community's youngest children. By bringing SROs into elementary schools, this council risks criminalizing routine, age appropriate behavioral outbursts, and disproportionately targeting minority students and children with disabilities. My child is one of them. The first time I picked Amaya up from the presence of an officer, she was in pre-K at West Middle School. I was told that she wasn't in trouble but that the officer was the only staff available to provide her the support that she needed. Last year at Thomas Jefferson, a substitute principal threatened to call the police on her. Not one adult informed me that my daughter was threatened in this manner. I did not know until Amaya was crying and didn't want to go back to school. The substitute principal apologized to Amaya and explained that she was frustrated in the moment and that there was already an officer at the school for another child. Yet I sit in IEP and 504 meetings and I'm told although it violates federal IDEA laws and ADA laws, the accommodations such as paraprofessionals and skill building in real time is not an option due to the lack of staff available to provide the accommodation. I'm told that there is not sufficient staff to provide 10 minutes of proactive interventions, yet when an incident happens, there are four to five staff members present for a two hour crisis. Before you say I'm putting my responsibility to parent my child on the shoulders of the school, I want you to understand that Amaya has several diagnoses. She is in private therapy, on medication, and I am present at every meeting, available for every phone call, suspension, and every informal and illegal removal due to the lack of staff to provide supports. Working for New York State and being in a union affords me the ability to be very present, but how many parents are not afforded the same privileges? that can't be present or they risk losing their jobs. Why is the solution SROs instead of trained supports to help our children? I want you to remember that most parents are unable to homeschool their children due to the necessity of full-time jobs. We are legally required to have our children in an educational setting that does not meet the needs of children that don't fit into a box. Funding armed guards while our elementary schools suffer from a chronic shortage of counselors, social workers, and mental health professionals is a failure of fiscal and moral responsibility. True safety comes from funding support systems, not policing children who are just learning to read. I urge this council to reject the expansion of the SRO program and instead invest in the proven therapeutic resources that our elementary age children actually need. Although I can't stay for the rest of this meeting, I will be monitoring the council's upcoming votes and discussions on this matter closely. Respectfully opposed, Jennifer Evans, the daughter of a retired Binghamton police officer with a child facing challenges in the Binghamton Elementary School. Thank you.

