Common Council Legal Committee

1. 0:02with roll call. Uh Jason, you're online. >> We can't hear you. >> I'm online. >> And we have in the room we have Claire, Jenny, Margaret, and of course, uh Linda and Logan. Um and Ken is going to try to join remotely. Um so the first item of business is the proposed local law to clarify section 32517. So last um meeting um we talked about this. I circulated what had been proposed and rejected in 2025 uh which used data uh from a uh I believe it was from 2015 and then since then uh Donna Strites had submitted a uh a version which was using data from a
2. 1:04report in 2010 um which showed us in 2009 um which is closer temporarily to 2011. Um it also was at the time when the dock was probably being fully used whereas the 2015 data was colors that had taken over the dock shortly before then and their usage was considerably lower than the usage in the data from 2010 study. So where we left it was that we will keep it in May. Um Hi. Are you Oh, you in town? >> Yeah. Yes. Uh, so where we left it was? >> Yeah, I'm connected. I'm connected. >> Okay, great. So, where we left it was we're going to keep it in committee. Uh, since then um Donna has submitted a um communication to us. there was discussion around whether or not uh annual data should be used or whether it
3. 2:08should be um uh dailyweekly data and so forth. So uh Donna I think you wanted to speak to the committee. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Does anyone need any paper handouts? I have copies all set. >> Oh yeah. >> I'll take one. This was the one you sent me. >> This is the memory. >> It was Margaret. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Um, thank you so much for um, having me back again. Uh, appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about this. So, I'd like to focus my comments on the April 6th memo that I sent to the
4. 3:10committee uh, and the rationale for using annual tonnage and truck trips rather than daily or hourly. So the limits that are included in the proposed resolution to clarify the city code were derived by data in the 2010 great Manning traffic study. And the purpose of that study was to evaluate potential traffic impact using the old rail bed from the quarry to the dock, the transport aggregate. Okay. And that study used a trip generation analysis which is a standard method in the industry used for estimating vehicle trips to assess roadway capacity. It's appropriate for traffic planning, but it's not designed to measure or regulate the scale of industrial activity. The trip generation relies on assumptions such as peak hour conditions
5. 4:15and counts vehicle movements over short intervals. It does not measure the total material that's handled. Now the study also cited some facts regarding the volume of aggregate in 2009 specifically 148,000 tons and 27 and a half tons per truck per truck load. Now why annual tonnage and truck trips? So they reflect actual operations because trucks are the sole means of transporting the aggregate to the dock and the total truck activity corresponds to the material volume. The annual limits rely on documented throughput for the year rather than assumptions and they're more accurate for enforcing uh the measure of scale. Daily or hourly limits are not recommended because the day-to-day operations vary widely based on numerous factors, market demand, weather, barge
6. 5:20availability, workforce capacity, hours of operations, etc. On page two, uh, in terms of regulation considerations, annual limits regulate how much material is processed over time. There's a fixed ceiling and that pres prevents incremental expansion regardless of how the activity is distributed throughout the year dayto day. Annual metrics are simple to check. They provide clear rules and allow for normal ups and downs in the operation. by the dock operator so they don't have to micromanage within a certain daily or hourly limit dayto day. So if the goal is to prevent expansion, annual limits are the only mechanism that works. Daily and hourly limits may help to manage traffic, but they cannot cap growth. Now, I've included as attachment A to that memo an excerpt from the January
7. 6:242010 crate nanny traffic study. Um, this was on page two, trip generation. It was a section that um Jason had uh focused on at the last meeting. And for ease of reference, I highlighted in yellow the assumptions that were used and/or the purpose of the study. And I highlighted in green the facts, specifically the facts that were used to derive the annual limits that are in the proponus resolution. So the 27 and a half tons per truck and 148,000 tons per year, which was the 2009 activity. Any questions on on the memo? Anyone? >> Uh I'm assuming that currently there is no weigh station at Colorado for them to weigh their trucks every day. So how are they going to know how much tonnage they have just
8. 7:28based on truck? >> So the number of trucks. >> So the proposal has uh two limits. One is 148,000 tons, okay, >> per year. And the other is the number of round trips, >> okay, >> 5,000 and some round trips. So the trips can easily be measured by the load tickets. >> Um, and and I >> there there is a there is a Jason, isn't there a way? >> I remember discussing this last question. >> They might they might have something at the measure. They do. >> I do believe they >> I do believe they weigh these trucks at the quarry. >> They have to charge the customer. >> I remember this. I remember this came up in discussion a couple years ago. >> Then why don't we have accurate data that's more more current? >> Well, it's not about what's current. What the >> study done since 201 about what's current. What the code said was whatever was in effect. And it's and Jason has a little perspective on this, but the code
