Common Council - Regular Meeting

Our corporation council has limited time. It's just after 5:00 Wednesday, April 14th. This is the committee, the whole meeting, Udica Common Council. We have several pieces of legislation, but we'll discuss the battery storage pieces currently in committee. That's ordinance number 10 from 2426. Ordinance number 11 from 2426. Ordinance number 14 from 22526. I'll turn it over to our corporation council to speak on these pieces.

So um if you recall, so there's been a mortorium in place um concerning uh battery energy storage systems. Um it's been in place for a while. Um there are regulations that came out from the state. The state is um giving incentives to um companies to you know to develop and to have these. Um our code is currently silent on them which is why we did the moratorium. Um you should have in your packet for tomorrow um another piece of legislation extending the mortorium just because there hasn't been a lot of discussion on this and we just felt it was necessary to just give you some more time. So that's going to bump it out for another three months. Um the pieces that are in front of you um you already held a public hearing. Um we are waiting for planning board to provide their comments um which I'll talk about in a minute. Um but just on the pieces of legislation. So the first piece is adding definitions to the zoning code uh for battery energy storage systems.

Number one I don't have the numbers. Number 10.

That's the one I'm trying. Um, the second piece, which I'm assuming is number 11, um, is adding to the zoning code a new entry to the use table, which will require any battery energy storage systems to get a special use permit. And then the third piece, which I believe is ordinance 14, um, has the actual regulations as it relates to um, these systems. Um, what they would require, site plan approval, what the special use would require. um information as far as um safety and plans that they have to do. Um planning board has all of these they have had some concerns. We had them meet with the fire department. A lot of their concerns stem from you know what is going to happen if these things catch on fire and how do we handle that? Um so they met with the the fire department um and had some discussions. We're hoping to provide their comments um this Thursday for their planning board meeting. So sometime after that to the council um with their recommendations. Um but as far as the pieces themselves um again um the use table would require a special special use permit in order to have them. They would only be allowed in the industrial industrial misuse districts. Um if you recall I did send down an amended piece um to address some of the concerns as far as how far away they would be from other structures. Um and we did a 500 um distance from structure to structure. So from any structure within the property, it has to be 500 feet from another structure. Um and that was based on the recommendation from the fire department. Um and then again the actual regulations as far as the site plan, as far as fencing, um uh any signage, um what you have to provide as far as notice on the equipment um for

your safety plan, all of that information um was pulled from New York State as far as their model regulations for these types of um facilities. So anyone has specific questions I will do my best to do we have any questions give me an example where these could go like so for the most part again it's industrial and industrial mixed use without this is not perfect but for the most part broadeny street a section of the arterial I mean it's fairly limited about leg like where they're going to put the solar panels can it go in there um it is possible I think that it could go in there, but again, parts of that is um it's not all industrial,

right? Um so there's some random sections, but for the most part, you're talking kind of that again. So where did you say Arisky Boulevard? Ariskany Broad Street. Um so like near build like where on Broad Street could you put it like with all those buildings and all that stuff? I mean yes, there are buildings. I mean if someone I guess bought it and demolished a building. Okay. Maybe where old Charles Town was. something like that.

Yeah. I mean, we're talking the the areas that you can put these is going to be fairly limited. Um, and again, the concern was you don't want them that close to residential. And obviously, I understand that there are sections of industrial that are near residential. Um, especially in the broad street, you know, risky street certain courses. Yep. Um, but the thought process behind that again is that any it have to be 500 feet from the structure um to give that distance. I can probably pull um again because we're gonna have some more time. I can probably have a a map of the areas where they'd be allowed um to the council just so you could see it on a

and this and we're doing this for the reason of just being prepared if somebody wanted to bring these in.

So again, the so the state is offering initiatives for these types of facilities. Um and my understanding is as soon as that happened, we got a number of calls inquiring where they would be allowed within the city. Um that prompted us to impose the moratorum and start looking at it. Obviously, the council's free to do as they wish. Um we had some discussions that I think the mayor is on board with having them within the city, obviously, as long as they're regulated. Um which is why we did it the proposal the way we did it. Um, but again, New York State is incentivizing it much like they did with solar and wind at a certain point. But does Syracuse rep any any places close to us have them?

