Quincy City Council: October 26, 2026

Thank you for watching!

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Monday, October 26th Combined Oversight and Finance Committee meeting with my co-chair, Councilor David Jacobs. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Hang on one second. There we go.

Rath, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Chairman O'Reilly.

Thank you. I'll read in the open meeting law, pursuant to the Open Meeting Law any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged impermissible. Okay, the purpose of the meeting this evening is to go over all of the items that are currently in either finance or oversight. Many of them were referred in duplicate to both committees, and to try to get a sense of where these items are. Some of them have been discussed in prior meetings. Do we feel we've satisfied that? Probably not. And then figure out a plan for being able to identify what information we're looking for so that we can bring them forward for discussion in a future meeting.

Like I said, there's an awful lot here so everyone has their package what I'd like to do is just suggest that the person who introduced each order be the one to speak on it give a quick little synopsis on where we're at and what we're looking to bring forward. Some of these, we may be able to move out of committee and put a period at the end of them and some of them, I don't know we may want to refer to another committee whatever but that's the goal here. Are there any questions before we get started? No? Anyone? Okay. So the first one actually is mine, this is order number 2026-018 This is relative to establishing a residential property tax exemption similar to what Boston has. This is something that certainly the voters have asked for, the taxpayers have asked I would like to see us bring this forward. I'd like to it as a priority to at least explore what might be possible.

I think what we might need is a presentation from the assessor's office and really just pulling together what is allowed under this law, Chapter 59, Section 5C of the Acts of Massachusetts 2016. The reason I brought this forward, first of all it had been brought forward in two prior council sessions, but most importantly because it really promotes and incentivizes owner occupancy. So that's very important to me. Are there any questions on this or any? for the discussion that anyone would like to make on it. Anyone?

Councilor Mahoney. Just that this is something that has been brought forward, and a lot of residents ask for this. This is for the residential exemption for homeowners, correct? So I think one of the things when you're asking for these things, one of other things that we could ask and they could be working on at the same time. The assessor and even potentially the... I call him chief financial officer but the head of accounting they could do a model for those exemptions for 10, 20, 30 percent is the maximum by law just to show the council and the people at home what that would mean because whatever you do in an exemption like that you have to make it up someplace else. and obviously, I mean, I have a different set of concerns for our tax classification that's coming up. But I think it would be a good exercise to go through that model of exemptions just to be able to show it. And I think should be them doing that. We shouldn't be doing that math.

Okay, I can certainly work with the assessor's office to bring forward something and then schedule a full committee meeting to discuss this a little bit further. anything else on this item?

Councilor. So I guess I'm just wondering about timing. It feels like we're about to set the tax rate in December, it might take them a little bit of time and us time to do research. We've got, are you thinking that this would be potentially for this year or?

I don't think it could go into effect until the next budget cycle. But we could at least have the discussion put forth a recommendation. I think that's all we can do is make recommendation and then, you know, it could be a phased-in approach. You know, we could start with something very modest and then you know a future council might want to increase the exemption but that just what I'm thinking on it

Ryan.

Any further questions on this?

Councilor Ryan? Madam Chair, yeah just to clarify would we be able to take a look at you know reductions exemptions for the 10, 20, 30% at least to see what's out there? I think that's what President Mahoney was saying.

There is this modeling that can be done by the assessor's office

So even though we won't be able to do anything until the following fiscal year, at least we have some idea of what the exemptions would be.

What the impact could be.

Okay, okay. All right, thank you.

Okay anyone else?

. Councilor DiBona?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to elaborate a little bit on the previous councils that have brought this forward. Unfortunately, the funding has to come from somewhere so it would be nice to do a residential property tax exemption, but it's got to come from somewhere. So just remember that in the back of your mind. We've attempted to do it at a few different councils over the years, over eight to 10 years. So just keep that in the back of your mind and I know we'll do the due diligence on this particular year of 2026 but that's it thank you.

Thank you Councilor DiBona and so maybe I should just clarify that we probably don't want to deliberate too much on each of these or we'll never get through the list but obviously those are the types of things that would need to be further deliberated on. as an agenda item specifically for that with the information that we get from the assessors and any other source. So if everyone's all set, we can move on to the next one. The next one is 2026-032, order requiring disclosure of tenants' lease terms and financials of the Monroe Building. We did deliberate on this one a little bit. Councilor Mahoney, this one was yours. I don't know if you want to... give any update or if you think we've satisfied that, or we'd want to just keep it as a placeholder so that we could continue to bring it forward as a further discussion. But we did bring this up. We did discuss it in a committee meeting.

So yeah, I think we did discuss it in a council meeting. I think you can leave it in there if there's anything else that comes up but I don't anticipate coming up anytime soon. So kind of back burner it?

Jacobs.

So I had actually approached, what's the name of that company? It's a grant, I always get it, Granite Partners or? Granite City Partners. Granite city partners regarding the Monroe building maybe two months ago, because I know there's been some increase in tenancy in the last two months. And when I spoke to the individual there, I think it's 1237 like a pop-up shop there they have another person there. So I had inquired about whether or not the rent was increasing, or if it was just being divided out by another person and I was told that the rent is increasing and they had told me they would send me that information, which they never did. And then they had also said that there was like two or three interests because we had that meeting people had found out that there was some available space.

So they had actually had some interest based off of our meeting and I know one person I spoke to said, one person hadn't been turned down. They wanted to put like a pizza shop in there Thank you. Thank you very much. and President Mahoney said leave it on there because I do think there's still some valuable information that we should be checking in on.

Yuan. Thank you, Madam Chair. So last time when we discussed this item, we did ask why Monroe Building has such a big vacancy and one is the city didn't put the advertisement for rent of this. Another is the Commissioner said because the city is planning to tear it down to build a future performance center so they couldn't afford long-term lease that's so it's difficult to get people to rent it. So I'm wondering, so last time when I asked two years CIP capital improvement plan and Chief of Staff, Mr. Walker said the Performance Center is not in near future plan

So I'm wondering if it's still the case, they plan to use the Monroe Building as the future side, so they couldn't afford to long-term lease. That affects the rate of renting out, so the building couldn't make money. So I think that's a question we need to ask. What is the plan for this building?

Well, at any point we want to bring this item forward in a formal... Yeah.

I think so because now that building if always because of these reasons you couldn't advertise or for the long-term needs, so always have such big vacancies. And that building is a golden location. It should make some money for the city. So I think we should bring this out to see what's the administration's plan for this building.