One, two, one, two, so I have to check very quickly. My name is Omar Costanunas. I live and work in the city of Binghamton. And I'm also here to voice my opposition to putting SROs into the elementary school. Throughout the country, time and time again, we see what happens when we put school resource officers, SROs, law enforcement agents, into the classroom we see what happens when we put them in charge of disciplinary actions in a school setting in 2022 in north carolina a second grader was pinned down for 38 minutes simply for spitting in a teacher's face it's very classic the second grader had autism and they placed him in handcuffs pinned down for 38 minutes a second grader eight years old nine years old In 2018 in Texas, we saw the same episode repeat again, a 10-year-old pinned down, handcuffed. In 2024, we've seen kids as young as five years old being placed in handcuffs for simple, simple behavioral actions. I think it's immoral and irresponsible to put law enforcement agents and put kids in danger of being traumatized simply because they're acting as kids. SROs throughout the country are acting as disciplinarians, employing tactics that shouldn't be used in schools, but are tactics that are used during law enforcement proceedings. Their presence actively reinforces the school to prison pipeline that disproportionately affects low income students, specifically black and brown students, and especially students who struggle with intellectual disabilities. In fact, from 2017 to 2018, the Cato Institute reported that over 700 kids as young as five years old were being detained. 700 kids simply because of the presence of SROs. I don't think we want something like that in the Binghamton School District. Not only that, if our entire prerogative is to ensure the success of our children, putting SROs, statistically speaking, doesn't make sense. Study after study has demonstrated that kids perform worse in school with the presence of SROs, actually leading to a decrease in high school graduation and to a decrease in college enrollment by about 5%. Increasing police presence leads to decrease in actual educational outcomes, and I can't reiterate enough, putting kids in handcuffs is traumatizing. It doesn't work, it's immoral, and it's irresponsible. Increasing disciplinary action by introducing SROs, it does nothing but continues the same punitive practices that set kids back. Instead, as Jennifer had mentioned prior, we should focus on restorative practices, actual mental health services, counseling, things that actually develop the youngest in our community, real proactive measures. So with that, I strongly urge the city council to vote no and to further consult the community and come with an actual solution that prioritizes kids' safety and kids' success. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Demond Wilson. I serve as the president of the Broome Tioga NAACP. I am a resident of Binghamton. just don't have much to say but I just want to speak on behalf of our children of color that it is interesting that this conversation is based around safety because as I take a poll of different school districts around Broome County I see that there are not many schools that have SROs and I That gives me pause because I think that if we're talking about mass shootings and things like that, that the threat would be equal throughout the county. But something that sticks out to me that I guess is very disheartening is that Binghamton, having one of the larger populations of children of color, are the schools that have the SROs. And so the question then becomes safety from what? Who is being protected and what they are being protected from? And based on statistics that were stated previously, it seems that the protection is from students of color. There's always been a stigma in education when it comes to underperformance or violence coming from communities of color. However, when you look at the facts and you look at the details, you'll see that there are underlying circumstances that create those misconceptions of safety. And so, I am here to help advocate for those who cannot advocate on their own behalf because of life, because of being in a situation to where they don't have the option of being able to join meetings and be a part of these conversations. And so when we talk about SROs and their need and the safety of our students, let's talk about the safety of all of our students. Because for communities of color, law enforcement have not been a symbol of safety. If anything, they've been a symbol of trauma and institutional racism. So when we talk about safety in our schools, we have to keep in mind the safety of all of our students and not just trying to protect a few from the larger community. But what I want to say is this, is that, When it comes to the outcomes of SROs in schools, we know that suspension rates go up. Binghamton City School District has one of the highest suspension rates for students of color. Also, it leads to criminalizing of minor offenses, as was stated previously. But it also fuels something called the school to prison pipeline, which can start as early as the third grade, where it's a system that is designed to funnel students into the prison system at an early age. And SROs are a main source for that school-to-prison pipeline, especially for students of color. And so I'll just leave you with this, that recently I've been advocating for a gentleman because of a situation that's happened in his life, but what stood out in his case was that When he was sentenced a couple of months ago, he wasn't sentenced on what he did to get him in that position. His sentencing was based on his rap sheet, his record, which started back when he was in school. So the judge that presided over his situation was not only throwing the book at him for what he did or did not do in that situation, but was going back to the history that they had with this particular individual, which started back when he was in school. And so I come to really to ask.

You have about 30 seconds left.

I come to ask that there is any way to either call the school district or the school board to have a special meeting to have more input on the matter before something is signed or being able to regulate what the duties and the functions are of this new SRO before a contract is signed I'll ask for there to be some type of conversation before the the ink is dry but To wrap it up, just really just want to just put on record that our rap sheet goes with you for the rest of your life. It doesn't stop based on the offense. Once you serve your time, once you get done, whatever responsibility, whatever consequence that the person faces, it follows them. And so by putting SROs in schools at an earlier age, we're putting students in position to have rap sheets for a lot longer and that will follow them for the rest of their life. So I'll stop there. Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name's Caleb Deshaw. I'm a caseworker at the Department of Social Services here in Broome County. I'm here today along with the rest of the people that have spoke to express my concerns with putting school resource officers into the elementary school. specifically it's bad enough that we are already policing our middle school and high school students it's another thing to target young children with law enforcement like i said i work as a caseworker at the department of social services so i work with young children elementary school age children on a regular basis a lot of them have severe behavioral issues they've constantly been disciplined and nothing changes it isn't until they get the resources that they need before that happens and that is never policing those those are not the resources that these children need our county has constantly been cutting resources to children when it comes to actual productive or effective programs. We used to have a school project where we had social workers placed in the schools. That's gone. We no longer have social workers in the schools. If they need assistance, they have to reach out outside of school, which is extra steps for parents and parents that work long hours and don't have the time to put in get their children the help that they need. I just think that If you're talking about this as if it's a safety aspect, when have police prevented mass shootings in schools? When have police stopped mass shooters in schools in a timely matter? Like you can look at Uvalde in Texas and cops are standing outside armed for hours letting children die. So what is putting an armed guard in a school with a bunch of young kids like young children that have no concept what violence even really is they're just behaving like I just uh I don't know I didn't prepare anything today I've been extremely busy I just want it to be known that as somebody who works with children of this age and like they have been talking about, oppressed demographics, the only thing that is gonna help them is to give them educational resources, mental health resources, not policing them. That's all I have to say, thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to come down and speak for public comment? There's, if any, clerk, can you read those into, wait, we have one more coming?

