[0:00] [Music]

[1:16] should have organized as city

[1:23] council thank you

[1:39] okay this

[1:46] is no I got

[1:48] it I'd like to call the order this

[1:50] connect the city council committee

[1:51] meeting for Monday December 16 2024 and

[1:55] we'll start with a presentation by uh Mr

[1:57] wall

[2:05] [Applause]

[2:08] thank

[2:10] you good evening uh so we are here today

[2:14] to discuss uh this connected areawide

[2:17] speed limit study uh it is a study that

[2:19] we've been talking about for quite some

[2:21] time um uh at the request of the council

[2:24] to lower the speed limit in the city to

[2:25] 25 M hour um working in cooperation as

[2:28] we talked about with the Capital Region

[2:30] Transportation Council uh under the Safe

[2:32] Streets for all Grant they secure uh

[2:35] consultant um representative of the

[2:37] consultant is here uh Matthew row uh

[2:41] with Stant Tech Engineers uh he's going

[2:43] to run through uh the presentation

[2:45] tonight which uh mimics the uh draft

[2:49] presentation that we have and then we

[2:50] can provide you with uh just an overall

[2:53] synopsis of where we are and what we're

[2:55] looking forward to going forward so I'll

[2:58] give it to Ma

[3:00] thanks Chris um hi everyone again I'm

[3:03] Matthew row at stanch and it's great to

[3:06] be here today it's my first time before

[3:08] being asked connected to see the council

[3:09] or it's committees um so um I uh I'm

[3:15] going to talk just a little bit about

[3:18] speed limits in general I'm going to

[3:19] talk about um some of the changes that

[3:22] have happened in the way that speed

[3:24] limits were set in the United States and

[3:26] some of the options that we have um and

[3:30] why that matters for connected first I'm

[3:32] going to just show the what I think is

[3:35] the the most important item here which

[3:37] is summary of our actual

[3:40] recommendations um uh so we did a study

[3:44] of uh of SKC streets focusing on three

[3:49] categories of streets um streets that

[3:52] are primarily local streets that are in

[3:55] a kind of a midlevel category and

[3:58] streets that primarily have a through

[4:00] function um and I'll I'll get into that

[4:02] a little bit later but the very short

[4:05] version is that we're recommending a 25

[4:07] M hour Citywide speed limit um that'll

[4:10] affect all City All City maintained

[4:12] streets won't affect any state

[4:14] maintained streets so uh that includes

[4:17] things like um the cross town connector

[4:19] New York 7 uh won't be affected um and

[4:24] we're also uh recommending just a few

[4:27] specific exceptions that'll make the um

[4:31] that'll either make the um the speed

[4:34] limit more coherent on a particular

[4:36] Corridor or is just more appropriate for

[4:38] that particular Street So Max and Road

[4:41] Extension would remain 30 mph um Eerie

[4:44] Boulevard South of State Street would

[4:46] remain 30 m hour um State Street East of

[4:49] Fair Avenue um from Fair Avenue to the

[4:52] city line is currently 35 mph signed for

[4:55] 35 mph and that would be changed to 30

[4:58] rather than to 25 but the rest of State

[5:00] Street would be changed to 25 milph and

[5:03] Millard Street which is um very uh which

[5:07] is just a a few blocks long um and

[5:10] connects Broadway to verer um verer is

[5:14] this exception because the state owned

[5:16] um so Millard Street would remain 30 for

[5:19] consistency and

[5:20] coherence

[5:23] um one of the exciting things is that um

[5:27] skinc would be only the second City in

[5:30] the region um to uh adopt a 25 mph limit

[5:34] um Albany has been um in the process of

[5:39] uh of doing so uh Kingston recently

[5:42] adopted its 25 mph limit um and the town

[5:45] of Brighton uh near uh Rochester ter

[5:49] town and new relle Villages um in uh

[5:52] down state um adopted 25 mph speed

[5:56] limits cities in New York state are

[5:57] allowed to do this and villages in New

[5:59] York state are allowed to do this after

[6:01] study

[6:03] um um we all know that speed kills but I

[6:07] want to note that um there's an

[6:12] exponential increase um because what we

[6:15] talk about when we're talking about

[6:16] speed is force quadrupling when speed

[6:20] doubles so when hit at 23 mph 90% of

[6:26] people survive hit at 32 mph only 75% of

[6:30] people survive we want to increase our

[6:33] odds um our goal is Zero fatalities or

[6:37] serious injuries on our streets um and

[6:40] if we're going to do that we need to get

[6:42] serious about speed um stopping distance

[6:45] also increases exponentially and what I

[6:47] don't have um is a uh uh is a diagram of

[6:53] driver's cone of vision but the driver's

[6:55] cone Vision Narrows as speed increases

[6:58] it's just a natural thing when we're

[7:00] driving faster we can't see um we have

[7:04] we can't see to the sides as easily and

[7:06] we can't as easily detect people walking

[7:08] people biking other cars um so lowering

[7:12] speed on a city street makes a ton of

[7:14] sense from an engineering perspective

[7:16] and that's the bottom line um speed

[7:19] limit Studies have changed over time uh

[7:23] in um uh in the past there was Federal

[7:27] guidance and even Federal standard

[7:30] that said you have to study the free

[7:33] flow speed of traffic and you have to

[7:35] base your you should base your decisions

[7:38] on it um so there guidance that you

[7:41] should base your decisions on a standard

[7:43] that you had to study the free flow

[7:45] speed of traffic and the guidance was

[7:48] well the third fastest car out of 20 the

[7:51] 85th percentile speed which you may have

[7:53] heard that 85% P speed before um so that

[7:57] is one of the reasons that speed limits

[7:59] times have ratcheted up over time and

[8:02] that leaves us in a situation where it's

[8:04] only the Speeders who are determining

[8:06] the speed limit we don't want that to be

[8:07] our our situation um the new federal

[8:11] manual it's called the manual and

[8:13] uniform traffic control devices the mecd

[8:16] the new federal manual says you have to

[8:18] study the context of the street so in

[8:20] this case an urban context um our study

[8:23] area span from what would be uh what's

[8:27] nationally considered uh um Urban core

[8:31] all the way to what's nationally

[8:32] considered uh Suburban but there's very

[8:35] little um that's mostly um Urban core

[8:38] and urban

[8:41] um uh I um uh we based the approach to

[8:47] this uh study on the nacto city limits

[8:50] guide uh which I was actually a

[8:52] co-author of um and the fundamental

[8:57] concept is that you've got a default

[8:59] speed limit um that helps drivers

[9:02] because it's consistent it's something

[9:03] that they can expect and that then you

[9:06] have specific C or speed limits and you

[9:08] might even have some slow zones now we

[9:10] don't have the ability to set larger

[9:12] zones uh below 25 mph except at schools

[9:16] um and so that's where slow zones are um

[9:20] the idea is the more conflicts there are

[9:23] and the more activity there is the lower

[9:25] you're going to want the speed limits to

[9:27] be and on most streets in connect

[9:30] there's a fairly high conflict density

[9:33] and that's everything from driveways to

[9:36] people crossing the street to um uh to

[9:40] uh driers pulling in and out of parking

[9:42] spaces um and there varying activity

[9:46] levels so you end up with a matrix I

[9:49] think the most important thing to take

[9:51] away from this is that um the national

[9:57] guidance is now actually going further

[10:01] than we can go tonight right we um we

[10:04] can't set a 20 M hour speed limit um

[10:07] under state law but National guidance is

[10:10] now saying actually a lot of SKC streets

[10:13] the local streets would be appropriate

[10:15] for 20 M

[10:16] PRS um based on their level of conflict

[10:19] and activity um

[10:22] so we did the study based on something

[10:25] called functional class or starting on

[10:27] it um Contex was the main thing but we

[10:30] did um um we did uh analyze streets

[10:35] based on um essentially their role in

[10:39] the transportation Network um but

[10:41] functional class does not tell you

[10:43] anything about context so we looked at

[10:46] um so Wyoming streets Wyoming AB is an

[10:49] example of a what we're calling a group

[10:51] one street a local Street um

[10:54] recommendation 25 M hour sement hullet

[10:56] street is another good example so

[10:58] different contexts but similarly low

[11:01] volume uh low existing speed

[11:04] streets um group two is where uh it gets

[11:09] a little more interesting we have

[11:10] streets like not street or Almont Avenue

[11:14] where they might be one lane each way um

[11:16] they might have more like 6,000 or

[11:19] 10,000 cars per day but their existing

[11:22] speeds are in the case of um not Street

[11:26] uh the existing speeds were the median

[11:28] speeds were 29

[11:30] mph um and uh while they may be higher

[11:33] on alamon Avenue they may be uh it might

[11:36] not be appropriate to have a higher

[11:39] speed limit in part because there are

[11:40] blocks like the ones that you see here

[11:42] where uh there isn't uh sufficient room

[11:45] even for designated Lanes in each

[11:47] Direction um there's one exception in

[11:51] this group which is Max and Road

[11:53] Extension um because uh it's as I

[11:56] mentioned before because it's a um it's

[12:00] the continuation of Erie Boulevard a

[12:02] state-owned portion of Erie Boulevard

[12:03] that has a 40 m hour speed limit and

[12:06] because of its context and because it

[12:08] actually has a great deal of separation

[12:11] of modes by and pedestrians have the

[12:14] option of being on the shared Ed path um

[12:17] Max and Road Extension um for most of

[12:19] its extent so that was one reason we

[12:22] were comfortable retaining a 30 m per

[12:24] hour speed right there um another Street

[12:29] uh in uh in the next category um State

[12:33] Street is officially classified as an

[12:36] arterial street but we're still

[12:37] recommending a 25 M hour to limit on

[12:40] most of it based on its context um we

[12:43] all know we all know State Street we all

[12:45] know what it's like we all know that

[12:46] it's one of the busiest places in the

[12:48] city um and that includes the section

[12:51] from not terrorist to Fair Avenue where

[12:53] we have our busiest bus route and we

[12:55] have um controlled and uncontrolled

[12:58] Crossings places where you're allowed to

[12:59] cross the street uh without a signal um

[13:02] so these are places where we want to

[13:03] really protect people and we want to

[13:05] have that um 25 M per spe perit further

[13:08] east there are fewer Crossings like that

[13:10] there are fewer Crossing points like

[13:11] that though Crossings do happen but we

[13:14] want to reduce the speed limit um to

[13:17] protect people who are um walking biking

[13:20] taking the bus driving uh turning left

[13:23] off of State Street or on to it um and

[13:27] uh for that reason we're we're

[13:29] recommending a 5 mph reduction of the

[13:31] speed limit um but it is um all it is

[13:35] part of the um consider a long haul for

[13:39] CDTA and there's value and retain 30 m

[13:42] hour speed there um for Erie Boulevard

[13:46] the recommendation was to um to keep it

[13:50] 30 m hour on the medium divided portion

[13:52] of Erie Boulevard which is south of

[13:54] State Street um but to lower it to 25

[13:58] mil per hour between State Street and

[14:01] not Street between State Street and the

[14:03] roundabout um and this may start just

[14:05] before State Street it could start at

[14:08] State Street or just after State Street

[14:10] um but the uh the roundabout provides a

[14:14] good transition from the 40 m hour uh SE

[14:17] State own segment to the uh more uh to

[14:21] the city owned segment um so thanks I

[14:26] can questions and I'll go back to the

[14:30] begin just point out that's what we were

[14:32] saying with the the map was uh Mard

[14:35] Avenue between beer and Broadway just

[14:38] today uh Matthew and I were talking

[14:40] about this that's why we revised it is

[14:42] having this map on the screen is useful

[14:45] because what it shows is many people

[14:46] don't realize it but beer Avenue in

[14:49] front of the fire station the county

[14:51] jail and the county buildings that is

[14:53] state controled so we do not have the

[14:55] authority to change that to 25 similarly

[14:57] to Broadway we do not have the authority

[14:59] to change Broadway between uh um where

[15:02] was it Edison and uh Weaver essentially

[15:06] um so to leave Mard the hill uh at 25 I

[15:11] think that would create confusion for

[15:13] motorists um and it is I know it is

[15:16] residential but there's only residents

[15:17] on the one side there is a sidewalk so I

[15:19] think from an enforcement from a signage

[15:21] perspective to leave that particular

[15:23] corridor from Albany Street to 890 till

[15:28] when the state ends s30 so that was we

[15:30] were able to get it updated on the

[15:32] presentation but we weren't able to

[15:34] update it in your packet because we just

[15:36] talked about it today while we were

[15:38] getting ready for this meeting um and

[15:40] then the other spot that you know I'm

[15:43] really uh really happy with Matthew when

[15:45] working with Carri it's here from our

[15:47] Capital Region Transportation Council

[15:49] she walked in uh she's been a great

[15:51] partner in this um I think that the

[15:54] study and the recommendations are are

[15:56] pretty straightforward and clear and

[15:57] they line up with what I talked about

[15:59] earlier the only area that I think there

[16:01] is a little Nuance in discussing is Erie

[16:04] Boulevard from State Street to the round

[16:07] about um because of what we have there

[16:10] uh to what Matthew was talking about the

[16:11] maxim Road Max Road similarly to areas

[16:14] you're coming into the city on Aqueduct

[16:17] Road in Nuna that's a 45 mph Road and

[16:20] then you come into the City and Maxon

[16:23] road is a commercial Corridor it has

[16:25] essentially no residential on it and the

[16:27] point you make about having separated