So, there are a few downstate and I think the closest one is I want to say in the Watertown area. I'm not sure. There was recently actually a fire um

upstate, excuse me. Um, but I'm not exactly sure where off the top of my head. I'd have to look. I know. Um, You know, uh, Andrew, our clerk said that he's been getting a lot of emails on like gritty development and Ezra sends like April 10th of just so is there going to be another one moratorium and they're they seem eager, but maybe that's why we want to extend it another month just to make sure we iron out these things. So, I mean, the mortorium like I said, you have it for you have it for tomorrow. It's part of your packet. It's extending it for another three months just to give you the flexibility because obviously I think we did another extension and it was during budget season. Um, so just to give you the time to to review. Um, obviously you can resend the mortorium as soon as you pass the legislation, but it just buys us a little bit more time.

And I think the map will be helpful once we get the map to be able to visualize where the qualifying areas would would be. And again, just to be clear, you need a special use permit. So much like um with a couple other things within the zoning code, much like with, you know, our convenience stores, etc. that require special use. So just because it's allowed there doesn't mean it will go there. you have to meet the specific special use requirements and you have to have public hearing. There's input to be able to um to be able to have it and get that approval. I'd like to understand it better. You know what I mean? Like like I like to understand like okay, how do they draw the power out of it?

I have some I have some model stuff from New York State. I'm not sure how far it goes into detail as far as the inner workings, but I can share the um the model information that I have from New York State. Do we have any additional questions on any of the three pieces?

All right. Uh we could move on. So, in our packets, we don't have the cover sheet, so we'll do our best to navigate as best we can. I think maybe if we work from the front to the back, it might make it easier to follow because we don't have that cover sheet. So, uh, if we want to start in the beginning of our packet with that, uh, submission by Councilwoman Kissa from 11424. Oh, I mean, listen, I think that this coincides with um the vacant registry. If we choose not to go with the vacant registry, um this is something that I would like to um still push. Obviously, that's something that the council has to decide whether or not that they want to do that. Um to me, this this local law is a little more simplistic than the U vacant registry. Um, but it gets landlords that we don't have within a 25 mile area to post inside their registry or inside their building um a registry or designate someone um as a property property maintenance owner. Um it's it's pretty self-explanatory, but I think it would have been double the work um trying to get that in the vacant registry. Um

is this are is this something else you submitted or is this what the mayor sent down? the derelict property one that is not something from the administration. Okay. Sorry. Which one are you on? So this is the piece from 11624. The mayor sent down a vacant registry update and a derelct property is a new one. So there we Right. Right. That's that's the two amended that's the two amended pieces. So we would be keeping I've mixed all mine up so I don't remember where is Jack coming. Can I just Yeah, but that's not the one that they're That's you start.

Well, that's what I said. So, the D property introductory local law number four. Yeah, that's the one I'm reading. Yeah. That was at the That's the first piece. It's a local law entitled registration and posting of owner and management information and designation of designation of agent. And this was introduced similar to when they had the vacant registry. They chose to pass the vacant registry instead of this, which I didn't support the vacant registry because it wasn't detailed and they just passed it just to pass it knowing that we never did.

We never did anything with it. So now the mayor put in two proposals amending the vacant registry, which again I don't know where the council stands on that. So that's why I wanted to keep it in committee because if they choose not to act on that then that piece is is mute in in in the code right now. And just so everybody's on the same page, it was submitted to council September 2nd, 2025. That one ordinance 4. So I was planning on just starting at the beginning of the packet. That's where we That's at the beginning of That wasn't the beginning of your packet. That was the beginning of the packet. It's not the beginning. No, it's not the beginning of mine either. Yeah. Ordinance two. It's the beginning of mine. Yeah. But not the not theirs. This is ordinance four, right? Ordinance two is the top of my packet. Resend and replace 21545. Nope, that wasn't the top of ours.