So again, this meeting isn't going to accomplish that. But if at any point you want it, bring it forward. you know, you can certainly ask for an update referencing this order number and then let me know and we'll put it on an agenda. but obviously we're going to keep it for that reason so we can bring it up further. Okay, anything else on the Monroe Building? So the next one is 2026-033. This was one that I had brought forward back in February for short term Rental Regulations, Enforcement Procedures. On that one I'm actually gonna meet with some folks from Inspectional Services on Wednesday, I said. and I did invite a couple of other Councilors. If some of you can't make it, I can expand it out a little bit more. This is something that is definitely impacting a number of my constituents in the North Quincy

Wollaston Beach area. I think that personally, I think the city has good regulations in place. The problem is with a lot of things seems to be enforcement. So I'm going to meet with them and then I can certainly bring forward you know, bring it up in a future meeting and have more discussion about what we may need to do. It seems like to me similar to the fog situation, the fines are simply not a deterrent so it maybe as simple as up in the fines to make it a little bit less attractive for people to just violate it. But I'll work with the inspectional services folks and some constituents, some who are Short-term rental hosts that are doing it right. They register, they live in the property, they rent you know one of the other units out there doing it all the right way and then certainly some complaints that I have from neighbors who have short-term rentals in their neighborhood that they just seem to defy the regulations. So we will definitely keep that one on there. Any other questions on the short term rentals?

Jacobs.

So at this resolve, would it be to like ultimately maybe change the ordinance? Will there be any change to the ordinance about short-term rentals from

I think if we were to make a recommendation of a fee change, that would probably be an ordinance unless we did it through the treasurer collector.

I just, I have some constituents that have brought up that now there's like the house swapping which is like there's no fee. Like, and so there's no because they're not renting the house. They're just swapping it like that they somehow are usurping the spirit of the ordinance.

Yeah, cuz there's No exchange of cash. Anything else? Anyone else on this one? Okay. So we will definitely keep that as a priority. The next one then is 2026-037, resolve requesting comprehensive briefing to the City Council by the Commissioner and Superintendent of Public Works regarding the city's response to the January 24-27 winter storm. Jacobs, you brought this one forward. I know we did discuss it if you feel satisfied that we've that the purpose of this one has been satisfied?

So, you know I do feel like the purposes have been satisfied. I think it was a pretty informative meeting that we had. I know what happened in the General Counsel didn't actually end up happening an oversight for other reasons, but it did happen in the General City Council meeting. I know that some time went by we did have this meeting and then we all together passed a resolve 9-0 to have like the magnets or the markings of the truck. Hopefully that's something that Commissioner Grennan had thought that was doable, maybe not necessarily the entire contractual fleet this winter, but maybe a certain select few. And I think that was a positive that came out of that meeting. So hopefully, I think that's resolved and I think at the next city council meeting we'll move to dispose of that and get it off the book.

Do we have to vote that in committee? Okay. Okay, but not tonight. We don't have to take any action on it. But we're suggesting that this one can actually come off.

Unless anyone doesn't want it to.

Anything else on 037? No. Okay, so the next one we have is 2026-042 American Rescue Plan and Spending Transparency This was one that I brought up. This was actually a redo of an order that had been introduced by the prior council, and although we did bring this up in committee it really was only with information that we had been provided from either the auditor or some other sources. There really wasn't any engagement with the administration on this and I do recall and I know that Mr. Walker couldn't be here tonight because he's away, but I do recall he said there was some something to the effect of some cleanup and some final reporting on offer that was still pending. So my hope would be that maybe we can get whatever final

accounting from the administration on the opera and review whatever else we want. But I would say that this really is not closed out. I don't think we really got everything we wanted on that. Any other comments or questions on that one? Anyone? Yuan.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have a question. Is this money, this funding is used for building that Golden Gate at Wolster Cemetery?

I believe some of the money did go there.

So last time, the Chief of Staff said spend $5 million. I want to break it down how much is that $5,000,000 how much he's using for building that gate? How much is used for some repair of the cemetery. So can administration give a breakdown of how this money been spent?

Yeah, like I said when we deliberated on this in committee it was only with the information that Madam Auditor had provided to us so although it was detailed it wasn't we didn't necessarily have the full picture of We had the line items, but we didn't have anything else. So I think that would be something we would need maybe a little more information from the administration on.

Okay, I remember some resident also asked like the contract. Who did that work for that Golden Gate? contracted to some company, not a local company. So it seems the business did not give to the local company so I would like to get some information about this.

Okay. Madam Auditor, did you have anything you wanted to add to it? I know we can't. I'm going to put Councilor Ryan's mic on so maybe you can turn it a little bit.

Yuan is resend to the spreadsheet that I had done when this was first requested. And I believe, I don't have the information with me right now but you will see some of the expenditures made for the cemetery and the gates.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

All set Council Yuan? Yes. Anyone else on this one? So we're keeping that one, and we will revisit it once we have a little bit more information from the administration. Okay. Next one is 2026-043, Quincy Retirement Pension Theft Update. This was one that again had been introduced by prior counsel I brought it forward this time and we have not had an opportunity to deliberate on this one I do believe that any legal matters are resolved and finalized. So, I do plan on bringing this forward in a future committee meeting I think we probably need access to executive session meeting minutes because most of the discussions on this in the pension board meeting were done an executive session and We have not

It hasn't been made clear whether any money was recovered, but we can work with the I guess would be the pension attorneys.

all questions regarding that matter will go through the Retirement Systems Attorney. OK. So what we would do is I believe this council order was sent over to the retirement office, to the executive director. And I will follow up to make sure they forwarded that on to our attorney.

The current executive director or the prior executive director?

It was probably the prior Executive Director, but I will speak to the current one. Make sure he has it. Okay.

Yeah, this is something that obviously we introduced it in February and just haven't had a chance to really bring it forward. But it is something I think the public would like to have a final answer on what changes have been put in place, whether any money was reimbursed or recovered. So I will follow up with you on that. Okay thank you.

McHee. So excuse me about this, I don't know if it would make sense to do it in this hearing or maybe we could have a Munitech Committee meeting, but since some of this involves IT issues and kind of closing out Accounts, you know certain accounts were not closed and so it was they were able to be Someone was able to gain access, I guess, and send emails saying please do this transfer. at some point maybe here or maybe in Munitech, I think it would be useful to talk to the IT department and get a sense of what changes have been made since then. Councilor Hubley?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair and through you first happy belated birthday Councilor Ryan I think we could probably append that type of inquiry to the resolve that I have in draft mode right now, which I didn't get a chance to...I had a lot of home chores over the week. that I'll be submitting pretty soon in an upcoming council meeting. So you could kind of tag that along to the cybersecurity one if that makes sense. Happy to do that, thank you.

Thank you. Okay any further discussion on this one? Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure excuse me. I had forwarded Councilor Hubley an email from a concerned resident who's also in IT Professional, and I would hope that those four items that were part of his email will be discussed during the Munitech meeting. Correct? Oh, sorry. Councilor Hubley?

Yes, I did actually incorporate all those questions. Okay. All right.

Thank you So that's a little separate from this particular item but it kind of overlaps a little bit Anyone else on this? Council Yuan. Hang on, go ahead.

