Public Works Board, Regular Meeting

1. 0:02This is we are terrific. Um hello everyone. This is Gary Pernag and I'm calling to order the public works board meeting for February 12th, 2026 to I have a motion to bring the meeting to order. >> Have a motion. >> Thank you, Tyler. Second. >> Second. Thank you. Okay, let's do a roll call. As I mentioned, I'm Gary Pernaden with school around the room. >> Um David Marston, George Croner, Tyler, Commissioner. Um Tiffany Martin is uh was not able to make it tonight. Um so, and then also as our partner in crime, uh we have Ryan Loc. Thank you. um reviewing of the December minutes. We we spoke about a couple of things. We're we're discussing um what Ryan had presented to us was a a condition
2. 1:06assessment tool that I think we all have um to to sort of guide us in terms of evaluating the uh the sidewalks and curbs and intersections etc. It includes photos and descriptions. So that is something that we can use as we go about prioritizing the work. um we had a DRRI update and it seems as if um you know we're moving forward with the uh DRRI and um also the big question back uh in December was the uh possibility of a grant um and um what uh came about from that is that the grant required matching funds And while we had funds allocated in the SID budget, it had not been identified as such and that was not budgeted and so um the city declined to move forward
3. 2:13with it uh so that we can keep that possibility open. Ryan, is that pretty much a fair assessment? >> I guess the point I clarified the grant didn't have matching funds as a requirement. There was a discussion as to the amount of funds the city could commit to the project as a whole knowing that the city was looking the applications were a million. There was additional costs outlined in in the scope of work of the project. So the request came in to clarify how the the balance of what was being shown as the project would be funded which would be likely in kind or from services around the city. So that was wasn't there's not a match requirement, but they were looking for commitment from the city to saying what kind of what funds they had available. >> Gotcha. Okay. So, um I don't know if everyone's had a chance to review the minutes. They've been online, but I uh move to have them um entered into the record. Do I have a motion? >> Motion. Thank you. Second. >> Sorry.
4. 3:14>> Great. Um, now is usually time where we get a report from from you, Ryan. You want to give us any update or assessment from your standpoint? We're pretty much, I think, at at a point of standing still. >> Yeah. The only thing I've helped Tyler with with a few requests have come in for clarifications on some of the SID assessments. >> Yep. Yep. >> Other than that, it's been pretty quiet. >> Okay. Um let's discuss the the uh letters that have come in uh challenging the their assessments. >> So we had two challenges. Um one of the property owners actually left out their total cost right uh when they submitted their application. So they didn't have a true uh amount of what they owed in tax. Um once we we reviewed that, we figured out, you know, where they were as a residential $100. Um, so they did receive a tax this year. Um, so we what we did was we're going to send them a letter and just add another year's
5. 4:17credit to on the end of their, you know, of their assessment. Uh, that was one of the challenges. The other challenge was we had a property reach out to us because they don't have a sidewalk in front of their um home. And in the law it actually says that it states that there's still a $50 um tax. So, we had to clarify that and we wrote down a law, send it out to them, an alert. And how will they get the $50 credits that it's a tax? They they don't have a credit. It's a $50 tax. >> So, you But it was originally assessed at 100. >> No, it was >> Oh, the question to my understanding was the question was >> I didn't I don't know why I received a fee on the sidewalk. >> Okay. Okay. Central blocks with no frontage of sidewalks still receive a $50. >> It's like a lot of the um homes that are on the boulevards. >> There's no Sure. >> There's no sidewalks, but even though every single one of them houses still
6. 5:20has a $50 tax. >> Yep. >> You live in Hudson? >> Yeah. >> That was it. It was just the two challenges. >> Okay. Terrific. >> And And have you been monitoring the sidewalk mailbox? >> Yeah. So there was a few other u residents who just reached out and just wanted some clarification on how to submit. There was um couple wanted to know if you know there was a contractor that other people were using you know things of those that nature. Nothing in any other challenging form. >> Okay. Okay. >> So it seems to be working out just fine. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And out of uh how many properties were assessed? >> So I think the total number of parcels within the city of Hudson is somewhere around 2900ish somewhere around by the city and other entities but that's the number we're recalling from memory. >> Do we do we have a number on how many actually submitted an application for a credit? about 30 30 to well so we had
