we go to the game and correct but it's not specific to you it's waving the uh fees for Charter in public strange Jimmy could you pass me the kleenexes thank you so much not yet I will look is there a word change there you have a copy of it meanin thank you very much [Applause] good scar i' like to advise all those present that notice of this meeting has been provided to the public in accordance with the provisions of the open public meeting act that notice was published in the Jersey Journal City website copies were provided to the record noall Ledger also placed on a Bolton board in the lobby of City Hall objections if any shall be made to the city clerk please rise to salute the flag pledge aliance to the flag United States of America Mr fre please call the role Mr con here FCO pres Mr Doyle pres Fisher here Jee Tino here Mr Cano Mr Ramos Mr Russo pres president Jabor I don't think there's any changes right anything no changes all right okay so the only item that is changed on this evening's agenda that's marked in the room for those that are here is the removal of A8 A8 have a hearing on a hearing on an ordinance supplementing the definitions in chapter 42 historic preservation of the municipal code of the city of Hoboken are there any members of the public signed up to speak I believe Mr Ahmed yes yep he's there hany I'm Ed Hoboken good evening Council uh like to start off with uh had an election yesterday congratulations to those that uh put their name on a ballot and congratulations to those who won um and uh congratulations to Mr defusco for serving almost eight years on this board uh thank you so so real quickly with respect to this ordinance um May you may or may not be aware I had submitted an application to the historic uh Board of preservation in August of this year uh when the application came before the board um there was a sudden uh confusion of what public right of way meant the word public right of way is not a new term it's used in pretty much every municipality in state of New Jersey and the basic meaning of a public right of way is a roadway it is a road that could be traveled on by cars and vehicles it is not some arbitrary definition that uh is mythical or just you know came out of the sky with respect to this property is a dead end Street Hoboken doesn't have that many dead end streets and the other contention was what a corner is a corner is defined by an intersection of two roadways and if there is a property on a corner historic has jurisdiction over both the front facade and the side facade not the rear not the alley facade just those two facades um with respect to a deadend street a dead end Street doesn't constitute a corner it is a dead end Street and uh with with respect to this particular application there's a park at the End of the Street which vehicles are not allowed to drive in if they were then you would have the public RightWay argument I shared with you uh the definition and the definition of public right away is not in this particular ular chapter with historic preservation but it's in other chapters in the Hoboken zoning book uh that you could refer to so I don't think the meaning was meant for certain chapters and then no meaning in other chapters uh the ordinance before you tonight is a Rewritten ordinance to have it or attempt to have it mean something that it does not mean and if that's the case when there's an application Live we're not supposed to be running around making new definitions to fulfill whoever it is that wants to make that definition after the fact a good analogy is kicking a ball and moving the field goal post after the ball's in the air and that's what I think is going on before you tonight I don't think it's fair there are other parts of the application that were problematic with certain members that decided to speak out and relate this application to other lawsuits that we have at the city which you know that should never happen the application should have it was my name my house this wasn't Pegasus this wasn't block 112 but it was brought up in the meeting and unfortunately no one stop them and you know or ask them to recuse themselves after they've done that and we call that targeting the two applications have nothing to do another uh there was a owner on that block that came to speak there were three other people that spoke before him never were asked what their relationship was magically when that person came up what's your relationship what company do you work for questions that weren't asked before but that's another matter and unfortunately that's that's a legal matter but with respect to this ordinance tonight one thing that should never be done should never be done is you shouldn't produce laws for single applications laws need to to be able to be tested to see how they work throughout the entire city to see if there's any unintended consequences we've done this before you make a a law in a middle of night ad hoc and then we find out you know months if not years later that oh my God this is a real problem this law we made it for one thing the demolition ordinance is one of those examples you made it real quick and then you find out what it really means when it came back to haunt this Council so I really suggest that if if you're going to produce a new law base it on merits and see how it that law is applied not to just one person coming in how does it apply on on Garden Street how does it apply on park or other historic districts what does it du to Court Street this this new law you're writing is is allowing you to view hisor from any angle well when when third and Washington got done that law didn't exist when other homes and Castle Point got done that law didn't exist and it's just tooo coincidental that a magical application appears and a magical law appears behind that's not that's not what this body should be doing and targeting is definitely not something should be done um I hope that you vote this down tonight and then if you do want to make a definition look at it holistically get a planner to write it for you so that it could be applied throughout the entire city without unended consequences I don't think many of you knew what this law was about I think it just showed up before you and I don't think any of you knew it was en tied to a larger litigation piece so please consider it thank you are there any other members of the public Manny Rivera yes good evening council president um as well I stand to ask questions on B 607 again questions that were not able were not able to be question I guess redundant on the meeting yesterday held by the planning board um they referred members of the public to come and speak at the um council meeting in regards to uh the code and the definition of a public right away uh as the prior speaker mentioned this did sort of appear suddenly or perhaps it was coming but in this case it felt suddenly do due to the fact that I also have been following um the prior speaker application or other applications that do come up in front of the historic preservation so the questions that were asked or were not asked pardon me yesterday but were asked by members of the planning board um are questions that come up just from the moment what is the definition why does the definition have to be changed very simple question first one second one [Music] what is the difference between the code that is uh presently which the one with the one you were about to change again questions that we're not able to um get answers to last night but I hope that somewhere along the line they get answered here as well as a question that was asked in regards to um the airspace on that right away uh yesterday it wasn't even clear if the members of the planning board had a clear definition as to do does the public right away being whatever it is uh we're walking on a sidewalk or some type of a like was mentioned a dead end and if there is a protruding I would say uh bay window or Windows Bay does that developer that owner now is they encroaching in the public right away so because of the airspace that's there does it count so if you have that in your definition or in what's presented to you then explain it to members of the public let everyone hear the explanations as to why you're going to vote in favor or against it um it is very important because it does feel like it comes up Suddenly when it shouldn't and it shouldn't be a process that's done as I constantly come up here every other week and ask you for a proper proper that means you take your time you study it a proper review of the city codes because many developers use the code in their favor constantly whereas the protections for buildings and certain sites always um go out the window because they know that the code says this and they can manipulate it that way because again it's how it uh works out uh again members of the public are interested in finding any information you can possibly give in regards to um ordinance b607 and since I'm I'm standing and I still have a minute b608 sounds very familiar again I know that it's not up but I'm mentioning it now in case I do not want to come back but I perhaps will it's how does it relate what is the difference with b607 and b608 there's a word is it now because of Alleyways is it different because it's a different board um again questions that need answers and we appreciate it thank you council president and Council thank you do any other members of the public wish to speak on this ordinance motion to close public portion all in favor I sure councilman Doyle a little context can you move your mic down Jim can you move your mic down sorry um so at the planning board meeting last night when we were doing a consistency review for this to with sole purpose of which is for the planning board to opine as to whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the master plan or Andor the land use element it is not a hearing and so we the planning board in in these instances with consistency reviews only we don't uh Entertain You Know questions from the audience because the hearing is here tonight not last night so the chair I think politely pointed out that um there there wouldn't be a discussion at the planning board with regard to these so um with regard to the we were we were told that it was not a it's not a change uh it is adding a definition where none existed in the past and so um I mean I I personally I mean I don't know I don't want a corporation councel put you on the spot I don't know whether we could carry this for two weeks if we want us to I mean I do agree with the speaker that we shouldn't be writing laws for specific circumstances that's I often rail against that but then again you also pointed out that when we realize that in a specific circumstance that either a prior law need needs to be fixed or oh we didn't think of that that's when we repair it so I I don't know necessarily that realizing in this instance that there's something that was overlooked and there was no definition isn't not in my mind necessarily specifically picking on you but um I we were also told and this is anecdotally from the planning board secretary so it was not on the record that this language was taken from you know it wasn't drafted specifically it had been taken from whether it's other towns or you know it it's this is not unique to hobok and the way this has been defined but that all being said I think it's worth carrying it we can vote in two weeks on it um we can look into this if it's true that this is very unusual and it's retaliatory then obviously I would not support it but I you know we had we had some discussion of what a right of way is last night but