Good afternoon and welcome to the June 2026 committee of the whole meeting.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Amos Herbert here.

Councilmember Lopez here.

Council Member Tarantino.

Councilmember Peters here.

Council Member Aston Laye.

Councilmember K and Councilmember Stern here.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And again, good afternoon and welcome on this gorgeous weather day to our June 2026 meeting.

I don't know why, but I'm seeing a lot of orange and blue, so go NYX.

I feel like it's appropriate to call out our voice.

What is it, Councilman Peters?

The orange and blue skies?

We are treated tonight to four presentations before our first.

We will be optimistic.

The first one is a financial auditors report by EFPR group CPAs for year ending December 2025.

City manager, you want to tease us up?

Yeah.

So proud to uh announced the our audit uh for 2025 was successfully completed by June, and our audit team is here with our finance commissioner and our finance team to update the council on it.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Well good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for covering our time out of your schedule to meet with us today.

As Will mentioned, we will be presenting two presentations.

Uh one of will be presented by the firm EEFPR, which who serves as the uh auditing firm for the for the city of New Rochelle, and they will be discussing the financial results for fiscal year 2025.

And followed by that we'll have a presentation which covers the financial results as of 4 30, April 30th, 2026 for the seasons of funds.

With that, I will proceed and hand it off to Tom to discuss the planning.

Thank you.

Hello everyone, my name is Tom Smith.

I'm the partner with EFPR group responsible for overseeing the audit.

So we did is we put together a presentation that was just handed out, but it's also up on the screen, so I'll click through there.

Uh today's agenda, we're gonna show our our team um the time of the procedures as well as financial results.

We always like to put the members of management up there that way you can see some of the faces that were involved in the audit.

Uh we also had several other individuals that were on site to perform the audit.

So time of our procedures, we start this in April.

Uh newer cells is a large city, so it does take a couple of weeks to do field work.

We were able to issue the first draft of the financial statements on June 5th, and we are meeting with you today.

Uh what I really do want to highlight though on this slide is this financial statement's very large.

Uh about 170 pages worth of deliverables.

As part of issuing an annual comprehensive financial report, there's a lot more information in here.

And that report is due to the government finance officers association or GFOA by June 30th every year.

This is the first time that we're gonna be able to hit that deadline since 2020.

So it really shows an improvement by the city and not only rectifying past issues, uh um findings and whatnot, but just a fact that they can turn around the information to us so tiny.

So our audit results, we are expecting to issue what's called a clean or unmodified opinion.

That's the highest level of opinion that we can issue on financial statements.

So that will be on your financial statements, your federal single audit, and what that is is if you spend over a million dollars of federal awards in any given year, we have to do a compliance audit on those programs.

That's also gonna have a clean opinion on it, as well as what we we do a New York State DOT audit that's required if you're over a million dollars of near state DOT money as well.

Uh all the records that we received, we received them extremely quickly from management.

They were clean, and I really want to thank them for making this audit go so smoothly.

We didn't have any difficulties in performing this, and they were extremely helpful throughout the entire process.

So from a quantitative standpoint, what we did is we put together some comparisons year to year.

So this is as of December 31st of 24 and 25.

And what we'll see for the general fund, your main operating fund, is that we did have an increase in your overall fund balance year over year of 10 million dollars in change.

And really, what we want to focus on is that unassigned number, we can see that increase by 12.6 million dollars from the prior year.

So you had a very good financial year.

Also, we did break down one of the other large changes, the assigned fund balance.

What that makes up is essentially items for the subsequent year that we're putting aside.

So anything we appropriate into the subsequent year budget or any carry-over purchase orders, that it's just a classification difference, but you can see that that number is coming down, which also contributes to the unassigned going up as well.

And I we wanted to show a tenure trend of what was happening with the fund balance so you can see what type of direction that we are heading in.

And you can see really from 2016 all the way to 2025 that we are increasing fund balance very well, and really focusing on that unassigned number that's also increasing.

We did have a decrease in 24, but that number did come back right away in 25.

So that's good to see that even though there was a negative year that bounced back right away.

So in analyzing the general fund, what we have noticed is that the city has stopped appropriating fund balance.

Essentially, what that is is when you set your budget, we set the expenditures, any anticipated revenue and tax levy, and that difference is called appropriate fund balance.

Essentially, any money that we're reducing the budget by.

So it's really what that does is that reduces your unassigned fund balance, so that helps that increase.

Real property taxes did increase to approximately 75 million.

We have sales tax increases, which we have noted statewide, though those numbers are good for everybody right now.

But we do also did have some increases in expenditures, employee benefits did increase by 3.6 million dollars.

And what we did note too is the amount of transfers between funds actually decreased from the prior year, and really what that is is all that transfers to your capital projects and debt service funds.

So from more of a qualitative standpoint, what we always start our audit with is looking at prior findings if we have any, and then we have to make see if those are still relevant, has management clean those up, or are they still persist.

That does lead to delays in issuing the financial statements, which is why the financial statements were so late last year.

That is a repeat finding in that very last bullet point on this page, but you can see that the amount of adjustments is decreasing significantly significantly.

We're down about 20% from year to year.

So that finding does have to stay, but we can tell that that is starting to get cleaned up very well.

Also, in the prior year, as part of our single audit, we did look at what's called the home program.

There was some determined eligibility determination issues where not everyone in that program uh had determinations performed every year, but we did note that that was resolved.

And the last finding is in relation to the date of the prior financial statements.

Because you have a single audit that compliance on our federal awards, these have to be submitted to the federal government by September 30th.

Because of some of the larger adjustments last year, these weren't issued until last November, but the fact that I'm sitting with you today shows we're gonna get these done by the end of this month.

So that finding is also gonna go away.

So we we see improvement year over year cleaning up some of the findings.

We do have a couple of new findings this year that we do need to make you aware of.

There was a transfer from your capital projects fund to your general fund in order to covering cover some cash disbursements related to school taxes that were due to the district, as well as the general fund and uh section eight fund work did overspend their budgets.

A lot of these items do relate to back into 25.

There was obviously there was a large turnover in your finance department, so not pointing fingers at any administration, but there's definitely a learning gap in between there, and it's just a bad time for management to switch over.

So considering these are new findings, these didn't come up come up last year.

I don't feel these are persisting issues, is probably a one-time timing issue, but it is something that we do have to highlight to everybody.

Uh as part of that single audit that we are giving a clean opinion on, we did have to look at two different programs this year.

The home investment program as well as the ARPA program, which was the large federal program that started in 2020.

We did not have any findings, everything with those programs followed federal regulations, and very similar for the New York State DOT audit, no findings, and you can see we've looked we tested a good number of programs, no issues at all with any of those.

So I I think the key thing to see with this is not only qualitatively but quantitatively, the city is moving in a positive direction.

Findings are getting resolved, recommendations are being listened to, and the fund balance had a major bounce back from that decrease in 24.

So I'm I really hope that everything I've said is good news and reassuring, but I want to open the floor to any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Questions or comments from my colleagues on item number one?

Consumer.

So results of our test disclosed a material leakness in control over financial reporting are the adjustments in journal entries.

So that's when we move funds from one account that we have budgeted to another.

Is that in general, or is that when we move from specific accounts?

Essentially, what that is is there's a lot of year-end closing entries that have to be performed to because we have to follow accrual base of accounting, and it might be maybe an accounts payable, an amount owed to another um entity, should have been booked that wasn't.

So it could be something of that nature, or possibly we're owed money, so we had to book a receivable.

So it's any anything that we have to essentially change a number on.

But it's not when we internally move from one account to another.

It could be because you would also have to book an entry if say you move a million dollars from general fund to capital projects fund, you would have to book that million dollars on both sides.

But if let's just say, for example, we booked on the general fund, we didn't book on the capital fund, we would have to make an adjustment for that as well.

Because we just made some adjustments to our entries, I think last month and the month before.

So is it just seen as a ding to do it in general, or is there a certain dollar amount or a certain quantity?

That's a concern.

I wouldn't say that necessarily, it's more of we might have found an error.

Um, and you can see I think the biggest thing is you saw that number at the bottom, but how it decreased year over year.

It's not a lot.

No, no, it's not.

Um, so I would say those are really the number of errors we found that we had to correct to make sure the financial statements were properly stated.

It could be just also fixing a coding issue with like say a revenue or expense line was just hit the wrong order when it was originally entered and just a correction, so it doesn't affect the PL PNL on the bottom one, but yeah, a reclass.

Uh councilman, I just want to make sure that I am understanding this um non-expendable versus unaside.

Can you just side?

Sure.

Yeah, it gets a little confusing because government accounting centers say we have to break out these four different buckets, it's just instead of just having one line of this is our overall fund balance of year on.

The non-spendable is I hate the word this way, money you can't spend because it's already been spent.

So if we pay our January health insurance bill in December, we have a prepaid asset, and that's typically what that represents.

So, likely here, and there's also the same thing with your retirement bill.

It's money we have spent, it's an asset of the city, but because that's also part of fundamentals, we can't physically spend it again, so it's almost like it.

They want us to set it aside, break it outside.

So that we have the money so that we are not going to be uh the negative, so that means the money's there, we just have not spent it.

Exactly.

And they are the one uh um the non spendables that we want to build like a cushion.

So like uh the unassigned, yeah.

That's usually typically the number people like to focus in on the most because that's money that we don't have essentially plans for.

It's our essentially rainy day fund.

Yeah, that's what I mean by asset cushion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, a transfer made from the capital projects fund to the general fund in 2025.

How much was that?

Yeah.

I don't have that exact figure because the financial statements are going to show you the net that went out.

So it was close to 19 million.

How much?

19 million.

So when we receive uh cash from the uh Cotal you, the mortgage the banks to pay, they pay us at the very end of the collection period.

Right.

And we have to process the wire to the school before that end of the week.

So it's more or less just a timing issue with cash.

So that 19 million, because here does that money then go back?

Now that 19 million you took from the capital budget, yes.

What was that spent on?

Oh, so again, so we had to make the school whole for the school tax.

Okay.

So during the collection window, we were making 28 million dollar payments a week.

So for that final payment, because of cash flow, because we didn't get the mortgage payments in.

So that was the kind of okay.

But then general fund owes the capital fund back that money.

Yeah.

See that I'm sorry, little letter.

General fundamental.

Then the general fund owes that money back to capital.

Okay.

And then the other question was general fund section A fund overspent budgetary authorization.

How much did they overspend?

Okay, well, he's looking up the figure.

What this really comes down to, it remains to be said that our uh change of commissioner, new treasurer happened January, right at the close of a year.

So uh with this, we we were zeroed in on the audit, so there was a little uh gap in responsibilities, I guess, on the year-end stuff.

So uh typically, I think historically here we do kind of a couple council meetings where we do some mid-year cleanup, end-year cleanup.

And uh to mitigate that going forward, we're probably gonna do more quarterly and maybe monthly.

So you're gonna see more of us, but again, not to wait to the very end where there's a larger amount to deal with.

You just answered my other question because one of the questions was going to be about the possibility of having uh updates more often uh than we're getting them right now, so that we can better understand how the money's being spent in real time as opposed to waiting to the six-month point or the full year before we really know uh what's going on.

Um, one of the one of the things that um you know my concern is is that with the with the fund balance that we don't end up having to read or unassigned fund balance to make up for shortcomings that happen during the year because this is what happened in the past, and you know, are we putting safeguards in place to make sure that doesn't happen in the future?

No, for sure.

Uh one of our goals, try to get our data as real time as possible.

We supply it to you, you're the decision makers, you know how to manage it.

And again, if things need to be corrected or a mid-year adjustment, hey, you know, if revenues aren't hitting where we think they are, then we can scale back some expenses, whatever's under our control, just to make a more you know pivot and flex as we can.

And we were planning on coming earlier this year, and uh uh with a quarterly update, you know.

As you know, it's April 30.

It's kind of weird, so it's like a trimester you know, and part of it was what we wanted to do was to see you figure out where we ended in 25 before we started talking about 26.

You know, I know that's top of mind for folks that that's even part of the reason why there's an impetus to get the financial results done as quick as possible, so we can you know tell you and report to 25 and then move past and then start talking about 26, but we want to like I said be ready to 25 numbers before starting out to the same.

So we can anticipate uh um a review probably in September then, or that I think so, yeah.

To you know, at least understand you know when we're going into the next budget cycle, we have a better understanding than we want.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We'll be coming up.

I think I think Alice is going to talk to that in the next presentation about how we're gonna make these changes with with you know updates more often.

Yeah, questions or comments, Constantine during this is adjacent.

Well, first I want to say thank you.

Uh this is really glad to see that we're back to being getting these on time uh and recorded appropriately.

Um I just appreciate the transparency.

So I want to ask a quick follow-up to Consumer Notion Louis's point about um the transfers.

When the city council approves a transfer, is that one of these 78 adjustment?

No.

No.

Oh no, not no, not with the adjustments.

Okay.

Um then I know this outside the scope of the audit.

Where is our general fund balance today?

Approximately so again, you know, that figures year end, because you see how you close operations for the year.

Okay.

Um it's a moving target, because again, if you we were to settle all your income and you know, revenue and expenses, it's it's kind of hard to pinpoint or to do a number mid-year more or less, right?

Um yeah, absolutely.

It's you know, yeah, you have to take I think the whole is take a look at it, because I was even asking about that because that preempting thinking that was maybe one of the questions that would be asked, you know, and you have to take uh you know a screenshot of a full year to get a true grasp of uh what the fund balance is because even when I was talking to one of his partners, he was saying that you know, and he's emphasized this is the point in time, so that fund balance is as of 1231, 2025.

As of January 2nd, 2026, it could be a completely different number.

And part of it is just the functioning of when money's come in and out.

So we collect our property taxes at the beginning of the year, so that fund balance may be much more high than we know later that the year when we start paying down some expenses.

But theoretically, if we were to close shop today, we have more revenues than expenses, so fund balance would be hard.

Yeah, answers your question.

So yeah, that was kind of my follow-up.

That would be like do we have projections?

Yes, we'll get into more detail in the next presentation.

Yeah, right.

Questions are coming?

I just wanted to quickly um so loved hearing we hit the deadline.

I just want to repeat that, so thank you.

Um just calling out how our 2026 budget that we adopted didn't utilize any utilize, no unassigned fund balance, which again just trending in the right way.

Um love seeing that transfers decreased.

I had a quick question around the page with the audit results general fund.

Would the ARPA the two ARPA tranches we received be reflected in in this which cost is it twenty?

I keep forgetting, was it 21 and 22 or 22, 23 years ago?

Well, you you will receive the funds in 21.

Okay and they were they were being spent down, so a lot of that came into fund balance this year because uh ARPA program used that had the money spent by the end of 26.

Right.

So it has been trickling into fund balance um, even all the cash came in in prior years, so a good amount of that it does get reflected in this increase in 25.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand the impact of ARPA vis-a-d, those are like external funding versus just like the true revenue expenses in this document.

So it's but I guess depending on the projects, because they the money had to be spent by the end of this year, right?

So some of it, so it could be 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 could have ARPA funding throughout we have we we can only recognize the ex once the expense incurs, then we can recognize the revenue.

I see.

So we received all the funds in 21 and 22, but we can only recognize it once the expenses were incurred.

Okay.

Okay.

Sure.

On that R for money, how much is it that we haven't spent yet?

I don't have that figure off the top of my head.

Yeah, I would say we have probably among like 15 million, I should say.

But we have plans for the for those of these.

Where is that streaming up on here?

That it currently that gets shown the general fund as a unearned revenue liability.

Um so it's when those expenditures do happen, then move from a liability to a revenue.

It's actually it's almost the same concept as uh forgiveness of that.

No, they uh the reason I'm asking that is you know, one of the things you don't want to have happen is it shows up on a line that gives you the impression that you have a lot more money than you did and uh that is not happening, correct?

But it it definitely increased the fund balance this year, but we still have some left over from the yeah.

On the fund balance, how much has it been increased with the ARPA money?

And 25?

I think 10 million closer to 22 million this year.

So you did recognize a lot of it this year.

How much is it?

22 million in 25.

Okay, so I wouldn't necessarily say that as a impact on a sign, though.

No, no, because it's recognized.

So which line is that sitting in?

That's what he's trying to answer now.

That was a huge.

What were you saying about the line?

He said you wouldn't recognize it as well.

So it's being recognized because we're incurring the expense.

So it's really almost a net.

Yeah, because we wash away the liability.

Right.

But what I'm saying, and then the unassigned number, the 23 million, actually, total fund balance 33 978.

In that number, is that ARPA money in that number?

Yes, there is a lot of our money throughout the last four years.

Of the ARPA money is in there because it's all spent.

Sure.

So how much?

I'm just trying to understand.

You know, when we talked when Alice just said about having the real numbers for your fund balance, this is part of it.

Now understanding, you know, because you look at this, and this looks great, you know, having 33 million dollars there.

But the question is, what do we really have available to us if we need it in an emergency?

I don't have that figure out off the top of my head, but I can certainly get it.

Okay, absolutely.

Okay.

Just bring down the art.

Thank you.

Because that partly would be under liabilities, it wouldn't be under here, right?

It's a the unspent portion is under liabilities.

So it would be on this chart.

The unspike piece, no.

No.

Okay.

So the 22 would not be inclusive.

Right, 32.

Because it would be already at the label.

Okay.

That's a good distinction to me.

Okay.

Um any other questions on item number one.

All right, seeing none, our second item is uh similarly related.

It's the fiscal year 2026 budget status report uh through period ending April 30th, 2026.

And I just use the space bar.

All right, cool.

Um, so today we're here to present the financial update for the city's financial operations through April 30th.

This presentation will focus on the city's primary funds relative to the fiscal year 2026 adopted budgets.

The funds which will cover include the city's general fund, which serves as the primary operating fund, and the enterprise funds, which are supported by user charges.

As you know, the general fund generates most of its revenue from real estate taxes, fees for services, sales tax, grants, while the largest component of for expenses are salaries and French benefits, followed by contractual services, capital improvements, and debt service.

As a refresher to the group, and by way of background, the budget was developed based off a certain goals, including delivering essential services throughout the city, funding infrastructure needs, and maintaining a quality of life for the residents of New Rochelle.

The elements one faces in developing a budget is dealing one with your largest revenue source, which being real estate taxes, which are tacked which are capped, right?

And on the flip side, expenses that are rising, and they are reflection of uh rising New York state health costs as well as state mandated pension costs, which are out our out of our control, as well as existing labor contracts.

One thing to note to the group is that sales uh salaries and fringe benefits account for approximately 75% of the budget.

And uh one thing that Tom noted also, which is a good thing, is that the city did not use any fund balance to balance the budget, which supports one of our pillars of our long-term strategy, which is to maintain and build our reserves revenues.

We budgeted 256 million in revenues across all funds for the fiscal year 26 budget.

The general fund has generated 150 million or 62 percent of the adopted budget year to date.

70 million in property taxes have been collected, which is approximately 98% of the adopted budget, and the collection rate is among the highest in New York State, and the high collection rate is a function of when our taxes collected and they're collected in January, and then after property taxes, sale tax, refuse, sewer and stormer stormwater fees, pilots, and aim are some of our next largest revenue drivers from an expenditure standpoint.

From an expenditure standpoint, total expenditures and encumbrances across all funds totaled approximately 103 million or 40% of the adopted budget.

And for your edification, encumbrances represent funds that have been designated towards purchase orders or contract services and will be expensed throughout the year.

General fund expenditures and encumbrances total approximately 77 million dollars or 40% of the adopted budget.

And some of the key drivers for the expenses were two major snowstorms, which fell on a weekend and brought historic amounts of snow.

The expenses associated with the snowfall included personnel, which over time and double overtime was occurred on Sundays because the snowfall just happened to occur on Sundays, as well as salt and brine and contracted services for plowing and snow removal.

The other major expense item is overtime associated with policemen and firemen to maintain essential services.

As you aware, and it's been brought up in other presentations, the strategy to mitigate overtime costs for police and fire is to hire additional full-time staff, which would alleviate the need for overtime, which comes at a higher pay scale.

And with that, what I will do, I will pass it on to my colleagues to give a bit more insight in terms of the revenue side across the different funds as well as the expenditure side across the different funds.

Okay.

So here we have revenues by operating funds.

Um we have the general fund and the three enterprise funds.

Enterprise funds act like a more like a business.

They generate their own self-sustaining revenues and expenses to cover their expense.

So as you can see, as of 430, 62% of general fund was earned during this period, and that's primarily due to the city tax bill that does come out in January.

Pilots as well.

With parking, with the enterprise funds, you know, you see 27, 25%, and you think that might be tracking low being end of April.

However, with parking, um, you know, it's come up before with parking, uh just requires I think just a little gentle nudge just to get that increase in collections going.

Um Marina, we're not taking our boats out in the winter, so that's gonna start spiking in the warmer weather.

And with the railroad fund, um, a lot of revenues are kind of grant-based from the state, and there's a lag on the collection there, and usually we'll get that end of Q2, more or less full months.

That's where we see the revenues kind of hit there.

So now this slide we dive deeper into the general fund revenues, and we kind of break it out by like an object code.

And then here we have it sorted by your your amounts here actually.

So there you see the city taxes, the refuse, stormwater fees, and fire inspection fees are all part of the city bill, so that's why it's mostly earned in this period.

You can see pilots are there as well, and then all other remaining objects make up the next 47 million of the budget.

Uh so again, there 15% looks low.

A lot of it's state aid, grants, and other items we do receive later this year.

And then these are the expenditures for each of those funds.

Um each one is relatively on par for what it should be for this current time frame of April 30th.

Um for the expense side, we have what's called encumbrances, which is funds obligated but not necessarily paid for at this time, but and those represent mostly contractual services.

If we have a contract with someone, we book a purchase order to blanket cover the whole year's expenditures for that account.

Um go to the next slide then.

And then this is a bigger breakdown of the expenses in general funds, like Alistair mentioned, 75% of the budget is salaries and benefits.

Um, but as you can see, 34% used as of April 30th is exactly on par with what we want to see.

Um, and the actuals for major improvements in contractual services are under that 30% mark, but that's because some of those things are based on the timing of the purchase of those items, so it's not necessarily going to show an exact representation of a 33% use as of this time.

Interfund and other is basically the transfers from general fund to the debt service fund to cover debt service payments.

A lot of that is front loaded at the beginning of the year, so that's why you see 87% used, but all that is budgeted for and it's accounted for in all the debt schedules that we have.

Um like it says at the bottom there 87% of the total encumbrances are contractual services, and so we're really making sure that our contractual services are covered for the whole year by just blanking it out at the very beginning.

Thank you, James.

Thank you, Adam.

Um so one also thing that we you know think about in terms of just like a planning standpoint and just think about you know how we break out our work schedule is you know what what we're doing uh for every quarter, right?

Um so for May and June, some of the highlights that you know I wanted to touch on was uh completing the 25 year audit.

That was something very uh top of mind for the team.

So I want to commend them for all their diligent work on that.

But then we also have other uh key milestones, such as collecting the Westchester county tax also, and then processing liens on school tax bills.

For the third quarter, um there's certain line uh um line items that we're addressing and we're looking at, and some of them are beginning the annual NREM proceedings, um, following the tax cap with New York State so we can see what our revenue capacity is going forward, and then uh commencing the uh 27 budget process.

And then in the fourth quarter, we're looking to do is hone in on the budget process, finalizing and adopting the budget, uh preparing the city tax bill, and uh generating the pilot bills.

And then another thing what we're also looking to do is the city issued a ban last year.

So we're gonna think about strategies of what to do with the ban as well as uh other uh bonding needs that uh that were uh built into the uh 26 budget.

So um just so I want to give you guys a snapshot of some of the things that we've done thus far since the formation of our group in February.

We've been here a few months uh uh in terms of uh me, James, um, and Adam.