[16:29] bike pet infrastructure is is good um

[16:32] because I think that shows that there is

[16:33] the accommodations there so I think to

[16:35] bring that to 25 wasn't really um

[16:38] necessary and then when you hit Eerie

[16:40] you're at 40 so you know it's 30 I think

[16:42] we leave it but that section of Erie

[16:44] bouard is the one that I think we've

[16:47] been seeing um over the last 5 years

[16:50] that section transform from commercial

[16:52] into residential um we've seen multiple

[16:54] apartment buildings we have one being

[16:56] built now and so I think that

[16:59] 25 is is appropriate but I could also be

[17:05] persuaded that the use of that being 30

[17:07] from 40 um and and being there we do

[17:10] have lots of Crossings and uh new

[17:12] signals we just upgraded the signals

[17:15] we're really trying to focus on

[17:16] pedestrian accommodations there so if

[17:18] there was one little bit of fat in the

[17:20] report to chew on I would say that

[17:22] particular Corridor would be it so other

[17:25] than that that is that's the report that

[17:27] are our recommendations I believe this

[17:29] is a call for public hearing um we can

[17:31] make the revised report uh public we can

[17:34] make the presentation which mimics it

[17:36] public for the information and then the

[17:37] public hearing would be Sean uh the the

[17:40] 13th of January yes and then I pass out

[17:45] a draft to the council members regarding

[17:47] the the ordinance and uh that would be

[17:50] uh that could be part of the public

[17:52] hearing as well so he' be uh supporting

[17:55] materials plus the draft

[17:59] okay so I did my first question you were

[18:01] actually already addressed what was

[18:02] going to be available for the public

[18:04] hearing um the other one you me

[18:06] mentioned elamont Avenue and speed limit

[18:09] there to be lower to 25 so does el

[18:11] elamont doesn't that cross into

[18:14] reram and so at what point does that

[18:18] become and what is the speed limit on

[18:20] that part it's 30 at the city of line

[18:23] okay um and it may think it increases

[18:27] soon after that but um but it would be

[18:30] it would be 25 miles per hour up to the

[18:33] SK City Line up to up to the roer line

[18:35] okay yeah we we just don't have

[18:37] jurisdiction beyond that actually so

[18:40] that then that leads me to my other

[18:41] question in regarding the signage

[18:43] because now you're going from probably

[18:44] within a block not even a block you're

[18:46] going from 25 to 30 so and probably

[18:49] something maybe you need to still be

[18:51] working on as a signage already been

[18:52] figured out so the people are aware that

[18:56] within this block he want 25 to 30 or in

[18:58] not even just here but every any place

[19:00] that the can occur yeah at the at the

[19:02] transitions at the City Line um there's

[19:04] a typical sign that's used it's um it's

[19:07] the city speed limit sign so it would

[19:10] say 25 City speed limit um that's the

[19:13] same sign that all the using um and

[19:16] there's

[19:18] um there's other uh options but that's

[19:21] the primary

[19:23] recommendation and glad you brought up B

[19:25] because I read the article um regarding

[19:28] what what people's reactions were

[19:30] towards that did you have anything to do

[19:31] with the AL no all right so um and I

[19:36] just need a little bit more clarity on

[19:37] the Area Boulevard piece about the Maxon

[19:39] Road Area Boulevard so south of State

[19:42] Street south of State going towards 890

[19:44] would be

[19:45] 25 no okay would be 30 right yeah so

[19:50] right now the only recommended area on

[19:52] hurry Boulevard to to remain 30 is what

[19:55] we're calling the boulevard section

[19:57] State Street to 890 with essentially

[19:59] functions as the offramp and the

[20:01] entryway into the city it's Boulevard it

[20:03] is not the same character as the rest of

[20:05] the Street then the recommendation is

[20:08] given the changing character of the

[20:10] remaining portion of area with the

[20:12] residential and some of the you know

[20:14] comments that we've gotten from The

[20:15] Stockade residents in walking that um

[20:18] even though that Eerie Boulevard is

[20:20] essentially the most commercial Corridor

[20:22] we have with the highest volumes uh that

[20:24] that section be brought down to 25 miles

[20:26] proper okay thank you

[20:29] anybody else have any

[20:30] questions um in terms of the public

[20:33] information campaign um which you know

[20:35] you talk about in here

[20:38] um how much time do you think we need

[20:40] for something like that um in terms of

[20:43] how long should we give it uh to be able

[20:47] to make sure that we're um appropriately

[20:50] giving people enough time to understand

[20:52] what the changes are going to be about

[20:54] for the public hearing or for the

[20:55] enforcement for for the for the public

[20:57] information

[20:59] like so PSAs you know that we're doing

[21:02] in that way I do also want to know about

[21:04] enforcement in terms of whether we're

[21:05] going to be able to have appropriate

[21:08] enforcement once this goes into effect

[21:11] as well would be another question that I

[21:14] have one

[21:16] recommendation one recommendation would

[21:19] be uh to have the the PSAs and other and

[21:23] multimedia campaigns happen over a

[21:25] period of about 6 weeks um and that

[21:28] doesn't mean that the speed limit can't

[21:30] change uh in that time right so if you

[21:35] if you know you you have the public

[21:37] hearing and you decide to move forward

[21:39] and you've got the um you've got a date

[21:42] set and Chris and his Crews can um uh

[21:47] can do their work um uh which will take

[21:51] them some time um you know at that point

[21:54] that can be your speed limit start date

[21:57] your PSA can start while you're doing

[21:59] that um uh while the while the speed

[22:02] limit signs are going up and you can

[22:05] also start you can start the the the

[22:08] full transition then but the PSA can

[22:11] continue so 6 weeks isn't like it isn't

[22:14] like oh you you have to wait that time

[22:17] before putting up the signs it's not

[22:18] like that I would wait before um I would

[22:22] have a warning period um for enforcement

[22:25] that is something

[22:26] iend um and that could be that same six

[22:30] we period uh where drivers are GI are

[22:32] given warnings instead of

[22:35] citations but that's just a that would

[22:37] add to the police department and I also

[22:41] um I think that we it's not a lot of

[22:43] signage that has to get changed I think

[22:45] that's important to point out um because

[22:47] we had heard that concern you know we're

[22:49] going to have to like you know spend a

[22:50] lot of money and change a lot of signs

[22:52] but it's clear that it's not a lot of

[22:54] sign signage that has to get changed

[22:57] correct I mean Brian's here you know he

[23:00] we've had these discussions um we we

[23:02] think that this is a you know manageable

[23:05] task now that we've had our hand our

[23:07] head around it um you know Brian's

[23:09] prepared he's already talked with his

[23:10] his uh in-house Crews about it and what

[23:13] the undertaking is you know some of

[23:15] these areas yes the signage has to be

[23:16] broughten up because you're going to

[23:17] have areas that weren't 30 to 25 there's

[23:21] going to be some transition areas so

[23:22] those have to be thought out but as you

[23:24] see there's five transition areas one

[23:26] two four transition areas so it's not

[23:28] it's not terrible we have the 30 m per

[23:29] hour signs up so you would leave those

[23:31] and maybe move a couple um I I can't

[23:35] speak for enforcement we really haven't

[23:36] had a a coordination meeting I've really

[23:38] focused on trying to get the report

[23:40] together and a lot of these things so

[23:42] the details of of the of the the roll

[23:45] out I I don't have um but I wanted to

[23:47] make sure I got this report in front of

[23:49] you with the

[23:51] recommendations any other

[23:55] questions yeah when we looking at a high

[23:57] conf to the area

[24:00] Street what would if anything U how

[24:03] would it impact chaining indust street

[24:04] from two way to one

[24:07] way would that impact it at

[24:10] all

[24:12] SRE when you're looking at a

[24:15] high yeah um so one ways are oneway

[24:19] conversions are a uh

[24:24] are I I'll I'll answer this in the

[24:27] planner the plannerly way which is that

[24:31] there's pros and cons um the pro is that

[24:34] you do a oneway conversion you can

[24:37] sometimes create space for other uses

[24:39] right because instead of having two

[24:40] lanes or vehicle traffic one in each

[24:42] Direction you could just have one lane

[24:45] um because that one lane does actually

[24:48] carry more than than it's half of the

[24:52] street used to carry right so um you've

[24:56] got the ability to sort of create space

[25:00] on your street by doing that I think

[25:02] that that's that would be a reason to do

[25:05] it uh a reason not to is if the um if

[25:11] it's to uh if you're converting a street

[25:15] from two-way to one way and what you end

[25:17] up with is two oneway lanes two lanes in

[25:21] the same direction that tends to

[25:22] increase speeds um and you can get you

[25:25] can get some very high speed in that

[25:27] case get the jockey for position and all

[25:29] that you get with mul

[25:34] Street good

[25:35] question may the other side of the job

[25:38] is when you go to oneway Street what do

[25:39] you do with the traffic you're de biring

[25:41] off is to make sure you've got a place

[25:44] that adequately funel it to not create a

[25:47] problem someplace else

[25:51] yeah any your hand up I'll just say that

[25:54] um I mean unless somebody has any

[25:56] questions I mean I appreciate the

[25:58] um being done um I I think it's really

[26:01] great that we have this data now um to

[26:03] kind of justify the change in the speed

[26:05] limit um I really appreciate that I

[26:08] think obviously you know first and

[26:10] foremost is the safety of the

[26:12] pedestrians and the drivers so you know

[26:15] I I think that's a really strong reason

[26:17] to to move forward with this um and I

[26:19] also just wanted to say that I have

[26:21] still continued uh the conversation with

[26:24] triaa so there will be an announcement

[26:26] soon about you know having some sort of

[26:28] an incentive for folks to um take the

[26:30] defensive driving class in addition to

[26:32] the discount that people get once they

[26:34] take the defensive driving and I hope to

[26:36] be able to talk about that at our next

[26:37] committee meeting in more specific I

[26:40] don't want to put any Adam Bri you have

[26:42] any comments on what this would be

[26:43] anything that they should rolling out

[26:46] this program no as far as enforcement is

[26:48] concerned we enforce a 30 we can enforce

[26:50] at

[26:52] 25

[26:54] so

[26:56] easy so yeah well thank thank you both

[26:58] again for the presentation for the

[26:59] update I know it took a while to get us

[27:01] here but we are here so I want you to

[27:03] know that app yeah I would think the

[27:05] next uh conversation where we get maybe

[27:07] a little bit more into details of roll

[27:10] out some of those things are going to be

[27:12] the committee meeting after the public

[27:14] hearing so that we're going to hear from

[27:16] the public um you know I I would like to

[27:18] leave this report in draft form we're

[27:20] already like I said we just changed it

[27:21] today after we reviewed it see what

[27:23] people's opinions are of the report see

[27:25] what we're hearing from the community

[27:27] and then we can discuss it at the next

[27:29] time and at that point um you know I'll

[27:32] I'll work with Adam and maybe even uh

[27:35] Carrie and Matthew about what the kind

[27:38] of roll outs are in the area you know

[27:39] I've worked on campaigns with the DMV

[27:42] and Department of Health and places uh

[27:43] for Statewide rollout campaigns to see

[27:45] what we want to do um because I mean at

[27:47] the end of the day this isn't a you know

[27:50] this isn't about tax revenue and making

[27:53] tickets this is about safety so we just

[27:55] want people to drive slower that's what

[27:57] we're trying to do um so I think that's

[28:00] I think that's the next time that we

[28:01] want to talk about it all right thank

[28:04] you great thank you so much so we will

[28:06] take up the vote and public sa okay

[28:08] thanks a lot thank you much thank

[28:14] you next we'll have the finance

[28:17] committee yes I'd like to call Finance

[28:19] to order um we have six items on the

[28:22] agenda the first item is um and this is

[28:26] in place of chairperson um L Baron who

[28:29] couldn't be with us tonight but the

[28:30] first item is an ARA update and so I'd

[28:33] like to ask Miss Carver to please come

[28:34] up for

[28:40] that good evening good

[28:43] evening so I have a high level arpa

[28:48] update um for you since the last time we

[28:50] met we have gone um into contract with

[28:53] du Community Foundation so I'm happy to

[28:56] report that all

[28:58] arpa projects under development are have

[29:02] fully executed contracts um we are

[29:05] working

[29:07] internally um to narrow down some of the

[29:10] recommendations that I made to finance

[29:12] and City Council on um possible

[29:15] reallocation of oura funding um I hope

[29:19] to have a final uh list recommendation

[29:22] to provide to city council by the next

[29:24] meeting um we're meeting internally so

[29:27] I'll have the final decision after that

[29:29] up in consideration one um I don't know

[29:35] I just felt like I wanted to sing a song

[29:37] I'm sorry I'm just joking one uh sub

[29:40] recipient BC and I has stated that they

[29:43] are having some challenges with spending

[29:44] that money down which they did report

[29:47] that at their um when they came and did

[29:49] their presentation with city council so

[29:51] that's going to leave roughly about

[29:53] $220,000 back from bcni the other um one

[29:57] that is in discussion that we have not

[29:59] made a final decision would be the Coco

[30:01] house and taking some of that money

[30:04] would be based on the executed contract

[30:06] that they have they had 200,000 to spend

[30:09] the first year and it doesn't look like

[30:11] they will be able to do

[30:14] that so considering the fact that we

[30:16] have to have all contracts executed by

[30:18] the end of the year could you tell me

[30:19] how that would work and if we

[30:21] reallocating money how would

[30:23] we make that happen I don't think that

[30:27] that would be too challenging if we

[30:29] reallocate it um based on the discussion

[30:32] um with Finance if we reallocated to a

[30:34] project that is similar we will be able

[30:37] to do that

[30:40] internally and so um these discussions

[30:43] have already taken place with these

[30:45] entities then with bcni um Coco house

[30:49] we've been very intentional about

[30:51] getting spending plans and working with

[30:53] the subrecipients to find creative ways

[30:56] to spend the money based on what they

[30:58] agreed to do um with the arpa funding um

[31:01] so that's Coco houses like I said is

[31:03] still

[31:04] pending and so um are you saying that

[31:07] there would need there would need be no

[31:08] need for Council action to reallocate

[31:10] this I am not saying that but we are

[31:14] working on it internally and when I meet

[31:17] with finance and the mayor tomorrow I

[31:19] will have clear answers on the direction

[31:21] that we're

[31:22] going but I'm not saying that we will

[31:24] not need Council I I can't answer that

[31:28] so mayor if we need councel we because

[31:30] we'd have to call the special meeting if

[31:32] it is going to need be a need for

[31:33] Council action so I I just asked that

[31:35] that the council be made aware as soon

[31:38] as

[31:40] possible

[31:42] yes fact if any modifications could be

[31:46] as soon as next Monday night something

[31:49] for unanimous consent but I believe all

[31:52] the things being looked at are

[31:54] conceptually in line with what the

[31:56] original intent was within the

[31:59] organization and how do we just

[32:01] accomplish that goal whether

[32:04] it's uh to they initially proposed or

[32:07] within modification that might be their

[32:10] ability to do it or some modification

[32:12] from the city's side okay and so we

[32:16] anticipate that if anything needs to

[32:17] change in come before the council it

[32:18] would come but we'd have to do without

[32:20] without unanimous consent am I

[32:22] understand that correctly well you can

[32:23] call a special meeting there's a couple

[32:25] ways you can do it the simpler one might

[32:29] be to put it on next Monday night as

[32:32] long as everybody

[32:34] agrees why wouldn't everybody you have

[32:37] you have to ask people that know I don't

[32:38] know and I just want to note that you

[32:40] know the department has been working

[32:42] with the sub recipients we don't want to

[32:45] take the funding back but you know

[32:47] helping them realize what is realistic

[32:51] um as far as what they've spent to date

[32:53] so that we don't lose the money so the

[32:55] the goal has been to really work with

[32:57] them to come up with a plan that's

[32:59] realistic and not reallocate the fund so

[33:01] I just wanted to put that on record okay

[33:03] so yes and I want to thank you for the

[33:05] you've worked really really hard on this

[33:07] and I know in the past um year and a

[33:09] half maybe by nowk that you've been here

[33:11] so I really appreciate that and um you

[33:14] did point out two um groups but has is

[33:18] everyone else doing well with their

[33:19] spend down so we got up we we've worked

[33:22] with every every project and we've

[33:24] gotten updated accounts on where they

[33:27] are so the ones that I originally had

[33:29] recommended to city council which had

[33:31] included Hamilton Hill they are now

[33:34] actively moving doing their site

[33:36] approval process so we've put a little

[33:39] fuel um to the fire so that all of them

[33:42] are actually moving accordingly and

[33:44] based on the spending plans that they

[33:46] did re that we did receive and speaking

[33:48] with them it looks like they're going to

[33:50] be on on target I know that the YW also

[33:53] hadn't spent a lot no but they are due

[33:57] to spend May of 2025 they will start

[34:00] expending that money now okay um M car

[34:03] could you just would provide the council

[34:05] with a print out or you can send stand

[34:07] where everybody is so that then

[34:08] everybody can actually see um where we

[34:11] are with all of that sure all right does

[34:13] anyone else have questions regarding the

[34:15] ARB Mr Williams oh I'm sorry I thought

[34:19] your hand up yes Mr

[34:22] Williams I thought you were right go

[34:24] ahead so my question go ahead so my

[34:27] question question is about bcnr I

[34:29] remember from that meeting there were a

[34:31] lot of questions around their ability to

[34:33] SC down and I remember it differently

[34:36] that they were strongly saying that they

[34:38] did not anticipate any issues with fully

[34:41] um spending down their current ass so I

[34:44] do you have any more specific do you

[34:45] know which one BC and I have they have

[34:47] several AR for funding so the one that

[34:49] they said they anticipated not having

[34:51] issues was there on occupied rehab that

[34:54] was the $1 million allocation but the

[34:56] forclosure ition is the one that they

[34:58] stated that they have some challenges

[35:00] with finding um the demographics to take

[35:03] that

[35:05] funding you're welcome Miss Patrick is

[35:08] have a question no I was um I was just

[35:11] calling on Mr Williams as the standing

[35:14] for Mr mudaron here that's why he was

[35:17] sorry okay got it anybody else any

[35:20] questions for ARA oh sorry that's okay

[35:22] it's

[35:25] questions Carver just used to

[35:28] it any other questions thank you so much

[35:32] thank you okay so the next item on the

[35:34] agenda is um Financial donation to the

[35:38] police

[35:46] department hello should have a pretty

[35:49] easy one here so a little background on

[35:51] this and an anous donors wishing to

[35:52] donate donate $110,000 to the police

[35:54] department for the purchase of a new

[35:56] drone and for drone related equipment uh

[36:00] there's no matching funds required by

[36:01] the city great any questions or concerns

[36:05] U Madam chair um yes this is going

[36:08] through the foundation correct this

[36:09] donation will go through the public

[36:11] safety Foundation yes okay at this time

[36:14] no action needs to be taken by the

[36:16] council when you accept the item that

[36:19] the foundation purchases on the city's

[36:21] behalf you can accept it okay great well

[36:24] thank you very much very good thank you

[36:26] have a good holiday it's anous I guess

[36:29] we can't set it back

[36:32] right we want to because what the next

[36:35] item um if Mr triny could come forward

[36:38] we have the review of the uh building

[36:40] Pro V schedule which you all also we got

[36:44] another copy of that today I think it

[36:48] was you want to bring your you need all

[36:51] that stuff bring

[36:53] toks it's in the packet also

[37:03] good evening

[37:05] hi so I've been called tonight to uh be

[37:08] available for some questions revolving

[37:11] around fee increase proposal that uh has

[37:15] come before you all and so I'm available

[37:18] for whatever questions you

[37:20] have any questions or concerns about the

[37:23] code can you just do a quick run through

[37:25] I don't know that um I know that are

[37:27] we're not you highlighted this when you

[37:29] printed it we didn't get U we didn't

[37:31] have highlighted copies so if you could

[37:32] just run through um the request to

[37:35] changes for for us please

[37:40] so well the U the meat and potatoes of

[37:43] the increases revolve around um

[37:47] application fees for the building

[37:50] permits and um we proposed a uh 3%

[37:56] increase

[37:58] um applications with construction cost

[38:02] of up to

[38:03] $10,000 and a 2% increase of 10,000 to

[38:10] 100,000 and a point

[38:13] uh a

[38:17] 0.0001%

[38:19] increase of um anything over

[38:23] $100,000 um so um

[38:28] see we uh roofing permits have uh we we

[38:34] we want to do away with the flat fee for

[38:36] roofing permits and um go with a the

[38:39] structure that we use for the um

[38:42] building

[38:44] permits um some various other increases

[38:50] here

[38:52] see so some after hours inspection

[38:55] requests um proposed to charge fees for

[38:59] that uh $150 fee with a 2hour

[39:04] minimum fairly insignificant we don't

[39:07] get many requests for those but

[39:10] um sidewalk permits uh to go up to uh by

[39:14] $25 right now it's at $50 it's going to

[39:17] go to

[39:18] $75 that's for sidewalk

[39:21] repairs um all these fees that are

[39:24] proposed are to cover cover costs uh

[39:28] from the department and our staffing

[39:31] they haven't been increased

[39:33] since um I think there were some minor

[39:35] changes in 2017 but before that I think

[39:39] it was

[39:40] 2008 that we had talked about in the

[39:43] presentation of these

[39:45] increases um like I said the meat and

[39:48] potatoes behind all the increases are in

[39:50] the building permit side of the

[39:52] increases the other ones are very minor

[39:56] on

[39:58] overall um we have uh fence permits also

[40:04] a small increase from $50 to

[40:07] $75

[40:10] um let's see there's other minor

[40:18] changes um any any questions revolving

[40:22] any specific

[40:24] fees should we go over the whole

[40:26] presentation again or

[40:27] um M Doro has a question yes thank you

[40:32] um so the asphalt paving permit um so is

[40:36] that like when

[40:39] um who checks on when like a water main

[40:43] brakes and we have it repaired from the

[40:45] road to our homes is that there so

[40:48] though asphalt paving would be on

[40:50] private property there's mostly uh

[40:52] driveways that are being redone okay so

[40:54] the contractor work permits would um

[40:57] those will be covering the work in the

[41:00] right away B basically uh National Grid

[41:03] work so the asphalt paving permits

[41:07] mostly is on private property thank you

[41:09] you're welcome other

[41:13] questions thank you um so has there

[41:16] always been an inspection fee Associated

[41:19] um just with like cve fence permit um so

[41:23] residential application fee I see for

[41:25] fence permit $75 for the $75 inspection

[41:29] fee so that's someone after the work's

[41:31] done someone goes back out to inspect is

[41:34] that yes has that always

[41:37] been a fee associated with we're talking

[41:41] about specifically curve cup curb cut um

[41:44] fence

[41:48] permit the asphal paving

[41:54] permit penil I think um so that's new

[41:57] the inspection fee is proposed that's a

[41:59] new fee proposed so alls we had was the

[42:02] $75 application fee with fenes

[42:04] specifically and the curb cup similar

[42:07] same adding an inspection fee correct

[42:11] yes they do require an extra visit so we

[42:13] have our administrative processes that

[42:16] are uh part of the application process

[42:20] and then field work for the inspections

[42:22] we felt that a uh inspection fee is

[42:24] necessary there cover cost done

[42:28] yeah thank you welome other

[42:31] questions Mr Man you were just okay Miss

[42:35] for yeah so in terms of well um you said

[42:39] like after hour fee so at this point in

[42:42] time are we

[42:44] only are is is Staff only working like 8

[42:47] to four so there's

[42:50] no um schedule where where like it's

[42:53] staggered for U where there eight four

[42:56] people and there's four to whatever

[42:57] people as as everybody 8 to four because

[43:00] then that could create a situation for

[43:03] homeowners contractors whomever that you

[43:06] you're now charging them to come out

[43:08] after working hours so those requests

[43:11] are U very rare and they might be on a

[43:13] commercial project where um maybe

[43:16] they're um absolutely necessary

[43:19] requiring a uh early morning inspection

[43:23] say for a concrete por at 5:00 a.m. um

[43:26] very rare but uh we do have staff on

[43:29] 24/7 in the building department but it's

[43:32] emergency on call staffing so

[43:37] um not available for inspections or

[43:40] inspection requests

[43:43] for construction projects so so we don't

[43:46] have so everybody works 8 8 to 4:30 8 to

[43:49] 3:45 8 to four okay so everybody works

[43:52] there so then then the answer to the

[43:54] question is like on the weekends and no

[43:56] one's no one's out

[43:58] no uh just emergency staff for on Call

[44:04] emergencies okay and um

[44:07] so how how many violations because I

[44:09] know that you issue violations stock

[44:12] work ORD is any number of things how

[44:15] many do we have outstanding currently I

[44:18] I sent you the email to ask that

[44:19] question thank you for preparing on that

[44:21] that's okay I want you to be prepared

[44:23] I'm trying to catch you off car

[44:25] appreciate it uh so I would like to know

[44:27] about that um and what the follow-up

[44:29] looks like because part of you know Us

[44:31] increasing fees continually is the

[44:33] enforcement of it but if you're telling

[44:35] me that staff is only doing 8 to four

[44:36] and then they have to do whatever else

[44:39] their normal thing that where where's

[44:40] the time for the enforcement how much is

[44:42] outstanding right now so we have uh so I

[44:46] rent a report and I have a summary for

[44:47] you that'll pass out so you have it at

[44:50] your disposal after we're we're through

[44:52] here but uh currently we have

[44:56] 2,835 outstanding violations so that

[44:58] would be pending um for possibly 2,800

[45:04] yes so that that would be uh that could

[45:07] be pending uh that could

[45:10] be in uh with with tickets issued um

[45:15] with violations needing to go to court

[45:19] um

[45:20] so that's that's the number of

[45:22] outstanding violations we have currently

[45:25] um that's also um

[45:27] thank the nuisance Department's

[45:29] violations um also there's some

[45:33] violations that exist with zoning as

[45:35] well so so they'll be in there uh but in

[45:40] my report summary you'll see that number

[45:42] of 2835 outstanding violations

[45:46] currently what is the dollar amount so

[45:50] the dollar amount uh would be in a

[45:52] different report um so often those

[45:55] violations aren't they don't have an

[45:57] administrative fee for every single

[46:00] violation so they often times are

[46:02] grouped so for instance if we issue five

[46:06] violations at a certain parcel um they

[46:09] don't necessarily they they'll have one

[46:11] administrative fee for all violations

[46:13] will be grouped together so uh an

[46:16] administrative fee is

[46:18] $50 um and often that uh they are

[46:24] grouped together so we can't ass assume

[46:27] that it's $50 per each

[46:30] violation so could be more I see it

[46:33] could it wouldn't be more it would be

[46:35] less I see what you're

[46:39] saying

[46:41] and so and is there a charge for so if

[46:43] someone is doing

[46:45] work and they get a stop work order is

[46:48] that charge also $50 so a stop work

[46:50] order the fee associated with stop work

[46:53] order which is in our uh

[46:58] in our uh presentation is

[47:01] $550 for a stop order are there any of

[47:04] those outstanding

[47:07] um I'm sure there is I'm sure there are

[47:10] some that haven't that that are waiting

[47:12] to be complied with um I don't have that

[47:14] number available but I can get you that

[47:16] number and send it in an email to

[47:19] you so I'm I'm sure there's some stock

[47:22] workorders that are in

[47:25] process okay

[47:28] another question um so I see that people

[47:30] get permits for to do whatever the

[47:32] permits are pulled um so are they

[47:35] standard standard color standard and

[47:38] then just you write on them what

[47:39] whatever they're getting a permit for so

[47:42] we have um many different permit types M

[47:47] and um as far as color goes uh

[47:51] electrical would be green um yellow

[47:53] would be our standard permit for most so

[47:57] fence permits are on white paper um most

[48:00] all other building permits will be on

[48:02] our yellow paper

[48:04] Okay um sometimes if people drive I I'm

[48:07] just thinking if people are driving by

[48:09] they have something specific like on a

[48:11] green paper we let them know it's for

[48:12] this because maybe I'm doing a roof when

[48:16] I've only pulled a permit for something

[48:17] much less expensive so just wondering if

[48:21] there was a color code process that let

[48:24] your your code people know um what

[48:27] they're if they're if they're actually

[48:28] what they just seeing a permit to them

[48:29] it's the permit's there but let them

[48:31] know that that what's being done is

[48:33] actually what the permit was pulled for

[48:34] it's something to think about improving

[48:36] on and maybe we can get more color coded

[48:39] uh but right now a building permit is

[48:41] yellow fence permits are white

[48:43] electrical per are

[48:45] green

[48:47] okay any other questions Mr Williams uh

[48:51] to a question about the 2800 outstanding

[48:53] violations yes sir does that reflect

[48:56] outstanding

[48:57] collections or outstanding like stop and

[49:00] address this so as I stated so a lot of

[49:04] them are in process so they' be in

[49:06] process so they're pending so uh we're

[49:08] waiting for compliance many of them will

[49:11] be complied with um so um as far as

[49:16] collections go um it doesn't reflect

[49:20] collections so administrative fees are

[49:23] associated with the

[49:25] violations many times they're grouped so

[49:29] there could

[49:30] be uh you know two three four a half a

[49:35] dozen all grouped together with $50

[49:37] administrative

[49:39] fee and just a following question um

[49:42] just with respect to any changes there's

[49:45] going to be as we just discussed with

[49:46] the speed limit a time frame where you

[49:49] have to work through like the population

[49:51] becoming more compliant uh do you

[49:54] foresee any shifts and having to be more

[49:57] proactive where this deters people from

[50:01] proactively seeking these permits and

[50:04] thus form requiring your officers to be

[50:07] more present in the community to miss

[50:09] porterfield's Point adopting a larger

[50:13] number of hours to potentially be more

[50:14] visible in times where if I was a

[50:17] contractor I'll just wait till you

[50:20] close yeah um I suppose I could do a

[50:24] deeper study on on that and um we do not

[50:28] want to deter the public from pulling

[50:30] permits so that is not our goal our goal

[50:32] is to U simply keep up with the cost of

[50:36] operations so and we really uh gave this

[50:39] a lot of thought and we did um crunch

[50:42] numbers and we are um concentrating on

[50:46] keeping up with the cost of operation

[50:48] and we are aware that I'm aware every

[50:50] change we make that um we want to

[50:53] encourage pulling of building permits

[50:55] and we don't want to deter that thank

[50:57] you so you're

[50:59] welcome any other

[51:02] questions so this is really for

[51:05] um Mr O'Brien so this or M baraj so this

[51:10] is part of the code so we're going to

[51:12] have to do a public hearing for this for

[51:14] the changes yeah no we already did the

[51:15] public hearing on on this we already did

[51:17] the public hearing yes back in October

[51:19] so all this has an effective date on uh

[51:22] January 1st so you've had your public

[51:25] hearing um it's back before the council

[51:28] all want to tweak it for next week um

[51:32] change the effective date whatever you

[51:33] want to do but the public hearing has

[51:35] been done so if there's any changes you

[51:37] want to do this is a good time to do it

[51:40] and and if you don't then it can go on

[51:42] the agenda next week as is as a clean

[51:45] copy ready for a final

[51:49] vote Yes support so I'm not in this

[51:52] committee but um I do I would like to

[51:54] see like the amount of those outstanding

[51:57] um violations that we have and what the

[51:59] dollar amount is it equates to and I

[52:03] have to tell you I have a concern that

[52:05] even if we increase fees that the

[52:08] enforcement piece of it seems to be

[52:09] we're we're having um we're being

[52:12] challenged in terms of making that

[52:14] happen so what will increasing fees

[52:17] really accomplish will it just be the

[52:20] people who are already complying paying

[52:22] more and those who aren't you know we're

[52:24] covering for that so that that's a

[52:27] concern for me because um I don't know

[52:30] if anybody else has heard but certainly

[52:32] I've heard from um a few individuals not

[52:36] a lot just to be uh uh clear about their

[52:39] their concerns for um the increase in in

[52:42] the fee so I'd like to know where we are

[52:45] with the enforcement that's it doesn't

[52:48] we can pass all the legislation we want

[52:49] but if where if if you're not able to um

[52:53] have it enforce then we really haven't

[52:56] really benefited understood I can um get

[52:59] you a more detailed report on those fees

[53:02] and let you know exactly where we

[53:06] got I just want to um point out that in

[53:09] the budget for 2025 um we had a total

[53:12] because we already have reviewed this um

[53:15] we were given a total estimated amount

[53:17] of what um our Revenue would be for 2025

[53:20] and so we voted that into when we

[53:23] approved the um the 2025 budget so we

[53:26] need to be careful um because obviously

[53:28] we don't want to undercut um our our

[53:31] previous decision making on this

[53:35] topic but part of that decision is that

[53:38] we're actually collecting I mean if

[53:39] we're not collecting it it's just no we

[53:41] have to collect it so one point I'd like

[53:44] to uh bring up is that um outstanding

[53:47] fees are currently being reeved into the

[53:50] taxes as we speak so um we we do collect

[53:55] those fees

[53:57] whether we do when when

[54:01] taxes that's a so we do collect the fees

[54:04] they don't get by us okay M Mr Williams

[54:08] so w wanting to be responsive to the

[54:10] budgeted line but also want to be

[54:13] considered of M P's question that I also

[54:16] agree with is that an up give you can

[54:17] app to us before the end of the week so

[54:19] that we can have that in consideration

[54:21] for Monday

[54:23] absolutely that I'm comfortable okay and

[54:27] I'll second it all in favor all I okay

[54:31] thank you so much thank

[54:33] you okay the next

[54:36] item

[54:38] is um this is being removed number four

[54:42] I'm sorry I'm sorry number four is being

[54:45] um they pull that P that oh it's being

[54:47] pulled weeks we're pulling uh updating

[54:49] the purchasing uh policy for two

[54:53] weeks thank you and then the next item

[54:56] is the finance agreement for the

[54:57] rehabilitation of the city of SKC

[54:59] Central Park and Michigan Avenue tennis

[55:01] facilities Mr

[55:10] wal um I believe you have a draft it's

[55:13] done the draft um for an agreement so we

[55:17] set aside $500,000 in arpa funding um

[55:21] over approximately a year ago and in the

[55:23] 2025 capital budget we approved $2

[55:25] million for a total of $2.5

[55:28] million to properly encumber this money

[55:31] we're looking to form a formal Financial

[55:33] agreement of terms with uh USA Northeast

[55:37] for the work that we have been talking

[55:39] about um I've been working with uh Jenny

[55:42] at the USA and I've seen a law

[55:44] department on this agreement um the

[55:46] agreement is for the renovations and

[55:49] reconstruction of the Central Park

[55:50] tennis courts and some uh work at

[55:53] Michigan Avenue to keep those courts in

[55:55] competitive um competitive shape one of

[55:58] the things to note is that we are going

[56:01] to try to do all 18 courts however at a

[56:05] minimum we are going to do the upper

[56:07] Seven Courts and a conversion to eight

[56:09] okay um hopefully we can do the 18 we're

[56:12] really trying uh through our partnership

[56:14] with USA to um have some contractors

[56:18] really competitively bid this next year

[56:20] um we're working on that design as we

[56:22] speak with cha Sports who's done some of

[56:24] our work um the courts will be going

[56:27] from an asphalt surface to a post engine

[56:30] concrete surface the life of those

[56:32] courts should be uh much longer than

[56:36] asphalt um we're hoping for a minimum of

[56:38] 30 years uh for the courts um and and 18

[56:42] courts up from the 17 will allow them to

[56:45] do everything they need there with using

[56:48] Michigan for really only teaching with

[56:50] the 15 love group um and then in there

[56:53] is uh the usda's contribution of million

[56:56] doll as well as assisting us with some

[56:58] of the operations we are trying to work

[57:00] with them on that and if the dollar

[57:04] value is close between being able to do

[57:06] 9 or 18 the city cannot cover it they

[57:09] will approach their board for some

[57:11] additional fund great to be able to

[57:13] cover that which we tried to capture in

[57:14] the agreement great any questions Miss

[57:19] pfield um so there there's there was

[57:21] some conversation but I don't think it

[57:23] ever made it to this point though about

[57:25] adding a pickable Court there is that

[57:27] something that's being considered not at

[57:29] Central Park not right now not at this

[57:31] complex I think the idea with this

[57:33] complex was to keep it focused on tennis

[57:36] and not uh do any kind of a hybrid with

[57:40] the lines um because there would be some

[57:43] kind of a hybrid system but it's not

[57:45] that we can't uh we could have that

[57:47] conversation but I do know that this is

[57:49] their their primary for uh for the

[57:52] entire state is these courts I don't

[57:53] think that they would want the pickle

[57:55] ball

[57:56] striping on these particular reports

[57:58] yeah I have to say the pickle ball

[58:00] people want it just

[58:02] saying um that yeah that's my question

[58:06] and um I thought there was and I'll have

[58:08] a conversation with you but I thought

[58:09] there was a conversation about that

[58:10] happening and so this currently 17 would

[58:14] hopefully go to 18 so we're calling it

[58:17] base bid and that all so the base bid is

[58:19] what we're talking about would be to

[58:20] take the upper Seven Courts which on the

[58:22] upper um if you were looking at the

[58:25] complex from the road on the right mhm

[58:26] take those seven and make them eight if

[58:29] you were to which I know you were

[58:31] familiar with but the layout the courts

[58:32] are halfhazard located at different

[58:35] elevations and different locations um

[58:37] and we would like to consolidate that

[58:39] into a more um professional venue

[58:42] similar that we have on the lower 10 the

[58:44] lower 10 cours are two banks are five

[58:46] and five we're looking to convert the

[58:49] three and four into a 4 and four uniform

[58:52] at one elevation try to eliminate all

[58:56] these different levels of courts that we

[58:58] have um so since we're going to this

[59:00] extent with the work um all it takes is

[59:04] a larger machine we want to get in there

[59:06] and grade this out and and really just

[59:08] have possibly two levels only a bank of

[59:11] eight at a level here and a bank of 10

[59:13] at a level here and try to not have

[59:15] right now between the 17 courts I think

[59:17] they're at six different levels jeez so

[59:19] there's all these little steps that you

[59:21] take that you go and so that's how we

[59:23] our steps in yeah so we're trying try to

[59:26] avoid that situation MH okay will this

[59:29] improve my game oh

[59:32] exponentially more consistency won't be

[59:34] able to blame the court for a crack or

[59:36] anything like

[59:38] that questions y yes I do want to know

[59:41] what I know that the USA is also

[59:43] contributing to this um does that give

[59:46] them um

[59:49] more time to or or do they have more um

[59:53] access to the courts than the public

[59:55] would as a result of their contribution

[59:57] as part of this I haven't seen any

[59:59] additional access they would want to

[1:00:00] have you know their events on their

[1:00:02] dates but they're already doing that now

[1:00:04] there hasn't been any conversation of

[1:00:06] additional events um really anything

[1:00:09] additional usually comes in the form of

[1:00:10] 15 love trying to do some events um and

[1:00:13] they did say that they would help with

[1:00:15] trying to schedule because I know that

[1:00:16] is a difficult thing because the need

[1:00:18] for the courts especially once we make

[1:00:20] this investment the courts will be

[1:00:22] sought after probably by per uh more

[1:00:24] schools and leagues and people like that

[1:00:26] trying to get on um on them but USA

[1:00:28] hasn't asked for an additional uh Court

[1:00:31] time slots only what they've had uh in

[1:00:33] the

[1:00:35] past okay okay and so since we're

[1:00:39] talking about more courts and other

[1:00:40] people wanting to come in because

[1:00:41] they're going to be so professional um

[1:00:44] something we haven't done but should be

[1:00:45] doing is how are we talking since we're

[1:00:46] talking about these how are we talking

[1:00:48] about or I know that's probably not even

[1:00:50] for you um about how we start charging

[1:00:54] so that this this is we're spend money

[1:00:56] so how are we creating Revenue around

[1:00:58] what's going to be according to what

[1:01:00] you're telling it's very state-of thee

[1:01:01] Arch and really sought after y um not

[1:01:05] 100% I know the conversations I've been

[1:01:07] involved in we revolve around that

[1:01:09] however it always comes down to a

[1:01:10] balance of um fee generation compared to

[1:01:14] cost for the city so you know if someone

[1:01:17] is collecting a $10 fee but you're

[1:01:19] paying that person $15 an hour what the

[1:01:22] balancing point of that is so that's one

[1:01:24] of the things we're working with the

[1:01:26] 1511 USA about about other systems for

[1:01:29] reservations and things like that things

[1:01:30] that are happening we've talked if we

[1:01:32] could get sponsorships uh for that to do

[1:01:35] some kind of income generation but it is

[1:01:38] difficult because you would be putting

[1:01:40] someone there that is essentially a

[1:01:42] seasonal worker and you would be putting

[1:01:44] them in almost an enforcement position

[1:01:47] um and would be difficult it would be a

[1:01:49] difficult thing because you'd be telling

[1:01:51] someone no you can't come here and you'd

[1:01:52] have to you know really provide them

[1:01:53] with how do they do it and unless we're

[1:01:55] giving them the ability to be able to

[1:01:58] sign up and book and do things right

[1:01:59] there on site then it's you know go home

[1:02:02] or go to a park office so there there's

[1:02:03] a lot and I know that uh we've been

[1:02:05] talking about it Paul's extremely

[1:02:07] familiar with it and he's you know he

[1:02:08] pointed out a lot of the things that's

[1:02:10] gone into a you know the the

[1:02:12] complications of it but I mean also you

[1:02:14] know we now have Mr mosa he's in place

[1:02:16] he wasn't here really a year ago he's

[1:02:18] aware of it so I think these are all

[1:02:21] good problems to have much like with the

[1:02:23] pool you know how to have it but um but

[1:02:25] we really should get ahead of it too

[1:02:28] right so but so the the leagues and all

[1:02:31] the other things coming in they will be

[1:02:33] paying to use supports I would think

[1:02:36] that you would want everyone I mean we

[1:02:37] have you know Mr D sitting right here

[1:02:41] right and you know we're all involved in

[1:02:42] the golf course and that we there is no

[1:02:45] you know you pay missa High School comes

[1:02:47] to play there they pay high school comes

[1:02:49] you pay a league comes they pay it's

[1:02:52] just like a Parks amenity we put just as

[1:02:54] much money in we're putting a lot of

[1:02:55] public money into this facility so if

[1:02:58] the city was to use it as a resource

[1:03:00] that generated Revenue I wouldn't hold

[1:03:01] that against us but if you were to say

[1:03:03] we're public and this is a public park

[1:03:05] and this is what you want I can see it

[1:03:06] that way it depends on how you really

[1:03:08] want to to view the facility and its use

[1:03:11] um you know I don't think other entities

[1:03:14] should be using this to save them or

[1:03:16] make themselves money right that's right

[1:03:19] like an instructor we've had this

[1:03:21] conversation I mean like someone doing

[1:03:22] private lessons or something corre and

[1:03:24] school districts have budet as large as

[1:03:26] a city of skty so if they're looking at

[1:03:28] this as some way to save a line item on

[1:03:31] a budget is that really is appropriate

[1:03:33] it should be probably not um but if a

[1:03:36] Community member and a city taxpayer who

[1:03:39] lives by Central Park or not wants to go

[1:03:41] play

[1:03:42] tennis go play tennis right or we

[1:03:45] determine that that's not the seven you

[1:03:47] know there was also the conversation

[1:03:48] those aren't the 18 courts to play this

[1:03:50] kind of tennis we just made the

[1:03:52] investment into you know Fair viiew

[1:03:53] that's tennis we can look at doing it in

[1:03:55] sment and trying to do that there so you

[1:03:57] could you know make some kind of thing

[1:03:59] up that says that this 18 just like the

[1:04:01] golf course this is our professional

[1:04:03] court if you want to play on these

[1:04:04] courts you got to you know give a little

[1:04:07] more right so that's up to I I would

[1:04:11] think table table Mr Williams I'll add

[1:04:16] two comments the first of which is uh I

[1:04:18] appreciate Mr D being here and all all

[1:04:20] that he does with the golf course from

[1:04:22] your perspective is there any uh

[1:04:25] infrastructure that's currently in place

[1:04:26] for us to leverage to trial something

[1:04:28] like this with Associated fees with the

[1:04:31] uses of these types of reinvestments and

[1:04:34] specifically the tennis courts is you do

[1:04:36] it very well and I imagine it didn't

[1:04:38] happen by chance and it's required a lot

[1:04:40] of years of understanding and then

[1:04:42] adjusting and you talking about with the

[1:04:44] golf course

[1:04:45] correct not to the same extent but no I

[1:04:48] I guess what the issue is is that you

[1:04:49] have to remember this is

[1:04:51] why you know I don't know how to say on

[1:04:54] a certain way this is why there aren't

[1:04:55] as many clubs in existence anymore right

[1:04:57] is because the business model doesn't

[1:04:59] work for everything we're fortunate here

[1:05:01] at the city to have a golf course and

[1:05:03] facility that we can use to actually

[1:05:06] make money pay for employees and

[1:05:09] generate that kind of a revenue to put

[1:05:11] that kind of a revenue structure in

[1:05:13] place at the tennis court may be

[1:05:15] possible but you're talking about fees

[1:05:17] to pay that may not be as feasible and

[1:05:20] you might not see the the utilization go

[1:05:23] to where you want you know cuz you're

[1:05:24] talking about okay to have someone there

[1:05:25] we're going to need a Central Park

[1:05:26] tennis manager and that Central Park

[1:05:28] tennis manager is going to need some

[1:05:29] kind of a part-time assistant for when

[1:05:31] he's not there and then that's going to

[1:05:32] need a little area to collect fees you

[1:05:34] know and and you go down that that that

[1:05:36] road of it I think we've talked about

[1:05:38] this before the fees the fees add up and

[1:05:41] now all of a sudden if you're trying to

[1:05:42] recoup that there already a perc the

[1:05:46] council pass it a few years

[1:05:47] ago for the for the chance yes so who's

[1:05:52] collecting the

[1:05:53] revenue collect Revenue because the

[1:05:55] person out there like Chris mentioned

[1:05:57] we're paying 1550 hour for that person

[1:06:00] stand to

[1:06:06] collect unless she want to raise fees to

[1:06:08] cover the cost of the person standing

[1:06:10] there and then it comes do you want to

[1:06:13] come up here than you want me to answer

[1:06:15] the question I'll come up come on

[1:06:23] up I got to introduce him for some

[1:06:25] reason

[1:06:30] we do have a fee schedule for tennis at

[1:06:31] Central Park in Central

[1:06:33] Park Jerry barell Park uh Michigan

[1:06:37] Avenue um there are no fees for any

[1:06:39] other part for tennis other than Central

[1:06:42] Park we did try to implement we did put

[1:06:44] seasonals out there when we first

[1:06:45] implemented the fees the problem is

[1:06:49] um paying cash to seasonal employes is

[1:06:52] not a good thing in the park okay the

[1:06:55] other is

[1:06:56] um it becomes an enforcement when

[1:06:57] somebody's out there they play their

[1:06:59] hour um you got to collect another

[1:07:02] $15 uh and they say no we play L

[1:07:05] nobody's really here who we heard it so

[1:07:07] it's very diff difficult difficult for a

[1:07:09] you know a a youth to be out there 16 17

[1:07:12] years old trying to collect the fee from

[1:07:14] somebody who you know they're not going

[1:07:16] to get in an argument and we're

[1:07:17] collecting the fee the less of them

[1:07:19] we're paying the person who's trying to

[1:07:20] collect the fee so it's not a good

[1:07:23] business

[1:07:24] model so when so but so can we we should

[1:07:28] start focusing then on the groups that

[1:07:30] are using the USA and all the other

[1:07:31] groups because then they have to

[1:07:34] schedule it in order to use it so

[1:07:35] there's a place that we could definitely

[1:07:37] be put a model in place where they have

[1:07:39] to pay us at a time to use it and their

[1:07:41] time is blocked out Etc and that would

[1:07:44] that could be something that could be

[1:07:46] put forth to the council to approve if

[1:07:48] you want to set a fee schedule for

[1:07:49] tournaments or different things yes

[1:07:51] absolutely I I and we have to collect

[1:07:53] some funds

[1:07:55] that that fee scheduled yeah I think it

[1:07:58] was done I want to say 22 or somewhere

[1:08:01] 21 I know but the enforcement pieces

[1:08:04] yeah and yes and we're paying more to

[1:08:08] collect less so it does make sense it is

[1:08:12] it is a conundrum because even thinking

[1:08:14] about uh we had health and Recreation

[1:08:16] had a meeting and talked about pool fees

[1:08:18] um and similar issues arose in terms of

[1:08:22] you know who's collecting the fees do we

[1:08:24] really want to put a young person which

[1:08:25] is basically what we hire for our

[1:08:27] seasonal employees in the position of

[1:08:29] you know are they going to get into an

[1:08:31] argument with someone I mean so it is it

[1:08:33] is sort of a complex it's not just a

[1:08:36] simple black and white issue um but I

[1:08:39] think that we probably would have to you

[1:08:41] know look not everybody comes with cash

[1:08:42] in their pocket to play

[1:08:45] tennis right and so you have to do it on

[1:08:48] a card have somebody with a phone that

[1:08:50] can do a card so it's that's right some

[1:08:52] sort of Technology here uh at City at

[1:08:55] City Hall where they come here and they

[1:08:56] get some sort of pass or something it's

[1:08:58] the same with the you know talk we

[1:09:00] talked a little bit about those kinds of

[1:09:01] things around the pool as well so looks

[1:09:03] like we might have to invite you guys

[1:09:06] and and reconvene uh health and

[1:09:08] Recreation to kind of look at some of

[1:09:10] these as well to make some

[1:09:13] recommendations I would agree with that

[1:09:18] back I would agree with that but again I

[1:09:20] think that we should definitely put

[1:09:22] something in place and if that you said

[1:09:24] we already have something but now we're

[1:09:26] talking about investing quite a bit of

[1:09:27] money into the tennis courts and listen

[1:09:29] I play tennis so it's not like I'm not

[1:09:31] you know it's not going to impact me

[1:09:32] it's okay um because it's something that

[1:09:35] you know people want to do but if we're

[1:09:37] people coming from all over and this is

[1:09:39] like a state-of art place then we should

[1:09:40] have something in place for tournaments

[1:09:42] um and groups that are coming in to you

[1:09:44] know bring a lot of people in to play to

[1:09:47] to to to then some of the tournaments

[1:09:49] right now with the courts being as they

[1:09:50] are um we still get quite a bit of

[1:09:53] people so I can imagine that we get even

[1:09:54] more

[1:09:55] when this happened so that is something

[1:09:57] I I think that we um definitely need

[1:09:59] focus on and the recreation advisory

[1:10:01] committee I think is something that

[1:10:02] really needs to be conven reconvened so

[1:10:05] that we could get some input and some

[1:10:07] assistance with that as well we do need

[1:10:10] to do that I was actually talking about

[1:10:12] City council's Health and Recreation

[1:10:13] committee but I agree with you that we

[1:10:15] also still need the recreation advisory

[1:10:17] committee as well yeah from the

[1:10:20] public I'm next again Mr Williams I

[1:10:24] second question the one thing I've

[1:10:26] always appreciate about SK was its

[1:10:28] openness to different or emerging sports

[1:10:30] like talking about U disc golf which I'm

[1:10:33] not good at and I accept that um but

[1:10:36] with respect respect to tennis um I

[1:10:38] think to again to miss P's point about

[1:10:40] being responsive to just our emerging

[1:10:42] pickle ball Community do you think that

[1:10:44] that would be a nonstarter of a question

[1:10:46] going back to the US and asking if

[1:10:48] they're considerate to that but I

[1:10:51] wouldn't want you to do what at the

[1:10:52] expense to the project moving forward

[1:10:54] because I understand and making that

[1:10:55] investment it would be to prioritize

[1:10:57] tennis um but I would hate for us to do

[1:11:00] this entire revamp absent any

