Public Safety Committee

Name: Public Safety Committee — Albany, NY
Start: 2024-04-25
End: 2024-04-25
Location: Albany, NY

Regular Meeting

Albany, NY · April 25, 2024

Minutes

ALBANY COMMON COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES Thomas Hoey, Chair Meeting called by: Thomas Hoey, Chair | Date: April 25, 2023 | Time: 5:34 PM Committee Members Present: Hoey, Chair ☒ | Balarin ☒ | Flynn ☒ | Frederick ☒ | Kimbrough ☒ Council Members Present: Anane, Robinson, Romero City Personnel Present: Marisa Franchini (Corporation Counsel), Investigator Graig Whitney (Albany Police Department), Sergeant Jimm Lewis (Albany Police Department), David Galin (Chief of Staff), Nairobi Vives (Chair, Community Police Review Board), Kevin Cannizzaro (Member, Community Police Review Board), Michele Andre (Program Manager, Albany CPRB), Shaniqua Jackson (City Clerk), Jake Eisland (Research Counsel), Juliette Geraghty (Junior Legislative Aide), Max Thierry (Junior Policy Analyst) Speakers/Invitees: Marisa Franchini (Corporation Counsel), Investigator Graig Whitney (Albany Police Department), Sergeant Jimm Lewis (Albany Police Department), David Galin (Chief of Staff), Nairobi Vives (Chair, Community Police Review Board), Kevin Cannizzaro (Member, Community Police Review Board), Michele Andre (Program Manager, Albany CPRB) Minutes Topic(s) of Discussion:  ORDINANCE 1.12.24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 353-63 (“MAXIMUM CHARGES”) OF CHAPTTER 353 (“VEHICLES FOR HIRE”) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO INCREASING THE MAXIMUM FEE TOW TRUCK OPERATORS MAY CHARGE FOR TOWS NOT REQUESTED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TO BE TOWED  LOCAL LAW D OF 2024 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING ARTICLE XLIV (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF PART 33 (COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO BRINGING THE CPRB INTO THE CITY Discussion  The Chair called the meeting to order and introduced Ordinance 1.12.24 as the topic of discussion. He recognized Councilmember Flynn.  Ordinance 1.12.24 o Councilmember Flynn spoke on the legislation’s background and shared information on towing fees from surrounding municipalities. He voiced his support for the legislation. o The Chair thanked Councilmember Flynn and recognized that Councilmember Anane had joined the meeting. He recognized APD Investigator Graig Whitney and Sergeant Jimm Lewis as well as Corporation Counsel Marisa Franchini. o Councilmember Flynn asked Corporation Counsel Franchini for background on the towing contracts and the legislation.  Corporation Counsel Franchini spoke on the background of the legislation and shared information on the current City towing contracts, stating that both the towing industry and the towing fees for surrounding municipalities had changed in recent years. o Councilmember Hoey spoke on the $25 kickback that towing contractors are required to pay the City and asked Corporation Counsel Franchini whether the fee was necessary.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that the kickback was unnecessary.  Councilmember Hoey voiced opposition to the kickback.  Corporation Counsel Franchini clarified that the kickback had no legal necessity but was nonetheless a long-standing feature of the City’s budget.  Investigator Whitney spoke on towing contractors’ opposition to the $25 kickback. He said that there was not a clear reason for the fee and added that towing contractors had turned down offers to work with the City because of the current financial situation.  The Chair recognized Chief of Staff David Galin.  Chief of Staff Galin said that the kickback represented revenue, though it did not serve a purpose beyond offsetting APD costs. He spoke on the need to compete with surrounding municipalities on towing calls by increasing the towing fee. o Councilmember Hoey spoke on contractors being required to tow City vehicles for free.  Investigator Whitney clarified the provisions of the existing contracts.  Councilmember Hoey asked Investigator Whitney about APD vehicle repairs.  Investigator Whitney said that the expense of City towing and maintenance had led to its eventual elimination. He spoke on the difficulty of operating towing services in-house.  Councilmember Hoey clarified his question and spoke on towing contracts including roadside service.  Investigator Whitney spoke on the towing contractors’ responsibility for APD’s roadside service.  Councilmember Hoey said that the issue may be a topic for another meeting. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick. o Councilmember Frederick spoke on proposed changes to the towing fee.  Investigator Whitney said that the City of Rensselaer had changed their towing rates today, leaving the City of Albany less competitive.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the need to stay competitive with other municipalities by increasing the towing fee.  Councilmember Frederick thanked the speakers and spoke on reducing costs associated with the administrating contracts by eliminating the $25 kickback. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Flynn. o Councilmember Flynn related the legislation to public safety issues.  Investigator Whitney spoke on situations impacted by the legislation.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that the legislation would also affect towing fees for snow emergencies.  Councilmember Flynn asked Corporation Counsel Franchini whether towing contractors are taking issue with current fees or other factors.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that contractors are taking issue with fees. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Balarin. o Councilmember Balarin spoke on finding a compromise on the increased towing fee. He spoke on the need to fill any budget gaps left by eliminating the $25 kickback.  Sergeant Jimm Lewis spoke on the $25 kickback and said that the revenue that it generates goes into the City’s General Fund. He said that the City needs competitive contracts to prevent towing contractors from charging higher fees for out-of-contract work.  Councilmember Balarin spoke on the $25 kickback being realized in APD’s budget. He spoke on his opposition to the legislation as written and said that the volume of City calls gives the City leverage in negotiating increased towing fees. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Anane.  Councilmember Anane spoke on his opposition to the legislation as written. He said that an increase could negatively impact low-income residents. He said that comparisons to surrounding municipalities were flawed and said that a compromise on a towing fee increase and the elimination of the $25 kickback would be more realistic. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Flynn. o Councilmember Flynn asked Councilmember Anane for data on the demographics of residents whose vehicles are towed.  Councilmember Anane said that the median income in Albany as compared to surrounding municipalities means that the median resident whose vehicle is towed is less wealthy than a resident of a surrounding municipality with a higher towing fee. o The Chair recognized Chief of Staff Galin. o Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the towing fees for Albany County Sheriff and New York State Police patrols operating within the City. He related the towing fee increases to public safety issues. He voiced support for tying the fees to the Consumer Price Index. o Councilmember Hoey asked Chief of Staff Galin whether the City could manage a reduction in revenue associated with eliminating the $25 kickback.  Chief of Staff Galin said that the City could manage. He said that the focus of the legislation is public safety. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Romero. o Councilmember Romero asked whether APD or the Mayor’s Office could provide call tickets demonstrating the public safety delays.  Investigator Whitney said that it would be difficult to show call tickets demonstrating the delays because the time stamps of calls to towing companies differ from the time that towing companies arrive on scene.  