Um and one of the things that like I mentioned is one of the keys for us was uh filing a timely audit because that triggers a whole list of this other things that you could do uh in terms of planning and uh just go work going through your schedule.

So being able to close your uh finish your audit means you can close your books.

Once you can close your books, that means you can open your books and start planning for the new year.

So it all has a cascading trigger, uh trigger effect.

So that's you know, one thing I want to do is also make sure is that as we work through these processes, you know, just things about um you know, you know, what works, what doesn't work, and what we've done, like I said, from a department standpoint is take an overall assessment top top down to look, like I said, to see what's working, what's not working, what needs to be fine-tuned, just revamped, and then just what new policies that we need to be put in place.

Um, so one of the things that is where we're gonna do is take into consideration uh implement the changes that the auditors made, as well as just the findings that you know that we would we found internally.

Um of the other steps that we've taken is uh conducting monthly meetings with all the departments for ongoing budget oversight.

I think that's been very helpful in terms of just from a planning standpoint.

You know, it's interesting because I'm new in this position, so certain things that I would never think about, you have to think about.

So, like when we have winter snowfall, you know, usually in my prior life, it's like, oh great snow day, but you know, and this is a new capacity.

Like, alright, well, how are we gonna figure out how to you know uh you know afford the you know, and um figure out how to deal with the snowfall.

So you know, it's so having that uh interaction with the different groups is very pivotal because we do we have you know on-time dialogues with the groups that figure out you know how do we pivot and you know what to look for.

Other things that we've uh you know um take in consideration is you know, we all have uh we all uh come from different backgrounds, so it's great in terms of our management team.

We bring different things to the table, and you know, one of the things that uh you know brought to the table is from uh uh James standpoint is looking in just how certain structures are uh accounts are structured.

And you know, one of the things that uh you know brought to the table is from uh uh James standpoint is looking in just how certain structures are uh accounts are structured.

So one of the things that we brought up recently to the um to the city council, which they approve is just looking and examination the optimization and the structure of some of these trust accounts to see how the money flows.

So that's uh been very insightful in terms of just you know, figure out like what was done and you know James from his point of view, like say he's coming in with a fresh set of eyes and uh you know applying his touch to it, so we were able to memori memorialize some of these uh some of these findings.

And then from Adam's standpoint, you know, mitigating risk, you know, that's his neck of the wood.

So looking and reviewing, you know, our procurement and our insurance, you know, processes, just making sure all the departments are following, you know, the rules and the city codes and just you know, looking at just different ways to attack things, you know.

We we're dealing with things um on a day-to-day basis.

Sometimes they may, you know, come down 11th hour, so Adam's gotta, you know, think on his toes of like how to address all these different matters, you know.

So he's to having a taking a fine-tuned tooth comb um and looking through everything in terms of from a mitigating risk standpoint.

And then some other things we're just looking at, like I said, is it's enhancing communications uh, you know, the with the with the public to uh uh bring them knowledge in terms of you know any changes to our tax collection cycle.

So we'll have pamphlets in the windows, so you know when people stop by they can have an understanding of you know what the changes are, and then we have personnel there to address any questions that they may have.

And then uh it's overall, you know, continuing the efforts to increase efficiencies uh in support of financial literacy for all our residents.

So in conclusion, um some things high marks I just want to hit on and leave with you today.

The fiscal year 2026 budget remains on track uh with our core operations performing as planned, uh, despite even the isolated winter store impacts.

Another, like I said, a pillar of our strategy, a large-term strategy, um, as you know, Al is inquiring about is minimizing the use of fund balancing and increasing the reserves for strategic uses and for anything that may uh make you know come across our data.

Because like I said, you have the expected, but then you also have the unexpected.

So you want to make sure you have the finances to deal with it.

So all of this stuff is all interconnected in terms of looking at the top line as well as looking at the bottom line in terms of expenses.

And then also, you know, we're looking, like I said, is institutionalizing more hands-on approach with the contract management management to make sure that you know we have a lean operation from the expenditures, and then you know, like I said, in terms of the budget, and this is not only like that this is not something that new Rochells deal with, but many municipalities is dealing with is like evaluating the cost of you know the inflationary pr pressures, you know.

It's like, you know, we're all dealing with rising pressures in our personal lives, but you know, in dealing with the cities, this is the contract services we're dealing with those rising inflation pressures, but then also the escalating New York State imposed costs that we're dealing with.

That's like I said, it's uh beyond our control, right?

So we uh I have to fund that, but then also we have a tax cap uh for our top line, which is our property taxes.

So, you know, looking how all of that, you know, um, you know, uh works with each other, and you figure out and developing a financial strategy that will address these challenges going forward.

And with that, thank you and we can open it up to watch questions or comments from my colleagues on item number two.

Um so there were two things that uh um really caught my attention, talking about just uh civic education about how the budget, you know, impacts the lives of the residents of Nurse.

I think that something that's been missing in our conversation is exactly like how do different revenue sources like the development we do feed into the daily life of our consistents like is it covering the capital costs of like when we redo our plumbing, things like that, like our pipes throughout the city.

I don't feel like we've done strong enough.

I I think we could do better with creating a one-to-one.

Hey, these are the different things we're hearing that we know you're concerned about.

This is where this is actually coming out of this is where this revenue came from.

This is how it's getting paid for it.

I think in our civic education part, that would be valuable.

Um and then in your last slide, you had um that's just a comment, and I'd like to see how we build that up.

But in your last slide, um, it would be good to talk about additional revenue streams, something that we were talking about.

Well um prior commissioners uh had been talking about was bringing in, for example, like a solar roofing for our uh parking lot outside, and that other cities have been doing it.

It feeds back into the grid, it creates energy for us, it caps the heat of the parking lot, so you're literally generating energy, which is expensive right now, uh cutting the cost, potentially giving back to the grid and generating revenue in that way.

You know, um I would like to hear more about you know the ideas that you have for creating new revenue like that um throughout the city.

That'd be that would be good for us to move forward with.

Huh?

I hate to go back to the the former um discussion item, but here uh I just want to get back to that uh fund balance issue.

You know, the unassigned fund balance was 23,119,000.

So we're saying 19 million and possibly that is orpha money.

So it's safe to say going to the 20s 2026.

Uh, if this if I added it right, it comes out to like the actual fund unassigned fund balance that we would have available to us would be 4 million 119,000 dollars.

I want to take another look at that or no, the 19 that's I'm sorry, that was a high number.

Um the ARBA number going into the new year, we would have to just fact check it.

But yeah, you mentioned 19 million dollars that if it was fifty, it's 19, it's 15.

If you take 15, you still only have eight million dollars of unassigned fund balance left.

No, I'm just trying to dig into where we really are because it's a very, very important thing.

You're going into the second half of the year.

Uh we had expenditures which you pointed out with with the uh snow removal, uh, we went over budget on that.

You know, this type of money has to come from somewhere.

And usually, if and as far as development goes, you know, we have multiple projects that haven't come to fruition yet.

We don't know if they're gonna happen this year or not.

So, you know, the preparation of that uh fourth quarter uh when we start we have the budget process going on for 2027.

Uh you know, I'm concerned about having the real numbers that we know we're gonna be looking at going into that the end of the third quarter into the fourth quarter because what I'm seeing here is a much lower fund balance that we should have, and you know what do we do to build it up without raising the property tax above the cap.

Yeah, I want to double check everything what those are bombing.

Yeah, I would appreciate it if you couldn't give us real numbers, yeah.

But it'd be important to have them, you know.

There's no surprises, yeah.

Yeah, we we will double check the property.

Other questions or consuls or when you get the extra that can you share with the whole council?

Yeah, okay.

Um I just wanted to dig in a little bit on the winter storms.

Do we know what the financial impact was, like how much extra you know that cost us?

Yeah, from the budget perspective, we factor in OT, all those storms came out on Sunday, right?

So over time double time, uh saltine, all that materials.

Uh, I think we're about just north of 250k.

Yeah, all in.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments?

All right.

Uh moving on to item number three, then thank you, Mr.

Our next item.

Is another presentation um related to the downtown overlay zone DOV 2026 updates?

Um I have uh this for you guys it's all right since I'll be in the hot seat for two presentations in a row.

I'll hand out the next one as well.

Okay, no peeking.

No peaking.

Okay, it'll be a quick thank you.

Oh, that's cool.

Sorry, can you so good evening everyone?

Should I just go right into it?

So we're here tonight to provide a high-level overview of the public comments received on the 2026 downtown overlay zone amendments and the updated theoretical development scenario.

As you know, the process has included a 66-day public comment period and a public hearing and the detailed review of the comments that were received from residents, the stakeholders, and the advocates and members of the development community.

Tonight's presentation is intended to do three things.

It summarizes the major themes we heard during the public comment period.

It explains how many of those comments have been addressed and clarified through the supplemental generic environmental impact statement and proposed zoning requirements.

And third, it outlines the remaining seeker steps before council considers final action.

Most importantly, tonight we're asking you all to accept the supplemental, I guess it's the supplemental final environment generic environmental impact statement, S F G E IS for short.

As complete as part of the CEPA process, the action would not adopt the zoning amendments tonight.

So we're just really asking you to accept the EIS, the environmental impact statement as complete.

And in a subsequent meeting, uh where we're thinking July, we would ask you all to adopt the zoning and the findings, and that would conclude the uh you know the process for adopting these refinements.

At a high level, the comments um focus on issues including uh sustainability, green and r, the retail, uh green building, adding green space, housing affordability, and home ownership, including end parking, public engagement, uh, local labor and hiring goals.

These were all themes that were discussed, and we have identified where possible the other policies that are not part of the zoning amendment proper that are the subject of this particular legislative action that you are put is before you for consideration, but we've identified uh you know the the other areas of the city's policies and the policies of the IDA that we feel is a uh better container for achieving some of those outcomes, especially uh thinking about uh workforce and local local hiring specifically.

You know, this these amendments only pertain to the developments that are uh constructed under the downtown overlay zone.

The IDA is kind of a funnel that would collect all development from a variety of sources.

So whether it's here in the downtown overlay zone or whether it occurs in one of the outlying areas of the city, anywhere uh a project would uh be requesting additional subsidy, the uh workforce uh the increases in the workforce participation and the setting of uh actual requirements and the teeth that we talk about are better placed in in those policies in the policies of the IDA as you'll capture more of development and um and as it's associated with a with a subsidy um the tax abatements, um, we we feel that's a better kind of container for the teeth of the you know that would require the local uh workforce and the other types of uh the PLAs.

We we've had a many conversations, and so we have engaged in earnest with the IDA board at the last meeting.

Uh they've asked for you know uh you know a process by which we can start to examine the current uniform tax exemption policy or UTEP for short, um, which is the policy that guides how we approve those projects.

So that that is on that is uh currently underway.

Um we are gonna have a a workshop, a training workshop with the board, and then we will engage in a conversation at in public open meetings about that with the whole board.

So uh we look forward to adopting that.

We understand that's a critical aspect of uh supporting development and making sure that it gives back to our community the way that we want.

Uh, in here, and I think very well codified are the improvements and refinements to the sustainability aspects that we discussed, um, as are the uh you know the platform and the changes and the tweaks that are necessary to bring about home ownership and the missing middle housing that we've all talked about.

Um we we understand that the DOZ has to do more, so we've really looked at kind of uh finding the right uh zoning framework to encourage and incentivize and hopefully catalyze the creation of ownership housing in the city of New Rochelle.

And and um last but not least, and I'm sure I'm uh you know possibly missing something.

We we're looking at uh parking, public engagement, and and green space specifically is a big theme.

That's traditionally defined vegetated, you know, planted green space.

In addition to the green area that we see, we're also requiring compliance with the underlying green NR framework.

So there are and certification on a site-by-site basis that they have been evaluated and meet the criteria and recommendation from the climate vulnerability assessment, which deal with resiliency and stormwater, you know, sort of preparation.

So we we really took the sustainability portion, which we we took this as a real uh framework to deliver a better quality, a better experience in the downtown, right?

So we've heard from the community about creating more green spaces and creating more uh uh areas that make it easier and more pleasant to live in the downtown and also safer and more resilient.

So we're we're taking those seriously.

So this evening uh that we're looking through the presentation.

I've already overspoken what I planned my two-minute field would be.

Sorry.

Whatever at this point.

Um I am who I am.

Uh so with that, I will go on and I will allow uh I will invite Sarah Yakel, who's here from BFJ, um, and Kevin King from the staff and development to uh walk you through the rest of the piece.

I'm gonna start us off.

So good evening, everyone, thank you.

Um we'll go through pretty pretty quickly.

Um thank you.

Really quick uh overview reminder of the you know purpose and goals of this uh 26 DOZ text and map amendment and the update to the theoretical development scenario.

This is a refinement of the DOZ after a decade of its original implementation.

Um, you know, and a lot of this we've talked about before.

I really don't need to spend too much time on it, but um I think you understand the the importance of uh the updates at this point in time to make sure that we're most aligned uh with the current market conditions and other things like that.

So um that the code is serving us and that the process is serving us the best it can uh for the next few years.

So just taking a look again.

This this is you know, in terms of the zoning, there are proposed zoning map changes and zoning text amendments.

So, really quick looking at some of the map changes.

We've talked about an expansion of the DO1, in particular in the area around North Avenue, the transit center.

The idea of this is to support better more transit-oriented, large format retail and entertainment uses.

Um we're also looking, I'm gonna just to uh confirm that we're not we're we're expanding the DO1, but we're not increasing the heights.

So we're not allowing the D01 maximum heights.

We're we're we're expanding the DL1 because it gives us more flexibility with regard to creating the type of spaces that the retailers are looking for, but we are very mindful of the height.

Um and I don't know if you want to say a little more about that.

Yeah, and and I think we've probably talked about this a little bit before, but just to be clear, you know, we the the the idea of large format retail shouldn't scare folks who are interested in right, it's not a strip model, right?

This we're not talking about big box stores in a in a you know a sea of asphalt parking, right?

This is something that we've really spent a lot of time catering to the downtown area so that it can be done in a way that still creates a walkable pedestrian environment.

It's really important to us that we didn't degrade that because it's at its core, it's really something that's important to the DOC.

Again, um, with the DO5 and DO8, looking at that, uh, we wanted to make alignment of uh these zones and the this portion, especially around Memorial Highway, to make sure that the zoning was was better aligned with the link and make sure that um you know it was really compatible in on both sides of Memorial Highway and other areas around the link.

Uh additionally, we're looking at a uh slight expansion of the DOA boundary uh to the west in the area of Washington and Siggles.

And then finally, uh we are proposing a realignment of the storefront requirement.

Really, this is an effort to really concentrate our commercial activity in the core of our downtown uh where it is most appropriate.

Some of the zoning text changes, um, we're looking at adjustments to the uh the development standards, frontage requirements, the sustainability standards, some of these things Adam talked about already, but uh you know, again, some of these things hit on really making sure we're aligned and furthering our sustainability initiatives, but also making sure that we're uh promoting that missing middle housing that we've been talking about.

Um we are also looking to amend the waterfront access fees and limiting that just to the DO7 zone, which is the only zone that actually has waterfront access, and proposing an increase in the fair share of mitigation fees by 25% across the board.

In terms of the TDS, uh, we are proposing a recalibration of the allocation for both residential and non-residential uses, and I'm sure you've all seen the table, um, and you can again and refer to that if you want uh greater clarification.

There it is.

Uh a lot of numbers, a little hard to read.

Um I can't see from here, but that's okay, we're not gonna go through every single one.

No, no, no, no.

Thank you.

Um, but but again, you as you can see the with the bullets, it's target increase of 200 units across DOZ.

I we believe this is you know fixing imbalances based on what we've seen over the years for for both residential uh and non-residential development, and then as you can see, there there's this targeted removal of the TDS allocation for portion of the DO2 zone uh on its in its western uh area.

Uh just going through the process, Adam did mention a little bit.

We've we've gone through you know all the steps that we needed to so far.

Um we did have a public hearing uh back in April.

We heard from 23 speakers at the public hearing, uh, but we also accepted written comments uh over the 66 day period, and we received 20 letters in addition to the uh comments that we heard at the meeting.

Um, you know, and again, Adam talked about this a little bit, but you can you see an idea just kind of generalizing a little bit some of the comments we heard, and I won't I won't go into them again.

Um, but uh you know we were all there and we heard them and responded to them accordingly.

And to that point, I will now hand it over to Sarah Yagle for BFJ.

Good afternoon, Madam Mayor members of council, Sarah Yay for BFJ planning.

Uh, just to by before I go into some of the how we responded to some of the public comments, I just want to give you a quick uh sort of framework for what you're looking at in terms of the document that you did receive.

I know it's another long document.

Um, and per the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the document that you have is the what we're calling the supplemental final generic environmental impact statement.

Well, rather than uh and the final EIS, I'll just call it that short, uh, is really a response to comments.

So it is our obligation to take those 43 comments that we received and respond to them.

Now, speaker only requires that you respond to the substantive environmental comments or the comments that were on the substance of the environmental review that was in the draft.

As you may know from the public hearing and reading through the the public comment letters, there were a lot of very valid comments and a lot of concern among the community, but most of those comments were outside of the scope of the environmental review.

We did take a pretty conservative approach, and by conservative, I mean we did still respond to a lot of comments that were outside of that scope because the city is doing a lot to address some of those other concerns as Adam was speaking about you know, the local hiring unions, the UTEP policy.

Um so we wanted to make sure that the public was aware of those things.

So you will see responses to those comments in the document as well.

So, in terms of the comments, sort of the general and broad categories of comments uh that we received, there were a few that directly related to the zoning and resulted in tweaks to the zoning code itself.

So there was a strong desire to maintain and expand retail uses, and I think in our previous iteration in the draft, we had taken a different approach where we thought, well, you know, we're not seeing the concentration of retail that we want.

So maybe if we we become more permissive and allow it everywhere, we might get what we're looking for.

And then in risk, we you know, we heard a number of comments that maybe that's not the right approach.

So we've now taken another approach to that where we really are strengthening the storefront requirement definition and have revised the zoning map.

So we're only mandating storefronts within the sort of the area that lines up with your vanguard district, uh, and that is Main Street, Huguenot and basically the cross streets between.

We also tweaked the definition to storefront required.

So now it actually means a storefront required that has a commercial use in it, the previous definition with something that looked like a storefront but could have been residential, so it could have been the gym, it could have been you know a community room, and now it actually has to be a storefront.

So, in the that it's really concentrating that area into your core downtown around your train station.

Um with respect to another comment we heard is requests for increased green areas and compliance with green NR in the downtown.

Uh, you know, there was a couple comments about really a lack of green space, and so we kind of thought creatively about how we could address that.

And so the code has been revised, or the draft has been revised to meet to make a requirement that you must meet or exceed the green NR goals by requiring 30% of your civic space as planting and/or green infrastructure in those civic spaces, and we strengthened language that recommends trees and bioretention areas along public frontages.

So those are other changes that have been made.

Another one importantly that is not something that will be addressed in the zoning, but is something that the city and staff are taking very seriously is really how will this initiative and how will the city advance the goals and priorities set forth in Green NR.

And the way that they're proposing to do that is by launching a climate smart this launch the climate smart as the city's branded green building framework.

So this is really a scoring system that creates a clear checklist for sustainable development.

So when somebody comes in, an applicant comes in opting into the DOZ, staff will sit with them and provide them with this checklist that folks through all of the DOZ requirements, the Green NR requirements, and helps them sort of determine how they can put forth the most sustainable and green project.

So it will align and enhance the zoning standards, the green NR goals, and green building best practices.

It will also establish minimum required green building elements for new projects, is required for every site-specific project.

And it will use a three-scoring layers to ensure projects that meet mandatory DOZ compliance requirements, including lead, uh ensure alignment with the seven green NR climate action plan themes, and then there are bonus points for innovative testing class sustainability measures.

And all of these sort of requirements will be set forth in the finding statement, which we will receive during July meeting as a requirement for site plan programming when applications.

So in terms of some of the other comments that we heard that were really out largely outside of the scope of the environmental review, but still very important, um, are the requests for more home ownership options, and as Adam mentioned, we're really proposing to do that through the incentives for smaller scale residential projects.

We're adjusting the development standard incentives bonuses for development standards one and two that would really allow for townhome style developments, smaller walk-up apartment buildings and would facilitate more homeownership and getting to the second point, also affordable housing options.

We just also wanted to point out that the affordable housing produced in the DOZ to date is close, or I believe over 20%, which is nearly double the city code requirement, and it's also provided much deeper levels of affordability than the code requires.

In terms of public engagement, we did hear some comments about needing feeling that there was a lack of public engagement.

And I think it's important to keep this these zoning alignments in context.

This is a process that's been was started in really 2014, has gone on for for more than a decade.

There was a major update in 2021, another in 2024, and this really is just a tweak those previous iterations for first establishing the DOZ and then again establishing new districts in those subsequent EIS's.

This really is minor sort of adjustments to make sure that we're still aligned with those original goals from 2015.

Also just wanted to point out that the CEFER comment period was more than double the required under the state law.

And then two other things, um, the strong desire to mandate local hiring and union labor, uh, especially if development receives tax breaks.

I think Adam did a pretty good job of describing what the IDA is doing and the in the policies that the city is working on under the UTEP policy, and I think you're all going to get a training on that, so I won't say too much more.

And then again, on the parking issue, there was a lot of comments about parking.

And as I understand it, the city is finalizing a parking management strategic plan, and there should hopefully coming out of that process be a comprehensive set of parking uh amendments and adjustments to the code, so that is to follow.

Uh, in terms of of sort of where we are in the process, uh we started this back in in the early winter, late fall in December and January when you initiated the CEO process, uh, you had your public hearing, you received your DEI, your draft EIS in February.

The public hearing was in April.

We are here today in June.

At the we're sort of, I'd say three quarters of the way through the process.

This is sort of the second to last milestone, which is acceptance of this document for public review.

If you are all comfortable with it, you will accept it as complete, and then it can be filed with the state and sent out to all other involved agencies posted online.

Um, and then at your next meeting, we will have seeker findings, which really is a document that is a memorialization of the record of your deliberations of the facts that you took into account in making your decision or sets forth your decision making, and then all of the mitigation measures and conditions that applicants opting into the DOZ will have to follow as part of site plan review.

Um, and then if you are comfortable with all of that, you will accept or adopt that document potentially in July, and then immediately thereafter you would be in a position to adopt the zoning uh amendments.

That's it.

Okay, that is it.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Questions or comments on item number three.

Sure.

Um, thank you again for this presentation.

I wanted to ask about the change that was made from what I remember thinking last time or like storefront requirements was all right.

We're not seeing the you know what we're seeing still too high number of um uh vacant storefronts.

And so maybe if we kind of reduce the uh requirements and kind of concentrate them in the downtown area, that's a way to like um mitigate that and to um you know just make sure that we're concentrating that and which will make it more attractive.

Um which seems smart to me.

And so I think this, if I'm understanding it correctly, is actually kind of going back on that and saying is that not right?

No, to clarify, I think we did the reverse of that in the draft.

We actually got rid of a requirement for storefronts and made it so that they were sort of they could be anywhere, but they weren't required anywhere.

And so that was sort of an overcorrection, and now they're only going to be required in along Maine, Huguenot, and the cross streets, which in between those two.

So, really in that or downtown is the only area where they are required, they can be in other areas, but they are not required.

So we actually are doing what you said, yeah.

Concentrating the retail in the existing retail corridors, and then we're allowing other kind of frontages to exist on the secondary streets.

So, what previously you you had these frequent entryway requirements, which and and we interpreted that, and we have so far interpreted that as like a glazed kind of traditional retail storefront facade, even if it was on the side street.

And that what we learned a lot of the buildings, they they chose to put their gym there.

They chose to put their co-working space, they chose to put all these other amenities for the inside of the building.