7. 6:24some that submitted applications but they were outside the 10-year window so I think there was 30 or 31 properties that received a credit uh reduction of some sort >> so two challenges out of 30 that's good >> yeah that's great >> yeah I think we we got through the first year >> and here we are in the second year um or is it the third We started in 2014 30. Okay. Um so that brings us to moving forward. Right. So we have about over 300,000 in budget from the amount left over from the previous uh from the the initial investment by the city or alone I should say and then also the assessment that we'll be getting this year but we're not going to be getting
8. 7:26it until later on. So without that money in hand, can we go out and bid work and line it up? >> I mean that's that question I guess goes back to when the funds would be available. My is it quarterly? I guess I'm not sure when the is you know I understand that the first payments would have been or first bills would have been sent out and I'm not sure when they were due. But if you're if the thought is by the end of this year you'd have the full value, it may be challenging to say you could use 300,000 because you wouldn't get that until the end of the year. Guaranteed to have that by the end of the year. >> Um is there work you could do? Certainly. It it would just have to be or you know thought out as to when you what amount of work you look at. Last year the contracted amount was around $240,000 and we focused primarily on curb ramps, >> right? >> Um there's, you know, the the the grant application was trying to complete
9. 8:29sidewalks between a lot of those curb ramps along streets that um access public and mission buildings. You know, we could certainly look at a few of those smaller streets to see if there's a a location that would fit the budget available and then um complete something. >> Sure. >> Is the the 300,000 I know there was talks about partially being repaying the loan from there. Um what was accepted was what I had proposed here last time which was we'll pay back 50,000 of the initial 500 and um I had suggested doing that for the next three years. The treasurer suggested that we revisit it after the first year. So that's fair enough. Um now, okay, so putting funds aside, looking at the priorities, um what can can we go just a little bit more on the funds, please? >> Go ahead. I want to just understand the
10. 9:32decision to not pursue the was a million dollar grant. >> That was the request was for a million. >> The request was for a million. Were there parameters on the request like a range or did we just given the scope of work that we had been pursuing that seemed like a appropriate figure? >> So the maximum amount was $1 million. >> Okay. So we went for the max. >> Correct. >> Yep. And then Gary, you brought that to the council. The council wasn't comfortable in pursuing given the >> No. No. Um actually the the the the grant was not initiated out of this board. It was a uh from the mayor's office and um they brought in an outside consultant who Ryan worked with and so we were kept a breast of it and we from our budget paid for that which seems reasonable enough right um >> for the production of the materials to
11. 10:35apply. Yeah, exactly. Uh and for the consultants fee um and and that was submitted uh by the mayor's office, >> the former >> Yeah. >> mayor's office. Y and then when this my my best understanding is then we were going to reconvene and sit down and discuss it with this administration in January. I could not make a conference call and um the followup to that was that there was additional information required and um and the decision was then made out of the mayor's office to uh let's make sure that we have all of our ducks in order and we understand uh all of the requirements and so we as the city declined uh moving forward >> and the the state had asked us for more information. That's kind of what happened. They asked us, "Well, what is
12. 11:36your commitment towards the >> Yeah, I don't have well I don't have the minutes in front of me. I saw them. So, I don't know exactly what the state was asking. Uh but, you know, one of the things that we were going to have to come up with was um if you will a understanding of what had been budgeted for this project, >> right? That's a block grant, right? The >> That was a community development block >> CDBG grant. So, it's kind of a bummer. >> Yeah, it is. Um because I I mean, we were really counting that. I feel like we were hoping >> I think it would have took a big chunk out of, you know, us getting a lot more work done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and and just showing the work that was coming out of this committee. >> Yeah. >> Well, I and I think the walkway for us is that and and we should take take ownership of this is um what are the
13. 12:40grants we want to move forward for in the future and what do we have to have in place for that to happen? >> Yeah, >> you do have a member of the public with the hand raised Justin I believe. >> Okay, Justin. Hi guys, how are you? >> Miss you already. >> I see that. I miss you guys too. Yes, I just wanted to comment um it is very very very disheartening that um this grant opportunity has fallen by the wayside. There was a lot of work that went into it. Um there was always that question, you know, because we were going for the million, even though it was a grant that had no match, right? Um it was expected that if we were to be granted the 1 million, that the city would have a million dollars worth of work to be doing. And we figured that, you know, since we were going to be collecting