9. 8:31is basically the usage that was in effect in 2011. >> No, I understand that. But >> it's not about what we what's happening today or not. It's clarific clarification of what does that mean? There's no guidelines for any implementation of what that means. There's no quantification of what was in effect in 2011. That's what we're trying to establish. But don't they have record of what 2011? The closest because they they sold and then >> and they didn't have >> the closest the closest thing we have in time to 2011 is uh a 2010 study that reported the >> No, I understand all >> that's the 2011 if you recall at her last meeting. >> Yes, I I remembered it. Palaruso had contacted OMG at the planning board's request to determine the activity in 2011. OMG wrote back in in an email to say we don't have a redest in 2019 due to our records retention policy. So much
10. 9:34time has happened. >> Jason, do you have any questions? >> Uh, no. I think it was very clear what she's what she said. I don't have a question. >> What what I would like to propose here, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. I had one other thing I wanted to to review just briefly that was the other attachment that I I distributed >> this one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So this chart really is an excerpt from the 2020 crate manning truck study that was commissioned by a call Russo and Sons. And the top part of the page um is text that I added. The bottom part of the page is uh an a copy from the actual study chart three loads delivered. So that study included uh for the period of mid 2014 when Calisso bought the dock through 2019 charts that showed loads delivered each
11. 10:37year yearbyear and this is the 2015 data and the chart at the bottom on the left axis it shows the one-way trips in 20 trip increments and then across the bottom it shows the days of the year in three-day increments and then the lines represent every day the trucks were running to the dock. Um, so what this tells us is that the annual truck loads in 2015 were 2730. A truck load means a round trip, one round trip. And the annual truck trips is double that, 5,460. that's to and from the dock. The number of operating days were 77. So they only ran trucks 77 days that year out of a potential 365. Because there was no permit, they weren't limited to lower than that. The daily loads ranged from zero on days
12. 11:40that they didn't run trucks to up to 125 was the highest. And the average trips per days hauled was 35 and a half round trips. And I just took the 2730 loads divided by 77 days to derive that number. Now if for example a daily limit were imposed, let's say 125 brown shrimps and that's the red line on the chart below. 125 was the highest number of loads. It happened on one day in 2015. So let's say there's a proposed 125 daily limit. The dock owner still has an opportunity if they comply. They can comply every day and still be comply but still increase their overall operations up to over 30,000 round trips annually. Worst case scenario, um that would be 125 round trips times 250 operating days of the year.
13. 12:44The 250 days comes from the Hall Road permit that allows them to operate up to 250 days a year currently. So that's 11 times the 2015 volume. So another way of looking at this visually is the red line which I drew again and it's at the 125 uh trip limit. The the blank space below that is growth opportunity for the dock operator. the dock operator could run trucks 250 days a year up to that red line. Okay, so this is opportunity and a daily limit would not would not limit that. >> So I would like to put a counter argument out there just this. The only thing that we are focused on is trying to determine whether or not it is possible to define what the usage was in 2011 and whether or not we want to clarify
14. 13:49the code. Not just in the event that this comes back to the planning board again so that there is something there for them to refer to or in the event that in the future should there be another operator that the code is clear as to what this means. So all of this to me is irrelevant. The only thing that I care about is can we clearly define or as close as possible define to everyone's satisfaction what the usage was in 2011 that the code said you are to stay within this limit. So I think that we should focus on that rather than what could the volume be based upon the number of trips that the hall road the hall road is a separate issue that's already done that's been approved the planning board has authorized it so I prefer not to get distracted by that the other thing I want to say is that um having looked at all of this since our last meeting and reviewed the communications that we had from uh Russo Um, I would like to bring this both the
15. 14:55the the proposed limits from for from the 2026 that that Donald Str has put together. Um, I'd like to bring this to the full council because I think it would be better. it it's a matter of some significance and I think that the full council needs to evaluate number one do we want to go into clarifying the code and if so how do we want to pursue it and so I think it would be better for us to take this to the informal give them the materials that we have so far and uh then have uh our attorney advise us as a full counsel on the best way to proceed That that is my recommendation. Claire, do you are okay with that? Jenny, Jason, >> yes, I'm okay with that. >> Okay. So, what we're going to do for this evening, thank you very much. >> Sure. >> Um, we're going to we have these documents, we have the memo, we have
16. 15:57what we had from last month. I'll put a package together for the informal and then as full council, we can review it. And again, we need to we need to look at a couple of different things. uh are we going to change the code to clarify it? If so, why? And do we have um uh defensible information that we can put out there that gets at what the level of activity was and are we interpreting what's in the code correctly uh to make that change and then uh Mr. Da can advise us as a council as to what our best approach is. >> Good. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, um I mean you know from the public onto new business um EV charger contracting. Um so we have um EV chargers multiple locations.