They weren't really public facing spaces that were on the street.

So now we're saying with the smaller missing middle housing, we sh we should we can encourage in the secondary streets outside retail, I mean residential on the ground floor.

So you could have kind of like that sort of stoop kind of feel like you see in other kind of urban communities where you know the the street fronts are activated, you know, it's it's a pleasant experience walking down the block, but it's it's not activated with like glass and steel, it's activated with trees and people's, you know, their their homes.

And so the idea being that we wanted to require the storefronts where the existing retail is and and and not allow it and not continue to increase the denominator right, because if we require storefronts everywhere, as we have done until now, then you know you're you're just adding new spaces, even if you fill the new spaces up a hundred percent, you're not impacting the actual vacancy rate in the in the city.

So what we're saying is we want to focus our efforts to really create an active retail corridor in the downtown by focusing all of the retail recruitment energy of this new development to populate those spaces that are being redeveloped in the core of the downtown, and it aligns with the vanguard district, which provide additional resources to those businesses to hopefully make them thrive and successful.

That's helpful.

Um I would just call out uh I feel like the the best thing about this overall from my perspective is the 25% increase in the fair share mitigation fee.

I I feel like that's just such an important um revenue generator, and uh I I think it allows us to just make better use of the development.

Do we know how much that uh fee generates?

I believe it's it's it has generated 35 million.

I mean it's projected to do 35 million, but I don't think we have that yeah.

I don't think we've hit the 35.

I have that accounting.

I can I can get it at next month's meeting, there'll be a presentation on this for the development updates.

I can have that number for you, but I can get it for you before then as well.

Okay, thank you.

Consident Peters, did you have your hand up?

Yeah, I agree.

Um several things.

One, the you mentioned when you started out that you didn't really want to say too much about the um uh some of the ways in which we would uh continue to address uh particular things uh with this.

I think this is when you first start out, you don't want to go over it again, but I think it is important to talk a little about it when you were talking about public comments mainly related to local and union job requirements, right?

Um increase of residential uses at the uh expenses of uh commercial retail uses, lack of homeownership and truly affordable housing options, lack of clear space, lack of parking, public processes like these are the things that we didn't want to say it again, but I think it's really important that we talk a little bit about that.

uh particular things uh with this I think this is when you first start out you didn't want to go over it again but I think it is important to talk a little about it when you were talking about public comments mainly related to local and union job requirements right from mandates and uh increase of residential uses at the uh expenses of uh commercial retail uses lack of home ownership and truly affordable housing options lack of career space lack of parking public processes right these are the things that we didn't want to say it again but I think it's really important that we that we talk a little bit about that uh the other thing that I wanted to to talk a little bit about has to do with the uh the DO8 proper and the expansion of the DO8 um and we've I think we may have had conversations about this before I'm uh we also know right that uh part of why the link was formed was because of and we don't really go maybe we do need to keep repeating this actually I'm thinking about it in that way because of the dislocation and the disruption and the complete devastation of what previously had been historically African American district we also know we're not to keep repeating this that as a result of all of these particular policies that we're attempting to address that that when we look at home ownership associated within the African American community particularly within Lincoln Avenue Corridor and the like we know that that remains um very low in fact the lowest denominator associated with home ownership uh so when we're talking about uh moving forward in a particular way what are the ways or are there ways and I believe that they are uh as we were just talking about the middle kinds of development and things along those lines how are we or will we in relation to development uh begin to not include the African American experience associated with with the development of the link but also include that in terms of increasing the capacity for home ownership which up to this point does not exist right it's very it exists but is very low so having said that when we're thinking about moving in this direction whether it's in the expansion of the DO8 or whether it's in other ways of creating middle middle income opportunities for people to what degree or have we begun to think about how that's going to happen and particularly for that particular demographic particular court and surrounding areas within district have we thought about that or are we thinking about that and are we moving towards that in that direction not in a theoretical way but in a in a very practical way because in part we will we will otherwise be developing codes associated with what we can or cannot do that will once again replicate the leaving out of what we said and what we've allocated funds for and what we've allocated a narrative for to get done so I'm asking that's that that's a long yep paragraph should I understand salad place this time that you want to talk about may I may I may I respond to that so I I think it's important I think the issue that you've just described is a a multifaceted issue number one.

And I think you know the first step is building the physical spaces that could house folks and that could provide an opportunity for the regular folks to buy right for and and so our current DOZ really favored the high rise development which was very expensive.

There was a the financing kind of framework that drove all of that development was like very bullish on rental housing specifically and so it was a product of many many different things that we why we have after 10 years produced so much rental housing in New Rochelle and we haven't really seen the lower scale missing middle that we're talking about.

So to to so to that end it's like one thing is let's change the code to allow and not even allow but incentivize the creation of the scale of housing that people can afford and could buy that's number one number two there's a um a policy side of it if you will so we are looking through the through the through the link project or basically what started as engagement around the link and talking to the community about uh you know what types of resources could the city develop to ensure that you know to to to make it to make you understand that the link is for you the African American community that's historically lived in the Lincoln Avenue neighborhood districts and so we have been studying the uh housing landscape in Rachel and also the landscape of subsidies that are out there and available specifically to um to to help us solve this problem we do know that there are very very high or very low ownership rates among the African American community in Rochelle I um we were so we we we know that to be true there is we're working on a report and I I plan to come back to council with those exact numbers and then there is a number of strategies that we've been talking about to date number one is um this um there's there's there's a mechanism that we can help folks that are on section eight or that receive receive a subsidy to help them leverage that that that subsidy that they receive for rental housing to pay their rent we can we can work through a lender and through a project and the in the financing framework to enable the recipient of the section eight to be able to use that those funds that that subsidy that they get to purchase something so we think if you look at the demographics of the Section 8 program it slants more heavily toward you know that they you know there's a correlation uh unfortunately but it's true between you know the the African American population and and and

We can we can work through a lender and through a project and in the financing framework to enable the recipient of the Section 8 to be able to use that those funds that that subsidy that they get to purchase something.

So we think if you look at the demographics of the Section 8 program, it slants more heavily toward you know that you know there's a correlation uh unfortunately, but it's true between you know the the African American population and and and you know poverty levels and different things.

Um so so we understand that to be true, and I think trying to find the tools that are currently being used to support affordable housing to get them to be pointed towards achieving home ownership is one.

So it's like the allowing do changing the zoning to allow that type of housing product to be built is one, and then two is like finding the funding mechanisms to actually make that a reality.

So we have this that that we have that we have the down payment assistance program, which we've uh recently expanded to, you know, as part of this notion of new Rochellians in diaspora, like we know that there's been a great flight of especially African Americans from our city to other places in the country.

How do we invite them back?

So we're creating this down payment assistance program and and creating and changing the the criteria for that to allow previous residents who've lived here for two years to come back to New Rochelle and set up shop here and move here and live here and grow here.

So so those are other strategies that we've we've developed.

And additionally, we're looking at um, you know, we we understand there have been several projects that you've noted don't have an affordability component in them.

So they will be at the time that they're closing and being built a contribution into an affordable housing fund, which is required by our code.

And so we're trying to create a framework to develop a policy um mechanism, an engine that we can create housing.

Actually, fun finance housing, uh finance uh, you know, land acquisition, all towards, you know, for specifically addressing the needs in our community and then in the black community specifically.

Um so you know, like looking at different concepts.

There's uh, you know, land uh community land trust, there are different mechanisms that we can that we have we are studying, um, and we will be coming forward with a kind of more comprehensive uh analysis and and and recommendation on that regard.

So I think it's a combination of folks.

It's like the DOZ, if you look at it by itself, sure.

If you look at it by itself, it's the it's the physical aspect, you know, incentivizing the construction creation of it, but the the policies and the financial tools are equally important.

And I think just one thing to add to that in terms of the work that we're doing now in terms of this rezoning is that some of the areas that are being rezoned from DO5 to DO8, part of the thinking behind doing that is that we wanted to make sure we were capturing those that fair share mitigation in DO8 because there is a requirement when we adopted DO8 in 2024 that funds generated in DOA have to be spent in DO8.

So by expanding that area and taking some of those key sites in DO5 and putting them in DO8, it's providing some of that additional funding as well.

So for myself, when I think about that, that is that is uh both a good thing and a dilemma associated with the with the practical uh landing of what we're talking about in this conversation now, meaning that one of I I want to make sure that what something is being uh built for becomes uh a mechanism for that to actually occur.

So that's an important thing.

And that the codes oftentimes I'm learning more and more about that.

The codes really seem to uh I don't want them to replicate the same thing that has happened before in uh in a way that doesn't necessarily cause that to actually come into existence.

The other thing that I wanted to talk a little bit about was in relationship to this stuff around retail.

So when we were talking about the green and our these other these other areas associated with with building and retail and mandating 30% of the coast, was this throughout every every DLZ zone, or was this specific to this is through DOD zone and specifically, you know, it impacted one of the one of the projects that we're looking at in what will be the newly expanded DO8 had um you know had an opportunity for us to incorporate these green uh infrastructure techniques, and so we we kind of use that as a um as a template, right?

So we understood, you know, we can address heat islands, we can address stormwater, flooding, using green solutions, and and also solve for uh like the street frontage occupancy because we we don't want to have a building next to a parking lot and just have it look and feel like a big open asphalt space, right?

And it needs to be uh, you know, it needs to absorb stormwater, it needs to be permeable, it needs to be shade providing, it needs to do all of the things that you know a green and and living kind of landscape does.

So you know so DO8 will benefit greatly, and and specifically in district three, the the part of DO8 that's in district three will benefit greatly from a lot of these updates because there is not at this time pre-link construction, a lot of green space.

So, you know, any any little bit we can do to increase that, I think would have a tremendous impact.

Yeah, just lastly, I would say that you know previous zoning, when we did DOA, it ended at the west, no, yeah, west side of Memorial.

And so this actually then extends it over to the east, and then will encompass both sides of the street so that we have more control over what that frontage looks like.

You know, the existing zoning kind of you know, five turns is back on the link, and so we wanted to make sure that we were kind of switching those frontage requirements so that there are, you know, there will be an active frontage in streetscape along the link.

So uh uh another question that I have has to do with what we've done with the Vanguard district or what we've done in other areas downtown.

I think we may have had this conversation before, particularly around the possibility for retail.

And the I know we want to embed uh uh green, more green space within that, but in terms of these places, will they?

I think one of the things that was said to me was that uh developers, if you will, um when they are thinking about or when they're engaged with us around things that they aren't necessarily open to or have been in the past to make sure that when they're building, particularly the ground floors, that they have the required things that are necessary for retail to actually work because what occurred downtown before, which we've learned from and we've talked about very openly is that these boxes or these spaces did have HVAC systems, they didn't have a they didn't have, they were not built for that.

And so the relationship between the developer and who the tenant would be was very open-ended and it was left to a part of what wouldn't necessarily happen.

So I'm wondering, are there any additional incentives or requirements associated with something like that being a part of what it means if we're talking about retail, particularly as we're moving into spaces that are outside of downtown, right, into some spaces with you know certain height requirements and things on those lines, so that retail can actually come in.

And then when we're thinking about retail law, we also think about it similarly as we are around home ownership in relationship to the current retail that will provide what was taken away in terms of businesses, particularly uh black businesses and the like.

And so I don't want that to get away from us because things can get away.

And part of what has occurred, and that we had this conversation maybe a month ago or two months ago, was this idea, which is why I was talking a lot a little bit about grants and the like, around how to process for extending into getting more money since some of us are talking about you know, making sure that we have enough money for a rainy day, and not used on a side.

You know, I don't I I kind of still want to have some sort of a flexible framework to make to make things happen.

So when we're talking about grants associated with the possibility of bringing in more money, earlier we talked about how grants are oftentimes built on where success is already occurred.

Where we're now, and so as a result of that, we're not pursuing or we're not pursuing grants because people don't want to don't want to invest in that in relationship to providing grass.

That was a discussion that we had at this table.

So I'm again this is a very complex as you're describing it, multi-faceted effort that I don't want to see it lose steam.

Even in relationship to when we're saying that we want to we want to be clear around um our budget and what it means.

Um I don't want you know, I'm I don't want us to be operating from a scarcity framework of my of mine, because that's not what's gonna make this work.

What's going to make this work is around so thinking that that's thinking more abundantly around how this can happen.

So I don't want to lose sight of that.

And I really want to hold this council and all of us to that.

I don't want this to become something outside of what we said we were going to do.

I don't want that to happen.

I think that's that's happened before.

That cannot happen again.

It just cannot.

I just respond to say, like, at the the easiest, you know, one of the the critical things that is different in this amendment is all projects are going to require the review by a retail expert.

Like you do a traffic analysis or shadow study or or any of the other parking analysis, the way that's reviewed, we're going to require all of the buildings that have you know the requirements to have the ground floor space and evaluate the retail potential and give a full report.

And you know, that includes the level of fit out for the spaces.

So, you know, there are, even though we are only requiring as a as a hundred percent firm rule in the vanguard district, we also are aware that there are retail corridors that are outside of that.

And we also know the link as a frontage is going to be facing a beautiful boulevard, right?

That is going to be a prime location for retail and for other kind of community public facing uses.

So, you know, we are, you know, we have the economic development kind of recommended action plan for the Lincoln Avenue that we developed as part of the link, you know, as part of the link engagement.

We have identified catalytic sites, like we we've created a you know a layout for the types of uses we we we did the analysis of you know the types of businesses that were lost.

We're we're looking at different formats like live workspaces, maker spaces, different things like that that would facilitate the kind of entrepreneurialism that we want to see, and that we heard there's a passion for in the black community, and I know the parks department is doing the grab the bag kind of program where they're working with the youth, and so there are kind of template examples in our own community, but also nationally that we are looking to like adopt here and create that opportunity.

So, like this is the physical spaces which we're coding for in this DOZ amendment, but then there's that there's that other kind of outreach and program stuff that we are, you know, we have the um the site on CBS on North Avenue.

That is part of the you know, the ecosystem that we're talking about.

So I think we're not losing sight of it, you know, and we will check in more frequently as we get closer to implementation to make sure that we're aligned.

And the last comment that I have there's actually a shout-out because I really want to I want to commend um council Council Member Ocean Roy for the for the fourth side very early on in his engagement and in this involvement around people that we do a really very say that we do a really good job of creating opportunities for people and then when people leave, right?

They don't stay.

And I think you know, so this idea you just talk about it being one of those strategies associated with home ownership to have people return.

It's almost like a return to come back, yeah, right?

And and the return to come back is because it's more affordable.

There will be ways where you can feel more hold, and well, these are the things that are gonna matter.

I mean, they're really gonna matter.

Absent that we're people are going to be stuck in in the in the scarcity place of what we can or cannot do based upon what we have in this particular moment.

So I appreciate the the your willingness and your ability to speak to this conversation uh with clarity, and I want to I'd like us to continue to have clarity around this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Have any questions or comments on item number three?

Uh just a quick comment on how you address mine and other comments about um how did the H will advance greener.

And I mentioned before we have these great planning documents like Greener and the CBA that have great information and recommendations and aspirational goals.

And I had challenged you and the staff, you know, how do we turn those documents into something that is transparent, measurable, and enforceable that helps us to deliver real outcomes.

And um, I felt like we had a lot of back and forth, maybe a bit of resistance, but um, I think that you all did a really great job of taking the ball and running with it.

And I'm really pleased with what you came up with here, um, of figuring out how we can use the tools at our disposal to really advance our climate goals and priorities as a city to best protect residents for climate risk like extreme heat and flooding.

So I just want to say thank you for that.

Um, and then you had made a comment earlier how it's not in the zoning, but will be in the finding statement.

And I heard you say it will be required for site plan approval, so that to me seems like key point.

But just um can you just explain what that means?

It's not it'll be in the case.

It's not the so the EIS itself includes a whole number of measures that are mitigation measures.

So things like you need to do a construction management plan, a parking management plan, uh hazmat study, there's all these things that are required that aren't necessarily they're not requirements in the zoning, they are requirements of the environmental review process.

And so all of those things get translated into the findings statement, which is essentially a roadmap to staff that says when somebody submits, they have to do these like 25 things.

You know, there's even things in there like you have to require certain low flow fixtures and you know, all those requirements are that were mentioned in the EIS, then get translated into the findings document.

If you can I just I I would actually also say it's it's a roadmap also for the developers when they come in, right?

Because they need to demonstrate that they have complied with our secret documents, so the finding statements one of the most important ones for them to refer to.

Um so they go through that because we're gonna be checking everything that's in there, and they know they can go to that.

Sometimes they have to refer to some of the appendices and some of the other documents, but the finding statement is kind of the one document that says, okay, in order to comply with everything the city went through in its environmental review, we need to do XYZ.

And the reason to do it outside of the zoning code is that you may periodically you may make amendments to Green NR, and you may be updating this checklist from time to time.

They may make changes to the green building standards, and you may want it's a living document, and so if you put it in the code, it becomes static, and every time you want to change it, you have to amend your code.

And so by having it in the findings, it allows staff same with stormwater, the stormwater regulations are updated, you know, every so often.

And so when they're doing a SWIP, it's not in the code necessarily.

Um, you know, so I think it just is a little bit easier if it lives outside the code, but there's still it is still a requirement.

Right.

Thank you.

Questions or comments on item number three.

Okay.

Just so I do believe parking.

Uh first of all, thank you for your work.

It's such a comprehensive discussion to be had.

Um, and a part of what I want to ask today is about communications to describe well, you know, the things that aren't being covered now, when give give people giving people a timeline so that they understand that it's not addressed exactly in this or in these amendments, but there's other legislation and action that we could do because so much has already been done, you know, even talking about the professionals that we lose to other cities, states, countries sometimes, you know, just the amendment that you guys made to the program of uh the the uh down payment assistance program is just one of several examples of how we could amplify this to better match what's happening in the shell, how we dedicated funding to tenant improvement, tenant creation sometimes when we're talking about the train station and bringing the bookstore in.

Um so I want to thank you for the changes that we have made.

We have work to do on these as well, but just giving people, you know, I think the main work is just giving people a sense of when exactly are we going to tackle these things because we know internally that we're having these discussions all the time.

Um but I don't feel like the public has a sense of it because it's not necessarily responsible to go with the full package of everything that we want to do until we've actually finalized all the details, feasibility, and things like that.

But just giving them an in general, we are thinking about these things and how we frame it and communicate it.

I think it's very important.

Um I do want to talk about the parking lot.

I will commit to at my July presentation to council on development.

Yes, that the stuff we talked about today, the Lincoln Avenue uh economic development recommended action plan and the housing plan.

I will have a uh I can give a better time frame.

I'll I'll give dates and I'll lay out it'll be the latter half of this year, like following the September, uh, the August recess.

But I I I can give you a better sense of timing on that, and then we'll also have by then we'll have had our June IDA meeting, and so we will know also timing on the UTEPs.

Right.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to talk about parking management a bit because I think that that would be covered under the environmental review there.

So does that is this the time to speak about what our parking requirements are, and if we're making any like changes to that or amendments to that, or would that be contained in the parking management?

It's in the park, it's not in the parking management plan, it's part of the parking code.

Like it's not part of the deal, like the DOZ amendments are specific section 330, whatever, and then the parking is in a separate section of the code, and a couple of sections of the code.

So those were amending separately.

Like tonight, later this evening, there are four kind of of the of the items that were identified as the easy, you know, the lowest hanging fruit, if you will, from the parking management plan.

We're we're taking, I'm proposing that action be taken tonight.

Right.

And then there was a series, there are several more that are related to the DOZ, but they don't live in the DOZ.

So this is just specifically what we need to do to amend the the actual DOZ class.

Right.

We did look initially at making some changes, and I think we had talked about some potential changes in the in the in the draft, but it became apparent because you were doing this comprehensive downtown study, it would really be sort of what you might call segmentation to just pick off a few without it being a comprehensive look.

And so we decided it was better to wait, do them all at once.

They will be subject to their own environmental review uh process, not I'm assuming it would not be an EIS or anything this extensive would be required for that, but because then you can look at all of them and see how one might affect another.

We didn't want to make a change that might have an impact somewhere else and didn't get looked at because there were all these different changes happening.

So we just decided it was better to wait.

And I think that it's forthcoming in the number of natural ones.

Right, and I I think a part of it is also a misnomer between you know the environmental review that you're doing performing now versus just the overall conversation of well, our master development um agreement, you know, our our 10-year plan.

I think people are conflating a lot of things, and they're expecting an answer in one part of the process that lives in another, and it's it's really it's so deeply like a comprehensive communications job, and it's truly communications, it's not like PR because it's not just information giving, it's information for understanding, and then so people could advocate for themselves and take action at the right time.

I think that that's important.

Um so even with that, there are a number of things that I'm just bringing them up now because I know that they're not necessarily included in this, but they need to be a part of the conversation.

The cost of utilities, the cost of retail space to retailers on our ground floors, and how we work them into our agreements.

Um, you know, utilizing our how we address our vacancies, how strongly or not we address our vacancies and utilizing that space strategically.

Um how do we get more access to the space that's being created?

You know, I know that it's not a part of this process, but it's it's a part of what's giving people pain, and if it goes unspoken, it's not gonna be a full answer, but if it goes unspoken, it just feels like we don't care about the individual concerns that people have.

I know that I'm seeing the commissioner of buildings that came in and we were talking about you know uh I'm expecting soon a plan for how we're gonna address you know different types of infestations that we're dealing with in the city, including the dog poop infestation.

Um, so it's it's just good to give people the timeline and a sense of when we are going to be addressing these different things, and then um I in the presentation I didn't necessarily understand the definition of civic spaces.

So are these spaces that are on the I didn't understand the so in some some parts of the zoning um the you you the developer is required to create a civic space and it comes to mind specifically for the area in this DO1 expansion because the currently the area that we're expanding into right now is kind of a light industrial area back behind you know the Trump building or back there by I-85.

So, in order to like subdivide a lot of those parcels that are potentially developable, um, they would have to create a grid and amenity.

So what we're requiring in that instance is that you know you create a civic space, um, and then that civic space we gave it very specific parameters.

We can have an opportunity by allowing some development to happen there to create the types of you know parks and things that little you know kind of plazas and parks that we want to see happen throughout the downtown, but also Kevin can speak a little more in the in the in the rest of the downtown overlay zone.

Um there is a requirement for uh civic spaces in certain instances with significant corners, like depending on the street type that's there, relative to how the building kind of sits on the um, you know, at the at the level of the of the curb, there's there's a requirement for that.

Um, and you know, we wanted to be able to use the code to require that the types of spaces that are created are green and reflect, you know, they're not just like paved patios essentially, and like a public amenity, not yeah, it's a public.

It's a quasi-public, you know, it's quasi public where it's it's on a private property, but it has to be open to the public for you know, like I want to say it's something something of that nature.

Um, so it's it's in the code and it dictates how the public must have access to it.

And so exactly to what Adam was just saying, we didn't want it to just be you know asphalt because of the calling or you know, the greening of the downtown, so we're adding the stipulation that it be you know vegetated more and be more environmentally friendly.

And this goes towards what I've been asking about for us to greenify the different properties because it's difficult to in literally a concrete jungle of the downtown where there's not a lot of public space, but this is answered, you know, lack of availability on these private properties to create that shared amenity, right?

Right, right.

It's excellent.

We we have to like I guess then my thesis is just that we need to communicate that strongly that these things are being addressed, and this is not necessarily the part of the process where everything will be, but we will be addressing all of the other concerns as well.

Are there questions or comments on item number three of Consumentarantina?

I have a few.

Um, as we're looking at actually uh expanding the amount of units downtown.

We have how many projects have been approved uh for downtown that haven't gone to the ground yet?

And how many units?

How many, how many?

How many projects and how many units?

I think there are like five five projects that are in the pipeline.

Right.

That doesn't include crack.

That's because they're not part of it or sure.