we didn't delve into how different it may be from but your comment uh Mr Ahmed about the there being a definition in other parts of the code intrigues me because we were told there is no definition of of a public right of way and this is curing that deficiency in the code not creating another one that's different from other parts of the code that have such a definition councilman Cohen I think you also wanted to speak on this just a few things on this first just in terms of the procedural history on this this passed unanimously on first reading on September 20th it was tabled on November 1st because the planning board hadn't heard it yet planning board heard it at its meeting uh Tuesday night and found that it was consistent with master plan uh and just to Echo a few points uh I I there's a grain truth with Mr Ahmed said which is that during his application there was a question about whether a park could be considered or or in Ingress and egress from a park could be considered right of way and it was identified at that hearing that there was no definition of right of way at that time so there was an effort made by the city to create a generic definition of what right of way is uh my understanding is that the historic president reservation committee whether it has jurisdiction or not over these right of way issues is not in a position to block or prevent this application from going forward it could make a recommendation for or against but it is not a determination whether it could or not I think the idea here behind this is and just to it's a very simple definition it just says uh the public right of way shall include any area that is readily accessible to the public for purposes of Ingress egress Transportation Andor Recreation including what limited to streets Lanes Alleyways sidewalks Pathways Parks Railways and waterways I think the idea is that if there's a structure that the public interacts with sees it experiences it that that's something that it's not like in a backyard in a way where it's just private no one would have any access to it but if it's something that people see regularly in their comings and goings it could be something that the historic preservation commission could opine on uh the uh the language I I briefly looked at this letter that Mr red circulated just at basically at the time the meeting started tonight and it makes arguments as to why a park may or may not be considered part of a right of way looking at other chapters uh but I do think the intent here is neutral I don't think the intent is retaliatory I've talked to the city my understanding is that the application may be resubmitted at some point in the future but that it's not pending right now in any event but that's obviously up to the applicant to decide whether to resubmit it or not not uh but that this is basically curing a hole in the ordinance where in the future there will be questions as to what is a public right of way and there should be a definition as to what it is so again I I you know I just take issue with the with the concept that this is retaliation against Mr Ahmed or anybody else but rather it was a deficiency in the code that was identified that did happen at his application so I could understand why he might think that but it it is essentially a neutral definition uh which I I think no matter how we land on oh the other thing is that in our committee and the development committee we made edits to it so it's something we worked on again it's been out here for a few months I don't mind carrying it for two weeks either but again I think the point here is that this has been out there for a few months we're just hearing about this concern tonight and we're not disregarding it but I do think that this is a neutral intent here it's not one that's taken uh against any applicant thank you council president sure councilman Cohen uh sorry can I'll take that as a compliment um uh you know one of the things that I've always had an allergic reaction to is uh any perceived changing of of Shifting of golf gol posts uh and and whenever we're updating laws or or or changing them within the city uh I've seen it happen um here during my short time on the council and and I always want to take great caution and make sure that those those things uh don't happen moving forward so I I again I I join my colleagues and if we want to carry this for two weeks so that we can be rest assured that any un unintended consequences don't happen I'm happy to do that any concerns with the motion to carry on the table would we carry b68 as well they're correct I think they would both council president I do have a question what would caring do give us two weeks I think to further research this and do our diligence and get a and could we get a memo um summarizing like what the impacts are across the city and how they should be contemplated I'm ready I'm ready to vote on it tonight and then if somebody wants to introduce in a new business like I think that's fair it's been carried for so long I think it was worth a debate we have the public here the the planning board spoke about it I think I defer to the sponsors if sponsors Cohen and Doyle wish to carry it I sure would grant that but is there a formal motion I wouldn't want to necessarily vote it down if it turns out n but I I wouldn't want to but I think I that would be the prudent move to do if we don't maybe just vote have a vote tonight in the negative hopefully in the negative and then reset the clock then we start yeah reset the clock so planets can look at it and everyone can look at it with a clean set of eyes why don't we motion to car I'll motion to carry second we don't need motion to carry the could just we'll just carry it or you can motion table it okay Carry till 607 and 608 please hearing on U ordinance b608 an ordinance supplementing definitions in chapter 196 Zoning for the municipal code excuse me cityok I think we just no that's been carried that's 608 607 and 608 have been carried so the next ordinance should be b611 oh that's been removed as well sorry 620 thank you uh B uh p620 an ordinance establishing a new chapter 19 19 169 trees and tree maintenance and amending related sections of the municipal code are there any members of the public signed up to speak uh Ben M Brena Ben good evening everyone um my name is Ken misener I am the current acting chair of the Hoboken shade tree commission um licensed landscape architect and arborist and um I specialize in the Construction and design of urban Landscapes so um I'm here to encourage you all to support the tree ordinance and to think of trees as um as infrastructure really because two of the aspects that trees provide which are listed in the uh the ordinance are um uh stor water mitigation which is obviously very important to Hoboken and also uh mitigation of urban heat island effect um when the trees uh provide these Services they are acting as infrastructure so the ordinance allows would establish uh processes and protections for the trees that are in the public right of way in Hoboken So currently there's none and um I think it'd be very invaluable to have these Protections in place for the trees uh the um uh you know if you wouldn't have somebody go and and just sort of dig up a um a drain pipe without there being a permit and a process and a review uh the same should be afforded to trees uh because of these services that they provide so by passing the tree ordinance you're protecting uh infrastructure you're prot protecting an invaluable asset for the community of Hoboken so I encourage you all to um uh support the tree ordinance thank you very much thanks for your service to the board next speaker I think I'm gonna guess man [Music] Riva you're back we don't encourage anything uh council president uh I as well um am speaking on b620 uh I am for all things uh shat Tre commission uh I support it of course but as you instructed last meeting I did go to the portal and and I did try to read or get access to the complete ordinance before I was cut off uh because you have to have a uh code I'm not an employee but it gave me a freebie for some reason um but anyway nonetheless I digress from that I just want to say when I was reading it there were some things that were um crossed out those things I just wanted to know if members of the public could get a little more uh information if they're prudent or if they match her to the ordinance um again um the very particular words again are mentioned in this ordinance as well um public right of way again without a definition of a public right of way how can we then Define it in this ordinance is it again the the alleyway is it a the tree the height of the tree do we have the um obviously the ability to go up high and and trim the tree obviously because it it it it is going upwards Towards the Sky does the sky um when I say sky is airspace uh that we have above the tree again is that public right away so it all comes to um words and words need to be clarified so that again we don't have to come back again and again and again and uh uh rework a ordinance or a code with it starts getting um a bit complicated for people who are in um boards and commissions and such um to have the proper tools I believe this ordinance is pretty lengthy and does have a lot of um important things in it in regards to um exactly as was mentioned by the prior speaker um the importance of the trees the reasons why they're here why we protect the canopies which there's one on 11th street that needs a lot of attended care I grew up uh on that uh Street Street and uh you know all of these things if members of the public because the shry commission is one of the commissions that doesn't get too much love from the public uh I know I'm there they should I encourage everyone to come it they're they're highly important too because um when there is a a project or a building uh the Sha tree commission gets to uh establish at least some uh uh authority over what is going to be planted in front and the side around uh the project so it it's a uh an important uh uh commission that we have is an important tool that our city has and I urge everyone as well to to attend them they're they're via zoom and uh again it is very important so I leave it with that council president um bless you uh just a little more clarity in regards to the actual wording of the public right away again that's why I had it here and and as far as the uh I think I when first reading I asked a question in regards to uh the the the authority that the shade tree commission is going to have I don't know because I couldn't read that far down but does it change any of the um authorities that it have in regards to when they give their information or their um observations and and the types of tree that they want in a lot that somebody else doesn't come and change them on them or the amount of trees if they say five trees it should be definitely five and not three when it goes down to either the planning board or the zoning board so those things are important and I thank you for listening are there any other members of the public sign up to speak motion to close public portion all in favor I uh Mr Solera I'd happy to show you it shouldn't be the case that you are not able to access the full packet all of the information should be fully available online um there's one way that you can like download it as a PDF but there's another way you can actually read it on screen I'm happy to show you CU I'm not sure why you got that error message but it should be available to you so um members of the council council president sure um just a general question to the sponsors of uh of the ordinance