Common Council Legal Committee

1. 0:23Okay, you're live.
2. 0:25So, we need to check Canvas audio.
3. 0:35No, you just need to unmute himself. And you need to unmute yourself to check audio. You're muted. Can you hear us? Hello. You No, you you need to unmute yourself. His thing is telling him he's not allowed to unmute himself. Okay. Try again.
4. 1:11Try it again. Ronald, is he on?
5. 1:32I I was able to unmute. So three dots by his name.
6. 1:59What's that? He says he has a message. I mean, thanks again. There should be a a mute button basically. Or you can go up here where it says mic here or there. Where where to? You should be able to mute yourself either by your name where there's a little microphone with a slash through it or um up top where it says camera and mic.
7. 2:50Oh, there we go.
8. 2:51Oh, there we go. Can you hear me now? All right. Can you hear me now?
9. 2:55Yes. Okay.
10. 3:00All right.
11. 3:02So, we uh 603. Hi.
12. 3:09Um
13. 3:10All right. Um you can hear me. That's good. I cannot hear you though. So, let me see what is going on here. Ronald, you can you can hear us correct? Can you hear us? Ken,
14. 3:41for what it's worth, I can hear you. It's Carol Oster in
15. 3:44Okay. Thank you, Carol. Ken, can you hear us now?
16. 3:47I can also hear you. Okay, Ron. Okay, I'm I'm fine now. I can with headphones I can hear and I can see and you can hear me. So, okay, that's fine.
17. 3:56But can you can can you hear us?
18. 3:59I can with my headphones on I can. Yes. I couldn't get it to my speakers for some reason. I just did change some technology over here. Okay.
19. 4:06All right. So, it is uh 6:04. This is the rescheduled legal committee meeting September 17th. Um roll call. Do you see Claire online? Uh, roll call. We have Jason, uh, Jenny and Margaret, and Claire may be joining later. She's not able to attend in person. Um, so we have what I thought was going to be a relatively light agenda.
20. 4:39Um, we the first thing we have is the local parking violations. So uh this this has all been reviewed by finance and full common council and so forth. However uh because these are penalties uh they are not part of the fee schedule. They're actually in the code. So this requires updating the code and doing a local law. So um in your package that I handed out, I had taken a first pass. I went back to the local law from 2020. the last version of this and uh just took the language from that and updated the fee schedule what we had from um uh what we had all approved and then Ken went through there were some issues with that local law
21. 5:29and um updated this to correctly identify the authority under which this is done. Um there's also some uh a note in here about improper parking. on proper parking is um it's a little bit confusing here. Um in the in chapter 4 article 4 there is a discussion of improper parking at the Amtrak lot lot overnight which is different than the long long term and that's improper parking but the other category of improper parking um refers to uh parking over the line uh parking uh in the wrong direction um too far away from the curb uh not doing parallel parking except in a situation where diagonal is allowed and so forth. So it's a category that the police department uses for things that are not captured in the other categories. Um so I may um put in some more language or definitions there but again I did go back through everything in article 4 and the categories that we are listing here it's not one to one but they are all referenced as far as I can see in article 4. So
22. 6:44well the thing is are they are are they referenced clearly and by name you know um you know like I I didn't see double part maybe I missed it. I didn't see double parking in there. So I can go back tomorrow and uh link these back to article 4
23. 7:09and we may need to we may need to add a uh additional language for article four to link one to one to what's in article four
24. 7:18because the issue is this section that you're we're modifying here is the penalties but it it's not the prohibitions it's just the penalties. the penalties and the thing that states what's legal and illegal is in articles 1 2 3 4 and 5 and this is this does so this doesn't this um you know section 34 30543 which lists ali dollar amounts um that doesn't make anything illegal that what that does is says if you've done something illegal from these other places is how much you pay for it so what I was some of these things were not established as being illegal or they weren't described in a way.
25. 7:59I I will go back I'll go back to article 4 tomorrow morning and get a document together because I want this local law on people's desks on Monday for the informal meeting. Yeah.
26. 8:11So I will add some more language from article 4 relating to this.
27. 8:15Yeah. And also in item 13 the meter um meters are not in article 4. So um it should this should
28. 8:24there no there is there is discussion of meters in article 4. this discussion of prolonging your stay at a meter and that that's not permitted. So there is discussion of meters in article 4.
29. 8:36I'll go back.
30. 8:37All right. All right. All right. What? Okay. We just want to make them match up. So the one that's fine. Okay.
31. 8:42Jenny, you had a question.
32. 8:43I have a question. So three uh 30 days up to 120 and in the other documents is 91 days.
33. 8:53That's 91 days or more. The reason we had put 120 days in like it doesn't go off beyond once you hit 91 days that's the max. The reason that the original document had a 120 in is because at 120 days uh that is when it gets sent to collections.
34. 9:11Okay.
35. 9:12But actually in mathematically it's the same thing once you hit 91 days doesn't matter whether you get 91 days or 150 days at 120 you're going to collection. Is it customary of other cities
36. 9:25to have an escalator
37. 9:27that that it ends that that the penalties stop increasing? Is that
38. 9:33Well, I Well, I think the issue is that we're going to send this to collections and we're going to say collection personnel owes $150.
39. 9:39They can't
40. 9:40and then they will go after them.
41. 9:42Well, I like it. It's fine. I just wondered if anyone knew if it was the way it's not.
42. 9:47So, are we good with this? and then I will do some work on article 4 and hopefully we'll have a final version of this on our desks on Monday so that we can actually start increasing the the parking. The next item is vacant buildings. Uh the first thing in your package is the original that I have put together uh that I went through with Nick. Um and uh we had discussed this last month and Ken, you had um the the main thing that Nick was trying to accomplish here uh was under the demolition language in the current code.
43. 10:25The first option that's listed is um demolition as the first thing to think about. and he wanted it reordered so that um demolition would be the last resort in the code rather than the very first option. So it's not he didn't really substantively change what was in there. Um for him it's more question of what is the priority.
44. 10:50So Ken, do you want to walk us through the revisions that you made to the dem to the demolition?
45. 10:56Yeah,
46. 10:56I'm sorry to vac sorry vacant buildings. I've gotten myself turned around.
47. 11:01Yeah. Sorry. So, so I said the main thing was it's not has a doesn't have a major legal effect, but just reordering things in.
48. 11:10Sorry, can you hold a moment? Linda, I completely misspoke. This is a this is 91, which is vacant buildings. This is not about the ordering. The ordering is relating to the demolition. So, just in your notes, everything I just said is correct.
49. 11:25Um, yeah, go ahead.
50. 11:26Okay. Yeah. So the I said the main thing that he wanted to do was just basically rep prioritize it doesn't it's not legally comp binding but placing the reordering the the provisions in subdivision C to make the first one returning it to appropriate occupancy not make and then putting destruction or demolition as the last one. So that it just sort of is a it gives a priority but it doesn't legally compel someone but um it does say but it does say now that if the build in three that if the building cannot reasonably be re rehabilitated it's determined to be beyond practical repair or economically feasible then they you know would proceed with demolitions.
51. 12:08So that was the main thing. Um, all I did there, I just realized that in a couple places it referred to the wrong section for penalties. It referred to section 916 and the penalties are actually 917. So, I fixed a couple of those.
52. 12:23Um, yeah, I just referenced chapter 97 because
53. 12:28more extensively because that's the one we're doing next and it has all of the um specifications for demolition. Um, so the changes here were pretty minimal. The one thing I did do and this is just based on when Nick uh presented before the common council. Um you know the definition a couple of definitions the vacant building wanted to make sure it was any of those five things that it was an or not an and
54. 12:56it's a normal
55. 12:57um I did rewrite the definition for secured by other than normal means because what it said is that was used in the design of the building. What I said was you, you know, if you have to go to court and show what was in the design of the building, you really can't. You don't have any historical information. You know, you can speculate, might be seemingly obvious, but if it's court's taking evidence seriously, you can't show how it was designed.
56. 13:19So, I basically put in a definition of things that I thought covered it. Chains, padlocks, plywood, things covering the doors or windows, you know, things that can't be readily disengaged from each. Basically, if it's a bolt or a chain inside your apartment, you know, they can those things would all be fine. But if it's something that is, you know, you need a key from the outside to do it or tools or whatever, I just thought a description that you can demonstrate as opposed to referencing design things that you have no way of proving would be more useful if you actually have to pursue this. So that's why I changed the definition of secured by other than normal means.
57. 14:02Um the other thing just again for some technical prosetorial issues um you know in naming specific people.
58. 14:14Yeah.
59. 14:14Um you know you see in number two under you know under the registration under two the names and addresses of the owner if they're not a natural person it's an LLC or corporation then the names of the principles or people authorized to act. This is pretty simple, straightforward stuff. Again, changed it from 29 from 916 to 917 for the punishments. So, I didn't do too much here.
60. 14:40And the other the other thing that we did here was in the current code, the registration just says description of the building, but this now has description and the address. And then the other thing under item two and three, the current code listed social security numbers as something that had to be on the registration. And we uh when we discussed that we said that should be removed. So those social security references have been removed and the address has been
61. 15:08any question.
62. 15:09This was all pretty straightforward I think.
63. 15:10Any questions? Can I can I ask a related question can this year and that's been on my mind about um I think think I have properties around town that are just purchased for pure investment and I don't completely understand the investment vehicle and the advantage of it but just purchased and never anything done with it not purchased to rent out not purchased for Airbnb there is a [clears throat] something that's happening I think it's happening all over the country where either funds or corporations are buying it for reasons I don't completely understand. Can you do you are you familiar with that Ken? Is that something
64. 15:52you know I I've I've heard about these things going on. Um I don't know why. Um
65. 15:59I don't just hold them until the market raises so much that it doesn't matter you never improved it. Just the market went up. That might be
66. 16:08you know I I I don't know. I mean, it's I guess that's possible if it, you know, if it I'm just speculating if someone buys something and they figure it's they don't have to put any money into it. It maybe isn't isn't really rentable. They don't want to put the money in to fix it up and manage it. They just, as you say, they may just want to hope that the sort of the rising tide of real estate will bring it up and they don't have to add anything. Maybe that is what it is. I don't know. But I that's just guess work. But I guess the point is is there if no matter what it was the reason is there anything that could be done about that like because it does I think it has a lot to do with the cost of housing and I think it disrupts our neighborhoods. Um
67. 16:53I am not sure but there is probably not much you can do if if anything if it is not if the building itself is maintained according to the property maintenance code and the building code. I I think it's the right of a property owner to if they own it to rent it, occupy it, keep it. I I don't think that there's authority to make someone do something with it. We can look at you know other places. Um but
68. 17:22well I think often there ends up being a building code violation just because if there is a building code violation
69. 17:29well then then it falls under the vacant code building you know that's thing as soon as you're not keeping it up
70. 17:36um
71. 17:38you know then it can fall under the building under this
72. 17:42where it needs to be registered but I still even then um you know this allows if the built in number two C2 if building needs to remain vacant. A plan for securing the building and maintaining it, you know, but I don't think you make them do anything with it as long as it's not it's otherwise in compliance.
73. 18:04Yeah, I I understand that typically when you look them up for them, they're not like an LLC or anything. They're a corporation or a
74. 18:12or financial.
75. 18:14No, I know. I've heard about this happening where you know these um you know like private equity buying up single family homes in a lot of places. I mean there are places that are putting restrictions on but I don't know that New York law lets a municipality do that on its own. I don't think it does.
76. 18:30All right. Thank you.
77. 18:32Okay. [laughter]
78. 18:34So our next one um is a local law relating to demolition. This is the one Linda that I was misspeaking about. Um the main goal that Nick had here was to uh change the order of things. Um uh that we have the order in the other one but also in this one there was no language about if when a building is demolished what condition it has to be lot has to be left in. Um so uh the other thing that was strange in our current code um related to uh if there were um it was in section 973C.
79. 19:15Our original, our current code made a distinction between uh a property with a party wall versus not having a party wall. And that if it didn't have a party wall, somehow the owner of the property was responsible if the person demolishing the house next door damaged their property, which made no sense. So section 973C was was replaced with there was a section F and uh which talked about the non-party wall and then C talked about if there was a party wall.
80. 19:48So C was revised pretty substantially by Nick. Um that made it clear that the person or entity doing the demolition or the contracted the liability for damages with them. And then we deleted uh item F um because that was no longer relevant. Uh and in the version I had been doing then we were going to be remembering things. Uh and then at the very end um Nick had added language and new uh paragraph um about the condition of the lot at the end of demolition. So that's like the substantive stuff that was changed and none of that is different from what we have discussed before. But Ken, do you want to focus through you had added some things here that we discussed insurance and so forth that Nick might even focus on?
81. 20:38Yeah. Um, yeah. I mean, by far the biggest thing here is what you just talked about that now the person or the owner doing the demolition is responsible if they damage the adjacent properties, which clearly makes more sense than than the other way around. Um I one thing I did there is it used to say owner/contractor. I thought the legal burden should be on the owner so that it's clear who ultimately is responsible for that. Um at least that that they have the financial liability above all.
82. 21:07Um so going back to the beginning the insurance they were very low numbers. Um, so put them up to a million, 2 million, and a million. That seems more in line with what's typical. Um, in 97-3, I had asked Nick, you know, the way it was written, there were only minimal things that an applicant had to do. And then it said, um, if you look at the stuff that's not highlighted in yellow, they have to they get a barricade permit, they do a few things with the water and such.
83. 21:44And then it says then an inspection will be made and if the above mentioned items have been clated completed in accordance with the code a demolition per permit will be issued. That doesn't that's a makes issuing the permit mandatory upon compliance of just a few things. So I wanted to give the building inspector discretion where they think there may be any hazardous or potential hazards. So put in that the building inspector may require in addition reports, investigations, actions in relation to lead, asbestous, toxic s substances.
84. 22:16So basically if they feel there's any concern about any of those things, they can make the owner applicant address and if found mitigate any additional hazards and they have to do that to satisfaction before they can get a permit. So it just it gives the building inspector more tools to make sure that hazard haz hazardous things are addressed properly before the permit is given. Um that's was the main thing.
85. 22:46And then the last one which I really do want you to you guys to look at um is the penalties for offenses were very small. it was only $250, which effectively meant you could go and tear down a building without any permit and get fined $250. Um, so we talked about the need to do this. And so, you know, what I thought might make sense is for demolition without a permit, you know, $5,000.
86. 23:14I mean, again, this number I just pulled out is a substantial increase over what's there and something that would perhaps have some meaningful deterrence, but this is something you you you might want to think about. Um, you know, is that a suitable amount? I know there are there are certain there are caps under New York law under certain circumstances, but it does seem that there should be more than a $250 penalty for somebody who just completely flouts this. And then I jump the other one up for the lesser things from 250 to 500. So
87. 23:52no, that's fine. I was wondering about the the offense the ne the next statement
88. 23:58any other
89. 24:00in this can relate can end up in jail time and a fine wouldn't this be the the worst the worst thing you could do would be to demo the building I guess damaging someone's property might be the worst thing but right isn't this just as bad why is this not imprisonment and fine
90. 24:21it is it is Oh,
91. 24:23it says that.
92. 24:24It has that, too.
93. 24:25Yeah.
94. 24:25Yeah.
95. 24:25That, too. Plus the five.
96. 24:28Okay.
97. 24:29So, this is fine.
98. 24:30I don't know if anybody's ever been in prison for a code violation ever anywhere.
99. 24:34Yeah. But in our
100. 24:36I know it does say these
101. 24:37It's always listed as an option. It never
102. 24:40I know. Yeah.
103. 24:41And the other one has a year, which is a little questionable, but
104. 24:45devil's devil's advocate. It might be a worthwhile investment to spend $5,000 to get rid of a building.
105. 24:52Yeah.
106. 24:54Yeah. I mean, that's the thing is
107. 24:55I don't know that you could do $50,000 or, you know, I don't know.
108. 24:59Yeah.
109. 25:00Yeah. You just
110. 25:00I know I I believe there are caps under New York State law what you can find. I don't know. Yeah, we could try to do that. I mean, if you want, I can try to figure that out. And um
111. 25:11maybe one time where to do it. I think I think for now
112. 25:15my priority we have currently have a situation where we have a number of requests for demolition performance coming in.
113. 25:25Yeah.
114. 25:26And uh this is something that needs action.
115. 25:30I didn't know about that. Do you can you say more about
116. 25:33No, not right now.
117. 25:35Okay.
118. 25:35Um but I this is a priority for Nick to get this code updated. in uh so that we can um so that you know he will be able to proceed with his uh permitting and so um so if we want to revisit the fine levels and so forth at a future time that's fine but unless there's something structurally wrong with this I would like to bring it to the full council
119. 26:03that's fine but maybe Ken could look into if there is a cap and if there isn't a cap we could raise Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. But we for now I think we move forward if we get this on the books then we take a look at any other caps or anything else and a month or so from now we can revisit this and increase the penalty if that's what we need to know. Well, if you are rewarding things tomorrow,
120. 26:28there there is not time between now and getting this posted before the meeting on Monday through open meetings law to do research on caps and fines uh and get it to the full council for Monday because it has to be laid on everybody's desk in final format on Monday. There is not time for that.
121. 26:46I think you could do a quick Google search and find out whether there's a
122. 26:51if you want to do a Google search.
123. 26:52Okay, I'll do that then.
124. 26:54Yeah. Um, okay. So, that's that one.
125. 26:56Well, there's actually there's one more thing about that which again gets way beyond what was proposed here, but um under the under H under the um whether these things are, you know, whether these fines are personal to the owner. um such that if the owner sells the building that's the the original owner has a personal liability or whether they can be perhaps made leans on the property so that if so they go with the property um a lot of things
126. 27:38can't be put made leans um right now I'm just I've left it the way it's been written but um you know we can look in that too and see if there's a if we wanted to reconsider exactly how we do that. Yeah, that's fine.
127. 27:53Yeah. A lot of piece. Yeah.
128. 27:55Yeah. But the main thing is I mean these are the main things that he wanted to do.
129. 27:59Yeah.
130. 28:01So, um if we could move on to I will have these for uh to learn tomorrow so that we can um post them and then I will have them in in hard copy on Monday because I don't have 10 days prior to a formal meeting to get this footing by email. I don't think. Um, so, uh, that's what we've got. Do we have any hands raised?
131. 28:29Um, do we have any, uh, new business that anybody wants to bring up?
132. 28:34Do we have any hands raised in
133. 28:36And now we have a hand raised in the room. Go ahead.
134. 28:40Hi, I'm Jack here to ask about Mil Street. Hello.
135. 28:48Um, I came to the committee meeting in August and uh shared some research and resolutions and had a lovely conversation with you all and then I think I uh came to the informal meeting which was like the following week and spoke about it again. And so I was just uh asking for an update if the council had any inclination towards a an action on the Mil Street Lofts project either through the draft resolutions I provided or any other draft or or anything.
136. 29:16So just the only update I can give you right now is that um I have sought Mr. Dao is not in involved in this particular litigation. He's counsel to the common council. uh I have sought um a attorney client meeting with the attorney who is handling the litigation so that we can be advised on how best to proceed and have so far been unable to get that scheduled. Uh I I've been trying for several weeks. Um so I tried again today. I gave him the dates of all of the meetings that we had this month and I will continue to try to get guidance but I don't want us to take action until we get uh guidance from the person who's representing the common council in the litigation since the common council is named. So I think we have to hear from that attorney.
137. 30:12Okay. I I wanted to ask that I thought September 20th was the date that everything had to be in and [clears throat] done and I thought soon after that there would be some kind of decision made.
138. 30:32It's actually been pushed back. So I believe the papers are now due in October.
139. 30:42Yeah. So, I'm I'm sorry. I don't have anything further to add, but I don't feel that it that's I I think we need to get um an opinion.
140. 30:52Sure. I would encourage you to include Mr. Dao because the actions of the council that led to this lawsuit are actions that the council can remediate through its legislative function now and after the lawsuit or whatever happens next. No, understood. No,
141. 31:08so I think they should all be in communication.
142. 31:10I mean, I think there are two separate issues here. One of which is um getting an opinion from Mr. Dao on the resolutions themselves and the other is getting an opinion from the attorney representing the council in the litigation as to what action is appropriate to take at this juncture given the litigation. So it's two separate things. [clears throat]
143. 31:31We asked Mr. out or opinions on those resolutions back at that time and in some meetings and
144. 31:41we did we did have a a session with Mr. Da where he discussed the resolutions themselves
145. 31:47and but I mean Paul was going to do some work on that.
146. 31:52Okay. So we we can bring that up again. I don't want it to get into detail in the public hearing a public meeting but we can pursue it but regardless of any advice that we get from Mr. Dao we need to get advice from the attorney representing us in the litigation as to whether or not we can or cannot or should or should not proceed. So that's the piece I really want to hear. Okay. So, I'm sorry. Um, I will keep pushing it.
147. 32:25Okay. Thank you for the update.
148. 32:27Yeah. Anything else?
149. 32:31Thanks. Can we have a motion to adjurnn?
150. 32:34A motion to adjurnn. Second.
151. 32:37Any opposed? I'm opposed. Thank you all very, very much. on the mic.

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