Is playing out.

Most notably, of course, we have projects that were not initially contemplated, including the project that's under construction on Comstock Street or Comstock Av.

And so I think that what we have done and what we're presenting and talking through today is really has been a team effort involving several different departments.

It's most notably engineering, it has been coordination with the law department and really taking a look at how to structure this and how to identify some of these things that we've noticed, feedback as well from DPW and the coordination around the thought process of monitoring enforcement, looking at the ability for what is the staffing that is necessary and also what's the impact on staff as we think about some of these things with this ordinance.

So I will talk through some of those things right now, and certainly Mary will be able to also add additional insight and look forward to your questions.

So, in terms of the purpose of what we have and what's been presented in the summary outline, this would be to account for, as I was just touching on a moment ago, the current deficiencies that we have identified within the fee schedule, most notably that has been around has been around the work zone traffic control and construction staging.

This is where it has been structured based on per square footage.

It has been, there's there's been areas where the interpretation of some of that area of what is construction staging, what is utilization looking like has been more challenging to be able to have a clear cut, easy to interpret and concise manner for both the applicant, but also making sure that on the back end from a city monitoring perspective, um that that is that is easy to interpret.

So that is one area that we are specifically focusing on with these proposed changes, uh including in that as part of the structure and as part of this discussion, it's really looking at breaking into two schedules depending on the type of project.

One for public utility work.

Um, and I I have extra copies, council here.

So and so the the thought process was, as I mentioned, the intent of this and where we had seen beginning to get our our applicants more comfortable with this was working around the public utility structure and the public utility schedule, and then creating a separate schedule for construction and development.

That is what is included as part of that outline, and I'll be able to talk through when I pulled up a copy of the table.

So we'll be able to go through that in in more detail.

The other thing is addressing challenges that we have seen and encountered as part of the monitoring.

Um, and one of the examples that we've talked about already with Comstock is then the utilization reports.

Uh, there has been daily reports that have been compiled and collected that we have then needed to be able to review, but also it is created a significant amount of staff time going in to be able to review those reports from the applicant's perspective, being able to compile that information and then verifying it as it in accordance with the current ordinance as is.

Um, the other thing that we'll talk about as well is aligning long-term closures.

So again, given the unique circumstance that we've had with the project that has generated the most discussion, how do we approach long-term closures going forward and what would be the role between the city but also with the council and looking at what is the right way to consider a future project when this comes before us in the future.

We also took a look at the violation schedule.

That was one piece of information too that we heard from counselors was looking at ways to look at the fees and penalties associated with these projects, and can we modernize those?

Can we update those in light of everything that we've learned over the last year and a half as well.

Um, and then finally, this is a piece that we also are incorporating or seeking to incorporate here, which would be using the consumer price index or CPI.

There are other fees uh that we currently utilize, including in engineering in the right of way, but other other fees as well, where every year we use that CPI structure uh that comes out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we're able to then determine if there's an increase, then we would immediately apply that so that we can keep our fees rising with inflation, you know, it's consistent with inflationary elements.

And so that is again in other aspects of city government, we do use that CPI or that indexing of fees.

We would be looking to incorporate that here as well.

So I just touched on the uh the two schedules that were being proposed.

One that is focused more on construction and development, the other that is focusing on public utility work.

Again, this is intended to address that work zone traffic control and construction staging.

The intent is that in the other areas where it is more straightforward in terms of what exactly the cost is for right-of-way fees, either refundable or or or non-refundable, we are looking to retain those elements of the right-of-way ordinance as is.

It is specifically that work zone traffic control and construction staging section that would be replaced by the two tables that we've presented, and that I will get into in just a moment.

One of the other things I just want to call out, and you'll see it in the table too, is that we had a lot of conversation about what is the level of disruption or impact in the right-of-way when you are in some of our more high density areas, including downtown Syracuse, including areas like some sections of University Hill.

So one of the things that's been built in here is that specifically where we have boundaries where it is a business improvement district or a BID, there is an additional boost in what the proposed rate is, which we'll get into in just a moment.

But this is really looking at a structure that would be based upon individual lane closures and then full road closures.

And that has the ability to create something that is a per daily rate.

It's a per daily rate that is assigned based on the length and duration of the project.

It's taking away for construction and development, that is, it is taking away the per square foot, the number of trailers, the pieces of this that you have to then continuously monitor and be able to look at from an enforcement standpoint, and simply creating a is the lane closed and or is a road closed, here is the per day expectation of what that's assigned, and then it's monitoring, making sure that that roadway is being impacted for that amount of time that the applicant says it is.