Councilmember Romero voiced surprise.  Sergeant Lewis said that the call ticket data would be difficult to parse. He said it would be easier to ask a dispatcher to provide comment to the Committee.  Corporation Counsel Franchini asked Sergeant Lewis whether he could ask dispatchers to provide examples.  Sergeant Lewis said he could ask dispatchers to start recording data and said that the computer system is not built to provide the data.  Councilmember Romero said that it was surprising to hear that call tickets did not include clear data on delays.  Investigator Whitney said that he would ask dispatchers to begin recording data on extended towing times.  Councilmember Romero said that she would appreciate the data. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Balarin. o Councilmember Balarin spoke on proposed amendments to the legislation, suggesting an elimination of the $25 kickback and a graduated towing fee scale up to $150 in 2026. o Councilmember Hoey spoke on towing insurance, stating that the impact of the legislation might be less than anticipated. o Councilmember Frederick spoke on approaching the increase from a reasonability perspective, stating that businesses will sign contracts with higher paying municipalities. She asked councilmembers to consider the needs of residents who are asking for vehicles to be towed. She voiced support for eliminating the $25 kickback and increasing the towing fee to $150, representing a 100% increase to the towing companies but not to residents.  Councilmember Hoey voiced support for tying the towing fee to the Consumer Price Index from 2025 forward.  Councilmember Frederick said that tying the towing to the Consumer Price Index would cede regular Common Council control.  Councilmember Hoey deferred to councilmembers.  Councilmember Flynn said that Councilmember Frederick’s proposal was reasonable but that the towing contracts may remain unfilled.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that the Administration might need to ask for future increases in the towing fee, depending on contractor responses. o Councilmember Anane spoke on the volume of vehicle tows in the City versus in surrounding municipalities. He said that part of the ongoing public safety issues comes from towing contractors refusing phone calls.  The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick.  Councilmember Frederick spoke on the volume of calls and the median income in the City and said that the $150 was a more reasonable compromise.  The Chair recognized Chief of Staff Galin.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on remaining competitive against Albany County Sherriff and New York State Police rates within City limits. He voiced support for eliminating the $25 kickback and setting a $175 towing fee.  The Chair recognized Investigator Whitney.  Investigator Whitney spoke on difficulties in signing new towing contracts at the current towing rates. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Kimbrough. o Councilmember Kimbrough spoke on business and public safety considerations associated with not remaining competitive on towing fees. He said that he would like information breaking down vehicle tows.  The Chair recognized Investigator Whitney.  Investigator Whitney provided data on vehicle tows. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Anane. o Councilmember Anane spoke on amendments to the legislation proposed in a written public comment. He asked Investigator Whitney whether response times were shorter in other municipalities.  Investigator Whitney said he did not have the data. He spoke on the current fee.  Councilmember Anane spoke on potential amendments to the legislation.  Sergeant Lewis spoke on response times for other agencies operating in the City, stating that wait times did not matter for Albany County Sherriff and New York State Police calls in the City given that their enforcement is proactive. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick. o Councilmember Frederick asked Sergeant Lewis for clarification on the towing fee.  Investigator Whitney spoke on the current comprehensive fees.  Councilmember Frederick clarified her question.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that the comprehensive fee includes towing and dolly fees.  Councilmember Frederick asked for clarification, which Councilmember Balarin provided. o The Chair recognized Chief of Staff Galin. o Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the rate of inflation outpacing the towing fees. o The Chair recognized Corporation Counsel Franchini. o Corporation Counsel Franchini spoke on wrongful tows being reduced and, if they occur, being refunded, minimizing the impact of the increase on residents. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Balarin. o Councilmember Balarin voiced support for a compromise at a $150 towing fee. He said that he would like to see the storage fee remain at $35.  Councilmember Hoey asked Councilmember Balarin for his final suggested dollar amounts.  Councilmember Balarin said he would support a towing fee increase to $150 towing fee and no change in storage fee. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Kimbrough. o Councilmember Kimbrough suggested increasing the towing fee to $175 and leaving the storage fee the same. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Flynn. o Councilmember Flynn asked Councilmember Balarin whether he would be willing to support an increase to $200 if no contracts were secured.  Councilmember Balarin spoke on the volume of tows helping make up for less competitive fees. He said that he had faith in Corporation Counsel’s ability to negotiate contracts.  Corporation Counsel Franchini said that the problem lay in receiving responses to the Request for Proposals. o Councilmember Hoey said that the Council needed to act and voiced support for increasing the towing fee to $175, keeping the storage fee the same, and eliminating the $25 kickback, with which Councilmember Kimbrough agreed. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick. o Councilmember Frederick said that $150 would represent a compromise that is more likely to pass the entire Common Council rather than the Committee alone, with which Councilmember Hoey agreed.  Councilmember Kimbrough said that if the $175 towing fee failed the Council, they could always amend the legislation and try again. o Councilmember Romero spoke on holding the legislation, with which Councilmember Flynn disagreed. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Balarin. o Councilmember Balarin spoke on securing votes with a compromise at a $150 towing fee. o Councilmember Flynn moved to pass the Ordinance 3.21.24 out of committee with positive recommending pending amendments to increase the towing fee to $150 and leave the storage fee the same, which Councilmember Frederick seconded.  Councilmember Frederick asked for clarification on eliminating the $25 kickback, which Research Counsel Eisland provided, stating that restricting the Administration’s ability to enter into contracts would require a separate local law.  Corporation Counsel Franchini and Chief of Staff Galin committed to eliminating the $25 kickback without legislative intervention. o The Chair called for a voice vote on the motion, which passed unanimously. He thanked speakers.  The Chair introduced Local Law D of 2024 as the topic of discussion and recognized Councilmember Robinson.  Local Law D of 2024 o Councilmember Robinson spoke on the intent and background of the legislation. o The Chair thanked Councilmember Robinson and recognized Chief of Staff Galin. o Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the relation of Local Law D to the Charter of the City of Albany, asking how the appointing authority outlined in the legislation fits with existing appointing powers.  Councilmember Romero spoke on modeling the legislation after existing boards and commissions.  Research Counsel Eisland asked Chief of Staff Galin for clarification on his question before speaking on the legislation’s means of eliminating the current administrative agency and allowing the City to facilitate the CPRB’s operations. He asked Chief of Staff Galin for clarification on his question.