Thank you Madam Chair. So when I read this case, I remember it's the One reason is because the director left and they didn't close her email account. Then some bad actor use her email account to make a fake requirement for transaction. So is that the practice still? Going on in the city, like when someone left his or her email account still open or they changed that practice?

So I think we're getting into deliberation. This is the information that we are trying to bring forward on this one. Municipal Finance, and understand what went wrong and what's been changed to address it. So when we- When we deliberate on it, yes. Yes. Okay. Obviously, I brought this one forward so I'll work to try and bring all the people that we need together for that one. Anything else on the pension? No. Okay, moving on. Council Order 2026-048 resolved requesting a comprehensive financial and debt overview prior to fiscal year 27 budget deliberations. We did get... We did get something on this. Councilor Mahoney, this one was yours?

Yes, we brought... Go ahead. We did have something on us. We had the financial people come in and do a presentation for us. So I'm all set with this. We can take it off. for Fiscal Year 28 prior to Fiscal year 28's budget. So that can be removed. Thank you.

Any other discussion on this one? I think we did have quite a bit of deliberation on this. Okay, moving We'll reintroduce another order if, because... Go ahead, Council Yuan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So recently in June or in July and in September City issued two new bans and so before that the city own, city have like around 200 million dollar authorized but issued So then after these two bans they issued, now we still have around 150 million. are all authorized and you should adapt. So I'm just wondering, what's those 150 million If it's all necessary, if something we don't need to issue it can we cancel it? So that's the question.

and I ask Mr. Walker say because some money, some big chunk of money is still assigned for that new public safety building but that building is done So for that issue to authorize the bond, do we still need it? For those questions I don't know how do we discuss with administration.

This was introduced, this order was in- or this resolve was introduced for prior budgeting for fiscal year 27. So the budget's been passed. We went over the debt's not going away so we can still have conversations about it but this particular this particular order that was brought in has been discussed and I can bring it another, I said I would bring in another order to be able to put just to refresh it with updated information. Okay so this one's gonna go away because it was from fiscal year 27. It will be introduced for fiscal year 28 and all of the debt that was incurred from the summer on will be brought forward to us, okay?

Yep.

So if I could just add to that, President Mahoney. We do have the order that we passed relative to strengthening the auditor's powers and to do some quarterly reporting. So certainly, the bond servicing, the Bond debt, any nuisances bonds to me should be part of that quarterly review process. We just have not scheduled one just yet, but we can because we have queue Fiscal Year Q1 has closed as of September 30th, so we can certainly schedule a review with that and we can add the bond servicing to that. Any other questions on 048? Anyone?

Okay.

Moving on, 2026-056. This is the Council on Aging Department Head Theft and Federal Charges. We have discussed this several times however and I introduced it, I don't think we've really had a satisfactory discussion on the purchasing aspect of it. We haven't been able to get the right people in front of us for that so I would like to retain this bring it back up at a future time. Maybe not as an A priority, but we certainly did not get the purchasing piece of it. Anyone else have any comment on that? Does anyone feel differently in terms of keeping it active?

Yuan. Has any change made, has the administration made any changes according to this? So how can we prevent the future this kind of a shift happen? And also, we talked about the policy to protect whistleblowers. Has the city started doing that or they are not going to do that? that's all questions and how can prevent catch-up fear in the workplace. That's also very important. We all need to discuss about that. So I think we should schedule this to discuss again because nothing really happened, nothing changed.

Well, we did hear from the treasurer collector and some of the processes she's put in place. We did hear form the head of the Council on Aging and what they've done so that we did receive some information about some improvements that were done but Like I said, we certainly didn't hear from the purchasing department. And I agree with you on the whistleblower hotline and policy. So I would agree that I'd like to keep this on. Anyone feel differently? No. Okay, any further discussion on that? Okay so the next one then is 2026-057 requesting comprehensive report on city property transactions I believe we did talk about this one. Yes, in May. Councilor McKee that was you that brought that one forward.

Yes, so we did talk about that. We got a list at the time I think the list we were told it wasn't complete but it was you know . So I would actually like to keep this on there, and I will reach out to have that list to make sure that we're seeing all of the transactions there. And I think given that we are thinking about taxes and then, you know, all these financial issues I do think that we should think about how much property we have and whether we need or have plans for all of it. So yeah, I would like to keep it on.

Any further discussion on this one? Anyone feel differently about retaining all set? already moving on 2026-063. Councilor DiBona, this was your resolve.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I introduced this resolve back on April 27th. Unfortunately with and a lot of other resolves and ordinances and oversights that we had to put on I kind of missed the window on getting the people in front of us. Not that it's bad, we can continue to maybe reintroduce this down in the future for maybe next year but for now it could come off

Okay. Thank you, Councilor DiBona. Councilor Jacobs?

So I just want to say that I did reach out to Quinn's Youth Action I also reached out to Bay State Community Services, although they are undergoing a... They're merging with some other group. I think it's out of Framingham? So, you know, it is kind of in a delay. But I did reach out to them. I haven't heard back from them. But if Councilor DiBona wants to remove this that's fine. I was going to suggest we move into Public Health and Environment Subcommittee, just because I feel like it kind of fits in that subcommittee better than oversight. But if we're going to remove it then there's no need to do that.

We'll take it off, and what we'll do is if I need to, I reword some of the resolve, and I'll reintroduce it later down the road. Thank you.

Is there a reason why they can't come before?

Well, it was the timeline. I introduced it in April. It was May and June they were supposed to come in. We got an extensive budget cycle. I mean we were pretty busy. I asked Councilor Jacobs about it, but he just said that time-wise we didn't have the window. We had a lot on our plate. It's unfortunate. I would have liked them, the folks, it's a group of high school students to come in and talk about the good uses of nicotine and alcohol abuse and substance use. but unfortunately we missed the window. But I can reintroduce this next year.

So you don't have to, Madam Clerk, this is actually for a two-year cycle right? So it can stay for next year? I'll take it off. It's your choice, you're the one...

I'd like to take it of and if I want to reintroduce it to the new folks, the stakeholders that are involved now. Like we said, we're going through some changes, it's better to do it that way. Yes.

Okay, and maybe a little earlier?

A little earlier.

The budget cycle is always going to be a bit of a challenge but yeah April end of April was probably a little bit okay so we'll remove that one thank you any further discussion on that Okay. Moving on to 2026-064, Councilor Mahoney this is yours on the for Audit Findings. Well, this was specific to the audit. There were some questions on the audit when we received it.

Yeah, I think I got the information from the administration but what I'd like to do is maybe roll that into the quarterly audit from the auditor and we can just get it in writing. So we can remove it.