So that's more and how many units.

Uh it's around 7,000, 6,000.

Well, the actual projects that are 11,000.

Oh no, I guess I have to get back to you on that.

I I can I can look it up.

I have a certain five projects, I think 15.

There are 5,500 units that are currently built and leasing.

Right.

There are there's another 2,000 units process.

I think it's a little more than that.

Is it 1500?

Roughly, we'll get the number.

It doesn't have to be exact.

I mean, it's just approximately, you know, 2,000, 2500 in that range, would it be safe to say of project in the pipeline?

Uh the units in the pipeline are sure.

There's one is five seven.

I don't want to commit to another.

How many units are 570?

That's like 500 units, the other 500.

Yeah, so if you do that, the other four had 300.

Yeah, 2000.

Okay, 2,2500.

Okay.

My question is this.

This there's two things.

Number one is my concern about you know, the part they're already grandfathered into the parking requirements that we had under the original DOZ plans, which allows them uh the valet parking, low ratio parking per unit in the building, um, and the buyouts that they can implement to reduce the amount of units.

Um my concern about that is that you know, while we're looking to expand more units in the downtown, and we also haven't even built this another 2500 units, uh, which we don't even know how the impact of those will have on the traffic in downtown, the parking in downtown.

Um I'm having a hard time with adding more units to that without fully understanding the impact those five projects will have on the downtown.

Uh and there's simple reasons for that supply and demand.

Uh, there's been an article in the newspaper that we were one of the few communities that saw a reduction in the um cost of rental units.

Uh to me, that indicates to me that the supply is greater than demand because you know, rents go up when there's less when there's less supply.

Uh what we're seeing is we're seeing a reverse of that.

So my concern is adding more units on top of having five approved projects that may go underground this year, may go in the ground next year, may never go into the ground.

We don't know what's going to happen with the economy.

Um and the parking, uh, we're going to two-way streets.

Uh I believe you said 2027.

Correct.

We're gonna go to two-way streets.

How you know the the process we're looking at right now.

How does that address all of those things that we have or unknowns to us right now?

We really don't know the impact of that all of those things.

And also what we do know now is that the actual traffic as it was measured in 2021, 2024 is less than what's projected in 2015.

So overall counts based on actual counts from the traffic in the engineer.

So we do know that the we do know that we are trending below what the original impact of traffic would be.

Right.

Okay, and a lot of what people are experiencing is exacerbated by the construction that was needed for the sewer upgrades.

Um, so you know, the the previous leadership, you know, I think you know, you know, did the best job that they could, but I I I think at the end of the day, we've subsequently updated the traffic study, and we we do know that the impacts of the downtown and the development specifically are less than what was originally protected in 2015 and they've been revised um 2018.

And we we do know that the impacts of the downtown and the development specifically are less than what was originally protected in 2015 and they've been revised 2018, 2021, 2024.

Again for this.

And again for this, we did we did a traffic study.

Traffic model makes it two-way conversion.

The 2021 studies were impacted by COVID.

Everything all the traffic was all traffic when we're going to be able to do that.

Um I don't see less cars on the road.

I see more cars on the road.

Uh 2024 also still saying it's we're not saying it didn't increase.

We're saying it didn't increase as much as originally impact.

But the where I'm going with this is also into the neighborhoods.

We're talking about president, you know, and it ties into the parking study that we're that you that was presented to us.

Um we're talking about going into neighborhoods and creating uh permit parking, very difficult products of prospect as far as I'm concerned because we did it, try to do it numerous times, and residents just push back on it.

Uh we're already getting, uh, and Will can attest to this.

I call him all the time about it about tra the amount of problems parking in the residential neighborhoods that surround the downtown.

I'm just concerned that we're moving at such a rapid pace that we're really not absorbing what we have, and we're going to get burned down the road because we the streets aren't wide enough, the traffic flow, even with the two-way, that's going to be uh a really hairy process.

Well, it's implemented.

Uh when it's implemented, you're gonna lose parking spaces in downtown because every study that we had showed to get the two-way traffic, you had to take away parking spaces.

I'm just concerned about um you know us moving in the direction we're going.

And you know, it's more of my feeling of the overall uh changes that we're attempting to do.

It's not one particular change, it's just that you know, we seem to be moving at a very, very, very rapid pace when we have five projects that haven't even gone in the ground.

If the market was good and you know, development was booming, those projects would have been in the ground already.

Then you run into the problem is if next year interest rates drop and they go into the ground, you can have all five simultaneously probably start up at the same time, and we're gonna go through the whole cycle of traffic issues that we had before while we're doing two-way traffic.

Yeah, I just see so many roadblocks in the in the near future.

Uh, and I don't hear any really uh or I don't understand how we're going to be able to uh resolve those problems as they come forward.

Have we have we do we have planning in place for any of this stuff if this happens?

For what stuff in particular?

I'm talking about the well, there's buildings going up.

Yes.

There's planning.

You know, what are we gonna do about displacement of parking plans during construction for every building is required as part of the you know submission for each of the developers have to submit.

And it doesn't usually work that way.

Well, that's something for the buildings department.

I think that we can take a look at requirements.

But it's part of our government, you know.

So we're I I think that I'm I'm just looking at it as my concern, my concern has never been anti-development, and I think you know that from the beginning of this process 10 years ago.

Uh I'm just very concerned about the way we're going about it right now.

We're going very, very quickly moving forward without understanding the repercussions.

And one of the first indicators to me is the decline in rents because when rents go down, the supply is greater than the demand.

You've got buildings giving two free months, people are moving from one building to the other to take advantage of that.

Uh these are all concerns, and they're not only my concerns.

I've talked to developers, and these are concerns of a lot of developers about uh, you know, how do you absorb all this stuff?

Well, I think you could look at that two ways, right?

We're solving for an affordability crisis as well.

I think you know, looking at you know what rents people can afford, right?

The market is you know, a supply-side solution, right?

So the market will meet the demand, the supply will meet the demand.

So I think you know, to stigmatize that we've been able to modulate rent growth in this in the city by uh you know, being ahead of the curve in housing, I think is commendable for us from a policy perspective.

I I think the way you're characterizing it, I think what what results are is housing that people can afford, and I think that should be uh considered differently.

But we're not building but you know what Adam, we're not building them, the developers are building them.

At the bottom of the bottom line is that they have to make a profit.

And I'm not a big fan of a lot of the development that went on uh because I think that in a lot of them didn't deliver what we expected them to deliver.

That's a whole nother story, but to argue the point that we're we're we're creating affordability.

Now, what's going to create affordability is if the developers file bankruptcy, which we had one already, 360, went into receivership, sold a building off for close to 40 million dollars over uh under what they had uh originally owed on it.

Those things can happen over and over again if a building can't meet their their notes.

So, you know, the concern is is that by building, and I'm not talking about the stuff that's there, whatever is happening there is happening.

We already own we already own that.

We have five more that we've already approved.

My concern is as we're going forward, we're gonna start or look to attempt to build more.

And then I'll jump over to like in the DOZ8.

DOZ8, uh, the intention was to help um upgrade or improve uh the Lincoln Avenue corridor uh so that the quality of housing would improve in that area.

We haven't one shovel go in the ground, and now we're expanded into the western part of the city, which if somebody comes in, they're gonna build there maybe before they build on the Lincoln Avenue corridor.

So now we're taking dollars from one place and throwing them somewhere else.

And I know one of the problems, 1415 Lockwood Avenue is in foreclosure.

I know people want to develop it.

Uh well in Washington Avenue, the same thing people want to develop.

So it almost looks like we're moving uh the lines to accommodate developers over keeping the lines where they are to accommodate our residents in Lincoln in the linking corridor.

I will say that the Lincoln Avenue corridor was also the DO8 was also expanded.

It was it was increased far more in the proximity of Lincoln Avenue than it was in this one little enclave over by Washington.

I mean, it was a small little um, it was a small little uh amendment to the to the boundary that we made that was into but we've also moved, we've also moved the larger parcels that are that are permitted on the west side of Memorial Highway into DO8.

We've moved 420 North Avenue into D08.

These are uh we moved Mavis into DO8, so we've actually increased the footprint of DO8, and in so doing, we've uh managed to require that those fees, which are much more substantial as the density is higher, the the lot sizes are higher, the bonus cost is higher.

That money is real investment that can be put into the DO8 around the area where it's needed.

So these are not just amendments that are tailored and meant to exclude what the original intent of the DO8 was.

We've more than um expanded the opportunity for what the original intended uh DO8 footprint was.

I think that the West End neighborhood is uh, you know it the boundary is not, you don't go through a gate into this particular part of the you're building it, you're trying to build on the edge of a residential neighborhood.

Uh Washington, first of all, it's not Washington Street, it's Washington Avenue in your documents.

Um keep on making that mistake.

Somebody should drive around the street and see the signs.

Uh Washington, Warren Street, Washington Avenue, Van Gelder, where I grew up, uh Sickles Avenue, Lockwood Avenue, that whole area there is a totally separate neighborhood than what DOC8 was intended for.

So you're really changing the concept of what you're trying to do in DOCA.

You are uh because you talked about Mavis on North Avenue.

There's properties on the Lincoln Avenue Corridor that could would love to be redeveloped.

In fact, you know, when Reverend Weaver was alive, we attempted to develop his corner there.

Uh unfortunately, uh, we didn't have enough votes to get it done, but those are the things that would benefit absolutely allowed to benefit the community.

So, you know, you want to be able to limit the amount of locations that a developer can come in and build on so that they you target them into the areas that you really wanted to truly develop.

Uh and what you're doing is you're expanding it further and further out that pretty soon will be up to uh Union Avenue and uh and and Fourth Street.

I mean, that that's the way it's going.

No, that certainly has a different characteristic.

Okay, this one.

I'm not gonna go any further.

That's either questions or comments on item number three.

Uh thank you.

And you know we have item four.

I don't know if it's the same continue.

Another time.

Okay.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of council.

So we're here today to talk about the we've been studying the Davenport net.

We received a petition back in May of 2025 from a developer seeking to allow a 64-unit multifamily development at the location of the surf club.

We we looked at that request.

We did not want to uh look at that request without looking at the entire Davenport neck.

Um we worked very closely with um we've recruited some uh various consultants.

Uh we've done an uh we BFJ helped us uh devise the zoning as an impact collective.

We've had uh several community meetings um and meetings with uh the members of council and with the superintendent of the school district to understand all of the needs.

Um those those small group meetings and those community meetings were really important to understand what uh what what the community needed.

Um so what we heard across all of the community meetings and through all the interactions with all the various stakeholders was very consistent.

The residents raised issues about mobility and access, uh they that include missing sidewalks, traffic congestion around Trinity, the need for traffic calming, emergency access concerns, they raised concerns about infrastructure and climate that include flooding, storm water, dredging, water quality, erosion, um, and just a broad sense of climate vulnerability on the Davenport Neck.

We heard uh stories about we'd have rats in the downtown, as you mentioned, Shane.

Well, we have cat infestations at the bird sanctuary on the Davenport Neck, so it's you know, right out of uh Tom and Jerry.

But so we know that there are a variety of issues.

Um so we we also heard concerns about the prop the condition of the property, we've heard conditions about overdevelopment, density, a sensitivity to change, a real pride in the community about the character of their neighborhood.

At the same time, they spoke about quality of life, traffic, noise, light pollution.

You know, I've had conversations with homeowners there that are frustrated with the the beach clubs themselves.

They have parties until late at night, it's it makes it difficult to hang out in their on their outdoor spaces, but we we heard a lot of concerns, we heard a lot of fear, we we did our best to compile all of that, and what we're proposing today, you know, is really a protective intervention.

But you know, just to go a little deeper into the the issues that are happening on Davenport Neck, you know, we have these beach clubs.

We have identified there's real market data out there to suggest that water clubs, these waterfront clubs are facing a change market pressures, if you will.

And the current zoning provides limited tools to address the reinvestment and the resiliency of the and investment in the resiliency infrastructure that's needed to ensure that these properties remain safe uh over the long haul.

The the event economics are changing, the sizes of the weddings are smaller, the frequency of the parties are less.

There are rising costs associated with all the you know, the interest rates, the the cost of goods, all are being affected and all making it uh difficult for these uh businesses to continue.

There are weak public tools in place.

We have a limited ability to require reinvestment in the in in the businesses themselves, but also in the infrastructure and in the resiliency uh that upgrades that are needed to ensure that these properties remain safe, um, as well as the public benefits, and then there's just the risk of inaction, the gradual decline and the underinvestment of you know, these um these uh facilities just ultimately will contribute unchecked to the decline of the area.

We've seen it to a degree in the downtown.

I mean, the downtown is opposed to child, right?

There was a change in the retail landscape, there was a change in market conditions, and we were not proactive and responsive back when that decline had started to happen, and then it left unabated, it just spiraled out of control.

I think to a degree, I know Councilman Tarantino has mentioned that Pelham Road used to be a uh corridor of luxury apartments when it was originally invented and had doormen and this and that, and that has changed, right?

And we see a lot of vacancies.

We see a lot of uh you know, vacant and and and spaces that are not so this is we have a history in New Rochelle of not being proactive in the interventions that are needed to get ahead of declines of neighborhoods that were once vibrant and really successful, not doing something is not the answer.

Additionally, in addition to the surf clubs and the beach clubs, there are the marinas.

These are vital waterfront assets.

The current zoning does not provide a clear path for reinvestment.

In fact, the current zoning, they are out of compliance with the current zone.

So any kind of investment they would make would be uh could be perceived as an expansion, and there's a disincentive for them to be creative about how they could uh you know make investments to uh you know increase their marketability.

And so what's happening is the gradual and steady decline of of them because the zoning is out of date, it's not keeping uh it's not keeping pace with the businesses themselves, and it's having quality of life impacts, right?

We're seeing debris in the water.

You know, if these were active and successful marinas, they would have the resources and could you know uh make the types of upgrades that are needed to keep the area around their businesses in in a better state of maintenance.

We're seeing um other quality of life impacts, the operations they should be managed through clear standards and they should have hours and parking circulation, noise lighting, uh, all of these things to ensure neighborhood compatibility can be regulated, and we're proposing in in this, as I'll discuss a little later on, that we re-legalize these marinas and we allow them to make investments and to do appropriate uh you know uh expansions in certain areas that are governed by sound uh you know policies that would ensure that the impact on the community is is minimized.

And again, similarly with the surf with the with the beach clubs, the risk of inaction is great.

We've seen it in the downtown, we've seen it on Pellham Road to a degree, we've seen it in other areas of the city.

We we could name a few of them.

So the current zoning already allowed, and it's important to know why the zoning needs to be updated.

We we believe my recommendation would be that we update the zone.

And it's important as a baseline to say it with my chest, that the current zoning already allows multifamily development.

In fact, what we're talking about today would not increase the density overall on the downport neck, full stop.

There are currently 210 units.

Uh we did hypothetical theoretical development.

It's not, it's not a downtown overlay zone, so there are no number of units that are there, and so absent the actual uh surveys and the other uh you know tools that we need to really design these buildings, you know, we we can only estimate.

So we did our best to estimate.

Um, and there is currently a substantial amount of multifamily development that is allowed down in Port Neck.

It was adopted in 2016, the current zoning that's there, and it was not designed around today's flooding, stormwater, traffic, and resiliency challenges.

There are weak public controls.

We have limited availability to require sidewalks, open space, structured parking, infrastructure upgrades, or long-term property reinvestment.

There's a tremendous flood vulnerability there.

Most of the density as it is currently allowed on the Davenport Neck is allowed in the areas that are lowest lying and the most susceptible to uh the the to flooding.

And so, what we're proposing and advocating for, and what we're hoping you would all consider is that we take a look at those that zoning and update it so that we can achieve and engender better public outcomes, and that is responsive to the resiliency needs, the infrastructure upgrades that are being demanded by the community.

Um, and uh by by requiring community benefits.

Another important tenet of what we are discussing today is that it is does not change what can currently be built at the remaining beach clubs.

This is not an a way that incentivizes the redevelopment.

In fact, it makes it more expensive to redevelop the beach clubs.

Currently, they would only have to pay one sort of accessory fee, which is the waterfront fee, uh the waterfront access fee, uh $10,000 unit.

What we're proposing, what we think is necessary based on the feedback that we heard from the community and the types of upgrades that are being demanded by them is something in the neighborhood of $35,000 plus the $10,000 that's already in place.

That would give us the funds that we need to make the types of investments that are going to be necessary to create the types of upgrades in that space that are that are being demanded, including uh traffic upgrades to the route of access for emergency vehicles and such.

We are, I'm gonna say it again, we're not touching Davenport Park.

We're really just proposing that you all consider a paradigm for managing future change responsibly, not force it to change.

Change is inevitable.

Um, the proposed zoning is more protective, it is more expensive, and it is more community responsive than is currently in place.

It would increase the minimum lot area for multifamily development from one acre to four acres.

It would lower the maximum far on average along the neck.

It shifts density away from the FEMA, the flood prone areas.

It lowers the allowable heights in key areas.

It requires structured parking instead of large surface parking lots that we all know are not very green or sustainable and are certainly not in compliance with our green and our guidelines these days, and as it was uh and it requires on-site open space of 45%, which is much higher and greater than what is currently in place.

Oh, in certain circumstances.

It also requires sidewalks and pedestrian improvements to be made to the site around the proposed development, and it requires flood protection and resilient design standards to be employed in the uh design of the building.

Additionally, it requires off site infrastructure improvements, or as I mentioned earlier, $35,000 per unit contribution in addition to the waterfront access fee.

The developer fees are required, are and required improvements can support stormwater upgrades, flood mitigation, sidewalks, traffic calming, circulation improvements, public open space enhancements, and these are all directly responsive to what we heard from the community.

We had the three meetings at Trinity School.

We heard at the first meeting, a lot of things about traffic, about the traffic at Trinity, the pickham drop off was chokes the area, they can't get in or out of there.

We met with this with the superintendent and we talked about like what a traffic intervention would look like there, and they're open to working with us.

We think we can actually make a real difference.

Finding alternative ways uh to um you know require developers to make their contribution that that is that they're pay their share for being here and having the privilege of developing and investing in your shell, I think is what this zoning recommendation does.

So here's a visual.

I know we've had many conversations, and we have uh discussed, you know, there's been sort of misinformation that's put out there that's we're incentivizing the clubs to reposition, to sell, to become developers.

We are not the the surf clubs or the beach clubs, the density is not changing on any of the sites.

They are remaining constant.

What we are doing by legalizing the marinas and by increasing the minimum lot size and by uh incorporating the FEMA flood map into the zoning and the and the calculation of units, we're essentially allowing the surf club site to put around 60 units at 64 units on that site.

We think it is viable because if you look at the net usable land area, surf club sits the highest of all of these beach club sites.

So it's got the grit a much greater proportion of that particular site is above the floodplain.

So when you do a calculation of what the density is allowed there, you know, it makes sense.

Even though there are larger sites, the majority of those other sites that are larger are under the floodplain.

So to have, you know, and so there would be the building would be compressed into this area that's above the floodplain, and would you would essentially get uh, you know, you would have the majority of the site be kind of under the under the waterline, it would be unbuilt, it would have to remain um, you know, kind of unimproved and and resilient or or with resilient green infrastructure and the heights are being lowered in those areas, so we would further limit what they can do there.

So just from a visual perspective, I just wanted to point out that what we're really proposing is to you know maintain the density of the Davenport net.

We do not want to infringe on the character of the neighbors that live there.

We're really we think that this is a tweak that could accommodate a business that is, you know, we've heard from the owner of the business himself.

He's looking to get out of it, his family's not interested in continuing it.

If we don't, it you know, the concern is it will be sold to a operator that we don't know.

And with that comes a lot of uncertainty and potential risk.

So we what I would propose that we talk about is you know, adopt, you know, we could we could we could propose to you a zoning that would allow the density to largely to remain the same, materially similar overall, um, and uh allow for the project to move forward that was requested via the petition in May.

Um and you know, on here, this you know, once again, it does not materially increase the residential build-out.

If if the surf club were to build housing, I think argument could be made that there would be then less competition for the remaining beach clubs and would be better for them and actually be an incentive.

That plus the fees we're charging would be an incentive for them to remain in operation.

We do not in any way, we're not trying to uh put any pressure on any of these businesses that we love commercial in in the Department of Development.

I know you all are advocate very vigorously for us to ensure that the business community remains healthy and safe in New Rochelle, and I'm open to hearing, I've I've met with the owners of the of the of the beach clubs.

We are provide we will provide resources, we provide support, whatever is necessary.

Um so I I just want to make that clear that this is not a framework to uh in any way uh incentivize or catalyze or in any way the redevelopment of these sites.

It's a it's a it's a responsible, proactive look to deal with a segment of our city that is facing chant challenges, similar challenges than we've seen in other parts of our city, and the outcomes have been bad, or at least have been difficult to recover from downtown primarily among them.

Sorry, is there one more?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

If this was acceptable to council, we could introduce this at a subsequent meeting.

Uh, for instance, if we did it in July, we would do a zone, we would introduce the specific zoning, we declare lead agency, we would set a public hearing at the uh that would go you know, either in the two meeting combination at our cow and RLM, and then we would have the public hearing.

If we did it in July, it would be in September.

Um, and then in September, the RLM you would vote to adopt the call hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Questions or comments from my colleagues.

Oh, not from the journey.

Okay.

Okay, number one.

Um first of all, I'm happy to see a map because it's been three meetings with no understanding about the amount of units in each of every one of these parcels.

Um, but what stands out number one is that you know, gives you some statistics about uh existing virtues versus what they would be able to build with the uh the new zoning change.

The question number one is it doesn't show the acreage on each and every one of these uh parcels.

Um you know, it's nice to know how big each parcel is to be able to understand you know how many how you come to the number of units, number one, number two, um it doesn't really show us the floodplains uh here so that you can understand where you can and cannot build if you're claiming that you can't build first of all, you can build in a floodplain.

Yeah, and zoning is not going to be.

Yeah, but no, but I'm just saying you can build in a floodplain.

But we don't know the point is that point was built in a floodplain.

Uh so that that doesn't stop one of the things I'm getting at is that doesn't stop a zoning change from happening here, and then the next developer comes in and wants to develop the VIP club, and he comes in and says, you know what, uh, I can only put 70, but I want 150, so I want to build in the floodplain, so we need to do a zoning change to accommodate that.

Because basically what's happening is when this developed when this zoning was developed a number of years ago that allowed Beckwood to become Watermore Point, the zoning was created, and it's ironic in a way because the zoning was worked on by the same attorneys that are now trying to operate and help change the zoning here to accommodate their new client.

Uh, and you know, that's what they do.

I understand that, but my concern is what happens down the road if this was approved, what happens down the road uh if the VIP club comes forward and says I need 150 units and I want to build in the floodplain, you'll build up more units down there.

The other thing that's that that uh is a concern is that all of the other clubs, there's no increase from existing to proposed.

And the one club is able to go up by a pretty large amount uh from 20 to 60.

Uh and the question is, you know, how does that happen?

And the reason why I think part of it is because they can't build in a floodplain and they don't have a floodplain.

That's part of it.

So the way that your existing zoning works, there are currently two scenarios, and it's they're a little bit complicated.

Um, I think once you have the zoning in front of you, that I think will explain some of these issues.

But your current zoning currently allows one set of regulations for structures located in the portion of a lot within 150 feet of either an adjacent single family zoning district or a lot line containing a single family home, public park or public road.

So there's that set of standards.

Then there is a second set for and then the height limits in that district and in those areas, those buffer areas is limited to 35 feet and two stories.

That's not changing.

Um we're not proposing to change that.

The second is for structures located in the portion of the lot, not within that 150 feet.

For those for that portion, you can currently go up to 60 feet, five stories, again, not changing, or we're not proposing to change that.