Sorry, we have one more.

How you doing? Hello, everyone. Hi. It's really late.

You got, just state your name and whether you live and work in the city of Binghamton.

So my name is Wesley Mays. I live in the city of Binghamton. I've been working inside the Binghamton City School District for a little over 10 years now, partnership through CARES, and I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. It'd be a waste of money and time for the officers to even be present in the elementary school setting. they're not gonna engage with K through five. I personally deescalated so many situations where from elementary school to middle school to high school without any SRO officer, me, all the CARES dads, my team, a group of parents, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, community, community coming together, speaking to the children, speaking to families, and deescalating and making sure the kids, they go smooth. a sro officer is not equipped dealing with children with special ieps or stuff like that they didn't go to school for that they went to school for one thing um i don't want to rant i've been i've been working with children for a long time i have two of my student my own children in the binghamton city school district and having them in an elementary school it's a waste of time Thank you so much

So we have two comments tonight. One from Councilmember Rebecca Rathmel. Typically I approach conversations like this. One's rooted mostly in a well this is how we've done it for years mindset with data. Long before taking office and repeatedly while on council, I have shared well-established outcomes that consistently demonstrate how SRO referrals and arrests disproportionately affect black and indigenous students, students of color, and students with disabilities, that little evidence exists to support the claims that armed SROs prevent mass violence or improve general school climate. In fact, they often create an intimidating prison-like environment, and funds would be better allocated to hiring more school counselors, social workers, and mental health professionals. As recently as last month, the ACLU of Iowa released a 37-page report that documents the growing problems of SROs and how, instead of keeping students truly safe, they actually impose harms, again, especially black students and students with disabilities. The report also points to poor oversight of SRO programs, lack of parental notification and potential violation of student rights, record keeping that may violate contracts and federal law, and specific cases of SRO overreach with students as young as six. Far from the first such report, and for sure won't be the last. Since persistently spouting the data, however, has achieved little local traction, I'm going to share my own personal experience. I grew up in Prince George's County, Maryland, middle school at Kettering in Upper Marlboro, and high school in Bowie. Because of the gang activity so close to DC, we were doing drive-by shooter drills in eighth grade before lockdown, where active shooter drills were a national thing. We had school resource officers in both back then, and don't get me wrong, they were nice enough dudes, but they didn't prevent students from bringing weapons or drugs to school or getting jumped in the hallways or cafeteria. Now, a few decades later, schools in PG have even more SROs plus metal detectors, and they've implemented clear backpack requirements, yet crime and safety incidents continue. None of it is making schools safer. What is working to make cities and neighborhoods and students safer are public health approaches that pair community-led violence intervention with targeted law enforcement and broad social support services. And it's why Baltimore, for example, is seeing historic decreases in crime under Mayor Brandon Scott. There is no good reason to keep doing something that is not working. End the SRO program. At the very least, don't expand it to the elementary schools. Fund resources that address students' socioeconomic conditions instead of penalizing poverty. From Salca Valerio, dear members of the Binghamton City Council, I am writing to ask that the City Council slow down the process of expanding school resource officers into Binghamton's elementary schools and create meaningful opportunities for public input before moving forward. Decisions about our children and what happens inside their school should not be made without the voices of parents, educators, students, and community members who will be directly affected. I believe safety in our schools is important. However, placing police officers in elementary schools raises serious questions that deserve a public discussion. Police officers should be allowed to focus on police work while trained education and child development professionals handle the needs of children. Teachers, counselors, social workers, psychologists, behavioral health professionals, and other school-based staff are specifically trained to understand and respond to children's educational, emotional, and behavioral needs. We should be asking what specific problems are SROs intended to address in elementary schools? What evidence demonstrates that placing police officers in elementary schools will make children safer? What alternatives have been considered, including counselors, social workers, behavioral health professionals, restorative practices, and additional support staff? What are the potential impacts on young children, particularly children of color and children with disabilities? Have parents and educators had a meaningful opportunity to review and provide input on this proposal? What policies and safeguards will govern interactions between SROs and elementary school students? Elementary school children are still developing socially and emotionally. Not every behavioral or disciplinary issue is a law enforcement issue. We should be careful not to turn normal childhood behavior, conflict, or struggles into situations involving the criminal justice system. Let police do police work, let educators educate, let counselors counsel, let social workers and child development professionals work with children and families. There are professionals whose entire careers are dedicated to helping children navigate difficult situations without immediately involving law enforcement. We should be investing in those supports rather than assuming that more police presence is the answer. This is not about being anti-police or anti-safety. It is about putting the right professionals in the right roles and making sure our youngest students receive the support they need. Before expanding SROs into elementary schools, I respectfully ask the city council to hold public forums or community discussions specifically focused on this proposal and ensure that parents, educators, students, youth advocates, and community members have a genuine opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback. Our children will live with the consequences of these decisions. Their families deserve a seat at the table before not after the decision is made. I urge the city council to pause, listen to the community, review the evidence, and have a meaningful public discussion before moving forward with SROs in elementary schools. Our children deserve safe schools. Our families deserve transparency. Our community deserves to be heard. Respectfully, Salca Valerio.