is there a hardship Clause uh for instance for senior citizens um or folks with um Financial uh troubles that might prevent them from being able to um maintain their trees no I think that maybe has a question for the director um director Stratton do you want to good evening hi no there's not no okay so this is my this is my concern director obviously hobokin is a tree friendly City on my block on Garden between first and second the neighbors have come together to plant trees maintain trees we put up signs encourage encouraging um folks with dogs not to help you know have them urinate because it causes you know it causes damage to the trees so I couldn't think of a better City Better Community where we want to encourage trees the issue with the ordinance as I see it is that if a condo association or a building May cannot afford the maintenance of the trees We already pay a ton in taxes right we pay a ton of taxes to the city to do these things maintain the public right of way which is ironic because we're we're trying to talk about what you know the definition of a public right of way is in zoning and this is clearly one so if it's under the purview of the zoning officer for zoning issues it should be under the purview of the city for tree issues as well so my issue is not trees I love trees my issue is that we shouldn't be putting the cost of maintenance on members of the community because ultimately that's just going to have a negative impact on people's willingness to plant trees so um but I do appreciate the intent of the ordinance thank you so much I just I just want to offer a point of clarification this ordinance doesn't change the responsibility it has always been the responsibility of the homeowner is carrying through to establish a new chapter so would you be open to perhaps putting a clause in there that indicates that if there's a hardship or if again a hardship could we have to Define it but a senior citizen a conduit Association that may not have the money in their in their budget that City would create a car out for them because not everyone has $3,000 $5,000 hanging around to you know take down a tree and repair a sidewalk it's more than that I'm I'm standing in for director Gonzalez so I wouldn't that's a conversation to have with her once we act on this legislation presumably we could add that in an amendment after the fact there's a sorry I'm I'm sorry Chim there are a number of examples what the councilman the Fusco uh pointed out across the city there's one on the westbound side of Jefferson Street we discussed that one uh director Freeman and with director Gonzalez that the roots are coming out of the tree all types of way the sidewalk is lifted about two to three feet uh residents trip over it constantly uh it's been like that for years and there's been no uh situation rectifying that whatsoever at this point there's a issue in the second ward on Garden Street on on a side street there on 13th Street that no one could walk on the sidewalk the tree takes the entire sidewalk and these trees aren't like 5 years old 10 years these trees are probably 100 years old right so what's what's the the resident will have to incur a lot a lot if you with trees it's it's a huge amount uh of money that maybe a condo uh can't take on that cost but we have to step in a little bit because it's me we had a debate earlier public right away the sidewalk is our domain in a lot of aspects so I think we should a little more aggressive in trying to take care of our public domain because we have instances of people tripping all over the place and moms or and and parents carrying the the stroller over these humps on sidewalks or seniors like trying to get their Walker over the hump on a sidewalk is just outlandish to me we haven't be able to uh get our arms around that issue uh and a little more little more more clarity on who's going to do it coun so I'll be a no so again this only these states what the law is right now so with respect to your situation Ruben that you were describing in your neighborhood or the one on 13th Street and garden if the city issues violations to the property owner who is currently legally responsible for maintaining that right away which is unsafe where strollers can't get through where people are tripping on roots and that kind of thing they can get violations for that the violations can also have a certain amount of days within which for the owner to either bring in a nursery and pay for the change or if they don't the city will do it for them and then the the homeowner will be subject to getting invoiced for that work that's the law right now so all this does is just codify what is the law right now with respect to so so the situation that you have you Ruben in the fourth ward you could have violations issued or the city could issue violations tomorrow uh to that homeowner and that owner is on the hook for for both the fines and the violations and for fixing the tree situation so again this is this is one aspect of this this includes things like what the approved tree species lists are the standard details for tree prot protection during construction what kind of uh standards are for tree guards you know it that kind of thing but again the the concerns that you're raising about people being saddled with expenses That's the Law right now and that law is enforced I know there was a situation like that on 11th street that happened just uh this year uh where that happened to a resident so I mean that could happen at any time to any Resident city of hobok and all this does is put in one place a chapter so that it's easier for the public to understand what the rules are what the regulations are and what the consequences are for failing to comply with the requirements on tree maintenance thank you council president council president so I I could be wrong i' I've gone through our ordinance and the this new ordinance actually changes the language and makes it tries to make it much clearer that it is the um homeowner responsibility this this wasn't something that started a couple weeks ago it started last summer in our committee and um and it felt like it was actually in response to the 11th Street situation because the language was not as clear as we'd like so it is in response to that active situation um I when we discussed it in our committee I pushed back and said I actually don't think that homeowners should be responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street those trees you know were planted by the city 50 years ago 60 years ago something like that not all of them clearly there's some newer ones there's some ones that individuals actually planted because a different tree was um taken down or maybe there's an empty tree pit that you know are more recently but when we think of really the ones that are doing the damage to the sidewalks the ones that are you know causing um uh conflict with overhead wiring ones that are older and have branches that get in the way as you kind of walk down the sidewalk or impact cars the ones that need that kind of Maintenance I would I'll generalize and say the majority of them are the ones that were planted by the city you know 50 or 60 years ago and so in other cities um you know it's not the responsibility of the homeowner and and I'm sure there are some where it is some that aren't there's plenty of examples um I think either way I just think holistically for Hoboken and this is what we raised last summer is if we want to think about not only the safety concerns for all these examples that we have and they're you know we're we're only talking about the extreme ones where the you know the sidewalk is so incredibly disrupted either it's you know they're this high or you can't even pass but there's also a zillion examples Where the Sidewalk has just moved an inch right one inch you know someone clips with their foot and they just go down um very quickly you know as a city we have a much easier ability to Source vendors to continuously just maintain our um our trees whether it's from an aesthetic standpoint just pruning them the way they should be every year every two years or whatever whether it's pruning them around wires and Ops does it um sometimes um whether it's taking down you know branches we we already call like the fire department we called them recently when a big Branch um fell in the second ward I just feel I personally feel strongly that this is something that the city should take on and it shouldn't be the responsibility of property owners um a because it's a massive when one person has to go to the city has to you know get a permit has to get all of you know the necessary um parking spots cleared just so they can come in to prune or take it down they're the least efficient purchaser of those services and we we don't necessarily have a you know a a we could have a more beautiful and safe sidewalk if we had a more holistic Citywide approach and so we raised that last summer it got um it was it wasn't as broad of an ordinance it was a narrow ordinance on that specific topic um it doesn't surprise me that now the language is back in this one and it's hidden in more of a not hidden but it's now part of a bigger ordinance that has some things that we do like right you know it's one of those you take the good with the bad last summer when it was bad we tabled it and now it's part of things that are good I'm a no on this I personally would like to see not I'd like to have a more holistic approach by the city on this for mainly for safety reasons but also for aesthetic reasons um but I'd like to support all of the um Street uh where'd he go the our shade tree commission here like a lot of those you know a lot of those recommendations I would definitely support and I'd love this to come back with just those recommendations in it comments council president so for me I mean one of my fundamental arguments always is as the taxes in the city go up so should the services and the responsibilities of the city to the resident I can understand that if we were fighting tooth and nail to make sure that taxes were decreased year-over-year for our property owners then we could ask them to kind of do a little bit more but we constantly ask them for more whether that's in terms of taxes or additional fees or additional um uh trust funds that we fund it goes back to the argument like with the recreation programs I think the city fundamentally should be providing those services in a situation like this I've always believe that the city should be maintaining our streetcape and our sidewalks so it may currently be the law that the individual homeowner should maintain those tree pits and those trees I think the question for me anyway is is that the law that I actually really want to have on the books do I want to change that do I fundamentally want to change how we proceed when it comes to our sidewalk capap in our in our streetscape especially that as councilwoman Fischer said it was the city that planted that tree right it it wasn't the home most certainly wasn't the homeowner who's in that home now so so at the end of the day I think that's really the question for all of us so I don't have a problem voting this down revisiting this and making sure that the city has some responsibility in maintaining what our city looks like so um I have no problem with either tbling this now making the change or voting him down and then making a change later council president Council just one comment in response to councilman ruso uh one of the things that I think is pretty well established in the law is that if someone gets injured because a sidewalk is unsafe it is the homeowner who's