Good morning.

Welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

At this time, please silence all phones and electronical devices.

If you wish to speak in today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with one of the sergeants.

Moving forward, no one is to approach today's chair, you may begin.

Good morning and welcome to today's hearing of the New York City Council's Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I'm Councilmember Sean Abreu, majority leader and chair of this committee.

Today the committee will hear testimony on five pieces of legislation.

Introduction number 845, sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry, in relation to requiring the Department of Transportation to install lighting under elevated train lines.

Introduction number 866, sponsored by Councilmember Epstein in relation to requiring the Department of Transportation to post notification signs regarding upcoming disruptive work.

Introduction number 894, sponsored by Councilmember Brewer in relation to seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes.

Introduction number 917, sponsored by Councilmember Justin Sanchez.

In relation to sanitation and cleanliness requirements for roadway and sidewalk cafes.

And introduction number 918, also sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry in relation to allowing sidewalk and roadway cafe revocable consent fees to be paid in quarterly installments.

Because today's hearing is focused solely on legislation.

We will use it as an opportunity to examine the purpose, implementation, and potential impact of these bills.

Together, these bills raise important questions about how New York City manages its streets, sidewalks, and public spaces.

Whether we are discussing lighting beneath elevated train lines, public notice requirements for work on our streets, or the cleanliness, affordability, or seasonal availability of outdoor dining.

The issue at the heart of these bills is how to make our public spaces safer, more accessible, and better maintained for everyone.

I look forward to hearing from the administration about their views on these bills, including any operational or fiscal concerns, as well as any recommendations on how these bills could be improved.

I also look forward to hearing from restaurant owners, community members, advocates, and other stakeholders about how these proposals would affect them in the neighborhoods they serve.

Before I hand it over to my colleagues to speak on their bills, I would like to thank my staff and the committee staff for their hard work in preparing for today's hearing.

Jalisa Quigley and my deputy chief of staff, Theodore Miller and Tara Sierra Townsend, Councils to the Committee, Kevin Kotowski and John Bazile, Senior Policy Analysts of the Committee, and Sarah Swain and Natalie Meltzer, staff to the committee on consumer worker protection, who have been instrumental in developing the council's outdoor dining legislation.

I'd also like to give a special thanks to Adrian Japal, who has been the principal financial analyst of the committee for several years, for his commitment, savvy, and unfailing good humor in working to better this committee, the council and our city.

Adrian, thank you for your service and good luck in your next endeavor.

We miss your bull ties.

I will now pass it over to my colleagues to speak on their bills, starting with Councilmember Gail Brewer.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I am here to talk about, as you heard from the chair 894.

It has to do with seasonal enclosures for uh cafes that are outdoor.

And this did come from the suggestion made by the hospitality alliance.

I want to thank them as I always do for their incredible uh support of these kinds of issues.

There's a time frame during the uh season when it's chilly, as you all know.

And the idea would be because of that frigid and wet weather across our city, especially between October 1st and March 31.

During that time period, intro 894, if enacted into law, would allow restaurants to install high quality winter vestibules, including their licensed sidewalk cafe area.

These are spaces for which they already pay the city for the year, actually for the whole year.

And so the notion would be to have better access to that space.

There are also businesses that are unclear on what is allowed and what is prohibited.

This legislation aims to provide clear guidance to help businesses and owners plan.

I think we all see, in some cases, businesses have these enclosures, sometimes they don't, and they all differ.

This bill would make it clear.

I do want to thank Andrew Reggie from the New York City Hospitality Alliance for raising this issue and for his tireless advocacy for restaurants and bars and cafes and owners and people who are crucial to our city's economy and neighborhood life.

I want to thank Chair Brahu for including this on the agenda, and legislative staff, Rachel Codoro, Sarah Swain, Natalie Meltzer, as well as committee staff Sierra Townsend, Theo Miller, John Basile, and Kevin Kotowski.

Thank you very much, and we hope that it will pass.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Brewer.

I will now turn it over to Councilmember Sanchez to speak on intro 917.

Intro 917, uh, one first and foremost.

I want to thank the chair and uh all of the committee staff for having this on the agenda today.

Um, we're really excited um to hear more about how this bill can help actually improve cleanliness standards um across the city as we roll out outdoor dining.

Uh, and we look forward to um hearing a substantive um question and answer period.

Easy.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I'll now read Councilmember Epstein's remarks on introduction number A66.

Thank you to Chair Brayu and all my colleagues for the opportunity to hear my bill, intro 866 at today's hearing.

My office has already had discussions with DOT and we'll be moving forward with amending this bill to require the entity obtaining the permit, not a DLT to put up the signage.

We all know the feeling.

You wake up to unexpected noise coming from the sidewalk below.

You're walking your child to school, and suddenly the path you take every day is taped off for construction.

You go to open up your deli for the day only to find someone jackhammering outside of your business.

You didn't know this was going to happen, and you're not sure how long it will last.

This type of disruptive work presents additional challenges for individuals who use assistive mobility devices who may struggle to get around if their typical sidewalk route is changed.

While the work being done to improve our streets and sidewalks is necessary, it can be disruptive to our daily life.

It is critical that all New Yorkers have access to the information necessary so they can plan ahead for when construction projects arise.

My bill, intro 866, addresses this all too common occurrence by providing New Yorkers with posted signs within a 500-foot radius of the location of planned disruptive work at least 48 hours before the work is scheduled to begin.

It would also include contact information, ensuring the public knows who to talk to about the work if there are questions or concerns.

Constructions can be disruptive to surrounding residents, schools, and businesses.