14. 13:42like 300,000 with the um SID tax, that at the very least if we were offered the full 1 million, we could say, "Okay, we'll accept 300,000 of that money because we have 300,000 in SID tax that we can use to do some work." But we didn't even get to that point because it sounds like there were further questions, right? and um uh they weren't they weren't answered and then so we don't know if we would have have even received any money. I think we would have. So I guess my my thing that I want to say that you know if you guys are considering pursuing other grants I think now it's really important with a new administration to talk to them. maybe uh the public works board meet with the mayor's office um and perhaps Margaret and the city council just to get a collective sense of what they will be okay with pursuing before the board goes forward and does
15. 14:47all the work again and then find out well we don't really want to spend X to receive Y you know what I mean I think that would be probably a proactive thing but it It is very sad to hear. >> Justin, do you do you recall what the ballpark was that we committed to get that grant submitted >> to pay for the work on that? >> Uh $12,000. That was uh what we paid Leurge and that came out of the uh grant writer uh budget of the mayor's office. >> Okay. Actually, it came out of the SID budget. >> Uh, well, right. Yes. Origin, right? Originally, it came out of the mayor's uh but it was it was realized that it should have come out of ours. So, we did a Yeah, we we replenished the mayor's uh budget, right, Gary? And then it came out of the SID um the SID budget, >> but it was 12,000 for that
16. 15:50>> for the public facility grant. Yep. >> Thank you. and uh yeah uh good good council on uh making sure everyone's on board uh before moving forward. Thank you. So um in looking at future work, do we still should we still be looking at the curbs, ramps, intersections? Should we be looking at the the pathways or walk sidewalks to municipal buildings? That's where the focus was last, you know, for the first phase of this. I'm not sure if we've completed that. Um what's the board's thoughts around this in terms of getting focused and saying, "Okay, this is what we want to start looking at. Did we complete all of the curbs? >> All the curb ramps that were included in the contract. Yes. Um there were there are still a few curb ramps that were not not considered due to various reasons.
17. 16:54Um example, Colombia. We didn't do anything on Colombia below uh six because that's where a sewer separation project's going on. So there were some that we skipped over for reasons like that, but we did connect Fifth Street to Warren Street or from sorry State Street to Warren Street on Fifth Minus Columbia. Uh Sixth Street from Warren all the way to State all the way to the Pocketbook Factory is where we stopped. However, there was one curb ramp there we had to skip due to any utility pole being in the way. Um and then seventh street we had done we worked on um park to state street and then the work in front of the depot loss was done by the owner. So those sidewalks were completed to the firehouse and um building department. So thinking about, you know, as as this tax rolls in, right? Um maybe we look at some of the smaller projects like finishing some of
18. 17:56the curve ramps, uh some of the higher traffic areas connected to some of the municipal buildings, you know, so we don't take we don't go after a big piece and not end up having fun. Makes more sense to me. And those were originally came out of the Justice Department's recommendations, right? >> There were I think don't quot the number. I think it was six or seven areas of work. Yeah. >> And that's there were strips of of roadways networks to the public buildings. Yes. >> Right. >> So those are the groups part of that. >> You brought up a good point. Do we ever get closure from justice department for okay you've completed this work and we're all happy and >> no just >> they just don't suit you they just >> well you know perfect um but by I believe my understanding is that um we had brought in
19. 19:02>> hes Himman Hayes and Associates. Um, they did assessment, put a punch list together, if you will. Um, and ultimately, uh, it they were to be the ones to sign off on it as the, um, I think at the term, uh, neutral, if you will, uh, sort of third party type thing. >> I'm sorry. >> Like a third party, correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um and um you know the last two years we haven't heard back from the Justice Department. >> I do know Justin was submitting photos and records to them. >> Oh, we had communications but that stopped after the new administration. >> So it would have seemed that it's not a priority. Uh but um it is the lore of the land. We need to move forward. >> Yeah.