responsible for that injury that's how insurance law works that's how property liability works that kind of thing I am a little concerned at the notion that if it is the city's responsibility to maintain the trees as opposed to the homel owners that it's more you're taking on more than the liability for fixing a tree but you may be taking on liability for everything that happens on that sidewalk related to that tree so it may be you know councilman you're talking about saving money on taxes you you may be signing the city up for a much larger Bill uh with respect to issues that I think are settled law that they are the responsibility of a homeowners so I think that you know it may be a good intention to say that we should help uh president with a tree but it may be opening up a larger set of liabilities for the city council president just I I don't disagree with councilman Cohen theoretically but given the fact that some of these sidewalk situations clearly have not been enforced no notice by the city um for years I think the city probably already has some of that shared liability um and could easily be pointed to the city for not enforcing it so I mean that's part of the part of the problem with with when we don't enforce the laws on our books is it exposes us to liability for not enforcing um the laws so councilman Doyle well when this was raised in committee subcommittee director Gonzalez pointed out and I think she was spitballing she hadn't been asked before the meeting but she she said the cost to do this will be a lot and so if we're talking about taxes going up every year with inflation not NE with salaries going up and benefits going up the increase in taxes is is not for more services it's because milk costs more today than it did five years ago but so I but I'm worried about the councilman Cohen makes a good point I don't you know the lawyers like to you know screw with things but um but you know I had a a sidewalk that the route caused it and we had to pay for the sidewalk to be repaired so are we going to repair the sidewalks and and the trees and it wasn't cheap to rip up the sidewalk and repour the sidewalk and you know and then I guess we may as well shovel the snow on the side on the sidewalk we're taking the whole sidewalk over so I I think you know I I think I understand the hardship and I there is enforcement discretion in the city I don't think they're putting leans on everyone's house if you know I mean I mean as you say there's not even a lot of enforcement so I think this this packet is about how to properly care for trees and it and it this the focus of this isn't let's shift the burden to the property owners the burden is already there right this this is about it's there you know addressing trees properly and if we want to do what you're saying and you know I'm I'll socialize Tree Care I'm sure but the taxes will go up and you know I'm I hope you'll support it you know and again I mean I mean if if it's truly about saving trees and and making sure our city has you know our residents have access to Treeline streets things like that I mean right now if I'm a homeowner and I'm dealing with a situation like this and I could get someone to come in destroy the tree take it down end of story what did we do right because for me I don't want to fall as a homeowner I wouldn't want to fall into that situation again where I fix the the sidewalk I trim the tree or whatever it may be and then two years from now again I have to do the same thing so maybe there's a hybrid answer right I'm not saying that that taking care of trees abdicates the homeowner in all aspects what I'm saying is maybe we set a dollar limit and then the city would take over so that's a homeowner doesn't have to incur a $10,000 cost to maintain a sidewalk and a tree in the situation maybe maybe the homeowner is capped at $500 and then the city at that point takes over and repairs the sidewalk and takes down the tree or prunes the tree or whatever that may be there there has to be an answer that we as a municipality are protecting our residents and making sure that not that they are not incurring an a extreme burden in a situation like this so for me voting this down bringing it back to the to the um to the drawing board and having that conversation is great tabling it however we want to handle it it doesn't matter to me but I think I think it's our duty as the the city council to look into this so that our residents aren't incurring that burden it's my just my two cents on it so I think a number of helpful points have been raised um oh I'm sorry that's okay this all just brought up a few years ago Jim Vance sent all of us I believe it was a link in your New York City they have citizen pruners it's actually pretty cool you take residents take an 8 Hour course they become it's kind of like the C team for we have that now actually the shade tree does that they have citizen pruners they was a workshop last Friday or two Fridays ago so why aren why aren't we having these people they are doing it but that's different from taking a tree down or climbing no no I don't yeah right I don't mean removing the tree branches in your face when you walk by kind of stuff you know it's got it and I don't remember the the of the I'm sorry for interrupting but no that's okay I'm shut out of so much in this with this Administration I love coming to these meetings and learning new things you you you adopted it city council adopted that yeah do you have additional questions or comments it's not the tree maintenance that's in this correct proposal it's much light but correct I'm sorry council president I would be open to putting a dollar limit on it saying that anything over $500 would have to would would would be covered by the city city of Hoboken switch contractors good job you know it's like I it's I think if if we had a programmatic thing that where they walked around and said these are the trees we're going to fix and the cost similar to what we're doing with lead pipes right which is we're trying to figure out a way to encourage people to maintain these trees at a cost that is more reasonable right if we did something more programmatic where we went around the city we identified the problematic trees we had maybe we had one you know and we decided we do it over two years and we had one contractor that would do all of the work for xll but every property owner that was adjacent to these trees paid $500 or $1,000 um to have all of that taken care of they're just it's a it's just a more a a it gets it all done we know it'll get done B it's more efficient pricing of it because it's it's it's crazy expensive I've talking to two people spoke to two people that had to or one just took a trip tree down and one is looking at taking a tree down I mean it's it's to redo the sidewalk and stuff I mean it's not $300 to $500 you know it's $10 to 15,000 it's a lot of money when you're sourcing that contractor individually but we have the ability to have like a city-wide contract that maybe allows us to take 10 out for less or something do we know how many of them like how many of these are truly issues throughout the city that I don't know and but one other thing um just to add to is remember it just if I can complete the thought on this the not not withstanding the tree is adjacent to a property and that property gets benefit right it gets shade it gets beautification Etc because of the nature of our city um you know thousands of residents walk by every single tree every day so it is a one of those I think services that potentially can be socialized to use uh Jim's comment that because it really is making the sidewalk safer for the thousands of people that walk on that sidewalk every day you know the so Shifting the cost from an individual property owner to be born and shared by everyone through Texas I think feels like it's a better match of of the cost benefit around the maintenance of our trees just just just because of the disruption to our sidewalks that everyone walks on I'm sorry wait do you have any additional questions or comments it would be in I think it would be beneficial for all of us to know if we're talking about 10 locations or 100 5 yeah or 500 I mean if it's 10 trees that are causing this problem I mean you're talking about thousands of locations I think the city should do it I you're if you're talking about maintaining the Urban Tree cemy you're not talking about tens or hundreds it's and I would quite more substantial no I'm talking about the trees that are making the sidewalks unsafe I'll I I can talk to director Gonzalez and get a more accurate yeah I want to give councilman Cano I'm sorry did you have anything additional councilman okay councilman Cano just a very quick brief response to comment that councilwoman Fischer said which is that um the fact that the city may have access to lowest bids and contractors doesn't mean that it's going to be less than $10,000 for the city either uh the repairing sidewalks and and removing trees is an expensive cost for the city as well as for homeowners so I mean okay that was my L Point um I kind of agree with everyone but I feel like we've somewhat over complicated the issue at hand here um really this isn't with respect to the liability and responsibilities as as has been stated before it's it's not changing anything um and as we've identified here whether that liability or responsibility should should lie with the property owner is is a good question I think it is somewhat insane that if you know there's a 100y old tree it's going to cost me 50 Grand maybe to bring it down you know I didn't necessarily consider that when when buying putting my life savings into into the building so I think that is something we should look at uh the question for me is a as we've demonstrated here it's going to be a really complicated fix there's a lot of issues to consider Li whether the city's going to be taking on additional liability uh you know what the limit is um on on when the city steps in you know the breadth of of the of the actual problem is it 10 trees or is it a 100 thousand trees um for me I think we should look at that but we shouldn't hold this ordinance up today because this isn't changing that liability today it's not putting the burden on it it isn't putting a new burden on on a property owner so for me I would support this let's let's get it on the books Let's Get get everything under one chapter so so property owner understands and has one place to go and look at it but then let's pick up this conversation uh really quickly so that we can start working through these real issues and I bet we have a more you know a pretty solid consensus as to what would be fair or unfair in that future state so uh so I I I'd support this and then encourage us to to revisit that specific more complicated issue uh moving forward anything else okay I underestimated how much interest there would be in the tree ordinance tonight um so the comment I was going to say is I feel like we've had a really good conversation but not necessar necessarily specific to what's actually on the agenda before us um I also wish to respect um the work that director Gonzalez did um leading up to this and I know our subcommittee has had these discussions but um you know I I think it's a shame I would I would like to see the work of the shade tree commission um you know held up and respected in this forum because you know I consider you all much more of the experts than we are but I think a number of points have been raised um that have value as well whether it's the hardship piece of this or looking at this in a different way that I think speak to a