Okay, so we'll just move this discussion into the quarterly financial review? And we'll remove it, yep. Okay, any further discussion on this one? Anyone feel differently? No. Okay. Moving on to 2026-080 Resolution calling for Quincy Housing Authority vacancy data to assess viability of 55 plus housing initiatives. Ryan, this was something you had introduced?

Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. It was something that I introduced and it was relative to the purchase of ENC. Now that ENC is being purchased by QHDC, though we may necessarily not need the report I still think that it's something quantify exactly what our population is for 55 plus for future housing initiatives. Does everybody agree? I'll let anyone else to talk.

Councilor McKee? Well, I think it's actually are still very relevant since the Quincy Housing Authority is their nonprofit arm is going to be over at ENC, it's in the process of buying it and is hoping to build some 55 plus affordable housing. So I think this is actually very and it would be great to try to schedule this, to have them come before us and understand how they work and how that interacts with the Development Corporation.

So I guess my only question is, as this is written though, is it comprehensive enough to...I mean we know that there's some overlap between Quincy Housing Authority and Quincy Development Corporation but I'm just wondering if this is I can pull the result and take a look at it Okay. So I'll work with you then on it, and if we want to bring it forward or if you want to reintroduce, we'll close this one out. Thank you. Any further discussion on this one? Rausch.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just of note notwithstanding ENC or QHDC I do think a report of QHA or presentation if some sort is necessary. I have two of the larger QHA complexes in Quincy Point, so that is something would be very useful going forward. But however it's fashioned in subsequent resolve is fine with me.

Okay, thank you. I know that we're focused...I do think what would be beneficial too is that there's other initiatives happening in the city that are going to be 55 and older so I think part of what you were trying this is Quincy Housing, which would be affordable housing but then there's other developments that are happening so I think the comprehensive piece needs to be there too.

to that, who do we contact for that info?

It's a current development that's happening in Ward 4. So I think we can just see what developments are out there. They're labeling at 55 and older.

Okay, and that's not QHA? It's not. Okay. Well because you know a thousand southern artery is not qha either um and i would love some info from from those stakeholders but i can't seem to get it so i mean if there's something that we can put out that we think is actually going to be fruitful and garner the information necessary to see the demand, what's open. I just don't know that we're going to get will be asked for from different entities, you know? QHA, we know it's one entity so we ask them. We have the board and the directors but I guess if we go down and try to get the information from every senior housing whether it's you know I think 125 granted is QHA, but any of them. I just want to make sure that we're contacting the right people that get the useful info.

I think we can work with the assessors for that too, but I think it should be just a uniform kind of request that they can give us back information. But Quincy Housing Authority obviously is a partner of ours so we could do that. and there's a real estate development that's happening up in Crown Colony. That's 55 and older, we'll be able to get that but if they want to share it with us, that's fine but it should be something that's accessible to all of us. They should wanna share and if they don't you can just let them know if they do wanna share.

Thank you Any further discussion on that?

Okay.

I think that was my only question, is who are we getting this information from? But I guess there is a list of senior housing right so we could at least work with that list and if some of the private entities aren't willing to provide it then We'll just work with what we have. Okay, so can I certainly Councilor McKee? Go ahead.

I just want to make sure. So because we've talked about a few different things, are you kind of leaving this on for now and you're going to work with Councilor Ryan to possibly make changes?

Well, to me the person who introduces it is the one that's going to kind of own it and usher it through. So I'm just trying to do more a little bit of housekeeping here to see which ones are we still trying to work, and then like this one, what information and who are we supposed to be getting it from? This is a little bit...this is one of those that's a little harder because there's no and so forth. Thank you very much.

That's where I would start, would be the Assessors Department. And then move forward from there if necessary.

Yeah, because one of the other challenges we've had and Councilor Jacobs you can jump in if you want is do you schedule a meeting and then try to get the information? Do you try to hit the information and then schedule the meeting. It seems like without a meeting it can be hard Jacobs, did you want to add to that? Hang on a second. There you go. Just just to kind of go back on

are very in-depth. And sometimes you feel like you can't schedule it because you don't have enough information and you're waiting for information, and then you're like well we're not getting any information. Then when you schedule it people are like Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. All of a sudden there's a deadline and everybody is throwing information at you until 10 minutes before the meeting. It would be nice if we didn't have to operate that way, but it does seem to me that's the way it goes.

I agree. Sometimes we're getting the information with not a lot of time to digest it so Again, the purpose of this was to sort of run through these and go through this exercise. Bring them all forward for a little bit of discussion and then try to figure out a way to schedule a full committee meeting where we can talk about three or four of them in depth. Anything else on this one? Nope. Moving on, 2026-081 resolution for the formal audit of the Corey Hills lease deductions expenses and payments. This was introduced by Councilor Ryan I know we did and the Board of Directors. Ryan review those quarterly payments every quarter when they come in. But I didn't know if you had anything else you wanted to add on this, Councilor Ryan? I think we need to keep it active.

I agree with you. And also, I would like to reach out to Chief of Staff Mr. Walker to see if we have any documentation because I do believe that he mentioned there was an audit done but I want to confirm that with him.

Yes, I had actually followed up with an email and asked him to send us whatever audits he has. But again, I know he was leaving to go on vacation so we can follow-up with him on that. and as well as Madam Auditor, anything that she may have to add to it. Okay so we'll definitely be keeping that one active. No further discussion on that one? Order Number 2026-085. This is the two year fiscal capital bonding plan and financial projection for major projects Yuen, if you'd like to add anything to that.

Okay so this order was introduced in May and the administration later provided a draft two-year plan And the reason we need a capital improvement plan is that residents and city council can see the bigger picture of how the administration plans to spend taxpayers' money. understand what projects are coming next and discuss priorities when funding is limited, instead of learning about one project in the one bound at a time. So earlier this month, I introduced an ordinance requiring a rolling five-year CIP. Many cities and towns already have these requirements. So I actually have a quick question for Chief of Staff, Mr. Walker. But since he is not here, I will just say it so you can listen.

On QATV's Quincy AM, the mayor said that the administration could provide a plan if the council requested one. Does the administration already have a CIP or is it still developing one? and my ordinance requires the plan to be submitted every year before February 1st. Does the administration have enough time to prepare a plan covering fiscal year 2028 to fiscal year 2030 by February 1st of next year? So since he is not here, so after the meeting I will follow up with Mr. Walker and the Director of Finance Department about this rolling... Five years capital improvement plan, just to see where the administration stand if they are developing it or they already have something.

So that's the plan.

I agree, anyone else have any comment on this one? Okay, so we'll definitely keep this active and maybe it could be part of the discussion on quarterly financial check-in points. But I think without having a plan to start with, it's kind of hard will review it in a quarterly.

But go ahead. Since I have that new ordinance, is requiring the rolling five-year capital funding plan. So this one can be... You want to close this one out? Okay. And that one was sent to audience committee, so...