So the proposal would be depending on if this is a residential project, so there's a smaller fee for residential projects compared to let's just say a commercial building like a brick repointing project, where every 14 days uh there is a fee.

It's either 100 or 300, and that is being assessed specifically if you are simply just closing down the right-of-way area in front of your building.

It may result in a sidewalk closure.

There is still impact on the right-of-way, but it is something that is um we we feel one just being able to look at this from a management standpoint, but also what is the impact on small businesses or small firms if they are impacting the right-of-way, but not to the effect of a full road closure or not to the effect of a traffic lane closure or a parking lane closure.

So getting into the actual lane and street closure structure.

So one of the things, the the thought process behind this is that we were really wanting to develop a structure that became more expensive over time, depending on your length of duration.

And so, as part of that, you will see that there is a preliminary 90 day where there is a set fee, and then as the project goes on, if it exceeds 90 days, if it then exceeds 180 days, there is an increase where it steps up the way that that schedule is structured.

So just talking through an example here, if you have a project where you're closing down one lane of traffic and you have a project that you expect will be taking under 90 days, then what you can anticipate is that 200 per day is that rate that you'll be paying for the length of the duration of that lane closure.

If that project is in the downtown business improvement district, it's in a downtown bid, again, a more high density area where there's greater impact, that is a $325 day fee per the lane that or for a one-lane closure.

If there is two lanes or more, which wouldn't and include a um a road closure, that fee is 400 per day.

And then if you are in a high density area in a business improvement district, that fee would have a boost of $525 per day.

And so, again, the point behind that had being a consistent fee that is charged and levied on a daily basis depending on the number of days in your project.

So just the two B IDs for the boost.

Correct.

Yep.

So what about areas that are high impact to businesses that are not in BIDs?

Like are we are we shortchanging ourselves by not expanding that just using the two B IDs?

I think it it's a good question.

I think what we were trying to give thought to is where we there's a delineated boundary that we have the ability to point to of and the business improvement districts are just good examples, particularly downtown, given the fact that the BID boundary is consistent with what we largely view as downtown Syracuse.

And then the other business improvement district we have in Syracuse is the cross marshall business district as well, which income incorporates Marshall Street and then the immediate blocks surrounding uh that area.

But it doesn't incorporate anything on East Genesis Street.

Does not um and I think about like what if we were if someone was to ask us to close Solar Street from Destiny all the way up to Kirkpatrick.

That's not a BID either, but the impact on that would be pretty big.

Yeah.

I think what is there a way is there a way that we can do this with including other areas that in the near future are gonna be high impact areas.

I'm just I'm I'm thinking about that inner harbor and what a nightmare it has been to traverse that thing for the last six months, whether it's the aquarium or not.

I mean, I what they're going to build there is gonna create a lot of work for DPW, and I think just a lot of work.

So if we have a description of what that is, maybe then the areas would apply to where it's or do we need more BIDs, I guess is another place that I would go in that direction.

Like, do we need to actually think about creating a BID in the inner harbor or or because I don't know what the how active the regions are in these Genesis Street corridor anymore either, but like I know that the group meets regularly, it's it just doesn't have the same assessment and the the special assessed fees that come with the BID.

But one of the things I can do, and and I would just ask the the law team to correct me.

I think one of the things is that we do feel the high density categorization is fitting for this because that is where the greatest impact is.

One of the things we might be able to do is just identify or try to look at what that definition is or what that description is.

Um understanding again, looking to go beyond BIDs is is what um kind of hearing, but we just have to give some thought into how do we best achieve that.

High density of population density or high business density.

I guess that's the the place where I'm asking.

So if you let's pick another road, close park street from Hiawafa all the way to the bridge, and you're doing destiny a big disservice for all the business density, but there's not a lot of people that live there.

So I I think that when we say high density, I think we're talking about really more the building stock and where you have a downtown Syracuse being in an M like MX5 district, like that's where you have the greatest concentration of height, but also units and and and things that are afforded for.

Um so I think that's one of the things that we will we will look at and give some more thought to.

But that that really was the intent is where is the impact and the right of way the greatest.

I have a I have a simple question, just clarity.

For for a day, is that the twin to four hours or is that a nine to five business day?

Our definition is that at any point if the right of way is being utilized, then that would constitute a day.

If there is a lane closure or if there is a road closure.

And so the thought process being is that if there is a shutdown, and and let's just I we give the example of like a window washer.

So if you're doing window washing, that's uh much more shorter term, but there is an impact where a lane of closure is happening, a traffic lane at any point in time, that is going to constitute one day.