17. 17:02Um the contract for maintaining those charges has expired. Uh you can see on the on the uh document on this page here you can see the locations of the various chargers. Um the proposal for a 5-year contract which includes a warranty which is very important uh is 17,000. Um we will need to do this we'll need a uh budget amendment. Um the warranty piece is important because a couple of these charges are currently not working and the cost to have them serviced or repaired is in thousands. So uh h having a contract for 5 years that comes out to less than 3,000 a year um is definitely something for us to consider. So this will be going this came from CAC um from Richo. Uh this will be going to the informal with a resolution to go
18. 18:09into this and between now and then um we'll work with um Heather to identify whatever plan whatever budget amendment they need to do to put this in place. Anybody got any questions? Jason? Uh >> yeah. Um, is is it budgeted? >> No, that's why we need a budget amendment. >> Um, but we previously have paid a contract like they've been >> the they've been installed a while. So, we do we have we been this is a renewal. >> We had a contract and I haven't researched it. We had a contract and the contract expired and in the budget that was just done, this was not budgeted for. The interesting thing is that um the we charge for the use of the of the stations. That electric bill goes through DPW and basically what we are charging has
19. 19:12been breaking even in terms of covering the cost both of the electric and as I understood it when we have the contract to cover the cost of the contract. So one of the things between now and the informal on the founding side that we need to look at is um what will we be generating in revenue from the uh from the charging >> um because it needs to more than pay for uh the cost of the electricity >> and the contract. >> That's what I'm saying. That's why it needs to pay for more than the cost of the electricity. And uh Rich has put together a schedule from other municipalities based upon um uh usage by tor. >> And then so in the meantime I assume that that that would get set up for the next year or is there a budget line item for the income >> there? There was, yes, there is a line item and there was a line item for the contract, but for some reason last year it simply fell through the cracks.
20. 20:16>> Right. But if you're creating a a uh if you're creating a budget transfer, um what what account is it coming from at this time? >> It's already those lines are already there, but nothing was budgeted for it. So the lines exist. >> Okay. So you you know where you're transferring from? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The the lines exist, but the contract lapsed and now we need to renew it. >> And there's a line there is a line for the revenue coming in from the electricity usage for the fees and there is a calculation of how much uh is being utilized. So the the infrastructure if you will uh on the budget side is there. It's just that this lapsed, >> but it it looks like this is a prepaid. So, there may be some cash flow issue of the fees not coming in. >> No, it's actually No, it's not. Uh it's a you pay yearly, so you don't pay 17,000 up front. It would be
21. 21:19>> Oh, it says it says it has the word prepaid. That's where I got that from. But fiveyear prepaid is what it says on the quotation. >> When when I met with Rich, he said that they were going to accept a yearly payment. Okay, >> it's it's fine. >> Yeah. >> Is this coming out of >> Is this coming out of unappropriated fund balance or is it coming out of another budgeted line? >> Sorry, are we speaking? >> Yeah, I can't I can't answer that off the top of my head. I'd have to go back to have a because I I I discussed it with her this afternoon and I know that there are budget lines for this but that funds were not put into the budget for the 2026 year. >> She says there's a it's coming from a specific place. Okay. >> Yeah. I need to go I need to go back and get more budget detail which I would do between now and the informal because we need to work on what kind of budget amendment we would have to make to do this. >> Okay.
22. 22:21Did we make sure that the the contract is totally clear on that paying by year? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, we need to clarify uh payment schedule. >> Um so, between now and but in principle, everybody's okay with us renewing. Yes. And having a warranty on those. uh the cost of repair for each unit um is prohibitive. >> So um that having a warranty is really important. Okay. So um Rich and I will work on making sure we have something for the informal with all of those details worked out. Any comments from the public? No. Okay. Next item. Uh fairly straightforward. This will be going to the informal and then to the formal. Um this is the uh Hudson Paddles um operating they as most of you know they have been operating at
23. 23:24the Oakdale and also at the riverfront for a number of years and this is authorizing the mayor to enter into a contract with them for this season. Any questions? I believe the contract is the same as they have now modified the contract. It's the same it has been in the past. Any questions? Have they modified their fees? >> I do not believe that the fees have changed. >> Okay. >> Are we good with this going to inform? >> Yes. >> Next item is procurement. So, uh gave you a couple of things here. one of which is our um policy and uh the one that has the extract from the code looks like this 112. Mhm. Um so this goes into if you look at
24. 24:29C um shall apply to all purchase contracts both those involved in expenditure over 20,000. It references general municipal law, but it also references our um our policy and the actual thresholds. And this has not been updated in 20 years. Our policy uh the policy requires three bids um or amounts. Let me see. Uh, all purchases of advisor equipment with uh that exceed 10 in the fiscal year or public works of 20 um shall be bid in accordance with the provisions of section 103 of general municip law. Well, the thing is that general municipal law currently has thresholds for the bid process of public works is 35,000 and uh purchase contracts is 20,000. So what we need to do here is two things. Um and I will bring this to the informal update the code so that it
25. 25:36references that for um uh contracts uh for uh contracts on and public works and uh purchase contracts that are addressed under uh the municipal GML 103. we will follow GML 103 and then that way if that gets updated to 40,000 or 25,000 etc we don't need to revise this and we will simply follow GML. I also want to go back to the actual policy itself so that we put language in here to address things that are below those thresholds as to what our procedures are. So currently uh for example we have very low thresholds for what requires signatures from two members of the BEA. So there are a couple of things like that that we could clean up because this again this policy has not been updated in 20 years. So we will update this to to reflect um you know more reasonable um uh approach and do it as a resolution so that if we need
26. 26:39to tweak or to increase the thresholds for the things that fall below the the GML we can do it fairly easily without having to go into local laws. So that that I will be be bringing to the informal um on on at our next meeting you will see uh updated code and an updated policy back. Okay. Any questions on that? Okay. Next item is parking. And before we talk about what you have prepared Jenny, >> I have a couple of other things I want to mention that relate to parking. >> Yes. uh collection. This is uh T2. So um again we will have at the informal a resolution relating to uh entering into a contract uh addendum collection services addendum with T2. Um this is uh a process whereby
27. 27:41uh T2 will do the collections uh in prior to our new system. Um notification was sent after when if you didn't pay within a month you got one notification but you didn't get any more. >> Uh T2 will do collections and we'll pursue things. They'll go back a couple of years and we'll actually collect. Um there is no cost to us in that the uh individual who has received the fine they will pay the fine that is due to the city and T2 then will keep the fee for the collections. So you have both the scope of work and um the collections addendum. Um any questions on this? Again I would have a resolution relating to this. Uh the other item that I sent Yes. >> Uh does the colle is this specific to parking collections or is it broader than that in the city? >> No, no, no, no. It's it's specific
28. 28:43specific to parking. It's parking funds. >> K2 is the company that has all the software around >> it's specific to parking. >> I'm sorry. Mark, did you say they're going to do back collect take? >> Yeah. So um yeah in his own de parking the next item and it's still uh still clarifying some items on this um uh we need to finalize a contract with Park Mobile. Um they had come back. This is the entity that charges 60 cents per transaction and they have come back particularly with regard to the Amtrak lot where the um the the parking can be long-term and they are the uh merchant of record and so they have to pay fees, banking fees.
29. 29:46And so for somebody who was going to be parking for 10 days or 20 days or whatever, um 60 cents was insufficient to cover the actual fees. So what's currently under discussion and hopefully will be uh through through legal through uh Andy's office and the mayor's office is a proposal to have a 60% minimum for the lower end excuse me cap uh for the lower end uh fees park home on one of the lots whatever it's 60 cents. Um, I believe that if the what we're what we're discussing right now is that any parking event that is $5 or less would not exceed the 60 cent transaction fee. Uh and then there would be a 12% um variable once you exceed the $5 with a cap of $750 uh which which would apply to parking keep and would keep the parking limit at
30. 30:50Amtrak at 30 days. So maximum parking will be 30 days with a cap of 750. The details the final details of this contract I don't have yet. Okay. Um but I just wanted to make you aware of this. hope that we have this at the informant. Um, this is what's being worked in right now. Jason, questions on this. >> Yeah. Is um $5. What's the maximum a day could be either at the Amtrak lot or on somewhere else in the city? >> It's $10. It's $10 at the Amtrak lot. >> So, if you're going to be parked I think it's $10 right now, right? >> I think so. a day. >> So, if you're parked if your parking event is $10, once you hit the $5 threshold, >> um you're going to be hit with a 12% fee, but it's going to be capped at 750. >> Yeah. I guess what I where my mind is going is that if they're looking for this higher fee on longer terms, can we get a lower fee on an hour?
31. 31:58because that's I think what that I've heard that a lot about um people parking for an hour the 60 cents is a big portion even now I guess we're doing 30 minutes >> um or I mean I I was either thinking about you know make the 60 cents last a day or then it popped into my head can we um reduce that fee for somebody who only parks 30 sec 30 minutes or an hour >> you can't Um there's two fees actually. They've combined it into one, but there's two fees. There's the fee that the that is related to connecting to the cloud and then there's the fee from the the credit card company. And there's also two things going on here. So there's T2 handles the text to pay, but this is Park Mobile and they are a different entity. So, and then there's also the kiosks. So once
32. 33:03the kiosks are in place, you can pay just whatever the fee for 30 minutes is or an hour and not have to pay any of these fees >> because you'd be paying cash >> or quarters. So, so >> Jenny, what do you what do you think about the minimum instead of being $5 being $10? >> I mean, were we just over a barrel and they whatever they say we have to do >> over a barrel to be honest with you because they they are setting the rules. It's we either we can we can negotiate with them and I think we have but I don't I don't think that it's it's their standard thing and and it's this particular company is used all over the United States and Canada and I think Puerto Rico. So >> I can I can bring that up Jason. Um I can make that comment to um to Andy. Um, but in the I was in some conversations
33. 34:06with them and I doubt it I brought up the same issue that the 607 fee seemed very high to me and they explained pretty much what Jenny just explained. >> Yeah. >> That there's a certain cost to them for uh actually you know there's a minimum cost them for actually processing the uh event and uh the merchant fee and so on. But they did get the point that um initially they believe me they wanted considerably more than what is now in the contract. Um but now they're looking at this 12% with a cap which is important particularly for the long term and and bear in mind that most of their activity is at the Amtrak cross. Yes. So the long-term parking is really where most of their activity occurs. So having a cap of 750 on a 30-day stay is that would be very good. >> So the 750 and 30 days. >> Yes. >> That's it only if that's >> right. But like if you're going to park
34. 35:07with the Amtrak for 30 days, >> that's one event. >> But isn't there a kiosk at the at the Amtrak? And if what Jenny just said about paying at kiosks probably doesn't apply there because you're still going to get >> Yeah. They know and and that the park mobile has been in place there since the inception like >> so people are really familiar with the app there. They don't like it but they're familiar. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh more to come on this once I hear from um uh where it stands with Andy. Um okay. So, Dean, let me put my 12 instructor here. Uh, then we have the materials that Jenny sent us. >> Um, >> you like when I put it all under parking. >> It's a small word.
35. 36:11>> It It's a big word. If there's if I you know I didn't I didn't realize two three years ago that right now I would know so much about parking. Never in my life did I think I know this much about parking. But um so as everybody probably knows um in 2019 we did away with minimum parking here. And um I understand the reasons for that and you guys probably do too. Um you don't want to put the burden especially on people who are developing housing um to build parking um and have that you know make the price of housing costs creep up. And you also don't we don't as a city, I'm sure none of us want um our environment uh to be to be messed up in any way um when it comes to uh water runoff and and so
36. 37:16forth. Um and just heating up the planet with more silly parking lots. Um, but the problem I see is that there are certain places in town that are that have um a lot of density and that density with more development um will the parking and the traffic are going to become really problematic and I'm trying to find a solution. Um, and I think if we write laws in a very mindful way, we can work around the reasons for not having parking minimums. Um, the only reason to put parking minimums back for me would be to have something that a lot of other communities have and that is something which with a really unfortunate um acronym called pileup um
37. 38:21which is payment in lie of parking. Um, so if a developer could not build parking either because there's no room for it or they don't want to, um, then they could pay a fee and and then we could put that in a fund where we either put that toward um transportation or we put it toward building parking. that's decked maybe a garage. That's that's interesting. So, in the research that you did for for the municipalities that have this um have they had it in place long enough um like you've even has it been in place long enough for them to be able to say this is what we were able to accomplish.
38. 39:23>> Fort Jefferson definitely and actually they are similar to us in a few ways. They're similar in population. They're similar in density per square mile. Um they the one place that they are not similar to us is in the median household income. Um but other than that and they have had it in place and they I think they are using it in the same ways that I was thinking. So >> have they been would you be able to report to us on what some of these municipalities have like has Port Jeff been able to build a parking garage and like the other thing about Port Jeff is that's where the ferry is. >> Yeah. >> So um >> so they do have transportation which we do not have. >> Right. Uh it is it is a very a truly very dense little village. >> Yeah. >> We're dancer later. uh per square mile. Uh but where they have parking issues is
39. 40:30a very tight them core. >> Yeah. And they've actually named that they they've they've named in their their code spec they've named the waterfront. There's two sections that they've named. They've named their downtown two sections. And those places are the places they're most concerned about from my understanding. >> Yes. >> Um >> so yeah, but I've pointed out two spaces that I think are really under stress right now with parking. So you can document. So >> So yeah, Washington Park. Um >> we've got three spaces. >> Well, yeah. and then the waterfront and surrounding area and then the front street and warrant. >> So what are our next steps? >> Well, I was hoping that well maybe we
40. 41:34could bring this to the whole council and see if anyone has any ideas. I mean, or we could develop something that keeps in mind the reasons why we didn't want parking minimums, but also maybe develop something that can kind of mitigate those reasons. I have a thought, not a concrete idea, but when I have when I heard the the complaints of residents specifically around a specific project in a word, um, and as we were talking about like short-term rentals, I know they're not the same issue, but um, thinking of a comprehensive study or um, like a pipeline tracker that can have us envision all of these things at once. I know the planning board takes some of those things into
41. 42:36consideration, but I think if the council were to ask of the planning board, um if the projects that were online or that if the projects that are up for approval were to come online, um what does that do to both the parking in the city of Hudson, congestion in the city of Hudson? Um what is the saturation of certain kinds of housing if developments come to to fruition online. Um, I think that parking, housing stock, what is available to be built on, like those three things can happen simultaneously in some type of um visioning document. I don't know what it would be called, but I I think that we keep asking >> we keep asking the same questions when it comes to development and, you know, after things are approved, we I think like this is a bit like the um uh doc situation where the planning board is
42. 43:40like the code is just saying X. Yeah. >> But the planning board is given no bad rates. >> Right. When when the parking minimums were removed, the idea was well the planning board will take that as part of what they have to evaluate when they're looking at a project. But then they weren't given any guidelines as to what would be reasonable, what is not reasonable. >> And now we are we have certain situations. >> Right. >> So I think so one of the things I want to highlight for everyone because I remember when you brought this up last year >> and I you brought up the Red Hook one which is very interesting. >> Um Red Hook actually has part of the maximums. >> Yeah. And what they did because part of what Jenny alluded to uh in order to preserve the character of the village um they did not want developments to turn into developments with huge parking lots. So they put in place uh maximums and also uh landscaping requirements and
43. 44:44so forth so that the character of the village would not be uh harmed by developments that would also then have huge parking lots in front of Most of what I've read so far regarding code and parking minimums or maximums, they all have something built in about um landscaping that hides the parking lot that also shades the parking lot so it's not hot. Um permeable or non-permeable surfaces, permeable surfaces, right? asking for those. Um, it's about what we write whether it works or not. >> Yeah, we could potentially come up with, you know, go back to what was there before. Some of the things that were unreasonable were uh requirements and the new development is its own thing, but there were requirements around um restaurants and the number of spaces they had to have for tabletop.
44. 45:48um which were completely unrealistic on in an urban uh restaurant area. >> And so the the zoning board was constantly giving waiverss on these things because it was not actionable. And so I think if we went back to what was there before >> and see what about it was unreasonable and remove that and then see was there anything in here that would provide some reasonable guard rates and maybe bring some of that back. I think that's a good idea. It's a good starting place and like I said, it might help put money toward things that we really need like maybe um some transportation. In recent past, have there have there been spec has there been specific support that the planning board has asked of the council around this? Because I I know that I know that they've like there's studies that are asked to be done as a part of the planning process about parking space utilization or just parking space
45. 46:50creation. >> So the planning board is independent of the council can actually interfere with anything. So >> interfere but >> right but but that kind of dialogue doesn't usually happen. >> Okay. >> So that's why it's important to put things in place when something's not before the planning board. say, "Here are some guidelines." >> And then they have, it's kind of like the zoning folks. They have something there that they can work within, but when they're just given nothing, it makes their job very hard. >> Also, a lot of those studies, they're they're being done by the developers themselves, so they can be manipulated a little bit. And um it would just be nice for us to have some kind of some kind of guidance. >> Yeah. And it's it's also making me like recategorize parking as a quality of life issue. It is based on the amount of people that have complained over one specific project. And you know, just thinking about the city, like finding a way for the
46. 47:53city to have say over similar to what the housing trust board is doing with home renovations. Like these are approved folks to do the study. These are people that we as the city trust to do this study in a way that meets whatever guidelines we set um as recommendations. I know that they have the right to secure whoever they want to as developers, but maybe that is is that some language that we can think about including um in some way, shape, or form. >> You have thoughts? >> Yeah, >> I do. What I've what I've watched uh the planning board struggle with is is mostly residential developments. Um the boulevards was an example. They kind of used SRA to show the impact on the neighborhoods because um those the streets adjacent were very narrow um and and parking on one side. And in the end they were able to work with the developer and got it up to one lot per
47. 48:59unit. Um I think a >> space per unit. >> One space per unit is what it Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, yeah, sorry. Um, and I think that I think that in general I feel like residential is treated could be treated differently. Um, >> no parking minimums for a restaurant. I kind of agree with you and maybe you know uh retail stores and things like that because we we have that we have accommodations for that and people come and go but it's about people you know place to park their car overnight. Um, >> yep. >> And the problems that that causes and making a lot of assumptions for people that well they they don't need as many cars. They but um when I've looked at job data um we the people go in and out of Hudson. People come to work in Hudson and people in Hudson leave Hudson to go work other places. And so um I specifically want to think about how
48. 50:00residential developments are handled. And I guess hotels are are or are maybe even a separate item because they have a similar issue but not exactly the same. Um I think that the HHA development is going to have a problem. Um we're going from I think 85 families at the moment to possibly 250. And um I think the mix is going to change and maybe the car ownership is going to change but they based the the current occupants of Bliss Towers I think they said had 60% of them had cars and 40% didn't and the new mix may not be the same. Um and so the planning board doesn't have much tooth to do much about that. Um, and it's I heard what I I heard what Jenny said about wishing we didn't have as many cars and heat islands and um but where people live,
49. 51:05they need to get to their jobs and um I met with a at Nikcom I talked to the uh middle middle town um mayor and they did developments with uh they de did developments with one space per unit and um I think he said Kingston was doing it with none and they were they hadn't finished yet and he was very the Middletown mayor was very concerned about how they're going to survive with that. >> Yeah. I've I've seen it's all over the place because uh thinking around this has changed so much within the last 10 years that some some communities it's you know 0.5 so half a space per unit some it's 1.5 per unit so it's it's kind of all over the place and this is evolving and I think in our case because we are such a
50. 52:09special and very unique place that it's and we're it's a very dense population. There's dense community. It's there's not a lot of land to build on. There's not a lot of space for parking lots, first of all. Um I >> and there will never be public transportation that is adequate, you know, in a in a truly urban area where you can actually rely on public transportation to get to work and to get to do your grocery shopping. That's not going to happen. No, but what I what I have always been thinking about is if we if we built a parking a deck parking situation in one end of town or the other where there aren't a lot of homes around it. So, it's not blocking anyone's view. It's not a mess for anyone on land that we own as a city and that we have this fund that we can rely on. Perhaps one day in my in my fairy tale land in my
51. 53:18I'd love to see a little trolley like a little EV trolley that takes you from municipal lot to municipal lot. You park your car there, it stays there. You don't you're not you're not screwing up on street parking. you're not hurting people who live in a neighborhood and are used to parking in front of their house that that these things are away. >> So, >> well, I think when you said even half a lot, half a space per unit is not is not nothing, >> you know. I think >> I think there's a minimum somewhere between half a half a space and one space per residential unit in a new development. I I think So I think what I think what we need to do is uh who would like to go back to what it was and look at it and then look at um you know coming up with these are the things that were not working and these were some things that potentially
52. 54:20could work and come back with a plan. Do you want to do that? >> Sure. I'll do it. >> Okay. >> Since I'm learning >> Do we have any public comments, Logan? Any hands raised? >> No hands. We have a public We have public comment in the room. Yes, Mr. Morante. >> How do you know what was manu? Um what Jason said, you know, to you know, the businesses, you know, that's a turnover, but you know, right now residentially, right, if you put something in place, it's not just a planning board that's going to have the knowledge. The new developments have right now the developer knows there's no parking, >> right? you know so any new development especially residential now >> right now right I don't know what where we are with bar properties but you know I know at least three properties right in the city that probably could be uh parking lots uh you know that bar is going to be inherent right and that and it would be there's one on street one on Columbia Street and that's a spread out parking uh especially you know for the
53. 55:23residential side of it so I I think that putting you know tool in place uh for the parking is very important especially when you talk about residential now a lot of times like something like bliss right you know they're going for tax you know they won't pay for that >> tax the tax exempt the tax credits will not pay for parking so that's going to be you know money for the de developers kind of have to put in you know anytime that's one of the things with pure I mean bureaus you know that was private money so they negotiate very well for that parking but there was there was no um you know resistance because of the code or the um the state but uh I think it's a tool it's definitely needed you know we're I can't I can't just can't you know the last you know residential to think that a residential that big 70 something units is only offsite market off you know that's amazing to me now that's been, you know,
54. 56:26part of that and the and the parking that is for there I think it's only 30 units. The tenants got to pay that $80 a month to park there. So, you know, where they're going to be parking, we need to see what's available. >> Which >> are you talking about? >> The vault. The loss. >> No, that's not correct. That's not correct. >> It's $150 a month. >> No. 5050 and it's not right back. >> No, no, no. Actually, not. It's still It's still I still walk. Yeah, >> it's it's not that bad a walk, but it's a walk. >> I don't know how we would do this, but if we're serious about not building more parking, um perhaps we need to look at the overnight opposite side issue. I that would be complicated, but there's a there's a lot of parking that could be done overnight if it was both sides of the street. You can pick that on just >> Yeah, >> I don't think it'll happen, but but if
55. 57:28that if we got that dense at some point, that might have to happen. >> It would be good. I I I like your thinking, but I >> Okay, so on this one, you're going to do some more work on what it was before, what worked, what didn't work, right? >> Um, no hands raised online. >> I'm gonna work with you on that, Jenny. Okay. Sorry. I told Jenny I have to work with her on it. >> I'll pull it out and send it. >> Uh Mr. Mante, any more public comments >> about parking about anything? >> Oh yeah, I got a lot I got a lot of comments. Oh, you mean about life or what? So >> okay. So I want to try to think seriously how we can amend the sidewalk. I think we're missing it for emergency repairs and there's some properties like the hospital. I mean that that's not part of you know the uh replacement you you know you know so and if something like that we need to have we need to re real reiter in terms of putting it into DPW's hands again or code for violations or
56. 58:34emergencies because otherwise we're talking about three to five years possibly you know to complete the sidewalks and they're only going to get worse. I mean, if they're could be bad now, they're just in three to five years that side is going to get worse. They don't heal themselves. So, I think we need to put back an amend amendment. I It's not I don't think it's definitely not going to change anything with the deal because we're we're addressing an emergency regarding sidewalks. You know, we're not we're not taking away the sidewalk district side plan, but we need a mechanism um to have these emergency repairs done for some of these sidewalks. Some of these sidewalks are going to just wait this they wash their hands of it honestly from landlords and we don't have to do anything. The city's going to repair that's that's like that >> I would take that on. I will uh take the sidewalk and take it apart and uh talk to you and see >> how we could define the ones that are critical that need. >> Yeah. Now again I I wonder like I said
57. 59:36the hospital if it was back they had a couple bad spots what what would be the motivation to fix them? >> Yeah. >> Could we incentivize them? >> You know would we well we do we do uh give credit for >> a mechanism to give credit for any repairs emergency repairs. Absolutely. >> So it's not like we're going to double charge them. They're going to get credit for that repair. And if it goes down where the city has to do it, well then it goes on the property tax, right? So, >> so Jason, when that law was being drafted, it somehow kind of fell by the wayside. Um, one of the ideas was that um the city would contract with with would have a contractor and because of scale um would have a linear foot pricing that would be uh very very competitive compared to what a homeowner going out trying to get a contractor would be able to get. And the idea was that uh if you
58. 1:00:41wanted to do a repair, you could piggy back on the city's contract with the contractor and get the city rate for your sidewalk, >> right? >> And that somehow never made it through to the end. But that was one of the things that we wanted to put in so that if somebody was going to do so you could have you know we're going to work and things but you can also and I like the idea of identifying like really critical ones and saying >> absolutely >> we this has got to be done um you're going to get credit and um you know you can work with our contractor whatever but I can I can look at that I can talk to you about Great. >> Any other new business? >> Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Second motion was second Demi. Thank you all very, very much. Have a good evening. >> Good night, everyone. >> Good night. Good night.

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