And so we've just what we've done as we've in each of those first two, we've added some additional requirements that because most of the land area, and when you get the environmental review documents, it has a floodplain map, so you can clearly see those areas, but it is the majority of those other clubs and those other lots, and so you have to be you can still build, but you have to be elevated outside of the floodplain, and that really does then limit the FAR that they are allowed.

We are also tightening up.

I think that these estimates are overly generous for what's what will be allowed in the future because I think depending on where you are, the portions of the lot that have are most outside of the floodplain are the portions that are limited to 35 feet.

So you may only get one story.

Uh you know, if you have an elevated, you have a ground floor parking area that can flood, and then one story above.

So I think that the these those numbers are a bit conservative.

Well, didn't they build in the flood zone on um Bedwood Point and they were higher than one story?

They did, um, because they didn't meet some of the they were outside of that 150.

Somebody can come in and ask for the zoning change to eventually.

But that would be up to you to make it.

Again, I'm not uh um first of all.

I think that what's most important that I would suggest it, uh, and you know you were both at the meeting.

Uh there were 225 people, 220 people opposed what the zoning chain was, but in fairness, they didn't see anything.

So is there going to be a meeting that the public can be presented with this and then explained what's going on?

Because I think that we had three meetings, but we really didn't get anywhere with them because we really didn't have the meat and potatoes of what was going to happen happen.

Everybody was focused on one club as opposed to the big picture.

So is there unless city manager, is there the possibility of having a meeting where the public can come and it'll be important.

We introduced the atom be part of the public hearing process anyway, so we can start that, and we have a time in between a significant amount of time in between.

The officials started the public hearing to have another public.

You know, you had three public.

I mean, honestly, the public meetings were actually turned into a waste of time because at each and every one of the public meetings, nobody saw anything.

Yeah, I I would say that.

I mean, it was a lot of the poorest one of the poorest presentations I've seen in 19 years.

But I think a lot of what's in this proposed zoning, a lot of that input has been incorporated into this proposed zone, and that was important to hear.

I think it personally I think it was important to go through that process or to hear about the concerns, the infrastructure concerns, the the flooding concerns, and so forth.

So I I I maybe the clarity as far as density wasn't there, but I think a lot of input that we had gotten from those meetings has gone into this proposed zoning.

So yes, I think there's a period of time where we could present this particular um issue here with the with the density, right?

But I think a lot uh a lot of knowledge was gained from those public meetings that has been incorporated into this proposal.

Okay.

What I will do is to to resolve that problem, I will print up 600 copies of this and put them door to door in the neighborhoods like I did with the others, so that people then will have an opportunity to see it in person.

And if they have comments, maybe we can put something on there if there's via contact for them, and we'll do it that way then.

Sure, correct.

Okay.

So just so that you know, just want to cover all bases so the public really has a full understanding about you know what we're doing because this really shows more to the public than they've seen in three meetings.

And Councilman Tarantino, just to finish the point on the three scenario.

So the third scenario that applies to the surf club is tailored to that site because it is largely out of the floodplain, and in exchange for that density, the increase that they're getting there, they are also going to be held to a lower height, but then also a requirement of 45% open space.

The current zoning only allows or requires 20%, so it is a significant um increase of that.

On that particular parcel, and you know, there's there's single family homes that you know budget on on one side.

Um right now they have parking lot, which is not the greatest uh look behind your home.

But is there anything that in the in the zoning is created that creates a view corridor there for those homes there?

Because those homes right now, in a lot of cases, don't have uh really obstructive border views because the building is there, but if you created a corridor, and it doesn't need much to create that on that we are requiring a setback of 150 feet from a lot line with a single family home of that significant.

No, but they can't, but can they what can they put up in that area?

I'm just thinking of trees or or a pool structure with a roof on it.

The only thing that's allowed is a I believe a portico, portico share uh five percent.

But that would be it could be an accessory structure too, but that would be a good thing.

You know what I'm saying?

There was a plan that showed um a structure that basically blocked the view uh toward the water, but there's like eight or nine houses that are in that row there, and the ones across the street that could possibly, and again, I haven't done any and figure that out, you would have to have somebody look at that, but you know, it's a uh it's almost like a uh a trade-off, you know.

You're building to get a water view that you never would have had.

Uh so something just to consider um yes, um, just want to gently alert that it's 611.

Um, and there are 22 other items, including an executive session and a public comment at 7.

Just want to frame where we are timing wise, counselor.

Um thank you for getting ahead of decline.

Um I'm dealing with a district for the H A and E future store that no longer exists, and it's been a vacant building for well over a decade, if not two.

Um structure parking will eliminate some of the street queuing that's been an issue at all of the clubs, so that would be excellent as well.

And it avoids doing spot zoning, just going to one property and making the change, but actually impacting and affecting the area.

So you talked about the revenue that this would generate for infrastructure.

Um, and you talked about having conversations with the school district.

So would this revenue be able to contribute just to be specific to the traffic you know, making changes on church street to the traffic that's been that's there every morning and afternoon?

Similar to the fair share mitigation money, like that type of fee.

Um those improvements could be made.

And we we have a under we have a codify that in a zoning so to allow the flexibility to deploy those funds.

Okay.

So we so we so we understand like this type of fee would help us contribute to the relative cost of whatever it would be there that we need to do as far as track of I mean I I cuts and things like that.

Forgive me if I was not clear, but that is certainly an intent and what will be one of the primary ways that money will be used.

Okay.

Um and have you had any conversation with the uh group save the sound because they're also very concerned about the environmental impact they the of the entire waterfront, not just this zoning.

We have not as part of this, but we can't believe they've been at one more of the meeting.

Okay, yeah.

Um the ten thousand dollar fee that exists now, um that is a waterfront access fee, correct.

So in theory, if they then pay that fee, we would get back our waterfront itself, right?

They would have a requirement to build public access to the T or in that same like shared space requirement of the others on rezoning.

Okay.

Yes.

I I think you mean DO7.

Just as far as so I'm just looking at just like we're looking at public spaces in other places.

I know that a lot of these clubs are adjacent to like Divenport Park.

So would we be able to, in theory, I mean, look at what that fee is, potentially increasing that fee so that we have a shot at getting our waterfront back for maybe a boardwalk or something like that.

I mean, I I mean it is yes.

I mean anything's possible.

We would want to study the feasibility, and I would make a recommendation one way or the other, but certainly in theory, anything's possible.

Okay.

That was looked at um a number of years ago.

But creating because theoretically or legally, I guess it's the if you come in by vote and you go on the beach at Surf Club or Green Treaty or any of the others, you have as much right on that on that beach as club members.

Um so there was a thought that was put into place that they were going to create some sort of walkway or boardwalk type of thing.

But uh the cost was extremely high, and the chances of damage from nor'easters and hurricanes uh would make it extremely expensive to build, so it never got built.

And a fee like that would cover the cost of having something reinforced.

I live next to Hudson Park, and it's been gorgeous for years now since the last time it was absolutely destroyed and rebuilt.

So something like this would contribute to building that in a sustainable way.

You could be directly any of the properties public property.

We generate 720,000 from uh watermark point, and part of that money was used uh for the moving of the um children's greenhouse, the original old old greenhouse to the new greenhouse.

Uh also with money from the insurance from the fire, we were able to then do wildcliffs.

So part of that money was used to upgrade uh some of the things in in Hudson Park.

I could be still and you said it lowers height as well because the news only would lower height only it only lowers the height.

We didn't want to sort of take away a lot of the property rights that exist, but for the surf club property, because they are getting more density, we are lowering their height.

We're capping them at 54 feet four stories instead of 68, 50 five stories.

Which is similar to what's currently they're allowed 60 feet.

Profiles it's similar to the making sure nothing would be lost.

Alright, that's it.

Other questions or comments on item number four?

Hearing none, thank you so much.

Although I think you're up.

Well, no.

No, I'm not up to item 20.

All right.

Item five is um subject to the June 9th.

It's subject to a public hearing this evening.

It's related to the zoning code related to occupational schools.

We discussed this at last month's meeting.

Um, I'm advised language was added to the definition of occupational school as voted on in the make how.

Any questions or comments on five, which is subject to a public hearing?

Okay.

Moving on to he said no, no, wait, he said to wait.

So item number six um is a proposed resolution of commissioner uh regarding federal emergency management agency FEMA flood mitigation assistance program.

Commissioner, please.

Good evening, thank you.

Deciding E seeking authorization to pursue a grant that um we we I mean we see as an opportunity to fund a future drainage model that we would like to implement out of the flood mitigation program.

Um deadline is June 18th.

So um with your authorization, we'll be able to uh prepare the application as a time.

Questions or comments on item number six?

Councilwoman K.

Is this the computer modeling you were mentioned in a previous presentation?

Yes, but to be clear, the DC the planning ahead for a second model the first model we're currently working on an RFT, and we're hoping we will be buying that one out of the mitigation funding we have currently questions or comments on item six.

May I have a motion and a second to move item six to our consent agenda, please?

K and option loyal.

All in favor say aye.

Okay.

Any opposed.

Um teen is not at the table at the moment.

Just noting that.

Um, item number seven is a proposed resolution regarding the New York State Department of State Clean Water, Clean Air, Green Jobs, Environmental Bond Act of 2022 for coastal rehabilitation and resilience projects program commissioner.

Thank you.

Uh see similarly DCSA grant opportunities and may help us offset some of the cost uh for the defense and brook improvements that's at the the trainer um value road intersection.

So with your authorization, we'll be able to pursue these grants.

Excellent.

Questions or comments on item number seven.

Just Councilman K.

Motion and a second to move item number seven to our consent agenda, please.

Lopez and Kay, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed, just noting Councilman Tarantino's not at the table.

Moving on to item number eight, proposed application regarding Westchester County Stormwater Management Program BPL 26.

It's a resolution authorizing submission of a grant application.

Commissioner.

Thank you.

We had previously secured authorization from you to pursue a breaks grant for the same project.

This would be a second line of defense in case that first break grant uh falls through.

Um, you know, we're seeking is a 5050 split uh on the court estimate that we're handling with five million dollars.

Um so with your authorization, we'll be able to pursue these grants as well.

Excellent questions or comments on item number eight.

Councilman Ashelay.

I just note that it says that it's focusing on the Pelham Road and Whitewood Avenue area.

So Councilman Tarantino is not at the table on behalf of Southside.

I'm very grateful for that.

Other questions or comments on item number eight.

A motion and a second, please to move eight to the consent agenda.

Stern and K.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Uh just noting again, Councilman Tarantino's on at the table.

Item number nine is a proposed amendment to chapter 312 of the code of the city of New Rochelle.

Um school speed zone on Lincoln Avenue.

Commissioner.

Uh, this item was sponsored by Councilmember Peters.

Uh, we completed a speed study in the Blinkel corridor um uh area.

Um, and uh what these will allow us to do is to uh designate these uh the the section between 71 Lincoln and Dewey Place as a speed zone um corridor that will uh effectively reduce the allowed speed limit from 30 miles an hour to 20 miles an hour uh during school days from between 7 a.m.

and 6 p.m.

Excellent.

Councilman Peters, anything you'd like to add?

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions and comments.

Any other questions or comments on item number nine?

Councilman Ashan Loye.

Thank you, Councilman Peters.

Um any other questions or comments on item number nine.

Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second moving nine to the consent agenda?

That'll be Peters and Kay.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item number 10, which is a proposed amendment to chapter 312 of the code of the city of New Rushell regarding a loading zone on Huguenot Street in front of Columbus Avenue.

I believe this is directly across from Casaroma and Vanda Art Gallery.

Commissioner.

That is correct.

And uh this is in response to uh uh Gerald's you know request from the public uh with these um we would be able to reduce the loading area uh from um 200 inner feet that currently exists to 70 linear feet, which would then you know allow us to uh free up the corpse the corpse space uh by about 130 feet, which is six to seven vehicles for parking in that section.

Wow Councilwoman Lopez, sorry, it's her district so thank you, thank you very much because it's very much needed.

So councilman Stern.

I mean, I'm sure there's more to this than I heard, but I happen to be with Commissioner Salgado when he was talking with the resident asking for help in this area, and he promised to do something right away, and we're seeing it so props to Commissioner Flaggato.

Yes, thank you.

Compliment Ashanoy.

Just want to give a note to our city manager as well, because he and I had a meeting at Casa Roma talking about this issue, and we both had issues filing parking at that moment.

Yes, and the entire strip was a loading zone.

Everyone is very happy.

Yes, we're very happy.

Okay, with the gratitude of thanks.

May I have a motion and a second to move 10 to our consent decision to please Lopez and K.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item 11.

Thank you, Commissioner.

That was good.

That was very efficient.

Um state office of parks, rectoric preservation.

Commissioner.

Yeah, um this one would be a home run.

I I want to thank uh Nick Sufis in uh development for coming across this one and finding it.

And it would only be a 20% match.

And if we could ever land a half a million dollars to this, uh I could easily find you know, a way to propose 130,000 dollar match for our capital budget moving forward and be creative.

Um five islands is one of our oldest place structures areas, but it also uh we would it also entails ADA.

Um it entails benches and picnic area, like this.

This would be a home run if we could get this grant.

That's great.

And by the way, if I could get a vote tonight, the the deadlines in like a week for us to submit it, go for it.

Uh any questions or comments from my colleagues on item number 11.

Okay.

Um hearing none, may I have a motion and a second to adopt the resolutions apply for this grant.

Jesse Tarantino and I see Ashon Loyer.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

So this is ought to be adopted.

Very much.

Yeah.

Item number 12 is a proposed acceptance of a grant from the Junior League of Westchester on the sound in the amount of two thousand dollars to support activities of the Youth Bureau's mommy and me program.

Hello.

Anything you'd like to add.

Um they've funded us, and this has become a brand new uh component for us.

It's building up a lot of esteem.

And I think next week we do a daddy meeting for Father's Day.

Very sweet.

Questions or comments on item 12.

Hearing none, I have a motion and a second to move 12 to our consent agenda.

Um I saw Peters and Kay.

All in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed.

Moving up to item number 13, and um proposed acceptance of a sexual risk avoidance education program grants.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh this money is used to help um support our summit youth employment program.

Um it has everything to do with if you keep kids engaged in positive activities such as employment after school, teach them financial literacy.

They will not engage in risky behavior.

Um, this is the sixth year that we've gotten this grant, and so we're accepting it again.

Excellent.

Questions or comments on 13.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have a motion and the second moving 13 to the consent agenda loop has in K.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Item number 14.

Uh, let me see.

Our police commissioner coming to the table is a proposed acceptance of donation from the New Rochelle Police Foundation regarding equipment and training.

Yes, this is uh one of the things that the police foundation does for us.

We're very happy to have their support and very lucky because they help us with training such as uh professional development.

It's one of the things that we're getting this year is for our um for helping with hemorrhaging like a dummy, I guess you will.

So it helps us give us some some good real look, more realistic can do.

We certainly don't want to cut each other and use the term.

So it's it's one of those things that helps us a lot.

We really appreciate the foundation for helping us out with this.

Wonderful questions or comments on item number 14.

A motion and a second to move to our consent agenda, please.

I see Austin Louie and Stern.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

We are thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I am going to yield um pass this over to our city manager.

Yeah.

Sub a brief intermission.

Not don't get up, just a brief segue.

Just quickly before we head into this item, just as um a lot of people have heard.

Uh this is going to be uh Commissioner Sanders' last committee of the whole meeting.

Um as he is um scheduled to retire June 27th, and he has been a true asset to the city.

He's surely going to be missed.

Great co-worker, true friend.

And uh I want to take this opportunity now to also introduce Andy's successor, um Joseph Sinatra.

How are you doing?

Everybody, neurochell product.

Yes, okay, born in New Rochelle.

Uh Chief Sinatra graduated from New York Shell High School in 2000, attended Iona College before taking the fire department exam.

Um he's um initially signed a station one squad three after completing pro uh probation, he was transferred to station three squad three, where he served until his promotion to lieutenant in 2017.

He remained there as lieutenant until being promoted again to captain in May 20th May of 2020.

He served as a company commander at station four, squad four, and in November of 2025, he was again promoted to Deputy Chief Support Services.

In addition to his departmental service, he joined the command staff of the Westchester County Career Chiefs Fire Academy of Valhalla in 2021, became a Westchester County Fire Instructor in 2022, and was named director of the fire academy in 2023, a position that he currently still holds.

Um he's received a bunch of commendations.

Um there's a homeless today.

So and under the tutelage of of Andy, um, and who's been working really close with him in the last couple months, especially.

I think we're in good hands.

That's amazing.

So I'd like to say it's been really a truly an honor and a privilege to serve as the fire commissioner and chief for the city.

You all and the city of Nerchelle.

I know good things are coming.

And I know the department will be in good hands with Chief Sinatra.

It's a good reason to go.

Good successor.

Excellent.

Thank you so much, Chief.

Just get out of the way.

Nice to meet you.

I was going to put your title, but nice to meet you, Mr.

Sinatra.

We'll go with that for now.

So we'll get you, Chief.

Moving on to Bittersuite, but moving on to item number 15, which is a proposed resolution regarding the federal emergency management FEMA assistance to firefighters grant chief.

Okay.

So we have uh three grants uh all due on June 22nd, and we appreciate being put on the agenda for this.

Um we will get all these in.

Um first one's the assistance of firefighters grant, that's generally for equipment, and that will be for uh self-contained breathing apparatus for the packs that we wear on our back.

We've submitted twice for this grant unsuccessfully.

Um that hopefully will increase our chances.

Um we're working with Nick and Nick Sufis and with FEMA uh to put us in the best possible position for that grant.

Um there will be a 10% match involved with that, but it'll definitely be uh good thing uh for we're always needing equipment, replacement, that kind of thing upgrade.

So that'll be a good thing for that.

Uh the safer grant item 16 is for uh personnel.

Uh we currently are just finishing uh period of performance right now.

Uh in August, it'll expire uh for six firefighters.

Um the next Safer grant uh is uh not quite as generous as this one was.

Uh there the match will be a little more increased, it'll be 25% match for the first two years and uh 65% match for the third year, but still it's a very good thing, and will help us as we uh continue to increase, Mayor.

At your suggestion uh of another staffing study.

Um we're putting putting together an RFP for that right now and uh moving forward with that.

Uh so this will help us with that.

Um, and finally the fire prevention and safety grant item 17.

That's for uh fire uh fire prevention at events, things of that nature.

Um that's what we bought our smokehouse that we bring around to uh public uh safety events.

Um and also we're looking for more equipment with that, and also potentially to uh train some of our current members to become uh certified uh building inspectors as well, uh building safety inspectors.

And uh so that's about it.

Uh questions or comments on 15, 16 and or 17.

Okay.

Um I'll take them separately for vote, a motion and a second moving 15 to our consent agenda, please.

K and Peters, all in favor say aye, or any opposed.

A motion and a second for item number 16, please, to move to the consent agenda.

Um Lopez and Stern, all in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed.

Moving on to number 17, a motion and a second, uh moving 17 for the consent agenda.

Austin Louis and Kay, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Brilliant.

Thank you so much, Chief.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you, thank you, Chief.

Um Chiefs.

Now, do you pass a torch?

Because your fire jumped.

That was huge.

That was cute.

Um proposed amendment to the 2026 budget regarding the summer of soccer and the new Michelle Bid, City Manager.

Yes.

So this is part of our planned events for our FIFA World Cup that is starting very soon.

Uh, as you may know, we have one event scheduled for this Friday with Flowers Park, and uh that is the first USA game.

This particular initiative is for the last game, which is the finale that's gonna be on July 19th, uh, over in Ruby D Park.

Um we are leveraging uh our operator who operates the Summer Sizzle concert, who has a stage already, a screen set up there already.

He's he's he does that on Saturdays.

This particular game is on Sunday, so we've asked him if he would be able to operate that stage, that screen, and also provide an additional screen and provide some entertainment during the day to have a FIFA final cup watch uh event on that um on that particular day.

We've talked to the bid, partnering with the bid.

We feel like it's a great opportunity to or take advantage of bringing a really concentrated amount of people into the middle of downtown on a day that particularly they won't be there, so on a Sunday.

So and they've agreed to uh fund the costs for that operating of that stage, and we'll partner and we'll pick up the rest of the costs associated with that.

So we think it's a good opportunity for the city as well as the business improvement district to to kind of leverage that opportunity of having that amount of people concentrated for an event like this in the downtown.

So they've um agreed to pick up the costs for the operation of that uh particular equipment for that day of 17,000, and that's what uh this is uh be authorizing to accept that from the board.

Excellent.

Michael, at 6 35, are there any questions or comments on item number 18?

Which is why they say thank you, and actually the World Cup starts on Thursday at three o'clock, and I uh I'm asking the community to patronize all of the different restaurants where there would be you know uh televisions or you know, um to come and watch the game.

I will be at the little Mexican Cafe if anybody cares to know.

And uh please join us.

Any other questions or comments on 18?

May I have a motion and a second adopting number 18, please.

I mean, moving it to the consent agenda, number 18.

Um, Ashan Louis and Peters, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item number 19 again, city manager, a proposed amendment to chapter 312 of the code of the city of New York Shaw regarding commercial licensed vehicles, buses, oversized vehicles, and recreational vehicles and trailers.

Yeah.

So uh item that's sponsored by Councilman Tarantino.

Yeah, um, just really quick um proposed amendment is intended to establish clear forcible standards uh regarding the issues that Tarantino would talk about as far as definitely uh regarding uh parking of uh recreational vehicles on public property and uh preventing their long-term use.

The the code we took a look at the code to further define what oversized vehicles are, uh what recreational vehicles are and build them into those restrictions that are already exist into the code, and um this will enable us to enforce uh not having this long-term parking of a especially a recreational vehicles that we unfortunately we we're seeing it's an issue that even New York City is dealing with, um, but we see it starting to come here in a new shell, so we want to just be on top of it.

Excellent.

Yeah, and just to add to what uh city manager said is that we've over the last year and a half or so uh we've been getting complaints about um recreational vehicles, commercial vehicles, everything from you know 10 wheelers being parked on the streets to recreational vehicles with people living in them or just parking them on a street and leaving them there for for a week, week at a time, just moving up a couple of feet forward, a couple feet back.

So uh when we went to um address this, we found that uh the way our codes are that it made it very difficult for us to uh enforce any of the uh rules that we thought we had uh in place.

So this will correct those problems, and uh you know, one of the things I think it's important for us to do, and in fairness to people that have commercial vehicles, um we should really have some sort of maybe on our website or something where these park these uh vehicles can be parked because we always had uh areas in certain parking lots in the past.

I don't know if we still have that, but we used to allocate an area in uh some of the public parking lots that allowed uh these vehicles to park there, uh whether they're here for a short time or longer time.

So, you know, maybe we need to look at that also to, you know, because they're not gonna go away, they're gonna be around.

We need to uh tune that part out of other questions or comments on item number 19 motion and a second to move 19 to the consent agenda, Tarantino and Oshan Loyay.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Item number 20 is a proposed appointment of a new member to the civilian complete review board and a new chairperson.

Um we will discuss the chiperson during the executive session.

Um allegedly in 22 minutes.

Uh or well, whenever we done um, so it's a motion in a second.

Well, I think the suggestion might be at this point.

There's been um a suggestion to possibly have a co-chair.

Right.

So what I would suggest is maybe treating this as an introduction today.

Okay.

Um we're gonna be discussing the appointments in executive session.

We'll bring this back at RLM.

Okay, with um just a co-chair, and also if there is going to be a co-chair, we'll have to change the code.

That'll also come back at RLA.

Okay, so it's an introduction.

We're not any there's no formal action, so we'll discuss an exact session.

Thank you for the guidance corporation council.

Moving on to item number 21 and 22 are a pair.

21 is the introduction, 22 is setting the public hearing, and this is related to a proposed ordinance approving the 2026 C D BG and home annual action plan and budget amendments.