I think we have that down there somewhere, don't we?

It's an ordinance.

Okay, so we'll close that one out. Any further discussion? Okay, next on the agenda is 2026-092 Appropriation Request for Contracted Services in City Council Budget McKee, you had introduced this I believe during our budget review process.

Yes, I did. This was so that the council could have some ability to spend money on and Contractors Services, which every other department has it seems. Yes, I would like to keep this active. I think Councilor Hubley said you had been looking at it and had some ideas So yeah, we'll have to and maybe we can bring it back before the next budget cycle.

That's what I was thinking as well so because this is a two-year We may not have been able to really make anything happen for the last budget cycle, but hopefully we can for Any questions? No.

92, 2026-092.

All set?

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. So this one is for request some budget for City Council for outside legal service?

or any kind of contractor, yeah.

Okay and so it's interesting when I was doing research about the other towns pay raise for elected officers and I found in, what's that account? Revere. They have all, in their budget they have every year they have $10,000 in city council specifically for outside legal service. So just maybe we can check more info like how other towns, cities do it. Just provide this information.

Anything else on that? Anyone? Okay. So the next one is 2026-101. Jacobs, this one is yours.

Yes, so this was a resolve that we passed 9-0. I don't know what happened. What do we know as the mayor? Chris Walker's not here, so we don't the Mayor was in agreement with this, but this goes along with Quincy Housing Authority Tenant, Representative. So there's five members on the Quincy Housing Authority Board. One member is appointed by the governor. It's Josephine Shea right now and there's four other members. Brian Clifford is the at-large member, Michael Flaherty is the... I'm sorry, Brian Cliffford is the AFL CIO Representative Michael Flaherty is an at-large representative. Tim Baker, who we just reappointed a week ago as the other at large member and right now, John Delcarly is the tenant representative.

But this is specifically in regards to the tenant representatives of the five-member board only one of them is a tenant representative. And again, the law which is chapter 121B section five Massachusetts general laws establishes how the board members are proportioned but there's nothing in there that states that one of the two at-large members, so in this case it would be Michael Flaherty or... Who?

DeCarli.

No, he's the tenant representative. Michael Flaherty or I can't remember the other person but that they couldn't also be a tenant of the Quincy, living in Quincy housing. And so it just goes on to say there's really two different sides to housing is the elder side of housing and then there's like the family and so forth. Thank you. Housing members. So we had asked the mayor and through this resolve to basically consider appointing someone as an at-large member from and the other person is already out there. But I do just wanna make a statement about housing, situation.

So back in February of 2026, Mayor Koch brought forward two individuals for reappointment to the Quincy Housing Authority Board Timothy Baker and John Delcarly. Timothy Baker being an at-large member John Delcarly being the tenant representative. I just want to stress that these are not volunteer positions, there's a lot of talk out there, these are volunteers bringing people in here These people are paid to serve on the board. They get paid $600 a month, that's $7200 annually totaling over their five year term making $36000 and potentially they get additional Funds from their work with the nonprofit arm Quincy Development Association Corp. So these again, these are not volunteer positions. These positions carry significant responsibility for overseeing housing for some of our city's most vulnerable residents. Under the Massachusetts general law, as I said before, 121B Section 5.

The Housing Authority Board consists of five members, one appointed by the state, four appointed by mayor of the city subject to City Council confirmation which we just had the other day from Mr. Flaherty, I mean sorry Mr. Baker. One of the mayor's four appointments must represent organized labor one must be a tenant representative and two at large appointments on June 15th 2026 this council unanimously passed an order 2026-101, encouraging the mayor which we're just talking about a second ago to for representation from both the elderly and family public housing residents. These populations have different needs and both deserve meaningful voice in decisions affecting their homes. When these reappointments came before us in February, this council, all nine of us voted to table that Okay, there seems to be some disconnect about that but all nine of us

Ryan, Ash, Yuan, Mahoney, Riley, McKee, DiBona and myself voted to table that. Does everyone remember doing that? Good. All right. So again, we all voted to do that because what was referenced was there was a lack of basic information about the representatives. We did not know anything about them So at that time, we had said to the administration that we wanted just kind of a letter of interest, a statement of interest. Like why do you want to do this? And then possibly a resume but we were even a little loosey-goosey on the resume because well, just a letter of interest that would come to us. We would see it this person has an interest in what's going on. This isn't just something we wanted to do.

This is a legal requirement that the administration is required to follow, okay? And I want to be clear about this. This council... did not cause a delay in these appointments. It was this administration's failure to follow the required process that did. It was this administration that chose not to bring these appointments back up until this point. They could have brought Mr. Baker forward back in June, they could've done a whole bunch of things. They chose not do this. It was not this council. it was this administration, Mayor Koch's administration. Chapter 121B Section 5 requires advanced written notification to recognize tenant organizations before appointing the Tenant Representative. They're required to send out a letter 90 days in advance for months I say we, I requested proof of those letters that they had been sent. I even held a special oversight committee hearing, I think it was on June 22nd

before the summer, specifically asking the administration to send these out. And I was told oh yeah we're gonna get these out Okay, nothing happened. Last week I was informed by Chris Walker that I would be addressing this issue right here tonight at tonight's hearing Shortly afterwards, I received copies of five letters dated October 22nd, 2026 addressed to these tenant organizations. Those letters should have gone out on November 2025, not October of 2026. I'm glad that the administration's finally acted but it should not take eight months of repeated council requests and multiple oversight hearings to get this administration to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Frankly, I find this disrespectful to the council and more importantly to the residents of who live in our public housing. These residents deserve the representation transparency and government that follows the law.

This delay also raises questions about board members continuing to serve not only on the Housing Authority Board, but also as members of the Housing authority Board they serve Quincy Housing Association Development Corporation, doing business as Quincy Cares. With their involvement in the Quincy House Authority Development Corporation during its negotiations and the approval of Eastern Nazarene College. So we had two illegitimate board members serving on the Quincy Housing Association Development Corporation while they negotiated a $21 million Acquisition. I believe these questions warrant further examination by this body. I also have questions regarding language in the October 22 letter stating that nominees must reside in federally subsidized housing and if you see the letters, you'll see that because of HUD regulation.

I've contacted the Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants for clarification on whether this requirement is being interpreted correctly and they're looking into that, and whether it unnecessarily excludes qualified residents which they think it might. from State Supported Housing. We need to make sure that this appointment process is lawful, fair and inclusive. Finally I do want to recognize Tim Baker. Last week Mr. Baker appeared before this council regarding his appointment as an at-large member. This body did not require that he attend a meeting here, all again that we requested was a resume and a letter of interest both of which he provided to us Actually, he provided to us back in June. Mr. Baker voluntarily asked to appear before this council and answer our questions. He came prepared He was professional, he was respectful and he demonstrated understanding of the responsibilities of serving on the Housing Authority Board.

