[00:00:01] ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT MEETING NUMBER 6. CLERK, TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR MILLS? HERE. TODARO? NOT PRESENT. LEGISLATOR BARGNESI? HERE. GILMOUR? HERE. ST. JEAN TARD? HERE. CHAIR MEYERS, PRESENT AS EX-OFFICIAL MEMBER. QUORUM PRESENT. OKAY, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 7 THROUGH 10 ARE TABLED. ITEMS 6 AND 11 THROUGH 13 2019 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. MOTION TO ADJOURN. I HAVE A MOTION. I NEED A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THANK YOU. STAND ADJOURNED. [ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE] CALLED MEETING TO ORDER. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING NUMBER 6, MAY 7TH, 2026. CLERK, TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR LORIGO. LEGISLATOR TODARO. CHAIR ST. JEAN TARD? HERE. LEGISLATOR DUPRE? PRESENT. LEGISLATOR VINAL? HERE. CHAIR MEYERS? PRESENT. THE EX OFFICIO MEMBER? ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. THANK YOU. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 ARE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM 11, 12, AND 13 ARE ACTIONABLE. ITEM 14 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 11, COMMUNICATION AE-18. WE HAVE TRACY HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. TRACY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, LEGISLATORS. I'M HERE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE BODY REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ADD FUNDING TO THE BUFFALO NIAGARA CONVENTION CENTER MICROGRID CONTRACT. $1 MILLION IN FUNDING WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT IN DECEMBER OF 2025 TO START DESIGN AND ORDER SOME LONG LEAD, TIME ITEMS FOR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY IS FOR THE ADDITIONAL $7.1 MILLION NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MICROGRID SYSTEM, WHICH WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSFER SWITCHES IN THE BUILDING. AND THE LOWER ROOF WILL BE REPLACED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT TOO, WHICH IS OVER 20 YEARS OLD AND WELL PAST ITS LIFESPAN. CONSTRUCTION START, AS LONG AS FUNDS ARE APPROVED, IS, WILL BEGIN IN JULY, AND IT'S AN ESTIMATED 12 TO 14 MONTHS FOR COMPLETION. UPON COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT, THAT, THE FACILITY WILL HAVE FULL BATTERY AND GENERATOR BACKUP. FOR ALL COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. TRACY, IS THIS THE LAST CONTRACT EXTENSION THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE? THIS IS— WITH THIS, THIS IS A TWO— JUST A TWO-PHASE THING. YEAH, THIS IS IT. YEAH, THE FIRST WAS $1 MILLION JUST TO START DESIGN. IT'S WEIRD, IT'S KIND OF STRUCTURED LIKE AN EPC BECAUSE WE COULD PARTAKE IN THE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM. THERE'S SOME ENERGY INCENTIVES AS PART OF IT TOO, BUT, THAT'LL BE ALL THE FUNDING NEEDED FOR THIS. OKAY, ON THE QUESTION LEGISLATOR TODARO. THANK YOU, CHAIR. TRACY, GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. THERE WAS TWO ATTEMPTS FOR BIDS AND THERE WAS NO BIDS BOTH TIMES. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT RESOLUTION. THE ROOF? ROOF. WE'RE GONNA SAY LATER. WELL, I KNOW TO GO TO YOU THEN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR DUPRE, SECOND BY LEGISLATOR TODARO. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. BACK AT YOU AGAIN, TRACY, FOR ITEM 12, COMMUNICATION 8E-19, AND THAT'S REGARDING THE ROOF REPLACEMENT. TRACY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU. IN THIS RESOLUTION, I'M REQUESTING 3 THINGS. FIRST, TO AWARD THE MECHANICAL SCOPE OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUFFALO AND ERIE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY DOWNTOWN BRANCH ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT. AND YES, IT WAS BID TWICE. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY BIDDERS, SO WE NEGOTIATED— WE REACHED OUT TO 4 LOCAL CONTRACTORS, ONLY 1 OF WHICH RESPONDED, AND THEN WE NEGOTIATED THAT PRICE AS PER GML 103, AND WE AGREED UPON $223,654, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR APPROVAL. SECOND IS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WATTS ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING. IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 FOR DAILY, ASBESTOS AIR MONITORING. IT IS AN OPEN-AIR PLENUM ROOF. THE, THE PLENUM AREA IS OPEN AIR AND, IT HAS ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING. WE DO NOT INTEND TO DISTURB THAT WHATSOEVER. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO TEST EVERY DAY AND GET THOSE RESULTS, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SAFE FOR EVERYONE. AND THEN THE THIRD, REQUEST IS TO JUST, AUTHORIZE THE USE OF ALL CONTRACTS WITH THE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED CONTINGENCY FUND. SO THE ONES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WERE WITH IT. NOW IT ADDS THE MECHANICAL SCOPE TO THE CONTINGENCY FUND AS WELL. CONSTRUCTION'S GONNA START IN JUNE. THE ROOF SHOULD BE COMPLETE THIS YEAR. THE— AND THEN THE VEGETATIVE, PORTION OF IT WILL BE INSTALLED NEXT YEAR. DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY, LET'S LET HER GO. I'M NOT SURE. I THINK THE MECHANIC— IT WAS A PRETTY SMALL SCOPE AS WELL. IT WAS JUST [00:05:01] TAKING AN AIR HANDLER, RECOVERING THE REFRIGERANT, REMOVING IT, AND THEN PUTTING IT ALL BACK AT THE END. MLP, QUACKENBUSH, DANFORTH, AND D.V. BROWN. YEAH. LEGISLATOR LARIGO, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? OKAY. SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TRACY. ITEM 13, COMMUNICATION AE-20. WE HAVE TROY TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. TROY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE AS ALWAYS. THIS MORNING I'M IN FRONT OF YOU SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE 0.22 ACRES OF PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONT OF BENNETT BEACH. IRONICALLY, THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REACHED OUT TO ERIE COUNTY PARKS TO SEE IF WE WERE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING THIS PARCEL. IT'S THE— ACTUALLY THE GATEWAY TO THE PARK. WE'VE KNOWN FOREVER THAT IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH SOME, THINK IT IS BENNETT BEACH ANYWAY. IT WOULD BE A GOOD ACQUISITION. WE RAN IT BY, COUNTY ARC. THEY APPROVED THE ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY, AND WE WOULD JUST ACQUIRE IT AND ADD IT TO BENNETT BEACH. IT'S RIGHT IN THE FRONT OF BENNETT BEACH PARK. OKAY, ON THE QUESTION. OKAY, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, TROY. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? ALL RIGHT, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE ADJOURNED. GOOD MORNING. SO WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN INFORMAL MEETING, TO ALLOW THE CLERK TO SPEAK ON THE LEASE THAT HE HAS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HIS PROPOSAL FOR A LEASE. SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE CLERK TO SAY A COUPLE STATEMENTS, OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS VERY BRIEF BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE OTHER COMMITTEES. GO AHEAD, CLERK. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. I'M JOINED BY WILL, LORENZ, OUR LEGAL CLERK, MADONNA BISHOP FROM THE AUTO BUREAU, AND FROM, JIM, OUR FINANCIAL PERSON. SO WE'RE THANKING YOU FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY BASED ON TIME. WE APPRECIATE IT. ON THE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CLERK AT THIS TIME REGARDING THE LEASE? PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN INFORMAL MEETING, SO THERE'S NO ACTION LEGALLY THAT WE CAN DO ON THE ITEM. GO AHEAD, LEGISLATIVE VINAL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AFTER THE LAST MEETING IS THAT, THAT THE STATEMENT BY BARNESE THAT THE NEXT DOOR WAS LIKE A THIRD OF THE PRICE. LIKE, DID YOU DO ANYTHING ON THAT SINCE OUR LAST MEETING TO SEE WHY? OR YOU MAYBE KNEW WHY AHEAD OF TIME? ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE FILED, WILL HAS AN AD— WE DIDN'T FILE IT, BUT WE SENT IT TO THE CHAIR, OF THE LEGISLATURE, A BREAKDOWN OF THE NUMBER, THAT WAS SUBMITTED, FOR APPROVAL TO THIS HONORABLE BODY. OH, I DIDN'T GET IT. I, MAYBE— OH, MAYBE— DID YOU DO IT TODAY? BECAUSE THIS MORNING— WE HAVE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE COPIES, CORRECT, WILL? I'M SORRY. I'LL HAVE TO GO GET THOSE, CLERK. BUT I KNOW IT WAS SENT TO, CHAIR MEYERS. I BELIEVE IT WAS SENT TO CLERK OLIVIA OWENS AS WELL, THE, THE SECOND AMENDED RESOLUTION, PROPOSED RESOLUTION. LEGISLATOR WEINER, ARE YOU REFERRING TO OUR CURRENT LANDLORD WITH THE, THE THIRD OF THE PRICE QUESTION? NO, NO, THE, THE ONE ABOUT THAT, BERNESE WAS SAYING THAT THE TOWN RENTED NEXT DOOR TO THE NEW LOCATION FOR A THIRD OF THE PRICE. THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID AT THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THEY— THAT MADE A CONCERN TO ME, AND I WAS WONDERING SINCE THAT TIME IF YOU MAYBE LOOKED INTO THAT AND SEE WHY, OR ASKED FOR A LOWER PRICE OR SOMETHING. WE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, I MET WITH THE BUDGET DIRECTOR THIS WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW. SO WE PUT AN RFP OUT. I KNOW WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL YESTERDAY FROM THE LEGISLATOR, JUST STATING, THAT THE CURRENT LANDLORD, DIDN'T, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BID. BUT, WE HAVEN'T— WE HAVEN'T GONE OUTSIDE AND LOOKED FOR ANOTHER LOCATION, IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. WE'RE STILL PURSUING APPROVAL OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. WE DID FILE A NEW RESOLUTION GIVING A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WOULD BE IN THE LEASE. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TAXES, IMPROVEMENTS, MAINTAINING OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN OF COURSE THE, THE BUILDOUT AND THE UPGRADE. AFTER THAT, THE LEASE IS PRETTY COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM OTHER LEASES. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION YESTERDAY, WITH A COUPLE ELECTED OFFICIALS. I MET WITH THE TOWN SUPERVISOR IN TONAWANDA JUST TO, YOU KNOW, TALK TO HIM ON A— CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS, RETIREMENT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE LEASE THAT IS [00:10:02] BEFORE THIS HONORABLE BODY IS A FAIR LEASE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, I THINK IT'S COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S OUT IN THE MARKET. EVERYTHING IS GOING UP IN PRICE, MATERIALS ARE GOING UP IN PRICE, AND YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND THE NEEDS OF WHAT WE NEED FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE, I THINK, ARE ALSO IMPORTANT. SO WE DO HAVE AN OPINION, FROM THE, LAW DEPARTMENT THAT WAS GIVEN BY AARON RUBIN BACK IN 2024 WHEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, CONCERNING RFPS AND BIDS. AND WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH, RFPS, IT'S NOT ONLY, THE PRICE OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY. IT'S NOT LIKE A BID. IT'S WHAT, ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT ARE, ARE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. AND WE FEEL AS THOUGH THIS IS, THIS IS A GOOD LOCATION AND WE NEED ADDITIONAL SPACE. OUR CURRENT LANDLORD, WE'RE LANDLOCKED THERE. AND I CAN HAVE, SINCE WE HAVE SHORT TIME, I'D LIKE MADONNA BISHOP JUST TO COMMENT ON WHY OUR CURRENT SPACE THAT WE'RE IN IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR US TO STAY. SHE IS OUT THERE. SHE'S SOMEONE THAT WORKS ON THIS ON A DAILY BASIS. THIS ONE, JUST, BEFORE SHE SAYS THAT, THE ONE, LIKE, YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED WITH THIS, BUT WHEN THE SHERIFF LEASED A PROPERTY WHICH WE APPROVED TO GET OUT OF THEIR BUNKER, AND THEN THAT WAS IN ORCHARD PARK, AND THEN HE CAME BACK FOR THE MODIFICATION, BUT IT TURNED OUT IT WASN'T A MODIFICATION, IT WAS A WHOLE NEW BUILDING FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THE PRIOR ONE. SO HE HAD LET THEM OUT OF THAT LEASE WITH JUST ON HIS OWN AND THEN ENTERED THIS OTHER LEASE. AND SO WE WERE UPSET ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? AND SO THEN HE WENT BACK AND GOT— IT WAS FROM, THE RICH FAMILY OWNED THE BOTH PROPERTIES AND, BOTH WERE DOING IT, AND THEN HE GOT LIKE $500,000 OFF THE LEASE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING, THAT IF BERNESE IS SAYING THAT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR IS BEING LEASED BY THE TOWN FOR A THIRD OF THE PRICE, LIKE, THAT TO ME IS A BIG THING. DURING THAT PROCESS, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SECOND POINT IS DURING THAT PROCESS THEY ALL SAID THAT FOR REAL ESTATE YOU DON'T NEED TO DO AN RFP. I PREFER AN RFP. AND ON THE SECOND LEASE, HE DIDN'T PICK THE LOWEST ONE, AND HE PUT, LIKE, HE, HE OMITTED PEOPLE BASED ON THINGS THAT WEREN'T IN THE RFP, LIKE THAT THE CEILING HEIGHT WASN'T HIGH ENOUGH OR WHATEVER. BUT AN RFP IS GOOD, BUT THERE'S ALSO, LIKE, REALTORS AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT'S MARKET ANALYSIS, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THAT PRICE WAS FAIR IF THAT PLACE NEXT DOOR IS A THIRD AS MUCH? JUST LIKE I SAID, AND I WILL— I KNOW YOU'RE UP HERE. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT MEMO FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT? WE CAN GET THAT. NO, NO, IT'S— I KNOW ABOUT THAT MEMO ABOUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE THE LOWEST PRICE. I KNOW ABOUT THAT. YEAH, I'M SAYING, BUT LIKE, TO TELL A TAXPAYER— AND PEOPLE EVEN ASKED ME ABOUT THIS IN THE SENSE THAT ONE SOMEHOW IT CAME AROUND— AND THEY— TO SAY THAT THE— IF THE OTHER PLACE NEXT DOOR IS A THIRD THE PRICE, THEN WHY IS THAT? IT COULD BE THAT IT'S LIKE THE OTHER ONE'S 100 YEARS OLD AND THIS ONE'S 20 YEARS OLD. IT COULD BE— THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING, MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING. OR HE MIGHT SAY, OKAY, I'LL LOWER IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU, LIKE, SINCE THAT TIME, DID YOU REACH OUT TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, THEY THINK IT'S TOO HIGH BECAUSE THE NEXT DOOR MAYBE GET A LOWER RATE? OR DID YOU, OR A CONCESSION ON THE BUILD-OUT THAT THEY WOULD PAY PART OF THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING THE BENEFIT FOR LONGER THAN THE TIME? OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S— I WAS WONDERING ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A STARK DIFFERENCE. I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER PROPERTY. I KNOW THIS WAS A, LIKE, A RITE AID OR SOMETHING, OR WALMART, AND THEN THE NEW ONE THE ONE NEXT TO IT. I CAN'T VISUALIZE— I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THAT DRUGSTORE, BUT I CAN'T VISUALIZE WHAT'S NEXT DOOR THAT BARNESE WAS TALKING ABOUT. BUT IF YOU, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT THAT AS TO— WELL, I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS WE FOLLOWED THE RFP PROCESS. THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. AND, AND THE SHORTER ANSWER IS NO, WE DIDN'T GO OUT AND LOOK AT OTHER LOCATIONS. BUT, MADONNA, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A TIME CONSTRAINT OF WHY THE CURRENT FACILITY AND OUR CURRENT LANDLORD, WE DIDN'T WANT TO BRING THESE THINGS UP, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WANT TO AIR ANYONE'S DIRTY LAUNDRY, BUT WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY, THE FUNCTIONALITY FOR THE STAFF IN THE OFFICE, WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. GOOD MORNING. I JUST WANT TO START WITH A LITTLE HISTORY OF THAT OFFICE. I'LL MAKE IT AS SHORT AS I CAN. I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S UNDER TIME CONSTRAINTS. I'VE BEEN IN THAT DEPARTMENT FOR 22 YEARS, SO I'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF CLERKS OVER A LOT OF TIME. WE WERE PUSHED OUT OF OUR OLD OFFICE AT THE NORTHTOWN PLAZA, WHICH WAS BUILT FOR EXPANSION. WHEN WE DESIGNED THAT OFFICE, IT WAS BUILT SO WE COULD EXPAND IF WE NEEDED TO. WE WERE PUSHED OUT OF THAT. THEY HAD TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION TO MOVE DOWN THE STREET. THIS OFFICE WAS TOO SMALL FROM THE DAY WE WALKED IN. WE HAD TO MAKESHIFT 3 WORKSTATION WINDOWS THAT WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WORKING IN SITUATIONS THAT ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO PROCESS TRANSACTIONS. THEY'VE GOT LITTLE PULL-OUT BINS AND SUCH. WE'VE HAD— I THINK I MENTIONED THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE— UNFORTUNATELY, SEWAGE ISSUES COMING LITERALLY THROUGH THE FLOOR. WE'VE HAD, NUMEROUS CALLS [00:15:01] FROM EMPLOYEES, COMPLAINTS FROM EMPLOYEES, AND I'VE HAD TO SHUT THE OFFICE DOWN FOR GAS SMELLS. WE'VE HAD, DIFFERENT PLUMBING ISSUES WITH THE PUBLIC BATHROOM. AND THE UNFORTUNATE PART WITH THEM IS EVERYTHING'S OUT OF ROCHESTER, SO WHEN SOMETHING HAS TO GET FIXED, THEY SEND ME A A CONTRACTOR FROM ROCHESTER. SO WHEN THE SEWAGE WAS COMING THROUGH THE FLOOR AND RUNNING INTO THE BREAK ROOM, I HAD TO WAIT UNTIL 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT FOR THE ROCHESTER PLUMBER TO SHOW UP ON THE EMERGENCY CALL. AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED DURING THE DAY. WE HAD TO CLOSE THE OFFICE DOWN, SEND THE STAFF HOME, AND SO ON. SO IT'S NOT— I, AND UNDERSTANDABLY, DOLLARS AND CENTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I PAY TAXES TOO. BUT THE QUALITY OF THE EXPERIENCE FOR THE CUSTOMERS AND FOR THE EMPLOYEES— I MEAN, I'VE HAD CALLS FROM THE UNION. I WORKED WITH THE UNION. THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF THE, THE IT'S JUST A BAD SITUATION. WE HAVE 14 EMPLOYEES THERE. OUR BREAK ROOM THERE HAS A TABLE FOR 5 PEOPLE. SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO ASK THESE EMPLOYEES TO CONTINUE TO COME INTO A SITUATION THAT'S JUST NOT CONDUCIVE. IT'S SMALL, IT'S TIGHT, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE CUSTOMERS, IT'S STANDING ROOM ONLY. AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT THE DOLLARS. THERE'S QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, SITUATIONS TOO, AND DIFFERENT ISSUES. SO I GET THE DOLLAR AND CENTS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE OTHER ISSUES TOO. THIS BUILDING WAS TOO SMALL TO BEGIN WITH, AND THAT WAS IN 2016. CHAIR MEYERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CLERK. I JUST HAVE A TWO-PART QUESTION. I JUST WANNA SEE THAT I HAVE THIS RIGHT. SO I THOUGHT YOU INDICATED THAT AN EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE CURRENT LANDLORD ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW THE LEASE. SO MY QUESTION IS THAT IF THAT WAS SENT TO HIM AND IT DID NOT SUIT YOUR NEEDS, WHY WAS HE OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND THE LEASE? IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU LEGALLY HAVE TO DO, OR— I, I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT. YEAH, SURE. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU AGAIN TO CHAIR ST. JEAN TARD FOR GIVING US THIS EXTRA TIME HERE. JUST TO CLEAR THE RECORD ON THE CURRENT LANDLORD, THEY REACHED OUT TO US IN WRITING ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2025, AND MENTIONED ABOUT THE CURRENT LEASE IS EXPIRING IN FEBRUARY 2026. ASKED, YOU KNOW, ABOUT CONTINUING THE TENANCY. I THEN REPLIED TO THIS GENTLEMAN, ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. B-BUT BECAUSE I WAS FORWARDED THE EMAIL AND SAID, YES, YOU'RE CORRECT, WE'RE OUT OF EXTENSIONS, WE'RE GOING TO BE ISSUING AN RFP. PLEASE CONTACT US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFP BECAUSE ONCE IT'S ISSUED, THE QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE POSTED ONLINE ON PURCHASING'S WEBSITE. THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CURRENT LANDLORD THEN WROTE BACK TO ME SAME DAY, SAID, THANK YOU FOR THE REPLY. I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE SUBMITTING. LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE RFP. OCTOBER 1ST, PURCHASING POSTS THE RFP FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE. DEADLINE OCTOBER 31ST, 04:00 PM. WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME THAT'S SET BY THE RFP THAT WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW, WE RECEIVED 2 PROPOSALS. NOVEMBER 14TH, 2025, I RECEIVED A VOICEMAIL FROM THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. CALLED HIM BACK, SAID, "HEY, WHEN IS THE RFP GONNA BE POSTED?" HE SAID, "I'M SORRY, IT'S BEEN UP A MONTH AND A HALF." TIMEFRAME IS DONE. UNDERSTANDABLY, HE WASN'T HAPPY ABOUT THAT, BUT HE ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE NOT LOCAL LANDLORDS. AND WE ARE NOT BOUND, NOR IS ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT, TO CONTACT EVERY POSSIBLE VENDOR TO SAY, "HEY, IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO LOOK AT THE WEBSITE, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE RFP THAT—" IT WOULD BE PUTTING TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON ANY DEPARTMENT FOR RECEIVING PROPOSALS. NOR IS THERE ANY OBLIGATION THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT WE CAN REOPEN THE BIDDING PROCESS ONCE THE TIME PERIOD IS UP. IT'S LIKE TURNING IN YOUR HOMEWORK. YOU'RE GIVEN A TIMELINE, YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, OPEN IT UP FOR THEM. WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO START OVER FOR EVERYONE. SO THE LANDLORD HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BID. THEY WERE WELL AWARE OF IT. THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THEY MISSED IT. AND THEN THEY DID ALSO GRANT US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT EXTENSION WHEN WE REALIZED THIS PROCESS MAY TAKE LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED. I WENT BACK AND SAID, PUTTING ASIDE THE BID, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET THIS EXTENSION IF THE LEGISLATURE APPROVES TO STAY TILL THE END OF THE YEAR. IS THAT OKAY? SAID YES. WE CAME BEFORE THE SIGN-OFF BODY. THAT WAS APPROVED. SO IN NO WAY WAS THE LANDLORD OR ANYONE ELSE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BID. OKAY, JUST WANNA— ONE, ONE FOLLOW-UP, IF I COULD. JUST SAY, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THEY DID RESPOND TO THE RFP AND THEY WERE THE LOWEST AND IT DOESN'T FIT YOUR NEEDS, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE THEN? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN, IN THE RFP SELECTION COMMITTEE, AND THEN A VOTE IS TAKEN IF THEY WERE THE SELECTED BIDDER FROM THAT. [00:20:01] YEAH. OKAY. AND I'M NOT, MR., LEGISLATOR, I'M NOT PART OF THAT COMMITTEE. I'M NOT PART OF THAT DECISION, SO I'M NOT IN THAT COMMITTEE. OKAY, LEGISLATOR BARGNESI. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH QUITE A BIT OF THIS, SO LET'S BACKTRACK. I WASN'T GOING TO TOUCH ON IT, BUT THERE WASN'T AN RFP THAT WAS REQUIRED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT OUT AN RFP FOR THIS SPACE, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO GET THE BEST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER. THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. SO AN RFP, WHILE IT'S NICE, IF IT DOESN'T WORK, YOU COULD STILL GO OUT TO THE MARKET AND FIND THE BEST VALUE. SO LET'S PUT THAT TO BED. NUMBER 2, I DID TALK TO, MICHAEL SMITH, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF LEASING AND MARKETING FOR LLD ENTERPRISES. ONE PHONE CALL I MADE TO HIM, AND HE SINGS A VERY DIFFERENT TUNE. HE SAID HE WASN'T AWARE OF THE RFP. HE SAID HE WAS AWARE OF IT AFTER THE FACT, AND HE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU GUYS STAY, AND HE WASN'T AWARE THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS OR THAT YOU HAD STATED BEFORE THAT YOU NEEDED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. HE SAID THERE IS MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE IN THAT PLAZA, BUT YOU NEVER ASKED HIM FOR MORE. SO LET'S PUT THAT ALL ASIDE. WHAT IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO IS A FEW THINGS. IT'S AN ENORMOUS JUMP IN PRICE TO MOVE DOWN THE STREET. I FREQUENT THAT TMV QUITE OFTEN. I WAS THERE TWICE LAST WEEK HELPING MY EMPLOYEES. IT SEEMS LIKE A NICE SPACE. IT DOES QUITE A BIT OF BUSINESS. THERE'S AMPLE PARKING, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CONSIDER THIS THE BEST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER WHEN YOU'RE JUMPING TO $43.79 A SQUARE FOOT. THAT IS VERY HIGH, VERY HIGH. WITH THE ESTIMATE THAT HE SENT OVER WHEN I ASKED HIM FOR THE EXTENSION WITH THE 2% INCREASE, YOU'RE ONLY AT $2,548. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU JUSTIFY THAT COST MOVING DOWN THE STREET. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF, THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE PALLADINO BUILDING, IS— YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE BUILDING, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER TENANT IN THERE, FUTURE TENANT, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GETTING THE WHOLE BUILDING. AT THIS VERY HIGH COST. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE BUILDOUT, YOU'RE PAYING THE TAXES, YOU'RE PAYING THE IMPROVEMENTS, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH PAYING FOR EVERYTHING. I HAVE A HUGE CONCERN WITH PARKING. WHEN I WAS THERE, YESTERDAY, THERE WERE 55 PEOPLE THAT I COULD COUNT, ME BEING ONE OF THEM, CUSTOMERS IN THERE. I THOUGHT I COUNTED 17 STAFF, BUT THEY'RE BUSY MOVING AROUND, SO DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT. I PULLED IN AND PARKED, WALKED RIGHT IN BECAUSE IT'S A VERY LARGE PLAZA. IF YOU NEED 70 PARKING SPOTS, THIS ISN'T— PLUS A DRIVE-THROUGH THAT WE WANT TO ADD— THE LOCATION IS POOR, AND YOU'RE PAYING TOP DOLLAR FOR A POOR LOCATION. THAT'S THE SECOND HALF OF THIS PROBLEM. I JUST CAN'T GET PAST PAYING THAT MUCH MONEY FOR THIS BUILDING WHEN YOU COULD STAY WHERE YOU ARE AT A REASONABLE RATE— THAT IS, GOING RATE. YOU'RE NOT EVEN PAYING GOING RATE. VINYL REFERENCED THE TOWN BUILDING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY MOVE IN IN A MONTH AND A HALF THAT IS 2 BUILDINGS DOWN FROM YOU. THEY'RE PAYING $17 A SQUARE FOOT. THEY DID NOT PAY FOR BUILD-OUT, THEY DID NOT PAY THE TAXES. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BUILDING, IT WOULDN'T SUIT YOUR NEEDS OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT'S A COMPARISON IN SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SAME STREET. SO MY, MY INITIAL PROCESS IS I'M NOT SURE THE REASON FOR THE MOVE AT THE OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH PRICE. THAT, THAT'S MY FIRST HURDLE I HAVE TO GET OVER. SO I, I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IS THE BUSINESS OFFICE OF ERIE COUNTY, ESPECIALLY THE AUTO BUREAUS. WE GENERATE REVENUE. SO AS MADONNA STATED, I WASN'T THE COUNTY CLERK WHEN THAT LOCATION WAS CHOSEN. BUT IT IS NOT— THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE OFFICE DOESN'T WORK, FOR WHAT WE NEED TODAY AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED IN THE FUTURE. WHEN YOU THINK OF, TONAWANNA AND AMHERST, WE DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE SATURDAY HOURS, WE DO GET A LOT OF WORK FROM OTHER, COUNTIES, WHICH IS A POSITIVE FOR ERIE COUNTY. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE RED AND GREEN BUDGET, WE LOST A LOT [00:25:01] OF THOSE DEALER CUSTOMERS. WE'VE GOTTEN THEM BACK. WE'RE IN DISCUSSION, WITH SOME PRIVATE ENTITIES TO BRING US MORE WORK. WE DO AT THE TOP END BETWEEN 130,000 AND 140,000 TRANSACTIONS. PROBABLY WE AVERAGE OVER 100,000 TRANSACTIONS. WITH THE ADVENT OF THE GREENLIGHT LAW, WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE CUSTOMERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO. SO WE ARE GETTING, A JUMP IN CUSTOMERS FROM THAT LEGISLATION. MORE PEOPLE NOW HAVE ACCESS TO A DRIVER'S LICENSE, ESPECIALLY MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING FROM, OTHER STATES AND THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO. BUT, THE REASON WHY WE'RE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IS UNDER THE CHARTER, WE CAN ONLY DO 2 RENEWALS. AND WHEN THIS CAME OUT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE JUST FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. AND FOLLOWING THE PROCESS IS, AS YOU STATED, AN RFP IS, OPTIONAL. SO WE'VE BEEN TOLD. BUT WE'VE LOOKED AT, THE OPINION FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT, AND WE'VE HEARD IN PRIOR, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS FROM THIS HONORABLE BODY THAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO HAVE AN RFP PROCESS. WE'VE WORKED WITH, PURCHASING ON THAT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY. WE EVEN EXTENDED, THE MILEAGE. WE MADE IT A 10-MILE RADIUS. WE WENT FROM 5 TO 10 BECAUSE WE DID CONSIDER AMHERST. WE DID CONSIDER AMHERST. IT'S NOT LIKE WE DID NOT CONSIDER AMHERST, BUT WE CAN ONLY GET PEOPLE TO BID WITH OUR CURRENT LOCATION, WE ARE NOW LANDLOCKED. THE PARKING IS A PROBLEM. IT'S A PROBLEM FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. WE USED TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN BACK OF THE FACILITY AND THE EMPLOYEES COULD COME IN. NOW, BECAUSE OF, THE, THE NEW TENANT NEXT DOOR, THEY GET A LOT OF DELIVERIES ON A DAILY BASIS, BIG TRUCKS, SO WE CAN'T PARK IN BACK THERE ANYMORE. SO MANY OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE PARKING IN THERE. WE START AT 9 O'CLOCK. PEOPLE ARE WALKING IN, THEY WANT TO GET THERE AT 20 TO 9, QUARTER TO 9, AND THEY ARE FACING— BEFORE THEY EVEN GET INTO THE OFFICE, THEY'RE FACING, COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING THERE WHEN WE'RE AT CAPACITY. WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THEM. IT IS AN OLDER BUILDING. WE DID TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY, ONE OF THE THINGS IS HAVING A DRIVE-THROUGH. WE WOULD BE THE FIRST, DMV IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO HANDLE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WOULD HELP OUR, DISABILITY COMMUNITY. IT WOULD HELP MANY OF OUR ELDERLY, RESIDENTS THAT MAYBE WOULD PREFER WAITING IN THEIR CAR WITH A CERTAIN TRANSACTION. WE NOW KNOW, THAT, WE'RE GONNA BE GOING UP BASED ON NEW YORK STATE ON OUR, ON OUR, RENEWALS FOR LICENSES. SO WE'RE GONNA BE SEEING MORE TRAFFIC. THAT'S ALL POSITIVE. WE ARE DOING SO WELL THAT OUR SATURDAY LOCATION AT THE EASTERN HILLS MALL, WE COULDN'T HANDLE ANY MORE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SO WE HAD TO MOVE OUR SATURDAY HOURS OVER TO, THIS LOCATION. SO THEY'RE AT ABOUT 50— 5,800, SQUARE FEET. YOU'RE RIGHT, LEGISLATOR, PROBABLY IF WE WEREN'T LANDLOCKED ON BOTH SIDES— THEY HAVE BOTH, SIDES OF THE PLAZA ADJACENT TO US, THOSE, ARE FILLED WITH TENANTS— YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, PROBABLY IF WE COULD, IF ONE OF THEM WAS OPEN, WE COULD KNOCK OUT A WALL. BUT HERE'S THE THING WE HAVE TO REMEMBER. LET'S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING. THERE'S A PROCESS. THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT BID ON THIS THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS. NOW, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL YESTERDAY AND THAT YOU REACHED OUT TO, THE CURRENT LANDLORD, WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO. YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS, BUT BASED ON WHAT WE RECEIVED BACK, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THIS NEW LANDLORD FALSE HOPE THAT, HEY, MAYBE I WON'T GO OUT. THE CONVERSATION WAS— THERE WAS NO FALSE HOPE GIVEN. YOU TOLD HIM HE WAS OUT. SO THERE'S NO FALSE HOPE GIVEN, AND I DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CALL ANYBODY. NO, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE. THERE WAS NO NEGOTIATION. WE RECEIVED THE NUMBER FOR HIM SAYING, GREAT, IT WOULD BE $25, RIGHT? I SENT IT TO EVERYBODY. YEAH, YOU SAID THAT. I DIDN'T EVEN SEND IT TO EVERYONE, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU'RE NOT THE COUNTY CLERK. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. IT'S FINE TO ASK AND TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT THAT PROCESS IS DONE. WE COULD BE OPEN UP AND WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THERE IS A LEGAL PROCESS, AND THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE PART OF THAT LEGAL PROCESS, TWO ENTITIES. NOW YOU ARE UNILATERALLY— AND WE'LL TALK TO THE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TALK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT, WE'RE GOING TO TALK TO THEM TODAY— WE COULD HAVE NOW THE, THE REASON WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT IS WE NOW HAVE THE [00:30:01] OPPORTUNITY, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THIS IS TAKING— THIS IS NOT A COUNTY CLERK MATTER, THIS IS A NEW YORK STATE MATTER— AND MADONNA COULD TALK TO THIS. WE'RE GOING THROUGH— NEW YORK STATE'S GOING THROUGH A TRANSITION WITH NEW SOFTWARE. 62 COUNTIES ARE GETTING NEW SOFTWARE, PLUS, SOME OF THE DMVS THAT ARE RUN BY NEW YORK STATE. THERE'S BEEN SOME HICCUPS IN THEIR SOFTWARE. THANKFULLY WE'VE BEEN ABLE— WE'VE GOT SUCH A GREAT STAFF, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HANDLE IT. IN CERTAIN COUNTIES, IT'S— YOU'RE IN THE DMV FOR ABOUT 8 HOURS. FOR US, IF YOU MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, YOU'RE IN AND OUT. MY POINT BEING IS WE STILL HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM NEW YORK STATE. WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO GO, TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT. THEY'LL HAVE TO APPROVE IT, THE FORM. WHOEVER RECEIVES THIS IS GOING TO— OUR CURRENT LOCATION AT 5,800 SQUARE FEET IS NOT— WE FEEL AS THOUGH LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS, AND I LISTENED TO MY TEAM, LISTENING TO THE STAFF, IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO WHAT WE ANTICIPATE, WITH MORE PEOPLE COMING IN. MORE ADDITIONAL TRANSACTIONS, MORE WORK. BUT THIS COULD TAKE 6 TO 8 MONTHS. NOW, WHEN I MET WITH THE, BUDGET DIRECTOR TODAY, I WANTED TO CONVEY TO HIM THAT COMING FORWARD WHEN WE HAVE OUR PRELIMINARY MEETING, OUR JULY, OUR, OUR HALF YEAR, LIKE, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE DMV? WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE OFFICE? THAT BASED ON ANY DELAY, TWO THINGS MAY HAPPEN. ONE, IT MAY BE LONGER BASED ON CONSTRUCTION AND APPROVALS. TO GET INTO THE NEW LOCATION, BUT TWO, WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE TWO LEASES GOING ON THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE. ONE FOR IF WE HAD TO GET A, A MONTH-TO-MONTH AS YOU SUGGESTED, LEGISLATOR, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE OUR NEW PERSON, OUR NEW ENTITY COMING IN. SO TO ME, WHAT IS BEST IS THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS MATTER, AND WE WANTED TO COME HERE TODAY AND GIVE YOU ALL THE FACTS. FINALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULDN'T COMMENT ON, AND I HAVE JIM HERE, IS WE ARE BRINGING OVER, FROM 2025 ABOUT $250,000. SO WE HAVE THE MONEY TO PROBABLY OFFSET SOME OF THOSE BUILD-OUT COSTS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT— AND WE APOLOGIZE, WE CAN GET YOU THIS INFORMATION— IF YOU LOOK AT REALLY WHAT THE COST IS WITH THE BUILD-OUT, ONCE AGAIN, THE TAXES, THE TRIPLE NET LEASE, WE DON'T DETERMINE THAT. THAT'S DETERMINED BY ERIE COUNTY UNDER THE CHARTER. THE TAXES, THE BUILDOUT, AND, THE MAINTENANCE. ONCE YOU GET THROUGH TO THAT, THEY'RE AT ABOUT $25. SO WHAT YOU RECEIVED WAS $25 A SQUARE FOOT. IT WASN'T $18, IT'S $25. MY BILL SAYS $43.79, MICK. NO, I KNOW, BUT ONCE YOU TAKE ALL THAT OTHER STUFF INTO CONSIDERATION, THEY HAVE TO PAY TAXES. THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT. YOU'RE PAYING THE TAXES. YOU'RE PAYING THE TAXES. YOU'RE PAYING— YEAH, IT'S YOUR $4,379 A YEAR. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BRIEF CONVERSATION. I THINK WE'VE HEARD— SURE, THANK YOU. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO WHAT— NO, NO, IT'S STILL MY TURN HERE. LET ME JUST— SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS THE BEST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE PALLADINO BUILDING AT $4,379 IS THE BEST VALUE? IT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO? BECAUSE I AGREE, YOU'RE LATE WITH THIS. THIS IS VERY LATE AND YOU'RE GONNA GET YOURSELF IN A BIND. BUT THE, THE TIMING'S ON YOURS. I'M ONLY QUESTIONING WHAT YOU PROPOSED, WHICH I THINK IS OUTRAGEOUS. AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS $4,379 IS THE BEST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE YOU, YOU'RE WALKING INTO A FIRESTORM WITH A HUGE PARKING ISSUE IN THIS NEW BUILDING. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT OTHERWISE, YOU'RE 100% WRONG ON THAT, BUT WE WON'T EVEN GO THERE. I'M GONNA STICK WITH THE $4,379, THE BUILD-OUT. IT, IT— YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T GO AROUND. AND HOW COME WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT WHO WAS THE SECOND BIDDER AND HOW MUCH? WHAT WAS THEIR PRICE? WELL, JUST TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST PART OF THAT, LEGISLATURE, WE FOLLOWED THE RFP PROCESS. I KNOW THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO, WE'VE HEARD THAT. YEP, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. OKAY, THAT'S YOUR OPINION, BUT YOU'RE WRONG. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. SURE. FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. WE RECEIVED TWO PROPOSALS. COMMITTEE MADE A DECISION ON ONE. WE BROUGHT IT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU SHOULD HAVE WENT OUT AND GOT THE BEST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYERS, WHICH YOU DIDN'T. BUT GO AHEAD. THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE RESOLUTION AND CAN PUT IT TO A VOTE. WHAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE CANNOT DO IS GO OUT AND PROCURE— NOR CAN THE LEGISLATURE GO OUT AND PROCURE ANOTHER PROPOSAL AND SAY, YOU YOU SHOULD MAYBE TAKE THIS ONE OVER THE TWO— WELL, WHICH ONE? WELL, WHAT WAS THE SECOND PERSON THAT BID ON IT? CAN YOU— THE NAME OF THE COMPANY? WHAT WAS THE SECOND BID FOR IT? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE. AND AGAIN, WE CAN SUBMIT IT. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE IT WAS ALREADY SET ON THE RECORD. IT WAS BENDERSON WAS THE COMPANY. YEP. DO YOU KNOW THE PRICE? THEY WERE $36 A SQUARE FOOT. THERE WAS SOME BUILD-OUT [00:35:01] COSTS, WHICH WAS— IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE $36,000, WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO BE ADDED ON LATER. SO THEY WERE CHEAPER, THEY'RE A LOCAL DEVELOPER, AND YOU DIDN'T ASK THAT QUESTION? YOU AUTOMATICALLY WENT TO THE PALADINO BUILDING? NO. WELL, HE JUST SAID TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS. IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT ADOPT— YOU JUST, YOU JUST SAID— I'M JUST, I'M ASKING, I'M JUST, I'M JUST ASKING. I DON'T RECALL. I, I THINK WE DID HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS. I JUST DON'T RECALL THE— IT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, SO I HAD TO GO BACK AND CHECK MY NOTES. OKAY, SO, BUT, BUT, BUT TO BE CLEAR, THE BASE RENT FOR, THE PALADINO BUILDING IS $28.48 PER SQUARE— PER SQUARE FOOT, AND THE BUILDOUT IS $15.31. BUT YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE— AND WE DID, WE DID, WE DID. I'M JUST SAYING YOU'RE, YOU'RE COMPARING— YOU CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF $17, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ADDRESS OF THE BUILDING AND THE INFORMATION. 2005 SHERWIN DRIVE- OWNED BY THE KELLER FAMILY. I'M SORRY CAN YOU REPEAT THAT. 200 SHERWIN DRIVE OWNED BY THE KELLER FAMILY. THANK YOU. KELLER TECHNOLOGY TO BE EXACT. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT. NO, AND WE'LL, WE'LL ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE, THE, THE BID WINNER WHO THEY CHOSE, THE COMMITTEE, AT THE FRONT END, YOU HAD THE BUILD-OUT COST. SO THE $36 AT THE END, THE PRICE GOES UP, WHEREAS THE FIRST BID, IT GOES DOWN TO THE $25, FOR THE— IF WE RENEW, THAT'S WHERE YOUR SAVINGS IS, IS IN THE RENEWAL, RIGHT? BUT AT THE BENDERSON, THEY WERE AT 36, WHICH IS HIGH, BUT THEN THEY GET EVEN HIGHER AT THE END OF THAT. WE'LL GET YOU THAT INFORMATION AND TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK, I THINK THE POINT IS, IS WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, UH. WE KNOW THAT IT WAS ON NORTH FOREST AND MAPLE, MAPLE AND NORTH FOREST. AND ONE OF THE DETERMINATIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS A QUALITATIVE PROCESS, THAT'S WHY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SAYS THE RFP PROCESS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED WHEN PRICE IS NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION IS LOCATION. THAT LOCATION IS MUCH CLOSER TO OUR EASTERN HILLS MALL LOCATION VERSUS THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION IN TONAWANDA. SO COST IS NOT THE ONLY ITEM THAT IS CONSIDERED BY A COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS INFORMAL, SO I'M JUST GONNA END IT THERE. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF WE COULD JUST LEAVE ONCE AGAIN, AND, AND WE THANK THE CHAIR, WE THANK THE LEGISLATORS FOR ANSWERING THEIR QUESTIONS. BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING WITH NEW YORK STATE, ON THIS CHANGE. AND JUST GOING FORWARD, WHEN WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS BASED ON YOUR TIMELINE ON, WHETHER YOU WANT TO APPROVE THIS ITEM OR NOT, FOR US, WE NEED TO HAVE AN ANSWER SOONER THAN LATER. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LEGISLATORS. [HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE] I WANNA CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES MEETING NUMBER 6, MAY 7TH, 2026. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR LORIGO. LEGISLATOR TODARO. CHAIR DUPRE. PRESENT. LEGISLATOR BARGNESI. HERE. LEGISLATOR VINAL. HERE. CHAIR MEYERS IS PRESENT AS EX OFFICIO MEMBER. ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. THANK YOU. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5, 8 AND 9 ARE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEMS 6 AND 7 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEMS 10 THROUGH 15 ARE ACTIONABLE. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 10, COMMUNICATION 8E-14, AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH WAITWELL INC. WE HAVE PEGGY HERE. PLEASE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMUNICATION 8E-14 IS THE AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH WAITWELL INC. FOR OUR QUEUING SYSTEM, WHICH IS OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE, AS PEOPLE ENTER THE BUILDING, THEY, THEY GET A, A NUMBER, AND IT, IT HELPS FACILITATE THE, THE TRANSITION OF PEOPLE THROUGH THE, THE DEPARTMENT. THIS WAS BUDGETED IN THE 2026 BUDGET YEAR, AND THIS CONTRACT WILL BE IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,000. ON THE QUESTION, WISH TO APPROVE? LISTEN, I'M SORRY, I SAID AGREE. THANK YOU. JUST KIND OF LOOKING THROUGH THE SCORING SHEET. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE, THERE WAS A VENDOR, CXM, THAT HAD COME IN THAT WAS RANKED HIGHER AND LESS MONEY, AND JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHAT THE— YEAH, YOU COULD SPEAK ON THAT. CANADIAN CORPORATION. SO WE STUCK WITH A NEW YORK— WE STUCK WITH A, A NEW YORK STATE CORPORATION INSTEAD OF A CANADIAN CORPORATION. OKAY. GOOD. MOTION TO APPROVE. LET'S SAY— FINAL SECOND. LET'S SAY THEY'RE BURNING EASY. ALL [00:40:01] IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND NOW WE'RE ON ITEM 11, COMMUNICATIONS 8E-15, YOUTH BUREAU 2026 SUMMER PRIMETIME FUNDING. PEGGY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. COMMUNICATION 8E-15 IS OUR ANNUAL SUMMER PRIMETIME PROGRAM. WE HAD 80 VENDORS THIS YEAR, APPLY. WE DID FUND ALL VENDORS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE $700,000 DOES NOT GO AS FAR AS WE WOULD LIKE IT TO GO. AND THE DEMAND FOR— AS I'M SCORING RFPS, I SCORE ALL THE FISCAL RFPS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, THE RFPS THAT ARE OUT CURRENTLY, WE ARE GETTING— THE DEMAND IS JUST RIDICULOUS, AS EVERYBODY'S LOSING FUNDING. AMOUNT OF ASK TO SOCIAL SERVICES IS GETTING HARDER. SO UNFORTUNATELY, OUR NUMBERS ARE NOT HIGH IN WHAT WE CAN FUND PRIMETIME, BUT WE DID FUND ALL 80 AGENCIES, ARE GETTING SOMETHING. ANY QUESTIONS? CHAIR VINAL? IS IT WITH THE MID-YEAR BUDGET, BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS PER PERSON IS SO— HASN'T REALLY INCREASED THAT MUCH OVER THE LAST— PER ORGANIZATION HASN'T INCREASED THAT MUCH, RIGHT? OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR? NO, NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WHAT YOU'RE GIVING. WELL, LAST YEAR, PRIMETIME, WE GOT 70 APPLICATIONS. THIS YEAR WE GOT 80. LAST YEAR YOU HAD HOW MANY APPLICATIONS? 70. AND THIS YEAR YOU HAVE 80. AND THEN AS FAR AS LIKE, IS IT ENOUGH TO FUND— LIKE, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE GIVING LIKE IN RELATION TO HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO FUND THE PROGRAM? LIKE THE PERCENTAGE, IS IT 10% OR— IT VARIES BY THE SIZE OF THE PROGRAM. THIS IS ALL CONSIDERED TO BE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TO THE PROGRAMS. ALL THESE PROGRAMS ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING PROGRAM. SO IT'S JUST A SUPPLEMENTAL. SO IT MIGHT BE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL, CAMP COUNSELOR OR TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FIELD TRIP FOR THE PROGRAM. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE'RE SO LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WE HAVE, IT'S NOT— IT DOESN'T FUND THE FULL PROGRAM. OKAY, THANK YOU. LEGISLATOR TODARO? HOW MANY MORE APPLICATIONS DID YOU RECEIVE? WAS— YOU SAID THERE WAS 80 TOTAL? 80 TOTAL AND WE FUNDED OUT 80. ALL 80 WERE, OKAY. OKAY. I WAS JUST CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT JUST TO— YEAH, NO, PRIMETIME, WE TRY TO FUND EVERY SINGLE AGENCY. WE TRY TO GIVE EVERY AGENCY SOMETHING. GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE MONEY DOESN'T GO THAT FAR. THANK YOU. ONCE YOU APPROVE, WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE ITEM 12, COMMUNICATIONS 8E-16, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENTS. WE HAVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HURLEY TO SPEAK. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON NOW, EVERYONE. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD BEGAN WORKING WITH DR. BURSTEIN ON, SOME TIME AGO IN MY PREVIOUS ROLE, AND THEN IT KIND OF JUST DOVETAILED NICELY INTO MY CURRENT ONE TO HELP ON THE OTHER SIDE. OF SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TODAY. SO, DR. BIRSI AND I, YOU KNOW, CONSULTED, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, PLACES IN OUR DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE CLINIC TO SEE HOW WE COULD, RESTRUCTURE, REORGANIZE SOME OF THE DUTIES THAT WERE ACROSS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND, THE CLINIC, AND ALSO SPOKE WITH UB ON HELPING TO IMPROVE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLINIC AS A WHOLE. AND THIS IS THE PLAN THAT, CAME— KIND OF CAME OUT OF IT, CHANGING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH. THIS WAS DONE BOTH TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE JOB TITLES. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TECHNICALLY SHOULD HAVE, WE FOUND OUT, BEEN AN MD TO ACTUALLY ACT AS A DOCTOR IN DR. BURSTEIN'S ABSENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS INCUMBENT OF THAT JOB WAS NOT AN MD, OBVIOUSLY, SO WE WANTED TO BE IN LINE WITH NEW YORK STATE GUIDANCE ON THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS SO WE CHANGED IT TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, WHICH WILL FUNCTION TO CARRY OUT ALL THE COUNTY POLICIES FOR, LIKE, TIMEKEEPING, THINGS LIKE THAT, THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE HEALTH DIVISION. WITH THAT, ALSO, THAT PREVIOUS POSITION ALSO HAD, THE DUTY OF OVERSEEING THE CLINIC. AGAIN, WE SPOKE TO YOU, B, ABOUT THE CLINIC OPERATIONS. ONE THING THAT, THAT CAME OUT OF IT WAS THAT THE SUPERVISION OF THE NURSES REALLY SHOULD BE COMING FROM A NURSE OR SOMEBODY WITH THAT KIND OF MEDICAL CLINICAL BACKGROUND. I WOULD LIKEN IT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE LIKE A RETAIL MANAGER, YOU KNOW, MANAGING A BUNCH OF AUTO MECHANICS. THEY JUST DON'T SPEAK THAT SAME KIND OF LANGUAGE. SO WE HAVE A DIRECTOR OF NURSING POSITION WHICH WE BASED ON SOME ECMC, TITLES THAT WOULD FIT THE NEEDS OF THE CLINIC, TO BE A GOOD LEADER, AND SUPERVISOR TO ALL THE NURSING STAFF AND KNOW THE CLINIC OPERATIONS IN AND OUT. ALONG WITH, THE OTHER POSITIONS, INCLUDE DELETING SOME PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES TO OF THEM, TO CREATE 3, PUBLIC HEALTH OUTREACH POSITIONS. THIS IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE A NEW INITIATIVE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH UNDER THE, LEAD PROGRAMS TO PAIR UP A NURSE WITH AN OUTREACH PERSON. SO THE NURSE WOULD GO TO SPEAK TO PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES ABOUT, LEAD, ISSUES AND, AND THINGS [00:45:01] LIKE THAT, INCLUDING GIVING GUIDANCE ON HOW TO TEST FOR LEAD, HOW TO CHANGE YOUR DIET TO HELP WITH ANY LEAD CONSUMPTION, THINGS LIKE THAT, ALL NURSING ACTIVITIES. AND THE OUTREACH PERSON WOULD HELP, ON THE ADMIN SIDE OF MAKING THOSE APPOINTMENTS, MAKING THOSE CONNECTIONS WITH, HOMEOWNERS OR, OR RENTERS, OCCUPIERS, ANYBODY LIKE THAT. AND THEN, THAT IS ALSO DELETING A PRINCIPAL CLERK POSITION. THIS ALL COMES ABOUT TO BE A, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY A BUDGET-NEUTRAL, ASK, IN THE PERSONNEL CHANGES. ANOTHER QUESTION? I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THIS IN, THE RESOLUTION. SO LOOKING AT THE RESOLVE CLAUSE, BEFORE WE'RE DELETING THE TWO POSITIONS, WE'RE CREATING A NEW ONE. I ALSO NOTICED IT'S, I WOULD SAY, UNUSUAL THAT THE SAVINGS WASN'T OUTLINED. USUALLY KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE UNDER FISCAL IMPLICATIONS, TYPICALLY THAT IS IN THE RESOLUTION. SO THIS DOESN'T ACTUALLY— READING THIS AS IT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY, IT SAYS THAT WE ARE GIVING AUTHORIZATION TO DELETE THE 2 NEW POSITIONS, NOT DELETING THE 2 NEW POSITIONS. SO THE SAVINGS DOESN'T EXIST UNLESS IT'S ACTUALLY IN THAT RESOLVE CLAUSE AND WE ARE DIRECTING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO DO THAT. SO I THINK IF WE COULD CLEAN UP THIS LANGUAGE AND MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS BEFORE IT IS UP FOR APPROVAL, I WOULD SUGGEST WE TABLE IT AND WE COULD CONSIDER IT NEXT WEEK. BUT I, I, MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S TOO MANY GAPS IN THE LANGUAGE, THAT IT— THIS IS JUST A CREATION OF JOBS RATHER THAN, I THINK WE— THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO DIRECTLY DELETE AND CREATE TO IDENTIFY THE SAVINGS THAT ARE IN THE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS. SO, WITH THAT, I, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION. THAT'S JUST MY COMFORT LEVEL WITH THIS RESOLUTION. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. —DELETES. THERE'S A MOTION. DOES IT— IT SAYS— ARE YOU— IS IT BECAUSE IT SAYS AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN TO DELETE, OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE IT SAY THAT IT'S HEREBY DELETED? IT SHOULD SAY THAT IT'S DELETED, AND IT SHOULD HAVE, LIKE WE USUALLY HAVE WHEN THERE'S, MONEY BEING MOVED AROUND, THE, THE ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION, AND THAT SPECIFIC— IT, IT'S USUALLY LISTED OUT. IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE, THE EXCEL SHEET. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THERE. SO THAT'S NOT IN THIS ONE. SO I WANNA MOVE FORWARD JUST KIND OF BACK TO HOW WE TYPICALLY DO THESE SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS BEING DELETED, THE JOBS ARE BEING CREATED, AND WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE SAVINGS THAT ARE CLAIMED ARE COMING FROM. AND IF I CAN, THE, THE POSITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DELETED, THEY ARE VACANT. WE'RE READY TO GO. THESE DECISIONS WERE ALL MADE AS A WHOLE. YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S GONNA BE DELETION OF THOSE POSITIONS. WE CAN DO THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME REALLY. WE'RE, YOU KNOW, ALL— AGAIN, THESE DECISIONS WERE MADE TOGETHER TO MOVE FORWARD ALL AT ONCE, WITH THE PERSONNEL CHANGES. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT I'M REQUESTING DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN. IT'S JUST REALLY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. SO THAT'S WHAT— IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION TO CLEAN THIS UP. SO AGAIN, THERE'S AN OPEN MOTION TO TABLE THAT, I BELIEVE. I'M GOING TO TABLE AS MY AUTHORITY— UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE ARE ON ITEM 14, COMMUNICATIONS 8E-21. I'M SORRY, SKIP ONE. I DO APOLOGIZE. ITEM 13, COMMUNICATION 8E-17, AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES. WE HAVE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TERRANOVA HERE TO SPEAK. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. 8E-17 SEEKS AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES AT OUR CLINICAL SITE. THIS IS A LONGSTANDING PRACTICE. OUR PREVIOUS RESOLUTION ALLOWING US TO ENTER INTO THESE AGREEMENTS WAS FROM 1999, AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT ASKED US TO GET A MORE UPDATED RESOLUTION. THIS, YEAH, THIS ONE I, I DO THINK— I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT— OR A RESOLUTION FROM 1999 YOU'RE ACTING ON. AND EVEN THOUGH THIS LANGUAGE MIGHT BE THE SAME, I DID WANT TO ASK THAT THIS LANGUAGE BE CHANGED BECAUSE THE RESOLVE CLAUSE GIVES— IT SAYS THAT ERIE COUNTY LEGISLATURE HEREBY AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OR THE DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS, COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROVIDERS, GOVERNMENT PLANS. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY— IT DOESN'T LIMIT IT TO ANYTHING. IT COULD GIVE A, YOU KNOW, MILLION-DOLLAR LIFE INSURANCE POLICY FOR SOMEBODY, OR COULD GIVE— IT'S UNLIMITED. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE WHEREAS CLAUSE BE PUT IN THE RESOLVE CLAUSE, SO IT'S LIMITED, THAT IT CAN'T JUST ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT. AND IT— INSTEAD OF VARIOUS, IT SHOULD SAY WITH, WITH THE MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT INSURE PATIENTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED SERVICES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT'S LIMITED IN THE RESOLVE TO WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND NOT UNLIMITED FOR ANY CONTRACT FOR INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT PLANS TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT WITHOUT LIMIT, THAT IT'S JUST FOR YOU KNOW, FEE FOR SERVICES. SO I WOULD LIKE THAT TABLE TO HAVE THAT CHANGE, [00:50:01] OR IF IT'S BE ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TABLE THAT UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE ITEM 14, COMMISSION, COMMUNICATION 8E-21, SURPLUS VAN DONATION AUTHORIZED FOR THE ARC ERIE COUNTY. WE HAVE— WHO DO WE HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? TABLE UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR, AND THAT ONE I WOULD PASS. THAT ONE, YOU WANNA JUST APPROVE IT? I JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. , YEAH, WE'LL BRING THAT. SO WE'LL JUST TABLE IT, TABLE IT UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM 14, AND THEN WE HAVE ITEM 15. ITEM 15, ACCEPTANCE OF AMERICORPS RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM GRANTS. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THAT— YOU GET A SECOND? LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE] ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED HERE. WELCOME TO THE MEETING NUMBER 03, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. SIR, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. SORRY, SIR, YOU'RE GOOD, BOSS. THAT WORKS. LET'S SAY— LARIGO, TODARO, PRESENT. GILMORE, HERE. VINO, HERE. CHAIR MEYERS, EX-PRESIDENT, EX-OFFICIAL MEMBER. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, ON PAGE 1, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3, REMAIN TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER 4 IS AN ACTUAL ITEM, AND ITEM 5 WILL BE RECEIVED AND FILED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ALL RIGHT, NUMBER 4, COMMUNICATION AE-26. WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS? JEREMY TOTH, COUNTY ATTORNEY. I CLOCKED IN A LETTER, SORT OF EXPLAINING WHAT LED US TO THIS POINT REGARDING OATH CARDS FOR COUNTY OFFICIALS. I ALSO, SENT THE LEGISLATURE A MEMO THAT SORT OF EXPLORES SOME OF THE INTRICACIES OF, OF THIS ARCANE AREA. THE UPSHOT IS, IS THAT, 3 TERMED COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE HERE WITH ME TODAY, LIKELY BECAUSE THEIR OATH CARD PRECEDED WHEN THEY WERE APPOINTED TO THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS, THEY NEED TO REFILE THE OATH CARD. BUT TO DO IT PROPERLY, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE REAPPOINTED. AND, FOLLOW THE— FILE THEIR OATH CARD BEFORE OR AFTER THE LAW SAYS. BUT SO, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR, TERMS ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY TO THEIR TERMS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO, TO COME BEFORE YOU. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OATH CARD, HAPPY TO. OKAY, QUESTIONS? LEGISLATIVE, WHY WERE THE OATH CARDS— WHAT— WHY IS THERE THIS DISCREPANCY? LIKE, WHY DOES IT— I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT EXISTS BETWEEN WHEN THE OATH CARD WAS SIGNED AND WHY WE NEED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. WELL, SO THE, THE LAW, THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL QUESTION. SO THE 3 COMMISSIONERS, THAT ARE WITH ME TODAY EACH HAVE TERMED APPOINTMENTS. THEY EACH FILED OATH CARDS AT VARIOUS TIMES IN THEIR COUNTY EMPLOYMENT. THE QUESTION WAS, DID THEY NEED TO FILE AN OATH CARD ONCE THIS BODY, CONFIRMED THEIR APPOINTMENT TO THE NEW POSITION. AND, IN CONSULTATION WITH HUDSON RUSS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO ASK THIS BODY TO RECONFIRM THEM AND THEN FILE A NEW OATH CARD. IT'S REALLY QUITE SILLY, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IS. AND SO THAT'S WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMISSIONER RABICKI— WELL, ALL OF THEM HAVE OLD CARDS ON FILE. BUT THEY, THEY PRECEDE WHEN THEY WERE APPOINTED BY THIS BODY TO A TERMED APPOINTMENT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR THESE 3 COMMISSIONERS IS THESE ARE THE 3 COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE TERMED APPOINTMENTS, [00:55:01] MEANING THAT THEY CANNOT BE FIRED AT WILL, UNLIKE ME. SO THAT'S WHY TO BE MOST PRUDENT, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS THE BEST WAY FORWARD. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT THIS WILL AFFECT? NO. SO, AND, AND I'LL USE MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE. SO I FILED MY OATH CARD, AND THE OATH CARD IS THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY. A PUBLIC OFFICER'S OATH CARD, YOU SWEAR TO, UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEN YOU FILE IT. SO I FILED MINE IN 2012, WHEN I WAS SECOND ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. WE'VE DETERMINED THAT IT'S THE SAME OATH CARD. I'M AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE. THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE TO NOT FILING THE OATH CARD BECAUSE THE LAW VERY CLEARLY SAYS ALL OF THE ACTIONS YOU TAKE ARE, ARE, THEY'RE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF YOU HAD FILED YOUR OATH CARD. . WHICH QUESTION— THEN YOU QUESTION WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THIS LAW? I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT SO FOR ME, WE DETERMINED THAT IT REALLY WASN'T NECESSARY FOR ME TO FILE A NEW OATH CARD. OKAY. NOW IF I, I WILL SAY IF THIS BODY WERE TO INSIST THAT I DO, RIGHT, 6 VOTES. SURE. WE READ THE LAW DIFFERENTLY, THEN, THEN I WOULD OF COURSE FOLLOW THAT. BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE AT-WILL COMMISSIONERS. WE DIDN'T GO INTO EVERY, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF— THERE'S JUST TOO MANY. THERE'S SO MANY PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND IT FELT LIKE WE WOULD BE SENDING DOZENS OF PEOPLE OVER HERE, SO CLEAN THIS UP. JUST THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT WAS LIKE A BROAD QUESTION I ASKED. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO EVEN THOUGH THE OATH CARDS WERE NOT FILED FOR THESE NEW TERMS, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY VACATED THEIR POSITION DURING THAT TIME? WELL, IF THEY— SO I'LL ANSWER IT THIS WAY. IF THEY DID VACATE THEIR POSITION. THEY WOULD EACH BE IN AN ACTING CAPACITY UNTIL THIS BODY REAPPOINTED THEM. IT'S CONCEIVABLE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COULD SAY, NO, I WANNA SEND OVER SOMEBODY NEW. SURE. BUT BECAUSE THE LAW IS SO CLEAR, SECTION 15 SAYS ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY SOMEBODY WHO HASN'T FILED AN OATH CARD, IT IS AS IF THEY HAVE FILED THEIR OATH CARD, AND YOU CAN'T UNDO THEIR ACTIONS. SO THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OTHER THAN ARGUABLY THEY ARE IN AN ACTING CAPACITY UNTIL THIS BODY REAPPOINTS THEM. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE STICKING WITH SILLY? SILLY IS— YEAH, I FIND THIS WHOLE SECTION OF AREA— YOUR LEGAL OPINION— SILLY. I, I FIND IT SILLY. GOT IT. AS FAR AS— IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM AN ELECTED OFFICIAL NOT FILING AN OATH CARD? THERE ARE DIFFERENT ELECTED OFFICIALS. YEAH, I MEAN, SO AGAIN, THE CONSEQUENCE IS VACANCY, AND FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, THAT IS A REAL— IT IS A SEVERE PENALTY. YOU ESSENTIALLY UNDO AN ELECTION. THE, THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS WE HAVE, THE COMMISSIONERS BEING REAPPOINTED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND WE'RE COMING TO YOU TO REAPPOINT THEM. TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT YES, EACH OF THEM, EACH OF THESE POSITIONS ARE VACANT, BUT EACH OF THESE FOLKS WOULD BE IN AN ACTING CAPACITY. YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE AN, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN AN ACTING CAPACITY, THOUGH THERE'S A WHOLE CONCEPT OF A HOLDOVER APPOINTMENT. BUT BY AND LARGE, YES, FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A REAL PROBLEM. SO WITH THE SHERIFF, LIKE, NOT— I GUESS THE SHERIFF AND THE DEPUTY SHERIFF DIDN'T FILE THEIR OATH CARDS. IS THAT WHAT LED TO FINDING OUT THAT THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T FILE THEIR VOTES? NO, ACTUALLY, AND AS I WROTE IN, IN SORT OF A LENGTHY LETTER, WE, WE, IN CONSULTATION WITH COMMISSIONER PERSONNEL, WE SORT OF REALIZED THAT NOBODY WAS SORT OF TRACKING THIS. AND SO WE ACTUALLY, ASKED THAT SOMEBODY PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF ALL MCS WITH THEIR LAST OATH CARD. AND IN THAT LIST, I WASN'T EXPECTING TO SEE ELECTED OFFICIALS ON THAT LIST. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THEY WERE. AND SO IT WAS REALLY ME AND BRIAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS ISSUE AND WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND IT. THE, THE SHERIFF WITH— THAT WAS SORT OF ANCILLARY, THAT JUST, THAT APPEARED AFTER THE FACT. SO WITH THIS, SO WHAT'S BEING DONE WITH THE SHERIFF? LIKE, I WOULD— THE— WHAT'S BEING DONE WITH THE SHERIFF, OR YOU DIDN'T GET INTO THAT? WELL, THERE'S NOTHING TO BE DONE WITH THE SHERIFF. SECTION 402 OF THE COUNTY LAW, AND IT'S— THERE'S ONLY ONE CASE ON POINT, BUT THE HODGSON-RUSS MEMO, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY STATES THAT SECTION 402 OF THE COUNTY LAW APPEARS TO EXEMPT THE CLERK, THE DA, AND THE SHERIFF FROM THE OATH CARD FILING REQUIREMENT. SO AGAIN, WHY— I DON'T KNOW WHY— I MEAN, [01:00:01] IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST THE WHOLE THING IS SILLY. SILLY. SILLY. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT WORD. SILLY. WE SHOULD APPROVE. ARE YOU DONE, LEGISLATOR RANDALL? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T— I MEAN, SO THAT— SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT 5402, THE SHERIFF'S, IT'S A NULL ISSUE ON THE SHERIFF'S ISSUE, THAT— AND THEN ON YOURS IT'S AN ISSUE THAT I MEAN, I DON'T THINK TAKING AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION IS SILLY. I DON'T MYSELF, BUT THAT'S MY VIEW. BUT NO, BUT IT'S THE FILING. YEAH, WE ALL, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID, BUT, BUT IT'S THIS, THIS, IT'S THIS MECHANICS. YEAH. OF TAKING A 3X5 CARD AND GIVING IT TO THE COUNTY CLERK THAT CAUSES ALL OF THIS. I MEAN, THE SHERIFF HIMSELF, I, I THINK, SWORE AN OATH IN FRONT OF THE ROOM, YOU KNOW, 100 PEOPLE, AND THEY DO THEIR THING AND EVERYBODY APPLAUDS. LAWS. AND BUT YEAH, BUT THE LAW SAYS IT'S THE LAW. THE SILLY LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO THEN PUT IT ON AN INDEX CARD AND FILE IT, AND IF YOU DON'T, YOUR OFFICE IS VACANT. BUT THEN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE LAW SAYS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY THAT TO THE SHERIFF, THE CLERK, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. BUT THEN THAT LAW HAS ANOTHER SENTENCE ABOUT, BUT YOU CAN'T ACT— YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN THAT ACTING CAPACITY, WHICH CONTRADICTS SECTION 15. IT'S A BIG MESS. MY OFFICE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING FURTHER OTHER THAN SUBMITTING THESE 3 NAMES. YEAH, FOR RECONFIRMATION. SO THE— SO FOR THE SHERIFFS, IT'S SAYING THE SHERIFF'S NOT SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY— DOES FILE IT, IT'S A CONTRADICTION YOU'RE SAYING IN THE LAW ON IT. LIKE, IS THAT SOMETHING— SO THE SHERIFF'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACTING AS THE SHERIFF UNTIL HE FILES IT, WHERE YOU GUYS CAN BE ACTING? YES, THAT APPEARS TO BE. AGAIN, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CASE THAT APPLIED 402. THAT'S WHAT THEY CONCLUDED, THOUGH THEY CONCLUDED IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. I'M NOT A SHERIFF, BUT MY OFFICE, YOU KNOW, AND I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME, WE'RE NOT JUDGES, RIGHT? COULD A JUDGE COME UP WITH SOME OTHER— SURE, JUDGES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT MY OFFICE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS ISSUE, ONCE THIS VOTE HAPPENS, THIS ISSUE IS PUT TO BED, AND I'M SAVING ALL OF THIS STUFF FOR FUTURE COUNTY ATTORNEYS. ATTORNEYS SO THAT WE NEVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. THANK YOU. WAS THAT— WAS THE SHERIFF NOTIFIED THAT HE SHOULD SIGN ONE? WAS THE SHERIFF NOTIFIED THAT HE SHOULD GET ONE? YEAH, I MEAN, THE SHERIFF'S BEEN INCLUDED IN ALL OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS. BUT THEY SAY THAT HE CAN'T FILE IT LATE. THE LAW SAYS HE CAN'T FILE IT LATE. OH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. LIKE, WHAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, IS IT AN ISSUE LIKE THAT IT CAN'T— CAN IT BE CORRECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE? YEAH, SO NO, THE, THE CASE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM 1991 AFFORDED THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NUNC PRO TUNC RELIEF, MEANING THEY FIXED IT AFTER THE FACT. SO IF THAT CASE APPLIES, THEN THE SHERIFF JUST FILES AN OATH CARD WHENEVER HE WANTS AND ALL IS FORGIVEN. SOUNDS RIGHT. MOTION APPROVED. OKAY, I GOT A MOTION, I GOT A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET ME JUST— FOR THE RECORD, I'LL READ PAGE 2, WHICH I SKIPPED. PAGE 2, ITEMS 6 THROUGH 10, WE RECEIVED AND FILED. I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [FINANCE & MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE] ALL RIGHT, WELCOME TO MEETING NUMBER 6 OF THE FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. LEGISLATOR GREENE. LEGISLATOR MILLS. LEGISLATOR BARGNESI. HERE. CHAIR CASCIOLI. HERE. LEGISLATOR VINAL. HERE. CHAIR MEYERS. PRESENT. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT, SIR. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER 1 WILL BE TABLED UNDER MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR. ITEM 2 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEMS 3 THROUGH 5 ARE TABLED. ITEM 6 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 7— THROUGH 12 ARE TABLED. WE CAN'T DO THAT TODAY, WE GOT TOO MUCH STUFF GOING ON. ITEMS 13 THROUGH 20 WILL BE TABLED. ITEMS 21 THROUGH 26 ARE TABLED. ITEM 27 AND 28 ARE TABLED. ITEM 29 WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO. ITEM 30 IS TABLED. ITEM 31 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 32 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 33 IS TABLED. ITEM 34, 35, 36 ARE RECEIVED AND FILED. ITEM 37 WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT. ITEMS 38 AND 39, WE'RE GOING TO START ACTUALLY WITH 39, A DISCUSSION ON ITEM 39. ITEM 38 WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO FOR DISCUSSION. SO, ITEM 39 IS THE YEAR-END BUDGET BALANCING AMENDMENTS AND DESIGNATIONS. WE'VE GOT MARK CORNELL HERE TO DISCUSS THAT, ALONG WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE. BUT MARK, THE FLOOR IS YOURS ON THAT. CERTAINLY. SORRY, I MOVED [01:05:01] OVER. IT'S JUST WAY TOO SUNNY OVER THERE. WE DON'T WANT YOU IN THE SUNLIGHT. SUNNY? DID YOU SAY SUNNY? YEAH, THE, THE, THE SUN IS LIKE DIRECTLY ON THERE. SO I DON'T NEED TO LITERALLY BE ON THE HOT SEAT. I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S— THAT'S GOD SHINING HIS LIGHT ON YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE 2025 YEAR-END BUDGET BALANCING— OH, THANK YOU— AMENDMENTS AND DESIGNATIONS RESOLUTION. FIRST I WANT TO PROVIDE JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS, SOME OF THE DETAILS OF, WHAT YOU HAVE, BEFORE YOU TO CONSIDER, AND THEN ANSWER ANY, QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. BUDGET BALANCING RESOLUTION IS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONORABLE BODY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS PART OF THE MINISTERIAL DUTIES TO CLOSE, THE COUNTY'S BOOKS AND PREPARE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR REVIEW BY THE COUNTY'S INDEPENDENT AUDITORS FOR THE, 2025 FISCAL YEAR. THIS PROCESS, UNDERTAKEN WITH THE HELP OF THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANTS OVER A SEVERAL-MONTH PERIOD CULMINATES IN THE APPROVAL, OF THIS RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND THEN CONTINUES ON WITH ACTUALLY CLOSING OUT THE, FISCAL YEAR AND PREPARATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BEFORE, THE END OF JUNE. THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS, AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS A, 16-PAGE RESOLUTION, I WANTED TO EXPLAIN, OR REACCLIMATE TO WHAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING HERE. FIRST, WE DO THE FINAL BALANCING OF THE, 2025 BUDGET. THIS IS THE FIRST LENGTHY TABLE THAT YOU SEE IN THE RESOLUTION. FOR EVERY ACCOUNT THAT HAS RUN A, DEFICIT, WE BALANCE IT WITH FUNDS FROM AN ACCOUNT THAT RAN A SURPLUS, AND WE DO THAT WITH ALL OF THE, NEGATIVE, ACCOUNTS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT UNTIL WE GET BACK TO ZERO. AS A COMPLEMENT TO THIS, WE HAVE OUR CARRYFORWARD PROCESS. THIS IS WHERE WE TAKE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FUNDS, RESERVATIONS FROM SOME PURPOSE THAT IS YET TO BE FULLY EXPENDED, AND CARRY THEM FORWARD INTO 2026 WITHOUT ANY SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERRING OF FUNDS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS. THE SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY, OF THIS IS $39.4 MILLION, DIRECTLY RELATED TO DELAYED INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS, OR IGT PAYMENTS, RELATED TO ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION. THESE ARE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN BUDGETED IN PRIOR YEARS BASED ON ESTIMATES, WORKED ON WITH MY OFFICE IN ECMC, THAT FOR A VARIETY OF, REASONS HAVE YET TO COME TO FRUITION. A FEW PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN LESS THAN ANTICIPATED, BUT THIS IS MOSTLY DUE TO DELAYS IN THE MULTI-PART APPROVAL PROCESS, WHERE IN 2026 WE HAVE JUST BEEN MAKING PAYMENTS RELATED TO STATE FISCAL YEAR '22-'23. IN CONVERSATIONS WITH, NEW YORK STATE'S HOSPITAL, REIMBURSEMENT AND ECMC, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT THESE IGT PAYMENTS WILL CATCH UP OVER THE NEXT, FEW YEARS, SORT OF AS A DELAY FROM THE, COVID PERIOD OF TIME. AND, WE COULD SEE COSTS EXCEED $100 MILLION ANNUALLY, WHICH HAS ONLY HAPPENED ONCE PREVIOUSLY TO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT WAS IN, 2024. ADDITIONALLY, THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPECTATION THAT COUNTY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROGRAMS WILL INCREASE BEYOND THIS CATCH-UP DUE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT, AFTER THE MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICAID FUNDING AND ELIGIBILITY COME TO FRUITION, BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2027. $45.7 MILLION IS, REMAINING PAY-AS-YOU-GO FUNDING FOR PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED CAPITAL PROJECTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPENDED. PART OF, THE LOGIC THERE IS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE, WE TRY AND KEEP THOSE DOLLARS RATHER THAN, PUSHING THEM