different solve for potentially down the road um so I think we'll move forward with this tonight and then continue this conversation as it moves forward Mr fra please call the vote excuse me Mr con hi Fusco no Mr DL hi Mr fiser no Jean Tino no Mr Cano I Mr Ramos no Mr Russo no president Jabor yes okay ordinance bails adoption next ordinance hearing on b621 bond ordinance it's authorizing substantial Rehabilitation and related improvements to various Municipal parking garages including public art allocation related there to and and for the city of hobok and County of Hudson New Jersey appropriating the sum of $4,400 th000 therefore authorizing the issuance of General obligation Bond or Bond anticipation notes and for the city of hobok and County of f New Jersey in the Agate principal amount of up to $38 m380 th000 making certain determinations and Covenants authorizing certain related actions in connection with the floing are there any members of the public who wish to speak no um I see a hand Mr [Applause] Solair was on the list Council council president thank you again for uh recognizing me to speak uh yes I would like to speak on this ordinance but for a quick brief minute or so I would like to um go back and express a little bit of the information that was just um uh deliberated here um it was a very productive discussion but as the saying goes you were missing the forest for the tree um the ordinance was to maintain trees um and do certain other things that the that uh are in there but um yes it is a good point that you made that you don't want to burden someone to remove a tree but what you should do is a ordinance that specifically is for sidewalks and also the trees that need to be either removed or fixed in some proper way for the actual sidewalk so that way it doesn't become one issue that we're going to pick 10 trees or trees on the west side so I just want to get that on the record so will I just because we were losing a little Chain of Thought there just a couple questions really quick and they're just because um I always believe that no ordinance should go by without being accompanied with a question uh first question would be is the length of the if members of the public could have a bit of information again or maybe Enlighten us once more on the length of the uh Bond and as well as is the money that's being appropriated as it says here for certain uh related uh actions um what are these actions are they all going to be for the intended project project of the uh uh garages which is what basically is being um posted on here uh is that something that uh members of the public could get a little bit of information of again we all know that um uh sometimes bonds are necessary but in all cases they are not so this is a burden that goes again you were speaking of taxpayer money uh another burden that goes on them and uh again if it's 50 years 40 years who's going to be in this Council for 40 more years any hands no uh so I'm just saying we need to we need to verify these things and let the members of the public know uh the taxpayers and as well as when I also see that of course money is allocated for um the public artwork that also pequs members of The public's interest where um members of the public only get involved or get to hear about um public art when it's coming here and when it's almost already decided again my pet peeve is that I can never uh get into that see that subdivision uh meeting although I know it is a subdivision meeting sometimes things there that are discuss are of private uh and delicate matter but um there should be then a public facing one at some point um maybe it should be another board or commission to add to our 16 or 17 that are there but uh yeah those are the questions again and Madam president I yield back with a record 1 and 29 seconds thank you oh thank you Manny believe Mr hmed also wishes to speak thank you council president um thanks with respect to this uh Bond ordinance there's a couple points I'd like to bring to your attention uh one when you have a bond of this magnitude of $40 million um my understanding maybe other garages you're working on too if that is the case I strongly suggest you separate them out um if it's garage a you know the uh the garage at the hospital or or other garages the reason why I asked you to separate them out is that if you decide to move ahead and there's another problem with the garage you don't have to throw the whole bond in the garbage you could keep going if there's one that's problematic and one of the points I want to bring out this is $40 million for a garage that my my memory you know uh recx properly that was a part of the hospital and I believe there was a 98-year lease signed for those garage spots and I think it was like at $50 a spot for 98 years and if that's the case why aren't we having a bigger conversation with the hospital so you could adjust that obviously things didn't go according to plan you guys didn't plan on this garage you know failing at a rapid Pace or and then a few things I want to bring uh to your attention that before you put this out we're having problems throughout the country with garages that were designed in the past and they're not properly designed to calculate new weight loads of electric vehicles electric vehicles weigh four to five times in some instances the weight of a regular car so when these garages are designed with the rebar and reinforcement we had a garage collapse in New York City and that garage many of you may not know had in uh a large amount of electric vehicles on a floor and they didn't plan for it and they collapsed the garage and you saw the damage that came with it so before just you know throw this bond orance out a you got to make sure that the garage that you're trying to design can meet those needs and you're you're planning charging stations throughout the city which I applaud because there are more and more Vehicles each year that are becoming electric so I would take a step and a try to separate the bond out B try to find out if it's a bigger conversation that this Board needs to have with the hospital so that before you go and put yourself on a hook for $40 million you could find out if you could renegotiate that price to try to recoup this this would be a total loss if it's at $50 a month for another 902 years or how however long it is um so please just take take a better look at this and one more thing I want to leave you with that um there are surface slots in the area and your master plan has made clear that surface slots you know throughout the city are not supposed to remain um Church Towers is another you know older uh project there that may also have some issues down going and and are spending a lot of money working on those buildings and you know is there a big a bigger conversation to make where is there a way to build a garage across the street and then take this garage down I think it's cheaper to take down and build new than it is to repair that's my honest opinion our garage spots run about 35,000 to 40,000 per spot I don't you know just doing quick math did you have a thousand spots there or I can't separate how many garages this number entails but there are cases where things cost more to repair than it is to replace we've all been there and especially in some of the older homes so uh if there's a broader conversation to have I I I urge you to take a pause and have that conversation to see if there's an opportunity that you could do two things at one time um and maybe update the housing stock a lot of these older buildings that we have here that are you know heavily uh uh filled with seniors and and people with disabilities they don't meet Ada they don't meet other uh uh things that should be met newer buildings yeah we do that we tear old buildings down we build a new building it's code compliant um and we take that into account so please if there's a broader conversation to have there are nine of you here I'm sure that you could have that ation together thank you are there any other members of the public who wish to speak motion to close public portion all in favor um so just to address the immediate question this is just pertaining to the Midtown garage um and this was part of a larger exploration of different options including whether or not it would be more prudent to remove the entire structure and replace it um and this was actually considered the best option um so for the past several months and I know this in part because I think all of us probably get complaints pretty regularly about the State of Affairs for cars that are parking in that garage given the conditions currently um GPI as top-of-the-line firm that has been doing the work um planning this for months um so this really represents the long the sort of end of this piece of the process but there's been a lot of work that's gone into it up to this point um and I know um part of the plan um the question has been raised I know uh previously about how this would work in terms of people who currently utilize that garage um the project would actually involv kind of a staging so some of the parking would continue to be involved not necessarily all of it um but there would be a staging to the way that the project would proceed so that there would still be the ability to use this garage as this project moves forward um I don't know if there's any other questions I'm looking at director sharp and uh city engineer Olga Garcia in case you wanted to address any additional questions that had come up and council members if you want to raise any council president sorry is everything that you just said about the plan has that been put before the council it was discussed in sub committee but but this isn't this all this is is the council giving the bond ordinance ordinance while we have this Council to get six votes to pass it at some point you're going to come with whatever a plan is whatever the costs are Etc and actually I think the Bond reads that it isn't just the Midtown garage it me mentions um 916 as well doesn't it it only mentions the do it mention 916 in the bond No the bond ordinance says Midtown only it's Midtown and you know various improvements potentially to to other garages that's how they're always but you don't have a plan yet do you actually have a report that says specifically it's going to cost $40 million and what the timing is ETC so we hired GPI to do a condition assessment and create the rehabilitation plan uh that was a first step in this process back in 2021 city council adopt that contract that contract uh as part of that uh study they looked at is it structurally safe to continue operation right now yeah uh it was considered that uh so the next step was okay well what do we do let's create a rehabilitation plan um and that included looking at various scenarios including uh knocking the garage down and starting over again that was considered to be uh by far the most uh expensive option uh then there were three other Alternatives considered one was uh continuing to do the kind of patching uh where there were the most significant uh corrosion of the concrete the second was a full depth uh reconstruction of the concrete decking on multiple levels and the third one was a hybrid approach uh and so uh GPI analyzed that or all three of those Alternatives and the second option which is the full depth reconstruction of levels uh 3 four five and six was considered to have the best Roi by far extends the useful life or the service life of the garage by another 35 to 40 years um with you know routine maintenance you know year-over-year and those routine maintenance costs were going to be much less than