20. 20:02>> With it. So, you know, >> just be nice to reach some kind of closure so we can start to >> say, okay, we've done that. Now we're on to the maybe flat work or whatever. Well, we actually we know that we're not in ADA compliance, you know, and I think ultimately that's, you know, where we want to be. Um, and and you know, I just as well leave Sleeping Dogs line. I mean the goal from my understanding the goal of this board and the SID is to continue this process for the for the long term not to you know the compliance is going to continue to be improved upon for the future. It won't you know there may not be a time where you can say everything is perfect throughout the city. There may still be areas of work to work on, you know, 5 10 years from now. >> Right. >> Beyond just the initial list from >> it's it's going to be a continuous. Correct. >> Right. Yeah.
21. 21:03>> Right. But I I I think the big thing is, you know, obviously we have bills, right? We have bills to pay. We don't we don't have that grant that we were counting on. Um, so we don't want to go broke, take off a big chunk and try to do some work if we're going to need money to submit for grants or, you know, other >> that needs to be planned. But >> we're not the government, so we can't spend what we don't have. >> Exactly. So we got to be careful on our next on our, you know, our next project here is what I'm saying. >> Yeah. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And and yeah, it might be prudent to hold back funds, you know, just for >> just to build the account, right? Or, you know, >> or be able to bring in, you know, a consultant to help us with some grants or whatever the case might be, >> right? >> Okay. >> And we own the work products that we paid for for the grant we decided not to pursue, right? The same work that LeBarge did that we paid the 12K for, that is our work
22. 22:06product. We can repurpose some of that material at a minimum, >> I would think. Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. Get it ready for a new package. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The one challenge with some of that is a lot of the grants speak specifically to goals and objectives. So, it would be a lot of the work they did definitely will have, you know, reusable information, but a lot of the goals and objectives change depending on who the grant source is. So there may be some it would unlikely be that you could just take and you reuse it. Exactly. There'd likely be >> modification. >> Yeah, 100%. That makes sense. >> I think also the thing with the Justice Department is to your point, it really organized our entire orientation and focus. And if we're not really under a consent decree in any real way, then while I agree we need to keep pursuing, we can we need to think strategically to
23. 23:08not burn it all on just crossing those off our list that was made for us, you know. Mhm. >> And I'm I'm not I'm surprised that too that the city doesn't maybe this is a question best not discussed in the public realm but you know that the city would be interested in how have we uh succeeded in eliminating some liability uh for this work. you know, the decree if the decree is deemed done complete, then that's liability that the city's not exposed to. Something to think about. But yeah, we you're right though, both of you, about thinking more strategically with the money. Do we have an idea of what current concrete costs are for sidewalk per square foot? 15 that I heard 15ish. I I haven't I've not gotten a 2026
24. 24:14concrete price yet. But if you're talking per square foot, that number would be would not be for what the city would pay for a contractor on prevailing. >> That's the the biggest change, you know, the resident that could be more accurate. Um but prevailing wage has a large cost and that I think we budgeted pro not substantially more but it lumber higher than that when we were doing previous work. So, is there a mason's union in this town? >> Concrete masons where you could actually incorporate training apprentices and >> I've never heard of it. I doubt it, but you know, >> do city work with that, you know, >> and it was just not concentrated enough. You might have to go to Kipsy for that, you know. >> Right. >> Okay. So um yes, we need to start thinking about all this uh in terms of how we want to move forward and prioritize. I'm going to find out what's the availability of the funds as we move
25. 25:18forward. Uh also look into the lever product and if we can get a do you have a copy of that? So I have a copy um >> it it's a large file so it probably is not easy to share via email but yes we we were given a copy of of materials that were submitted. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um so let's continue to think about in terms of what our priorities would be. The other thing that I want to carry over from last year is we were discussing is is there a way for the city to motivate property owners to uh voluntarily Thank you, Gary. Um do do the work themselves? Um, I'm a I'm I wanted to bring up can we work more closely and collaborate with code enforcement authority to um
26. 26:24identify certain high risk sidewalk areas in need of improvement that might be perhaps owned by larger developer groups or um owners that have the means to um adhere to what is the law rather than deferring to Sid to take care of that for them. um not in a sort of you you phrased it correctly. I feel like can we motivate certain property owners to take care of their sidewalk? >> Yeah. And how do we do that um through the code and through our code officer in a way that's strategic? Well, see and there was some there was debate last
27. 27:27year on this because I don't think we have to stick any longer in code enforcement. Uh property owners are responsible for ice and snow. um they're not responsible for the tripping hazards. The city's taken that over. Um >> well, I think we I think we should I think we should think through that. Is that is that is that is that the legal interpretation of a law? >> Yeah, >> because we don't own that property, right? >> We do not own that property. We have an improvement district that overlays the property and we have the right to tax that aortionment by virtue of the overlay. But does it mean then that we are solely responsible for the condition of the sidewalk? Well, we've always the city has always owned the sidewalk.