I appreciate his willingness to engage with the Council and I believe that he demonstrated that he is ready to serve another five-year term. This is exactly the kind of openness, accountability, and transparency that we should expect from individuals seeking appointments or reappointments to our important municipal boards. I just want to end with that. I do think that we need to keep this on here, because I would like to know what the mayor intends to do, I think that's something he should probably come and speak to us about.

Jacobs, any further discussion on this one? We will keep it in committee and I guess bring it forward when the time is right or we have more information. Did anyone else have anything they wanted to add?

Council Yuan. I just want to add a comment and ask City Council to give a confirmation of some reappointment without giving any information about appointees. It's no difference to... to ask City Council doing rubber stamping. So we definitely need, have information to review and then we can do this confirmation process. I just want to emphasize this.

Yvonne, anyone else? Councilor McKee.

So as I understand it the people on the board can continue to serve until the next person is qualified. So in the sense of being illegitimate, that might be too strong a word but in terms of process you have been asking for this information and so I take that point. I just want to clarify that I would probably not say illegitimate, but I do think that it's really important and it kind of goes to the Process, process, process that we're really trying to focus on I think as a body. To just make sure that we do things fairly and by the book. Yeah.

Thank you, Councilor McKee. Anyone else? No? I will reiterate the same. I certainly have inserted myself in a lot of boards' committees and commission meetings. I had attended the Quincy Housing Authority at a board meeting where I think I informed them that two of their board members their terms were expiring. And I think this was one of those things that it was sort of presented as a slight administrative stamp and we questioned it, and I think that A lot of these boards and committees have had the same people serving on them for decades, so I think every one of them needs to be scrutinized a little bit further. So we will keep this one in committee. Any further discussion?

Nope?

Okay. Moving on to 2026-104, order regarding the City of Quincy's use of flock safety technology. This was introduced on September 8th by Councilor Yuan. I will let you... can add anything you want to it. I know we've had a lot of flock discussion.

Yeah, I just briefly say this order is meaning ask City Council have a public hearing about city's use of flock and we did have a and you all know last Monday when we passed a resolution calling the administration to cancel all the contracts. Oh, is her mic not on? Oh it's on. Oh, should I repeat? These ones don't move as well. Okay, so everyone knows last Monday when City Council passed a resolution calling the administration terminate all the contract with Flock and remove or cover all the Flock cameras.

Just in four days, the administration issued a press release to say they have deactivated FLOG and they are going to switch to another program. and ALPR vendors. So since this order is about to flood, I guess we can close out this one and later another ordinance where going to talk about the ALPR.

I agree. I think the topic isn't necessarily exhausted, but I think we did fulfill this. Does anyone have any further comment or feel differently? Okay so we'll move this one out.

I forget to say. Go ahead, Councilor. So police chief told the councilors that The flock system has been deactivated. They are not capturing any pictures, No, so resident still ask if we can put a plastic bag on those cameras. because there are instance like other towns, there is one town they already deactivated six flood cameras. Then after a month, they found five of them then being reactivated. So you don't know what that flog company is doing, so if we have some physical barrel to cover the camera maybe can give resident more assurance Oh, sorry. Assurance. Did you hear what I talk?

Okay, so I just recommend the administration if they can really physically cover that camera to give residents more confidence about their information not being connected or accessed by the FLA company.

Okay, but that's outside of the scope of this one, Councilor. Jacobs.

I just want to say something about Flock, you know even though ours are off supposedly You know, there are still some other flock cameras in Quincy. So like the one at Home Depot is still on. It's on private property. I did also reach out to the MWRA Nut Island down House Neck. There's two of them. those are still active so and I wasn't sure who owned them but i did speak with my contact at the MWRA which is funny because the state says they don't use flock cameras McHugh.

So just to clarify for anybody at home, the City Council and the city decision to end its Flock contracts have to do with cameras contracted by the city. So yeah, the ones at Home Depot just to clarify for people. that would not be, you know city canceling that contract would not cancel those contracts because that's through private organizations and then similarly the state so but yeah. Okay.

Any further discussion on this? Just quickly adding on this. So can city council do something, recommend or request administration to cover those cameras? Because the incident happened before in other towns even you deactivated. Then later, you found that some cameras have been reactivated. How do we know it? Even QPD probably don't know but the company get to the data once it's Once it's reactivated, the company has the data. So I think just to cover that a camera doesn't cost much labor or money so why not give I don't think that's within the scope of this order though. I'm trying to stay on track a little bit here. Yeah, I just say if we can.

City Council can give a recommendation to the administration. Wait, wait.

Councilor McKee go ahead.

Sorry in your resolution that we all passed it did ask the administration to end the contract and cover them up so yeah.

Yeah. But I think in the context of this order, we have satisfied this order. We're going to move this one out, okay? Okay. No further discussion from anyone on that. Moving on to 2026-106 Oversight of Public Work Enhancement Fund. Chapter 92, Acts of 2004. This was one that I had introduced as a result of being told that these monies were going to be used for the parking lot improvements at Squaw Rock It seems that they have gone a different angle. They were going to use Chapter 90 money, I think. Was that the other one? Councilor Mahoney? And now we've moved to bond premiums. So I'm going to keep this...

on here, at least for a little bit longer because there is so much going on with the Quarry Hills Oversight Fund and not just the DPW but The Oversight Account. So I will keep this on here and reintroduce it at a later date if that makes sense. Did anyone else have any comments or questions on that? No, okay. Moving onto 2026-125 Ash, this one is yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will see when we can get

a presentation from everybody. I think it's going to be the Department of Energy resources, as well as potentially the planning department and a couple other city entities. So I will work on trying to get all of the stakeholders together and try to get a presentation I guess I'll get availability for the next couple months and then we'll try to pick a date.

Okay, yeah this was only introduced in September so it's not like some of these These first ones that we talked about that had been introduced, you know, very early on. Hang on one second.

Councilor Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chair, to Councilor Ash. I did receive a... . Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. pretty much right at the end of that meeting when we introduced this. And so I think he is aware of it and I had actually thought, I mean, I had thought it wouldn't be too long. So I think you know he had just reiterated to me if we could give him a heads up on the timeline I actually said to him this is probably about a month how long ago did this go through when was this? Yeah, so I said it would probably be about a month. So he's probably thinking it's right now but just wanted to let you know that I did talk to him about it though. He is aware and ready to present. Good.

Anything else on this one? Okay, so we can look forward to a presentation on that in the near future. The next one is 2026-126. Resolution for No Surprise Government. This was also introduced on September 22nd by Councilor Yuan. Do you want to add anything to this?