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the appointing authority for City employees being outlined in the Charter and compared existing boards and commissions to that being outlined in the legislation.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on the possibility of a referendum depending on how appointing authority is allocated in the legislation.  Councilmember Romero spoke on the constitution of certain boards.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the inability of those boards to hire staff.  Councilmember Romero asked Chief of Staff Galin whether department heads fell under the same restrictions, to which he responded that the Mayor has the power to recommend department heads for appointments, which are subsequently confirmed or denied by the Common Council.  Councilmember Romero asked Chief of Staff Galin whether this appointing authority rested solely with the Mayor, to which he responded that it did not but that the legislation conveyed the authority it to the CPRB, an unprecedented change.  Councilmember Romero asked CPRB Chair Nairobi Vives whether the Board had an argument for the change.  CPRB Chair Vives recognized CPRB Member Kevin Cannizzaro.  CPRB Member Cannizzaro spoke on the unique nature of the CPRB and its nature as a fully independent body compared to existing boards and commissions.  The Chair recognized Research Counsel Eisland.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on intent of the legislation matching that of the Common Council, which exists independently of other appointing bodies and maintains the authority to hire its own staff.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the need to ensure that the legislation aligns with the Charter.  Research Counsel Eisland said that he would be researching the issue with Corporation Counsel. o Councilmember Hoey spoke on the necessity of passing the legislation such that it could be implemented by the end of the year. He asked Chief of Staff Galin for the Administration’s position on contingency plans for the Board.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on a hypothetical RFP process and compared it to a hypothetical referendum. o The Chair recognized CPRB Member Cannizzaro. o CPRB Member Cannizzaro spoke on possibilities that would not trigger a referendum and said that any option that did would need to pass the Council by July.  The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick.  Councilmember Frederick asked CPRB Member Cannizzaro for examples of solutions which would not trigger a referendum.  CPRB Member Cannizzaro spoke on previously passed legislation providing for a number of provisions in the legislation. He said that the ability to independently hire employees would not constitute enough of a shift in power to trigger a referendum and said that carefully drafted legislation would avoid the situation. o The Chair recognized CPRB Chair Vives. o CPRB Chair Vives spoke on other obstacles built into the legislation including budgeting and fiscal impacts, staffing, office space, and the ability to navigate a transition into the City. She said that joint decisions involving training and onboarding need to be laid out more clearly in the legislation to ensure effective and independent oversight. o The Chair thanked CPRB Chair Vives. o Councilmember Hoey asked Councilmember Frederick whether legislative discussions would align with the beginning of budget discussions, to which she responded that they would. She spoke on the possibility of a transition budget. o The Chair recognized CPRB Member Cannizzaro. o CPRB Member Cannizzaro spoke on previous budget requests outlining staffing needs. He said that the Board is looking to formulate the transition and any eventual staffing around an executive director with appointing authority. o The Chair recognized Councilmember Romero. o Councilmember Romero asked CPRB members for specific sections of the law for the Committee to investigate, including training, hiring experts, and conducting mediation.  CPRB Chair Vives said that the highlighted sections needed attention, as did the fiscal impacts of a transition into the City. She said that previously circulated documents outlined the Board’s transition plan. o Councilmember Romero asked CPRB Chair Vives for information on current mediation processes.  CPRB Chair Vives said that the mediation process underutilized, largely because it relies on mutual agreement between parties.  Program Manager Michele Andre spoke on the current mediation process and said that the legislation did not address current protocols.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on the fiscal impacts of the mediation components of the legislation as written, as well as the Board’s ability to maintain independence from APD in matters including mediation.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on the intent of the language as written. He said that a process to find additional mediators needed to exist in the event that current lists were exhausted. He spoke on the outcome of a potential referendum not affecting most components of the law, assuming sections were severable. o Councilmember Hoey spoke on forming small working groups to break the transition down into more manageable pieces.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on efforts to workshop details on a faster timeline.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on the importance of including the Research Counsel in discussions.  The Chair recognized Research Counsel Eisland.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on limits to the Council’s powers and said that stakeholders would need to workshop certain parts of the law, including setting aside office space and shared City resources, with the Administration.  The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick.  Councilmember Frederick spoke on the fiscal impacts of bringing the Board into the City, with which Councilmember Hoey agreed.  The Chair recognized Chief of Staff Galin.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on shared resources and limited office space.  Councilmember Hoey asked Chief of Staff Galin about office space formerly occupied by 911 dispatchers.  Chief of Staff Galin said that APD’s Traffic Safety unit will be moving into that space.  Councilmember Frederick spoke on the need for the CPRB to have City office space.  Councilmember Hoey asked how many square feet of office space the CPRB will need.  Program Manager Andre said that this figure will be based on the number of staffers as determined through the budget process.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on space considerations and staffing as it relates to the transition into the City. She said that they will be relying on City officials to provide information on potential spaces and resources.  Program Manager Andre spoke on the CPRB’s need for both staff space and space for secure meetings, mediation, and recordkeeping. She said that the City of Albany’s CPRB is unique in that it is the sole civilian review board in the United States that exists outside of its government.  Councilmember Hoey asked Chief of Staff Galin whether the City could lease space from the County, to which he responded that he was unsure.  The Chair recognized CPRB Member Cannizzaro.  CPRB Member Cannizzaro spoke the importance of maintaining communication with Corporation Counsel, asking for a written opinion on previously discussed Charter issues.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on the Council’s relationship with Corporation Counsel.  The Chair recognized Chief of Staff Galin.  Chief of Staff Galin said that Corporation Counsel speaks for the Administration and vice versa.  The Chair recognized Research Counsel Eisland.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on keeping Corporation Counsel involved in conversations.  