[1:11:03] considerations or other destinations

[1:11:05] within the city for us to make other

[1:11:08] Investments Mr Man again the US ten

[1:11:11] Association wants those courts strip to

[1:11:14] the professional standard for tenis

[1:11:16] we've made major investments in

[1:11:18] Hillhurst Park where we put pickle ball

[1:11:21] courts in so again we are trying to

[1:11:23] support that uh to look at the demand

[1:11:26] are there other options you know at

[1:11:28] Steinman park it

[1:11:32] uh it don't know about Michigan Avenue

[1:11:35] and I don't know about Jerry Burell

[1:11:37] Jerry Burell is like Four Courts like

[1:11:40] it's it's very small

[1:11:43] right some of these I don't think you

[1:11:45] get 500 people to show up in fact you

[1:11:48] want you know the availability of courts

[1:11:51] that are convenient and are in the

[1:11:53] different neighborhoods so that uh

[1:11:55] uh again they can be utilized and the

[1:11:58] ones in the neighborhood like that you

[1:12:00] can dual stripe it so you could play

[1:12:02] tennis on it and play pickle ball on it

[1:12:05] the

[1:12:06] real uh Tennis Pros and they don't want

[1:12:11] the secondary striping for the pickle

[1:12:14] ball then I say is there any abilities

[1:12:16] to put like better than makesi signing

[1:12:19] so that it shows the pickle ball

[1:12:21] community that we are considerate and

[1:12:22] that there are other locations

[1:12:23] throughout the community at those

[1:12:24] locations where they could still conre

[1:12:28] at possibly uh I I think the big thing

[1:12:31] would be something like along the lines

[1:12:33] of styman Park so look the mayor spoke

[1:12:35] about um we are trying to

[1:12:37] allocate um some of the funding that we

[1:12:39] have left over with the arpa under a

[1:12:41] Paving contract to revamp that and one

[1:12:43] of the things with pickle ball with

[1:12:45] tennis that's kind of unique is that you

[1:12:46] can fit multiple pickle ball courts onto

[1:12:49] a tennis so from a utilization

[1:12:52] standpoint it would be better for the

[1:12:55] city to put four pickle ball courts in

[1:12:58] the footprint of One tennis court than

[1:13:00] to take up a tennis court with one

[1:13:02] pickle ball court because usually you're

[1:13:04] just kind of fitting it in you know with

[1:13:07] the with the kitchen and everything it's

[1:13:09] just much smaller so the net is overly

[1:13:11] sized whereas I've seen the layouts of

[1:13:13] how you can really do it um and how the

[1:13:16] foot Port works so you know I would

[1:13:17] think that styman is our next example

[1:13:19] where we could try to put four pickle

[1:13:21] ball courts there and we always try to

[1:13:23] put a uh a basketball court something

[1:13:25] something like that there so I think

[1:13:26] that's the idea we have there um and

[1:13:29] then you know there was the conversation

[1:13:31] of you know one of these times when we

[1:13:33] get the parks advisory committee

[1:13:35] together we really need to talk the

[1:13:36] Riverside Park um and what ended up

[1:13:38] happening there because we've lost those

[1:13:41] facilities so I I think really we just

[1:13:42] have to look and this is something that

[1:13:44] Paul and I have talked about with uh

[1:13:46] with Bill MAA is just about taking back

[1:13:48] some of our facilities that we had and

[1:13:50] reimagining some of it because if we did

[1:13:53] have Simon's Park back to what it was

[1:13:55] and we did have Riverside Park back to

[1:13:57] what it was and some of um you know J BR

[1:14:00] we just redid but we did not put the

[1:14:02] pickle ball there you know our

[1:14:03] facilities would you know increase and

[1:14:05] we would have be able to spread that out

[1:14:07] and I think the mayor's point is a valid

[1:14:09] one that um we have one pickle ball

[1:14:12] complex that we spent quite a bit on

[1:14:13] that came out fantastic but it would be

[1:14:15] just nice to have that courts around the

[1:14:18] area for people who just want to play

[1:14:19] not everything needs to be tournament

[1:14:22] ready um I think there is some value in

[1:14:24] just having neigh would be able to come

[1:14:25] out and play ble ball yeah Mr Williams

[1:14:28] and just a clarifying comment is just

[1:14:31] making sure we have appropriate

[1:14:32] considerations to as in our intent but

[1:14:35] also the implementation because what I

[1:14:36] would hate to see is tennis players

[1:14:38] kicking pickle ball players off the

[1:14:40] courts so I just wanted to be

[1:14:41] communicated appropriately that we're

[1:14:43] saying there are better areas in this in

[1:14:44] the city suited for this activity not

[1:14:47] that we don't want you in

[1:14:49] Sp okay any any Miss pille thanks and

[1:14:54] just for the record I'm still still

[1:14:55] advocating for at least one dedicated

[1:14:56] pickleball court at and and and I I

[1:14:59] don't proba a problem M for that because

[1:15:01] um there's pickle balls are growing

[1:15:03] sport people play a lot and a lot of

[1:15:05] people who live in the city um play the

[1:15:07] court at Central Park at this conf yes

[1:15:11] I'm pushing I for one dedicated one I

[1:15:13] that would be my ask um I've heard from

[1:15:15] people we actually had a tournament up

[1:15:17] there where they had to fix it and you

[1:15:19] know like I'll talk with Jenny about

[1:15:21] that and to fit four into one so I just

[1:15:23] want to you know it's been people have

[1:15:25] mentioned it to me so I'm going to bring

[1:15:27] it forward that if we could and and

[1:15:28] hopefully USA would

[1:15:31] understand um but one d c Court that's

[1:15:34] my ask and I will just close the

[1:15:37] conversation by saying that the pickle

[1:15:38] ball Courts at Hillside are um are great

[1:15:42] I mean so I mean I don't play but I've

[1:15:44] been up to see them um they really came

[1:15:47] out nice so I appreciate the work on

[1:15:48] that too and I think that the the core

[1:15:51] you know sort of pickle ball players are

[1:15:54] really excited about about it and and

[1:15:56] enjoy using that facility as well so I

[1:15:58] just want to make sure the public hears

[1:16:00] that there are there are those courts um

[1:16:02] in

[1:16:04] place

[1:16:07] okay anything else okay thank you Mr W

[1:16:11] next item is also for Mr Madam chair I

[1:16:15] think you need to vote this out at a

[1:16:17] committee for the sorry thank you uh so

[1:16:21] may I get a motion to uh authorize the

[1:16:24] mayor to enter into to an agreement with

[1:16:25] USA Eastern for the rehabilitation of

[1:16:27] the city of skan Central Park and

[1:16:30] Michigan Avenue uh Michigan Avenue

[1:16:32] tennis facilities given that what the

[1:16:34] caveat the ask or consideration for

[1:16:37] additional Court not that that would be

[1:16:38] holding up just to see if there was an

[1:16:41] opportunity for the one cour

[1:16:44] yes second all in favor I thank you

[1:16:48] thank you for that reminder okay the

[1:16:49] next item is the um ABAC for the grout

[1:16:54] Park improvements to Carver Construction

[1:16:56] Incorporated in the amount of

[1:17:03] $43,500 th000 was allocated for

[1:17:05] improvements to grout Park last year

[1:17:09] um the park improvements centered around

[1:17:12] the ability to play pickle uh cricket

[1:17:15] I'm sorry talking pickle ball play

[1:17:17] cricket um at the field which is the

[1:17:19] city's primary Cricket field location um

[1:17:22] we worked with uh the the cricket

[1:17:25] Community uh a couple groups that run it

[1:17:27] with Mr MAA who is also very involved

[1:17:30] with the cricket Community um put

[1:17:32] together a bid package to mostly clear

[1:17:35] grade and make the facility um just

[1:17:38] larger and more open um there also is um

[1:17:43] some synthetic wickets in there so that

[1:17:45] the turf doesn't get degraded as you'll

[1:17:47] see uh on a lot of the areas where we

[1:17:49] play is the the pitch and all that gets

[1:17:51] really worn down um we bid this project

[1:17:55] um got seven bids I believe the bids

[1:17:58] range from the Carver low that you have

[1:18:00] to almost $1.2

[1:18:02] million um the bid did exceed um the

[1:18:06] original arpa allocation however what

[1:18:08] I'm proposing is moving um some

[1:18:11] remaining balance from the hill Hurst

[1:18:12] pool project that was uh granted

[1:18:16] $250,000 I believe in arpa funding to

[1:18:18] cover that so that we can move forward

[1:18:20] with the project in grout Park questions

[1:18:25] M portfield so I know that you want to

[1:18:27] move the um so the The Proposal is to

[1:18:30] move the money because you just um talk

[1:18:32] about why you're really comfortable um

[1:18:34] being able to move that money from the

[1:18:36] pool um sure so um the council set aside

[1:18:40] money as we all know the hill Hurst Park

[1:18:42] Pool um has been having issues for quite

[1:18:44] some time primarily around um water just

[1:18:47] leaving the pool we we lose water a lot

[1:18:49] of water in that pool we hired a

[1:18:50] consultant to evaluate the pool the

[1:18:53] evaluation of the pool proved that the

[1:18:55] repairs to um to fix the leak were well

[1:18:59] in excess of $500,000 if not a million

[1:19:01] dollar due to the the structural and

[1:19:04] also we have some other issues with that

[1:19:05] pool um just giv the date of it

[1:19:07] electronically things like that with

[1:19:09] some of our services so we did not have

[1:19:11] the appropriate funding uh nor do we

[1:19:13] think at the time was the best

[1:19:14] investment to put that into that pool um

[1:19:17] and the money um kind of sat um we had a

[1:19:20] lot of arpa projects going on we were

[1:19:22] working on Central Park Pool we were

[1:19:24] working on sty you know there was

[1:19:26] numerous projects city was work on so

[1:19:27] that 200 essentially $20,000 balance for

[1:19:30] the hill of HST pool sat and it was not

[1:19:33] reallocated now that we're coming up on

[1:19:36] the

[1:19:36] 31st um we have that and we had a need

[1:19:40] here with grout Park so we thought that

[1:19:42] it was the simplest thing to move the

[1:19:44] one to the other so that we can do one

[1:19:47] Park project uh uh and get it done and

[1:19:49] then spend the money that was allocated

[1:19:52] um it is from a park to a park which is

[1:19:54] nice we are not investing into something

[1:19:56] else other than a park so it is a public

[1:19:58] amenity um but that is that's where we

[1:20:01] we were with

[1:20:03] that so looking at um this uh

[1:20:06] spreadsheet that we were given for

[1:20:08] Hillhurst Park um we did make still

[1:20:11] significant Improvement at Hillhurst um

[1:20:14] I I don't have that spreadsheet I'm

[1:20:15] sorry it's right here sorry she has a

[1:20:18] different spreadsheet oh that one okay

[1:20:21] we have that one too

[1:20:24] if you want

[1:20:26] [Applause]

[1:20:30] to doesn't outline for us what each of

[1:20:33] these projects were

[1:20:36] but

[1:20:40] M yeah so I mean these were this is the

[1:20:44] Hillhurst and Fairview Park project that

[1:20:46] we're showing here that is a different

[1:20:48] project so Hillhurst and Fairview Park

[1:20:50] I'm sorry just took me a minute was the

[1:20:53] pickle ball tennis

[1:20:55] improvements with the basketball um so

[1:20:57] this money was spent and allocated and

[1:21:01] then the Hillhurst pool money was okay

[1:21:04] so that was the ARA the arpa fund was

[1:21:06] just for the Hillhurst pool they're just

[1:21:08] I'm just checking they're both ARA but

[1:21:10] you you have this one as well you have

[1:21:11] another color coded

[1:21:13] one

[1:21:15] yeah yes yes sorry that's okay so this

[1:21:19] is um she so you're talking about the

[1:21:21] Hillhurst pool money right here at

[1:21:22] Hillhurst pool that was the two 50,000

[1:21:25] original allocation the other Hillhurst

[1:21:28] fair viiew was a larger allocation

[1:21:31] 500,000 understand now

[1:21:35] yes right so um you said there was

[1:21:38] 220,000 left and but you're only

[1:21:41] needing or are you needing all of it let

[1:21:43] me just ask like that okay most of the

[1:21:46] boun about 210

[1:21:48] okay and not to put you on the spot

[1:21:51] there's a plan that we would be able to

[1:21:53] spend the rest we don't want to

[1:21:55] for you said we spend

[1:21:57] 210 I I I don't want to it's more of a

[1:22:00] derck or Finance thing all of these

[1:22:02] codes there's most likely there's going

[1:22:04] to be some remainders in some of them

[1:22:06] and I I think that's what we're trying

[1:22:08] to develop is where some of that goes

[1:22:09] because you know this is I can't I can't

[1:22:11] make every number work to a penny so

[1:22:14] this is the best route to take $220,000

[1:22:16] and take approximately 210 to put it

[1:22:19] towards this project there will be some

[1:22:20] sort of a remainder um that may happen

[1:22:22] on a couple of these projects that we

[1:22:24] have have but um that's that's something

[1:22:27] I think that we're working on is where

[1:22:29] the remainder goes okay but I don't have

[1:22:32] I don't have all the remainders added up

[1:22:34] what that would be all right okay Mr T

[1:22:38] thank you um the structure there is any

[1:22:41] anything being done with the structure

[1:22:43] that's being removed it's being removed

[1:22:45] yes structure the power lines um many of

[1:22:48] the trees uh the existing fences the

[1:22:50] idea with this is that um Cricut really

[1:22:53] just needs a very large area and so

[1:22:55] we're trying to give them the

[1:22:56] appropriate large areas that are flat

[1:22:59] and playable uh so that they can have um

[1:23:02] their leads there so that that's most of

[1:23:05] most of this work is actually demolition

[1:23:07] grading seeding um that's most of the

[1:23:09] work which is why we got so many

[1:23:11] interested biders because essentially

[1:23:14] the barriers to entry were low a lot of

[1:23:16] people can do work like this um and

[1:23:18] Carver some work like this in the past

[1:23:20] so we don't have any uh any reservations

[1:23:23] about working with them okay okay if

[1:23:25] there's not any other questions i'