So it's it's not based on number of hours, or it's not looking at that.

It's just are you closing down that lane?

And if so, if it is for a 24-hour period, that is going to constitute one day.

Any portion of a day constitutes a day.

Correct.

Okay.

So just as the table continues, one of the things you'll see is that it it again there's the fees step up based on the duration and the length of time.

Um so as I mentioned, the way this is structured would be at anything beyond 90 days that comes with an increase, and then anything beyond 180 days.

Um, and then just the other thing that we did note in here too is that there were some elements that we are continuing to keep, including a flat fee for any sort of advertis uh advertising signs.

Uh, that is something that's currently afforded for uh that we wanted to retain as part of the schedule.

Uh and then there is a uh work zone traffic control that's a refundable fee, but that's something we're looking to carry over from uh the original ordinance as well.

So let me be clear on um none of this includes sidewalk closures.

So the sidewalk closures would actually be accounted for in that first category.

So when I when we're saying building face two up to the curb line, that would include uh sidewalk closure.

And and that is a um more of a fee that is assessed for every 14 days that there's a closure happening, and just first roll you said the first one.

The first one to one to fourteen.

Closure of the roll to the curve.

So that's not the right of way up to the curb and the sidewalk is behind the curve.

So it includes the sidewalk.

And we make sure that we make that clear clear when we yeah, we can we can use language that.

But um I did I you did say that uh in your presentation that we include the sidewalk, but yeah, we will we'll make sure that that's refined.

And counselor, it was um uh the example I gave was kind of like if you're doing a brickery pointing or there's some sort of area in which you are undertaking you need to close down a sidewalk to undertake some sort of exterior work, uh sidewalks can be closed down, but it's really just from the building face up to the curb line, parking lane and traffic lane are not impacted, that's where that first column is going to apply here.

Um one of the benefits of that too is that that we really unless you have some sort of trailer or any of the other things that are specifically laid out within the current right-of-way ordinance, we do not have a process by which there is a a fee that can then be again reassessed or appraised on that 14-day process.

So this would be something that we'd be able to then incorporate into projects where I think more often, if you're closing down a sidewalk, it it most of the time will qualify under a standard liability waiver if you're not digging in the road or any sort of excavation.

So, Eric, I have a question.

Um I appreciate the work that's going into this, but my question is is this gonna be a retroactive law?

I mean, we have a law on the books that we have not upheld, right?

And are we gonna go backwards now and change the law and change the fees to the best past seven months of a project that's been going on?

Because that doesn't sit well with me.

Okay.

So we this is we've we've wanted to get clarification and confirmation from uh the law department, but when when we have an ordinance like this, and with the proposal with some of the changes that that this would contemplate, uh we do not have the ability to go backwards or go and back date.

Uh one of the things that we are, and I do have information uh to be able to talk through the Comstock project to your point, counselor.

But what we would be looking to do here, and understanding we have probably more questions to answer, uh, would be we would look to make this uh pending approval would be effective immediately, and then any closures, any projects that would ultimately be eligible for this, then this new schedule would ultimately apply.

And so that would include anything beyond because we right now we have a pending approval or approval through the end of June for the Comstock project right now, and so these fees and everything that we're laying out and structured would then be going forward for for that project.

Going forward, so the past the old fees in the current law they would be held allowable for.

They would have to pay the fees that are currently in our current law to catch up, and then we would start the new fees if we pass this this little ordinance.

That's correct.

There is information that I will be also including here that will um demonstrate and show the the payments that have been made and the info and the fees that have been collected, so I can speak to that as well, specifically related to the to the Comstock project.

Eric, uh my question is how much revenue will the city make with these new given year?

We're gonna get more revenue.

So um from a cumulative standpoint, it is it would be difficult to project for for accumulation of the project, and that just fluctuates every single year.

Um, you know, we are seeing more construction activity than we have in decades in in our city, and I think that the numbers from the permit office in terms of just their valuation on construction is bearing that out too.

Um so one of the things that we're also trying to do is making more of a clear-cut streamlined approach that is going to be then easier to calculate as we're pulling together the refundable and non-refundable fees.

Uh, but we do anticipate as construction and investment is continuing that this would uh this would be a growing number um that the city would would receive benefit from.

And your advertising fees is that for the projects itself.

So it oftentimes you may see a project if it's under construction, they may begin advertising what the development is, or they may have a rendering, or there may be information about leasing if it's a housing project, for example, those are the types of advertising signs uh that were mentioned.