Commissioner.

Um I don't know.

I I I'll say as little or as much as you want me to say if it's not clear.

I figure since we are in the 10th meeting, I mean we could say we were notified by how that we got our C D BG and our home allocation.

The C D BG allocation is um decreasing by 2.3% or around $33,000, and the home allocation actually is increasing by 4.76, around 21,000.

We have done our best to you know reallocate those funds.

Um we had to obviously take up a little bit of a reduction in C D BG, and that does impact the those programs that are capped, like the public service programs and the economic development programs.

But we were um very mindful about um, you know, we some of the reductions are in uh the the parks and recreation, the the the senior programs and the um the pool, but we spoke to the park set park staff, they had some extra money lying around, so it's not going to impact their abilities deliver the services.

Great.

Other questions or comments on this item.

Well, this topic rather two items.

Okay.

May I have a motion to end a second designating the public hearing for July 14th, 2026?

Um Peters and Kay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you so much.

Um, item number 23 is a proposed amendment um two chapters 133 and 312 of the code of the city of New Reshall regarding parking fees and time limits.

So if you recall, uh, we had the presentation by NB5 on the city's parking management plan.

We identified kind of four lower hanging fruits, or the most easily implementable um recommendations that we can implement.

The first is uh demand-based street parking.

So we're creating that stadium parking pricing model that we talked about.

Demand-based price will have a uh, you know, it'll be it'll be uh more expensive in the core of the downtown around uh division street, and then we'll go out in sort of three tiers of parking.

Um and uh and and so that'll be implemented as part of this.

Uh the second, it eliminates uh the discount for paying for overtime.

If you get a ticket for parking and a time expired meter, currently you can pay half the value of the of the citation at the meter on the same day we're getting rid of that.

You can still pay at the meter, but you have to pay the cost of the citation.

You're not getting a discount for paying at the year.

Um and third, we're increasing uh the parking permit fees to uh by by around 20% to you know, kind of match the parking permit fees in the other in our other neighboring cities.

Uh ours are much lower compared.

And uh, you know, so we're making that recommendation.

Um, and then finally, there is uh updates to all of the fines associated with the uh you know enforcement of parking.

So double parking, the fees will the fines will go up over time at the meter.

So that schedule by each infraction is uh you know itemized in the um in the back end.

Okay.

Other questions, not other any questions or comments on item number 23.

Compliment.

We're just one thing.

Don't don't we usually do the student budget cycle or we do, but if we do it through the budget cycle, we will not uh adopt it in time to affect the 2027 permit renewals, which happened actually in December.

We start marketing those permits, and we wanted to do them now.

Okay, and the other question is we also want to do a fresh, well, they had the parking management background in your in your head.

Um the other question is is that you know, in areas of the downtown uh when we developed Davenport Laws, uh and when we started the DOZ ten years ago, you know, one of the big complaints uh by the um residents that lived in some of the older apartment buildings that uh surrounded the downtown um was concerned about parking, that they were gonna lose their parking, or they were gonna have limited parking uh or parking we might get much more expensive.

Um, we assured them in those days that we would try to control the parking as much as possible.

And in some number of those buildings, you know, the people have no choice but to park in a parking lot because there's now impossible to find a space on the street.

Um we looking at a program where we can help those residents that live in buildings that have no parking at all.

And I'm talking about like Clinton, um uh Bonifoy, uh Prospect, uh you know, those buildings have absolutely no parking at all, and some of them you know have to walk considerable distances, a lot of some of them are in you know, new rock and places like that, or they're in uh the prospect street lot if they can get lucky enough to get a spot.

A lot of some of them are in you know, New Rock and places like that, or they're in uh the prospect street lot if they can get lucky enough to get a spot.

Is there a program because we one time did uh give them a um sort of a uh a discount to they have a special rate for area resident parking um in all of the lots, it is lower than the regular permit rate, but it's still I mean overall the parking rates have not gone up in several years, and so um you know we are out of alignment with the market with the cost honestly of maintaining the parking function.

I mean so I mean I think what we're proposing here is something that is really critical for us to be able to ensure that the parking facilities are safe.

But I'm not talking about you know uh I'm fine with increasing rates on certain areas, but you know, I'm just concerned that a lot of those people and spoken to them over the years, uh a lot of them are on fixed incomes, and they you know they're being put in a very very tough spot for some of them because you know, as we keep on raising the rates and every year it'll go up and up and up, you know, get to a point where they'll have to choose between you know moving, getting rid of their automobile.

Uh so you know, uh I'm just asking if there's a way that we can look at something that they would have to verify that they're in those buildings that have to be.

We have that now that's required as part of a permit to to to get access to that special permit rate for an area rather than you have to prove that you are within uh quarter mile of the facility.

We also have an additional discount for seniors.

Uh so if you can make the if you provide the proof that you are a local resident, you already enjoy a much lower rate than the the permit.

They're not on here those lower rates, or they would be they're in the they're in the packet.

Where would they be?

Like if they're in the prospect street lot, the annual is nine eighteen, semi-annuals four eighty-five.

Um what would be the rate if you were seeing there and what kind of increase?

Because the increase here is like what's 20 percent 20 percent.

That's a substantial increase for one year, especially right now with costs the way they are.

Page 98.

So page 98.

If you look at uh new rock.

Well, you want to look at prospect?

Where do you want to look?

Yeah, so a prospect, but it you know, it just has a rate here.

Shows it's as a portion per hour area resident annual, right?

So that's union avenue below it.

Prospect Street basically between where it says prospect street, there's a portion per hour, that's the hourly cost right above.

Right.

25, it's going up to 150.

The area residents annual cost is going up to to uh 918.

Semi-annual 485.

Business commuter is uh 1140.

So here it is, area resident.

The annual would be 456.

Is that what I'm seeing here?

Um a little further down where it says prospect street to go down about six, seven lines.

897.

I think this we're recognizing that.

What is the is it because there's one is that is it's the two.

I know it's prospect what's this.

This is business commuter.

This is what's this?

This is area resident.

So let's go on to 918.

That is the price now.

And then what's this is overnight, overnight area residence.

So those are the rates for overnight annual and not strictly overnight, it's just it's a formatting assurance.

So you have two rate classes that park.

I'm sorry, okay.

You have two rate classes at parking.

So you have uh, I guess 24 hour.

Oh, yeah.

You have access to an area resident you can park all day and night.

Right.

That's 918, but we also have a peak class where if you just park in the evening hours, it's 456.

So if you take your car to work every day, you just park at night where you live, right?

Then you you pay less.

Okay, and then that would be for a senior that gets discounted.

The senior gets a 12 and a half percent discount off of those rates.

Okay, okay.

No, that because it doesn't show anything.

Because it's in the rules and regulations that a senior would get 12 and a half percent discount as long as they are 65 and over and own their vehicle and they would provide documentation for proof of both.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions or comments on item number 23?

A motion and a second to move to the consent agenda.

A roll call.

Madam Clerk, uh Councilman Tarantino would like a roll call vote on 23.

This is to move it to the consent agenda.

Councilmember Lopez.

And I want to say that you know I do uh thank you for making sure that seniors or people with the sub-domencies can get that you know.

Council Member Tarantino.

Um I'm gonna, you know, I like I said I support most of it, but I'm concerned about certain areas, and so um I'm gonna vote vote no.

Uh and uh again, I think that you know the amount that we're increasing it this year regardless of what other communities are doing, it's an it's a large increase on uh year by year basis.

So you know, I'm gonna say uh no.

Councilmember Peters.

No, I'm a little confused, but I'm gonna say yes.

Um and I also um spurned into saying yes even more because of the what you were just pointed out around seniors being able to have a reduced rate in addition to what is already there for that rate.

I think that's really important.

We don't want to overburden our seniors seriously, we don't want to be able to do that.

So if that if we if that's what we're voting for for those particular reasons, then my answer is yes, that's important.

Councilmember Austin Laye.

Uh I'm voting yes, and I do want to note that Prospect Street and Clinton are in my district, and I do have conversations with the those residents, they are concerned, but they're also concerned about the overall availability of street parking, period, because if they pay for a permit but they can't find the parking because someone's in one of the new buildings and not utilizing their parking, that's been the larger issue that's been of much concern.

Um so this is creating parity between us and those buildings.

I do want to in the future revisit the concept of us looking at how we're uh issuing permits to residents who have been in Nourishell for X amount of years, let's say 10 years or longer, um, something that we could substantiate through a lease or through a mortgage or through their property taxes, we're aware of who the homeowners are.

I would like us to look at how we could you know support legacy residents, um, and then create the parity that we need to that these parking fees are intended to do, create that space so that you know then we could then we can argue over parking.

But I do want to revisit what we're doing for legacy nourishal units.

Council member K.

Yes, Councilmember Stern?

Yes, Mayor Raymond Server.

Yes.

So we just voted to put it to the consent agenda.

Okay just wanted to clarify just you're gonna see it next week.

Um item number 24, and thank you, Rebecca, for your work and clarity.

Um is also for our commissioner development.

This is related to the presentation that the commissioner gave earlier, seems so long ago.

Um, item number three, it is a proposed issuance of a notice of completion under CRA regarding updates to the downtown overlay zone.

We we had a robust engagement.

Any lingering questions?

Motion and a second to move 24 to the consent agenda, please.

We'll call vote to the consent agenda, Madam Clerk on 24.

Councilmember Lopez, yes, but I want to say that you know, within my district, I very much support moderate and low-income housing because I see my seniors being evicted who are have been living in places there for more than 40 years, and now they are being asked to pay 2500 dollars in rent.

We have uh lateral family is also hardened.

The salaries are not very high, and so I really would love to see a portable housing, not the buildings that are not the rent that are that is being charged in you know in the buildings downtown, but real affordable housing.

Council member Tarantino.

Um I already said my case before I say no.

Councilmember Peters.

We're we're we're still gonna be available for additional comment on this, correct?

This is what we're voting for.

You're voting on the EIS on on determining that that the environmental review is complete.

This is not adoption of the zoning.

That is going to be in July.

Right.

Now, having said that, you know, I just had a long conversation about that around the implications for that and what I and what my what I expect and hope that we will continue to do.

Um, and so it is it is in that context, right?

As far as moving forward with this particular vote around that, um, but it's for those particular reasons.

So some of the reasons that came up that council person, um council member Tarantino was talking about around the assurance of that and wanting that to move forward in that particular way.

I'm also in that's a big part of what I was also saying.

So relative to that, I'm saying yes for the uh council member just council member askin lay.

Council member Aston Laye.

Yes, and just to be clear, we're only voting to accept the completion of the environmental review study.

That's it.

If you want to be technical, we're voting to move to the consensus study.

Oh, yeah, we're saying I'm just trying to because you're gonna see it next week.

I just need us.

It's gonna be groundhogs day next week.

Okay, but we're still open the conversation about amendments and things.

Just not the environmental review.

That's closed.

Amendments too.

If we were able to make any if we were to discuss any further changes.

Well, the amendments could only be could not be material, could not impact the environmental.

So we okay, no, okay.

Yes, still, yes.

Otherwise, Councilmember Kay.

Yes.

Councilmember Stern.

Yes.

Mayor Ray Mill Server.

Yes, and I just want to repeat, we have just voted roll call to moves to the consent agenda.

You'll see this next week.

Um, the city manager has asked for I know we have a discussion item 25, but the city manager has asked for um we're gonna call back go ahead, super quick while we still convene here, uh, and we have everybody here just to close the move on the initial uh question that was brought up with the audit and the uh the offer uh effect on the unassigned fund balance.

We just got a quick statement from finance so that everybody's still here so we could we could uh address that issue, that question.

Thank you.

Um I just want to provide some clarity, make sure that everything I said was made sense.

I also know we set up I would look at a couple of the ARPA things, so I did work a lot of meeting, I took a look through the files and everything to make sure that I had correct numbers, so I do want to make a couple of revisions just so it's clear to the entire board.

So the 2025 amount of ARPA money that was expended was six million dollars.

That amount was all spent on capital projects.

That was moved to the capital projects fund that so we use that for one-time expenditures.

At the end of this at December 31st, 2025, there's 1.8 million dollars of that grant left.

So 1.8 million dollars will be spent in 26 on that.

And the other reason I did want to come back, um, I believe there was a question that I misinterpreted earlier, so I wanted to just give a little bit of uh clarification on that.

There is a question that will this create the fun mails to come back down in subsequent years.

If this was used for operating expenses, say we were using ARPA for six million dollars of ongoing payroll, and we still would have that six million dollar dollars, but we don't have that funding source.

That would be a completely different circumstance of what how the city of New Rochelle is operating.

What newer shell is doing is using it for one-time capital projects, and because of that, the money is being used there, so that is not an ongoing budgetary item.

So the fund balance is correct as is and will not come down because of that.

So we have like 23 million.

3397 the number 23, 23 million.

33 point nine million.

So that's not coming down.

That's not a good thing.

That's what I thought.

Sorry, because there's two voices over you.

Say the number.

33.9 million.

That is the number.

Okay.

Not 20.

Okay.

Yes.

Because that's being used for one-time things, that is a solid number, it will say that.

Thank you.

So that's good.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you for letting me come back and fix that.

Um sorry I didn't have that number fell.

Luckily, you had plenty of time.

Yes, exactly.

Thanks.

That's incredible.

Okay.

Um C Manager's that that was the uh interrupt.

Okay.

So our last that you go please save yourselves honestly, um, while you can.

The 25th item is uh just calling out.

I know it's 658.

We will likely start the public hearing portion late.

Um I'm just saying that.

I not that I don't know who's hearing me who's next door, but just to identify the timing.

But Councilman Tarantino has a discussion item.

Why don't we hold it until next week?

You want to hold 25 to next week?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, they have to go.

No, because you're already, you know, this we'll take a little time.

You want to do it?

I'll I'll do it.

I don't care if we think it's I'm not hungry.

It's your discussion item, right?

I don't I didn't know what's had us here.

Sorry.

So the discussion item is related.

We'll still take a break.

We'll still take a break.

We'll have the exact we'll do this.

We'll have the exact session.

We will take a break and we'll start public comment um later than usual, but uh while everybody's here.

So um it's a discussion item regarding traffic concerns in the vicinity of Maine, Kings, uh Weyman and Nardosi.

Right, okay.

What has been going on is getting numerous complaints about um backup of traffic in the western part of of Main Street.

And also with the upper opening of a number of new businesses down in Nordosy Place that are geared toward you know you have a couple of operations that are geared toward uh drawing large crowds.

Um we're creating, we have a gridlock being developed uh at that corner.

Um years ago, you know, we had bonding in place, two point two and a half, approximately two and a half million dollars uh for the bottom of Kings Highway.

There was a piece of property uh which I think is in I think it's down in foreclosure or something, or we're owes us back taxes.

And we were supposed to be buying that property to open in the mouth of Kings Highway to create an additional zone that would allow the traffic coming down there that was going straight through to go in the one lane down that way, and the others would have more maneuverability to move to the other side if they've gone down to Nardosi or Wayman.

Uh unfortunately we you know pulled back that bonding and and uh use it elsewhere.

So we now are sitting in a situation where you know, I don't know if we have the bonding capacity to do something about it, but we need to take a good hard look at that corner because it's gotten progressively worse.

In fact, there were times during this year where the police were there to redirecting traffic around that entire uh corridor coming from uh up Weyman from Hellham Road, they were blocking traffic, you couldn't get into uh Home Depot, you couldn't get into Costco, you couldn't get up into that Nordozie Place area.

You couldn't even get to the diner.

The diner uh was shut basically shut down from getting traffic.

So it's you know gonna get progressively worse.

And now we're looking at the um link and what we're gonna do uh in that area, which can have impact on the next exit if people decide not to get off there, they're gonna get off at the next exit toward Pelham uh to get into downtown to try to bypass traffic over there.

So, you know, what is what is the what is the plan uh to create uh something there that'll allow traffic to flow in a more uniform way because right now on Kings Highway, traffic sometimes is backed up all the way to the traffic light up next to Holy Sepulchre Cemetery.

I mean, it's like a over well over a quarter of a mile back.

It happens quite often on weekends and at certain times of the day.

So, you know, I I think we need to look at it and advise the city manager, you know, to figure out how can we come up with some money to alleviate this problem because there are there are things that can be done short term and long term, uh, but we certainly need because that's such a busy that's is that one of our busiest intersections in Urshif.

Uh probably so I I you know I just want to you know be a little more proactive and figure out what we need to do so that we can then start to look for money either through grants or whatever to uh alleviate this problem.

Yes, we we're aware uh we've had meetings, we've been working closely with B D and we we do we we do look to take a hard look at this issue, and we came up with a short-term and a long-term solution.

Um the the short term is is a mixed bag, it's a repertoire of um uh improvements that uh are very promising as a short-term solution.

Uh those include um uh the you know the implementation of a no you know no turn on red sign, right?

As you're coming out of you know, Costco, uh going back to Wayman.

Um we also discuss the implementation of uh the lineators to avoid you know drivers cutting through home uh Home Depot and then also making a turn and jamming that intersection.

Um we you know they there's some these discussions ongoing with with God school as well.

Um PD has engaged with them.

There's discussions on uh the potential reconfiguration of their traffic patterns in their own parking lot that would possibly alleviate these issues in the short term.

Um another um improvement that we're looking into is possibly the striping the intersection as a you know not do not block the intersection, uh great blood striping um and um you know those we're looking to implement within the next few weeks.

In fact, we'll be in front of you all next uh next month to seek permission to install the signage.

Um the long-term solution is in the flavor of reconfiguring the timing of the new signals that we will be installed at that intersection of Wayman and Maine.

Um there was a study done, and and you know, we have our traffic directory is a wizard of traffic.

Um I'm just giving you a school the summary.

Um the the models showed that uh the fine-tuning of those uh signals would result in a significant uh reduction in queuing times.

Um basically this looked at three peak hours uh that they plays during the week in the morning and the afternoon, uh, and also uh meet day Saturdays, and this is all based on traffic counts.

And uh, you know, the the when I say significant is just to give you an example uh during the the Saturday peak time, uh these uh fine-tuning of the signals will reduce the queuing time by 74 percent.

Meaning, you know, the the there's a reduction of um you know, we're um uh you know, accordingly it's 150 seconds in the queue, it'd be less than half uh after we fine-tune.

Now the fine-tuning needs to happen, the new equipment that will be installed.

We're anticipating uh Q2 2027.

Um in the meantime, we're gonna try these measures that we discussed previously.

And and what about the problem with the crossover traffic that develops coming up because a lot of people instead of coming down Main Street or coming down from Pelham, they come through the back, they come through Kings Highway to try to avoid a lot of the traffic.

And what it does is that when you get the backup there, many cars are trying to get all the way, they're going from the far right to the far left, and they're crisscoursing.

And I don't know what the accident rate is there, but I've seen a lot of you know near misses uh with people trying to squeeze by each other, and regardless of whether the lights great green or not, the cars aren't moving because somebody's trying to go from here to two and a half thro three lanes over.

So, you know, how do you how do you fix that with just signalization?

It seems to be that you know, if we had that extra lane uh closer on Kings Highway where it's a wider mouth where it allowed uh the people that make the left on the Kings Highway have more room to make their left, and the traffic coming down Kings Highway had more room to make the right.

Uh and I and the reason I'm bringing this up is because I know uh the property uh you know, I I believe is owes us quite a bit of money in taxes, it might be the perfect opportunity for us uh to to take that property to uh and and it's you know for public use, so it's a valid reason to to take it, but you know, even if we're not gonna do this project tomorrow, at least make a an effort to figure out how to how to uh set us up ourselves up for the future because if the property gets sold again, uh you know, we're gonna go back and have to pay a lot more for it.

So I just think that there's an opportunity there right now for the city to take advantage.

I'd just like to say the uh the signal timing uh plan change that it doesn't require um taking any additional property, but it does address that movement from Kings Highway to Wayman by providing an overlap phase.

So it's just some minor modifications to the traffic signal and uh the roadway striping so I think that may address uh that I I don't see it.

I mean I go through that all the time, and I can tell you that when they come out now that it be a green light and the crisscrossing creates such havoc that cars are stuck sometimes, somebody's between two lanes, doesn't move, and everybody's backed up.

So, you know, I I I don't see that making it easier to get across with just signalization.

Uh I just see that you know, if you want to go straight, you could sometimes be stuck in between cars trying to go to making the left onto Wayman Avenue.

And what you're also running into is when the people are coming up Wayman and making the right on on US one and then trying to make the left onto Kings Highway because the opening is so narrow there, uh they start to curve the turn well before the the uh the turn, and what they do is they actually take up some of the lane from King's Highway coming down from the top of King's Highway.

So there's it's it's chaotic there, and I I I just don't see that signalization.

You know, you do it.

I like to see uh I hope you're right, but uh I just don't say I just wanted to I want to add something that actually you know the taxi companies are refusing to go and pick up people at Casco because I have been there and uh actually they came and they met with us with the city manager, and I you know uh because that's one of the issues that is very very difficult for them.

They spend a lot of time, they get stuck there, and then there's allegations that actually private people are acting as taxi companies and they are picking up people and saying, I'll take you, you pay me so much money, and I'll give you the right, and that you know there's chaos.

So uh I have been there just looking to see what can be done because it's really a miss.

Just on one other note, that area there probably is one of the largest sales tax generators in the entire city.

So we saw it in in the in the report that our sales tax went up by over a million, almost two million dollars.

Uh so you know, for us to do something to improve that corner, maybe it will increase our sales tax revenue or also.

Well, thank you very much for the proposed solution, short and long term discussion item.

We do have one item for executive session related to appointments as previously indicated.

Um we will then reconvene for a public comment.

Um we'll try to first have a little bit of a break between the two.

So we've been sitting for almost four hours.

Um a motion and a second to break to executive session.

Um Kay and Peters, all in favor, say aye.

Any opposed.

If you do not have any matters related to the exact session, see leader.

Yes.

I'm sorry, maybe we have a clarification on items 23 and 24.

I don't remember.

She wanted to know who did what?

I have to watch the meeting as soon as we're done, and I'll tell you.

I don't remember this time.

Maybe we can figure it out.

Yeah.

There you go.

Good evening, and welcome to the public comment portion of the June 2026 City Council meeting.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much.

Um good evening again, and welcome to our public comment portion of the meeting.

There are two parts to this meeting.

The first is related to uh public hearing, and comments for that portion need to be germane to the topic of the public hearing.

And once that is complete, we'll move to citizens to be heard, of which the topic can be of any topic of the speakers choosing.

For both, we ask for your name and your address um before you begin speaking on the record.

Um I just need to triple check with our clerk if we have any registered speakers for the public hearing.

Does that look like it?

All right, I will read the notice um just for formalities.

Um it's the New Rochelle uh New York Public Hearing Notice proposed amendment to chapter 331 of the zoning code regarding occupational schools, pursuant to 331 of the code of the city of New Rochelle, Section 239 M of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and sections 277.61 and 277.71 of the county administrative code.

Um, that today, Tuesday, June 9th at 7 in the council chamber at City Hall, there will be a public hearing related to the proposed amendment entitled Ordnance Amending Section 331-4, specific terms defined, and section 331-5-9, LI Light Industry District of Chapter 331 zoning of the code of the city of New Rochelle.

We do not have any registered speakers for this public hearing, so I will call this portion to a close and transition to no worries, Miss Mary Lee.

We I'm sure it's wonderful.

Nobody knows what is this?

The pup citizens to be heard.

No.

Um well it's it's it's out of order.

Uh Jim, is that you speaking?

Um, this was something we discussed at this meeting in last month's meeting.

It's related to defining the terms of what can be permitted in the light industry district if an occupational school was um opened.

It's in the minute, it's more thoroughly discussed in the May sit uh May Cal.

The citizens should be heard.

I'm gonna call you up in groups of three so that you know your speaking order.

Again, three minutes, and please provide your name and address.

Our first three speakers are Denise Monahan, followed by Kayandy Howard, followed by Jim Calorin.

Good evening, City Council.

Um my name is Denise Monahan, 558th Street, Neurochell, New York.

Uh, I want to say that I know up front that this is not a board of education meeting, but a city council citizens to be heard.

Um, a former parent, a current grandparent, and most importantly, a retired taxpayer.

I believe in NeuroShell High School.

That's why I'm here.

About 11 years ago, my daughter graduated from Neurochell High School.

She took about 32 to 34 credits with her to Villanova, saved my husband and I a ton of money.

This is a concern for me, and it should be a concern for every taxpayer or parent.

We need to get Neuro Shell High School pool up and running.

It's not a board of education problem, it's a city of Neurochell problem.

We have met with Mr.

Watkins more than once.

Okay.

He has explained it in detail to us and what needs to be done.

The city is not doing what they need to do, and the district is not gonna start the work and spend the money only for this to happen again.

So much talk of charter school, parents up in arms about charter school.

We don't want charter school.

Let's take our high school and put our best foot forward.

Pave planetarium, pool, great AP offerings.

I understand again that this is not Board of Education, but the ball's in your court.

Mr.

Melendez, the ball is in your court.

Okay.

Um I took pictures, I visited the bulkhead.

Um there needs to be some kind of retention pond.

I understand that there's uh work that's going to be um looked at and started in Chester Road and North Avenue.

That's not what needs to be done.

You have in-house machinery, you have in-house people that can fix this.

Get together with Mr.

Watkins, get the pool up and running.

You serve City Council, Mr.

Melendez, and City Council, you're up there because we voted for you.

Get the pool open.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kayandy Howard.

Say two more name, sorry.

Followed by Jim Clorin and then Catherine Wilkins.

Hi, my name is Kayandy Howard, 16 Rock Ridge Circle.

Uh, every year in the United States, an estimated 4,000 die from unintentional drowning.

That's an average of 11 drowning deaths per day.

There are twice as many people who experience non-fatal drownings at an average of 22 non-fatal drownings per day.

And drowning is the number one cause of death for children ages one through four.

It is also the third leading cause of death for children.

I know this isn't a pool meeting.

I know this isn't a high school meeting, but we're here because we know that we have to collaborate with the high school, with the school district of Neurochell, and the only people that can make it happen are the citizens and our council people.

It is very important that we're puts at the top of the list.

We've been told that things are in place and things are moving, and we all know, like, sure, if I want to renovate my house, I can do it over a couple years, but if I have a leak, we're gonna fix it right away.

If the roof is leaking, we're not gonna wait three years to fix it.

This is something that impacts our children.

It will save lives.

You can save lives.

I think it's confusing when we have tried to reach out to the city.

And so I talked to the older folk, and they said back in the day that the city manager used to have meetings monthly so people could address them and say, hey, this is what's going on in my neighborhood.

There's a speed bump that needs to happen.

I think I'd also offer that as a communication.

I think trying to reach not the councilman, because I want to shout out my councilman has been amazing.

He's very responsive.

The mayor's also been responsive.

And maybe you guys are too for yours, but I only know mine.

Matt Stern has been great.

Reaching the city manager should not be like trying to break into a jail.

And so I hope that from the past, they've suggested that you offer a moment of your time for people in different parts of New Rochelle to say, hey, this is what's going on.

And it doesn't always have to be an attack.

It just how can you know everything that's going on in the city?

You can't.

And so I'm here obviously talking about the pool, which is extremely important.

I have a daughter that swims there.

I have another daughter that is probably super happy that she doesn't have to swim, but I don't care.

I have a son that's coming up that needs to be there.

We have tons of children that can learn how to swim.

We have 10 children that can learn how to lifeguard.

So now they've got money coming in their pocket.

This is a life skill like reading and writing.

And I hope that you guys hear me and talk to whomever needs to push things forward, because again, you can renovate your house over five years, or you can say, Oh, sh it's leaking.

I gotta fix it right now.

And right now the high school is leaking, and you guys can take the time to do that now.

So please prioritize getting this going so that we don't have any of those children that become statistics.

And the stats that I just read were from Red Cross.

I didn't just make those up.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jim Calorin, followed by Katherine Wilkins and then Patty Macias.

Good evening, everybody.

And on this the 4th of July in a month, I ask God to take over New Rochelle and to bless us and for truth terrain so these halls and through our neighborhoods to be functioning again with real meetings and not backdoor meetings.

Amen.

You know, this is um first of all.

I'm I'm uh president of Sono Neuro, South of Neurochell neighborhood association, and we just had Goat Fest with 30 goats and 68 acres in the north north end.

I invite you to come down for Ratfest.

Um, which is uh uh if you ask anyone, they can show you where the rat holes are, and it's affecting the restaurants and people going downtown.

So we think it's a new innovation, and uh anyone want to help with rat fest, please let us know and bring some rat poisoning with you.

But really, that that is indicative of the lack of environmental caring about the things that are going on quickly that are uh running over people, ruining the environment of of our neighborhood uh and having an impact from shadowing light and no traffic study and having no green space.

So 68 acres in the north end, and we have no new grain space.

We have fake uh uh dog park next to Mr.

Capelli's parking garage.

And uh now down by my lawn is is the hardest place where people bring their dogs.

So as we as we go on to the 4th of July, and I also just heard the Board of Health may be leaving Neurochell.

I don't know if that's accurate, but please keep them.

Why White Plains was an economic engine, which I've asked you to move City Hall downtown too, is so that that those employees would be spending their money and just like bringing these employees into empty spaces downtown.

That would be an economic engine for the retail that is there.

Retail is not dead, cross county is doing retail uh and in co-op city all the time, uh ribbon cuttings, and we've had a lot of coffee ribbon cuttings, but retail is not dead, and that's a fallacy.

Enough is enough is nominated.

I nominated us myself to the University of Utah for next year's Ivory Award.

So we'll be sending press releases out about that, uh, like RXR nominated himself in the city for uh to the University of Utah.

Uh anyone getting interviews from the University of Utah about the Ivory Award about development in the so on our backs on the taxpayers' backs, we have been burdened time and time and time again, and and saying it's gonna happen, and so the DOZ, please stop that.

Each new building needs to be looked at in an environmental assessment and stopped, and neighbors in that neighborhood need to be included, be it Davenport or on Main Street or anywhere.

This is not the America that 250 years people put their line life on the line for.

And uh so please stop that and let's begin again.

You guys have the right and the decision to do that.

Our next speaker is Catherine Wilkins, followed by Patty Massias and then uh Tina Coleman.

Uh Kathy Wilkins, 37 Stevenson Boulevard.

Uh good evening, Madam Mayor, distinguished council members and fellow citizens.

I'll try to be brief.

I moved here 13 years ago with my sister and family into a two-family house.

I love New Rochelle.

It's a walkable city and has great activities.

However, during the first few months, the city sewer backed up into our entire basement.

The city came out to clean out their line, and we were able to get our plumber in a cleaning service.

We worked with the city to be reimbursed for those expenses, and they settled our claim.

Fast forward to this past March, same thing happened again, not the entire basement this time, but the front half.

Called the city, they came out again.

They came out around noon, left between 10 p.m.

and midnight, heard the workers saying how backed up the line was down the entire street.

Again, we filed a claim, and now the city's insurance company did denied the claim, stating that the city was not responsible.

Not responsible for the infrastructure.

Who is then?

The previous administration, the first company that installed the pipes.

I expect the city to be accountable and reimburse us for our costs of plumbing and cleaning.

And finally, like others here tonight, I have concerns about development in the city.

While I support the need for affordable housing, I question all of these high rises going up.

I wonder if they're at full occupancy.

More and bigger is not always better.

I would advocate for a moratorium on development.

Why are we building more instead of focusing on improving existing neighborhoods?

Using Pratt Landing as an example, the developer met with the community and we agreed to certain things.

However, developers then decide they want to change their plans, build higher, more units, that type of thing.

They pay into a community benefit fund in order to make the changes.

And why don't impacted communities have a say in how these funds could benefit their communities?

I would like to see more transparency regarding this fund.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is sorry.

Patty Macias and then Tina Coleman and then um Craig and Jennifer Monteleon.

Um good evening, uh, Mayor, members of the city council, and fellow neighbors.

Um, Patty Masias, 37 Stevenson Boulevard, Kathy's actually my sister.

Page against the machine has become a well-known slogan for holding systems accountable.

But its core truth belongs to all of us.

As Scranton mayor paige cognetis so powerfully stated, the government should work as hard as the people it serves.

Right now, for those of us leaving living in the Stevenson Park area, it feels like the city is sleeping on the job while we do all the heavy lifting.

We are paying our taxes, doing our part, and getting neglected in return.

Let's start with what's bubbling up under our streets.

On March 6th, my home at 37 Stevenson Boulevard suffered another city sewer backup.

It costs us some $3,000 in professional plumbing and biohazard cleanup just to make our home safe again.

This is the second time this has happened.

13 years ago after the first backup, the city committed to a routine sewer cleaning schedule on our street.

I recently spoke with the insurance adjuster who claims the city has records of maintaining these sewers every two months.

I have not seen a single crew out there, and frankly, the math doesn't add up.

How is it possible for a heavy catastrophic sludge to build up so significantly if the lines are being cleaned every eight weeks?

Businesses at the end of Stevenson Boulevard appear to be dumping waste directly into the street and into the sewer system.

We have provided photographic evidence and reported the stumping dumping in the past, yet the city's insurance denied our claim.

If the city is running through the motions of maintenance but refusing to hold these businesses accountable for what they are putting into our infrastructure, the system will keep failing.

If you walk down our street, the neglect is visible everywhere.

This past winter, like many before, I had to repeatedly call the city because the mini malls on Main Street at the end of our block do not shovel their sidewalks or put down salt, rendering them impassable and dangerous.

When garbage is left out overnight, it sometimes is unsecured and tears open, attracting vermin.

Moving further down the block, the trees recently planted along Stevenson Boulevard are all dead or all mostly dead, despite neighbors watering them.

And others broken by cars or left completely unaddressed.

And while Stevenson Park has seen a few minor upgrades, the former hockey rink remains completely unusable, dangerous, and an eyesore.

We watch our neighborhood decline while downtown receives all the attention.

I've asked in multiple public forums about the community development fund, the money developers pay when changing their building plans.

I've asked four simple questions.

How much is in it?

Who paid into it?

What is it being used for, and who makes those decisions?

A simple spreadsheet on a public website would be helpful.

I cannot attend every single meeting, but transparency shouldn't require a detective badge.

If those funds are fueling downtown concerts and activations, that's fine.

But the East End deserves investment too.

It's time for the city to work as hard as the residents of Stevenson Park.

Clean our sewers, hold businesses accountable, maintain our parks, and show us where the development money is going.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tina Coleman, followed by uh Greg and Jennifer Monteleon filled out one card, Beth Akasella, and Michael Micelli.

Please.

My name is Tina Coleman, and for 30 years I have resided at 21 Laurel Place, Neurochell.

As an Italian, I never want the word rat to ever be associated with my name or address, but now horrifying it is.

I have rats on my property.

I have rats under my shed.

I have rats under my garage.

I have rats now, even in my garage and in the walls.

I live with a paralyzing fear that, like my neighbor, they will get in my house.

I am terrified to let my dogs out in their own yard because some of the lethal methods being used around me to kill these rodents can also they can kill my dogs.

Because of this, I don't sleep, since this situation cannot leave the forefront of my mind.

Councilwoman Martha Lopez, Vlad from Development, Commissioner of Buildings Paul Vaca, along with Code Enforcement Officer Terrence English, are all where aware, all well aware of this overwhelming situation that is currently affecting seven homes and three businesses that back up along the right side of Laurel Place off Pintard Avenue.

Individually, we are all using our own money to combat this city's predicament, and for some it's in the thousands, with likely no reimbursement in sight.

In my opinion, as an animal health technician, at this point, to help aid in combating the infestation, the city of New Rochelle needs to invest and implement sterilization using an EPA, either liquid or sausage, solid sausage bait, as well as the RTD bins that are currently installed.

To my knowledge, there are only two RT bins, RTD bins on the city owned property located on the corner of Pintard and Maine.

Well, I have three RT bins on my property, and my neighbor has four, one of which is in her kitchen.

In studying up on the sterilization of rats, I have learned there is a product called Contra Pest Evolve, manufactured by Senus Tech, which broken down is a cotton seed oil glossy pole that has shown in studies to be very effective in the sterilization of rodents.

This is a non-lethal bait, as we are also finding dead squirrels, birds, and rats on our properties from those that are using something called a tracking powder, which is lethal to all animals, not just the intended.

Another fact I have learned is that two rats can produce over 15,000 additional rats in one year.

With this knowledge, common sense tells me you can't poison, drown, trap, or gas them fast enough.

Sterilization has to be a part of the effective solution.

To the mayor and council, I invite each of you to come to the south end of Neurochell and see for yourself the ghastlyness of the city-owned building on the corner of Maine and Pintard, which is a directly affecting the businesses of the Wise Insurance Agency, 680 Main Street, the Conico Gas Station, 690 Main Street, and then be sure to go around the corner and see what we as homeowners at 9, 15, 17, 21, and even to 33 Laurel Place are being forced to deal with on a daily basis.

Please hear us.

We are suffocating in the overwhelming endeavor to keep up with the snowball effect of the proliferating rats running wild.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speakers are Craig and Jennifer Monteleone.

Okay.

And then follow following uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Monteleone are Beth Akasella and then Michael Miselli and then Thatcher Woodley.

And if you want to bring the yellow, the white paper up, ma'am, to speak, you can just go behind him and give it to um our deputy city clerk.

Sir, sorry.

It's okay.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you very much.

I live at 15 Laurel Place.

My name is Craig Montaleone.

I've resided there for 36 years.

Lived in Nourishelle my entire 54-year life.

Love it.

I am talking about the same situation that Tina's talking about.

She hit it nail right on the head.

It's disgusting.

It's horrible.

I I she did it perfectly.

It's ridiculous.

Anyway, that being said, the problem is way before the rats.

662 Main Street, the Hagadorn building, the old library is a dump.

It's a mess back there.

There was homeless living back there, eating back there, sleeping back there, deprecating back there.

Everything is disgusting.

It is right in my backyard.

I have an 82-year-old father whose memory is not that great.

He's in the backyard.

He can't even enjoy it.

We can't sit out there at night because we're afraid of what's going to run up on us.

It's that bad.

I don't know what you I'm not telling you how to do your jobs, but I really don't understand why it just can't be cleaned up.

Start there.

You know.

Kick the people out.

Yesterday I had to call the police because there was something going on back there in my backyard that could hear banging, yelling, sounded like somebody was drunk.

Don't know if the cops ever came or not.

Whatever happened, it just stopped.

But we shouldn't have to worry about that.

You know, when you call, it just seems that they don't care.

And it's upsetting.

You know, it's you live in this city your whole life, and you don't want to leave for this reason.

And I just think it's ridiculous.

And now talking about the rats.

I hate to say that.

There's so many of them that they're just running free, taking taking over our neighborhood.

You know, and it's it's really upsetting.

I'm sure you can hear it in my voice.

It's really, really upsetting, and we just want you guys to do something about it.

Show some kind of progress.

I just start by cleaning up the property.

I and we have no idea what you guys have to plan to do with that building, but in the meantime, if you just come to my house, look right over my fence.

Garbage everywhere.

Pack um food containers, drinking containers, people hanging out, drinking, smoking.

You can't sleep at night sometimes.

It's it's terrible.

And we just want you guys to do something about it, and we hope that you can.

My other neighbors will probably tell you the same story.

Some of them have worse stories, some you know it's just terrible.

Just hope you guys can do something, and thank you for hearing me out.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Beth Akasella, followed by Michael Masselli, Thatcher Whidley, and then Alda Vushag.

Good evening, everybody.

Uh Beth Akassella, 72 Lisbonard Avenue, East End of Nourishell.

Residents are asking for transparency, accountability, and meaningful public input.

We want development decisions to balance growth with quality of life, neighborhood character, public safety, infrastructure capacity, and the interests of the people who already call Nourishell home.

We are tired of feeling ignored by a city council that seems more focused on growth and development than on the residents who are already live here.

Nerochell has always been a city with the feel of a town.

People chose to live here because of its neighborhoods, waterfront, community character, and quality of life.

Many residents feel that vision is being lost.

You're so hell-bent on focusing on pushing Nourishell into being a mini Manhattan.

No one here wants us to be a mini Manhattan.

Taken over by rats, taken over by rats, vagrants, congestion, parking issues, not to mention double parking issues, and crime.

You name it, we do not want it.

You are destroying our downtown by overdeveloping it with huge buildings, stripping our parking away, wanting to rezone our waterfront, and basically you're trying to take away simple things about Nourishell that we all have loved for years.

We are the bones of Nourishell.

Why are you following some New York City agenda?

Question.

And when will quality of life concerns be treated as seriously as developer proposals?

The question is no longer whether Nourishel is growing.

The question is whether anyone on this council is willing to recognize when growth comes to at comes at the expense of people who already live here.

Time and time again, residents have shown up, spoken out, and asked for common sense solutions.

We saw it with City Park, Flowers Field.

We have seen it with downtown development, waterfront rezoning, and countless other proposals.

Residents have come before you not to oppose progress, but to protect the character, quality of life, and neighborhoods that make Nourishel what it is.

Yet too often our concerns are minimized, dismissed, or treated as obstacles to a predetermined agenda.

When residents repeatedly tell you what they want, and you repeatedly refuse to listen, that's not leadership.

It's arrogance.

You may call it progress.

Many of us see the steady erosion of our very community we choose to live in.

We are not asking Nourishell to stand still.

We're asking you to use common sense.

Respect the people who live here and understand that growth without balance comes at a cost.

The people who live here pay taxes here, raise families here, and invest in the community should matter more than the interests of developers, consultants, and special interests.

Neurochale's future should be shaped by the people who call it home, not by a vision that residents never asked for.

We are not against progress.

We are against being ignored.

The residents are paying attention, and we will remember who listened and who didn't.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Maselli, followed by Thatcher Woodley, followed by Alda Vushag, and then James O'Toole.

Michael Muselli, 17 Laurel Place.

Good evening.

I live adjacent to the city owned property at 662 Main Street, formerly known as the Hagedorn property.

My family and neighbors have been dealing with serious rat infestation that independent pest control experts have traced to the city owned property at 662 Maine.

The infestation has cost us thousands of dollars in extermination fees, property damage, and ongoing rodent control measures.

It has become so severe we are now getting quotes on demolishing our detached garage because of the damage caused through the winter.

But my greatest concern is not money, it is the health and safety of my family.

My wife and I have two young children, ages three and four.

No parents should have to worry about rats burrowing through the property, contaminating areas where children play, or exposing their family and pets to rodents that have dozens of diseases.

One exterminator described the perimeter of the property as ideal rat conditions due to the accumulation of leaves, debris, and overgrowth.

Or can conducted an independent inspection and documented the following.

And I quote, significant exterior garbage accumulation and debris conditions were visible on the neighboring structure and are likely subst um supporting a substantial local rat population.

End quote.

While the lot size is larger than our three properties combined.

I was informed that requests for additional bait stations were met with budgetary concerns.

Respectfully, I don't want to hear about budgetary concerns when my family alone is spending over $700 a month on these traps.

And it's a problem that's traced to your property.

We are asking the city to remove remove accumulator leaves, debris, and overgrowth, deploy sufficient bait stations and rodent control measures, establish a long-term maintenance plan, and provide a timeline when these actions will be taken.

The city owns this property.

The city is responsible for this property.

My family and my neighbors should not have to bear the health concerns and financial costs associated with the city's failure to maintain it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Thatcher Woodley, followed by Alda Vushag and then James O'Toole and then Charmeen Wong.

Hello, thank you.

My name is Thatcher Woodley.

I live at 31 Park Avenue, uh, New Rochelle.

I have two uh two children who go to New Rochelle schools.

Um I'm here in support of the the pool people.

Um my full-time career is uh a quarters director at a K-12 school in New York City, and uh as a parent.

Um I support um everything the council can do and the city can do to reopen and restore a pool that is uh has a has had a longtime legacy in New Rochelle, um, and obviously uh has been closed for a number of years.

So thank you for the time, and uh that's my bit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alda Vushag, then James O'Toole, Charmeen Wong, and then Sean Wyowatsky.

Good evening, dearest city council.

My name is Al Devushai, and I live at Nine Laurel Place, Neurochell.

I live directly behind the Hagedorn building, as a lot of people are speaking about tonight.

I want to report the same disgusting rat infestation affecting my family's backyard that appears to be linked to the ongoing illegal occupancy of homeless people in that building.

The issue has been going on for quite a long time.

The property has accumulated trash, food waste, and debris, creating conditions that attract and sustain rodents.

You're welcome to come and take a peek right over our fence.

You'd be appalled and stunned with the amount of taxes you pay to even witness such a site right close to home.

The infestation has become a public health and safety concern for neighboring residents, as you've heard tonight, impacting our ability to safely use our yards and maintain our properties.

Rats are roaming our yards as we have gardens and vegetable produce that we like to grow.

We even have small children in our family that visit and play quite frequent frequently on that yard as well.

Lastly, it's extremely unsettling to hear strangers right behind your fence doing drugs, drinking, all sorts of physical activities, and have upsetting conversations.

It's an unsafe feeling to experience while sitting in your own backyard with family or hearing right outside your window while attempting to go to bed at night.

This is not the Neurochell that I grew up in, and we respectfully request that the city investigate the situation, address the illegal occupancy, as that's where the issue has started, and take appropriate measures to eliminate the rodent problem and prevent further deterioration of our areas.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Our next speaker is Jim Zoole, followed by Charmaine Wong, Sean Waiwatsky, and Gina Curry.

Good evening, James O'Toole, 230 North Avenue.

I know what you people are going through.

I live in a downtown of Neurochell after all this building.

I have rats everywhere.

All over Main Street, North Avenue.

I have films.

I can give you anything you want.

So I feel bad for you that you live on a residential street.

I live on a main roadway, and it's absolutely disgusting.

Now the city has implemented some plans that I must say are working.

They put these green boxes in the library parking lot.

And I don't know, there's some kind of chemical in them that kills them.

They run in and disintegrate.

So it helped out a lot.

I mean, I gotta say, I gotta give them credit for that where it is.

The other reason why I'm here tonight is that I heard you folks say back there, just a little while ago, that you're gonna raise the parking meter rates in the city of Neurochell.

Why isn't there no public hearing on this?

See, this is where you folks get it all wrong.

You know, you did the city park thing and you got the backlash of everything.

But now you're gonna we're gonna put this on the agenda next week.

I was at a bid meeting today, I found out about it.

I'm the residential member of the bid board.

And I was like, wait a minute.

You just got that parking study.

And now you're gonna raise the rates.

You want to raise and to Mrs.

Delgado, we I don't know where you shop or live, but those parking rates that you're putting out, is nowhere in Westchester County.

I work in White Plains.

We got a dollar twenty-five meter rate, the same what we have in Neurochell.

So, where are you getting the rates that you're saying or going or your study does it?

I don't know where that that came from.

But you gotta let the residents know we're gonna lose business in the downtown if you're gonna do this.

Who's nobody's going there right now because of rats and everything else?

And now you want to raise the rates without even letting us know.

Have a public hearing and let the folks know what's going to happen.

Instead of just shoving it down our throats.

It's not fair that you don't notify us on these agenda items.

Not everybody can sit there at 345 and watch you back there.

No, we have to work.

You know, I gotta put it out on Facebook.

I put it out, and everybody goes, Whoa, man, James, we didn't know anything about this.

It's crazy.

Come on, stop.

And one other note I just want to say.

There's a man that's in here tonight that I know many, many years, and he gave great service to the city of No Rochelle, and he's retiring.

He's a great guy.

That's the chief of the fire department, Andy Sandor.

Thank you, Andy, for all your service.

You're a great man, and congratulations to our new fire commissioner, and God bless you for your service.

Our next speaker, Charmaine Wong, followed by Sean Wayovatsky, Gina Curry, and then Leslie Gaskin.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council, and all the guests that are here.

My name is Charmaine Wong.

I live at the Davenport Loft at 25 LeRoy Place in New Rochelle.

I am also a parent of a child who graduated from New Rochelle High School last year, and my daughter will be entering the high school this year.

I'm here because of my deep concern and frustration regarding the prolonged closure of New Rochelle High School pool, which has remained out of service since Hurricane Ida of 2021.

My son, after spending a year and a half at Isaac in the pandemic, was looking forward to swimming at the high school.

That's where he first learned to swim in New Rochelle.

And he was looking forward to getting to be 15, getting his lifeguard certification, and hopefully a lifeguard job.

He's a lifeguard now, but it didn't happen at the high school.

So it it's it's a vital the pool is a vital resource for our community of students, as well as it provides important opportunities for physical education, recreation, and competitive swimming.

This extended closure has significantly impacted students, athletes, and parents who rely on the facility to teach their children how to swim.

Many of us had had to seek alternatives outside the city, like I did to get my son licensed as a lifeguard.

All right.

Thank you for the attention to this matter and for allowing me to speak to you this evening.

I look forward to seeing swift action to bring the pool back into the service to benefit the community of New Rochelle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Sean Wayowatsky, followed by Gina Curry, Leslie Gaskin, and then Lisa Burton.

Good evening, City Council.

Uh, my name is Sean Wayowatsky.

I live at 25 Leroy Place.

I'm here to speak about the downtown development or DOZ amendment.

Yeah, I wasn't expecting a miracle after the public comment period and all the comments that were uh submitted either via voice or via letter, but I was disappointed that there weren't more substantive changes to the amendment.

The biggest disappointment to me was that the allowable residential units are still being increased by 2800 units.

To put that into scale, that's a 27% increase versus 2020 the 2024 amendment and 50 percent more units than what's already been built.

The DOZ already has several thousand units of capacity.

So as was asked during today's council meeting, what's the rush?

Or to use one of my favorite question, what's the why?

I haven't heard a good reason, but all that's okay.

The amendment was created by the city staff and the development department.

You're you're our elected representatives.

You're the lead agency on this amendment.

So when you vote next week, think about the 2800 unit expansion and the compound impacts that'll have that that that density will cause, and ask yourself what's the why.

Thank you.

Good evening, Gina Curry, 24 The Boulevard.

First and foremost, I would like to commend the following people and different departments with the New Rochelle that always go above and beyond to get the job done.

That would be the deputy city manager, the city clerk, the assessment department, buildings department, and streets and highways.

Secondly, it may seem innocuous, you know, compared to the rat issue, which is truly scary.

Um, but New Rochelle has a snow emergency street list that it has an error on it and has not been corrected in decades.

The boulevard is not a snow emergency route.

The boulevard east is between Skyler and Rockland Place.

That's the snow route.

So when streets of New Rochelle are not being plowed, the boulevard, my 100-foot-wide dead-end street, has sanitation trucks, has independent contractors coming up and down the street every single hour, plowing the street.

And there are people in New Rochelle who do not have any snow removal.

Okay.

Um I've written a letter to Public Works.

I've copied the deputy city manager, the city manager, the city clerk, my city council person.

I've spoken to them, and all I got was, oh, thank you.

We didn't know about this.

This last winter was really bad, and I don't want this to happen ever again to anyone else.

So if you can just easily just correct the sheet and just put in the word east, because it reads the boulevard between Skylar and Rockland.

It's not, it's the Boulevard East.

The Boulevard does not interpose over those two.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Maybe something will get done.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leslie Gaskin, followed by Lisa Burton, Brian Black, and then Camilly Bellhill.

Good evening.

I'm Leslie Gaskin.

I live on Lincoln Avenue.

And I would like to read into the record an article that appeared at Newark News.org just this very morning.

In a document that appeared quietly in a corner of the official Neurochell website sometime in the past few days.

At the hearing before the city council on April 14th, which was legally required to receive community input on a proposed revision of the city's development plan.

Dozens of community members criticize the plan's failure to mandate the hiring of local union members, expand access to affordable housing, and address growing concerns about the quality of life in the city's downtown area.

Community members also highlighted elements of the plan structure which they said limit public involvement and favor the interests of developers over those of the city residents.

Most of these concerns are flatly dismissed in the city's responses with language such as beyond the scope of the current process or not contemplated in the proposed action.

Developed commission development commissioner Adam Salgado told New Roar News in May that the city would prepare written responses to the concerns raised by the community, and that those responses would be reviewed and discussed by the city council and posted on the city's website sometime in June as required by state law.

The city does not appear to have announced publicly that the review was completed.

But on June 5th, during a routine review of the agenda for the upcoming June 9th City Council meeting, Newark News discovered that the document had been attached to the agenda as a meeting file and was scheduled for discussion by the council as the 24th item on its agenda.

The document does not appear to be posted elsewhere on the city's website.

The 152-page document contains item by item responses to hundreds of concerns expressed to the council in writing or at the public hearing.

It was prepared by four named consulting firms, presumably at taxpayer expense.

The city staff has recommended that the council accept the final report.

It says it will take time to conduct through analysis and response to this long and complicated document, but its tone is clearly recognized in responses to a few key issues.

Regarding enforceable standards for employing union labor, the use of union labor is not an environmental impact and is outside the scope of the sequel.

Regarding affordable housing, the proposed action does not involve changes to affordable housing.

Regarding tax breaks provided to developers by the IDA, the proposed action does not involve any changes related to IDA policies and procedures regarding the economic opportunity non-discrimination policy.

Changes to the economic opportunity and non-discrimination policy are not contemplated in the proposed action.

Regarding the overall vision of the city's development plan, the original 2013 DOZ vision remains largely unchanged.

Thank you for letting me this.

Our next speaker is Lisa Burton, followed by Brian Black, Camilly Bellhill, and then Saba Abolini.

Oops, sorry about that.

Okay, so tonight I'm here on behalf of the Thomas Paine Historical Association.

Yesterday was Thomas Payne Day.

For all of you who may not know Thomas Paine, he was the last of the great um members of the Enlightenment.

He had a cottage here in New Rochelle.

And the Thomas Paine Historical Association has a building that's a hundred years old and is dedicated to his legacy and his and um and the ideals of democracy, the ideals of a republic, the idealist that say that we the people are entitled to representation, that we the people are entitled to a civic life and a civic voice in the governance.

Republic is supposed to be for the good of the people.

So over this weekend, the cottage, um our friends at um the New Rochelle, the Huguenot and Neurochell Historical Association had two days of programming.

Um we at the building um at the Thomas Paine Memorial Building had um a wonderful program, and thank you, Councilman Peters, for joining us and being part of that.

And then yesterday, um the Iona Institute for Thomas Paine Studies had a really robust conversation about what it means to be civically involved.

Um and they're going to be doing programming throughout the year.

So I'm I'm here to talk about that and to thank the council for all of its support to invite all of our neighbors to come and visit us at the Thomas Paine Museum and to be mindful of the fact that the Neurochell has a rich history of civic engagement, and that what we are doing here, while it may seem to be um troublesome, and certainly lengthens the time that um you all are in your seats.

It is critical to our community, it's critical to our children, and it's critical to our democracies small, because what is going on in the world right now would have us be silent, and that is not the role of um of Americans.

So the other thing I want to say, and I'm putting on my different hat as chairs the Neurochell 250.

Um, we are having an event on July 11th, which is called Voices of the People.

Um, and we are inviting if you speak uh language other than English and you would like to come and read the first the preamble of the Declaration of Independence with us on that day in front of City Hall.

We welcome everyone to come.

We always talk about the diversity of Neurochell, and it is here in our language in our culture.

If anyone speaks Gaelic, please, please, please get in touch with us.

Um go through the um city website for Neurochell 250.

We want everyone to be connected to the words because the revolution was not about not paying taxes, it was about every person is equal and is entitled to certain rights.

Oh, I'm sorry, Lisa Burton 250 Avenue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brian Black.

Okay, Brian Black, followed by Camilly Bell Hill, and Saba Abu Lahini.

My apologies, and then Jimena Frontila.

Hello, thank you.

Um I don't have anything planned, uh, Madam Mayor and everyone here.

I am um, Brian Black, 10 Acorn Lane.

Larchmont address, but new row.

I grew up in Queens.

We moved here for reason like nervous and emotional, and it's unbelievable what goes on in here.

And man, I get pissed like at my neighbor's bamboo.

I can't imagine the rats and and so talking about a pool doesn't seem like much.

I know there's money for the pool.

I don't know, I don't know about the studies or anything.

I know if there's if there's a true desire to make it happen, it could happen.

And my daughter woke up at 4 45 this morning and to swim.

And I didn't know anything about swimming.

I grew up like playing roller hockey with a frozen piece of electrical tape.

And um, I didn't know about the world of swimming, it's just unbelievable.

And I'm gonna talk about race a little bit, because you know, in this country that's just what it always comes down to.

And um you know, like uh Neurochell should have a school have a swimming pool, you know, should have a swimming pool.

And if you go to a um swimmute, it's like all white kids.

There's not like a lot of black swim dads.

And I say that because I know that there's one there, and he's like the crazy loud dude with the swim dad sweater.

And what swimming does is like it's unbelievable, with all due respect to everyone that's got a kid that plays soccer and lacrosse, there's a lot of lacrosse around here.

But swimming is like it is next level.

And all the black kids and the Spanish kids and the kids that live where I play softball at night and flowers, and you know, they don't they don't have a uh a country club to swim at.

And that's why there's no black kids and Spanish kids at the swim meets.

And I moved here purposely.

You know, my my wife grew up in Greenwich, and she's like, we're not moving awry, we're not moving to these when I don't want the kids in a pressure cooker.

And I grew up at I went to Bayside High, it was 3,000 kids, and 40% of them.

I remember my AP English teacher said it's 39% black kids here, and it was a crazy mix, and that's who I am.

And you know the school should not should be for everyone, and swimming should be for everyone.

It seems like a small thing.

Rats are more important.

I can't imagine dealing with that.

But you know, there's also ways to make New Rochelle an amazing place that's not just fixing what seems like a luxury problem of a swimming pool.

Like that's that pool, lawyers and doctors and freaking mayors and council members are gonna come out of that pool, and it needs to be fixed.

And we don't want to have to go to Mount Vernon.

You know, like come on.

I want to we want to we want to be in our home and our pool, and I want my kid to swim with her teammates and to have neurochell kick ass in swimming and and beat rye and all those other places.

It's good places, good people there.

But our next speaker is Camilly Bellhill, followed by Saba Abu Lehini and Jimena Francilla, and then Vince Malfatana.

Good evening, uh Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Camilly Bellhill, 175 Hamilton Hamilton Avenue.

I am a resident and parent and taxpayer here in New Rochelle, and I'm standing before you tonight to urge this city to prioritize and expedite the repair and reopening of the New Rochelle High School pool.

The pool has been out of commission for so long that its closure is now measured in student generations.

My oldest who graduated in 2023 never got to use it, and now I have a freshman there who is still not getting to use it.

Our current student athletes, swim teams, the broader student body are still being left stranded without a home facility, disrupting their schedules and undermining their athletic programs.

This is a vital education asset, not a luxury.

Every single month we see the city review and approve plans for constant massive development, high rises, and new buildings are going up at lightning speed all over New Rochelle, backed by swift administrative approval.

Yet, while private developers get the green light without delay, the plans to repair our high school pool remain completely stalled.

If the city has the resources, the bandwidth, and the political will to fast track complex large-scale private developments, week after week, year after year.

We must find a way with that exact same urgency for our public school infrastructure.

When can the students and families of New Rochelle expect the city to finally approve the plans and timeline for our high school repair?

Our students have waited long enough.

Let us show them that we care just as much about investing in their future as we do about the buildings around them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Saba Abolohini, followed by Jimena Franzilla, Vince Malfatano, and then Paul Martin.

Please.

Hi, City Council members and mayor and our neighbors.

I'm Savo Abu Lahry from 75 Echo Bay Drive, part of Davenport Association.

I was here a few weeks ago about the changing zoning in Davenport Avenue, the club areas and building up more high rises in New Rochelle.

So I came here to re-emphasize on the issues that we will have by having those club areas to be changed to high rises buildings.

So we already have a yacht club changed to uh water point, water park point buildings, nine buildings, each four story, 72 apartments or whatever they call it, condos, each sold for 1.5 to 3.5 million each apartment.

What New Rochelle people get from that money?

Nothing.

What the builder get, full pocket of money.

So I I want to re-emphasize we got traffic, we got poor school in New Rochelle.

Why the price of the houses in Scarsdales, in East Chester, in our neighbor cities are much higher than our property here.

That's a lot depends on the school that we have in New Rochelle.

And by building these high rises, the school capacity goes lower and lower, and each class will be more populated, and quality of teaching in the school will be poorer and poorer.

And that's the cost that we pay for having more high rise in our area.

And by changing that zoning one after another will call ask for more.

These builders will not be satisfied with what you approve today.

They are gonna ask for more and more and more.

And next will be the next club, then next will be the next club.

By building 60 apartments into the surf club right now, you guys are gonna load Church Street with more cars, which will be back up to Davenport Avenue, and all those neighborhood areas will be a parking lot.

And what will be happening?

Kids from the school will be in danger.

Pedestrian in that area would be in danger.

That Davenport, if you go to the end of the Davenport, it's so narrow that even the city doesn't put the line in in the middle to make it for coming and going.

How you guys are putting more traffic into that area.

You guys are putting these people's kids into danger.

If there is a fire there, how a fire truck can get there.

If there is a nine, I'm a physician.

If a 911 call happened at that end of the street, before the ambulance gets there, we lose a person, and it's up on whoever approve these changes to save those lives before tragedy things happen.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jimena Francella, followed by Vince Malfatano, Paul Martin, and then Susan Dialoui.

Deloya.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Good evening, City Manager, uh, mayor and city council and our neighbors.

I'm Jimena Francela from 51 Echo Bay Drive, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Davenport States Association.

Um we stand in opposition to the current proposal to increase the density at the Davenport neck.

And we urge the city to carefully reconsider the long-term consequences these changes may have on the surrounding community and the quality of life of Norsehell residents.

While growth and development are important, they must be balanced, responsible, and aligned with the capacity of our neighborhoods and infrastructure.

The proposed zoning changes raises significant concerns regarding increased density, worsening traffic congestion, and the continued overdevelopment of an already burdened area.

Residents are already experiencing traffic challenges on local streets, increased congestion and pressure on parking and public infrastructure, approving additional density without a clear comprehensive plan.

Community voices matter.

Residents are not opposed to progress.

Good evening, Vince Malfatano, nine fairview place.

Well, as a 40-year social studies teacher, 45-year resident up there.

I hope you didn't get sick.

But in any case, folks, civic responsibility.

We had an election last month.

Did you vote?

Do you know that only 5% of the registered voters in New Rochelle showed up?

About 2500 people took 2,000 votes out of a population of 50,000 registered voters.

What a disgrace.

It just happens to be about the exact same number of the young men who died on June 6th storming the beaches of Normandy.

Think of that, 2500.

Where were you, Newish show?

Nowhere to be found.

And they like it that way.

I used to work for politicians that yeah, everybody, please vote.

No, they don't want you to vote.

They're happy if nobody votes except for their one person.

So let's fool everybody in New Rochelle and get off your damn butt and go out and vote.

Maybe Thomas Payne wouldn't say it that way.

Mr.

Malfitano would.

So I'm just suggesting to you folks out there, you are your own worst enemies.

Don't come here and cry at the city council.

These folks are beholden to their donors and their special interest groups.

We got money for parades and festivals all over town, but no money to help you with your rats.

Why?

You don't got the power.

So understand what politics is about, ladies and gentlemen.

These folks do, and I don't fault them for it.

I fault you for it.

I used to harangue my high school kids in the Bronx about democracy.

That's why I vote in every election, good, bad, or ugly.

To me, it's like religion.

Those 2500 men who died on the beaches of Normandy gave me the right to shoot my mouth off and take my butt in a voting booth.

Why aren't you there?

Are you too lazy?

Oh, I've had some people say everybody's happy.

That's why they don't vote.

Well, folks, it is so so discouraging.

But thank you for coming this evening.

Sometimes I come in as nobody here.

But please speak up.

Our next speaker is Paul Martin.

Paul Martin, 55 Decatur Road.

Um, I'm here to express my disappointment in the city's final environmental impact statement for the DOC amendments.

Uh two come two thoughts come to mind when I read the city's response.

One, not enough listening, two, not enough lessons learned.

I appreciate that the city uh restored the storefront requirements, strengthened the definition, extended it to Road Street, but didn't restore it in North Avenue.

I also appreciate that the city uh created greater clarity around greenery and civic spaces.

But beyond those two areas and other few minor adjustments, I see the statements as minimally responsive to the overarching residents and stakeholder concerns.

Uh I was particularly disappointed in the city's response, not just to our comments, but to the other stakeholders' comments.

I was dismayed to see the concerns from a strange fire department and the city's tepid response that once again cites flawed tax revenue figures and one-time share uh a fair share of mitigation fees as mitigants.

I was disappointed to see no changes or compromises to the overall residence increases and land use changes, despite concerns from at least 17 of the commenters.

I was disappointed to see that the labor unions and other comments about union and labor uh local labor requirements were dismissed.

I was disappointed to see that new roars and others' comments about AMI and affordable units were also dismissed.

Lastly, I was disappointed to see that the city's response to ours and numerous other comments about uh parking inventories.

The response was not to strengthen parking requirements, but to remove the only measure that they included in the amendments around ballet parking and and creating additional requirements there.

So I I ask who asked you to remove that measure because I don't see that reflected in the public comments.

The response to many of these residents' concern was predictably this is not in scope, it's not part of the CICRA.

And as the new Roar article that the other lady just read uh read um that today asked if this is not the form to address concerns about the downtown development comprehensively, then what is the city has every ability to discuss and bring forward changes to the downtown outside of the DOZ amendments.

You've already shown that you can do that today by proposing new parking fees.

On that point, I think it's totally inappropriate for the city to respond to the parking study and DOZ amendments in the first instance by increasing parking costs for the residents while not explicitly requiring more from the developers in their parking.

If you are sincere about responding to community concerns, you will have to consider these DOZ amendments only first together with a package of legislation that shows you've listened to the residents on issues of local labor, parking, affordable rent, and other quality of life issues.

As someone who spends almost every day in the DOZ, I want to cheer the downtown's evolution, but it's hard to when it doesn't feel like people are being listened to.

It's also hard to engage on the Davenport zoning when this city's response.

Uh this is the city's response to legitimate concerns.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Susan Deloya, followed by Miriam Decine.

Decim rather, and then Serge Becker.

Good evening.

Thank you for having me.

Um great to see you, Shane.

I know you're my council person.

My name is Susan Deloya, and I live at 208 Center Av.

Uh I moved here in 2022, and I I chose New Rochelle carefully because I thought it was a great town.

And um I just echo a lot of my neighbors, the development's horrible.

And what's that?

Well, I mean, yeah, stop.

Really, really consider the long-term consequence.

Once you get these corporate chains, right?

The wings, corporate burritos, you can't get them out, even if the public doesn't want them because they're corporations, so they can stay.

They can make up for it with another location.

And I just beseech you and I support my neighbors to really think about the long-term consequence.

I I didn't want to live in White Plains.

I don't particularly like the way it looks, and it seems like that's the model.

Um I want to validate you though for pride.

I saw that you celebrated pride, and uh just want to validate city council and the city government for doing that.

I know there were some nasty comments online.

That's um inappropriate.

So thank you for doing that.

Um but I also wanted to point out that you know the yoga place that is opening up on the other part of Main Street.

I'm thrilled she's gonna be there.

And you know, it seems like she can afford it because it's not this redone souped-up building that only um a super super wealthy corporate chain will be able to rent.

And so it's kind of the tale of two cities right on Main Street.

Um, and I I'm still glad I live here, and I do feel for the rat problem.

I've seen it.

I don't think those corporate chain restaurants are gonna help.

Um I hope the swimming pool is is um is fixed and up and running.

I felt very uh compelled by what people were sharing.

Uh so I would just think about your own legacy too.

You know, where do you want New Rochelle to be in 10 years and 15 years, 20 years, 30 years?

I don't have a car, I bike.

I've already talked about what I want for biking before at another meeting.

Um, and I just think it could still be a really unique, wonderful place.

So please a moratorium on development.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Miriam Decim, followed by Serge Becker.

Good evening, Miriam DeSim, Mount Joy.

I want us to think a little bit about the activity that's going on in here.

And I'm happy to say the last couple of city council meetings, the hearing on the um DOZ amendments.

When you hear the passion and the request and the engagement, um, the love for the city, and then you participate in your meetings and city council, where you allow the development department to pretty much no offense to anybody in personally, not you guys up here or any individual, but you've allowed the development department to run amok.

They're just telling you what they want based on whatever developers are telling them, and you are agreeing to it.

You're not even really questioning what just in common sense when we first hear it, we're saying this doesn't add up.

So we come in, we ask you, don't do these things, don't move so fast on it.

Our head isn't spinning.

We're trying to be engaged, we're trying to work with you and figure out what you're doing, and you're approving, you're approving parking changes with some study, and like you created a parking issue, and you think the resolution is let's increase parking fees.

And we want you to come downtown and and and shop while we charge you more.

While we, if you pay for it, the discount that you get for paying for it that same day, we're gonna remove that.

That's what we coming up with.

This is what this is insane.

And the fact that you are not representing us, and we keep telling you this, and you keep going into city council, listening to, I'm saying it, leading by the development department.

What we've asked you to do over and over again is bring it back to city council, where you have to make the initial um resolutions and things that projects where we get to have input right here before anything is approved, no more DOZs, because it doesn't matter what we say at any point of the process, you've already approved it.

And they all tell us this.

You got good concerns, a good point, that but it's already been approved.

While you're telling us to keep coming and talking to you and participate in um uh this participatory budget process that's more convoluted that we're asking you to just leave our prox alone.

Please represent us.

We can't keep doing it like this.

So we're asking you to how are you gonna change this?

You gotta talk to us about how you're gonna change this.

Thank you.

Re-election year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Serge Vecker.

Good evening, Council members, Serge Vetcher, 25 Leroy, please.

Um to close up on kind of unprepared and ad hoc note.

Uh I was not here.

And uh I wanted to talk about one particular thing, and forgive me if I'm going to repeat this, and this was already said, but I think it's it's worth repeating.

Uh the process that you followed with uh implementing the DOZ amendment uh 2026 requires you under state law to follow certain procedure.

Unlike 2024, 2023 amendment, which did not follow this procedure, this is a great improvement in the timelines have been kept.

We had public meetings, collected feedback.

Um, I believe uh consultants have worked on their feedback and provided uh a lot of great responses like noted and uh you know this is does not pertain to secret review or or it's not an environmental concern.

It may on paper absolve you of responsibility legally, because this is secret state environmental quality react, which in revised modernized form still is the law of the land in terms of land use issues and is still uh uh applicable to any kind of future development um such as the DOZ 2026 amendment, which is planning for the next 10 years on paper.

It may look like you're adding certain things like 2800 units, uh, but as we mentioned this in the past, all these calculations are made on paper.

They're made on spreadsheets.

There is no uh backup, there is no thought, there's not even a required study that was conducted to uh assess and to understand and to validate those increases, allowing the Department of Development to fast track projects as been said.

As been said.