they would have been under the other two Alternatives Alternatives as well uh so uh from that point uh we then I say we city council awarded a contract to GPI again to go into design engineering to uh do the design work for alternative number two uh and uh we're now at at the point we're ready to go out to bid and uh that's where we need the f the funding for the project council president ccco um obviously this is a project in dire need of repair um you know one of the things that always struck me about the Midtown garage ever since I had moved to town actually 20 years ago was what a wasted Street Clinton is it's a dead it's a dead a dead block you know you got the hospital on one side with you know with with a solid wall of brick and then you have the parking garage on the other side and nobody really wants to walk down that street it's creepy it's unpleasant it's um probably one of the most centrally located blocks right and it doesn't feel like a community so I'm not against the concept of obviously bonding for $40 million maybe not tonight maybe we could push this to next meeting because this is what I think the big idea is to incentivize the city to think bigger to activate the ground floors along Clinton Street for whatever reason ground floor retail minority owned businesses um city city Council Office Space anything that can invite the community down this street because what parking garages are right now are important but what they'll be in 10 20 years is going to be a very different concept right and we have to plan for now but we have to think for the future so I don't want to I don't want to allocate $40 million and just be a storage container for for cars I would want to hopefully maybe wait two weeks get a plan work with you guys a little bit and happy to support it at that time once I can see that Clinton Street would be activated in a way that really invites in the community so um that's my thought happy to offer my suggestions either on the council or next year got some time so I have concerns about the urgency of this project to be honest I mean given the volume of complaints I've received for sure I don't know if others I mean for the W councilman I'm sure um I have very much been asked the question about whether it's structurally safe given the conditions um I think there is some urgency I don't think moving forward with this Bond would preclude us from exploring those options I think those are all part and parcel actually to the Arts set aside in some way that could be part of the discussion for how this moves forward but I think at its core to me this is a very urgent project for us to move forward with council president if I may respond sure two weeks not going to kill us this garage has been in the state for for for a decade now and it would be irresponsible of this Council especially if you're looking for sixth vote from me which I can offer tonight it would be irresponsible of this Council to authorize 40 m million without seeing a plan that's like buying it's like buying a new construction without even seeing the floor plan of the apartment you're moving into that's like who does that can I can I ask a question is was there in in um I guess I look at this and and think it it almost doesn't matter because we're just getting six votes tonight on something that you're going to have to come back to us to get approval for spending the money Etc right so it's just this is this just gives you the ability to tell um the market that you the council supports some number um but I I do think that councilman defusco raises an interesting point was it contemplated at all in this to actually maybe relook at the ground floor to well if we're going to come in and do something you know construction it's an interesting location to put whether it's retail you know when you think of like Monroe Center right like you would never what yeah Medical Offices especially because there's so much parking right there and attached to it which is often something a lot of our businesses really struggle with they say we don't have enough parking to support and it would be like a better use of the ground you know the ground floor in that area and it would be a shame if we were to go and put like a bid out that didn't contemplate building retail or something on that on the ground floor space or you know medical office or whatever at least on that ground floor as part of The Proposal that we're looking for that to me is worth the five minutes to have a plan and bids put some sort of spec put together to have that type of space on the ground floor it would be a missed opportunity a permanent missed opportunity council president if I I think I'm just curious at what phase would that conversation happen most naturally director and I I'm not suggesting not supporting this tonight just for clarity we're just having the conversation because yeah because this Council for everyone out there was not given the plan okay so everyone knows this city council of nine members were not given whatever this plan is um only four council members in a subcommittee were given a plan to be clear there wasn't a plan provided we had a conversation about the project and director sharp could you answer the question in terms of where you're still asking for us to approve $40 million without any anything describing what potentially is the cost the description Etc and no no I would disagree with that so do you want to speak could we let yeah so just to address a couple questions that been that been put out there so first of all uh there is some ground floor uh office space already Medical Offices used by CarePoint uh they they actually pay the parking utility a significant amount of monthly Revenue um so to change that process further I think you're looking at possibly uh either a rezoning or a re structuring of the contract potenti both uh with with uh with CarePoint who's currently using that office space has a contract to do so uh so look I'm I'm like the biggest champion ever of ground floor retail uh we've talked about this a lot if we were to build a new garage somewhere uh or or tear it down and rebuild it uh I'd be the first one up there saying no way no how could this ever be built without having ground floor refill or activating that ground floor space in some way right whether it's Community Center retail whatever it is it has to be active it cannot just be a dead space right uh we all know how it feels when you walk down River Street and you're on the west side of that street and so forth right so total agreement there uh but there are challenges that would de in trying to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish that are significant in scope and would significantly delay uh this project where we currently are and as councilwoman Jabor mentioned uh we are at a point where we do need to start making these repairs right there's no imminent threat of the garage collapsing but there are potential torque liability issues with uh corrosion of the concrete we already get a handful of torque clams every year because of um concr chips not not chips but like the the the corroding concrete has uh it liquefies and then it can drop down in a level below and actually stain a vehicle yeah right so it's also required us to remove uh several parking spaces I'd say probably uh somewhere in the range of 50 to 75 parking spaces in the garage are not even accessible right now right so uh there's an impact there in terms of of the revenue we're pulling in as well uh and in terms of providing parking for customers for uh the hospital employees as well um and we've invested a lot of money uh both in getting this Alternatives assessment report and also uh to getting to the design engineering phase um so I think that you know we could certainly still pursue uh a re-evaluation of what we could do to enhance that ground floor uh we can talk to the hospital we can see uh if we can do a better job of activating that space better uh but I think there's separate issues that we could still move forward with uh the bond package tonight and then come right back and say okay well how can we as part of this process continue to move forward and find a better way to activate uh that ground floor um either as part of this project or once the project is complete how can we then transform that ground level that's just my two cents if I may add um just for everybody's knowledge except for the people that are that were part of the transportation committee and the finance committee the first three floors and you canot find um Greg is resurfacing that we're doing uh we're resurfacing we're just changing um the putting a new code so structurally we're not doing significant work to the first three levels the um floors um I'm sorry third fourth fifth and sixth floor it's um concrete replacement we're removing demoing and reporing that concrete that is doesn't have this strength that it's required um structurally as far as steel and you Cann opine GPI as per the analysis that they did the steel is in good condition it has the um tensile strength required the concrete doesn't have the compressive strength and that's why you see it deteriorating so total full replacement of four floors four fifths and six only resurfacing of the first and the second floor so in in the future there's opportunity to um do additional work as as far as activating offices on the first floor um we're not doing intensive work on first and second floor and and can you just get into uh the material that was used right uh at at that time that a couple of months after this project was approved was no longer allowed to be used and that's part of the corrosion that we're seeing correct project unfortunately you were allowed to use this material for the concrete and then about it was very very yeah very very like right after the project was done it was like you can no longer use this material and that's why we're seeing the corrosion and other aspects that are spreading to lose to lose 50 spots potentially more if if we don't fix it and we we we did see the photos and a lot of the conversation was on the rehabilitation not what cilman the FCO board tonight and we were're talking the upper levels at that time not the low levels so that could be addressed potentially uh as we move forward but I think the specific conversation if you look at the photographs of it and the loss of parking spaces was kind of like almost like shocking uh uh to some point for us and say you know what maybe it's not some no one is in danger of losing something right life hopefully dying the next two weeks but hopefully you know down the road it keeps on eroding you know that potential may exist like another couple years from now so council president thank you when when when I got to see or speak about this project I raised a lot of the same concerns right we talked about potentially speaking to the hospital doing some kind of a even land swap if in fact the the garage needed to be rebuilt um I do agree with coun in the Fusco in the sense that I think we should look at that ground floor I mean in that meaning I I said it it drives me I drive down that block constantly I walk down that block constantly it drives me absolutely crazy it's a dead Block it's one of probably one of the most significantly underutilized blocks in in the city right people don't want to walk in that dark little it feels like an alley as you're walking down so totally unsafe yeah so I I I think I think having the conversation about how we could change that is very important um again I don't mind voting on the bonding but I also think he councilman defusco is right in saying two