[1:23:27] entertain a motion to award this

[1:23:28] contract to

[1:23:30] Carver second all in favor I thank you

[1:23:33] Mr W

[1:23:36] thanks okay so the next that was it um

[1:23:40] so call for um to come out of

[1:23:44] Finance make a motion

[1:23:46] to Second all in favor okay uh i' like

[1:23:51] to call to order public service and

[1:23:53] utilities we have four items on the

[1:23:55] agenda tonight um all dealing with the

[1:23:58] requests to purchase chemicals uh for

[1:24:00] our water and waste water treatment

[1:24:06] the hello again

[1:24:10] hi the the first item um as the legisla

[1:24:14] request form was the replenishment every

[1:24:17] year as you know we buy chemicals for

[1:24:19] the waste waterer treatment plant for

[1:24:20] the water wells um and the first

[1:24:23] chemical

[1:24:24] um on is the chlorine gas for the water

[1:24:28] wells uh for

[1:24:29] disinfection um a low bid was um jci

[1:24:34] Jones

[1:24:36] um that increased $50 from last year per

[1:24:40] cylinder so um that's about

[1:24:44] 18.25 th000

[1:24:46] $188,000 more um for Corum gas in last

[1:24:50] year um they were the low bid

[1:24:55] and we do assume um 150 lb cylinder per

[1:24:59] day is 365 days so that's how we price

[1:25:02] it um last year because of the lack of

[1:25:05] rain more water was used we we spent all

[1:25:09] of that um it's really weather dependent

[1:25:12] a lot of rain a lot of cold weather

[1:25:14] people aren't using as much water but uh

[1:25:16] typically we budget for um one cylinder

[1:25:18] per

[1:25:20] day any questions

[1:25:24] have a motion

[1:25:29] Mo the second um in

[1:25:34] faor all in favor the V all in favor all

[1:25:39] in

[1:25:40] favor sorry the second uh legislative

[1:25:44] request is for the purchase for Hydra

[1:25:46] facil asset which is

[1:25:48] for um was also bid um that price did

[1:25:52] come down by 2 cents per pound over last

[1:25:55] year um and uh you yes so we're going to

[1:26:01] save about $3,000 there a savings is a

[1:26:04] savings but it did come down 2 cents per

[1:26:06] pound and that again is for the water

[1:26:09] treatment any

[1:26:11] questions a

[1:26:15] motion clicking it all in favor

[1:26:22] favor thether legislative request is

[1:26:25] actually for the wastewater treatment

[1:26:26] and that is for liquid sodium bisulfate

[1:26:28] and that is to remove corline from the

[1:26:31] waste stream uh prior to going into the

[1:26:34] river um that bid came in exactly the

[1:26:37] same as last year there's no change at

[1:26:40] 1.86 bir Gall that's great very nice any

[1:26:45] questions have motion I'll second all in

[1:26:49] favor

[1:26:50] I the final legislative request is also

[1:26:54] for the wastewater treatment plant it's

[1:26:56] for sodium hypochloric which is um

[1:26:58] chlorine uh but we use Liquid um at the

[1:27:01] wastewater treatment plant that did come

[1:27:04] in at um a188 last year um and it uh

[1:27:10] it's 10 cents cheaper this year per

[1:27:12] gallon so there's a savings there from

[1:27:14] last year about

[1:27:17] $15,500 um Bas on the same gaps we use

[1:27:20] it so yeah very nice any any any Mar are

[1:27:25] coming down I mean chlorine and and yeah

[1:27:28] there's only a couple producers of

[1:27:30] sodium hypoc chlorite um jci Jones and

[1:27:34] um uh surpass chemicals surpass used to

[1:27:38] produce now they buy out of Canada so um

[1:27:42] a lot of these chemicals are just

[1:27:43] not they're brought in quing gas Jones

[1:27:46] chemicals pretty much dominates the

[1:27:48] market on chlorine gas um years ago we

[1:27:51] did one ton cylinders at the Wastewater

[1:27:53] F plant but to

[1:27:55] sodium so

[1:27:57] thank any other

[1:28:00] questions motion motion second all in

[1:28:09] favor have a good evening thank you a

[1:28:12] motion to leave public services and

[1:28:15] utilities motion I'll

[1:28:18] second hi thank you so we like to call

[1:28:21] order Public Safety Committee we have

[1:28:23] one item on the agenda tonight we're

[1:28:24] going to add a second which is going to

[1:28:26] be the reduction of City speed limit uh

[1:28:30] the first is going to be a discussion to

[1:28:32] amend city code chapter 183 which is

[1:28:36] nuisance um so if you can remember the

[1:28:38] last time we had a discussion around

[1:28:40] noise it was to address we just have a

[1:28:42] initial conversation around chapter 182

[1:28:45] which is noise and I appreciate the

[1:28:47] special meeting that we had we are

[1:28:48] members of the um Corporation Council

[1:28:51] Police Department to include the

[1:28:53] commissioner uh was present and it was

[1:28:56] his recommendation that we address the

[1:28:58] nuisance aspect of it outside of uh

[1:29:02] continuing conversations potentially

[1:29:04] address like a time and also what of

[1:29:07] noise would that Encompass as the

[1:29:09] conversation kind of morph into

[1:29:11] addressing vehicles and then ETS so um

[1:29:14] wanting to take a first step uh and wait

[1:29:16] till after a budget conversations to

[1:29:18] bring this item back this is just

[1:29:20] looking at discussion item in chapter

[1:29:23] 183 there's a smaller chapter where it

[1:29:26] talks about the point system that he was

[1:29:28] recommending and I went to the extreme

[1:29:31] which was changing it from the 3 point

[1:29:34] to six points um before it becomes a

[1:29:38] misdemeanor I guess an offense level for

[1:29:40] the Corporation Council to enforce 12

[1:29:43] points is that key metric uh so from 3

[1:29:47] to four the number of instances would be

[1:29:50] cut in half so kind of is want to have a

[1:29:52] conversation around where council

[1:29:54] members felt with that type of action um

[1:29:58] it is or would be a very strong response

[1:30:01] to address noise throughout the city but

[1:30:02] I think to a lot of the concerns we

[1:30:04] continue to hear um there are a lot of

[1:30:07] offenders throughout the city so just

[1:30:10] looking for any feedback or comments

[1:30:12] around the

[1:30:15] table I just want to be clear so we're

[1:30:18] really looking at um 182 is what Mr is

[1:30:22] it is it 182 or 18 18 it says 18 yeah

[1:30:26] but the the the noise ordinances section

[1:30:29] chapter 182 the penalties for the for is

[1:30:33] is is chapter 183 where you assess the

[1:30:36] the points for for a nuisance okay so uh

[1:30:41] that's what the Chairman's talking about

[1:30:43] is is is amending 183 D1 B and one

[1:30:50] adding a whole another R and then what

[1:30:52] you're going to do is

[1:30:54] add that over noise violations from

[1:30:59] chapter 183 into that as as the six

[1:31:02] point violation and then you got B2

[1:31:05] where currently is I believe three

[1:31:07] points so you would delete that and just

[1:31:09] Rel let that section so it's really Shi

[1:31:11] shifting it from one column to another

[1:31:14] column so it goes through a whole list

[1:31:17] of uh various uh uh points and or

[1:31:22] offenses and is just moving the noise

[1:31:26] violations out of the 3point into the

[1:31:29] Sixpoint column so that would need a an

[1:31:32] amendment to the to the code um in a

[1:31:34] public hearing thank you Miss Patrick I

[1:31:37] think we had um so what we have in front

[1:31:39] of us is 183 and I think we've seen and

[1:31:43] talked about 182 at a previous meeting

[1:31:45] correct correct and that's where we saw

[1:31:48] the point value I think

[1:31:52] thank Mr chairman just for the the

[1:31:55] committee's uh reference uh there was

[1:31:57] referen in

[1:31:59] 180 uh the noise ordinance um regarding

[1:32:03] mufflers and loud music there's ref

[1:32:06] cross references the state vehicle and

[1:32:09] traffic law so I'll I'll provide copies

[1:32:12] of those references dealing with loud

[1:32:14] mufflers and mufflers and exhaust

[1:32:18] systems and and uh loud loud sound

[1:32:23] systems

[1:32:24] any other questions or

[1:32:26] comments I highlighted those from the

[1:32:28] fact that the section of General section

[1:32:31] of the vehicle and traffic laws 375

[1:32:33] mufflers and exhaust systems is sub 31

[1:32:36] and then

[1:32:38] I

[1:32:44] 47 so that's just for your your review

[1:32:47] and reference um but our code currently

[1:32:50] makes reference to the vehicle and

[1:32:52] traffic code so the individuals can be

[1:32:55] cited under our code or under the

[1:32:59] vehicle in traffic law

[1:33:02] gotta unless there any other questions

[1:33:04] or comments I don't like stealing credit

[1:33:06] is definitely the recommendation from

[1:33:08] commissioner deine to make this

[1:33:09] adjustment I think it takes into

[1:33:11] consideration the ongoing comments we

[1:33:14] hear from the community and then to mrb

[1:33:16] brien's point it still allows us

[1:33:17] opportunities to make better adjustments

[1:33:19] in chapter 182 but that seem to be like

[1:33:22] more discussion so this allows us to be

[1:33:24] responsive as a council I know in the

[1:33:27] the warmer or the colder months we don't

[1:33:29] deal with noise to the the same degree

[1:33:31] as in our warmer so this allows us to

[1:33:34] kind of get ahead of those um complaints

[1:33:37] that we know continually exist year in

[1:33:39] and year

[1:33:40] out so I know it's just a discussion

[1:33:43] item um unless there is a

[1:33:46] overwhelming support towards moving

[1:33:48] anything but I know one of our members