Another question I have is how many permits have we issued under the current ordinance that was passed last year?

How many permits have we already issued?

Yep.

This is a conversation that you haven't expanded on top of that, how many have that?

Sure.

Uh we did receive this inquiry as well from council staff.

We are currently in the process of compiling all that information.

So I've been in communication with the central permit office staff.

One of the things as they're pulling together that report um is that we had actually switched data and software.

So we initially were using IPS for all of our right of way uh applications and fees and permits that were collected.

We've now we're now using a new software called Camino.

So what we're doing is the staff is pulling that together from both databases and looking to compile that information to help specifically answer those questions.

And and I think part of that is we're gonna probably have a different conversation on that because we we've been hammering you on that.

And my hope is that when the committee time for that comes that you will have that that solid data for okay yeah I to really examine this versus what we had prior.

There is a there's a wealth of information that I know the Central Permit Office is pulling to be able to prepare and compile that report so we are looking forward to being able to share and pass that information along and just the the context again of the two databases that they're pulling from both of those to make sure that it's it's comprehensive in the information that we're that we're getting I think two more really big questions in my mind are um is this being changed because one contractor is not liking our fees or is this being changed because we have identified an issue that's one question.

And the second is that I really still have an issue with is how we've allowed the work to continue without a permit that to me is um it's a big problem because um you know we're using taxpayers um right away right this is the taxpayers of the property at the end of the day and they're not seeing a benefit for that use that they no longer have but one entity has so I guess those are my two biggest um issues and concerns about this project um besides the fact that we current you know recently passed legislation and and now we're rolling it back pretty quickly after passing it so to me that weakens our stance to pass legislation it doesn't look good in the public's eye I don't think um and I guess I just want to understand the justification for it is not just because we didn't anticipate this project but um was this a complaint from the current contractor was it a complaint from an entity I mean I just want more clarification as to why we're going through this when we had just not even a year ago put this law into place.

So I think to respond to those questions and counselor I think I'll start with just the the purpose of this proposal and going through the the ability to make those modifications I think that that for a moment there is the one project again that I know you are referencing but there have been other examples where we have identified the deficiencies and looking at ways that we want to build upon what was passed.

I think that's the the way that I would put it is that there are positive elements that came out of the revised changes in early 2025.

We have looked at that one of the things that we've talked about is that there are projects that the amount of revenue the payment both refundable and non-refundable was significantly lower prior to the enacting of this this ordinance one of the things though is whether a road closure being the most obvious and maybe the most amount of attention has been put towards but looking as well at other examples where it is at times it can be nebulous or a little bit difficult to interpret in terms of how you are accounting for particularly this construction work zone traffic control.

I know I noted this earlier there are significant sections of the right of way ordinance that are not being changed and being retained as is it is specifically I think where we've seen the most the most challenges and and Mary feel free to you know let me know anything else I think it's primarily this work zone traffic control and the looking at the staging fees it is that where it has been more challenging because of the fact that it is coming down in some ways of a difference of interpretation and looking at how it can be necessarily applied with the current language in the ordinance as is what this is doing is creating a more standardized a more easier to interpret and a set fee based on those daily rates that is accounting for things like a lane closure and like a road closure.

But then there's other elements of this like the sidewalk piece and counselor Jones Roser I know just brought this up we are there is not an ability for us to effectively be charging for those types of examples in a side like a simple sidewalk closure us outside of a liability waiver.

So it has been we realize that going back and changing legislation we this is not something we do on a constant basis for something like this but one of the things that we've tried to do is that we want to refine and build on what was achieved and what was done there are ways that we feel that that can be done based on what we're we're discussing and proposing and that's been that's been our our biggest goal of what we're trying to achieve here.

I guess it goes back to wanting to see what other project has this impacted and have the impacts been negative or positive for the city.

So there have been other pieces of feedback that we've collected and gathered to be able to try and and make sure that it is extremely clear what that utilization of that right of way means.

So I it is it is not, I think the best way to answer your question, it is not just the Comstock project that I know we're talking about.

There's been other pieces where we have really been trying to gain feedback about ways that unintentionally, the the ordinance as drafted has caused um externalities that we didn't anticipate.

I know we're gonna talk through the bonding was another piece where we have projects.

Um contractors that are doing work across the city on multiple projects.

And the example I would give is like a Huber Brewer, where they, because of the way that the refundable and non-refundable fees are structured, is that um it is cash check money order, it's not incorporating something like the ability to bond, which is something in the past we had afforded projects to be able to do.