It is important that neighbors have advanced notice of disruptive construction so they can make necessary plans.

This bill is about increasing transparency between city agencies and residents and increasing accessibility in our government system.

I look forward to hearing feedback about this bill about how we can make our streets more accessible for everyone.

Thank you.

That was a statement by my colleague, Councilmember Epstein.

And I will I'd like to recognize the colleagues who have joined us today, Councilmembers Brewer, Wong, Krishna, Justin Sanchez Lewis, and Thomas Henry.

I will now pass it over to my colleague, Councilmember Thomas Henry to speak on her bill.

Thank you, Chair.

Just need one second.

So good morning, Chair Brahu, and thank you for convening today's hearing.

Thank you to my colleagues on the committee.

Transportation is about more than getting people from one place to another.

It is about how people feel our neighborhoods, people experience our neighborhoods once they arrive.

It's about whether a resident feels safe walking home beneath an elevated train.

It's about whether a family chooses to stop by at a neighborhood cafe.

It's about whether our streets invite people in or push them away.

Today, as a member of this commit, as a member of this committee and the chair of small business committee, I am proud to present two pieces of level legislation that recognize a simple truth.

Our transportation system should work for the people who use it every day.

Introduction 845 would require the Department of Transportation to assess streets and sidewalks beneath elevated train infrastructure to determine where additional lighting is needed and install it within a defined time frame.

In my district, the seven train runs through the heart of our community.

For years, residents have shared concerns about darkness and dark under the underpasses that feel unsafe and overlooked.

No New Yorker should have to question their safety simply because they are walking home beneath our transit infrastructure.

This legislation creates accountability by ensuring those concerns are evaluated, addressed, and reported on.

Introduction 918 focuses on another important part of our streetscape.

The small businesses that activate our sidewalks and make our commercial corridors vibrant.

By allowing roadway cafe operators to pay revocable consent fees in quarterly installments rather than all at once, we can ease unnecessary financial burdens while continuing to support the outdoor dining program that has become such an important part of our city's fabric.

These bills may address different issues, but they advance the same goal.

Creating streets that are safe and more economically vibrant.

That is the kind of transportation system we should continue building, one that moves people while also strengthening the communities they call home.

Thank you, and I look forward to today's discussion.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Like to say add that we've been joined by Councilmember Hanif on Zoom and Councilmember Dinowitz.

Thank you, and I'll turn over to testimony from the administration.

Good morning.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to council member questions?

Thank you.

You may begin when you're ready, and if you could just state your name and record for the name and title for the record before you begin, that would be great.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Abreu, members of the Transportation Committee on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

My name is Monty Dean, Deputy Commissioner of Traffic Operations, and I am joined by Michelle Craven, Associate Deputy Commissioner of Cityscape and Franchises, Jeff Malamy, Director of Street Improvement Projects, and Rick Rodriguez, Assistant Commissioner for Intergovernmental and Community Affairs.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Mayor Mondani and Commissioner Flynn about intro 845, 866, 894, 917, and 918.

First, intro 845, sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry.

This bill would require DOT to install distinctive lighting under elevated train lines.

With nearly 400,000 street lights citywide under our responsibility, we recognize the importance of street lighting and enhancing both street safety and quality of life.

We are committed to ensuring streets are well lit for vehicle traffic as well as pedestrians in both the roadway and the sidewalk.

As a national leader in sustainable street lighting, our lighting studies are based on DOT standards.

These standards include recommended practices and guidelines published by the Illuminating Engineering Society, the internationally recognized entity that sets recommended practices for lighting levels in various applications to ensure lighting standards are sufficiently addressed citywide.

We are happy to provide a quick breakdown of how lighting is installed to provide more background.

Based on study evaluations, we routinely make upgrades in any street reconstruction project.

For installation, there are three ways we can add lighting depending on where the lower lighting levels are located.

We can reduce the distance between street lights, add secondary lighting on the back of existing poles over the sidewalk at a lower height, or install new standalone poles.

DOT must consider various factors when installing lighting, including extensive coordination with contractors and utilities when working around obstructions caused by trees or hydrants and existing below ground infrastructure like gas mains and electric ducks.

These factors require further extensive survey and design work.

Installations can also require time consuming and disruptive street excavations to lay new conduits and cables as well as construct connect construction for new feeds.

Our team works every day to make sure our streets and roadways are well lit.

In 2025 alone, we enhance lighting at nearly 2,500 locations across the city.

Despite these efforts around the city, we hear from New Yorkers that they feel safer and more secure when streets and sidewalks under elevated train lines are more brightly lit.

Lighting under elevated trains is uniquely challenging because the support columns create shadows and the elevated structures limit the height of the street light poles, and the elevated structures are not engineered to support additional loads.

Further high vibration levels can prevent the installation of DOT equipment.

Along with the installation process, DOT has two categories of lighting we typically install: standard and distinctive.

Any streetlight pole other than the standard steel, octagonal and david designs for city streets for city streets is considered distinctive.

There are seven types of distinctive streetlights, which are installed as part of streetscape projects and other elected funded initiatives, requiring public design commission approval.

Due to the different funding streams and additional approval processes, distinctive lighting is generally more expensive and slower to implement.

While DOT strives to be responsive in addressing community concerns regarding sufficient lighting, we have concerns with the bill as written.

We are worried that this bill would have the unintended consequences of slowing down our ability to address lighting conditions by limiting us to distinctive lighting.

We would be happy to discuss with the council how we can enhance lighting in your districts and welcome feedback if there are particular locations of concern.