[1:33:50] in the committee is out and I don't want

[1:33:52] to be forceful and again we have time to

[1:33:54] address it I'm just wanted to bring the

[1:33:55] discussion back to the

[1:33:58] council thank you uh so if there are no

[1:34:00] other questions or comments I just ask

[1:34:02] that you look at this further detail and

[1:34:04] then we come back in two weeks looking

[1:34:06] to make a a vote okay thank you thank

[1:34:10] you Mr M uh the second item which was

[1:34:12] being responsive to the call for public

[1:34:14] hearing presentation regarding the

[1:34:16] reduction of City speed limit to 25 mph

[1:34:19] I I really appreciate that um that

[1:34:23] detail presentation and I don't know if

[1:34:25] there's a need for any further questions

[1:34:26] or comments and just there's a motion to

[1:34:28] call for public hearing so I will second

[1:34:31] all those in

[1:34:33] favor if there are no other items of

[1:34:35] call Public Safety Committee I ask for a

[1:34:36] motion for Jour so moved I'll second all

[1:34:39] those in favor I thank you um I'd like

[1:34:43] to call to order study City development

[1:34:45] and planning we have 10 items on the

[1:34:47] agenda the first item to accept um

[1:34:52] acceptance of the grants from MX

[1:34:54] Development Authority for the Broadway

[1:34:55] quarter

[1:35:03] [Applause]

[1:35:04] Improvement um earlier this year

[1:35:08] Metroplex reached out to myself about uh

[1:35:12] our Paving contractor louisy doing some

[1:35:15] work for Metroplex essentially on

[1:35:18] Broadway um they wanted to expedite the

[1:35:20] work so the work was performed as a

[1:35:22] change order on the City's contract um

[1:35:25] Metroplex agreed to reimburse the city

[1:35:27] for the cost associated with that change

[1:35:30] order and the costs are in your

[1:35:32] agreement um passing this uh Metroflex

[1:35:36] would then issue a check to the city's

[1:35:38] connec to reimburse them for the cost

[1:35:40] associated with the removal of the

[1:35:42] island on

[1:35:44] Broadway any questions regarding this

[1:35:47] I'll move it I will second all those in

[1:35:50] favor I I item number two the authorized

[1:35:54] the mayor his designed to enter in

[1:35:55] agreement with New York State Department

[1:35:57] of Transportation for the brandy1 Mullen

[1:35:59] pedestrian Improvement project Mr this

[1:36:03] is a federal a project on the current

[1:36:05] tip the project uh was applied for and

[1:36:08] modeled uh by myself after the pacap

[1:36:11] project that was done around City Hall

[1:36:14] um where we did signals um so

[1:36:16] essentially we improved as you know the

[1:36:18] signals all around City Hall up and down

[1:36:20] for pedestrian accommodations we have a

[1:36:23] similar cluster of signals located at

[1:36:26] brainy wine mclen Union Eastern uh

[1:36:29] essentially the uh where the drugstore

[1:36:31] locations are um it's a good location

[1:36:34] for these type of improvements because

[1:36:35] it is along the main Corridor for

[1:36:36] pedestrians leaving the high school and

[1:36:39] it also is uh just a very dense vehicle

[1:36:43] Corridor um most of this project will be

[1:36:45] fairly straightforward and simple where

[1:36:47] it'll be focused on replacement of

[1:36:49] traffic signals um if you know the

[1:36:51] corridors which I'm sure you all do

[1:36:53] there isn't a ton that we can do there

[1:36:55] from a geometry standpoint because they

[1:36:57] are narrow the area that I am going to

[1:37:00] be looking into and I have had

[1:37:02] discussions with Metroplex is in

[1:37:04] particular um Eastern Avenue and mclen

[1:37:09] um right where the pharmacy gas station

[1:37:12] parking lot is um the intersection um

[1:37:16] has a lot of lanes if you're coming from

[1:37:17] The Price Trapper area it might be a

[1:37:19] little bit overdesigned um crosswalks a

[1:37:22] little wider than they need to be so

[1:37:24] that intersection will be focused and

[1:37:26] the other intersection that we're going

[1:37:28] to be focusing on more from assign is a

[1:37:30] get a lot of complaints we're really

[1:37:31] going to look hard at the Rugby Road

[1:37:35] Mullen light um residents know that if

[1:37:39] you were coming from Rugby Road uh

[1:37:43] either side and you hit that light there

[1:37:44] is no detection it is essentially a Time

[1:37:47] signal and you would just sit there and

[1:37:50] it does get on a lot of people's nerves

[1:37:51] with that so we want to really look at

[1:37:53] that and make sure that the signal is

[1:37:55] the most warranted thing and then if it

[1:37:57] does go back which we're predicting that

[1:37:58] we do have some form of detection there

[1:38:01] and that the signals are all coordinated

[1:38:02] to try to make sure that the traffic

[1:38:04] moves better um all these systems we're

[1:38:07] hoping to have the mile Vision system

[1:38:08] which is a camera system and uh you know

[1:38:11] run it with the city's fiber so that we

[1:38:12] can try to get some economy to scale to

[1:38:14] really move traffic through the area so

[1:38:16] this is the master agreement for

[1:38:18] bringing on the design consultant um

[1:38:21] next agreement that you should see would

[1:38:22] be when we come for constructure which

[1:38:24] would hopefully be in a

[1:38:26] year any questions or comments move it

[1:38:30] second all those in favor I thank you

[1:38:32] very much Mr

[1:38:33] W next item on the agenda is to

[1:38:36] authorize a lease agreement with Metro

[1:38:37] Points Miss

[1:38:39] barash um so this is a follow on from um

[1:38:42] the license agreement that the council

[1:38:45] authorized last

[1:38:46] cycle um the Alo Trail and tunnel

[1:38:50] project um

[1:38:54] the trail that is already there that the

[1:38:57] city council um authorized a license

[1:39:00] agreement for to the city uh this is the

[1:39:04] next part of it where the city would

[1:39:08] license uh access to Metroflex so that

[1:39:11] they can um extend the trail and uh

[1:39:15] change the direction of the trail so

[1:39:18] this would give them and their them the

[1:39:20] ability to do the construction

[1:39:24] so when we what we agreed on to the at

[1:39:26] the last cycle was to first of all to

[1:39:29] execute the 2017 one with national

[1:39:31] National Grid and um also to give them

[1:39:35] easement that was our last cycle mhm y

[1:39:38] right and so this time so now we're ask

[1:39:40] we're saying to Metroplex go ahead and

[1:39:43] extend this site is that yes so they're

[1:39:46] going to extend the

[1:39:48] trail okay

[1:39:56] oh it's being paid by Metroplex no cost

[1:39:57] to the city she said that first okay

[1:40:01] okay um this is part of the the right

[1:40:04] yes but I was looking for the cost but

[1:40:07] there is none so that's always good to

[1:40:08] know all right any questions or comments

[1:40:12] I'll move it I'll second all those in

[1:40:14] favor I I thank

[1:40:16] you uh the next item on the agenda is to

[1:40:19] amend resolution number 20 2024 46 for

[1:40:23] the sale of property Lo located at 461

[1:40:26] hulet it's not a contract negotiation

[1:40:29] it's just to to amend our resolution

[1:40:32] okay Mr

[1:40:34] Brown you right that's

[1:40:39] okay that's not even funny go ahead Mr R

[1:40:44] um so resolution 20242 46 um authorized

[1:40:49] uh the city to sell 461 H Street the

[1:40:53] amount of $85,000 there was a spelling

[1:40:55] error on the buyer's name and the uh

[1:40:58] information that was sent for the

[1:41:00] resolution so we're just um looking to

[1:41:03] update that and add that extra letter

[1:41:05] into for the buyer's name okay we just

[1:41:07] need to correct the spelling on the

[1:41:08] buyer's name okay any questions or

[1:41:10] comments so moved I'll second all those

[1:41:13] in favor I I thank you you're welcome

[1:41:16] thank you uh the next item on the agenda

[1:41:18] is selection of restaurant and

[1:41:20] Concession operator at the SKC municipal

[1:41:22] golf court

[1:41:24] M McCarthy mam chair there are some

[1:41:26] components of that that would be subject

[1:41:28] to negotiations under contract and so i'

[1:41:30] ask that that be moved into executive

[1:41:32] session okay thank you so uh item number

[1:41:35] 5 through 10 are all going to be um

[1:41:38] addressed in executive session so at

[1:41:40] this time I ask for motion to recess

[1:41:42] development planning so move second all

[1:41:44] those in favor I I we are recessed so

[1:41:47] I'd like to call the order of the claims

[1:41:49] committee we have two items on the

[1:41:50] agenda tonight just confirm Corporation

[1:41:52] Council both those need to be discussed

[1:41:54] in executive session yes CU it's dealing

[1:41:57] with settlement possible you know two

[1:42:00] cases currently in litigation so would

[1:42:02] be the terms of the proposed settlement

[1:42:05] and uh so it's still active litigation

[1:42:08] uh with that knowledge mind may have ask

[1:42:10] for a motion to enter executive

[1:42:13] session I make a motion I'll second it

[1:42:17] all those in favor I I we are now execu

[1:42:20] session members of the public will have

[1:42:21] to exit

[1:42:26] left is that the key that was there is

[1:42:28] that the restroom key you had sitting

[1:42:32] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Committee Meeting, December 16, 2024

Transcript