OVER INTO THE, CAPITAL FUNDS AND INTO THE ACTUAL CAPITAL PROJECTS. WE KEEP THAT MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE CASH HAS BEEN EXPENDED IN THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND THEN MY OFFICE, ALL ALONG WITH THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, DO WEEKLY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS OVER. IT ALLOWS, KEEPING THAT MONEY MORE TRUNCATED IS A LOT EASIER FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES AND ALSO, HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH, RATING AGENCIES. THERE IS $13.7 MILLION IN GRANT LOCAL SHARE FUNDING, WHICH IS A BIT HIGHER THAN USUAL, BE— BECAUSE OF SOME FUNDING SHIFTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO UTILIZE REIMBURSABLE DOLLARS, FOR THEIR PROGRAMMING FIRST DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT FEDERAL AID DISRUPTIONS AND GRANT CANCELLATIONS. SPECIFICALLY, THE AMOUNT, AVAILABLE FOR CARRYFORWARD LAST YEAR WAS [01:10:02] $1.5 MILLION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING. THIS YEAR IT'S $5.2 MILLION, AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY BY UTILIZING THE FEDERAL FUNDS FIRST WHILE WE KNOW THEY'RE AVAILABLE AND THEN USING THE LOCAL SHARE. IT'S REALLY ONE OR THE OTHER, AND IT'S JUST A TIMING ISSUE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. THERE ARE $75.5 MILLION OF STANDARD CARRYFORWARDS THESE ARE UNEXPENDED ITEMS LIKE REMAINING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR RENEW PLAN FUNDS, SPLIT-YEAR SOCIAL SERVICES, CONTRACTS, AND OTHER PROGRAMMATIC COSTS WHERE THERE WERE DELAYS OR OTHER TIMING ISSUES THAT DIDN'T ALLOW FOR, ENCUMBRANCES INTO CONTRACT ENCUMBRANCE, PURCHASE ORDERS, RISK RETENTION, OR, ETC. AFTER COMPLETING BUDGET BALANCING ENTRIES AND CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS, EXISTING 2025 FUNDS RESERVATIONS FOR CARRY FORWARD INTO THE NEW YEAR, WE CAN DERIVE OUR BASELINE DEFICIT OR SURPLUS FOR 2025. THE COUNTY WILL REALIZE A, NET SURPLUS OF APPROXIMATELY $29 MILLION, WHICH IS $2.6 MILLION GREATER THAN LAST YEAR AND AMOUNTS TO A 1.48% POSITIVE VARIANCE VERSUS THE ADOPTED GENERAL FUND BUDGET AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, WHEN WE DEVELOP OUR OUR ANNUAL BUDGET, PROPOSALS. WE USE THE BEST INFORMATION, WE HAVE AT THE TIME AND MAKE, ESTIMATIONS. WE KNOW THAT WITHIN THOSE ESTIMATIONS THERE WILL BE SOME POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE VARIATION DURING THE YEAR. THINGS, WILL HAPPEN THAT COULD, NOT HAVE BEEN PREDICTED AND WILL IMPACT THE BUDGET BOTH POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY. WE HAVE A, A HEALTHY RESPECT FOR THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS, AND AS SUCH, MY OFFICE IS VIGILANTLY MONITORING UNDERSTANDING, THE BUDGET AND ADJUSTING AND CHANGING CONDITIONS AS THEY ARISE. THE, THE BIGGEST POSITIVE FACTOR FOR 2025, SPECIFICALLY WAS SALES TAX RECEIPTS. AS, YOU REMEMBER IN 2024, SALES TAX WENT FLAT, PREDOMINANTLY THE RESULT OF THAT UNIQUE, NEGATIVE FIRST QUARTER RECONCILIATION, WHICH LED TO A BUDGETARY SHORTFALL OF APPROXIMATELY $24.5 MILLION FOR SALES TAX. AT THE END OF, 2025, WE ENDED WITH 5.6%, GROWTH, AND THAT LED TO A BUDGETARY SURPLUS OF $21.2 MILLION. BOTH OF THOSE NET OUT, NFTA, BY THE WAY. OTHER POSITIVES THAT OCCURRED WERE, $10.7 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL INTEREST EARNINGS, WHILE THIS CONTINUES TO BE A SOURCE OF POSITIVE VARIANCE, WE ARE SEEING OVERALL RECEIPTS START TO DIMINISH, AS, WAS EXPECTED. OVER THE PAST 2 YEARS, FOR INSTANCE, WE'VE SEEN INTEREST EARNINGS REDUCED BY ABOUT $5.5 MILLION, WHICH I WOULD EXPECT TO, INCREASE, TO CONTINUE AS WE GO FORWARD. BASICALLY, THE, THE, THE AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST EARNINGS IS, JUST THE, THE MATH BETWEEN WHAT CURRENT INTEREST RATES ARE FOR, T-BILLS VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF CASH AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO INVEST OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE BEEN, DILIGENTLY, EXPENDING FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN DOLLARS. THOUGH, AS THOSE DOLLARS ARE EXPENDED AND NEED TO BE FULLY EXPENDED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THOSE DOLLARS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO BE, TO INVESTED. AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY OUR INVESTMENT EARNINGS WILL CONTINUE TO, REDUCE. THE NEXT IS A, $21— OR $20.1 MILLION IN GROSS SALARY AND FRINGE SAVINGS. WHILE SOME OF THIS IS DUE TO, OUR VACANCY HOLD POLICY WHERE WE BUILD IN AN EXTRA 3 WEEKS BEFORE ALLOWING DEPARTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES, MUCH OF THIS IS THE POSITIVE RESULT OF AN OTHERWISE NEGATIVE PROBLEM. OF HAVING OPEN POSITIONS THAT, SOMETIMES ARE CHALLENGING TO FILL. WHILE THE CREATION OF THE NEW YORK HELPS PROGRAM AND OTHER— AND THE RIGHT-SIZING OF PAY THAT HAS OCCURRED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS HAS HELPED, WE STILL FACE CHALLENGES IN THE RECRUITMENT AND IN, RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES. CURRENTLY WE HAVE 314, BENEFIT-EARNING, VACANCIES, WHICH IS FULL-TIME AND RP. WHICH IS A YEAR-OVER-YEAR IMPROVEMENT OF 63, POSITIONS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR WHERE AT THE SAME TIME WE HAD 377, VACANCIES. BUT IT, IT, IT'S STILL HIGHER VACANCIES THAN I, I, I, I THINK WE WOULD PREFER. THE NEXT IS $5.5 MILLION IN UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FOR INDIGENT LEGAL COSTS. NOW THIS IS, DUE TO TWO FACTORS. NUMBER 1 IS, WHEN THE, STATE, INCREASED THE ARTICLE 18(B) ASSIGNED COUNSEL, HOURLY RATES, THE STATE ALSO PROVIDED A 50%, REIMBURSEMENT OF THOSE, [01:15:01] INCREASES. THAT WAS ORIGINALLY, INTENDED TO BE A 1-YEAR PROGRAM AND HAS SINCE BEEN REAUTHORIZED FOR 2 YEARS. AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS AN EXPECTATION IT WILL BE REAUTHORIZED AGAIN, IN THE STATE BUDGET THAT HAS NOT BEEN, FULLY, COMPLETED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THAT PERIOD OF TIME, ONLY GOES THROUGH, THE END OF MARCH OF OUR CALENDAR FISCAL YEAR, WE'VE ONLY BEEN BUDGETING FOR THE ONE QUARTER OF THIS REIMBURSEMENT INSTEAD OF THE FULL YEAR BECAUSE THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THE, REMAINDER OF THE YEAR IS GONNA BE REAUTHORIZED IN A SUBSEQUENT STATE BUDGET. THE OTHER IS WITH OUR CONTRACTS WITH BOTH, LEGAL AID BUREAU AND THE ASSIGNED COUNSEL, PROGRAM. WHAT IS BUDGETED, FOR THE OPERATING, EXPENDITURES IS DONE ON A QUARTERLY ADVANCE PROCESS WHERE 1/4 OF THE BUDGETED AMOUNT IS, IS, ADVANCED EACH QUARTER. WHEN THEY DO THEIR AUDITED— OR COMPLETE THEIR AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY ANY FUNDS THAT WERE ADVANCED THAT WERE NOT EXPENDED AND THEN REQUIRED TO REMIT THOSE BACK TO US. AND THAT'S USUALLY A 1-YEAR DELAY. SO THE, THE DOLLARS THAT WE GOT IN 2025 WERE RELATED TO EXCESS FUNDS FROM 2024 SPECIFICALLY. WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED, $2 MILLION IN REIMBURSEMENTS FOR STATE-READY, INMATES THROUGH THE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHILE THERE ARE ALSO A, ALWAYS A NUMBER OF THESE, INMATES THAT ARE BEING HOUSED AT, THE COUNTY FACILITIES, WE KNOW THAT IN 2025 THE NUMBER SWELLED AS A RESULT OF THE NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONS, TURMOIL THAT WAS EXPERIENCED LAST YEAR. ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, WE DID ABSORB, $34 MILLION IN INCREASED IGT COSTS BY ADVANCING SOME OF THE PAYMENTS THAT WE, EXPECTED WOULD OCCUR IN EARLY 2026 INTO LATE 2025. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATE REQUIRES THAT ALL OF THIS OCCURS WITHIN THEIR FISCAL YEAR. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR Q4 2025 AND OUR Q1 2026 IS STILL THE THIRD OR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF THE STATE FISCAL YEAR. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY CARE WHICH SIDE OF, THE COIN THESE PAYMENTS, OCCUR ON. AND DUE TO, ECMC'S, CONTINUED CHALLENGES WITH, THIS SORT OF UNCERTAIN HEALTHCARE CLIMATE AND THEIR, UNCERTAIN CASH POSITION, WE HAD AGREED TO ADVANCE THOSE PAYMENTS, PARTIALLY TO, ASSIST THEM IN MAKING THEIR PENSION PAYMENTS. WE ALSO SAW A REDUCTION IN, OVERALL, PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS. IN 2025, WE DID NOT HAVE AN IN-REM SALE, WHICH OFTEN, SPURS A LOT OF THE BACK TAXES TO BE PAID. SO IT WAS TO BE EXPECTED THAT 2025 MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER IN TERMS OF BACK TAXES. HOWEVER, THE, THE EXPECTATION IS THERE WILL BE AN IN-REM SALE IN 2026. THAT WILL INCLUDE, IN-REM, I THINK IT'S 172 AND 173 FOR BOTH YEARS. SO I WOULD EXPECT IN 2026 WE MIGHT SEE I MIGHT BE BACK HERE NEXT YEAR TALKING ABOUT HOW, PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS ARE ON THE POSITIVE SIDE OF, THE FACTORS FOR 2026 THERE, THERE WERE ALSO SOME INCREASES TO MANDATED PROGRAMMATIC COSTS, LIKE OUR SERVICES TO SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND COURT-ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THOSE TWO, ITEMS SPECIFICALLY WERE INCREASES OF ABOUT $8.1 MILLION. AND LASTLY WE EXCEEDED OVERTIME— THE, OUR OVERTIME, BUDGET BY $7.2 MILLION, WHICH IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THIS CONTINUES THE, TREND OF GROWTH, OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS SPECIFICALLY. OVERTIME EXPENSES WITHIN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAVE INCREASED BY $10.9 MILLION OR 70%. CONCERNS OVER THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THIS GROWTH HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE SHERIFF, AND WHILE HE WAS RECEPTIVE, OF THOSE CONCERNS, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE ARE ANY MEANINGFUL CHANGES TO THE APPROVAL OR MONITORING OF OVERTIME, GOING FORWARD TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THAT COST GROWTH AS ALREADY NOTED, WE ARE ENDING 2025 IN A REASONABLY STRONG, POSITION WITH A SURPLUS OF APPROXIMATELY $29 MILLION. I WILL ALSO, REITERATE THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN FULLY APPRECIATE THAT $29 MILLION [01:20:03] IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, OF, OF SURPLUS. HOWEVER, WHEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE ARE A ROUGHLY, THE GENERAL FUND SPECIFICALLY IS ROUGHLY ABOUT $2.1 BILLION, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 1.5% POSITIVE VARIANCE, COMPARED TO WHAT WAS BUDGETED. THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH BUT IT ISN'T AS LARGE OF A VARIANCE AS, THE $29 MILLION MAY, OTHERWISE SUGGEST MAYBE TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED A TOTAL OF $27.7 MILLION IN NEW DESIGNATIONS, WITH $21 MILLION BEING REQUESTED SPECIFICALLY TO SETTLE THE JOHN WALKER JR. VERSUS THE ERIE COUNTY LAWSUIT. WHILE CERTAINLY, THERE ARE A MILLION OTHER THINGS, I, I THINK WE WOULD, RATHER, RATHER UTILIZE THAT $21 MILLION ON WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE FUTURE. THE TIMING WAS RIGHT TO TRY AND REMOVE, SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTY HANGING OVER US AS A RESULT OF THESE, MULTIPLE, JUDGMENTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY FACING. THE REMAINING NEW DESIGNATIONS, TOTAL $6.7 MILLION. THOSE INCLUDE $3.7 MILLION IN CAPITAL SPENDING FOR ADDITIONAL ROAD WORK THIS SUMMER, SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE 25 DELAWARE, FACADE PROJECT, A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER TO SUPPORT A SECONDARY E, 911 CALL CENTER, AND A CONTRIBUTION TO THE, MAY 14TH MEMORIAL THAT IS BEING PLANNED. $2 MILLION, IS BEING, REQUESTED FOR A FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS CREDIT PROGRAM. AND $500,000 FOR A HIGH-EFFICIENCY AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM ANNOUNCED IN THE STATE OF THE COUNTY ADDRESS. THERE IS $100,000 EACH TO SAY YES SUMMER CAMP, UB, PRIMARY BUFFALO PRIMARY CARE INITIATIVE, AND BACK TO BASICS MINISTRIES, HEAT YOUTH PROGRAM. AND THEN LASTLY, $206,000 TO REPLENISH THE WEATHER EMERGENCY FUND BACK TO THE $5 MILLION THRESHOLD. THIS WAS, IN, IN MY MIND, THIS IS MORE OF A, A, A MINISTERIAL ITEM BECAUSE AS WE, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY CREATED THAT, THE EXPECTATION, GOING FORWARD WAS ALWAYS THAT ANNUALLY AS PART OF THE BUDGET, BALANCING PROCESS, WE WOULD REPLENISH TO THAT $5 MILLION LEVEL, WHATEVER WAS UTILIZED DURING THE YEAR. WE ARE THEN REQUESTING THAT THE REMAINING $1.3 MILLION OF OUR SURPLUS GO TO UNASSIGNED, FUND BALANCE. THIS WOULD INCREASE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE FROM $149.5 MILLION TO $150.8 MILLION. THAT WOULD BE EQUAL TO 10.1% OF OUR 2025 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND EXPENSES. AND ALTHOUGH THE ERIE COUNTY CHARTER REQUIRES AN UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO BE AT LEAST 5% OF THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET, OTHER MUNICIPAL FINANCING, BEST PRACTICES, INCLUDING, GFOA, SUGGESTS 2 MONTHS' EXPENSES BE HELD, WHICH IS ABOUT 17% OF, ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES. BETWEEN THAT BARE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER AND THE RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICE BY THE GFOA, THAT IS A RANGE FROM $74.8 MILLION TO $249.7 MILLION. SO IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT MAINTAINING THE MIDDLE GROUND IS THE MOST PRAGMATIC APPROACH. EVERY YEAR, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OCCUR THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO PRIOR NOTICE OF, THAT COULD AFFECT OUR BUDGET. THESE AREN'T ALWAYS NEGATIVE, AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS COME TO FRUITION, OR IF THEY DO, THEY DON'T ALWAYS, IMPACT US IN THE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS. WE WILL CONTINUE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN THE WAY WE HAVE OVER THE PAST, 14 YEARS AND COUNTING YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, WE CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE A COMMITMENT TO BEING CONS— TO CONSERVATIVE BUDGETING PRACTICES AND SOUND FISCAL MANAGEMENT. AND BEING HERE TODAY DISCUSSING HOW WE ARE LOOKING TO UTILIZE OUR SURPLUS THAN RATHER THAN HOW WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE BUDGET GAPS IS PROOF OF THAT. AND, AS IMPORTANTLY, I THINK WE HAVE A STRONG APPRECIATION FOR WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT WITHIN OUR CONTROL. FOR THOSE THINGS OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL, SUCH AS SALES TAX, THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, NOW WIDESPREAD FUNDING DISRUPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTY FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL, OUR COMMITMENT TO BOTH LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING AND CONSISTENT BUDGET MONITORING HAS ALLOWED US TO ANTICIPATE AND PLAN FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE LIABILITIES, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZE THE SUBTLE, OFTEN SUBTLE WARNING SIGNS OF AN IMPENDING ISSUE, WHICH HELPS US MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OR AVOID IT ALTOGETHER. WHILE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT LIES AHEAD, I DO KNOW THAT THE COUNTY [01:25:01] IS IN EXTRAORDINARILY SOUND, FINANCES, PUT US IN A BETTER POSITION THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TO BE ABLE TO WEATHER WHATEVER COMES NEXT. WITH THAT, I, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO, ADDRESS ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. WE ALSO DO HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM A, A FEW DEPARTMENTS THAT WOULD BE HAPPY TO ALSO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS, MAYBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, YEAR-END DESIGNATIONS. THANK YOU. SO I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, ONE SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE $2 MILLION FOR THE FIRST HOME BUYER PROGRAM SO WE'RE BUYING DOWN POINTS. WHO'S GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE? IS THERE INCOME REQUIREMENTS? IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME REQUIREMENT, SOME OF THE PROGRAMS IN ERIE COUNTY, BECAUSE OF THE CITY OF BUFFALO HAS THEIR OWN HUD FUNDING, THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. IS THAT GOING TO BE THIS PROGRAM THAT THE CITY, RESIDENTS WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE IT? AND HAS YOU— HAVE YOU GUYS SEEN ANY OTHER COUNTIES, DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT? WE GOOD? SORRY THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR. SO THE, THE— I'LL TAKE THE HUD QUESTION FIRST. THESE WOULD NOT BE COUNTY HUD FUNDS, SO THERE WOULD BE NO— SWEET, THANK YOU SO THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUE ABOUT ANY MUNICIPALITY IN ERIE COUNTY BEING EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROGRAM. THAT'S A UNIQUE ISSUE WE RUN INTO WITH NOT JUST THE CITY OF BUFFALO, BUT ANY MUNICIPALITY THAT GETS THEIR OWN HUD ALLOCATION. BECAUSE THESE WOULD BE COUNTY FUNDS, THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. THE OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION WOULD THERE BE INCOME, LIMITS? YES, THERE WOULD. WE HAVEN'T SETTLED ON THEM. OUR THOUGHT WAS TO MIRROR EITHER 80% AMI, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR HUD, OR 100% AMI, WHICH, AS, YOU'RE SEEING BOTH ACROSS NEW YORK STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MORE AND MORE PROGRAMS ARE TRYING TO GET NOT JUST TO THE, THE LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS, BUT THE MODERATE-INCOME RESIDENTS. AND ESPECIALLY WITH HOMEOWNERSHIP, WE DON'T WANT TO SET PEOPLE UP FOR FAILURE, WHICH COMING OUT OF THE 2008, FINANCIAL CRISIS, THERE WERE PROGRAMS, THERE WERE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THAT OF EXACTLY THAT PROBLEM OF PUTTING PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD MORTGAGES, COULD NOT AFFORD HOMEOWNERSHIP, WEREN'T READY FOR THAT. WE SAID, HEY, HERE'S A PROGRAM THAT'LL HELP YOU, AND THEN THEY WENT BELLY UP. WE DON'T WANT THAT HAPPENED AT ALL. WHY WOULD YOU DO POINTS INSTEAD OF JUST DOING A GRANT SIMILAR TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT DO THE MATCHING GRANTS? THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY SO MANY PROGRAMS AVAILABLE OF THAT NATURE. THERE'S CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE, DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE. MANY, MANY BANKS ALREADY HAVE THAT. SO THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS WAS, OKAY, WE'RE ALREADY BUILDING MODERATE-INCOME HOMES ACROSS THE, THE CITY AND CHEEKTOWAGA. WE'RE DOING MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE. A LOT OF THE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS ALREADY HAVE FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, NOT AS ROBUST AS THEY USED TO, BUT THEY STILL DO EXIST IN MANY BANKS. SO WHERE CAN WE— WHERE IS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T BEING TAPPED INTO? AND ONE OF THEM THAT WE DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS, MANY, MANY YOUNG AND FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS AREN'T AWARE THAT YOU CAN BUY DOWN INTEREST POINTS AT THE BEGINNING. SO THE THOUGHT WAS, OKAY, YOU GO TO A BANK THAT WILL HAVE CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE, DOWN PAYMENT WHAT OTHER WAYS CAN WE AS ERIE COUNTY MAYBE HELP YOU BECOME A FIRST-TIME HOMEOWNER? AND SOMETHING THAT RESEARCH SHOWED, THIS UNTAPPED AVENUE OF, HEY, BUYING DOWN AN INTEREST POINT, A QUARTER OF A PERCENT OR A HALF A PERCENT, HAS SAVINGS OVER THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE MORTGAGE. A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO HELP IN THIS SPACE. $2 MILLION, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES THAT HELP? SO THAT VARIES BASED ON INCOME, PRICE OF THE HOME, ALL OF THEIR FINANCIALS. WE DID A CONSERVATIVE, MEDI AND SORT OF MORE OPEN ESTIMATE, BETWEEN 500 TO 800 NEW HOMEOWNERS. SO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE THERE, CALL IT MAYBE 600 AND CHANGE. THAT'S SORT OF A MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT, A MIDDLE GROUND ESTIMATE. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT SURE, I WILL TALK TO YOU OFFLINE. OKAY, THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE IGT CARRY FORWARD OF $39 MILLION. YOU SAID YOU PREPAID ALREADY 2026 IN PART. HOW MANY YEARS BACK IS THAT GOING, AND WHY ISN'T IT ZEROED OUT IF IT'S BEEN SO MANY YEARS SINCE COVID HOSPITAL USAGE WENT DOWN SO GREATLY IN SOME WAYS? SO WHY— HOW— I MEAN, HOW IS IT STILL $39 MILLION? GENERALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE THERE IS A MULTI-YEAR DELAY IN THE, THE, THE PROCESS. SO THERE IS A COST THAT IS ASSUMED BY ECMC ON THE FIRST INSTANCE. THEN THEY ARE SUBMITTING ALL [01:30:01] OF THAT INFORMATION, BASED ON, ELIGIBILITY FOR THE, VARIOUS PROGRAMS, WHETHER THAT'S A DISPROPORTIONATE HOSPITAL SHARE, UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT, OR THE INDIGENT CARE ADJUSTMENT THOSE GET SENT TO, CMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. IT TAKES THEM A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO, ANALYZE THE ELIGIBILITY. THEN THAT ENDS UP BEING DISCUSSED BACK WITH NEW YORK STATE, SPECIFICALLY THE, NEW, NEW YORK STATE, HOSPITAL REIMBURSEMENT, AGENCY, THAT IS IN THE, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND SO IN ALL OF THOSE PIECES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL YEARS OF, DELAYS WITH ALL OF THAT BETWEEN THE POINT WHEN A COST IS, REALIZED AT THE HOSPITAL LEVEL TO ACTUALLY THEN GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, GETTING THOSE AUDITS BEING DONE, AND THEN COMING BACK ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH TO REIMBURSEMENT GOING TO ECMC. ANOTHER QUESTION IS HOW MUCH IS IMPUTED VERSUS HOW MUCH IS ACTUAL, OR IS IT ALL IMPUTED? I MEAN, ARE THESE ACTUAL NUMBERS THAT WE'RE HOLDING MONEY FOR, OR IT'S IMPUTED ESTIMATE? THOSE WERE BASED OFF OF, ESTIMATES BECAUSE ECMC'S ESTIMATES TEND TO BE RELATIVELY ACCURATE. AND BASED ON— THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SUBMITTING TO THE FEDS FOR REIMBURSEMENT BUT WHAT HAD, HAD BASICALLY HAPPENED IS THERE WERE SEVERAL YEARS WHERE MANY OF THESE PAYMENTS WERE JUST DELAYED FOR, AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. SO WE'RE STILL KIND OF WORKING OUR WAY BACK TO GETTING BACK TO A CLOSER REAL TIME. ANOTHER CHANGE THAT HAS OCCURRED RECENTLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ALSO IS WHAT THEY USED TO DO WITH PRIOR YEAR RECONCILIATIONS WAS, THEY WOULD DO IT IN TWO PARTS. THEY WOULD DO, AN INITIAL RECONCILIATION IN ONE YEAR AND THEN A FINAL RECONCILIATION THE NEXT YEAR, AND THE SUM TOTAL OF THOSE TWO PAYMENTS WOULD BE THE, THE FINAL. THIS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER DOING THE INITIAL RECONCILIATION EVALUATIONS. SO THAT IS PUSHING SOME OF THESE PAYMENTS OFF. LIKE, WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED IS A FULL FINAL AUDIT OF THE ANNUAL EXPENSES, WHICH THEY'RE RIGHT NOW LITERALLY JUST GOT TO, STATE FISCAL YEAR '22-'23 BEFORE THEY WILL SUBMIT THAT INFORMATION, BACK TO THE STATE LEVEL TO THEN DO THE SORT OF LOGISTICAL PROCESS OF REACHING OUT TO THE COUNTY, GATHERING THE QUOTE-UNQUOTE, YOU KNOW, 50% LOCAL SHARE, HOLDING THAT IN ESCROW TO BE ABLE TO DRAW FROM THE MEDICAID PAYMENT PORTAL AND THEN REMIT THAT MONEY BACK TO ECMC. SO FOR THE $39 MILLION THAT WE'RE CARRYING FORWARD, WHAT YEARS ARE THOSE FOR? THOSE— LIKE, WHAT NUMBERS BY WHAT YEARS? BECAUSE THAT'S SO MUCH. IT'S LIKE ALMOST $40 MILLION FOR— WHICH IS OVER 10% OF THE AMOUNT OF OUR, TOTAL PROPERTY TAX. SO WHAT YEARS DO THEY, LIKE, WHEN DO THEY WAIVE IT? ARE WE ALWAYS GONNA BE CARRYING THIS THING? OH, THE, THESE, THESE DON'T GET WAIVED. AT LEAST IN MY UNDERSTANDING. THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME STATUTE. THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT EXISTS. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST GETTING, WE ARE JUST COMPLETING THE STATE FISCAL YEAR '22-'23. SO WE ARE BACK '23-'24, '24-'25, '25-'26, AND NOW WE ARE ENTERING '26-'27. 26, 27. SO THESE ARE JUST GOING— THESE ARE GOING BACK THOSE 3 YEARS? CORRECT. SO THERE'S NOTHING BEFORE '22? YEAH, THE, THE— WE, WE LITERALLY ON APRIL 17TH, PAID THE FINAL RECONCILIATION FOR STATE FISCAL YEAR '22-'23, WHICH WAS, ABOUT $13 MILLION. THAT WAS THE FINALITY OF THAT YEAR. SO WHAT WE HAVE PENDING IS EVERYTHING, GOING FORWARD FROM THAT POINT. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS— IS ANYBODY, LIKE, REVIEW THESE, OR WE JUST GET THE BILL AND WE PAY IT? WE ARE OBLIGATED, TO DO— TO, TO, TO DO THOSE PAYMENTS WHILE I WOULD, WOULDN'T SAY THAT NOBODY IS REVIEWING THESE, THESE ARE BEING REVIEWED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR ELIGIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE COUNTY REVIEWING ANY OF THIS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY WHEREWITHAL TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY OF THIS. WE, WE, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF, YOU KNOW, MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY, EXPERTS, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO, BASICALLY, ALL OF THIS, WE GET ESTIMATED INFORMATION FROM ECMC. THAT'S WHAT WE TEND [01:35:01] TO BUDGET BASED ON AND THEN TRY TO USE THAT ESTIMATION BASED ON THE, DELAYS THAT HAVE EXISTED IN THE SYSTEM TO DETERMINE, LIKE, WHAT WE WANT TO BUDGET ANNUALLY FOR THESE COSTS BASED ON THE ESTIMATES. SO HOW CAN WE IN GOOD FAITH PAY IT IF WE CAN'T REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S LEGIT IN ANY WAY? LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER— LIKE, ARE WE REQUIRING THE HOSPITAL TO DO AN APPEAL OF A MEDICAID DENIAL? ARE WE REQUIRING THE HOSPITAL TO CERTIFY THERE'S NO OTHER INSURANCE OR TO PROVIDE THE BILL OR TO PROVIDE ANYTHING TO SHOW WHETHER SOME THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE TAXPAYER PAYS IT? SHOULD WORKERS' COMP HAVE PAID IT? SHOULD NO-FAULT HAVE PAID IT? CAN WE DO A REVIEW OF MEDICARE? DO A— DID THEY HAVE TO DO A— BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO AN APPEAL, THEN WHY WOULDN'T THEY JUST SUBMIT IT TO THE TAXPAYER IF WE'RE GOING TO JUST COVER IT? NO, THAT'S, I, I THINK THAT IS A, VALID CONCERN. WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT CONCERN IS IT, MIGHT BE SOMETHING WORTH THIS BODY'S, WHILE TO, REQUEST ECMC, PARTICIPATE IN A COMMITTEE OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO, TO, TO DISCUSS THOSE AREAS. I, I, THE COUNTY IS UNFORTUNATELY IN A, A POOR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THIS WHERE ONCE ECMC HAS DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE PROGRAMS, WHICH IS A VOLUNTARY, THING FOR THEM. US AS THE LOCAL SPONSOR ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO COVER THE 50% SHARE. NOW, FOR EVERY OTHER COUNTY IN NEW YORK STATE OTHER THAN, I BELIEVE, US AND, POSSIBLY SUFFOLK AND MAYBE ROCKLAND COUNTY, I BELIEVE THE COUNTIES STILL OWN THEIR PUBLIC BENEFIT HOSPITAL. SO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THE COUNTY IS TAKING ON 100% OF THE COST ON THE FIRST INSTANCE AND THEN GETTING 50% REIMBURSEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FOR THE 3 OF US WHO NO LONGER OWN THE HOSPITALS, BASICALLY THE HOSPITAL IS TAKING THE 100% COST ON THE FIRST INSTANCE. AND THEN GETTING 100% REIMBURSEMENT, 50% FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 50% FROM THE COUNTY. SO, IT IS CERTAINLY A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR, ECMC. IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME IF YOU KNOW, TH— THIS WAS A RECURRING, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A RECURRING REVENUE FOR THEM AND THAT THEY, PROBABLY ARE, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE ANY GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE TRYING TO, EXACERBATE SOME OF THEIR, RECURRING REVENUES BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE ARE GENUINE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED BY THE HOSPITAL THAT OFTENTIMES ARE THE, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE COST OF THE SERVICE WAS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICARE AND MEDICAID RATES. AND AS THAT DISTANCE GETS LARGER, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NEW YORKERS THAT ARE, ARE GOING TO BE KICKED OFF OF MEDICAID AND WILL NO LONGER HAVE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS. WHAT THAT'S GONNA MEAN IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA START GOING TO ECMC, THE, THE FOR THINGS THAT MAYBE SOMEONE OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT GO TO AN ER FOR. THAT IS GOING TO INCREASE THOSE, THESE COSTS OVER TIME, BECAUSE THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS ELIGIBLE AND NOW WHAT IS ELIGIBLE VERSUS THE EXPENDITURES IS GOING TO GROW. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A LONG-TERM CONCERN. I MEAN, THESE, THESE COSTS WHEN, WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS ENVISIONED, YOU KNOW, 20, 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THE COUNTY GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL BUSINESS, THERE, THERE, THERE WAS IN THE AGREEMENT, IT SAID, THAT WE WERE GOING TO PAY A, AT LEAST $16.2 MILLION. AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS AT LEAST $16.2 MILLION IS BECAUSE BACK THEN THE ACTUAL COSTS OF IGT WERE ACTUALLY BELOW $16.2 MILLION. SO THAT WAS KIND OF BEING AS A BUFFER AGAINST THIS PROGRAM COLLAPSING I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE NECESSARILY ANTICIPATED THE, SIGNIFICANT, INCREASE IN THIS OVER TIME. AND, YOU KNOW, TO BE, COMPLETELY HONEST, OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD KEEP ME UP AT NIGHT IGT PAYMENTS WHERE WE GET 1 WEEK'S NOTICE TO, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY PAY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THAT IS ONE OF THEM. SO WE, WE DO OUR BEST TO SORT OF ESTIMATE THESE COSTS AS FAR INTO THE FUTURE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. OBVIOUSLY THE FURTHER YOU GET INTO THE FUTURE, THE, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS TO ESTIMATE. AND THEN WHEN WE GET LUCKY TO A DEGREE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO, MEET SOME OF THESE COSTS, WE [01:40:02] KEEP THE DOLLARS THAT WE HAD BUDGETED HERE BECAUSE IT, IT WOULD NOT EVER SURPRISE ME IF THERE CAME A TIME WHEN WE GOT A A NOTICE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, OF PAYMENT DUE THAT WE HAD OTHERWISE NOT BEEN TOTAL— TOLD OF, AND WE HAVE 10 DAYS TO PAY. SO MY QUESTION IS, LIKE, IF NO ONE'S REVIEWING IT, LIKE, LET'S SAY THE DENIAL IS BASED ON, IT WASN'T REASONABLE OR NECESSARY, DO WE STILL PAY THAT? IF THE DENIAL IS BASED ON THAT THE FEE SCHEDULE IS A LOWER AMOUNT, DO WE PAY THE DIFFERENCE? I MEAN, IF NO ONE'S LOOKING AT IT, HOW DO WE KNOW WE'RE PAYING EXPENSES THAT ARE LEGIT EXPENSES? I WOULDN'T— I, I WOULDN'T QUALIFY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS NOBODY IS LOOKING AT IT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING AT IT, DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY. BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SAYING WE'RE NOT PAYING IT. SO ARE THEY— ARE WE LOOKING AT WHY THEY'RE NOT PAYING IT? I, I, I DON'T— I DON'T— LIKE, IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT— IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAID IT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING, RIGHT? IT'S ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T PAY IT. NO, IT, IT'S— THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DETERMINING WHAT EXPENDITURES BY THE HOSPITAL ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THESE PROGRAMS, AND 50% OF THOSE ELIGIBLE, EXPENDITURES THEN ARE PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 50% PAID BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO THE, THE FEDS ARE DETERMINING THE, APPROPRIATENESS AND ELIGIBILITY. AND THEN ALSO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN FREQUENTLY, BUT IT, IT, IT DID HAPPEN THIS PAST YEAR, WAS WHEN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE THESE RECONCILIATION PAYMENTS THAT OCCUR. WELL, THIS PAST YEAR, WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A RECONCILIATION CREDIT FOR, FOR SOME OF WHAT YOU JUST HAD DISCUSSED, WHERE OFTENTIMES, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THE QUICK ACCOUNTING THAT IS DONE, AND THEN THE ACTUAL FINAL ACCOUNTING TAKES A MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TO DO. SO IN THOSE RECONCILIATION PAYMENTS, THAT'S WHERE ANY UNDERAGES ARE CHARGED AND ANY OVERAGES ARE, ARE, ARE DEMONSTRATED AS A CREDIT. THAT INFORMATION WENT BACK TO ECMC. THERE WAS SPECIFICALLY, LAST YEAR FOR THE 2021-2022, FINAL RECONCILIATION IT WAS DETERMINED THAT, THERE WAS AN OVERPAYMENT OF, $22.9 MILLION TO ECMC. WHICH THEN MEANT $11.5 MILLION CAME BACK TO THE COUNTY, AND $11.5 MILLION HAD TO GO BACK TO, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DUE TO THE OVERPAYMENT. YEAH, YEAH, IN— IT'S DONE IN THE, THE RECONCILIATIONS OVER TIME, AND USUALLY THIS IS A 3 TO 4 YEAR PROCESS THAT AT TIMES HAS YOU KNOW, BEEN LONGER THAN I THINK ANYBODY, WOULD OFFER. SALES TAX, YOU SAID WAS A DIFFERENCE OF $21 MILLION, AND IS THAT— DOES THAT GIVE YOU AN INDICATION THAT THIS YEAR'S SALES TAX MIGHT BE UNDER— RECEIPTS MIGHT BE UNDERESTIMATED? BECAUSE YOU USE THE 1.5 GROWTH. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHILE OUR, ABILITY TO TRACK, SALES TAX, I THINK IS IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN, MANY OTHER, SIMILARLY SITUATED, GOVERNMENTS IT IS ONLY A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE WAY I TAKE THE, PAYMENT INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE IS THAT WE CAN THEN DETERMINE IN REAL TIME EXACTLY WHERE WE STAND TODAY. BUT I REALLY TRY NOT TO USE THAT AS ANY SORT OF INDICATOR OF WHERE SALES TAX MAY BE GOING IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE HAVE DONE THAT, WE TEND TO BE PRETTY WRONG ABOUT IT GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU KNOW, WE WENT FROM 2024, WHICH WAS FLAT SALES TAX RECEIPTS FROM '23. THAT INFORMED WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR 2025. 2025 HAD SIGNIFICANT GROWTH FOR, FOR A LOT OF FACTORS. FACTORS. ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN YOU KNOW, THE, THE ONSET OF TARIFFS AND INFLATIONARY FACTORS RELATED TO THAT. WE ENDED THE YEAR AT 5.6% GROWTH CURRENTLY FOR 2026, WE ARE YEAR TO DATE AT 2.7% GROWTH. SO WHAT, WHAT I WOULD GENERALLY SAY IS BASED ON WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHICH INCLUDED A THE THE RECONCILIATION FOR APRIL WHICH I, I DID ANTICIPATE IT BEING NEGATIVE IS THAT WE'RE ROUGHLY, IN MY OPINION, AS OF TODAY, IF I WOULD EXTRAPOLATE DIRECTLY OUT, WE ARE PROBABLY RIGHT ON BUDGET I, I, I TEND TO COME UP WITH WHAT, WHAT I THINK OF AS A BIT [01:45:01] OF A, A GOLDILOCKS RANGE OF THAT, WHERE I TAKE EXISTING PAYMENTS AND THEN LOOK AT WHAT PAYMENTS WERE FOR THE PRIOR YEAR AND USE THAT JUST AS A COUNTERFACTUAL, ASSUMPTION. AND IN MY RANGE, IF WE WENT FROM TODAY AND HAD ZERO GROWTH OVER 2025, WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ABOUT A $1.9 MILLION SHORTFALL FOR SALES TAX. IF WE CONTINUED TO GROW AT OUR YEAR-TO-DATE OF 2.7%, WE WOULD LIKELY HAVE ABOUT $11.1 MILLION SURPLUS. AND THEN IF WE WERE TO GROW AT WHAT I'M CALLING OUR NON-RECONCILIATION GROWTH. SO I TAKE OUT THE RECONCILIATION PERIOD FROM IT AND JUST REGULAR PAYMENT GROWTH, WHICH IS ABOUT 6.5%. WE COULD HAVE A VARIANCE, A POSITIVE VARIANCE OF ABOUT $29.7 MILLION. WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THE YEAR. THAT IS A WIDE RANGE. AS WE GET CLOSER, THAT RANGE IS GONNA NARROW AND NARROW AND NARROW AND EVERY TIME WE GET A NEW PAYMENT, I'M CONSTANTLY RECALCULATING THAT RANGE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS ANY SORT OF ADJUSTMENTS WE NEED TO MAKE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN, WE HAD KNOWN GOING INTO 2024, BASED ON LATE 2023 SALES TAX PAYMENTS, THAT WE WERE LIKELY GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM. I CAME HERE DURING BUDGET HEARINGS AND I HAD ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT I THOUGHT THAT OUR BUDGETED SALES TAX NUMBER WAS PROBABLY A BIT OPTIMISTIC AND WE WERE GONNA HAVE A BIT OF A PROBLEM. THAT WAS ONE OF THE PRECIPITATING FACTORS TO INCREASING OUR VACANCY HOLD PERIOD, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTING OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE LEVERS THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY UNDER OUR CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO TRY AND MITIGATE SOME OF THAT AND WE WERE ABLE TO YOU KNOW, MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR THAT NEGATIVE VARIANCE. I WOULD SAY FOR 2025, THIS POSITIVE VARIANCE WAS, WAS, PARTICULARLY HELPFUL, FOR US. THERE WERE SOME OTHER AREAS WHERE WE HAD NEGATIVE VARIANCES THAT IS A, THAT IS AN ANNUAL, GUESSING GAME. AND I WOULD SAY PARTICULARLY WITH SALES TAX, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT AS, AS MUCH AS I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT IN MY METHODOLOGY, IT'S STILL A METHODOLOGY. AND BECAUSE IT'S A METHODOLOGY, THAT, THAT, THAT IS CODE FOR IT'S WRONG. IT'S, IT'S JUST ALWAYS GONNA BE WRONG. IT'S GONNA BE MAYBE, I HOPE, WRONG IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES US A BIT OF A, A, A SURPLUS BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS THAT COME UP DURING THE YEAR WHERE WE HAVE NEGATIVE VARIANCES AND THAT KIND OF SAVES OUR BACON A LITTLE BIT. THERE'S TWO OTHER— I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. AND THEN I, THERE'S TWO OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE. ONE IS ABOUT THE SHERIFF'S OVERTIME OF THE $7 MILLION ON TOP OF THE BUDGETED OVERTIME, AND I WAS WONDERING, IS THAT RELATED IN— DID YOU LOOK INTO ANY WAY— THE ONE THING I WAS WORRIED ABOUT IS LIKE WE GAVE AUTHORIZATION TO DO CERTAIN WORK IN CATTARAUGUS COUNTY IN THE, SENECA NATION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN LIKE HIGH-LEVEL KIND OF POLICING, BUT I'M HEARING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES THAT THEY'RE JUST DOING TRAFFIC STOPS AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. HOW MUCH OF THAT $7 MILLION, IF ANY, IS WITH CAT COUNTY WORK THAT WE'RE DOING FOR THEM? AND IS THAT BEING REIMBURSED? THAT SPECIFICALLY, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A QUESTION FOR THE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. I, OUR ABILITY TO SORT OF, PEEK IN THROUGH, SAP, AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE VARIOUS, LIKE, TIME AND ATTENDANCE PERSONNEL, T-CODES ONLY GOES SO FAR. SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY, KNOW EXACTLY WHAT EVERY DOLLAR OF OVERTIME PROGRAMMATICALLY IS FROM. AND GENERALLY, THAT ALL OF THAT OVERTIME IS CODED BY THE THE COST CENTER WHERE THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES UNDER. WELL, THERE MAY BE SOME EMPLOYEES, AND THIS HAPPENS IN ANY DEPARTMENT, THAT MAYBE THAT COST CENTER DOESN'T PERFECTLY CAPTURE EXACTLY WHAT PROGRAMMATIC ROLE THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE TAKING. SO THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. THE, THE, THE ONLY OVERTIME THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ABLE TO REALLY, DETERMINE NOW, AND, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WORKED WITH YOU KNOW, THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND PERSONNEL ON CREATING, AND I, I, I, I THINK IT'S FRANKLY BEEN A HUGE BENEFIT, IS CREATING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL, PAY CODES FOR THE, STADIUM PAY RELATED TO THE, KEYBANK CENTER, SECURITY NEEDS THE STADIUM PAY, WHICH IS THE, SECURITY NEEDS INSIDE THE, THE, THE CAMPUS, WHICH IS ALSO A REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE. AND THEN THE TRAFFIC DETAIL, WHICH IS NOT A REIMBURSABLE. SO WE NOW HAVE A BETTER ABILITY TO SEGREGATE OUT THAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, [01:50:01] SPECIAL OVERTIME, IF YOU WILL. NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY SAYING ALL OF THOSE DOLLARS ARE WORTHWHILE OR NOT, JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN YOU KNOW, REGULAR SHERIFF OPERATIONS. WE'RE ABLE TO SEGREGATE THOSE OUT A LITTLE BIT AND BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, WHO'S WORKING WHAT TYPES OF OVERTIME FROM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW MY, MY GENERALIZED CONCERNS WITH, SHERIFF OVERTIME, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IS REALLY TWOFOLD NUMBER ONE, I, I THINK THE BIGGER CONCERN IS THE GROWTH OF OVERTIME IN THE POLICE SERVICES, DIVISION VERSUS, JAIL MANAGEMENT. I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING WE, WE, WE PROBABLY ALL WOULD AGREE THAT THERE ARE VERY UNIQUE UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO JAIL MANAGEMENT. THERE ARE MANDATED POSTS THAT WE HAVE, OLD OBSOLETE STRUCTURES THAT REQUIRE EVEN GREATER STAFFING LEVELS. I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE, THERE'S OFTEN A MORALE ISSUE IN THOSE. SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME OVERUTILIZATION OF MAYBE FMLA OR SICK TIME WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE, AVAILABLE IN THERE WE ALSO— THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE FORCED OVERTIME, THERE WAS, THE AGREEMENT TO DO DOUBLE OVERTIME. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY 2024'S OVERTIME, FOR JAIL MANAGEMENT WAS SO MUCH HIGHER. ALL OF THOSE ISSUES DO NOT EXIST IN POLICE SERVICES THEY DON'T HAVE MANDATED, STAFFING. LEVELS THERE ARE— THERE IS MORE DISCRETIONARY OVERTIME IN, IN TERMS OF THE, THE SHERIFF IS SINGULARLY DETERMINING, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHATEVER PROGRAMMATIC NEED THERE IS, WHETHER THAT IS YOU KNOW, PROVIDING, SECURITY TO THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BUFFALO MARATHON OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL EVENTS THAT OCCUR, WHETHER IT'S STANDARD, YOU KNOW, ROAD PATROLS, WHETHER THERE'S THOSE AGREEMENTS WITH ANY OF THE VARYING MUNICIPALITIES. IT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SINGULARLY DETERMINES WHAT THOSE STAFFING LEVELS NEED TO BE. IT'S JUST ONE— I JUST, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, BUT, BUT LEGISLATOR BARGNESI HAD A FOLLOW-UP. I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO ELABORATE. SO THE POLICE SERVICES DIVISION IS EXCELLING AT A RAPID PACE, IS THAT WHAT YOU— YEAH, THAT, THAT OVER TIME HAS INCREASED I, I, IN MY MIND, MORE SIGNIFICANTLY WITH LESS, OBVIOUS JUSTIFICATION. YEAH, RIGHT, RIGHT HOW MUCH OF THAT WOULD YOU SAY— MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THIS ANSWER— EQUATES TO THAT OVER $7 MILLION OVER HIS OVERALL OVERTIME BUDGET? WELL, I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY FOR POLICE SERVICES LET ME LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THAT EXACTLY. POLICE SERVICES SPECIFICALLY WAS, $3.9 MILLION, OVER, BUDGET ON OVERTIME. THEY SPENT, A HAIR OVER $10 MILLION, IN OVERTIME, AND IT WAS BUDGETED AT, $6 MILLION. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE MOVING FORWARD NOW? WE, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO, BUDGET FOR, $6 MILLION SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IN MY MIND THERE, THERE ARE AREAS WHERE I, I, I THINK THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO, CURB SOME OF THOSE COSTS. IN MY MIND, ONE OF THE PREDOMINANT AREAS WHERE, YOU KNOW, IN A WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH WANTS VERSUS NEEDS I WOULD SAY THAT THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME THAT IS IS APPROVED FOR, SAY, THEIR WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES, SEEMS TO BE MORE OF A WANT VERSUS A NEED. AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE THEY COULD, MITIGATE. I, I WOULDN'T— FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I WOULD NEVER WANT TO INDICATE THAT I HAVE SOME, ABILITY TO, DETERMINE WHAT ACTUAL, LIKE, COPS ON THE BEAT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, POLICING PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS ARE. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT A LOT OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, DO. AND I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS WORTHY OF THE EXCEPTIONAL EXPENSE THAT COMES, WITH OVERTIME. I, I THINK THEY NEED TO JUST BE SATISFIED SOMETIMES WITH MAYBE DOING LESS WITH LESS, IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE. AND IT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME AT LEAST THAT I'M HEARING THAT IT'S NOT A JAIL PROBLEM. SO YOU'RE SAYING JAIL OVERTIME IS, IS INCREASING, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S A GREATER [01:55:01] CHALLENGE. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT ALSO THE, THE INCREASES FOR, JAIL OVERTIME ARE PROBABLY, ONES THAT THE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WOULD HAVE LESS OF ABILITY TO, MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING. . MUCH OF THAT IS GONNA BE SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, EVERY PERSON WHENEVER THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A NEW CONTRACT OR WHEN THERE ISN'T, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY HAVE A COLA THAT'S, AFFORDED TO THEM OR A STEP INCREASE ON TOP OF THAT COLA. WELL, THAT MAKES YOUR OVERTIME EXPENSE, INCREASE UNFORTUNATELY AS WELL. YEAH, SO FLAT OVERTIME WOULD NEVER BE AN EXPECTATION, BUT WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT IN POLICE SERVICES IT SEEMS TO BE, INCREASING AT A HIGHER RATE WITH LESS OF THAT SORT OF MANDATED, REQUIREMENT AS JUSTIFICATION. RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON I WANTED YOU TO ELABORATE ON IT, BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING OF THAT, AND IT SEEMS VERY CONCERNING. IT'S ACTUALLY THE PART OF THE OVERTIME THAT HE HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER. . INTERESTING. I, I TOOK YOUR TIME. GO AHEAD, LEGISLATOR, FINISH UP. FINISH UP. FINAL THING IS ON THE LAWSUITS THAT THERE'S, LIKE, WHEN I WAS CALCULATING THE LAWSUITS, VERDICTS, AND SETTLEMENTS IN FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAWSUITS OVER THE LAST I THINK IT WAS ONLY LIKE 2 AND A HALF YEARS, IT WAS LIKE 300, OVER $300 MILLION. I WAS WONDERING, IT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A LEGISLATOR THAT WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE CONTROL OVER, LIKE, THE CONTRACT FOR HIRING THE LAW FIRM THAT'S GOING TO BE DEFENDING, THE PRICE OF HIRING THE LAW FIRM, AND OTHER THINGS. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATEMENT ON THE $80 MILLION ONE, WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT THERE WAS NO EXPERTS HIRED BY US TO DEFEND US OR TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, AND THE PREVIOUS ONE THERE WAS ONLY ONE. SO I'M WONDERING IF— AND I'M ALSO WONDERING THE VERDICT AMOUNT. I DIDN'T SEE THE FINAL JUDGMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT. I'M WONDERING IF THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER THERE WERE POST-HEARING, POST-TRIAL CHANGES. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE APPLICABLE ON THE CASE BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THE ITEMIZED VERDICT, BUT LIKE WHETHER FOR 4545 OR 50(B), CHANGES TO REDUCE THE VERDICT TO PRESENT VALUE OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT ON THE LAWSUITS TO SET A PRECEDENT OF WHEN THE CITY SETTLED THE SAME CASE FOR $5 MILLION, AND WE'RE SETTLING THEN FOR $21 MILLION AFTER THIS VERDICT THAT— I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS POST-HEARING DEDUCTIONS. I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, WHAT, WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THAT? WE'RE USING ALMOST ALL OF OUR SURPLUS TO GO TO THIS LAWSUIT, AND IS THERE ANYTHING LOOKED AT TO SEE IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO GET CONTRIBUTION OR ANYTHING ELSE. BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT IS THIS SOMETHING— THIS CASE IS TECHNICALLY PENDING RIGHT NOW IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION. IT'S NOT BEEN RESOLVED AS FAR AS I KNOW. IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES, I, I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER GENERAL QUESTIONS, BUT I, I, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER VERY SPECIFIC CORRECT. AND WE CAN MAKE THAT MOTION AND DO IT IF WE HAVE TO. ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE, THE QUESTIONS ARE— I MEAN, I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR WHAT ALL THE QUESTIONS WERE, BUT SOME OF THEM I, I THINK ARE APPROPRIATE FOR OPEN SESSION. BUT, BUT CERTAINLY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I, I WOULD, I WOULD— I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN OPEN, IN OPEN SESSION. CORRECT. YEAH. SO A FEW THINGS YOU TOUCHED ON LEGISLATURE. SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE $300 MILLION COMES FROM EXACTLY. SO I, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT MY MATH. BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE COUNTING. THE CULTURE IS CRIMINAL JUSTICE, LIKE THE SETTLEMENTS WITH THE SHERIFF'S ACTIONS THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR. THE, WE GOT CALCULATED WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC GOOD IS LIKE $330 MILLION. IT'S LIKE, ON THE— IT'S A LOT. WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD HAVE PAID OUT $330 MILLION. I'M NOT SAYING PAID OUT, IT'S JUDGMENTS, VERDICTS, AND, YOU KNOW, VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS. OKAY, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A $24 MILLION, JUDGMENT IN METCALF. WE HAVE A $28 MILLION JUDGMENT PLUS ATTORNEY'S FEES, WHICH IS ABOUT $35 MILLION. IN WALKER. WE HAVE ABOUT— WE HAVE AN $80 MILLION JUDGMENT IN MR. BOYD'S CASE. I DON'T THINK THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED ATTORNEY'S FEES YET. AND THEN I'M RUNNING OUT OF WHAT ELSE. WELL, THAT WAS SUFFOCATED TO DEATH. THAT'S BEEN CAST. OKAY, WE HAVE THE THERE'S— [02:00:03] WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THEM, MAYBE WE WENT BACK WITH THE— I THINK YOU'RE WRONG. I MEAN, YOU MAY HAVE GONE THROUGH THEM, BUT I CAN'T— I JUST TOLD YOU WHAT YOU'RE JUST— THESE ARE THE OUTSTANDING ONES. BUT I MEAN, AS FAR AS— YOU'RE JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS, LEGISLATOR. IT'S NOT $300 MILLION. I JUST GAVE YOU THE 3 BIG JUDGMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE 3 BIG JUDGMENTS NOW. BUT DID WE PAY FOR— IT MIGHT HAVE GONE BACK WHEN— WHEN DO WE PAY THE ONE FOR THE BILLS, THE KID THAT WAS, THAT WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE EXCEPT FOR THE $100,000. ALL RIGHT, AND THEN SO KEEP DOING YOUR MATH, LEGISLATOR, BECAUSE WE'RE FAR FROM $300 MILLION. ALL RIGHT, WHAT IS THE— MAYBE I THINK THAT OUR COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE HAS THAT AS FAR AS ON THE JUDGMENTS, THAT THOSE ARE— IN ANY EVENT, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK— BUT IT'S NOT $300 MILLION, AND I THINK YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE MATH DOESN'T— OKAY, COME TO $300 MILLION. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S $100 AND, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S LIKE $160 MILLION IS WHAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I, I GAVE YOU THE JUDGMENTS I CAN THINK OF THAT ARE, THAT ARE— IT'S ABOUT $140,000 BETWEEN THOSE THREE. OKAY. AND THEY HAVE— HE ADDED ON THE, THE ATTORNEY'S FEES ON THE ONE, SO IT MAY GO UP A LITTLE BIT. BUT THEY HAVE— IF YOU— SO I'M SAYING THAT ON THOSE, IS IT, IS IT, IS IT YOUR PLAN THAT WE'RE I MEAN, IT JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE SO MUCH OF OUR THING IS GOING TO THIS, AND IT IS A LOT OF MONEY. I'M NOT, I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT, BUT IT'S NOT $300 MILLION. AND I THINK THE— I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO BE ACCURATE. YEAH, NO, I THINK WE SHOULD FILE IT. I THINK WE SHOULD BE ACCURATE. YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THEY HAVE. BUT MY POINT IS JUST, DO YOU— IS THERE ANY THOUGHT ABOUT, LIKE, THE ISSUE WITH THE EXPERTS? I THINK IS A KIND OF A HUGE ISSUE TO NOT HAVE ANY. IS IT TRUE THAT THERE WERE NO EXPERTS IN THE $80 MILLION? AGAIN, I, I THINK THAT'S THE SORT OF THING WE SHOULD DISCUSS IN, EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'M NOT GONNA DISCUSS IN OPEN SESSION LITIGATION STRATEGY AND THE NUANCES OF EACH CASE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S— I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF IT'S A— I MEAN, WE COULD MAYBE GO TO, SESSION ON THAT IF WE'RE— BECAUSE I TRIED TO ASK IT BEFORE AND I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER WHEN WE WERE IN PRIVATE. —OFFICIAL LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION, SECOND, VOTE IT OUT, GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT I THOUGHT WE'RE STICKING WITH THIS IS MORE TO GO OVER THE BUDGET. THIS IS— THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE USING THE BUDGET MONEY FOR. I KNOW, BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO DEBATE THE PROCEDURES OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURT. TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THAT, OR IF THAT'S A GOOD SETTLEMENT OR NOT. OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING? YEAH, THAT WE COULD PAY FOR. YES, I HAD IT. SO THE ONES YOU SAID, IT WAS $24 FOR THE METCALF, $28 FOR THE ONE— DID YOU SAY $35 FOR WALKER, AND $80 FOR THE LAST ONE, WHICH IS $167? THOSE ARE THE 4 YOU SAID? THOSE ARE THE 3 LARGE VERDICTS. OKAY. THAT I CAN THINK OF. OKAY. IF YOU GO BACK 35 YEARS, I SUPPOSE GET TO $300 MILLION EVENTUALLY. BUT I CAN'T SETTLE OR EVEN OFFER TO SETTLE CASES BEYOND THE RISK RETENTION FUND. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU COULD POSSIBLY GET $300 MILLION. I'D HAVE TO COME HERE TO DISCUSS, ANYTHING BEYOND THE RISK RETENTION FUND. AND GIVEN— AND I'LL JUST SAY, GIVEN— I MEAN, SO EVERY YEAR WE DO AN INTERNAL AUDIT THAT'S THAT WE REPORT TO THE— NOT INTERNAL, WE DO AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND WE REPORT EVERY VALUE OF EVERY CASE TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. EVERY YEAR THAT LIST OF 3 TO 400 CASES IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN $65 AND $200 MILLION. SO AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, THE COUNTY HAS UP TO ABOUT $200 MILLION. WELL, DEPENDING ON THE YEAR, $65 TO $200 MILLION OF EXPOSURE. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, WE ARE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT WITHIN THE $3.5 MILLION RISK RETENTION FUND BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE, THESE BIG VERDICTS DO HAPPEN. AND IN PARTICULAR, THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS CONDUCT FROM 1977 AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO MANAGE IT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT, GIVEN THE EXPOSURE THAT THE COUNTY HAS IT'S QUITE FRANKLY SURPRISING WE DON'T HAVE MORE OF THESE JUDGMENTS BECAUSE OUR EXPOSURE ON ANY GIVEN DAY IS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, IF NOT $100 MILLION. IT'S CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS SOMETIMES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I MEAN, IF YOU ADD UP ALL OF OUR FILES, ALL OF THE FILES, AND, AND WE DO, WE DO THIS FOR OUR INDEPENDENT AUDIT. I JUST LOOKED AT, [02:05:01] 2025. WE ESTIMATED $70 MILLION OF EXPOSURE. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FILES THAT ARE SENT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THAT'S $70 MILLION OF EXPOSURE THAT THE 4 LITIGATORS AND MYSELF IN THE OFFICE ARE MANAGING. AND THAT IS TYPICAL. IT HAS GONE UP, AS HIGH AS $200 MILLION A FEW YEARS AGO UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO BRING THAT DOWN, BUT WE ARE AT ANY GIVEN TIME AS A $2 BILLION ENTITY, $2 BILLION ENTITY WITH, WITH A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS AND A LOT OF EMPLOYEES. WE ARE AT ANY GIVEN TIME LOOKING AT $100 MILLION OF EXPOSURE. AND YET WE ARE ABLE TO MANAGE THAT THROUGH THE RISK RETENTION FUND THAT, YOU KNOW, IS A LITTLE UNDER $4 MILLION FOR THIS. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I JUST— I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. I WANTED TO JUST GO BACK TO SALES TAX ONE SECOND. CAN— YOU WENT OVER QUITE EXTENSIVELY, SALES TAX FLUCTUATION, I'LL CALL IT THE FLUCTUATION OF BEING STALE TO IT EXCEEDING AT A HIGH RATE. LET'S TALK IMPACT TO THIS BUDGET IF IT UNDERPERFORMS BY 3%. WELL I WOULD HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF MATH ON THERE, BUT WE HAD, BUDGETED LET ME SEE, 2026, WE BUDGETED FOR THE COUNTY PORTION WAS, $654.5 MILLION. SO 6— SO THAT WOULD BE, A DIFFERENCE OF, A HAIR UNDER $20 MILLION WOULD BE A 3% FLUCTUATION. OPINION, THAT'S THE IMPACT. HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT OUR BUDGET? WELL, IT WOULD BE YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY, YOU KNOW, A $20 MILLION, NEGATIVE VARIANCE, WHICH THEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE TO, TO OUR BUDGET, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 1.25% OF OUR TOTAL BUDGET. YOU KNOW, WE'RE— WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE NUMBERS, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE, WE NEED— I, I WANT TO APPRECIATE THAT THESE ARE VERY LARGE NUMBERS, BUT OUR BUDGET IS ALSO MUCH LARGER. SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEM INTO, YOU KNOW, PROPORTIONAL CONSIDERATION. YOU KNOW, $20 MILLION NEGATIVE VARIANCE WOULDN'T BE GREAT BUT CERTAINLY WE HAVE HAD LARGER NEGATIVE VARIANCES THAT HAVE, PRESENTED THEMSELVES AT TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO YOU KNOW, MAKE OTHER CHANGES MID-YEAR IN THE BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO, OVERCOME CERTAINLY, I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN ANOTHER POSITION LIKE WE WERE IN 2024 WHERE WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GONNA HAVE A SHORTFALL. BUT I, I ALSO APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE SCENARIO WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE, WE DO HAVE THESE YOU KNOW, POSITIVE VARIANCES. I, I, I THINK FRANKLY, AND I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT MY OPINION ON THIS, I SUPPOSE, DOESN'T NECESSARILY, MATTER BUT I THINK WE'VE YOU KNOW, DONE A BETTER JOB IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS OF TRYING TO BE LESS HYPER-CONSERVATIVE IN TERMS OF OUR, OUR BUDGETING. THERE, THERE, THERE WERE SEVERAL YEARS WHERE, SALES TAX, YEAR, YEAR OVER YEAR OR REVERSE BUDGET WHERE WE HAD SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE, VARIANCES. I MEAN, WE HAD LET'S SAY IN, 20— 2022, WE HAD A, A POSITIVE VARIANCE FOR SALES TAX OF, $92 MILLION. YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME OF THESE OTHERS NOW, YOU GOTTA KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT WAS, THIS, THIS PERIOD OF TIME FROM ABOUT 2021 ON WAS A VERY UNUSUAL PERIOD OF TIME. AND IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR, FOR MULTIPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, WE WERE DEALING WITH, COVID NUMBER TWO WAS THE, RAPID INFLATIONARY PERIOD THAT KIND OF SORT OF FOLLOWED COVID. BUT THEN THE THIRD THING THAT, YOU KNOW, OFTEN IS NOT REALLY RECOGNIZED IS THAT IS WHEN INTERNET SALES TAX CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT'S WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, WAYFAIR VERSUS I BELIEVE IT WAS SOUTH DAKOTA OR NORTH DAKOTA, A DECISION WAS RENDERED THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL BRICK AND MORTAR OF YOUR LOCATION, IT MATTERS WHERE THE PERSON BUYING THE ITEM IS FROM. AND THAT— ALL OF THOSE FACTORS TOGETHER LED [02:10:03] TO AN ENORMOUS GROWTH IN, IN SALES TAX RIGHT AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A BETTER JOB OF NOW, FACTORING THAT GROWTH IN BY TREND, FOR THAT. I, I, I THINK ALSO WHERE, WHERE WE, WHERE IT BECOMES DIFFICULT FOR US IS I TAKE A LOOK AT THE REGULAR, YOU KNOW, MONTHLY PAYMENTS THAT WE GET. AND WE WILL GET 4 REGULAR MONTHLY PAYMENTS IN A QUARTER, 2 PER MONTH, AND THEN 2 PAYMENTS THAT ARE GONNA BE PART OF A QUARTERLY RECONCILIATION. NOW, THE MAJORITY OF THAT RECONCILIATION IS RELATED TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PERIOD OF TIME. BUT THAT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN IT'S FOR THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PERIOD OF TIME. . IT CAN BE FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME PRIOR. THERE, THERE LITERALLY COULD BE A SCENARIO, AND I'M, I'M JUST COMPLETELY MAKING THIS HYPOTHETICAL UP, BUT WHERE THERE, THERE WAS SOME MAJOR VENDOR THAT HAS JUST NOT PAID SALES TAX IN A DECADE, AND THEY GET CAUGHT, AND THAT THEY HAVE TO REMIT, AND THEN THAT IS GONNA BE, CONSIDERED AS PART OF ONE OF THESE QUARTERLY RECONCILIATIONS. AND WE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHY IT WAS THERE OR WHAT IT WAS OR HOW TO USE THAT INFORMATION TO TRY AND PROJECT INTO THE FUTURE. IT, IT'S REALLY IN, IN MY MIND THE, THE, THE LEVEL OF TRACKING OF SALES TECHS THAT WE DO IS LESS ABOUT LOOKING FORWARD AND MORE ABOUT CHECKING WHETHER THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE IS ALIVE OR DEAD. THAT IT, IT'S JUST THAT MOMENTARY, LIKE, SORT OF STATUS CHECK. AND IF THE CANARY'S DEAD, THEN WE START TO MAYBE MAKE SOME, OTHER CHANGES TO MITIGATE A PROBLEM THAT WE'VE NOW REALIZED EXISTS. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND. I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR METHODOLOGY TO IT. I JUST WANTED TO WARN THE, SOUND THE ALARM THAT IT IS SO, OPEN TO CHANGE. AND WHEN WE TALK— WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SALES TAX, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT AGGRESSIVE MOVES CAN TAKE PLACE THAT WE WOULD THEN BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF IT. YEAH, AND IT WAS, IT WAS LOOK, IT WAS NOT OUR CHOICE. I'M NOT GOING TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE CHOICE, BUT IT WAS A CHOICE MADE, YOU KNOW, 75 YEARS AGO, BASICALLY. THAT ERIE COUNTY WAS GOING TO BE SALES TAX HEAVY AND PROPERTY TAX LIGHT, AND THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY OUR REVENUE, AND THE CATCH-22 IS, YES, IT IS A SIGNIFICANT REVENUE, AND OFTENTIMES IT IS A POSITIVE VARIANCE THAT WE SEE, BUT WE STILL HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT, AND WE'RE PRETTY LATE TO THE PARTY FIGURING OUT WHETHER WE HAVE A PROBLEM OR NOT. RIGHT, RIGHT. ONE MORE QUESTION, MAYBE FROM THE CONTROLLER WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT PAST— IS THERE ANY IMPROVEMENT IN REVENUE FOR, ALL OUR LEGALIZED MARIJUANA? LOCATIONS. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. IT WASN'T THAT GREAT. IMPROVEMENTS, NOT IMPROVEMENTS. THERE'S MORE REVENUE COMING IN, LEGISLATOR, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S— I MEAN, IT'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER PERIOD AS OPPOSED TO MILLIONS. AND ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE COUNTY OR ANY OF THE MUNICIPALITIES HOSTING LEGAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES. IT'S ALSO, IT'S ALSO NOT OUR FAVORITE AGENCY TO DEAL WITH. WE HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH A NUMBER OF HOOPS THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST BOGGLE OUR MINDS. YEAH. SO, SO THE REVENUE STREAM THAT IT WAS PREDICTED TO GENERATE HASN'T COME TO FRUITION. JUST FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE I ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION THIS MORNING, LEGISLATOR FROM DECEMBER 1ST TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 2026, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL SALES WERE, $15,925,868.50. THAT'S COUNTYWIDE. THAT, YEP. THAT GETS, THAT GETS DIVIDED UP BY THE MUNICIPALITIES. SO THE TOWNS AND VILLAGES THAT HAVE OPTED IN TO OBVIOUSLY, ALLOWING THE CANNABIS TO BE SOLD THERE. I KNOW, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR EXAMPLE'S SAKE, THE TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA RECEIVED FROM THAT TIME PERIOD, ROUGHLY $220,000. SO YOU KNOW, THE SALES MAY BE THERE. THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED TELLS US HOW TO APPORTION, THE TOTAL BY THE AMOUNT OF SALES TO MUNICIPALITIES. BUT I THINK THEY ARE SEEING MORE IN THE AREA OF MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, CERTAINLY NOT NOT MILLIONS BY ANY, BY ANY MEANS. THAT'S DESPITE MY OBSERVATIONS WALKING UP WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM THE SABRES GAME LAST NIGHT. I, I, IT'S AMAZING. I HAVE IN MY OFF— MY OFFICE IN THE PLAZA, THERE IS A LEGAL CANNABIS, AND THE AMOUNT OF [02:15:01] TRAFFIC IT GENERATES IS ASTOUNDING. SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT WE HAVE THIS REVENUE STREAM THAT IS FLOWING LIKE THE RIVER BUT THAT'S JUST MY CURBSIDE OBSERVATION. ONE LAST QUESTION. IT'S A RELATIVELY MINOR REVENUE SOURCE. THAT'S ASTONISHING TO ME. IS, AND I'M HOPING IT'S STILL WORKING OUT THE KINKS AND THAT'S THE REASONING, AND, AND IT HAS A BRIGHTER FUTURE. I, I MEAN, PAYMENTS DO GROW, LIKE EACH PAYMENT, AT LEAST TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I'VE SEEN THERE IS GROWTH GOING ON. BUT WHEN YOU START AT ZERO, IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THAT GROWTH TO, TO, TO BE MATERIAL. SURE, SURE. ONE LAST QUESTION ABOUT— LET'S TALK ABOUT POINTS IN THE MORTGAGES AGAIN. THE PROGRAM'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME. IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE WORD OUT. DO YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT ON, LIKE, HOW, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE WORD OUT THAT WE'RE GOING TO OFFER A PROGRAM TO A FIRST-TIME— AND IT IS ONLY FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER— THE GOAL WOULD BE FIRST TIME, YES. OKAY, SO A FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER THAT WE YOU— WE'RE GONNA OFFER YOU MONEY TO PAY DOWN POINTS ON YOUR MORTGAGE. IT'S VERY INTERESTING. IT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT, AND I WOULD HOPE PEOPLE WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. BUT HOW ARE WE GETTING THAT WORD OUT? SURE. SO TO ELABORATE AGAIN ON THE SORT OF PROGRAMMATIC IDEA WE WOULD NEED LENDING PARTNERS TO WORK WITH, SO BANKS. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE A LOT OF, MARKETING CAPACITY WITH THEIR EXISTING FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER AND HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. SO COMBINING IT WITH THAT WOULD PROVIDE A LOT OF MARKETING SYNERGY. OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNTY HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REACH IN OUR MARKETING AND PR CAPACITY ON OUR OWN. THERE ARE ALSO SOME OTHER HOUSING, AGENCY PARTNERS, NOT THE BANKS THEMSELVES OR REALTORS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW MANY OF THE DIFFERENT PLAYERS IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THEY MIGHT HAVE AN ABILITY TO ALSO DO SOME SYNERGISTIC MARKETING WITH THEIR PRE-PURCHASE COUNSELING, FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER COURSES OF THAT NATURE. I WOULD— AND I ALSO WOULD HOPE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TARGET MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE, MARRIED COUPLES OR, OR COUPLES THAT ARE TRYING TO BUY A FIRST-TIME HOME, HAVE A FAMILY, THAT TYPE OF THING, THAT MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM OTHER LOW-INCOME FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND MAYBE JUST NOT BE JUST OVER THAT THRESHOLD JUST A LITTLE BIT AND THEN QUALIFY FOR NOTHING, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE, AN EXTREME HELP TO, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT WORK FULL-TIME AND MAKE, YEP, A LIVING WAGE BUT REALLY CAN'T SWING, YOU KNOW, A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR THEIR FAMILIES. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HOPE. I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT LEGISLATOR ST. JEAN TARD SAID, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE SORT OF HOUSING LITERATURE AND, AND PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS AND ALL THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY ABOUT THAT MISSING MIDDLE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. MODERATE INCOME, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, WORKING PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOOD JOBS, BUT— EXPENSIVE NATIONWIDE AND VERY DIFFICULT. AND THEY'RE EXCLUDED. AND WITH THE HIGH TECH, WITH THE HIGH INTEREST RATE, THEY'RE EXCLUDED. AND WE SEEM TO TARGET THE LOW-INCOME PEOPLE, WHICH IS FINE. EXCEPT WE JUST— THAT MISSING GROUP, WE REALLY NEED TO TARGET THEM. YEP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN MARK, IT'S JUST ONE QUESTION AND IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION. ARE YOU SURE? HOLD ON, HOLD ON, LET ME GET MY WALLET OUT. WHO'S TAKING BETS? DO WE, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY? IN, IN THE BUDGET TO, FULFILL THE, OBLIGATION OF THIS YEAR'S CONSTRUCTION SEASON WITH THE PRICE OF OIL? ENOUGH CONTINGENCY IN THE BUDGET TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN? I ASSUME SO, YES. I, I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE— DPW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK, HIGHWAYS SPECIFICALLY WHERE— YES, GENERALLY, I, I, I'VE ALREADY, I'VE ALREADY ASKED HIGHWAYS WAY. AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, PROJECTS GOING FORWARD WITH THE PRICE OF OIL BARRELS OF OIL RIGHT NOW. SO I WOULD SAY THAT'S A MAYBE ANSWER. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA TABLE ITEM 39 AT THIS POINT. IT'S KIND OF THE WARM-UP. NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE BACK TO— I BELIEVE IT WAS ITEM 27. FROM THE MINORITY CAUCUS, ELECTING A CENTS-PER-GALLON RATE OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES ON MOTOR FUEL WE DO HAVE MARK CORDELL HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS. MR. HASSELBECK IS HERE, I BELIEVE. CARL, IF HE WANTS TO GRAB A SEAT. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF A LEGISLATOR WANTS TO INTRODUCE THIS OR IF YOU WANT TO JUST START THE CONVERSATION. I KNOW YOU GUYS [02:20:01] PUT THE RESOLUTION FORWARD. YOU GOT IT. OKAY. SAY THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M CARL KESSELBACH. I WAS HERE 2 YEARS AGO TRYING TO URGE THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN A 10-CENT-A-GALLON TAX ON GASOLINE. OH, OKAY, THANK YOU. TO MAINTAIN THE 10-CENT-A-GALLON TAX ON GASOLINE, I WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. ONE OF THE TERMS I USED AT THAT TIME WAS, PLEASE DON'T DOUBLE OUR GAS TAX. AS OF TODAY, AT $4.49.99, WE'VE DOUBLED OUR GAS TAX. IT'S 20 CENTS A GALLON. I'M SELLING DIESEL FUEL AT $5.79.99 RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS 25 CENTS A GALLON, 15 CENTS MORE THAN HAVING A FLAT TAX OF 10 CENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE OIL MARKET IS GOING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH IRAN. BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF SOMETHING ISN'T DONE ABOUT THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ SITUATION, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET. ABSOLUTELY NOT. ALL GAS TAXES EXCEPT THE COUNTY SALES TAX ARE FLAT. WHAT I MEAN BY FLAT IS THERE'S SO MANY CENTS A GALLON. I COLLECT 8 TAXES, 3 FEDERAL, 5 STATE. THOSE 7 OF THOSE 8 ARE SO MANY CENTS A GALLON. COUNTY SALES TAX, BECAUSE IT'S A PERCENTAGE, FLUCTUATES WITH THE PRICE OF GASOLINE. IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES. IN 2000, THE STATE OF NEW YORK TOOK THEIR PORTION OF THE SALES TAX ON GASOLINE, AND FIXED IT AT 8 CENTS A GALLON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANNA GET INVOLVED AND THE POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS OF WATCHING WHAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME THE PRICE GOES UP AND DOWN. SO THEY FIXED THEIR PORTION OF THE TAX AND SAID TO THE COUNTIES, WE DID OUR PART, WE'RE NO LONGER GONNA HAVE ANYBODY POINTING A FINGER AT US, IT'S UP TO YOU TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANNA DO. THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE ONE I'M TRYING TO CURE BY BRINGING BACK THE 10-CENT FLAT TAX THAT WE HAD 2 YEARS AGO. FAIRNESS. TAX FAIRNESS. WE LIKE TO THINK IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE TRY TO BE AS FAIR AS WE CAN WITH HOW WE APPLY TAXES. INCOME TAX HAS GRADUATIONS BASED ON INCOME. REAL ESTATE TAXES OBVIOUSLY GO UP WITH THE VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE. PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE MONEY TEND TO BUY MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING OR WHATEVER, SO THEY NATURALLY PAY MORE IN TAXES. PROBABLY THE WORST TAX IN TERMS OF BEING PROGRESSIVE OR REGRESSIVE IS A SALES TAX BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO THE SALE, AND REALIZING THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT UNFAIRNESS IN TERMS OF INCOME LEVELS IN IT— THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE. IN THE CASE OF GASOLINE, GASOLINE. PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, RIGHT? IT IS AS NECESSARY A PART OF THEIR LIVES AS FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER. SO IF WE TAKE A GALLON OF GASOLINE AND WE RAISE THE TAX ON IT, IF YOU'VE GOT A DOCTOR AND A NURSE WHO WORK TOGETHER, THEY BOTH NEED THE SAME AMOUNT OF GASOLINE TO GET TO WORK, OKAY? THE DOCTOR PAYS THE SAME TAX, BUT IN TERMS OF HIS INCOME LEVEL, THE HIT IS A LOT LESS THAN WHAT IT IS TO THE NURSE. LAWYER AND HIS SECRETARY, SAME SITUATION. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITHOUT BUYING GASOLINE IN ERIE COUNTY FOR 90-95% OF WHAT YOU DO, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. IF YOUR INCOME IS LOWER, THE IMPACT OF THE TAX IS GREATER ON YOU. AND THAT'S PART OF MY PITCH, IF YOU WILL, IS THE FACT THAT IT'S ABOUT AS UNFAIR A TAX AS YOU CAN HAVE. KNOWING THAT, WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF SALES TAX, MOST LOCALES, INCLUDING NEW YORK STATE, DON'T IMPOSE A SALES TAX ON THINGS LIKE MILK, BREAD, DRUGS, BECAUSE THEY KNOW EVERYBODY'S GOING TO NEED THEM. AND IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF YOU'LL NEED MORE IF YOU HAVE HIGHER INCOME. IT'S SIMPLY A QUESTION OF YOU NEED IT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I'VE GOT TO SAY. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN 2 YEARS AGO. THE IMPACT ON THE CONSUMER IS BACK TO BEING A LOT WORSE THAN IT WAS. [02:25:01] YOU KNOW, I'M COLLECTING MORE, PERIOD, BECAUSE MY PRICE ON FUEL HAS GONE UP. BUT PART OF THAT COLLECTION IS THE INCREASE IN SALES TAX FOR ERIE COUNTY. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO SEE BROUGHT BACK TO WHERE YOU HAD IT 2 YEARS AGO. OKAY. LEGISLATOR GREENE. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU REMIT PAYMENTS BACK TO ERIE COUNTY IN SALES TAX, CORRECT? I'M SORRY, WHAT? YOU GIVE SALES TAX MONEY TO ERIE COUNTY THAT YOU COLLECT, THEN YOU GIVE IT TO THE COUNTY, RIGHT? SURE. AND AS THE GAS PRICE HAS GONE UP, YOU'VE GIVEN LARGER CHECKS TO ERIE COUNTY? YEAH. SO IT'S SAFE TO SAY, WITH EVERYTHING YOU'RE STATING, THAT AS SALES TAX IS— THE PRICE OF GAS GOES UP, RIGHT? THE TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED BY ERIE COUNTY ALSO GOES UP? YES. SO IT BECOMES A WINDFALL FOR ERIE COUNTY? CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL, BUT YES, IT'S EXTRA MONEY. YOU KNOW, WE— WINDFALL, WHATEVER. WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. IN THE PAST, WE, WE, WE, WE LIMIT IT BUT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE STILL COLLECT IT IN THE END. RIGHT. SO RIGHT NOW, AS GAS TAXES, YOU KNOW, GO UP WITH THE, THE COST OF GASOLINE, THE COUNTY MAKES OUT AND THE INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT. OH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. I JUST HAD A QUESTION, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING FROM AMHERST, DISTRICT 5, TODAY. I WAS ASKING, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT LIKE A BUSINESS CHARGING WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR. WHEN THE— THERE'S A PRICE ALLOCATION WITH REGARD TO A TAX, HOW CAN WE BE SURE THAT THE, THE TAX SAVINGS WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER AND NOT THE PRICE INCREASED TO REFLECT THAT IN SOME WAY OF WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR? IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT, BECAUSE THERE WAS THIS STATEMENT THAT MADE THAT THEY THOUGHT, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THOUGHT THAT THE, THE, THE SAVINGS WASN'T PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER BASED ON A COMPARISON WITH ROCHESTER AND BUFFALO. WE KNOW IT WASN'T PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER. TELL ME IF I, I, THE SAVINGS WASN'T. I MEANT, LET'S SAY TODAY YOU LOWERED MY TAX EFFECTIVE TONIGHT BACK TO 10 CENTS, WHICH IS 10 CENTS LESS ON A GALLON OF GAS THAN IT, THAN, THAN OBVIOUSLY THE 10 CENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AM I GOING TO PASS IT ON THE CONSUMER? I'M GOING TO PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER, ABSOLUTELY. JUST LIKE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE TAX HAS GONE UP 10 CENTS, RIGHT? AND I PASSED THAT ON TO THE CONSUMER. I COULDN'T ABSORB IT OR I'D BE OUT OF BUSINESS. NOW, WILL COMPETITION DRIVE THE PRICE BACK DOWN? ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, THIS CAME UP AS AN ISSUE 2 YEARS AGO, AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER BECAUSE I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IT WAS THE BUFFALO NEWS OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT SAID THAT THIS 10-CENT TAX HAD BEEN IMPOSED AND THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF PUT IT IN OUR POCKET. OKAY, I'LL SAY THIS TO YOU. NUMBER ONE, IT'S JUST LIKE I SAID, IF THE TAX GOES UP, I'M GOING TO CHARGE YOU MORE. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE MORE, BUT I GOTTA CHARGE YOU THE EXTRA THAT IT GOES UP. I ALSO WHOLESALE GASOLINE. SO I CALL ON A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THE ACCOUNTS IN ERIE COUNTY AND ACTUALLY FROM HERE TO ROCHESTER. I HAVE YET TO FIND ANY RETAILER THAT I'VE TALKED TO IN THE 2 YEARS THAT SAID TO ME THAT ANYBODY CAME TO THEM AND SAID, WELL, WHAT WERE YOU, I WANT TO SAY, I THINK IT WAS EFFECTIVE JULY, JUNE, JULY, OR ANYWAY, WHENEVER THE DECREASE WAS EFFECTIVE TO 10 OBVIOUSLY THAT NIGHT, THE NEXT DAY, YOUR TAX IS LESS. OKAY, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR PRICE? I CAN'T FIND ANYONE WHO SAID THAT— ANYONE, WHETHER BUFFALO NEWS OR THE GOVERNMENT OR ANYBODY ELSE— THEY CAME AROUND AND SAID, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT JULY 1ST WHEN THE COUNTY GAVE YOU BACK TAX MONEY. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH YOUR PRICE? THERE'S NO ONE. SO, AND ALSO, WAS IT— IS IT THAT THE PERSON PAYS THE TAX WHEN THEY BUY THE GAS VERSUS WHEN THEY SELL IT? IS THAT— I— WASN'T IT STATED LAST TIME THAT THE PERSON PAYS THE TAX, THE, THE RETAILER, WHEN THEY BUY THE GAS, NOT WHEN THEY SELL THE GAS? IS THAT RIGHT OR NOT? I MEAN, IS THERE A DISCREPANCY? YOU— PARDON? IT'S BASED ON THE SALE PRICE OF THE GAS. THE SALE PRICE OF THE GASOLINE. SO HOW DO YOU SO YOU DISPUTE THE CLAIM THAT IT WASN'T PASSED ON TO THE— I, I I DON'T— I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I'M SAYING THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU, YOU, YOU DISPUTE THE CLAIM THAT THEY DON'T PASS THE TAX, THAT THEY, THAT THEY DON'T PASS THE TAX ON TO THE CONSUMER. YOU MEAN THAT THE 3 OF 10 CENTS ON GASOLINE ISN'T TAXED ON OTHER TAXES? NO, THEY'RE LIKE, BASICALLY THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT DIDN'T GO DOWN, THE PRICE DIDN'T GO DOWN. AND SO THEY, THEY'RE TAKING FROM THAT, THEREFORE, THE SALES TAX, THAT THEY JUST [02:30:01] INCREASE THE PRICE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MARKET WOULD BEAR. AND I'M ASKING YOU TO DISPUTE THAT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. OKAY, I WOULD RAISE THE PRICE, AND SO, SO WOULD EVERYONE ELSE, TO WHATEVER THE MARKET WOULD BEAR WITHOUT TAXES. IF I THOUGHT THAT I COULD RAISE MY PRICE A CENT A GALLON A DOLLAR A GALLON AND RETAIN MY BUSINESS, I'D DO IT IN A HEARTBEAT. WHAT KEEPS ME FROM DOING IT? I'M IN THE MOST COMPETITIVE BUSINESS I'VE EVER SEEN. I'M THE ONLY GUY WHO'S GOT HIS PRICE ON THE STREET. IT'S— YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO MY STORE TO FIND OUT WHAT I'M ASKING FOR GAS. YOU DRIVE BY AT 50 MILES AN HOUR. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PRICE, YOU KEEP ON GOING. YOU'RE GONNA BUY IT, BUT YOU'RE GONNA BUY IT FROM A GUY WHO HAS WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE BEST PRICE. SO THAT'S WHAT CAUSES ME BE COMPETITIVE. I, I THINK I, I WANT TO KIND OF PICK— I, I JUST WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON LEGISLATOR'S QUESTION. I THINK SHE WAS TRYING TO ASK IS WHAT'S PREVENTING THE, THE VENDORS TO NOT PASS ON THE SAVINGS. SO IF YOU'RE AT $4 A GALLON OF GAS AND THERE'S A 10-CENT REDUCTION, BUT YOUR MARKET DEMANDS THAT YOU COULD STILL GET AWAY WITH SELLING IT $4, THEN YOU ABSORB THE PROFIT. OH. SO HER QUESTION WAS TO YOU THAT, WELL, HOW ARE THERE CHECKS AND BALANCES? BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED BACK ON IT, , AND WE COMPARED THE ERIE COUNTY, WESTERN NEW YORK REGION TO ROCHESTER, AND WE COMPARED THE PRICES IN THE ROCHESTER AREA THAT DID NOT HAVE THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION, OR HOLIDAY I'LL CALL IT, TO ERIE COUNTY THAT DID HAVE IT, WE FOUND THAT THE PRICES WERE THE SAME. WE FOUND THAT THE VENDORS DIDN'T PASS THE SAVINGS ON. SO THE QUESTION WAS, HOW DO WE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THOSE WORK? BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT NO SAVINGS WAS PASSED ON WHEN WE DID THE COMPARISON. WELL, NUMBER ONE, WHY WOULD THEY BE PASSED ON? THEY'RE PASSED ON BECAUSE OF COMPETITION. SO, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE AGREEING WITH ME. I'M SORRY, YOU, YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT WHY WOULD THEY BE PASSED ON? NO, I, I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NUMBERS THAT INDICATE THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S— FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO KNOW, LET'S TAKE ME, LET'S GET RID OF EVERYBODY ELSE. DID I PASS ON THE DECREASE IN TAX IN JULY OF 2023? OKAY, TAKE MY PRICE THE BUYING PRICE THAT I'M BUYING AT THAT DAY, THE DAY BEFORE THE TAX WENT DOWN. OKAY, TAKE MY SALE PRICE. IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES— REMEMBER, THE THING THAT, THAT VERY POSSIBLY CHANGES, BECAUSE IT CHANGES ALL THE TIME— IS MY BUYING PRICE THAT NIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY, IF THAT DOESN'T MOVE, THEN EITHER I REDUCE THE PRICE AT THE PUMP TO REFLECT THE REDUCTION IN TAX OR I DIDN'T. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT THAT WAS THE CASE, THAT, THAT I OR ANYBODY ELSE WAS ABLE TO, GRAB THE TAX, NOT, NOT PUT THE TAX BACK ON THE PRICE OR WHATEVER. BUT THAT WOULD ALWAYS BE TRUE BECAUSE OF COMPETITION. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE COMPETITION COMPETITION, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE TRUE. SO HOW DO YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WHEN WE COMPARED ROCHESTER TO WESTERN NEW YORK OR BUFFALO, THERE WAS NO PRICE DIFFERENCE? DURING, DURING THE SALES TAX HOLIDAY? I WOULD HAVE TO SEE NUMBERS, WHICH I'VE NEVER SEEN, THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THAT'S TRUE. HE HAS THEM RIGHT BEHIND I'M SORRY, HE HAS THEM RIGHT BEHIND— NEW YORK STATE PUBLISHES A DATA SET OF WEEKLY AVERAGE FUEL PRICES FOR EVERY METRO AREA. NEW YORK STATE? YES. NEW YORK STATE PUBLISHES A DATA SET WITH WEEKLY AVERAGE, GAS PRICES FOR EVERY METRO AREA. THEY GET THEM FROM THE RETAILERS. WELL, THEY, THEY COLLECT THAT DATA, NEW YORK STATE COLLECTS THE DATA, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT DATA DOESN'T EXIST? THE, THE STATE HAS A NUMBER. I, I IMAGINE, NEW YORK STATE TAX AND FINANCE DOES A LOT OF ANALYSIS, WHETHER IT'S GAS PRICES OR OTHER ITEMS, AND THEY PUBLISH A DATA SET. THAT IS THE, THAT IS REAL DATA. WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING, AND I, I'M NOT BEGRUDGING WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING PARTICULARLY ABOUT YOUR GAS STATION, BUT YOUR GAS STATION IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. THIS IS REAL QUANTIFIABLE EVIDENCE, AND THE REAL QUANTIFIABLE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE BETWEEN, THE BUFFALO AVERAGE [02:35:01] FOR EACH WEEK BEFORE AND AFTER THE EXEMPTIONS WENT INTO EFFECT AND OUT OF EFFECT HAD NO CHANGE IN THEM. YOU'RE— SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT ONLY DIDN'T THE PRICE GO DOWN, BUT IT DIDN'T GO UP WHEN THE EXEMPTION WENT BACK IN. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE, REDUCTION IN SALES TAX. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY WHAT YOU'RE— WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN PRINCIPLE CAN BE CORRECT, RIGHT? IN PRINCIPLE, BY REDUCING THE SALES TAX ON A RATE OF GASOLINE. RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER, BUT WHEN I PREPARED MY, MY, INFORMATION, IT WAS AT $4.41 PER GALLON. SO IF YOU DID IT ON THE FIRST $2, THAT WOULD TAKE WHAT WAS EFFECTIVELY A SALES TAX OF 21 CENTS PER GALLON AT $4.41 TO EFFECTIVELY 10 CENTS PER GALLON. SO THEORETICALLY, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS THIS EXEMPTION GOES INTO EFFECT IS YOU SHOULD SEE A PRICE GO FROM $4.41 TO $4.30, AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. BUT THEN LIKEWISE, WHEN THE EXEMPTIONS WENT OUT OF EFFECT AND YOU WERE COLLECTING MORE TAXES, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT PRICE EFFECTIVELY GO UP. AND YOU CAN USE MONROE COUNTY, ROCHESTER, AS A CONTROL BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE SAME DISTRIBUTION LINES. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'VE LOOKED AT DATA, A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AVERAGE PRICE OF GAS IN BUFFALO IS APPROXIMATELY 5 CENTS CHEAPER THAN IT IS IN ROCHESTER. SO WHAT YOU THEORETICALLY COULD— SHOULD SEE IS AT THE POINT WHEN THESE EXEMPTIONS GO INTO EFFECT, AND THE, THE, THE SALES TAX GOES DOWN 10 CENTS, THAT 5-CENT DIFFERENCE WITH ROCHESTER SHOULD BE A 15-CENT DIFFERENCE. AND THAT NEVER HAPPENED. LIKE, WHEN WE WERE DOING THIS 2 YEARS AGO, WE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT THAT WE HAVE TODAY. WE ALL HAVE EYES. WE ALL WENT TO GAS STATIONS. WE ALL BOUGHT FUEL BEFORE AND AFTER, AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND I, I THINK WHAT WHAT WE RUN INTO IS THIS PREMISE IS BASED ON THIS INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF HOW SALES TAX IS COLLECTED. COLLECTED. SO WHEN YOU GO TO DICK'S AND YOU GO BUY YOUR SABRES JERSEY AND THAT COSTS YOU $190.31, THAT'S $175 FOR THE JERSEY AND THEN $15.31, WHICH YOU SEE ACTUALLY ON YOUR RECEIPT FOR SALES TAX. THAT— THEN THEY HELD THAT SALES TAX, THEY REMIT IT TO THE STATE, AND THEN EVENTUALLY IT WORKS ITS WAY BACK TO THE COMMUNITIES. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS WITH GASOLINE. SALES TAX, AND YOU, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS, SALES TAX IS ORIGINALLY PAID BY YOU, THE OPERATOR, AT THE POINT OF YOUR WHOLESALE PURCHASE. AND THEN LATER, YOU'RE FACTORING THAT SALES TAX INTO THE PRICE OF THE PUMP, WHICH IS FACTORED IN WITH A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS THAT I WOULDN'T ORDINARILY, YOU KNOW, KNOW. SO ONE OF TWO THINGS IS LIKELY. ONE IS THAT GAS STATION OPERATORS PAID LESS WHOLESALE AND KEPT THEIR PRICES THE SAME AND ABSORBED THAT PROFIT, OR THERE ARE MANY, MANY FACTORS INVOLVED AND A 10-CENT REDUCTION OF COUNTY SALES TAX IS JUST NOT A MATERIAL CHANGE TO IMPACT FUEL PRICES AT ALL. BUT IN EITHER CASE, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT TO A GAS TAX EXEMPTION. WE, WE SAW IT WITH OUR OWN EYES. THE DATA DEMONSTRATES IT, LIKE, THAT WE CAN TALK ANECDOTAL ALL WE WANT, BUT IT DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT. THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS, LIKE, SIMILARLY, WHEN WE DID THE TEMPORARY EXEMPTION ON RESIDENTIAL ENERGY. WE CAN DEBATE HOW BIG OF AN IMPACT THAT SALES TAX EXEMPTION HAD. THE THING WE CANNOT DEBATE IS WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER, BECAUSE YOU CAN LOOK AT YOUR NYSAG OR YOUR NATIONAL GRID OR YOUR NATIONAL FUEL BILL, AND YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE SALES TAX WAS ON IT. AND THEN YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE SALES TAX WASN'T. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE DID THAT, THAT 3/4, HOLIDAY FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY, MYSELF PERSONALLY, I SAVED $28.29. CENTS. NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO PASS JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THAT WAS A MATERIAL SAVINGS OR NOT. BUT IT WAS A SAVINGS I CAN PROVE I GOT. THE OTHER THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, THAT IS WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THIS, WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE WHETHER IT'S A MATERIAL THING. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUEL, ANYBODY WHO BUYS GAS HERE IS WHO BENEFITS. AND BENEFITS ON THE BACK OF EVERY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, ERIE COUNTY, ALL THE TOWNS, ALL THE VILLAGES, ALL THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. WE [02:40:02] HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL BORDER WHERE I CAN TELL YOU, REGARDLESS OF OUR TAX, GAS IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE IN CANADA. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY'RE DOING WHEN THEY CROSS THE BORDER? THEY'RE BUYING GAS HERE IN, IN ERIE COUNTY. WE'RE GIVING THEM SUPPOSEDLY, IF THAT BENEFIT DID EXIST, WE'RE GIVING THEM THAT BENEFIT. AT OUR OWN EXPENSE. MAKES IT— MAKES SENSE. IT MAKES SENSE. SIR? YEAH, OKAY. I MEAN, YOU SHOULD SPEAK. YOU SAID— I MEAN, THE THING THAT JUST BOGGLES MY IMAGINATION IS YOU SAID THAT BOTH WAYS. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WHEN THE TAX WENT BACK UP? IT PROVES IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT EITHER WAY. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THERE'S NO MATERIAL IMPACT. SO THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS WHEN THE EXEMPTIONS WENT INTO EFFECT, AND THERE WAS NO COST TO THE CONSUMERS WHEN THE EXEMPTIONS WENT OUT OF EFFECT. THERE WAS ZERO IMPACT. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS THE GENERALIZED DYNAMICS WHERE FUEL IS GASOLINE, DIESEL, ALL THAT ARE VOLATILE COMMODITIES AND THEY CHANGE UP OR DOWN BASED ON A MYRIAD OF OTHER FACTORS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS BEYOND ANECDOTAL, WE HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE. WE, WE CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT HOW GOOD THOSE DATA SETS ARE, BUT THEY ARE IN FACT PUBLISHED DATA SETS THAT INDICATE THAT IF WE WERE TO ADD ANOTHER GAS EXEMPTION, THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO THE PRICE OF GAS RELATIVE TO THE PRICE OF GAS PAID BY ANY OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITY HERE OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE THAT EXEMPTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY, YOU MAY AS A TOKEN REDUCE YOUR PRICE JUST TO PROVE ME WRONG, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL EVERY OTHER, OPERATOR ACROSS ERIE COUNTY TO DO THAT. I DON'T NEED TO GO THERE. WHAT YOU JUST SAID TO ME WAS THAT YOU CAN INCREASE THE TAX, SO WHY DON'T YOU PUT ANOTHER DOLLAR ON IT? IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, WE CAN, WE CAN ONLY, LEVY THE SALES TAX, BASED ON THE RATE WE HAVE. SO NO, I CAN'T PUT ANOTHER PASS A COUNTY GASOLINE TAX. WHAT YOU— IT'S NOT A SEPARATE— IT'S NOT A SEPARATE TAX, SIR. IT'S JUST SALES TAX THAT HAPPENS TO BE ON GASOLINE. SO IT'S TAX ON GASOLINE, RIGHT? SALES TAX ON GASOLINE. YES. AND WE CAN'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE RATE. SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS IF YOU HAD THE POWER TO RAISE THE MONEY THAT ERIE COUNTY COLLECTS ON A GALLON OF GASOLINE, YOU COULD RAISE THAT AND IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. I WOULDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I WOULDN'T HAVE— WE WOULD HAVE TO— WE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THE ENTIRE SALES TAX FROM 4.75% TO SOMETHING HIGHER. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE A RAISE OF SALES TAX ACROSS THE BOARD. I, I CAN'T ARBITRARILY SAY THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT SALES TAX WHILE, WHILE GAS, LET'S SAY JUST RIGHT NOW GAS IS $4.41. WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ARBITRARILY SAY, WELL, WE'RE COLLECTING, SALES TAX ON GASOLINE AS THOUGH IT'S $9. DOLLARS AGAIN. LIKE, WE COULDN'T DO THAT. EXCUSE ME. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, THANKS GUYS. I GET, I GET THE POINT YOU'RE BOTH TRYING TO MAKE. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA MOVE ON. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON. JUST, JUST ONE SECOND. I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. MARK, THE DATA THAT YOU'RE USING, IS IT ONLY— IS IT— DOES IT INCLUDE PRICES OF GAS OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY? THE DATA YOU ARE RELYING ON, IS IT— YES. SO, SO THE DATA SET THAT YOU'RE SAYING THE PRICE DOES NOT CHANGE INCLUDES COUNTIES THAT DO HAVE LESS SALES TAX ON GAS, CORRECT? NIAGARA COUNTY? YES. SO THE DATA THAT WE'RE RELYING ON TO SAY THAT THE PRICE OF GAS DIDN'T CHANGE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PRICE OF GAS OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY. SO WE CANNOT SAY THAT WE HAVE A DATA SET THAT SAYS JUST IN ERIE COUNTY THIS DID NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF GAS. DO YOU HAVE EXCLUSIVE— DO YOU HAVE EXCLUSIVE TO ERIE COUNTY DATA SET ON THE PRICE OF GAS? ERIE COUNTY ONLY. NEW YORK STATE PRODUCES A DATA SET THAT BREAKS OUT BY INDIVIDUAL METRO AREA, ALL THE METRO AREAS IN NEW YORK STATE, AND IT COLLECTS THE WEEKLY, AVERAGE GA— GAS. THE METRO AREA, DOES IT INCLUDE THE PRICE OF GAS OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY? YES OR NO? THE DATA THAT YOU'RE RELYING ON, DOES IT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF GAS? BUFFALO AVERAGE. WHICH IS AN AVERAGE FOR THIS AREA. THE METRO BUFFALO AREA DOES INCLUDE OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY. YES, IT DOES. I, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T INHERENTLY KNOW THAT. I, I KNOW THAT THE DATA SET WE HAVE— WHAT, WHAT I AM NOT DEBATING HERE IS INTERNALLY HERE WHETHER THE PRICE GOES UP [02:45:01] 50 CENTS IN A DAY, GOES DOWN 30 CENTS IN A DAY. WHAT, WHAT I, WHAT I AM DEBATING HERE IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE PLACE— AND USING ROCHESTER AS A CONTROL— WE TEND TO HAVE APPROXIMATELY A 5-CENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR AVERAGE PRICE, HOWEVER THAT FLUCTUATES, AND THEIR AVERAGE PRICE, HOWEVER IT FLUCTUATES. THOSE TEND TO STAY PARALLEL LINES. SO WHEN OUR EXEMPTION WENT INTO EFFECT, IN THEORY, INSTEAD OF THOSE BEING PARALLEL PARALLEL LINES, YOU SHOULD SEE SOME OF THIS. AND THEN WHEN THAT GOES, OUT OF EFFECT, YOU SHOULD SEE SOME OF THAT. THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD SEE RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER USING ROCHESTER AS A CONTROL. AND WE DID NOT SEE IT. I MEAN, SO WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING HAPPENED TO THE SAVINGS? I'M SUGGESTING WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SAVINGS IS THAT GASOLINE— THE PRICE OF GASOLINE IS CONTROLLED BY MANY FACTORS ABOVE AND BEYOND COUNTY SALES TAX, AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER FACTORS ARE SO MUCH MORE MATERIAL THAT THE TAX— THE SALES TAX HAD NO IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT IT IS NOT A PREDOMINANT FACTOR. IT IS A MATTER OF WHETHER— IS ERIE COUNTY— WE DO HAVE THE OPTION TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO CHARGE MORE FOR GAS OR CAP IT. YOU ARE SAYING WHEN WE— I'M SORRY, FOR LESS, RIGHT? I'M SORRY, LESS. WHATEVER THE, THE DAILY, AND YOU CAN DO IT BY $1 INCREMENTS. I APOLOGIZE. YOU COULD GO CAP IT AT $4, $3, OR $2. I, I COULDN'T JUST ARTIFICIALLY SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, WE'RE GONNA CHARGE $7. I, I, I MISSPOKE. BUT IF WE, IF WE, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO CAP IT, , AT THE FIRST $2, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF WE CAP IT, AND AS ERIE COUNTY SAY, THAT WE ARE GOING TO COLLECT, WE'RE GOING TO CAP THE, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT CAN BE CHARGED. WHERE ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SAVINGS GOES? BECAUSE THAT WILL CHANGE HOW MUCH IS COLLECTED. I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT SAVINGS GOES. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA BE OVERLY CYNICAL, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE OPERATORS ABSORB IT. THERE COULD BE OTHER REASONS. BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE, THE PRICE AT THE PUMP IS WHAT THESE OPERATORS ARE CHARGING TO COVER ALL OF THEIR COSTS. THAT IS THEIR DISTRIBUTION COSTS. IT'S THE COST OF THE, RAW, YOU KNOW, WHOLESALE GASOLINE OR DIESEL. IT'S THEIR ELECTRICITY. IT'S THEIR EMPLOYEES. IT'S EVERYTHING IS ROLLED INTO SO THEY CAN BECOME COMPETITIVE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT ALL OF THESE OTHER FACTORS ARE FAR MORE MATERIAL THAN THIS. SO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DEBATING TODAY RIGHT NOW IS NOT A, A SCENARIO WHERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, , W— WHERE WE ARE JUST GENERALLY, COMING UP WITH, A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND DECIDING IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER WORTH THE LOSS OF SALES TAX DOLLARS TO EVERY MUNICIPALITY MORTALITY. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ARGUING HERE. IT'S A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION. NO BENEFIT PLUS LOST SALES TAX. AND THAT IS EVERY SINGLE COMMUNITY. SO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE HERE SITTING HERE AS ERIE COUNTY DEBATING THIS, WE'RE MAKING CHOICES ABOUT THE, FOR, THE, THE 55% OF SALES TAX THAT ERIE COUNTY KEEPS, BUT ALSO THE 45% OF SALES TAX THAT WE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. SO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, LIKE, WE CAN DO ALL THE MATH B-BASED ON SALES TAX SHARING. AND WHAT IT'S SAYING IS BY DOING THIS, NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER, BUT WE ARE GONNA TAKE AWAY APPROXIMATELY $2.2 MILLION FROM THE CITY OF— WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THAT SALES TAX WENT DOWN YEAR OVER YEAR? LIKE RAW OVERALL SALES TAX? YEAH. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, BETWEEN '23 AND '24, EVEN THOUGH I SAY IT'S FLAT, FLAT, THE, THE OVERALL REDUCTION WAS, 0.06%. IF, IF ERIE COUNTY HAS THE OPTION TO CAP THIS TAX, THE SAVINGS IS GOING SOMEWHERE. YOU ARE EITHER— YOU ARE EITHER IMPLYING THAT EVERY OPERATOR IS KEEPING IT AND POCKETING IT, WHICH IF THAT IS THE CASE, PART OF THIS IN 2022 IS THAT ERIE COUNTY SAID THE DEPART— THE DIVISION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT, CONSUMER PROTECTION WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE IF THAT WAS SUSPECTED. SO EITHER THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT DO THEIR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SALES TAX SAVING WAS PASSED ON, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THEY DID. I'M SAYING IN HINDSIGHT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE, THAT THOSE SAVINGS WERE NOT PASSED ON AND THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT TO THE CONSUMER FROM EITHER OF THE, THE EXEMPTIONS, BOTH WHEN THEY WENT INTO EFFECT AND WHEN THEY EXPIRED. SO I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD LEARN THAT [02:50:01] LESSON. AND THAT IF WE DID THIS AGAIN, WHERE AT THAT TIME, WE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, WE, WE DID NOT. TODAY WE DO. SO NOW WE WOULD BE PURPOSEFULLY DOING THIS. WE WOULD BE PURPOSEFULLY HURTING EVERY TOWN, VILLAGE, SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TERMS OF SALES TAX SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A PRESS RELEASE THAT SAYS I'M FIGHTING FOR THE CONSUMERS. BUT IT'S AN EMPTY TALKING POINT. I, I'M GONNA CUT YOU OFF THERE. NO, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO CUT HOW MUCH WE ARE COLLECTING ON SALES TAX. THAT IS A CHOICE THAT WE CAN MAKE ON GAS. . WE EITHER GOING TO CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO CHARGE CONSUMERS MORE AND CONTINUE COLLECTING THAT. WE ARE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING A SURPLUS. IF WE REALLY WANNA TALK ABOUT HELPING OUR TOWNS AND OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT. WE CAN ALWAYS READJUST AND MAKE THE CHOICES. IT'S A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF— OH, I AGREE. I JUST THINK IT'S A BAD PRIORITY TO, CHOOSE TO FOREGO SALES TAX REVENUE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I— LOOK, I— YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA DISAGREE. I, I'M NEVER GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MY ROLE AS BUDGET DIRECTOR AND THE PERSON THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ENDS MEET AT THE COUNTY I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO ENHANCE REVENUES, NOT INTENTIONALLY DIMINISH. SO, W— I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EXEMPTION, FROM THE BUDGET HAT I PUT ON, I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE WE LOST MEANINGFUL SALES TAX DOLLARS AND THAT IS WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SHORTFALL IN 2024. BUT FROM A, POLICY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS NOT MY PURVIEW, RIGHT? POLICY IS NOT MY PURVIEW. I CAN AT LEAST APPRECIATE THAT ACTUAL ERIE COUNTY RESIDENTS GOT A BENEFIT FROM THAT EXEMPTION WHERE WE CANNOT DEFINITIVELY SAY THAT HAPPENED WITH GASOLINE. THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS OTHERWISE. IF WE CAN FIND EVIDENCE, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, TO TO REVIEW THAT EVIDENCE. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING HERE IS I'VE COME HERE PREPARED WITH SOME DATA SETS, AS IMPERFECT AS THOSE DATA SETS MAY BE. I'M TALKING ABOUT REAL INFORMATION THAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT IS IMPROVABLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE DATA THAT YOU HAVE, THOUGH, INCLUDES PRICES OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY. SO YOU CAN'T— WE DON'T, WE DON'T— I, I MEAN, I— IF YOU WANT ME TO CONTACT NEW YORK STATE TAX AND FINANCING, CONFIRM EXACTLY WHAT THEIR DATA SET INCLUDES OR EXCLUDES. I CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO RELY ON IT, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T. WHAT ARE YOU RELYING ON THEN? BUT THAT'S MY QUESTION. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX THAT'S COLLECTED. YOU'RE ATTACKING MY INFORMATION, AS IMPERFECT AS IT MAY BE, BUT YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING ANY REAL INFORMATION YOURSELF. IT'S JUST ATTACKING MINE. IF DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL BENEFIT THAT HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER? WHERE IS YOUR DATA SET TO PROVE THAT THAT HAPPENED? THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS. THIS IS A DEBATE. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO LEGISLATOR GREENE. THANKS. THANK YOU. KIND OF REMINDED OF MARK TWAIN'S FAMOUS QUOTE OF, THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES, AND THEN STATISTICS. YOU CAN GET STATISTICS TO SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT. AND SO IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT WITH ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. LISTEN, YOU YOU PUT ME ON THE TOP OF MOUNT EVEREST, I JUST LOST 10 POUNDS, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU KNOW, LESS GRAVITY. THEORETICALLY, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS YOU'RE QUOTING, , RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAYING A 5% OR 5, 5 CENT DIFFERENCE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S PUBLISHED BY, AAA, EVEN TODAY YOU'RE SEEING, AND THEN WHETHER IT'S TODAY, LAST WEEK, YOU KNOW, 2 WEEKS AGO, THEY SHOW A, A 1 CENT OR LESS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 METRO REGIONS. AND IT, IT, AND IT, AND IT— I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE OLD PERIOD OF TIME. I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THAT YOU HAVE DATA. . WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE DATA, DEPENDING ON WHO IT'S COLLECTING, IS, YOU KNOW, SELECTIVELY CHOOSING, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU CHOOSE, YOU KNOW, 10 DIFFERENT, THERE ARE ASSUMPTIONS IN ALL DATA. RIGHT. SO, SO, SO, SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE NEED TO MAYBE LOOK AT, AS YOU SAID, OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE DONE THIS SUCCESSFULLY. WE WANT AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, RIGHT ACROSS THE BORDER WHERE THEY DID SUSPEND THE, THE, THE GAS TAX A MONTH AGO AND THEY REDUCED IT OBVIOUSLY THERE BY LITERS, NOT BY, GALLONS, BY 10 CENTS A LITER. IT IN THE NEXT DAY IT WENT DOWN 6 CENTS. SO TO, TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THERE IS, THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE OVER THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS ONE THING THAT DOES BOTHER ME AS A CONSUMER THAT THE PRICES GO UP ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. I MEAN, THERE'S SOME— AND THEY TAKE FOREVER TO GO DOWN. AND, AND, AND, AND IT WILL GO DOWN. IT, YOU KNOW, SLOWLY AS WELL. WHAT WE SAW IN CANADA IS THAT IT WENT [02:55:01] DOWN, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATELY BY 60% AND THEN IT TAPERED OFF AND IT CONTINUED TO GO DOWN. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, AS WE, AS WE AGREE ON, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE PRICE OF GAS. BUT THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY STUDY THIS, OKAY, NOT YOU OR I THAT, YOU KNOW, TRY TO DIG INTO WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC STATISTICS WE CAN FIND. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA WHO REGULARLY, UPENN, WE ALL CAN AGREE WHARTON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, PRETTY DAMN GOOD. THEY'VE SHOWN THAT WHEN THE PRICES OF GAS TAXES DO GET IMPLEMENTED, YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY AN AVERAGE OF A 70%, PASSED ON DIRECTLY TO THE CONSUMER. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'VE ASKED LEGISLATOR LORIGO WHERE THE STATISTICS ARE. IS THAT— BUT IS THAT LOCAL EVIDENCE? THAT, THAT'S MY— BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UPENN AND UPENN PENNSYLVANIA, IT'S A DIFFERENT STATE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CANADA, IT'S A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. BUT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE ALL AGREE THAT, THAT, THAT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE DOES HAVE A LOCAL COMPONENT, BUT IT'S LARGELY AS WE HAVE EXPERIENCED, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT, CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, EXIST IN UKRAINE, GAS PRICES SPIKED SIGNIFICANTLY THEN. AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DID THE GAS TAX IN RESPONSE TO THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE DID SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR SALES TAX, OUR SALES TAX WENT UP. WE GOT A WINDFALL DURING THAT YEAR. SALES TAX, YES. AND I KNOW, AGAIN, THERE MIGHT BE SEVERAL, YOU KNOW, FACTORS, BUT IN THE END— MY POINT HERE IS, LOOK, I, I DO NOT WANT TO AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT, THAT GAS STATION OPERATORS MALICIOUSLY POCKETED THESE PROFITS. THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. IT'S ONE POSSIBILITY, BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES. AND THE MOST LIKELY POSSIBILITY IS THAT GASOLINE IS CONTROLLED BY MANY, MANY FACTORS. AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER FACTORS COMBINED ARE WHAT ACTUALLY DRIVES THE PRICE. AND THIS POTENTIAL, CHANGE OF 10 CENTS PER GALLON AT THE ERIE COUNTY LEVEL HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THOSE PRICES. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT THE PEOPLE THAT STUDY THIS, THAT GET PAID TO STUDY THIS, SHOW THAT FROM A NATIONWIDE STANDPOINT, IT DOES AVERAGE OUT TO, TO ASSISTING THE CONSUMER. SURE. AND, AND MAYBE NATIONWIDE IT, IT, IT DOES. I'M JUST SAYING I'M USING THE INFORMATION. AND IF IT DOESN'T, I HAVE A VALID POINT THROUGH THE INTERSTATE. IF IT DOESN'T GET PASSED ON LOCALLY, IF IT, IF WE KNOW THAT NATIONALLY ON AVERAGE— DID YOU SEE THE LAST ONE WE HAD THIS LAST TIME? DID YOU KEEP TRACK OF THE GAS PRICES, LIKE, WHEN THE EXEMPTION WENT INTO EFFECT, WHEN IT WENT OUT OF EFFECT? DID YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONSTITUENTS OTHER THAN MR. HESSELBACH, COMPLAIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? DID YOU GET CONGRATULATED OVER, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH THEY SAVED AT THE PUMP VERSUS CRITICIZED WHEN IT WENT OUT OF EFFECT AND HOW MUCH IT COST THEM, YOU KNOW, AFTERWARDS? MY, MY, MY GUESS IS PROBABLY NO. AND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY IMPACT OR NOT, IT'S, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL. ACTUALLY, I WATCHED IT LIKE A HAWK. I WATCHED THE GAS PRICES LIKE A HAWK BACK THEN. IN FACT, NOTHING HAPPENED. NO, ACTUALLY, I HAD REGULAR CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION TELLING THEM THAT THESE ARE THE GAS STATIONS I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT I DIDN'T SEE IT. AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SOME OF THOSE GAS STATIONS TOOK LONGER TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF YOU KNOW, HIT THE, THE REDUCED COSTS. . AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE. BUT MY POINT IS, IF WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SMARTEST BUSINESS, STUDENTS IN THE COUNTRY ARE DOING STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT IT DOES GET PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS AND WE'RE SOMEHOW IN A BUBBLE THAT DOESN'T PASS IT ON, WHY IS ERIE COUNTY'S DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION NOT DIGGING INTO IT? THAT, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE, THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION. I, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, TO ANSWER TO WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE DURING THAT PERIOD, PERIOD OF TIME. I'M LOOKING AT JUST THE RAW EVIDENCE. AND LOOK, IF THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER PRO— PRO— PROTECTION AND WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, FAILED TO HOLD, GAS STATION OPERATORS ACCOUNTABLE, THEN I THINK THERE'S WARRANTED, CRITICISM THERE. BUT ALSO, THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL DIVISION. THERE ARE LOTS OF GAS STATIONS. MY, MY GENERAL IMPRESSION, AND THIS IS JUST MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW ON ALL THIS, IS I THINK THE PRICE OF THE GAS STATION ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU FACTORS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. IF THAT GUY IS CHARGING 15 CENTS LESS THAN YOU ARE ONE DAY, IF HE'S WILLING TO TAKE THAT HIT, YOU'RE GONNA START TAKING THAT HIT TO TRY AND GRAB THOSE CUSTOMERS BACK UP. IT, IT'S, IT'S THIS MUTUAL REASSURANCE. YOU HIT A REALLY GOOD POINT THERE, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I CAN BOTH AGREE ON. ULTIMATELY, AND I HAPPEN TO USE AN APP ON MY PHONE. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS CONSUMERS CAN DO, , BECAUSE EVERYTHING AS, AS CARL HAS SAID, IS PUT RIGHT OUT, [03:00:02] OUTTA THE END OF HIS, DRIVEWAY WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT THE PRICES ARE, IS TO CHECK AROUND, LOOK AROUND AND FIND THE BEST GAS PRICE. 'CAUSE THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT HELPS PUSH DOWN THE PRICE AS WELL. AND WHEN YOU CAN ALSO PROVIDE A 10-CENT SAVINGS, THAT, THAT TYPE OF, CONSUMER, CONSUMER PRESSURE PUT ON THE GAS STATION OPERATORS WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH IT DOWN AND BENEFIT AGAIN. YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE HOSPITAL, YOU GOT THE DOCTOR, THE NURSE, THE ORDERLY, AND, AND THE CAFETERIA WORKER ALL SAY PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT FOR GAS, BUT IT'S A MUCH LARGER PIECE OF THE BUDGET TO THE PERSON WHO'S SWEEPING THE FLOORS THAN IT IS THE ONE WHO'S IN SURGERY. CERTAINLY, AND I THINK THAT OUR JOB IS TO HELP OUT. THAT'S WHY SALES TAX IS CONSIDERED A REGRESSIVE TAX, BECAUSE IT DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOWER INCOME THAN HIGHER INCOME. AND, AND MY ARGUMENT— FROM A GOOD GOVERNMENT POINT OF VIEW, WE, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY AGREE ON THAT. AND, AND RIGHT, AND MY ARGUMENT IN THE END IS, YOU KNOW, THAT, WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THOSE, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT. . AND TAKING NO ACTION IS UNACCEPTABLE. WELL, I, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY IMPACT FROM THIS ONE. AND LOOK, AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THIS, I KNOW FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT LOOKING TO DIMINISH REVENUES. I'M TRYING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL REVENUES. BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, I'M, I'M NOT WEIGHING IN ON WHETHER THESE THINGS ARE WORTH IT. I'M SAYING THAT THERE'S NO DISCERNIBLE IMPACT HERE. OKAY, THE STATISTICS YOU'RE USING, DOES IT INCLUDE NIAGARA COUNTY? DOES IT INCLUDE GENESEE COUNTY? DOES IT INCLUDE ORLEANS COUNTY? WELL, NIAGARA FALLS IS, IT DOES IT BY METRO. EXACTLY WHAT, EXACT GEOGRAPHIC LANDMASS IS COUNTED. DOES IT SAY THE BUFFALO-NIAGARA REGION OR IS THIS A— IT SAYS BUFFALO AND NIAGARA FALLS IS SEPARATE. I MEAN, YOU, WE, I CAN SHOW YOU, IT'S, IT'S A PUBLIC DATA SET. YEAH. RIGHT. RIGHT. THE BUFFALO-NIAGARA REGION. HEY, THANK YOU. I THINK WE AGREE TO DISAGREE THERE. LEGISLATOR MEYERS, JUST ONE QUICK POINT. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR ALL THIS ABOUT THE— IF IT'S PASSED DOWN, NOT PASSED DOWN, WHAT EFFECT IT'LL HAVE ON THE MUNICIPALITIES. BUT I THINK WE'RE JUST GETTING TAKEN AWAY A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'VE HEARD OUR PRESIDENT THE LAST 3 WEEKS SAYING GAS IS IT'S GONNA COME DOWN AND IT'S GONNA COME DOWN FAST. SO THIS SHOULD BE A SHORT-LIVED PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE. LET ME SAY ONE THING TO YOU. EVERY TIME THE PRICE GOES UP DRAMATICALLY, HE MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE WAR— LET'S CALL IT A WAR— IS OVER, AND THE MARKET IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSES FOR A DAY. AND THEN THE NEXT DAY WHEN THE MARKET STARTS BACK UP, THEY SAY, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY AFFIRMATION OF WHAT INSTEAD. SO THE PRICE GOES BACK UP. I'M NOT TRYING TO SCARE YOU, BUT IF THEY DON'T STRAIGHTEN OUT THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ— I DON'T— IF THEY DON'T OPEN IT UP PHYSICALLY, OKAY, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OIL IN THE WORLD TO MEET DEMAND BY ANYBODY'S GUESS, AT LEAST 12% TO 20%. IF YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF A SHORTAGE, THE IDEA THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PASSED ALONG TO EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS PURE FOLLY. I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I BUY A LOT OF PRODUCT FROM VALERO, AND THEY USED TO SUPPLY IT BY REFINERIES OUT OF NEW JERSEY. NOW IT COMES FROM PEMBROKE, ENGLAND. SO IF WE CUT OFF THE BRITISH, THE BRITISH WILL CUT US OFF. OKAY, OUR FINAL QUESTION HERE IS FROM LEGISLATOR MILLS, I BELIEVE. LET'S MENTION SOMETHING THAT THEY, A, VERY REPUTABLE SOURCE— I HEARD THIS FROM A FEW YEARS AGO, FORMER CONGRESSMAN BRIAN HIGGINS, WHO'S OVER AT CHASE NOW— AND HE MADE THE STATEMENT TO THE PRESS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY OUR FUEL IS HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES IN NEW YORK STATE AND COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE, THE COUNTRY. TRANSPORTATION COSTS, GETTING THE PRODUCT FROM THE REFINERY TO OUR AREA. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MISSING IN THIS DISCUSSION. THERE IS A COST TO BRINGING IT HERE TO WESTERN NEW YORK. YEAH. AND IT'S RIGHT, CARL, YOU KNOW, VERY QUICKLY, IF YOU WANT, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? THAT'S WHY DOWN IN TEXAS THE REFINERIES, AND THEY'RE CLOSEST TO THE TEXAS POPULATION, RIGHT? WE'RE FURTHER AWAY. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOES AFFECT OUR PRICE. THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU SAY MONROE COUNTY IS ABOUT THE SAME AS WE ARE, I, I GUESS, I MEAN, IT IS, IT IS CERTAINLY IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN WE ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY. [03:05:01] IT HAS A DIRECT EFFECT, SO TRANSPORTATION COSTS WILL BE ROUGHLY THE SAME. I MEAN, LOOK, I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPARE ANYTHING TO I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. YEAH, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR, HOPEFULLY FUTURE DEBATE. NOW WE GOT TO MOVE BACK TO ITEM 29 FROM THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE: ROUNDING OF CASH TRANSACTIONS TO THE NEAREST ZERO CENTS OR 5 CENTS. COMPTROLLER, HOW ARE YOU TODAY? I'M, I'M WELL, THANK YOU FOR ASKING. YEAH, I, TH-THIS IS, THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S WHAT BUSINESSES EVERYWHERE ARE DOING. IT'S, I THINK THE POST OFFICE IS DOING IT. I BOUGHT SOME STAMPS RECENTLY AND, AND THEY'RE DOING IT WITH THE, WITH THE SHORTAGE OF PENNIES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MINTING THEM ANYMORE. THERE COMES A PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE EXACT CHANGE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PENNIES. SO BASICALLY WHAT THIS POLICY SAYS IS LET'S ROUND EVERYTHING TO THE NEAREST NICKEL. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? LEGISLATOR BARGNESI. REAL QUICK, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT US IN THE COUNTY? LIKE, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE ROUNDING? I, I, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. WHAT ARE WE ROUNDING IN THE COUNTY? WHAT WOULD WE BE ROUNDING SPECIFICALLY? SO IT PERTAINS TO CASH CASH TRANSACTIONS. CASH— I'M SORRY, CASH TRANSACTIONS. CASH TRANSACTIONS, SO LIKE AT THE PUMP? BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I, I MEAN, I MEAN, I FOUND IT HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT, BUT, IT'S TRUE. SOME PEOPLE PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES IN, IN, IN CASH. AND IF SOMEONE COMES AND— ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED US TO INTERVENE. WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO? WE CAN'T GET PENNIES, AND IF SOMEONE NEEDS CHANGE AND IT'S SO LIKE AT THE DMV, WE'D ROUND UP, THEY SELL SOME OF THESE PROPERTY TAXES, WE'D ROUND UP. YEAH, CURRENTLY WE ROUND TO THE NEAREST PENNY ANYWAY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES A TRANSACTION, IF YOU MULTIPLY SOMETHING BY SOMETHING ELSE, IT WON'T COME OUT TO AN EVEN PENNY. AND WE ALREADY ROUNDED THE NEAREST PENNY. NOW WE CAN'T GET PENNIES IF THEY'RE CASH TRANSACTIONS. WHAT DO WE DO? SALE TRANSACTIONS. SO IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING ONLINE, YOU GO TO THE GOLF COURSE, YOU WANNA PAY CASH, PROPERTY TAX, REAL PROPERTY. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS ALSO HAVING A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE THAT PAY CASH BAIL THERE. THEY ENDED UP PROPERTY INFORMING US IN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS THEY WERE HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING THINGS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO RECOMMEND— SO IT DOES— IT DOESN'T APPLY, YOU SAID? IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ONLINE SALES? NO, YOU'RE PAYING— YEAH, YOU'RE PAYING WITH A CREDIT CARD ONLINE. SO IT'S ONLY CASH? IT'S ONLY CASH. YES. SO IF YOU PAY— IF YOU, IF YOU PAY YOUR PROPERTY TAX ON A CREDIT CARD, IT GOES TO THE COUNTY? GOT IT. THANK YOU. THANKS. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE BY LEGISLATOR BARGNESI SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, THAT MOTION IS APPROVED. THANK YOU. THAT ITEM'S APPROVED. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON NOW. ITEM 37 FROM THE CONTROLLER, APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT GUIDELINES. JUST SOME, JUST SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THE INVESTMENT GUIDELINES. THERE ARE SOME CHANGES, ALLOWING US TO, REGARDING OUR PURCHASE OF TREASURY BILLS. THERE'S ALSO, FDIC INSURANCE THAT'S, THAT'S CHANGED LEVELS. AND SO THIS BASICALLY CATCHES US UP TO DATE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? IS THERE— THERE'S A MOTION APPROVED BY LEGISLATOR BARGNESI, SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THAT ITEM'S APPROVED. THANK YOU. THAT WAS 37. ITEM 38 WILL BE TABLED. I THINK WE GOT ENOUGH ON THAT. 39 WAS ALREADY TABLED. ITEM 40 IS TABLED. ITEM NUMBER 41 FROM THE OR STATE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PRIVATE SALE OF BONDS OR NOTES BY NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS. YEAH, TH-TH-THIS PROVIDES US THE, THE ABILITY. WE NEED STATE PERMISSION TO DO THIS. WE GET IT ANNUALLY. IT'S A TWO-STAGE PROCESS. THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS TO ASK THE STATE, FOR PERMISSION TO DO THIS. SIMILAR TO SALES TAX, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THEM TWO OR THREE TIMES, RIGHT? AND, AND WE'VE DONE THE MEMORIALIZATION AND NOW ONCE THE BILL IS IN PRINT, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT PRINT NUMBER FOR THE HOME RULE REQUEST, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. AND THEY NEED THE HOME RULE REQUEST BEFORE THEY CAN PASS IT. AND SINCE THEY'RE GOING OUT OF SESSION PROBABLY FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR, SOMETIME IN JUNE, IT'S PRUDENT THAT WE GET THEM— THIS TO THEM NOW SO THAT THEY'LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO PASS IT. THANK YOU. THE MOTION APPROVED BY LEGISLATOR BARGNESI, SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? THAT ITEM IS APPROVED. MOTION TO ADJOURN. ITEM 42 IS RECEIVED AND FILED. IS THERE A MOTION [03:10:01] TO ADJOURN? BY LEGISLATOR BARGNESI, SECONDED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.