28. 28:32It is not owned by the property owner. Is that true? We should pull that. I don't think that I'd like to I'd like to get to the bottom of that as well because in the city they changed New York City changed and made the owners responsible for all trip hazards and sidewalk improvements and you know liability. Boy, it really changed the city makeup pretty fast. You know, >> we should just we should pull the information so that we have >> we we can double check it again and we have a new council. We had checked with the council last year and and that was you know of course it was very legal ease kind of in a response right >> I think this committee is based on that >> I think we all and I said one of the things I wanted to is that we all should go back including myself and reread that >> front to back >> I'm sorry >> we should know that front and back we >> you know it would help you have to question yeah um we okay yeah we'll Yes, Matt Matt McGee would like to say
29. 29:42something. >> Uh yes, this is Matt McGee. I'm a property owner in Hudson and I did have my property uh the you know the boundaries uh >> defined >> defined. So actually the sidewalk some four plus feet of it belong to the city not to me. And in my opinion and I think that what was said before is correct. I do not own this sidewalk. The city does. And now the city is charging me a fee to for them to take care of the sidewalk. So I I'm puzzled that even so I'm responsible for it anyway. I don't think that would be a reasonable understanding of what has happened. Uh in New York City it was the same as it used to be here but you have changed the
30. 30:47law and you're charging a fee which New York City does not charge. And I think that's you know that that's the crux of it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Justin as well. Yeah. >> Just >> hi. Um, so yeah, I just wanted to say before um I left office, I did have a conversation with Crystal Pek and I had a separate conversation with Rob Perry um regarding the language about the responsibility um and who it falls on. And there are different scenarios that are clearly marked in the charter. The language is specific, but even with it being specific, it's foggy at best. And Crystal and Rob, I suggested that everybody meet together to perhaps update the language to make it crystal
31. 31:50clear because certain topics would come up. Well, if somebody hurts themselves in this way, you know, it's one person's responsibility and if they hurt themselves a different way, it's someone else's responsibility. And it's not really clear. So, I just want to leave you guys with that that it is on it's in their minds that the language should be looked at and collectively updated in some way to make it clear because it you get you get different opinions when you talk to different people. That's all. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Justin. >> Okay. So, we do need clarification on that. >> Okay. Anything else? And if you want to clarify why, you should have a good concept of where you want to go and how you want what you want established. Um but to the point about motivating
32. 32:56people I mean one recent example is Colombian stick but in harmonic LLC. So that was like one of the worst areas and they did take it on themselves. I wish they had to poured the sidewalk a little bit better for the ice. I think that would have been better if it were. But anyway, so talking to the owners spended $40,000. So your question is, and this is maybe an a more extreme example on the high side, but how do you motivate somebody to spend $40,000 or a smaller project? It could be 5,000, 10,000 to I don't know the number, but you're like, how do you motivate someone to spend that kind of money if they don't feel like they have to? Um, and then there was the third point, that's the final point that I'm going to make is it's unfortunate that that loan, that grant was not not acquired. And maybe maybe if they had
33. 34:00taken a staged approach instead of going for a million a million three in one project that if you had like set up various portions of work that could be done you know and so I don't know in terms of like making a grant application if you have to go like one with the decision was made to go bohawk and go for the full 1 million and uh that may be why it got turned away. I don't really understand the the specific minutia what happened turned away but uh I think if it been managed closely it could have been acquired I don't that's I would hope I would think they have these grants they want what they want the municipality to spend the money so I don't know what happened >> thank you yeah okay anybody else the Yes. Motion to
34. 35:05adjourn. Kurt second. George 70. Thank you all.

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.