thank you so much um i want to thank everyone who spoke tonight and now we will move on to our second red legislation and uh first we'll have introductory resolution r26-59 considered in municipal and public affairs council member medevetsky can you introduce this bill please

I'll make the motion for R26-59, a resolution to extend agreement for school resource officers for 2026-2027. I have a motion, do I have a second?

I'd like to amend the motion if possible, suggest amendment.

We need a second to go into discussion to do an amendment. We need a second to go into discussion.

Yeah, all right, fine, I'll second.

Okay, and then discussion?

I'd like to motion to vote on two contracts separately.

Second. Second.

Second. I had a, were you gonna say second?

No. I'm assuming the idea is to try and take up, because there's three contracts. There's one for the high school. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought there was only one.

I thought there was one for middle and high school.

I'm sorry.

The legislation is titled a resolution to extend agreement for school resource officers 2026 to 2027, but that's not an accurate title because there's the extension of the middle school and high school, which I think would be, is what you're talking about as being one, and then the addition, which is not actually included in the shorthanded title of what was submitted. of the extension for a school resource officer for the amountary schools.

So in the legislation, if you're just looking to parse it out, the first paragraph references the two existing contracts, right, and the second paragraph references.

I'll read it the second part says whereas the extended agreement includes the addition of one school resource officer to be shared amongst elementary schools and to update all school resource officer salary as outlined in the current PBA contract and whereas the city agrees to provide the police officers as designated by the chief of police and the Binghamton City School District will pay the city for providing such police officers as provided in said agreement So can we...

Right, I guess I would motion to amend the resolution.

Yeah, so my point was that it would be easier to... if you were looking to ask two or three agreements to strike reference to the third agreement.

So I guess I would motion to strike, let's see, where is the, well the second paragraph except for.

The extended agreement includes the addition. So take out the whole second paragraph?

Well, we need to leave the update the salaries, I think.

I mean, that's already incorporated into the agreements, so it's easier. So we don't really need it?

All right, so I motion to strike the second whereas.

I'll second.

Well, do you want to do a full amendment before you vote? Because you're also going to have to amend the resolution paragraph from Yes. And remove the reference to elementary schools.

Right, okay, so I motion strike the second paragraph, the second whereas, and modify the resolve to change to three school resource officers

For the high school and middle schools and strike and elementary schools Second Any discussion regarding the amendment yeah, I mean I think we should talk about it if I understand things correctly this was never a deeply discussed or really wrestled with with the school board. I don't know if other people had conversations like that with school board members, but it does, that is of concern to me, because I guess I feel like the school board is the one that's requesting this from us, and that the school board should be, so we, the presentation that was given to us was by the superintendent, The school district requests this of us. I thought that it would have gone through the school board. At least my attempt to reach out to a member of the school board, it sounds like it maybe didn't, but I don't know if other folks had other conversations with elected school board members, but it's concerning to me that a process wasn't gone through asking

Yeah, that's kind of where I kind of stand on it. I mean, I had a meeting with Tanya a few days ago, last week, I think, before I went on vacation. I had a meeting with her, and she spoke about what the duties of the elementary, what that would entail, but after hearing that, has it been more of a community input? That kind of worries me. on that part of not having everyone involved in the conversation i understood where she came from some of the things she said that you know there it it's a new i i asked her kind of what was the goal of having an sro inside of the elementary schools oh you're going off like me it's okay She spoke to me, she said kind of traffic and some other things, but what I'm kind of worried about and what's kind of giving me a pause on the elementary part is not having more input from both sides, whether you agree or disagree, because we all have our own comments from our own experiences, so I understand all that. What I am worried about is not everyone being involved in that process.

So I do not have children, so my experiences and memories of the Binghamton City School District are getting older and foggier by the year. I do have fond memories of Officer Lewis and Officer Whelan from when I was in high school, and I thought they were generally a positive presence. My initial view of this is that the school district is reaching out, asking for a resource, and in the case of the last two years, when we renewed these contracts, it's been in the middle and high school, where the school resource officers have been present for years. It's becoming apparent, I think, that this expansion has not really been well explained, and I don't know, communicated and sold to I think the population of the school district I don't think and as far as I know I mean we had communication from the superintendent and I respect that I respect her as a professional and reaching out and and trying to do this but I don't know if the school board has weighed in or has done their their what I think would feel their public obligation would be to something that's clearly an important consequential issue to a lot of parents and students in the district and I don't think I don't look at the school resource officer issue as I don't want to look at it too broadly because Binghamton is Binghamton, and we're dealing with our own situation. We have a history of, I think, generally well-regarded school resource officers that get extra training that are of a disposition and temperament to be good representatives in the schools. I think that's a proven track record. I would trust that the elementary officer would follow in that mold so I don't necessarily give all the credence to what's been going on in Texas or North Carolina or a hundred other examples. I'm concerned about what the history in Binghamton is, what our guardrails are, what our program looks like because national trends versus what we can accomplish here aren't necessarily the same thing so I think that has to be looked at and I think that has to be communicated to because we have our the the contract has has guardrails for the school resource office makes it clear that they're not part of of the school disciplinary chain that that remains within the school within the normal uh kind of tree and sort of and so but that has not been well articulated or explained clearly to to the public and I think the school needs to do a little more work on that before you know they come to us and ask us for these additional this additional cooperation additional resources so I guess I'm sort of kicking the can back to the school board and say hey but I I think it's it's out of my personal area of expertise, and I think we need more deliberation on this expansion. It's not, again, I can point to the guardrails, I can point to the fact that this is one officer split around six or seven buildings, depending how you count, given our school construction right now. So it's not an armed guard full-time at school. It's somebody that's there at specific times, specific reasons, as needed. It's not my job to point that out. The school district should be taking on that burden. I guess I'm saying it. I think we need to kick the can a little bit on this and have some more dialogue with the school district and more reaching out to the community in education and deliberation. That was why I made the amendment and I guess I'm comfortable continuing the program as it is and we need to spend more time with this expansion. And here we are up against the clock as we often are but then this should have been brought to us in March or April or something before the end of school year so we weren't facing summer.

So yeah, I mean, I agree a lot with some of the comments that Council Member Cavanaugh shared. Every year I dug into this and researched a little bit and then found out more about how our officers operate versus what national trends are. And I do think that there's considerable differences between programs that should be appreciated and understood by some of the folks in our school system and then in the public in general but ultimately I don't think that this expansion is to me it doesn't seem well thought out if it's if the truly the goal is either safety or relationship building having one officer rotate among six or seven schools seems like that's not going to be a lot of time to develop a relationship with that population or any of those populations because you're going to be rotating so much so I I don't I don't really understand the vision there I don't think it's been clearly explained and I would like to understand it better because I'm not comfortable voting on it in its current form. So I appreciate the amendment. I was going to make the same one myself. That's all. Thank you.

I mean I think a lot of it's been said for my you know this is an issue that I've accumulated outreach aside from the elementary school piece which was new this year but the the other SRO topic over the years I have found and for my constituents from minority community they have been in support of the SROs particularly a lot of love for the East middle school SRO has come out of the Southside Easter's that I represent. So I understand that there's the statistical level, and I think Councilman Hotchkiss has brought that up in terms of the survey results as well that we've been presented. And then there's the talking to individual constituents and trying to understand their experience, so I wanted to make sure that I continue to make sure that those voices are also heard in this discussion. In terms of the elementary school, I reached out to a parent that's been active in the school as an active parent, I guess. And she was like, if they're coming and assisting and advising their security on how to do security better and threats, one either should, basically the police department be providing that service kind of anyway or maybe on more of like a contract kind like a consulting kind of basis rather than through the sro program so there's also some kind of um thoughts about like how like does everything need to be a paid agreement versus like we send our fire department in to examine buildings and provide feedback on safety. Can we take on some of those roles with the elementary schools without this contract in place? So that was something that came up that I hadn't really mulled over prior to that conversation. I'm glad we're able to amend this before we move on to voting on it, but I also wonder if some of the pieces of the goals or objectives with the elementary school level school resource officer, like the training of security that are on premises all the time, unarmed security that are on premises all the time, if that there might be a way to move some of that forward without the contract. So I'll throw that out there for all the emails and whatnot to get directed towards me. But yeah, I think that's.

Yes, I was gonna say I agree with everyone's sentiments. I know after today there'll be a narrative that we hate the police and all those other comments that come with this job and I just want to say that we, our job is honestly, we are elected officials but also I think one of the reasons why we want the amendment too is to make sure that parents are being heard. They always say two things or three things can be true. Our goal is to make sure that, and we do that too with our legislation. Even if we don't agree with something, we always let people speak. We try to be as transparent as we can, and I think one of the reasons and why we are amending the contract is because we feel that voices aren't being heard in the conversation and I think that is kind of the most important thing out of all this when people come with their narratives of why we amended this the you know the main objective and the main reason is that we as council members do not feel that everybody's voice is being heard in this process And in government, in national politics, we know that our voices aren't being heard, but if we can do that on a local level and be transparent and make sure that we're listening to everyone, we are doing our job. So I guess if nobody has any other...

I mean, just, I mean, for people, again, I think I mentioned that the The school district who's coming to request the officers, the school district is also who is paying for the officers. I think that's an important consideration. We pay for school resource officers' benefits. They are still Binghamton police officers while they are doing this. But their salaries with this contract is paid for by the school district. So both the, a large portion of the financial of it and the request that's being made is from the school district. So that's why I think they're the ones, and they are also the ones who have the most direct access to the parents, the staff, all of the context. that yes, we request surveys, yes, we request information, we interviewed the superintendent on it, yes, we can reach out to constituents, but we don't have the same level of access that the school board and the school district has to the parents and the students and the teachers.

I think another point, similar to the point I made when we were discussing the flock cameras, I mean, even if, Binghamton somehow removed our flock cameras. They're not going away. Every other municipality around us has them. In the case of this, this is the officer that they, whatever officer they had identified to work in schools is still going to be on the city of Binghamton payroll, and there's nothing stopping the police chief from creating the school district detail, and that officer might just rotate around and spend an hour a day at every elementary school is their job, sitting around waiting for the call. Because as one of the speakers pointed out, police respond to elementary schools, respond to crises in elementary schools all the time. It may be just a matter of who's actually paying for it and what contract and transparency and guardrails we have on that position. So that's another thing we need to think about as well.

Absolutely. If there's not any other questions, we can vote on the amendment. Clerk, can you please call the roll for the amendment?

Mm-hmm. Councilmembers Dundon and Rathmel are absent. Councilmember Matavetsky? Aye. Councilmember Hotchkiss? Aye. Councilmember Cavanaugh?

Aye.

Councilmember Murray is absent. Council President Pro Tem Middleton? Aye. Thank you. That is 4-0 on the amendment.

Okay, now we're gonna go back and I guess we have to make a motion and a second for that.

Right, I'll motion to adopt the bill as amended.

Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion regarding adopting the bill as amended?

I mean, I just wanna add just as for the resolution as a whole and the contract as a whole, I think there's, I don't think this is like a, let me try to get my words straight. I think every year this becomes like a, touchy subject with a certain number of people and there isn't there hasn't really been a to my knowledge a concerted effort to to have a conversation about about this program about what it's supposed to do people's like issues with it we do see the the survey results But I guess my request would be that somebody actually take that on and facilitate it because it's gonna be a recurring issue. I'm sure it'll happen again next year. There'll be some folks that really have a lot of opposition to this, some people that are very much in favor. And I think there is, we have some responsibility here as elected folks, both between the school board and the mayor, to actually have a conversation. I don't know if there's ever gonna be like a, everyone gets on the same page, but at least there's like a level of understanding Moving forward with how this program is administered any improvements that could be made Or if it needs to be potentially removed and what removing removing it would look like and what would fill the gap in what we're really asking for around safety and Whatever else services for for youth so I That's my final comment. Thank you.

Yeah, I guess our modification is basically forcing the school district that if they want these types of changes to actually have conversations that are open.

I would love to see the school district do a town, you know, a listing session or a town hall, and I would like to, I would appreciate seeing a resolution from the school board asking us for this change. You know, there's a whole elected board over there that the citizens have voted on to, you know, make their will. No.

Anybody else?

Clerk, can you please call the roll? Council Members Dunan and Rathmiller absent. Council Member Matavetsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Pro Tem Middleton? Aye. Thank you. That is 4-0.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to first read legislation. We have introductory ordinance 026-62 considered in finance with Council Member Cavanaugh.

I'd like to motion to adopt 02662, an ordinance to amend the 2026 Payment for Gentleman City Joint Sewage Treatment Facility budget to authorize an increase for the sewer credit study.

Motion, do I have a second? Second. Motion and second, discussion?

So we're working on implementing a sewer credit system. We need updated data to implement that system. The study is costing a little bit more than we thought, and the treatment plan is asking for an amendment to transfer necessary funds to make that possible.

Any other discussion? Clerk, can you please call the roll? Council Members Dundon and Rathmel are absent. Council Member Metabetski? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Pro Tem Middleton? Aye. Thank you, that is 4-0.

Thank you. Next we'll have introductory resolution R26-65, considered in public works. Council Member Hotchkiss, as a member of this committee, can you introduce this bill?

Yep. Make motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-65. This is a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Delta Engineers for design of Chenango Street reconstruction.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and second. Discussion?

So this is pretty straightforward, allowing Delta engineers to work on some design around Chenango Street from all the way downtown up to the north side, just so that we have some plans in place when we can identify some funding to do some reconstruction. Right now, Chenango Street is in pretty rough shape and I think there's pedestrian improvements that could be made and I'm looking forward to some of that being part of that design work.

Is that a ministerial change?

I mean it's just subject to ENA approval. They'll have to approve it after the fact. Yeah, that's fine.

Any other discussion regarding that?

Clerk, can you please call the roll? Council Members Dundon and Rathmiller absent. Council Member Medvedsky? Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss? Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh? Aye. Council Member Murray is absent. Council President Pro Tem Middleton? Aye. Thank you. That is 4-0.

Thank you, everyone. Now we'll move on to communications from council. Tonight we'll start with District 5, Council Member Medvedsky.

All right. Konklin Ave corridor study is still underway. There's a online survey if you missed our in-person activities. So please feel free to email myself or Councilman Rathmel, and I'm sure either of us can get you the link. It's also posted up in various places on social media. Ross Park Zoo has their last Wild About Reading for the summer tomorrow at 11 a.m. It's a read-aloud and craft focused on peacocks. Discovery Center has Truck Day August 29th from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It's free with paid admission, and I'm sure we'll have lots of our City of Binghamton fleet out there for kids to get up and see and touch. So that's always a fun time. And free admission night at the Discovery Center is Friday, September 4th from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. All right. That's what I got.

Council Member Hotchkiss?

Bless you. I don't have anything tonight. Thank you so much.

Council Member Cavanaugh.

Porch Fest weekend is upon us, everyone. Come on over to the west side. It is the fest side and the best side. You better believe it. I'm sure you'll see several of us circulating around the blocks of the west side, enjoying some wonderful music. Please come enjoy the hospitality of the west side. Have a good time. Have a safe time. Enjoy the music.

Just so cool. Oh yeah, I was gonna say that next, yeah. Garlic, yeah, I'm a true Westsider.

It is the best side, and the best side.

On Saturday, there'll be the Garlic Fest hosted by American Civic Association. They got a lot of good food, a lot of good crafts.

Previously staged at the Ross Park Zoo.

But they made better decisions, so yeah. So, it's a good thing. The Garlic Fest is Saturday. Stop by the Garlic Fest. A lot of great vendors, a lot of great food, a lot of different cultures. Experience just basically to see how wonderful and diverse Binghamton is. So I encourage everyone to stop by that. Also, I don't know what the heck. I got like some cold whatever going on. Porch Fest, like Councilmember Cavanaugh said, come down, enjoy. There'll be some great vendors, food. It'll be great music, great to connect with the good people you haven't seen in a while before the weather starts to get cold. Stop by the merch tent. I'll be working that with my daughter from 12 to 3. And I hope everyone has a safe and fun time this weekend. And I think that's it. Anybody who doesn't have anything else? Thank you motion to adjourn. Okay, and thank you all for coming out tonight We have a motion to have a second second a motion the second all in favor. I have a good evening