And if that ultimately is requiring then a cash down payment or a banker's check, that is um created more more challenges around the ability then for a contractor to be well capitalized to be able to proceed with paying their contractors or paying their subs and paying their staff.

So that's another piece that we've incorporated that that was based on conversations as over the last 18 months as this right of way ordinance has been in effect.

There have been pieces of feedback that we have wanted to take and understand and determine is this reasonable to be able to consider these changes, and that's what's incorporated in this in this memo.

Um we have had contractors doing other work on the bonds, but that has it mic, that was it mic we have had other contractors doing work for the city on under a permit where the bond has expired and the work was not done satisfactorily, is that correct?

I think that I would just need to look further into any specific cases or any examples.

Um I I I mean, there are obviously thousands of projects at any given over the course of a year in the city.

I think one of the things that the purpose and the intent of the bond is to be able to hold and then make sure the work is being done to city standard and city requirements, and so that is also given the city the ability to hold that to confirm that that work is being done in a corner.

I'm just suggesting that if we are allowing people to pay with bond, that we have a stipulation that the work the bond must expire after the work is completed.

And I don't know how the bond organization would work, but that seems like an important facet of that.

I also wanted to ask about the stop work order to permit holder and non-completing work fee.

They are one-time fees, correct?

That is correct, yes.

They are incredibly low for one-time fees.

I mean, essentially, this is a I will pay you this because I'm not interested in doing the work or funding it.

I don't believe that this provides a disincentive.

And I would like to see a disincentive added into the fee structure to make sure.

And somewhat similarly to that, I actually don't think that the reinspection fee, I think that might be actually too high.

We want them to be to come back and be reinspected, right?

We want them to fix the work.

Yes, that's correct.

One of the things with the reinspection fee is my understanding in the language is that it is um there are multiple, I think it's up to three times that if we ultimately have to have staff go out to be able to look and examine.

So I believe that that is that fee is assessed after three times in which it takes place.

All right, thank you.

That's helpful.

I'm gonna look at work zone traffic control where it says 15% of total refundable fee, one kind payment.

We don't have what the payment is and why is it refundable.

Does this involve involve Syracuse police work zone traffic control right here?

Yep.

This is where I'm looking at yes, yeah.

Okay, thank you, counselor.

So that is um that is actually a carry over from the ordinance right now, is written.

The intention would be to keep that.

That number is based upon it's a 15% calculation of the total cost of the work happening that's taking place in that right of way.

So there is uh a formula and a methodology for that.

Um that's built in right now as part of that process.

So I I know we've we've shared a lot of information on different projects, including the non-refundable and the refundable.

This is an additional 15% that is included right now as it stands today, but we'd look to retain that.

That is added on as part of the refundable work.

And this while Syracuse police are going to control traffic in certain zones.

So DPW is you know, in coordination with other departments, but DPW is the one really monitoring to make sure that what is being included in the plans is then being carried out.

But that work zone traffic, like a closed sidewalk, for example, um, you are responsible to then advise pedestrians.

If there is a shutdown sidewalk, what is the alternative path?

What's the detour?

Um, those types of things are included as part of work zone traffic control.

Um SPD is part of a review process in which you looked at that to make sure it's it's meeting requirements, um, but it's it's more than just SPD that's a part of it.

Okay, thank you.

All right, great.

Good morning, everyone.

I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments with respect to the bond.

That is how a bond would work.

It would remain in place until we had signed off on the work.

I am not personally aware of any work that's done that was not secured by a bond that went be where the bond expired.

If you are aware of that, please let us know.

Um, or if Eric you find any, but that is how the bonding would work, it would have to remain in place.

Um, I also just want to note um someone had mentioned um you know rolling back legislation.

I think as we know from what engineering told us when the code was amended a year ago or a year and a half ago at this point, um, it was done so with the intent of addressing utility work, and it worked very effectively.

What Eric is proposing to you is the new legislation leaves that in place because as it was drafted as it was intended, it's having a very positive impact, and it's working.

So Eric is not proposing to change that, but taking what was intended to apply to utilities and apply it to all construction has proven to be challenging.

And so what the proposal is is to add a different set of rules for general construction, and I I just wanted to point that out.

We're not rolling back what was done or what it was intended to address, that's staying in place.

We're just asking there was unintended consequences from that that we're seeing now.

Um, and so this proposed change addresses addresses that.

Thank you.

And Eric, I want to ask you, you mentioned staging fees.

Hadn't haven't we eliminated that?

Then you eliminate the staging fees.

It's there is the per square footage, the way that that structure is is not being um carried over into this.