weeks isn't going to kill anybody here so that we understand that a little bit better um so I don't have a problem moving it Forward tonight but I think we all have to understand that the conversation and I told you this in that meeting the parallel track of having that conversation with the with the hospital with potentially doctors in the city of Hoboken this should be a medical Corridor it's exactly what it should be that all that ground floor space should be accessible and utilized by medical professionals in the city of hoken and if we need to figure out how we can do that in a way where it's not dark not dingy not scary not unsafe I think that's really important in this conversation council president if I may is there a way that we can change the title of this Bond ordinance to include the council's um clear support of kind of uh ground floor retail in this can we put can we put a line and related improvements to various Municipal parking garages and the in with the inclusion of ground floor retail So you you're you're just adding that thought into it yes I think you'll be fine with that great sure that perfect good compromise beautiful addition and just to point out too and I know we've had this conversation before there's actually a very helpful memorandum that was prepared by director sharp it's in page 187 of the packet that kind of gives a good summary of how we got to this point in terms of the project it gives the background it gives some of the Alternatives that have been explored so um that's I think a helpful additional piece of information with this just one followup question director do you remember the year revenue for this garage it's about $2.5 million and do you know what that service would be on the bond somewhere around $2 million all right so it does per year yeah I think I asked I I just wasn't sure what the answer was y all right thank you coun president just one quick comment very quick uh I've talked to someone who works at the hospital uh the hospital is dealing with some significant financial issues uh it there there may be issues that this Council may be able to support that's all if we're interested in the long-term health of the medical Corridor there may be opportunities for us to support the hospital EXC we I will help everyone brand this very well New York Mr freom please call the vote so Council I think the Corporation Council just needs to read the amended title correct we'll make sure that's amended Mr Mr con I Mr Fusco yes Mr doy i m fiser yes Gan Tino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo I president javor yes hearing on an ordinance amending chapter 192 D4 A and B entitled enumeration of spaces to add and remove reserved and general parking spaces for persons with disabilities are there any members of the public cour signed up to speak seeing none motion to close uh Mr motion to close public portion all in favor second I council members Mr Fino please call the vote Mr con hi the Fusco yes Mr do hi M Fisher yes G Tino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president jaor yes hearing on an ordinance to uh various chapters of the city of Hoboken city code amend certain Provisions regarding the city administrative Department are there any members of the public who wish to speak no I see Mr Solair he didn't sign up it's okay he raised his hand yes council president uh I did not uh put raise my hand for uh b622 due to the fact that uh I believe that um when we remove and Reen numerate I believe that some parkings do come back because they're just being um reserved for other members uh of the public that have uh disabilities uh I would like to stand for a b623 uh just a brief maybe one or two questions again um because the theme has been this evening of uh city codes again here we are either amending or perhaps changing a previous uh reading uh of a code could you please let members of the public uh have a little better clearer understanding in especially in this regard where it says administrative departments um what does it entail what if any again without uh uh complicating the situation uh further this evening with lengthy discussions but if uh members of the public could have a little brief clarification as to what specific codes or code uh of the city of hobokin is being amended or changing in b623 and again um I yield back the rest of my time council president thank you are there any other members of the public wish to speak motion to close public portion all in favor I council members Mr finina please call the vote Mr con hi FCO yes Mr D hi M Fisher yes Mr gtino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president jaor yes and the remaining items on for uh second reading b624 b625 and b626 are all pending planning board approval so they will not be heard this evening excuse me uh public portion for agenda items Danny rera yes good evening again council president once again members of the public just very briefly so that we don't lose um the flavor of the consent agenda I would like to first again none of this is accusatory it's just friendly questions people need to know or asking or perhaps are interested most of them perhaps cannot read um all of the agenda in its magnitude so sometimes little little um inserts of more information for members of the public would be great on firstand on just off the top in the payroll I agree that there obviously you have to pay the employees you have to pay the overtime but could you briefly explain the other amount which is particularly a high I'm sure it has a reasonable explanation um in regards of why is it placed in others could be I don't know painting of a wall or something like this that costs that amount of money but I guess I I just um in administration A1 A2 again uh the A1 is that uh amount of increase again um it's um it's being funded by b406 but still uh members of the public will be interested of why we continue to increase or if that's just the cost of of the pricing again curiosity would uh kill the cat but uh I don't know um A4 very um inquisitive as to um the forwarding of cooperation cooperation between uh Hoboken and mono Bay Jamaica uh if members of the public could have a little more information of that um uh that's what it says there sir um A6 a 7even in Community Development I guess I'm going to skip those because those are releases I I read them after I marked it down uh I'm going to say again uh I would skip Corporation counsil but I don't want them to feel left out CC1 cc2 again the increase amounts thank you sure don't want to let you be lonely over there um um I would also like to say here on E2 and uh that was it this was a short oh and in introduction for first reading as well council president if of course you always uh explain them but uh there are a lot here that has to be questioned and then members of the public get a little bit testy when again another member of the public comes and ask in nine different ordinances um what's happening again some's happening to my eye uh so yeah I'm going to yield back because it really just yeah I guess that's it it's just uh a little more color on this and it would help members of the public again um I could go on in transportation and public works but thank you council president and I you back thank you are there any other members of the public wish to speak on agenda items motion to close public all in favor council members items to pull from consent for discussion e just E5 E5 Council and Doyle did you have something that was the one E5 got it anything else um council president F2 for me F2 yeah please F2 F2 F2 oh um so consent is everything with the exception of E5 and F2 did you have anything you want to pull uh no I think okay Mr fin please call the vote on consent Mr Cohen hi Fusco yes Mr Doyle hi Mr Fisher yes Mr gtino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president Jabor I am abstaining on cd1 cd2 and CD3 but otherwise yes cd1 2 and three correct um councilman Fischer to you on E5 yeah is uh can you just describe I as you know I missed the call my apologies the other the other day um can you just describe a little bit what is expected in terms so this is just D staging using it well it's not fully like utilized which I'm conceptually fine with but what what should the um what should the residents in the area expect in terms of scale noise Etc so um traditional construction staging area I do not believe there's going to be heavy machinery there's no construction on site the lease term is for 18 months um 18 months I think that was a question that had come up um and the terms of the lease agreement are really specific and what types of materials can be there so no hazardous like right nothing potentially that could contaminate the site so um I would expect for it to be very consistent with the uses that are contemplated there um and complimentary and you know we can obviously dictate some of those this is staging for rebuild by Design correct but it on the union dyu site for rebuild by Design correct the I'd say the one um you know the issue we have when we use the stage when we used to use the lot north of Harborside Park right next to that building um I would say was two major things one is kind of pre8 a.m noise when they're moving materials that may make noise whether it's pipes right you start moving things early in the morning um or just the reversing the um horns or whatever it is when the trucks reverse yeah the backup sorry alarms um is there a way that we can ensure that's not going to happen before like 8:00 a.m. that they can't do work like that yeah I mean we can definitely present that the D and create the responsibility with their construction manager to monitor that and to respond to any issues that we present to them okay and we is there a way for us to contractually make that happen I mean that's like let let's have that and and by the way I've spoken with the project manager you know on the North End and he's absolutely willing to work but if they start construction at 8:00 and they're getting all the trucks there at 6:30 like we've seen you know this is like what we've seen in another area right different project altogether but when you have construction staging we had the Washington Street stage a lot of Washington Street staging was on that park or the lot north of Harborside Park and it was very disruptive to those residents the back whatever you called it the backward alarm reverse alarm and then just what' you call it yeah backup um alarm it's the beep beep beep beep at 6:30 in the morning when you have a residential building like literally right there beep beep beep um and uh and really it was it wasn't all the time but sometimes there were like pipes and stuff that moved what yeah micophone yeah well let let's if you if you could at the very least say it but if for some reason it becomes a problem then I'd want to come back and put a law in place that doesn't allow them to do that um explicitly understand all right thanks thank you any additional questions on this Mr fron please call the vote on E5 Mr con hi Mr FCO yes Mr Doyle M fiser yes Mr je Tino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president Jabor yes um F2 cesco thank you council president um so this item is about the uh early uh the the bonus we will have received by as a city from Iron State for vacating the munic municipal garage sorry took a while to get that out um I thought the number was $1 million for an early vac uh so it was 500 it was so there was two different early dates we hit both of them the total is a million we've received two already this is the 800,000 to perfect so this is is the second half of correct perfect thank you very much any additional comments good Mr f up on F2 Please Mr Cohen I Mr Fusco yes Mr doy I M Fisher yes gtino yes Mr Cano I Mr Ramos I Mr Russo I president jaor yes ordines for introduction ordance amending chapter 190 D31 entitled closing School streets parking and school zones to amend curbar regulations to designate School District's only parking zones Mr Fina please call the vote Mr con hi FCO yes Mr Doyle hi Mr Fisher yes G Tino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president chor yes for introduction amending chapter 190-11 entitled loading zones the head loading zone to Monro Street between First Street and observer Highway and nth Street oh no there's more to the title excuse me I think there's also Park Garden Street between Park and garden there's two please call the vote Mr con hi the Fusco yes Mr D hi M fiser yes dintino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president chabor yes for introduction amending chapter 190 d71 entitled municipally managed electric vehicles charging stations to relocate charging stations on Washington Street and add a charging station to Park Avenue Mr fr please call the vote Mr con hi Fusco yes Mr Doyle hi M Fisher yes gtino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president chabor yes War for introduction amending chapter 192 d4a parking for persons with disabilities to add and remove Reserve parking spaces Mr Fino please call the vote Mr con I PCO yes Mr Doyle i m fiser yes dintino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president Bo yes Bo introduction amending chapter 190 D 29.9 titled conditional time limit parking locations and fees they had parking on the north side of Fifth Street between River and Sinatra Drive Mr frina please call the vote Mr con I FCO yes Mr D hi M fiser yes gtino yes Mr Cano I Mr Ramos I Mr Russo I president chor yes ordinance for introduction an ordinance of the city of hobok and removing Hoboken city code section 20a article 3 20 C and 20 20 D the city the city's local payto play ordinance in accordance with the state law that elections transparency act Mr fro please call the vote Mr con I flco yes Mr doy I Fisher no gtino yes Mr Cano I Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president shabor yes an ordinance for introduction an ordinance of the Hoboken to wave certain conditions and build and and building fees for public and Charter Schools Mr Fina please call the vote Mr con I the Fusco yes Mr Doyle i m bisher yes gtino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president chabor yes order for introduction adopting Redevelopment plan for the Hoboken Housing Authority Mr Fino please call the vote Mr con I the Fusco yes Mr Doyle M fiser yes Gan Tino yes Mr Cano I Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president chabor yes resolution uh bd7 resolution of the city of Hoboken referring an ordinance adopted Redevelopment plan for the Hoboken housing authority to the city of hobok and planning board for review and report pursuant to the local Redevelopment and Housing law njsa 40a colon 12 a-7 Mr Fina please call the vote Mr Coen I Fusco yes Mr Doyle hi Mr fiser yes gtino yes Mr Cano hi Mr Ramos hi Mr Russo hi president jaor yes public comment is St Marks Marlo stepen Marlo marks Stephen good evening uh my name is Steven Marlo I'm a longtime resident of the second ward and a board member at New Jersey peace action I am here as a resident on behalf of our members um to ask the city council to take a stance against nuclear weapons by supporting a campaign call back from the brink a call to prevent nuclear war which seeks to implement fundamental changes to US nuclear weapons policy and lead the world to a future free from a threat of a catastropic nuclear war I hope that you have all received and read my emails about the pledge which is a simple fivepoint set of Common Sense practical solutions that would greatly reduce the real and immediate risks opposed by nuclear weapons and reads as follows we call on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by one actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals two renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first three ending the sole unchecked authority of any US president to launch a new nulear attack four taking us nuclear weapons off ha trigger Alert five cancelling the plan to enhance and replace the retired US nuclear Arsenal with enhanced weapons this year New Jersey peace action has successfully lobbied some of our federal legislators to support the pledge including House Representatives Frank palone Bill pascrell and Donald Payne Jr Andy Kim and Bonnie Watson Coleman have also signed the pledge along with New Jersey State Assembly a handful of Municipal leaders and some Civic organizations tonight New Jersey PE peace action kicks off a campaign to Lobby New Jersey municipal legislators and governments to join the pledge and is our hope that Hoboken will become the first city in the great state of New Jersey to do so the back from the brink pledge is based on the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons last week I attended the second meeting of the states parties on the Nuclear Ban Treaty held at the United Nations in New York two themes loomed large first and foremost that we have entered a second nuclear arms race with Russian plans to build faster and deadlier missile systems deploying them close enough to strike London in less than 5 minutes Chinese plans to double their current stockpile by 2030 and US plans to spend more than $1.5 trillion dollar to upgrade our nuclear weapons the second theme was the myth of deterrence which is the main justification for nuclear weapons the deterr argument is based on a Litany of fallacies as one academic presenter said deterrence work sometimes sometimes nuclear weapons do not stop Wars nuclear weapons do not make us safer deterrence is based on the premise that no rational person or state would ever use them because it would likely mean the end of life on Earth but what of the irrational what is rational about spending $1.5 trillion dollar on weapons the US never expects to use when when so many citizens struggle to feed their families find affordable housing or health care and when climate change Upon Us signing and supporting the back from the brink pledge is a symbolic gesture that sends a strong message to federal leaders and we need New Jersey's Municipal leaders to embrace this pledge so please do the rational thing and sign the back from the brink pledge individually and collectively with my last email I included the sample resolution that the council may use to draft their own I also have a copy here tonight that I would like to leave with the council along with my comments to sign the pledge or find more information I urge you to please visit their website prevent nuclear war.org and with that I will thank the council for their time to listen and I hope you seriously consider passing the Bill thank you very much thank so much thank you Manuel Rivera Soler funny I wanted to switch it up a little bit from my regular good evening Madame council president bu noes uh to you all uh just because there there's a lot of heaviness um in the world in a lot of heaviness um even when we are discussing something it always feels like we're we're pinning ourselves one against another and it shouldn't be that way um we should all always um strive to be better citizens better neighbors um better friends brothers and sisters um to one another at every moment and every time I believe that with all my heart and I believe it that it's important to say it this evening and to say it as many times as we can to one another that we care for one another and we want to help each other want to keep each other safe want to make everybody's life better I believe that is important for every citizen to have in their hearts especially our Hoboken which is to me personally and I'm sure to uh many of you um what one of the coziest most lovely places to in my regards to be born in and to live and raise a family again I know that my time is limited but I would like to let you know that that to me is a message that should go out not only to our fellow citizens but to our sister city and the Ukraine and elsewhere as well now I would like to bring it back home M I bring these words up to us because um I was once again as many members of the public were victims on Monday as we were on a zoom meeting for the historic preservation when certain groups of people um invaded the space as an applicant was presenting their application for consideration and horrible horrible words and horrible symbols were shown and again we should always strive to behave in the best manner in a public setting but this was outrageous it was outrageous because it took a beat to get it off the zoom meeting but it was done again my respects to Anne Holzman for her quick thinking and moving on that and again to to the commission for their professionalism they all maintained their composure and kept the meeting going and took care of hobooken business regardless of the hate that was spread those words I could never repeat but they were em blazing in my mind and they scare me as I stand to you today an older man born and raised again in hobok and as I always say but scares me more than any any hate speech and any derogatory comment that was made to me when I was growing up of which there were many many pardon me but I always set them aside because I said someday I'll be big enough to explain to them that my difference should not should not make them feel uncomfortable because that difference and that uncomfort uncomfortableness is in their own thoughts and they should work to become better citizens so Madame council president with that I say I ask people people to join the meetings but I don't ask them to join the meetings to get violated in that manner and hurt in that way because it was emotional I ask for every member of this Council to pronounce themselves against that type of hate at every turn and to stand with the citizens that just want to go about their business and help the city in any way they can as civilians or elected officials I thank you I also would like to say we also have to stand as well as we stand for the innocence of Israel we also have to stand with the innocence of Gaza and the Palestine we cannot let any horror go simply unnoticed or just accepted we cannot accept deaths of innocent children and innocent bystanders there has to be another way the Govern government of Israel should find another way not the citizens they are also victims so I ask you all pronounce yourself against hate say no in our city stand firm we will get through this together we will become a better City we will always stand for Hoboken and we love each other as always and again council president and Council I thank you for listening for your time and once again God bless bless you and God bless hope boken thank you there are no more members of the public signed up motion to close public portion all in favor um Mr slair I'm not familiar with the incident you referred to I don't know that I think a few of us I don't but I am certain that I know my colleagues and I all stand against any form of hate speech we've unfortunately had these experiences in our hearings as well um but I'm happy to follow up certainly with Public Safety to see what the findings were from the meeting on Monday and I'm sorry for um the victimization you experienced as part of that uh motion to close motion all in favor Pearl Har Pearl Har day tomorrow 7:45 a.m. on the Water World War to Memorial next to Sinatra field