Yes, I have something. Is that my own speaker? Yes it is. So I introduced this resolution on September 21st In just 32 days, the administration gave resident and city council two more big surprises. First, ENC. The administration held a community meeting about the ENC's future without informing the city council. Councilors learned about it from residents who received the mayor's letter. residents themselves had no other ones notice of what would be announced. At the meeting, the administration announced that a nonprofit corporation and the Quincy Housing Authority had signed an agreement to purchase ENC and would apply for Community Preservation Act funding. How much taxpayer money will it seek? Five million, 10 million or 50 million?

CPA funds come from Quincy taxpayers. If the administration plans to seek millions of dollars for this project, residents deserve to know and have a chance to share their view before the decision is made not after. Otherwise the residents are treated as cheerleaders, not as people with a right to participate in decision involving their money. Second, flock. just four days after the council passed a resolution calling on the administration to terminate its FLOG contracts and referred surveillance technology ordinance talk to committee. The administration announced that it was switching to another LPR system. Were residents informed before this decision? No, they learned about it from a press release.

Last Wednesday, I emailed the mayor and then the police chief to request a meeting about the administration's plan to move away from Flock. On Friday morning, the chief met with me and three other councilors. He told us the city had decided to switch to Ordner I That was the first time we had heard of this company. We had barely left the parking lot when the press release came out, This is exactly what no surprise government is about. Residents and their elected representatives should not learn about major decisions involving public money and the public privacy only after those decisions have been made

So I will keep this resolution in the committee and every time if the government give surprise again, I will bring it out again to discuss it.

Thank you, Council Yuan. Anyone else have any comment on that? Councilor Jacobs?

Yeah it should come as no surprise that you know surprise I mean I don't know what else to say I mean frankly I'm not shocked, I'm dismayed. It kind of flies in the face of everything you're taught as a kid about government. I think back to my middle school social studies teacher. You know... just the fact that this administration just thinks they can do whatever they want and you know, they don't have to say anything. They're disrespecting you know, the council by doing that. But in extension they're disrespecting the people of the city of Quincy because we are their elected representatives so I see a lot, I hear a lot The mayor represents the people too. Well, yeah, the mayor is elected by the people of Quincy but make no mistake, the executive does not represent the people

The executive is the person that we hire to run the governmental business. We are elected by the people to basically prevent any potential government or executive overreach The council is the representative of the people, or the legislative branch. It's not the executive. So anybody who was on there out there saying, you know, The executive, it's their job to run the game, run the system. And it's our job or the legislative body's job to protect the people from the game or from the system So I just want to make that very clear. And every time we have these surprises, that's an extension in my mind of government overreach by the executive. So I question why this keeps happening.

It really is, it's very disappointing and I'm very disappointed that it keeps happening and I hope that it stops. That's all I want to say about that.

Thank you, Councilor Jacobs. Anyone else have anything on this one that they'd like to add? I too attended that meeting on Friday morning and was equally surprised to see a press release dropped literally before we even got into our cars. And I've seen some backlash on online forums and stuff that maybe the public would have liked to have seen that happen a little bit differently. But, um, the biggest question I have is the finance chair is...I don't know how we're paying for it but apparently there's a bucket of money somewhere so We will keep this one active and bring it forward if necessary going forward. So there's nothing else on that. Moving onto 2026-134, Ash, this one was yours.

through you, Madam Chair. Again it's new so... Similarly I will try to identify who the roster is for the stakeholders for a presentation on this and get that scheduled in the spring. I think that's more realistic.

Yes, I believe the original noise ordinance was put together by my pre-predecessor Brian McNamee as a result of noise at Marina Bay. So we know that there's an ordinance out there like with a lot of ordinances, sometimes enforcement is the problem. It's not that we don't have something on the books it's just hard to enforce and do that so... Yeah I'm sorry not to cut you off Madam Chair.

The spirit of this is really to see and the Board of Directors, if that's not a board meeting anymore. If we can reconvene that I think similarly McNamee, the late Councilor McName similar to his point. That construction very well may be the same level and similar construction that we're seeing right now citywide so whether you think that's great or, you know, you don't notwithstanding your personal opinion. That could probably be the same caliber that would warrant getting this board reconvened to meet regularly and in the spirit of that the board, that's what this ordinance aims to do. So we'll get something scheduled in the early months of 2027.

Sounds good. Thank you. Any further discussion on that? No. Next up is 2026-136, Quincy Center Station and Long Term Redevelopment. Councilor Mahoney you had recently introduced this one.

This is just the city, the MBTA Quincy center station has been and Isor for quite some time. And this is really just to get an update from the administration. I'm going to keep this because, you know, I was looking at some of the money that was being set aside Towns and committees, and I know on QATV we were hearing that that they've been working hard to do this. There might be something they're going to bring forward to us, so I think it's important and timely. When you look at it, everybody is disappointed by the way it looks and we just want to know what's happening with it and I think it was introduced in 2012. This is going back some time, so we definitely need an update on that.

Any further discussion on that from anyone else? Okay. Next up is 2026-140, Disclosure of the City of Quincy Christmas Festival Committee, Quincy Foundation, Quinsy Relief Fund, Quinzy Mayor's Cup Finances and Oversight Review. I had introduced this recently. We did have some discussion based on information that Madam Auditor was able to provide to us, but we certainly have not had any information from the administration or from this organization regarding their use of the funds. They are a 501 , they are not a 503, so unlike when the city will give money through through their lines to Dove or Quincy Pride, Interfaith. Those are all charitable organizations. This is more like when we give money of Commerce.

They are also not a charitable organization, so I still seek to get more information on how these monies are transferred, where it's going. The Mayor's Cup Golf Tournament which has not had an accounting since 2018. So I will leave this in committee and bring it forward at a future date if anyone has anything else to add to it. McGee. Moving on to 2026-141, order to discuss administration's announcement on Eastern Nazarene College. Councilor

Yes, so this was just a recent one too. This was written before the Saturday meeting where the announcement was made I also found out about the meeting from a neighbor who sent the picture. I did get the letter as well, but I found out through this way and was not told anything about it by the Mayor's Chief of Staff when I asked. So, I think...I guess my concern is what is the impact on the purchase by this nonprofit to the city taxpayers? And I don't think it's... and so forth. Thank you. and everything that we are on board with.

And as much as the council looked at everything and decided Thank you very much. Revenues being overestimated and the city's debt. I just don't want this to be a situation where the taxpayers are still on the hook, but it's kind of bypassing the council oversight. So we'll try to keep an eye on that and understand as much as we can about it.

Okay. Does anyone else have any discussion on this one? I would just like to say, though that I think the way you had to write this in anticipation of not knowing what the Saturday announcement meeting was going to entail I personally feel like this purchase is now in the hands of Quincy Housing Development Corporation that right now, the city has no, my opinion, no ties to that transaction at all. We've heard that they're gonna potentially come before the community preservation and the affordable housing, but those entities will be coming before us. So I feel that this could be moved out and perhaps maybe a different order may and so forth.

what your concerns are might not be captured in this brief, very brief order that you had to throw together very quickly. So that would be my suggestion

Yeah, I mean, I guess I can see that. I was thinking if we ever do need to have a discussion about it, we could just pull the same number out.