Next, Intro 866, sponsored by Councilmember Epstein.

This bill would require DOT to post signs in advance within a 500 foot radius of a location of disruptive work.

Disruptive work as defined in the legislation means work that is performed by DOT or pursuant to a permit issued by DOT that is expected to create street, sidewalk, or parking space closures, reroute traffic, relocation of bus stops or bike share stations, or work between 8 p.m.

and 8 a.m.

that includes noise, vibrations, or bright lighting.

DOT already posts informational signs for long-term construction projects pursuant to existing requirements.

We understand the need to communicate effectively to New Yorkers when there will be disruptive construction work.

We believe that existing rules and current practices accomplish the goals of this bill while balancing operational needs.

In addition to the informational construction signs, we have other tools in our toolkit to appropriately notify and involve communities within project areas.

For example, our street ambassadors meet people where they are by discussing project impacts in communities on the street.

We also deploy variable message signs when needed.

Of course, we also are proud of the ongoing partnerships we have with the council and the community boards to utilize your networks to spread the word with residents about critical projects in your neighborhoods.

Although we support the goal of the bill, as described with our existing toolkit of communication efforts, we have a number of concerns with the current scope of the bill and would prefer to utilize existing requirements on construction signage to meet the intended goals.

With affordability affordability and project delivery a top priority in this administration, we would be wary of creating additional requirements which would slow construction and raise costs.

We'd be happy to continue conversations with the council to identify the best way to implement notice requirements.

Next, intro 894, sponsored by Councilmember Brewer.

This bill would allow sidewalk cafes to include removable vertical screenings and overhead coverings from October 1st to March 31st.

We are thrilled with the significant interest in expanding the dining out NYC program, and we support the goals of this bill as sidewalk cafes are already allowed to operate with overhead coverings and awnings pursuant to our rules, along with our sister agency's requirements in specific instances.

We have suggestions for how to include other winterization methods like vertical screenings and may want to modify the timeline so the requirements are in alignment with existing discussions on winterization for roadway cafes.

We are happy to have more conversations with the council on how best to enhance the sidewalk cafe experience.

Next, intro 917, sponsored by Councilmember Sanchez.

This bill would codify existing DOT rules pertaining to cleanliness standards for businesses operating sidewalk and roadway cafes.

The bill would also raise maximum civil penalties to $300 for the first violation and $600 for second and subsequent violations at the same place of business.

Prioritizing quality of life concerns is critical to the success of our dining out NYC program.

We have been working to be incredibly responsive to complaints and carry out enforcement when necessary.

The dining out NYC program requires durable, modular, and easy-to-clean materials for outdoor dining setups, establishes weekly cleaning requirements, and prohibits messy sand-filled barriers, which result in a dramatic improvement to the outdoor dining experience.

Regarding the fine structure, we understand the desire to raise the fees, but believe it is important that all program violations related to non-compliance be treated uniformly.

We look forward to working with the council to determine appropriate violation amounts.

We're always striving to make the dining out NYC program the best it can be for New Yorkers and visitors, and we are happy to work with the council on this bill to strengthen cleanliness and sanitation standards.

Finally, intro 918, sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry.

This bill would give businesses the option to pay revocable consent fees in quarterly installments.

Along with addressing quality of life concerns, we are also working every day to help small businesses thrive through outdoor dining, a program that New Yorkers love and that restaurants depend on.

We strive to make participation as accessible and streamlined as possible.

Currently, restaurants must pay an initial revocable consent fee once their application is approved.

Across the board for DOT programs, we require a one-time upfront payment for all revocable consents.

Additionally, it has been DOT's experience that restaurants have a harder time meeting program requirements once they have been authorized to commence operations.

We worry that if this new payment method was authorized, DOT would struggle to collect after the initial payment.

This would not only leave DOT with a program deficit, but would result in new costs for the department and delays in application approval for the restaurants due to already limited staff capacity being shifted to chase down payments four times a year.

While quarterly payments perhaps were necessary in the DCWP program when fees were notably higher.

DOT charges far less for the remote for the revocable consent, making a quarterly payment less relevant.

We share council's goal to improve the application process and are happy to have more discussions with council and stakeholders about adapting our program processes.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank the council for the opportunity to testify before you today.

We would now be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I'd like to acknowledge we've been joined by Councilman Pirina Sanchez on Zoom.

And I will turn it over to Councilmember Thomas Henry for the first set of questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

So first I'll start with intro 845.

What are DOT's current practices for improving street light lighting?

Or more specifically, what criteria do you use to decide if a particular corridor would get standard versus distinctive lighting upgrades?

Distinctive lighting typically comes when we get funded through RESO or multimodal funding from an elected official, and that is what is used to purchase and install the distinctive types of lighting, whereas our standard lighting is uh funded through the normal city funded process.

And what are your current practices regarding lighting conditions on streets and sidewalks located underneath elevated subway lines?

Uh when we are uh get a request or complaint, we will go and evaluate conditions at that uh at that uh area, and we'll do data collection, we'll do an assessment of the lighting levels, and then if we determine that there is uh additional lighting necessary, we will evaluate what the right approach is, whether it means adding arms onto existing poles or whether we need to install new uh new poles to achieve the right lighting level.

So currently it's not a practice to elevate um the lighting levels under elevated subways, it's only on a as complaint basis.

It's mostly driven by when we get requests or complaints about uh conditions there.

Okay.

Do you have any complaints and I'll just take a step back?

Um, the next um this bill really comes specifically from conditions, particularly in my district where the seven train lies in Roosevelt Avenue.

We've had a number of series of things I've heard you've heard in the news of illicit activity that happens, and a lot of it is um attributed because it's a very dark and desolate area.

I know DLT has attempted some type of lighting, it hasn't been consistent.

Um, do you know in particular about this corridor what that assessment was?

Uh I know there is one section as you said where we did come in and we added uh arms on the back of existing uh poles um if there are additional areas we can certainly look uh look at adding in other places uh we can check where we've evaluated and what what our determination was we'd be happy to follow up on that and my concern is I mean often our communities suffer in silence I mean the advocating usually comes from one or two people but meanwhile you have an entire community that's affected so part of this bill too is really to assess those areas where you may have individuals who are not as vocal in advocating for themselves to make sure that they are safe in our city.

Next question as it pertains to 845 um what interagency coordination would be required to implement this bill?

We it again will depends in each location what uh what we find if we find there's a need uh for additional lighting uh if we can't for instance add to existing uh onto existing poles we might need to work with con ed if there needs to be more power provided um and then we would have to coordinate on construction if there's additional trenching required we'd have to go through the normal process to make sure we know what else is under under the street there um and also we would have to uh if if any of the trenching or other work was near any of the transit infrastructure the columns for the overhead infrastructure we'd have to coordinate closely with MTA on that as well.

Okay.

Now at the committee's executive budget hearing on May 29th of this year DOT testify to its 331 million dollar commitment to replace every first generation LED street light fixture across the city.

Does that commitment include sufficient light sufficient funds to replace the lighting fixtures targeted by this bill?

It would include the the infrastructure the lighting that we have in these areas yes so we would uh we would replace all the existing uh LED lights uh including under transit infrastructure how long do you anticipate that taking uh we're working on the timeline now uh in we have to we typically have gone by borough so we'll have to figure out what the scheduling of the contract but it it will take a few years um but the benefit of of this program in addition to replacing existing LEDs is that we also include installing sensors in the lights so that we will know right away when there are issues with outages or anything like that that will help us identify what the underlying issue is when there are when there are problems like that so we will be able to be more responsive in the future when there are issues with lighting.

In addition to replacing those LEDs on existing fixtures would you also look to assess if additional fixtures are needed in those areas we we wouldn't necessarily as part of this we would have to do separate surveys for areas where where there were concerns about the lighting level how often does DOT hear concerns regarding lighting conditions under elevated train lines I don't know if we have a specific number we can check on that and get back to you on how frequently we get those requests.

Okay.

I'm gonna go to intro 918 for now.

Oh I can come back yeah I'll come back to you I think Councilmember Sanchez wants to add commentary on intro 845.

Yes I do um so if you look around the world um if you go to Santiago, uh Santo Domingo, if you go to Puerto Rico, uh Chicago, Bangkok, Guala Lumpur, Miami, um the list goes up Sol, Dubai, all of these places around the world have lights specifically on their trail their train rail system.

I'm curious to know if there is an opportunity that doesn't include lighting on actual the street light poles, but on the elevated rail itself, and what is preventing uh anyone from adding lights to that elevated rail itself.

Uh we typically don't because uh there are vibration issues.

There's also they have their own power on the the train lines that we'd have to uh uh contend with.

So um there may be instances where we've done it, but it's not the typical practice.

Um so it it can be challenging.

It's you know, for us it's typically easier because we own and operate the streets and we have usually have some form of existing light poles there that we can add on to.

So if if, for instance, adding a pole on the back of an existing uh light pole is adding an arm on an existing light pole is an option that that's typically easier to do.

So um is it accurate to say that uh the street lighting on rails would be more of a state issue than it is a city issue because of the control of the elevated subways, or we would certainly have to work with them in those instances um to because they do own the infrastructure, so it's in in those scenarios we'd have to coordinate definitely with with New York City transit.

Has there been any assessment of using the power that already exists on the uh trains to illuminate the underneath?

I mean, the way that I envision um council member Henry's uh Thomas Henry's bill is I mean, we have lights that you can literally just stick onto a wall with batteries um then that was when I was a kid.

Um and so uh seeing the way that technology has um vastly improved now, I'm curious to know if there are um green ways um and you know green infrastructure ways that we can be adding light that uses the renewable electricity that already exists on these train tracks um to help illuminate underneath.

Is there been any um ability to study that or um any discussions with either state partners or other city partners about doing something um in that way?

Have you been able to envision this legislation in that way at all, thus far?

I'm not aware that that has been studied, so we'd have to check and see if that's something that's been looked at before.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I'm now going to uh Council Member Sanchez, if you could just ask your 917 questions now.

Sure.

Um hold on two seconds.

Um in terms of 917, um, so the DOT rule currently have the outdoor cafe rater operators keeping their area, I think it's one point five, uh the area with a one point five-foot radius.

Um how is that radius actually working?

Does that work and how is that uh 1.5 foot radius come to?

So I believe the one point five radius is sanitations jurisdiction, so they actually enforce that piece of it and we enforce the rest of it.

I will say we've gotten very few complaints about cleanliness in this new permanent outdoor dining program.

In the emergency program, we had many, many, many complaints about cleanliness.

Um it's something we've taken very seriously in setting this program up and um setting up our rules, and it's been we've hardly heard about it at all.

And our inspectors do go out and enforce for cleanliness.

We look for waste and debris and graffiti and food scraps and whatever else.

Um that's mostly inside the setups, but um we've had very few issues.

Uh and how would uh DOT's approach to enforcement change at all, if at all, um, with this new uh legislation?

I think it would be substantially the same.

I mean, we have these rules already, so it wouldn't actually change the requirement.

It would just kind of duplicate it in the ad code, I think.

So we would still um we'd still enforce it the same way.

Uh and generally, what is the most common cleanliness issue uh that is reported when you do get the few reports.

So, uh, okay.

If someone dumps garbage or debris or something outside of the setup.

It's the most common complaint.

Uh and uh how much does DOT anticipate uh it would cost to implement uh 917?

I don't think it would really change things because again, we already have these in the rules, so it would be the same um the same requirements.

Great, sounds like a great bill.

My time's here's done.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Council Member Phil Wong.

Um yes, hi.

Um thank you, Chu.

Um I would like to uh ask about the lighting specifically on the trestles.

Yes, uh totally uh support uh council member uh Thomas Henry's uh issue uh on the dim areas uh on the seventh train on Roosevelt Avenue.

But I'm also concerned about the the trestles like on the the CSX or the Long Island Railroad tracks would clearly uh there's some inadequate illumination in my district and other places.

Uh my question is, uh, those areas could kind of the OT work on it to improve the illumination or or that's not, you know, city property and there's not much you could do about it again.

Please talk about it.

Yeah, uh no, we as long as it if it's going over our right of way, we would have the ability to go take a look and see if we need to add lighting there, see if it's sufficient.

So if you have locations, we can certainly evaluate those.

Yeah, um, because specifically as the life span of these fixtures, uh there's they as they approach the end of life, they get dimmer.

And then when there's so many fixtures or they all get dim, uh it either time to replace them or or upgrade them because uh that's an issue and uh quite often that lead to a lot of uh the tracks uh graffiti or crime and other issues.

So I'll work with your office on that, but I I I support this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you thank you, Chair.

Councilmember Thomas Henry, you may ask a question on 918.

Thank you.

On average, what is the range of the annual consent fee for businesses?

So off the top of my head, I'd say they've ranged from a few hundred dollars, on average it's probably two thousand twenty five hundred, something like that.

And then there are some in the central parts of the city and what's called sector four in the legislation that would be in the thousands of dollars, like more thousands of dollars.

Okay, and as mentioned, this is just one of fees, one of the fees that businesses have to pay when they're doing an outdoor dining.

This is the only annual fee that they have to pay.

There are several fees when you're setting up the program when you first apply, and then from year to year there is one annual fee.

Okay, so and it was mentioned that um if uh application is not um does not go through, just correct me if I'm wrong, does not go through, then the owner basically does not receive any of that a couple of hundred to twenty five hundred dollars back.

Is that correct?

That is not correct, actually.

This fee is what you pay, it's the sort of the final fee before you get your license, and then it's the annual one.

So if it doesn't go through, you do not pay this fee.

So what was the concern around if the entity doesn't get the license, you guys will never see the fee.

What's that concern?

The concern is actually we have found various programs that once someone has the authority to operate, and so you would pay the first fee, you would get your license.

Sometimes it is difficult.

We find that sometimes people are less interested in paying once they're kind of already out there, they have their license, they're like ready to go.

And then people don't always pay on time or they might be late, and then we have to chase after people to get them to pay.

So as the structure is now, you you pay the fee before you get your license.

Yeah, up front.

It's the last thing before you get your license when you sign a revocable consent agreement.

But if you do pay the fee and don't get your license, you get that back.

You would, yeah, but that wouldn't happen.

What do you mean that wouldn't happen?

If once you've gone through the entire review process, the review and approval process before you would pay this fee.

So like if you're paying this fee, we're good to go.

Okay.

How much does DOT anticipate it will cost to implement introduction 918?

So I don't know if we've done a specific estimate, but we do believe it would add to our staffing responsibilities because it would be the same people who currently issue the invoices and also do things like register contracts, um, who are currently very busy full-time getting restaurants set up with their licenses.

So either we would have to add additional staff or it would have the effect of slowing down the approval process for other restaurants.

Have you considered an automatic payment process?

So once the person signs up, they can automatically quarterly um pay that fee.

We have considered we have automated billing for the annual fees currently.

We would have to change it in our portal to get it to be a quarterly automated invoice process.

Um and that is something that is kind of a slow process to implement, unfortunately.

So definitely considered it.

It sounds great.

Um do can we agree that oftentimes, especially for our small businesses, different fees can be cumbersome and burdensome, and this would alleviate some of that financial stress and obligation if we allow them to pay over a period of time versus up front.

So I'll do other costs.

I agree with you.

Obviously, fees can definitely be burdensome for small businesses.

I think in this case we actually haven't heard from any restaurants specifically requesting quarterly payments.

I've heard for some of the from the advocates, but not from any restaurants, and we have found that restaurants are not very shy about asking us for things.

Um so if you were familiar with specific restaurants, we would certainly be interested in talking to you and and getting more information.

So for the past two months, I've been doing tours of small businesses, predominantly restaurants across the city of New York.

And when we and one of the main things they mentioned are the fees specifically with outdoor dining cafes, a couple of restaurants have actually actually um said that they've paid fees in the past.

I'm not gonna say it's this same fee, but they've paid fees in the past, have not been able to open their sidewalk cafe and have never received those fees back.

So this really derives from, again, just common sense that it it helps to pay overtime versus one time, and also actually speaking to businesses to see what would be helpful.

And when I discuss this with those businesses, they smile ear to ear and are super excited with b when I discuss it with businesses as well as community boards, because individuals who own businesses and individuals who know business owners recognize that we are in an affordable crisp affordability crisis, not just in housing, but across the board and our small businesses are getting hit very hard.