But a part of the reason why is that what this builds in is that if a lane is being closed or if a road is being closed, or if a sidewalk is being closed, regardless of if there is any sort of staging or anything happening in that right-of-way, it is more definitive that if you are closing down any one of those things, there is a per daily rate, or there is a rate that's being calculated that's charging for that.

So it it's it would still like staging was still happen as part of any construction project, but the previous methodology and that formula of how to calculate that, that is what we're moving away from as part of this.

Except for the utility, for the public utility work, where we still have the material staging and equipment storage in the right-of-way.

I I know I haven't gotten to that table yet, but I can just move over to that.

And this is also included in what's in front of you, but the um the information that's including here is is largely consistent and really uh carrying over a number of different aspects for public utilities uh that was included as part of the right-of-way ordinance.

The one thing that we have included or added is this first initial column around the first 30 days looking at the area from the right-of-way to the curb line.

Uh, that is essentially as well the 30 300 on a 30-day period, that is a non-refundable fee, and that is looking at specifically where you have examples where utility projects oftentimes may be moving, they may be undertaking a sewer line or a conduit or or some or some sort of telecommunications line upgrade.

So we are looking at areas where it's specifically maybe looking at curb line to edge of payment uh pavement, and so that's um Mary, that's accounting for more than just sidewalk area, is that correct?

I'm confused.

I'm looking at the material staging, and you're assessing it for 150 square foot.

So you're still using that metric when it comes from the utilities, yeah.

Public utilities one, yeah.

So your national grade verizon spectrum.

And that for construction, but not remove that from construction.

Right.

And the intention behind that is that the um we have over the last year and a half since the since this right-of-way ordinance has gone into effect, we've had greater success in working through with the public utility companies and being able to look at how these are being calculated as part of these projects.

And I think the the biggest piece is being able to that there's there's a level of um familiarness that they've gotten to that schedule is proposed for the utility companies.

It's really the construction and development, whereas then more challenging because of the fact that some of these project sites are evolving on a daily basis.

Because it doesn't say here for 14 for the public utility.

For the utility, yeah.

Uh it's per 14 day period.

30 and 30, right?

You say uh construction trailer and it's say 100 regular rate, that's per a day or perfect.

14 day period.

For a 14 year old.

Okay, but the first one, as Eric just pointed out, uh is up to the curb line, including the sidewalk is um per 30 day period.

Right.

Uh I think that's uh council uh right uh point earlier about it being too low.

Uh we're talking about the public utility where you say construction trailer for uh 14 days machinery, material state, that's my funding.

Yeah, good you we revisit that Eric that number as well.

We can we can take a look.

Uh I know one of the things that we um had had looked at, and I think considered given the amount of projects that the the utility projects that we have coming in are um that one, there's a wide range of applications that are coming in, and the fact that the projects um that there are for every single street for every single road that there is an upgrade or a utility connection, that is oftentimes where you're seeing those trailers need to be used.

Now they are it's it's not oftentimes for a long-term period of time.

It really depends on the nature of the work, and um there's a parts of this that I'm starting to get out of my area of expertise.

But one of the things is that that is for utility for a handful of utility providers that are doing work in the city.

That is a they are applying sometimes dozens of permits on a quarter, and so that there's just a number of different applications, and so that fee is being applied every time they have a trailer.

Um, but those even I realize the number looks small, some of these fees and costs do add up considerably just when you're doing dozens and dozens of projects throughout the city.

So we understand that Eric, but the e the issue here is all our constituencies and you know resident are paying these rising utility costs, it's a good thing.

The city gotta pick up something from stuff like this as well.

Uh so it might it makes sense to really revisit that and look at it.

Yeah, we can take a look at it, but they you know, based on the um ordinance that we passed last March of 25, um, you know, their fees did go up, which the data we're collecting right now, you'll see that the fees are going up substantially.

So um okay.

Um so continuing on, uh so then one of the things that uh was included as part of the language, and one of the things that we I know had conversations with with some members of the council about is under a scenario where there is a long-term closure that's being contemplated.

Uh the road closure being again one of the things that was not accounted for when the ordinance uh was passed last year.

And so we have the current process in place right now, um, and Comstock is just you know the the most prevalent example of this, where um the DPW commissioner, uh the city has the ability to provide and permit a road closure for the first 90 days.

I think as the council is uh very aware that uh day 91 and beyond that requires common council authorization and action.

And so as we've been looking at this and having the conversation around what in a scenario where this happens again in the future, um, for any closure that is beyond 90 days, the approach that we are proposing is one where we would remove the first 90 day, having it being done at the city level and having that be done by the DPW commissioner first, and instead on day one, having that request for that closure beyond 90 days come before the council.

Uh in addition, that would include the application materials, all the information, including the length of time for the closure, uh the fees that are being included as part of that, the expectations that those fees would also be paid and accounted for.

And so rather than, and I realize that we have uh been in this over the past several months, as we've been talking about the the current project, is that we would actually remove having to create almost two different channels, one that starts for the first 90 days and then what happens after that, and creating a new system and process where that would come to the council on the first day to be able to consider is this uh closure that that the city and the council are supportive of rest of I said it was that removes us from for beyond 90 days, and one of the things too is that it would we would have the information up front to understand what is the length of time that is being requested, that would all be part of the consideration process if ultimately depending again it's the the decision of the council as to whether or not that right-of-way closure and that that road closure would actually proceed in advance.

The other piece that we've talked about is looking at um pending, let's just say if there is a project that's able to move forward, then we would have quarterly reporting where we would provide the information about the level of compliance of that project.

Have there been uh violations or right of ways or or or project um violations observed, that information would be provided on a quarterly basis that we would present.

And then the other thing is that we've incorporated and with working with the law department, a revocation process, so similar similar to a revocable permission, uh which is a standard process we have in place right now, but a revocation of any road closure due to uncured violations and aspects, and that would all be included in the report that's presented on a quarterly basis.

So if there are violations that have been brought to the project that are uncured, there is the ability to actually revoke uh that that road closure that was uh permitted.

Let me ask you this, right?

Because we talked about it, and you talked about the fact that coming back to the council every 90 days hinders the developer.

So what happens if you come back to the council and all of these things are in place and it's revocable and we re-revoke it, it's the same thing.

The project stops.

The the primary difference in in this case, and and what so when I know we talked about this counselor, but I'll I want to make sure I just am able to explain it.

As projects are securing bank financing, as they are working through a number of different sources that come in in order to have a project break ground, there is a level of risk that a lender, a financier, and a tax credit investor that if the project is ultimately beholden to a permission that has to be granted every 90 days that the project applicant, the construction team, the bank and the lender do not control, there are lenders and banks and financiers that would not be comfortable with being able to support a project that is going to go beyond that 90-day time frame.

The reason why we have then tried to look at this and being able to hear and understand and recognizing some of the council feedback that we've received is the for a lender's perspective, if they have the clarity that on that first day, and that as long as the project has provided all the clarity, the information that's needed, that there is a it there's a process by which it can be permitted to have that longer term closure.

Now, if their contractor, the development team, if they violate that um standard two, if they're not paying their their mortgage fee on their project, there are violations by which the lender would recognize and accept that they have not been complying with what the city is putting into place.

But in the case of for primarily for a lot of privately financed projects for a number of different projects that we would have in our pipeline, the ability to have the 90 day having to come back for that 90 days, it creates a level of risk and it would complicate the ability for projects to successfully secure financing.

We've we recognize and trying to look at that.

I realize that that is a separate, but it it impacts the ability for projects to break ground.

I think what we are trying to propose would be a manner by which the council has the authority, the ability to make the decision around whether or not this road closure would be approved at the same time, understanding it's giving long-term clarity and and longer-term confidence to a lender, to a tax credit lender, that the project would be able to be finished as long as they comply with all of our right-of-way standards.

So, what happens if a project is supposed to take a year and it takes two years?

We have no control over that.

So, in that case, if they recharging.

Yep.

So, if well, and there's a couple of things.

So, yes, the charges would there, there's an increase to those charges, but also if they exceed the original time frame that's originally been allotted, that has to come back for the permission to extend.

So, I mean, and one of the things too is when we compile applications, one of the things we're asking is what's the anticipated start of the work, and then what would be the anticipated completion?

So we would have that information up front, that would be part of any any decision that's that's weighed.

If they exceed that time frame and they're beyond that original 90 days, then this would have to come back, and they'd have to give greater justification explanation as to what led to the delays.

Another thing we were talking about prior was the accountability, right?

How fit are we to be, you know, in all of these projects to be able to know who's complaining, who's not, if they're doing what they said they were going to do, you know, to just keep people the old deducts in a row.

So can you tell us a little bit how we're gonna accomplish that?

I can, yeah.

So one of the things too is that we've we've been having an extensive amount of conversation about um just I think the bandwidth and the staffing and the capacity.

I know I mentioned earlier just the fact we are seeing unprecedented construction development underway.

Um it is And that's why I'm asking because it's unprecedented, which yes.

Yep.

And I I think that so our our public works team, which it is it is a small but dedicated, very hardworking team, and have had the chance to work more closely with them as we've been looking at this.

The the the ordinance right now, one of the things as we've been really going through the language is that it does afford additional monitoring within the right of way to greater departments than just public works.

So one of the other things is that the Department of Water, they are regularly doing sewer work and sewer repair work within the right of way.

It includes if you know, of course, the Department of Engineering, but even our code inspectors within neighborhood and business development, is that most of the time right now when we have inspectors coming on site to a building, they are more their focus is on the private property.

There's there's there's not a monitoring within that right of way because ultimately the focus and the emphasis is around the private property for code violations.

What we are looking at, we've had we're starting to have these conversations about how can we expand this process because we have eyes from the city in our community in our streets on a regular basis, but how do we better account for that as part of if we see activity that we feel like is non-compliant, now we may that inspector may not have all that information up front.

We're trying to figure out ways can we look at our training and looking at ways that we can better equip them to be able to examine or identify something that may be a right of way violation, we can go back and get verification of that and then levy ultimately if there's violations, levy what that is.

So that is one way we're looking to be able to increase the accountability and also be able to, if there are violations, being able to implement those.

So counselor Majuk had um recommended, I think it was you, um, that we have a project manager to oversee projects, big projects like this.

Are we are we working towards that?

So yeah, so we one thing I and I did not mention, so thank you for the question, is that we have a vacancy right now around a right of way construction manager.

That is in the process, we are posting for that position.

That is one in public works that would be part of this team.

I think the other thing, counselor, we've had conversations about, um, we're talking about two right of way inspection individuals, and then we have the the superintendent of the department of transportation.

We're looking at it what is the right level of bandwidth?

Is there a need to be able to increase that?

I know I mentioned the other departments as well.

So it is something we are very much open to of the ability if if there is that need to be able to look at from a staffing level perspective, that's something again we recognize too.

There is more work in our project pipelines, more right of way work happening.

But we also want to make sure if we already have like our inspectors and other opportunity with existing city resources, we want to be able to, we're not pulling from those right now.

We want to be able to look for uh ways to do that.

Um, Aaron, we're running really real low on time.

Would you briefly uh obviously we'll have definitely have more conversation?

Would we briefly touch on the bond side of the legislation?

Yes.

So the I I know I'm I touched on this earlier.

I think that the current uh legislation uh it as is, it applies for if you do a cash deposit for both the refundable but also it's specifically um, it's it's the refundable portion where the bond in the past is something that we have been able to afford for projects.

Um, this is where the city holds on, the reason why it's refundable is to go back and verify that the work is being done accordingly to city code to city requirements, there's an inspection perspective to that, and then upon satisfaction of those things, that that investment can be refunded.

Um, as we we've shared, I know what other examples and permits and projects, the the refundable number is significantly higher than the non-refundable, and that's done to be able to give the city uh a greater, stronger piece of leverage and information that then can be implemented if needed and potentially withholding any portion of that refundable deposit if work is not being done according to code.

Um, there are project examples where that can be in the millions of dollars on a significant real estate investment or real estate project.

So if you have contractors that are doing work on several projects in the city, and then there is not that it requires a cash deposit or a banker's check, there are fees associated with doing anything that is not cash, and that is becoming more and more challenging for some of our large-scale contractors and large scale development teams that are undertaking several projects at once.

So some of the feedback and some of the pieces that we've we've received is would the city consider the ability to add bonding?

But one of the things too, and we've looked at this with the law department with the corporation council team, is if there are examples or infractions where work is not being completed effectively, and there are additional penalties.

And so that for anyone who is um you know not complying, then we would have the ability to take action against them.

Well, Eric, I obviously there's still a lot of question and a lot of things to be addressed with this with this uh legislation.

We need to have another conversation.

Um but before that, when we reconvene again, we want to be we want to we want to see the how how effective the current legislation has been used with with it with the request of permits, with the request uh with with the revenue generated through that and what has worked and what hasn't really worked about that.

We will, you know, when we reconvene again, look at the fees that council has expressed concern around some fees being too low.

Uh so look into that and we'll we'll have to reconvene again because it's that's a lot of too many hanging pieces that have not been you know consolidated.

So and I want to thank you for being here.

Mary, thank you, counselors, thank you, uh Sue and Joe, thank you.

Um that will do it for us today.

Our meeting is adjourned so we can get into study sessions.

Yes, all right.

Thank you, Eric.

Thank you.

Thank you.