We could.

So then we wouldn't have to do LeJuan, and so forth. Councilor LeJuana?

Yeah, I agree with Councilor McKee. We should leave it active because the ENC is an ongoing process. We probably have more questions to discuss.

Okay. Understood. And if something were to be introduced that maybe was a little tighter than this, then we can move it out at that time. Any further discussion? No? Okay. And last but not least, 2026-142, an ordinance regulating intrusive surveillance technology. Counsel Yuan, so this... I still have Yuan. this is another flock initiative that I presume you'd like to keep active.

So the purpose of this ordinance is simple, to establish a proper public process including public discussion and city council approval before the city decided to use intrusive surveillance technology. yet the city moved so quickly to another ALPR vendor without informing the public and telling the council only shortly before the press release. Where is the public process? Before jumping to another company, has the city thoroughly researched ordinary LPR this new company? Resident began researching the company after the announcement. As of Saturday afternoon, the company's LinkedIn page listed the company size of just one employee.

Later, the page changed to two to 10 employees. but how many are employees and how many contractors? How many are dedicated to software development, cyber security, technical support in the maintenance Who are the company's customers? Ordinary appears to be a very young company associated with Cell Trace LLC, which was registered last year. has its platform undergone independent security testing? When was the most recent test? will the city receive the test report and a summary of any identified vulnerabilities in the remediations?

These are basic questions that should be asked and answered before the city commits to a new surveillance vendor, not after. So I want to discuss this ordinance, an ordinance regulating intrusive surveillance technology at the next city council meeting that's November 9th. So I already asked the committee clerk, Jen to put this ordinance notice on Quincy's sign so it can published, so we have 10 days to publish before we can discuss and vote on it. Because once we passed this ordinance then we set up this proper public process in place, then anytime when city want to

use like apply some intrusive surveillance technology have to first they have a public discussion and get the city council approval. So we need some, and Gadriel for using this intrusive surveillance technology. Also, I'm wondering since we're all here can we schedule a public hearing for this city's plan to switch to this new ALPR. What date can we discuss a little bit? Since this is the last item, we can discuss it. I guess if it's the same day, November 9th maybe too much item.

Hang on a second, hang on a

Jacobs.

Do we have anything scheduled? This is an ordinance, right? Do you have anything schedule and do we have an ordinance meeting before the November 9th meeting?

Sorry, Councilor McKee.

Sorry. No, I was going to... Councilor Yuan had reached out to me. I was gonna ask you to schedule that ahead of November 9th. We don't have and Ordinance Committee scheduled, like for the raises or anything. I think we were planning to do that on the 23rd to discuss We're probably going to put the salary stuff on the November 9th one just so that we can continue to put our research into it. but yeah, so I think that's the only thing I know about that would happen on November 9th. But no? Okay. So, I guess we should talk maybe with the Chief as well because as part of our conversation with him on Friday which was really a good conversation and

Seemed like it was very open, and he was very to thinking about things. I think The press release that came out right after we were done was sort of, you know, took away from that a little bit but it wasn't from the police chief's side. I think he's very open to discussing things as well, so I think we should have him in as well whenever we end up doing it. So I guess I don't know what else we might how heavy our Agenda is for November 9th if we could potentially. Okay, okay.

I just suggest if November 9th we only have an ordinance meeting before the general city council meeting, can we also have a public hearing first for one hour? then ordinance meeting discuss this ordinance regulating intrusive surveillance technology, then we do the general city council meeting. Jacobs.

So I think what you're saying is you're suggesting that we do a public hearing for an hour before an ordinance, so basically So like start at 5.30, do a public hearing from 5. 30 to 6. 30 and then do an ordinance meeting from 6.

You can do from 6 to 7, public hearing. Then 7 to 730 for ordinance meeting. Then at 730 you start a city council meeting. I think that we started the meeting today at 6 PM.

Yeah, sounds good to me. I love all that. That's what makes it seem so easy.

My only concern is I wouldn't do an hour for public hearing because we don't fill the whole out.

Right. We have to sit around. We can go in and out, but if we don't come out, we sit here. And Ms. Manning set that up for us when we did the public hearing on the flock cameras where We did it for like a half an hour. And then if we wanted to, we could extend it just so in the off chance we weren't sitting around. So I think that's probably the best option there.

Okay, so I assume we must have referred this to ordinance and either oversight or finance. Do you know which off the top of your head? It was oversight. Right, so that's why it's on our agenda here because we combined oversight and finance committee but this is really an ordinance driven initiative so we'll keep it on here but finance and oversight is not going to is not gonna, you want an ordinance out of this. So I'll let you take it off and schedule with an ordinance the public hearing. Go ahead, Councilor Yuan.

Because a public hearing need 10 days notice on newspaper so and if we want to get it on this week's Quincy Sun, we have to decide today. And then tomorrow Jen can send it to Quincy sun So are we all okay to have a public hearing at November 9th that day, so first public hearing about this new ALPR? From what time? From 6.30 or from 6? Maybe from 6 to 6.45? then 645, start an ordinance and oversight joint meeting to discuss this ordinance. Then 730 is last, City Councilor?

Mahoney. I think this is something that the Chair will be able to work out with Ms. Manning. I think that would be the best, rather than debate it here tonight. Oh, I'm not a debater. No, no, I know. But we're not going to set the time tonight. It's outside of the scope of this meeting. McKee, get in touch with Ms. Manning and we'll set it up and have an email sent to us as to what time. It might start at 6 and we will have a half hour but let them work that out.

I want to speak on this.

Jacobs.

So I just want to add, I also attended that meeting on was it Friday? On Friday morning with the Chief of Police. It was a really good meeting. I left the...I was hopeful and then literally walking out the door, it's like someone took a jar and threw it up against the wall. It was like all of a sudden this press release comes out. The takeaway I got was that the chief understood the assignment and the mayor of the city did not One of the big things that we were told from the citizens of Quincy is they couldn't understand how something like this happened to them, and that was one of the big... That was actually the biggest takeaway I got. And somehow the administration didn't walk away with that

and so now it's basically, I feel like this whole thing with Odenai if that's what it's called is basically doomed to fail because it doesn't address one of the biggest issues which was that the people did not feel consulted and what was going on. And basically, unfortunately the genie's out of the bottle and you can't really put that genie back in the bottle. So I hate to say it because I feel like the chief really did a lot of good work for this. And again, I felt very hopeful Jacobs. Okay, well with that we will schedule

Ordinance Committee meeting separately and advertise and do all we need to do. That is the last item on the agenda, so if nobody has anything else they want to discuss I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Alrighty, thank you everyone.