And this is just one measure we see as being able to take some of that financial burden off of them.

Thank you, Councilmember.

You have any more questions?

You good for now?

Councilmember Martha, you have questions?

All right.

Uh regarding intro, uh Councilmember Wong, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Um regarding um replace it replacement of um fixtures, uh, in my district because I work for my predecessor Robert Hodin, and uh I handle constituent services.

When we make a request to to either uh repair or replace a a burned out uh uh street lamp or like a fixture that's on the trestle, it takes a very long time to just to get a reply.

Uh is like I myself follow up on the case.

It took three months for me to get a reply that okay, we'll work on it.

You know, um, can you talk about it?

Why does it take so long?

Because uh uh um constituents are concerned when you have say you live in a residential block at one street light out, you know, i it's uh they feel very unsafe when that happens.

Please talk about it.

Certainly we can uh make sure we're getting a reply back sooner than that.

It shouldn't take so long, certainly to let you know that something's being worked on.

As far as the repair itself, it can vary typically uh our contractors have 10 days to to sort of evaluate and make either make a repair or determine if something more substantial is necessary.

So sometimes it's a a fairly simple matter, like you said, sometimes it's just a burnt out um fixture that needs to be replaced.

Other times there might be more extensive issues with the wiring or maybe with the con ed feed.

So though in those instances it can take longer to make the actual repair, but we can certainly make sure that we're at least uh keeping you informed on when those issues arise.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Regarding intro 894, uh what it's I know that you're mostly supportive, but wanted to ask how much is DOT anticipated would cost to implement intro 894.

I don't know that there are any anticipated costs.

I think we just say, you know, as I'm sure you know, we're having larger negotiations with the council about other outdoor dining bills, including winterization of roadway, and something that we're doing right now is like we're taking a hard look at our rules to figure out what restaurants would need to do on the roadway to be able to winterize their setups without going into like a full-scale shed situation like we had in the pandemic.

And I think we want to take a look at this for sidewalks as well and maybe treat the two similarly so we can have consistent standards for both.

Thank you.

Now I want to just pivot to my last set of questions on intro A66 regarding Epstein's bill requiring DOT to post notification signs regarding upcoming disruptive work.

This bill would require signage for work that would cause a disruption for at least seven days.

What public notice is DOT currently provide for work that will cause disruption for at least seven days?

Are there issues in the process that could be fixed?

Hi, yes, thanks for that question.

So I'm Jeffrey Malamy, uh Director of Street Improvement Projects.

Uh happy to give you response there.

Um so currently there's quite a lot uh that the agency does to notify the public of projects uh, you know, when they're in the um uh like the the project planning phase um through you know meetings with elected officials uh and their staffs and community boards and and other stakeholders uh that we're aware of and uh you know those iterative processes processes like lead to you know improving the the performance of the projects that we're designing.

Once we get toward closer to implementation, um there's a lot more notification that we do again through the elected officials offices and community boards.

We post uh what's happening here flyers, which are, you know, kind of plain language, very easy to read, non-jargony, um, that uh that we put up along the corridor in advance um of construction.

Uh we also share those electronically and appreciate um the work um that you and your colleagues do to amplify those messages to let even more of the community know um that work will be uh that work will be ongoing.

Um we also have uh street ambassador program because we know not everyone has the time or the flexibility to be engaged um in a community board meetings or to attend workshops.

Uh so those folks um often set up on the street by um really uh popular um pedestrian hubs like and around um bus stops and subway stations and outside grocery stores so that New Yorkers just in the regular course of their days can happen by, um, learn about an upcoming project.

Uh, you know, they can talk uh with the street ambassadors who can answer their questions, or if they're pressed for time, you know, just pick up a pamphlet or a flyer and learn more about the project uh on their own time.

How does DOT define disruptive work generally?

Does it pertain to specific work being done, such as utility work, street resurfacing and street reconstruction?

Um I think for uh how do we define disruptive?

Uh I think um I mean it it you know it it depends on the the scope and scale of a project.

Uh all of those um all those tools in our toolkit that I mentioned like don't get deployed for every single project.

Um, but uh we have a good gauge uh, you know, working with your offices and your colleagues' offices and the community boards understanding like what the community um would perceive as disruptive and then matching um you know the the outreach materials uh to speak to that need.

So there's no defined standard per se for disruptive work.

No, no, not really.

And I think I mean the the way that it's the way that um that it's defined in the bill is quite broad.

Um so kind of requiring, you know, signage to that extent for um for uh like the minimal um interruption as as described in the bill is uh seems excessive to us and and you know would be in the way of delivering.

We are you're open to having conversations on defining that and what would trigger notice.

Sure, yeah, definitely.

Yeah, I think I mean, just like our safety projects, we're in intersection or corridor, it's not one size fits all.

Um, so it really depends on um, you know, the uh the the makeup and the interests of the community um and how how best to to notify members of of ongoing work, the scope and scale of it.

So we're happy to work uh with your offices, yeah, to define that.

I'm sure the council members is is up for working with you guys on that.

What role do contractors or utilities play in ensuring that these notification signs are put up um yeah so certainly uh you know we have a number of of notice requirements um in statutes and in rules um that you know non-dot partners um like like contractors um are are required to install uh along um uh along the corridor of a of a project or of their work how much does DOT anticipate it would cost to implement intro A66?