Councilmember Kimbrough asked Chief of Staff Galin about the issues with allocated office space, questioning why City Hall space had been given to project managers for the Lincoln Park Pool project.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on the lack of space in the Lincoln Park bathhouse and said that the downstairs space was being utilized for the City’s construction managers.  Councilmember Kimbrough spoke on the City Hall space, to which Chief of Staff Galin responded.  Councilmember Kimbrough asked Chief of Staff Galin about the decision to grant the construction managers office space while the conversation around bringing the CPRB into the City was ongoing.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on office space being occupied.  Councilmember Kimbrough said that the Administration needed to participate in the efforts to bring the CPRB into the City, to which Chief of Staff Galin responded.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on office space considerations and said that working group efforts in the next few weeks would be critical.  CPRB Chair Vives asked for a stronger working relationship with the Administration, asking for more helpful and direct feedback going forward.  Chief of Staff Galin asked for clarification on the legal opinion, to which CPRB Chair Vives responded.  Chief of Staff Galin spoke on appointing authority being laid out in the Charter.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on what the CPRB would look like on January 1, 2025. He spoke on the importance of maintaining the CPRB’s current function through a transition and into the future.  Program Manager Andre asked for clarification on the working group’s next steps and spoke on obstacles with the upcoming end of the Government Law Center’s contract.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on the need for security in the Board’s future home.  The Chair recognized Councilmember Frederick.  Councilmember Frederick asked Councilmember Hoey for clarification on the working group.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on the need for Corporation Counsel, the Research Counsel, councilmembers, and the CPRB to meet to discuss Charter concerns, with which Councilmember Frederick agreed.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on ensuring that Open Meetings Law guidelines are followed, to which Councilmember Frederick responded.  Councilmember Hoey said the working group would remain small.  CPRB Member Cannizzaro said that he and CPRB Chair Vives are available for meetings.  Councilmember Hoey said that he hoped meetings could be held online.  Research Counsel Eisland spoke on next steps.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on next steps as well as keeping the Board’s security in mind, to which CPRB Chair Vives responded.  Councilmember Hoey spoke on security.  The Chair asked for any further comments and thanked the speakers.  CPRB Chair Vives thanked the Committee. Adjourn: The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Max Thierry Junior Policy Analyst Albany Common Council

Agenda

COMMON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING COMMON COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Thomas Hoey, Chair DATE/TIME: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 5:30 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers-2nd Floor, City Hall PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: YES TOPIC(S) OF DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION:  ORDINANCE 1.12.24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 353-63 (“MAXIMUM CHARGES”) OF CHAPTTER 353 (“VEHICLES FOR HIRE”) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO INCREASING THE MAXIMUM FEE TOW TRUCK OPERATORS MAY CHARGE FOR TOWS NOT REQUESTED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TO BE TOWED  LOCAL LAW D OF 2024 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING ARTICLE XLIV (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF PART 33 (COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO BRINGING THE CPRB INTO THE CITY Matter in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material. Council Member Flynn introduced the following: ORDINANCE 1.12.24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 353-63 (“MAXIMUM CHARGES”) OF CHAPTTER 353 (“VEHICLES FOR HIRE”) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO INCREASING THE MAXIMUM FEE TOW TRUCK OPERATORS MAY CHARGE FOR TOWS NOT REQUESTED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TO BE TOWED The City of Albany, in Common Council convened, does hereby ordain and enact: Section 1. Subsection (A) of section 353-63 (“Maximum charges”) of article III (“Tow- Truck Owners and Operators) of chapter 353 (“Vehicles for Hire”) of Part II (“General Legislation”) of the Code of the City of Albany is hereby amended to read as follows: A. All towing companies licensed pursuant to this article shall prepare a schedule of the charges for the towing and storage of motor vehicles, and such schedule shall be filed with the Chief of Police. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum charge for the towing of any vehicle not in excess of 10,000 pounds, which has not been authorized by the owner or operator, shall be $100 $200. An additional flat fee of $25 for the dollying of a vehicle may be imposed. An additional charge of $55 per hour for winching may be imposed. The maximum charge for the storage of towed motor vehicles shall be $35 $50 per day, or each part thereof, to commence after the vehicle has been on the premises for 24 hours. The aforesaid maximum rates shall also apply to the towing of motor vehicles which have become disabled upon a street or highway in the City of Albany regardless of whether said tow may have been authorized by the owner or operator of the vehicle. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from final passage. APPROVED AS TO FORM THIS 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 ________________________ Corporation Counsel Matter in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material. To: Shaniqua Jackson, Acting City Clerk From: Brett Williams, Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel Re: Common Council Legislation Supporting Memorandum Date: January 2, 2024 Sponsor: Council Member Flynn ORDINANCE 1.12.24 TITLE AN ORDINANANCE AMENDING SECTION 353-63 (“MAXIMUM CHARGES”) OF CHAPTTER 353 (“VEHICLES FOR HIRE”) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO INCREASING THE MAXIMUM FEE TOW TRUCK OPERATORS MAY CHARGE FOR TOWS NOT REQUESTED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TO BE TOWED GENERAL PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION This ordinance raises the amount private tow truck operators may charge for tows not requested by the owner of the vehicle to be towed – e.g., tows ordered by APD for a vehicle parked illegally – from $100 to $200, and increases the amount operators may charge for storage of towed vehicles from $35 to $50. NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION AND ANY CHANGE TO EXISTING LAW The $100 tow operators may charge for tows in the City of Albany is among the lowest rates of any municipality in the area. APD has reported that they are, of late, having a difficult time getting tow operators to respond to APD’s calls. APD has noted situations in which its officers have had to stay on the scene of an accident for more than an hour, waiting for a tow truck to respond – a situation which ties up officers who could be better serving the public interest by attending to more pressing matters. The tow operators cite the City of Albany’s low towing fee as the reason for their decreasing response rates and times. Other area entities allow operators to charge as follows, according to information that has been shared with APD: Entity Tow Charge Storage/Day Albany Co. Sheriff’s Dept. $225 $74 Bethlehem Police Dept. $250 $75 New York State Police $200 (Daytime), $225 (After Hours) $65 Rensselaer Police Dept. $125 $35 Menands Police Dept. $225 $75 Colonie Police Dept. $200 $60 SUNY Police Dept. $250 $60 Verizon Fleet $200 Uknown Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. This legislation will increase the current $100 fee, codified in the City Code, to $200 to bring it better in line with other local entities and should, by so doing, increase response rates and times from tow operators to more appropriate and acceptable levels. The fee was last raised, from $75, in 2006, having been raised from $65 in 2001. FISCAL IMPACT This ordinance will increase the amount tow operators may charge for both towing and storage of vehicles towed within the City of Albany. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. Council Members Robinson, Hoey, and Romero introduced the following: LOCAL LAW D OF 2024 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING ARTICLE XLIV (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF PART 33 (COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO BRINGING THE CPRB INTO THE CITY Be it enacted by the Common Council of the City of Albany as follows: Section 1. Article XLIV (General Provisions) of Part 33 (Community Police Review Board) of Chapter 42 (Departments and Commissions) of Part I (Administrative Legislation) of the Code of the City of Albany is hereby amended to read as follows: § 42-332 Legislative findings; purpose. A. The Common Council hereby finds and declares that abuse of authority, incivility, rudeness, prejudice or discrimination based upon race, gender, color, national origin, economic status, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital or domestic partner status, or mental or physical ability has no place in the actions, customs, practices, policies or procedures of the City of Albany Police Department. B. The Common Council further finds and declares that it is in the public interest of the City of Albany to have an independent mechanism to fairly review the conduct of law enforcement officials. C. The Common Council further finds and declares that the conduct of law enforcement officials is subject to public, departmental and executive scrutiny and accountability. D. The Common Council further finds and declares that an effective program to improve the relationship between the community and the Albany Police Department requires certain independent authority and power to review the handling of complaints of police misconduct. E. The purpose of this Part 33 is to create an independent review body with respect to complaints of misconduct by officers of the Albany Police Department. The remedies created by this Part 33 are in addition to any others provided by common law or statute. Its goals are to improve communication between the Police Department and the community, to increase police accountability and credibility with the public and to create a complaint review process that is free from bias and informed of actual police practices. § 42-333 Definitions. For purposes of this Part, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings described in this section: Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY The agency responsible for administration of the CPRB pursuant a request for qualifications (RFQs), as described in § 42-352. APD The City of Albany Police Department. CHIEF The Chief of Police of the Albany Police Department. COMPLAINT A statement concerning police conduct which is either submitted to the Community Police Review Board for filing with the Albany Police Department or filed directly with the Albany Police Department. CPRB The Community Police Review Board. GENDER Shall have the same meaning as set forth in § 48-25 (Definitions) of Article III (Omnibus Human Rights Law) of Chapter 48 (Equal Opportunity Protections) of this Code. MEDIATION A structured dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party assists the disputants by facilitating a nonbinding intervention. OFFICER Any sworn police officer of the City of Albany Police Department affected by an individual's complaint. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS The Professional Standards Unit of the City of Albany Police Department. § 42-334 CPRB establishment; appointment of members; funding. A. There is hereby established a Community Police Review Board (CPRB) comprised of nine members, five of whom shall be appointed by the Common Council and four of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor. B. Members shall be appointed for three-year terms; provided, however, that: 1. Of members initially appointed by the Common Council: one shall be for a term of one year; two shall be for a term of two years; and two shall be for a term of three years. 2. Of members initially appointed by the Mayor: one shall be for a term of one year; one shall be for a term of two years; and two shall be for a term of three years. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. C. No member of the CPRB shall serve for a period which exceeds two full consecutive terms; provided, however, that a member may be considered for reappointment to the CPRB after one year of nonmembership. D. Members shall continue to serve on the CPRB until their successors have been appointed. E. Annually, the members of the CPRB shall elect from their membership a member to serve as Chair. F. Upon submission to the Common Council, the annual proposed City of Albany operating budget shall include a separate appropriation to fund CPRB operations in an amount which is not less than 1% of the total proposed budget of the Albany Police Department. G. The Corporation Counsel shall advise and represent the Board as it would other public boards in accordance with applicable state and local law(s). Additionally, the CPRB may seek and retain separate legal counsel, whether on staff or contract, for any purpose otherwise authorized under this Part 33 in addition to utilization of the services of the Corporation Counsel at the CPRB's discretion. H. The CPRB shall annually adopt an operating budget within amounts available which, upon adoption, shall be transmitted to the Mayor and members of the Common Council. All contracts for outside services (legal or other) shall be procured in accordance with applicable procurement requirements. § 42-335 Removal of members; filling of vacancies. CPRB members may be removed at any time for cause by a two-thirds vote of the Common Council. Any vacancy occasioned by resignation, death or removal of a member shall be filled within 60 days in the same manner as the predecessor to fill the unexpired term. § 42-336 Qualifications of members. A. Members of the CPRB shall reside in the City of Albany and possess a reputation for fairness, integrity and responsibility and have demonstrated an active interest in public affairs and service. B. The Common Council and the Mayor shall endeavor to reflect community diversity in their appointments, including income level, race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation and experience, and shall, in their appointments, solicit recommendations from the community. Officers (as defined in the City of Albany Charter), current employees of the City of Albany and the immediate relatives of officers and employees shall not be eligible for appointment. C. Members of the CPRB and their immediate family shall not be former employees of APD. § 42-337 Quorum. Five members of the CPRB shall constitute a quorum. Five votes shall be required for any action. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. § 42-338 Bylaws and rules. The CPRB, with the advice and assistance of the Administrative Agency, shall adopt, and the Common Council shall approve, rules and bylaws for the transaction of CPRB affairs, including the manner of calling and giving notice of special meetings and the appointment and duties of any special committees. § 42-339 Employment of experts; expenses; Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The CPRB shall have the power and authority to employ experts and a staff and to pay for their services and such other expenses as may be necessary and proper, not exceeding in all the appropriations that may be made for such Board, which services and expenses shall in the first instance be authorized and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. § 42-33940 Training and orientation of members. The Administrative Agency shall coordinate and conduct training and orientation of CPRB members and recommend for adoption by the Common Council written standards for orientation of appointees and continuing training of all CPRB members. The CPRB and Police Department shall designate an individual to collaborate on the creation of a program for the training and orientation of CPRB members, and create a list of acceptable trainings. The CPRB Completion of the orientation program concerning the goals, powers and procedures of the CPRB is required before a member may participate as a voting member. In addition, graduation from the Albany Police Department's Community Police Academy (the curriculum of which shall include training in the laws applicable to public record concerns, internal affairs investigations, confidentiality issues and liability statutes; training in police procedures; participation in ride-alongs; defensive tactics training; firearms familiarization; and emergency vehicle operations) within six months of the start of the member's term is required, unless no suitable programs were available at Albany Police Academy during that timeframe. Further, the Administrative Agency shall provide to CPRB members, and the members shall undergo, continuing education on issues related to the interaction between civilians and police officers from the perspectives of both the complainant and the police officer and shall additionally include a review and update of relevant federal and state statutory amendments and case law. Further, at least one member of the CPRB shall be designated to become a member of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, and at least one member shall attend its annual conference. § 42-3401 Recommendations, reports, data collection and analysis. A. The CPRB may make recommendations to the Common Council and the Mayor regarding police policies and practices relevant to the goals of community policing and the exercise of discretionary authority by police officers. B. The Administrative Agency, on behalf of the CPRB shall file quarterly and annual reports with the Common Council and the Mayor which contain statistics and summaries of complaints, including a comparison of the CPRB's findings with the final determinations of the Department. The Administrative Agency CPRB shall contract with one or more local colleges, universities or research institutions to conduct surveys of complainants concerning the level of their satisfaction with the process and to conduct surveys of the Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. community to get feedback concerning the CPRB and the Police Department. The results of those surveys shall be reported to the CPRB, the Chief and the Common Council. In addition, the Administrative Agency CPRB shall collect data concerning alleged offenses and offenders and report this data to the Chief. The Chief shall analyze and use the data concerning repeat alleged offenses and offenders to implement an “early warning system” to track repeat alleged offenses and offenders reported to CPRB and the Police Department. C. The Chief shall issue a quarterly report to the CPRB on disciplinary investigations and action taken within the Department and resolutions thereof. Such reports shall include both individualized information about specific cases and aggregate information. Additionally, the CPRB is authorized to request a report from the Chief on whether disciplinary action was taken in any specific case. D. The CPRB may perform, or cause to be performed, an audit to assess the investigation and adjudication of civilian complaints. § 42-3412 Member responsibilities. CPRB members shall: A. Maintain absolute confidentiality with respect to confidential or privileged information they receive and maintain a thorough knowledge of the legal protection accorded to police records, including the penalties imposed for violations. B. Obey all laws respecting individuals' rights of privacy and confidentiality of records. C. Not remove any Police Department, Professional Standards, personnel or other confidential files, records or tapes from City offices except as authorized under this article. D. Excuse themselves from participating in the review of any complaint in which they have a personal, professional or financial conflict of interest. E. Conduct themselves at all times in a manner that will maintain public confidence in the fairness, impartiality and integrity of the CPRB and refrain from making any prejudicial comments with respect to the CPRB, complainants or police officers. F. Participate in orientation and training programs in accordance with § 42-33940 of this Part. § 42-3423 Initiation of complaints. A. Complaints may be received directly by the CPRB, or upon referral from OPS, the Mayor, the Common Council, any Council Member, the City Clerk, or the Chief. Any complaint received and accepted by the CPRB shall be transmitted to OPS, and any complaint received and accepted by OPS shall be transmitted to the CPRB. Complaints shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the incident giving rise to the complaint. B. The CPRB shall receive complaints by telephone, in person, by mail, email or web form. Complaints shall be received and considered, whether submitted under signature or Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. anonymous. Efforts to simplify the procedure shall be made to encourage filing. Professional standards of confidentiality with regard to the written release of information and informed consent shall apply to all complaints filed. With respect to the confidentiality of all interested parties, the CPRB shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws. C. Before proceeding with the complaint process, the CPRB shall make the complainant aware of and provide a referral to organizations that advocate for people who have experienced police misconduct and can explain the process of the CPRB and other options that exist beyond the CPRB's jurisdiction. D. The CPRB shall have full access to information about any officer involved in the events that are the subject of a complaint, including information about prior complaints involving that officer and any action taken in response to those complaints. It shall be within the discretion of the CPRB whether to discuss in a public meeting, or include in the CPRB's findings, or otherwise make public, such information that is not otherwise subject to confidentiality standards. E. When a complaint is filed, and OPS is in the possession of any audio or video footage pertaining to the incident (including, but not limited to, body camera footage and dashboard camera footage), OPS shall make such footage available for any members of the CPRB upon request. If OPS fails to make the footage available within 14 days of the request, it shall forward a notice to the CPRB and the Common Council explaining the delay. Upon request of the CPRB, the Common Council may, after consideration, direct the release of such footage to the CPRB notwithstanding the requested delay. It shall be within the discretion of the CPRB whether to discuss in a public meeting, or include in the CPRB's findings, or otherwise make public, such information. F. When a complaint is filed, the Chief or their designee and the CPRB shall, pursuant to § 42-347, determine whether the mediation is appropriate. § 42-3434 Powers and duties. A. The CPRB shall have the power to conduct independent investigations as it deems warranted, even in the absence of a complaint being filed with either OPS or CPRB; the power to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and the production of evidence, and the power to discipline officers if a complaint of misconduct is sustained subject to due process procedures and findings. B. The CPRB shall establish a disciplinary matrix in conjunction with the Chief. Such matrix shall include clearly delineated penalty levels with ranges of sanctions which progressively increase based on the gravity of the misconduct and the number of prior sustained complaints. The CPRB, in consultation with the Chief, shall review the disciplinary matrix annually, and consider any recommended changes. The CPRB shall also seek input from the public while establishing and reviewing disciplinary matrices. The Chief shall decide the final version of the disciplinary matrix to be used after public input facilitated with the CPRB. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. C. The CPRB shall periodically review and assess APD policies, procedures, patterns, practices and training and may recommend changes to the APD. Written acknowledgment of receipt of recommendations will be sent to the Chair of CPRB from the Chief within 60 days with a detailed listing of what items are and are not being implemented. D. The CPRB and the Chief shall establish a cooperative relationship to ensure the orderly and efficient flow of information. E. Accessibility. 1. The CPRB shall provide or arrange language access for limited- or non-English- proficient complainants and witnesses at all stages of the investigative and adjudicative process. Language access shall be available during all operating hours of the CPRB. 2. The CPRB shall provide reasonable accommodations in accordance with federal, state and local law to individuals with disabilities at all stages of the investigative and adjudicative process. Such accommodations shall be available during all operating hours of the CPRB and shall include but not be limited to: accessible means of egress, accessible means of communication via auxiliary aids or services giving primary consideration to preferences of the individual deserving such services, and access to ASL interpreters. F. Investigation of complaints. 1. The CPRB may interview complainants, witnesses and APD officers, and gather relevant evidence. OPS shall provide the CPRB with written notice of the commencement of any investigation, and likewise, the CPRB shall provide the OPS with written notice of the commencement of any investigation. 2. The CPRB shall have the power to investigate any and all conduct, acts or omissions by any APD officer independent of any investigation conducted by OPS. 3. Subpoenas may be issued by the CPRB at any time during the review and adjudication processes. Such subpoenas may compel the attendance of witnesses, APD officers, APD employees, and/or persons, and require the production of records and other materials, including records of the APD, other persons or other agencies. A copy of any subpoena served upon an APD officer or employee shall also be delivered to the Chief. CPRB subpoenas are enforceable pursuant to relevant provisions of Article 23 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. 4. Upon receipt of a complaint, within the time frame allotted in accordance with any applicable police collective bargaining agreement, OPS shall provide to the CPRB its entire investigative case file related to the complaint. Thereafter, OPS shall send any newly acquired evidence to the CPRB within five business days of the Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. acquisition of the evidence. If OPS makes any findings with respect to the complaint, they shall send all such findings to the CPRB within five business days. 5. One police officer holding the rank of Captain or higher shall be made available by the Chief to the CPRB at the CPRB's request to serve as a consultant or advisor should questions arise from members of the CPRB regarding specific police practices, policies, or general orders. The officer so assigned shall be neither from OPS nor the commanding officer of the officer(s) involved in the case being reviewed. 6. A complainant may, at any time, decline to have their complaint investigated and reviewed by the CPRB. Such declination must be made in writing. 7. Statements made by complainants, APD officers or employees, or witnesses are subject to the CPRB's determinations of weight and credibility. Participation or lack of participation in the hearing process may be considered by the CPRB as one factor in their determination of credibility. 8. The Chief shall take no final action on a complaint, whether received directly by the APD or by the CPRB, until receipt of the CPRB's findings and decision, or notice that the CPRB has determined no disciplinary action is appropriate. Nonetheless, the Chief shall retain the authority to suspend an APD officer during the investigation and adjudication of a complaint against the APD officer, as well as the authority to impose any additional discipline for an officer above and beyond that recommended by the CPRB. Any documentary information that the Chief discusses in public or with the media must be made available to the CPRB. § 42-3445 Findings of the CPRB. A. The CPRB, after review and deliberation of an investigation, shall, by majority vote, make one of the following findings on the case: 1. Sustained: where the review discloses sufficient facts to prove the allegations made in the complaint. 2. Not Sustained: where the review fails to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. 3. Exonerated: where the acts which provide the basis for the complaint occurred, but the review shows that such acts were proper. 4. Unfounded: where the review shows that the act or acts complained of did not occur or were misconstrued. 5. Ineffective Policy or Training: where the matter does not involve guilt or lack thereof, but rather ineffective departmental policy or training to address the Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. situation. 6. No Finding: where, for example, the complainant failed to produce information to further the investigation; or where the investigation revealed that another agency was responsible and the complaint or complainant has been referred to that agency; or where the complainant withdrew the complaint; or where the complainant is unavailable to clarify the complaint. B. If the CPRB fails to render a finding referenced above within 60 days of its receipt of the preliminary report of the Department's findings, the complaint file shall be returned to the Chief for disposition of the matter, unless the CPRB shall advise the Chief, the complainant and the affected officer in writing of the reason for the delay in rendering its finding. In such case, the CPRB shall provide the Chief, the complainant and the affected officer with monthly updates on the status of the complaint. In any event, if the CPRB fails to render a finding referenced above within 120 days of its receipt of the preliminary report of the Department's findings, the complaint file shall be returned to the Chief for disposition of the matter. § 42-3456 Final determination. At the conclusion of its review, the CPRB shall make its finding known to the Chief, the affected officer and the complainant within 30 days. The Chief of Police shall review the Department's preliminary report in light of the CPRB's finding and then make the Department's final determination known to the CPRB, the affected officer and the complainant. In the event that the Department's final determination is inconsistent with the CPRB's finding, the CPRB may request that the Chief provide a written explanation of the Department's final determination. § 42-3467 Mediation process. A. A mediation process shall be established and coordinated by the Administrative Agency APD and CPRB in accordance with this section and Part 3 of this chapter. B. APD and the CPRB shall designate an individual to serve as the Mediation Coordinator, who shall receive training as a mediator. BC. Mediation shall be conducted at no cost to the complainant or officer by highly trained and experienced mediators selected from a list compiled by the Administrative Agency Mediation Coordinators and approved by the Common Council and the Mayor. The Administrative Agency Mediation Coordinators, the Common Council, and the Mayor shall endeavor to reflect community diversity in this list of mediators. The Administrative Agency Mediation Coordinators shall develop an appropriate training curriculum which each mediator shall be required to complete. Each mediator shall be a graduate of the Albany Police Department's Community Police Academy. In addition, the Administrative Agency Mediation Coordinators shall provide to the mediators, and the mediators shall undergo, continuing education on issues related to the interaction between civilians and police officers from the perspectives of both the complainant and the police officer. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. CD. Upon receipt of complaint, unless the case involves an allegation of excessive force, an alleged violation of civil rights or an allegation of criminal conduct against an officer, or the complaint is a result of an incident that involves an arrest, or if there was an injury to either party, or if there was property damage by an officer, the complaint will be considered appropriate for mediation. DE. An eligible complaint shall be reviewed for potential recommendation for mediation by the Board and by the Chief or his designee. Five members of the Board will be contacted by the Administrative Agency APD and a decision made as to appropriateness for mediation by a majority of those five members. A decision regarding mediation shall be made within two business days by both the Board and the Chief. If either the Board or the Chief finds a complaint inappropriate for mediation, then the matter shall be referred to OPS for investigation consistent with this article. EF. If the Board and the Chief recommend a complaint for mediation, both the complainant and the officer will have the option of electing to continue with the mediation process. If either party declines mediation, then the matter shall be referred to OPS for investigation consistent with this article. FG. If the parties agree to mediate, then the complaint will not be investigated by the Police Department regardless of the outcome of the mediation. GH. If the parties agree to mediate, the process shall follow the mediation protocols adopted by the Board. HI. Every reasonable effort shall be made to schedule mediation during an officer's normal working hours. IJ. Mediators shall conduct mediation sessions with officers and complainants at times and places agreed upon by the parties. JK. In conducting the mediation, the mediators may not impose an outcome on the parties. KL. Mediation sessions shall be closed to the public. Matters discussed shall be confidential. LM. Statements and records disclosed during mediation may not be disclosed or introduced in evidence during any judicial or administrative proceeding, and mediators may not be compelled by a subpoena to give testimony or produce anything related to the mediation. MN. Upon the completion of the mediation process, the CPRB shall issue a finding of "Mediated," and the allegations shall be deleted from the officer's CPRB history. § 42-3478 Meetings. A. The CPRB shall hold its first meeting within 30 days after a quorum of its members has completed the orientation program. At that meeting, the CPRB shall fix the time and place Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. for its regularly scheduled meetings. B. The CPRB may conduct both public and closed meetings as allowed or required by the Open Meetings Law. C. The Chief shall designate a representative from Professional Standards to attend meetings of the CPRB and to provide information and advice to the CPRB. The representative shall not be viewed as a member of the CPRB. D. Officers and complainants may attend meetings of the CPRB. E. The Administrative Agency shall provide all staff services to the CPRB, including the maintenance of CPRB files and records. Furthermore, the Administrative Agency shall be responsible for the preparation of CPRB reports and review findings and recommendations referenced in this Part. § 42-3489 Suspension of proceedings. Upon the written recommendation of the Corporation Counsel, the Common Council and the Mayor concurrently may suspend the CPRB review of any complaint where a separate criminal investigation is underway or where a civil action against the City is underway or pending. Upon the conclusion of such separate proceedings, the CPRB may resume or undertake its review § 42-34950 Information sharing. The CPRB shall forward, in writing, to the Chief any new case-specific information it obtains during the course of an investigation concerning an incident or practice subject to a complaint. Similarly, during the course of a CPRB review, the Chief shall forward to the CPRB, in writing, any new case-specific information the Chief obtains after the conclusion of the Professional Standards investigation and the submission of the Department's preliminary report to the CPRB referenced in § 42-3434 of this Part concerning an incident or police practice subject to a complaint. § 42-3501 Community outreach. The CPRB, with the assistance of the Administrative Agency, shall inform the public about the CPRB and its duties. It shall develop and administer an ongoing program for the education of the public as to the mission and purposes of the CPRB process and the law established by this Part, which shall include the use of informational pamphlets and seminars. § 42-350.1 Retention of Administrative Agency. In consultation with the CPRB and the Common Council, the Administrative Agency shall be retained pursuant to a request for qualifications (RFQ), periodically issued by the Corporation Counsel, to undertake the administrative functions of such agency as set forth in this Part 33. Such agency shall have the capacity to undertake legal and other research as necessary, development of administrative procedures, and statistical and report compilation in addition to such other functions set forth in this Part. § 42-3512 Construction of Part. Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. The purposes of this Part favor resolution of ambiguity toward the goal of promoting public documentation and openness in the resolution of complaints of misconduct by police officers. This Part shall be deemed to supersede and repeal any and all provisions of local laws or local administrative orders which are inconsistent or conflict with any provisions of this Part. No report, finding or determination made pursuant to this Part shall in any way conflict with or abridge the rights of complainants or officers guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution or any federal or state law, rule, regulation or administrative order. § 42-3523 Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, sections or part of this Part shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or otherwise unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, sections or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Section 2. This local law shall take effect upon final passage, public hearing and filing with the Secretary of State. APPROVED AS TO FORM THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 _________________________________ Corporation Counsel Material in strikethrough to be deleted. New material is underlined. To: Shaniqua Jackson, Acting City Clerk From: Jake Eisland, Research Counsel Re: Common Council Legislation Supporting Memorandum Date: April 3, 2024 Sponsor: Council Members Robinson, Hoey, and Romero LOCAL LAW D OF 2024 TITLE A LOCAL LAW AMENDING ARTICLE XLIV (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF PART 33 (COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO BRINGING THE CPRB INTO THE CITY GENERAL PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION To separate the CPRB from an administrative agency and bring it into the city. NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION AND ANY CHANGE TO EXISTING LAW At the end of 2024, the CPRB’s contract with the Government Law Center at Albany law School will end. Currently, the operation of the CPRB is required by law to be dependent on the existence of an administrative agency such as the Government Law Center. This legislation will permit the CPRB to operate independently, as a part of the City, without the assistance of an external administrative agency. FISCAL IMPACT None.

Get email alerts for Albany

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting