ORDER-2021-133 : An Appropriation from Free Cash, account 01-324001, in the amount of $502,500 to various Park Capital Project Accounts as set forth herein.

Transcript (~7 min @ 1:24:46)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:24:36 Speaker 5: counselor eccles yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor

▶ 1:24:57 Jack Eccles: treyman tozy yes president sanella yes nine yes order 2021-133 an appropriation from free cash account zero one three two four zero zero one in the amount of five hundred and two thousand five hundred dollars to various park capital accounts as set forth herein at this time i move to pull this up from the appropriations committee second motion to pull up 133 from

▶ 1:25:14 Christopher Cinella: appropriations made by council article seconded by councillor stewart any discussion seeing none

▶ 1:25:28 Jack Eccles: all those in favor any opposed this time i move for passage on order 2021-133

▶ 1:25:32 Christopher Cinella: SECOND MOTION TO PASS 133 MADE BY COUNCILOR ARCOLA SECONDED BY COUNCILOR Grigoraitis

▶ 1:25:41 Speaker 5: COUNCILOR Garipay ONE DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

▶ 1:25:44 Mark Garipay: LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED THE MEMO FROM THE UH FROM THE PARK COMMISSION COMMISSIONER CHAIRPERSON GARDNER ASKING THE COUNCIL TO AMEND ORDER 2021-130 133 TO GIVE THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY OVER THE LOCATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT OF THESE of this park project or these park projects the park commission has been very successful over the years they've had a great track record with each project that they have undertaken but i do believe that the charter already speaks to what they were trying to accomplish it does it does give them oversight authority on all projects that are that are that are before them but the bigger concern that i have with with the amendment is is that they actually felt that they needed to present an amendment in order to make sure the project moves forward and gets and gets completed in a timely manner i think that's that's the um that's the more concerning portion of this of this amendment that we received i think that um um that it's troubling that that they actually had to go to that route go down that avenue in order to in order to um try to make awareness to uh what they're trying to accomplish so um i just wanted to say that i fully support this as i have from day one um and um that's it council mcmaster thank you mr president i agree with uh councillor

▶ 1:27:12 Shawn M. MacMaster: Garipay i found it disconcerting that we received a memo from the parks commission basically being asked to be empowered with what it's already empowered with which is oversight over what happens on parkland you know that being said the way i interpreted the memo is that the parks commission is trying to fight to be relevant i think the parks commission is is relevant because the administrative code of the city charter makes the commission relevant i think the parks commission is relevant because of the expertise and the experience of its members some of whom have served for over 20 years i think the parks commission is relevant because of its proven track record of success that being said the mayor is the ultimate decision maker the mayor drives the direction the parks commission executes it and i think the key word in the administrative code is oversee which means project management so what i'm hopeful is that after this evening is that the mayor sits down with members of the parks commission and explains where he is looking to go with these projects and that the parks commission is empowered and allowed to fulfill its statutory responsibility i think that's that's very important and i think that's not out of order considering the fact that we did receive this memo i think it's also important to state publicly that this is not a project management that under local law can be given to the department of public works or to the office of planning and community development it's very clear that the jurisdiction is given to the parks commission so i just think it's important for us to note that publicly i agree i don't think an amendment is is appropriate i think some of the language that was proposed would be a breach of of the authority because that authority exists and i think some of that language went a bit beyond uh what's already codified in city law but i do think that we need to ensure as a council and monitor the situation going forward again to make it certain that the parks commission is doing what it is fundamentally supposed to do under city law thank Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 1:29:40 Jen Grigoraitis: Mr. Anyone else? Councilor Grigoraitis. Councilor Grigoraitis Thank you, Mr. President. I was also surprised to see this amendment offered to us. It's very typical for a member of the public to offer, which in all intents and purposes in this body they are. Typically, only councilors are able to offer amendments, which I believe was the intent to hope that the council would take it up. I agree with the interpretation that this sort of is a, seemed to be a question around a lack of clarity of the language in the charter, and the way to address that is through a charter review not through amending an order and I I think also as we move forward and we all find our new normal in this return to in person just a reminder that all of us including the parks Commission do our work under the open meeting law which requires no deliberation outside of a meeting so I know it's also just very burdensome for them to take on a real complex project and be involved in the level of detail and do that in a way that engages the public and is in compliance with law because everything has to happen in a meeting that's been duly posted. So I think in addition to the larger conversation about the vision, I think also just kind of to figure out what is feasible as they balance both their obligation to the public and the open meeting law and their charter obligation to oversee projects that I think are growing in complexity and scope.

▶ 1:30:57 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 1:30:58 Speaker 5: Anybody else on discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Councillor Eccles. Yes. Councillor Garipay. Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis. Yes. Councillor McMaster. Yes. Councillor Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Stewart. Yes. Councillor Thomas. Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi. Yes. President Sinella. Yes. 9-S. Thank you.

▶ 1:31:26 Jack Eccles: If I could, Councillor, we could maybe motion to conjoin some orders, maybe speed things up a little bit. That would be awesome. Yeah. So I believe I have to read them all. Well, yeah. So