Um I think I don't have a you know I don't have a budget amount um but uh we do we are sensitive to the fact that um you know uh additional signage work you know with printing and installing and maintaining and updating and removing those signs so there isn't uh you know uh litter on the streets um you know would detract uh from the other work that the agency does as far as you know contain um coordinating um with elected officials offices and holding the meetings and like street ambassador deployments as I've mentioned uh that we feel are you know most effective at getting the word out and informing the the public and hearing back from the public uh on their concerns around a given project so we're sensitive to those trade-offs.

Thank you.

Council Mamarte.

Uh thank you for being here I just wanted to clarify one of the points that you made you said that uh in regards to Brewer's bill 894 and the winterization of sidewalk cafe you mentioned that you wanted something that could be replicated on the road side can you talk about that a little bit further how would that look like what are some potential options of something that could be replicated from the sidewalk to a roadside cafe?

Well I think we're still kind of in early discussions about this so I don't want to get I don't want to get too specific into anything but I think you know both roadway and sidewalk currently are required to be open air right and so you can have some sort of coverings on both but you're not really supposed to have anything on the side.

So we're trying to figure out what kind of siding could be put up on a temporary basis through the winter um ideally with the dates to match on both which they currently don't quite do with this bill um but to have something that could provide some kind of you know wind protection and snow protection and whatever else on the sides of the setups for the comfort of everyone sitting inside but I think we would want some kind of similar materials similar requirements you know protection from the snow um there might be standards to make sure that you know the roof doesn't collapse if there's too much snow something like that.

So those kinds of things are what we're trying to work out and we think it would probably make sense to look at those things together and just be consistent.

It'll be easier for us it'll be easier for the restaurants it'll be easier for everyone sort of trying to understand the program.

Okay.

And I know we've talked to DOT uh a number of times about this but the SLA has uh stipulations that they make with the community board on like whether they have windows opens closed hours of serving drags um however a lot of times and we've done walkthrough in my district and I know council member Epstein has done walk through in his district where we see people take advantage of you know whether it's sidewalk or the roadside dining to continue to serve liquor when the SLA you know uh says they can't or whether they made an agreement with the community board that they shouldn't um what can DOT do to make sure that the agreements that are made in the community board or with the SLA are actually monitored and enforced on both the sidewalk and roadside.

So it's that's a great question.

It's kind of a tricky question because the SLA requirements are outside of the SLA licenses are outside of our jurisdiction right it's a state entity like we don't have the authorization to enforce that.

And so I have a quick follow-up so because they do a lot of stipulations with the community board during the SLA process of how an establishment is going to function and look like.

Would DOT be able to respect uh or promote or advocate to the owner of that establishment to do stuff in accordance to those agreements that have been made in the past?

I think it would depend at a minimum on what those requirements were, what those stipulations were, because I know there's certain language in the legislation that prevents us from enforcing certain things like hours of operation.

And those agreements, some of those stipulations, I understand are things like hours of operation, and they wouldn't necessarily um align.

And so anything that conflicts with the legislation of the rules, we would not be able to enforce.

Thank you.

Councilmember Phil Wong.

Yes, you were mentioning about street ambassadors.

Can you talk about like how often they cop visited?

Because I I've never seen mine.

If you can tell me who who's who's the street ambassador in my district, I would certainly like to reach out to him or her.

Uh, got it.

Okay.

Yeah, happy to talk about that program.

Um so they they serve the all five boroughs.

Uh, and it's a team of like 12 to 15.

Uh, and so you know, they're deployed, you know, kind of throughout the city on a project-by-project basis.

What we uh between the our DOT project managers and the borough commissioner's offices um strategize about when and where um uh to to deploy the street ambassadors, whether they're you know gathering feedback from the public or uh explaining a project that's soon to be implemented.

So I'm not sure.

Like, I I could get back to you on projects in your district.

Uh we certainly need need the ambassador around when there are major projects in my district, and there were several of them, and I haven't seen any ambassadors.

We uh like collecting feedback.

I had to do that.

All right, so uh I welcome the ambassador to my district at the next project.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ja.

Thank you, Councilmore Wong.

I want to go back quick to eight uh intro eight forty-five.

In your testimony, you said that DOT upgraded lighting at more than twenty, five hundred locations across the city in 2025.

How many of those locations were under elevated train lines?

Uh we'll have to get back to you and check on what the breakdown is of that.

Please do, thank you.

I have no other questions to ask.

So this hearing is here by adjournment.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, not this hearing, this portion of the hearing.

You're excused.

At the beginning of.

Sorry, I now open the hearing for public testimony.

I remind members of the public that this is a formal government proceeding and that the quorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times.

The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify.

No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings of testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recording to the sergeant at arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the sergeant at arms and wait to be recognized.

When recognized, you have two minutes to speak on the legislation being heard today.

If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the sergeant at arms.

You may also email written testimony to testimony at a council that NYC.gov within 72 hours of this hearing.

Audio and video recordings will not be accepted.

Now I'm gonna call the first panel, Andrew Ridgeie and Vinny Dons.

And Andrew, you can start whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon.

My name's Andrew Ridgeie.

I am the executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance.

We represent restaurants, bars, and nightclubs across the five boroughs.

Thank you for hosting today's hearing.

I'm gonna testify on three bills.

Intro eight nine four, nine one seven, and nine one eight.

I've also submitted written testimony.

Uh, first on eight nine four seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes.

Uh restaurants are paying the city for a year-round license for their sidewalk cafes, but as mentioned earlier, during the more inclement uh, you know, months, uh, they're unable to really utilize that space even though they're paying for it.

So, as uh Councilmember Brewer mentioned, we would like the ability to use high quality winter vestibules.

You have seen restaurants that have used them uh in the past, uh they hold up to the elements, they allow businesses, small businesses in particular, to really maximize uh their revenue by using the space that they're paying for throughout the winter months.

It's also important worker protection, as when the weather gets cooler, you see restaurants are reducing worker hours, even eliminating some jobs because excuse me, because they're losing that space if they're able to utilize it by keeping it warm during the winter, then they will be able to sustain those jobs as well as sustain the small business revenue and giving their customers a place to uh sit.

The next bill we are speaking on is the 918, which would allow the revocable consent fees to be paid quarterly instead of in one lump sum.

This is how it was done for probably decades at DCWP.

Not even a small business's landlord requires one year rent paid up front.

Why is the city requiring small businesses to pay fees in a lump sum?

It's not just the consent fees, it's also the licensing fee, security deposit, the fee for the public notice, um, you know, architecture's fees, if they're paying that expediter fees, it is a lot of money.

You could be talking tens of thousands of dollars.

It worked in the past, paying quarterly.

We think it would be a nice option, especially when we talk about supporting small businesses in neighborhoods across the city.

And can I get 30 seconds to finish up the last one?

Um obviously we all want to keep uh the streets, you know, clean, the outdoor dining clean, we believe as DOT acknowledged and was mentioned earlier that uh the rules currently establish a regulatory framework and penalties if the sidewalk or roadway cafe area is not kept clean.

Um we don't necessarily love doubling up the um fine scheme.

However, that being said, if you are gonna codify what's already in the rules, we would just ask that violations or I should say first-time violations allow for a warning or a cure period before a monetary penalty is issued.

Um, the council I know is working on small business reforms.

The mayor's administration through executive order eleven is looking at reducing fines and fees, and we believe as the hospitality aligns, any small business violation that does not pose an immediate hazard to workers or to the public should allow a warning or cure period before a penalty is issued.

Um we think the focus should be on education training first, penalties as a last resort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vinny, good afternoon, committee on transportation infrastructure.

Thank you for allowing me to testify.

My name is Vinny Don, and I'm a current sophomore at Queen's High School for the Sciences.

As a student, I am here to testify about intro eight four five-2026 at a intro eight six six-2026.

As a student, we uh across all five boroughs of New York City, and we travel all across the city to get to our scores every single day, Monday through Friday, as sometimes absurd hours.

Sometimes wake up at six o'clock, and sometimes we get home at nine o'clock because of extracurriculars, games to score, the distance.

It is essential for the Department of Transportation and this committee to invest on invest on the infrastructure around surrounding the trains on the passes and streets.

When winter comes and the daylight time shrinks, sometimes it gets dark at around six or seven.

When streets get dark, stuff happens.

It's well reported in analytics, it's well-reporting time reporting climate ports, and when streets are unsafe, parents cannot assure that their child will come home safe either.

No student should have to give up their access to extracurricular activities or DY CD programs or any other programs they do outside of school simply because transportation is unsafe or uncertain.

Additionally, I would like to branch out this issue more than infrastructure is sometimes when transportation is delayed or uncertain or when the roads are uneven, it poses a significant threat to students, especially those with disabilities.

Thank you.

Council Marte.

I just want to say thank you uh for coming today for testifying.

I think what you said is exactly what this legislation is meant to achieve.

And so just want to thank you for having the courage showing up to a city council hearing and you know saying how you and other students feel thank you this panel's excuse.

If we inadvertently missed anyone who registered to testify today and has yet to be called please use the zoom raise hand function if you are testifying remotely and you'll be called in the order that your hand has been raised.

If you are testifying in person please come to the dais.

I will need you both to fill out an appearance card.

Thank you.

They're bringing an appearance card for you to fill out and then you'll be able to testify.

Just give us a moment Blake Walker.

Please turn on your mic.

You're fine.

Hi my name is Blake Walker.

I live in Park Slope Brooklyn and I'd like to speak about a different infrastructure issue.

So at the start of each summer my dad and I ride our bikes from Prospect Park to Coney Island along the Ocean Parkway bike path and embarking on a journey from a five hundred and eighty five acre urban park to the sea is an experience that's unique to New York City.

But the problem is that there's a lot of mispotential to extend this opportunity to the 10 million people who visit Prospect Park annually as many locals and virtually all tourists are actually unaware of the opportunity.

So on this year's bike ride my dad and I decided to further our little biking exploration by figuring out a way to connect Coney Island to the shore parkway bike path.

So we rode along the waterfront at Coney Island to Owlshead and Bay Ridge before taking the New York City Greenway bike path to another protected path along Fourth Avenue then turning onto 15th street before returning to Prospect Park which effectively created a loop and the loop was an obvious missed opportunity for New York City to capitalize on bicycle tourism.

And the current problem is that this loop that I just spoke of, which connects a lot of historic locations and beautiful landscapes is disconnected.

And the infrastructure's in place, but the signage is not like there's no signage on the bike paths to effectively guide riders.

And although some locals might be able to figure it out, a lot of tourists are just not going to even try.

So simply closing the loop by adding signage and calling it something like the Prospect Park Coney Island Bay Ridge Loop would allow Brooklyn to capitalize on the one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year in bicycle tourism that's generated.

And it would also enable all of Brooklyn to benefit from the tourism, which often stays centralized and affluent neighborhoods currently.

Thank you.

Of course, always.

Always welcome.

Who would would like to testify?

Please use the zoom raise hand function if you're testifying remotely.

And if you're in person, please come to the day.

Seeing none, I will now close the hearing.

Thank you to the members of the administration and the members of public who have joined us today.

This hearing is officially adjourned.