So, they must all be different because I just pulled Jack and it's Heather and mine are still the same and so is Jack's. All three of ours were the same. Oh, mine's local par four, remember? So, this one was this one was submitted to me by October October 25th, 2024. Yeah, we have different or local. Yeah, it looks like we have different order. Yeah, that's I mean that's fine, honestly. I mean, if we if they kind of all coincide with one another, so I have no problem going back and forth on on each of the pieces. So, the other one was um this one was the there. So, there's All right, we'll go we'll kind of spread these out because they kind of We'll take the ones that we don't want to talk about out. How's that? So, that's an ordinance establishing the citywide garage sale. We can take that one out and pull that one to the side. What number is that?

That's proposed ordinance number three. Great. And then Joe's next to that is the um rules of ordinance or rules of order um component that we could take and put to the side. What number is that? That one is 11. 11. Okay. Um number eight you number resolution number eight you can put to the side. That one we should actually be able to pass since we already banded billboards. I think that was the only thing we had to do. Nope. This one was a Harriet Tubman. Yeah, but they were looking for us. As long as we agree to ban billboards around the scenic byway route. Oh, I thought that that was We can go back to it after

just so that we're on the same just so that we're sticking with the same page with the top. Um the other one is the code of ordinances for the ski we're throwing away. No, we're not just putting it to the side. Yeah. Then the other one is the fees relative to veiled by LSD area. Yep. And then designating the fifth grade class put to the side. Um you can put this other fee one to the side which is the proposed ordinance number four. Um and I'm not sure and that the last one's council on the medical um that could be put to the side.

What about this? So, so what you what you what you should have in front of you actually you can put the resend and replace um proposed ordinance number two which is the loiter and aggressive begging soliciting and camping one too. So the ones that you should have in front of you are proposed ordinance number 15 proposed ordinance number 16 introductory local law number four and proposed ordinance number four. for ordinance amending section 2-16-105 of the city code of ordinance the termination of an unsafe building. So I guess I can start with uh um the ordinance amending the city of code of ordinances what deemed an unsafe building. So, one of the things that I had worked on with the public safety commissioner and it coincided with the graffiti legislation um in this one was there was a very specific component to the ordinances for the determination of an unsafe building and notice to repair demolish. One of the problems that they were having is that if they found somebody inside a building that it didn't deem it insider code that it was it was something that they could do and have an emer have emergency access to with the building property inside which would give the city the right to resolve if deemed an immediate emergency. So I mean that's pretty self-explanatory. So adding to that pre adding to the current adding to the current code would be if there are persons found inside upon proper evidence of corporation council which allows emergency access to the building with property inside. It gives the city the right to resolve the issue if deemed an immediate emergency. And that's if somebody's in that's if a squatter's in there. That's if somebody's the cooperation council's been working on something and they go to the building and they see that um you know somebody's in there. What it does is it gives them the access for police, for codes, for corporation council to to allow that. There was one more um

component of that that I believe that we had to add into um and that was or maybe it's not maybe it's not this one. I think that that one was that one was that was a whole other separate one that we had to work on that we were working on. But this one um is pretty self-explanatory and that was something that we found that could give the city a tool um through our ordinance um again finding that if a person's found inside the building um upon proper evidence that they were able to deem it as an emergency access inside the building and take care of those persons in there whether they were there as a squatter or um something along those lines. Steph, are you

So, so I mentioned to um Joe, I can talk about I mean I guess some of the other things, but the actual Derelick property and then the vacant building registry um was primarily prepared by Mark Chico in our office. Okay. Um, I really was a little bit hands off other than just sending down like the notice on the cover page. Um, so we weren't exactly sure what this meeting was going to be about tonight because it just said committee. Um, but he's more than happy to come and discuss. So if you want to call a specific committee meeting on these pieces and have him come and speak specifically on it, I know Marcus isn't here either. Um, they would probably be the best as far as the two pieces I guess that you presented. Um, I guess I would just recommend to the council that you just need to look to make sure that none of them would be conflicting with what if you pass the vacant building registry and the derelict property registry, neither of them would be conflicting and or duplicitive,

right? And that's why and that's why I don't have I had no problem keeping that introductory local law into committee because it did it to me it was kind of redundant for that vacant registry. Mine specifically was more not toward geared towards only vacant buildings and that's that was kind of you know the thought process behind that is you know people's biggest complaints is there are absentee landlords um inside the city sometimes the fire department police department go they don't know who the building owner is it takes some time even with codes so if the persons didn't live within 25 miles of the city they would have to they would have to register that so that's why I kind of kept this in committee because I don't know I felt like it was something that you know the city could, you know, jump on to and obviously it's been in committee because of the vacant registry and I didn't want it to be redundant and more work.

Yeah, I think through codes I don't I don't recall off the top of my head because this was this is old. We're talking, you know, a year, you know, 2024 is when this was introduced. Um I don't know. I think that there might have been at least from law's perspective some concerns about um section 3, the registration of the owner and a designated agent having the city clerk be designated for person,

right? and we talked about that that if we had to amend that that the because the clerk would be listed into if they were to get served in a notice and something something along those lines. So that was something that we had talked about before about eliminating if that was the case. I think part of it from what I remember was the issue of service because the secretary of state is already designated as an agent for the LLC's and then adding the city clerk's office would that and also add another layer that and also if you know there was discussion about being able from you know when we do codes proceedings to be able to utilize that as a method for service. Again, it seems a little bit problematic to have the city of Utica being served, the city clerk,

right? And my and my point was is that the clerk's office would be the ones handling the agent, the the actual registry to receive those funds and so on and so forth to apply for those permits to that office. So, they would be they would be the ones taking in the you know, the the actual like registering those properties for that. And that was that was something that I was okay with taking out if that was the case.

Yeah. So that really I mean that was I think the big thing I'd have to pull my piece um for notes on this but I think that was a a big question then obviously just um in and even getting and even getting back and I have and I have no problem keeping that to the side because I I don't mind the derelic property or the vacant registry as long as the city is able to do something with it. Now for me vacant properties are vacant properties, right? But I think that the the claim that they're are derelic properties is more something that I think it's beyond vacant, right? Like there could be properties that aren't vacant that are that are that are derelic and are, you know, a hazard to the city and the the people that are living there and so on and so forth. So I mean honestly,

they're not mutually exclusive. So obviously you can have a derelict property that's also vacant and you can and vice versa, but you could have a vacant building that's not a derelict. Um Right. Right. And that was that was kind of where I was either I mean I I would prefer the Derick one but I mean you guys are I just like to see something I don't think it's either move forward because we've had something on the books for quite some time and it's just there and we keep talking about it and no action can be taken on it.

The proposal is actually is is to do both of them to pass both so that there's a mechanism. So it's not having one or the other. It's to have both but the like I said the lists are not mutually exclusive. Well, I wasn't sure if that was a that was a discussion at the last time is just sticking with the vacant registry and not having the derik. So, that's why I was I have no problem passing both or just as long as we can do something with with either of them.

And that kind of actually goes back to the derelick property. I mean the vacant reg um designating of of the property because I think both can be utilized for for that for that purpose. I mean, honest just for me personally, I would be okay with passing 15, 16, and four just to give some more ground for for the city to stand on um with the issues of the properties that we're having. Um especially with that we don't have the mechanism um in our code to have corporation council deem something as an emergency to get in. So,

if we're able to do one with uh if Marcho is here as well because if I can go through I know with the vacant housing it looks like they're lowering the prices on that but increasing the derelic would be higher right. I was just wondering what if we could talk through that but if you said Marico wrote those.

Yeah, I did not make a determination about those so I can't speak on that. Um I know some of the fees were changed. I think the initial fees were high. Um and again I think there's some thought process that the you know some of the vacant buildings are not necessarily always problematic but you know you're having you know the properties that they're having problems with which is addressing you know more of the issues of you know what is going on in these properties is the code violations is the homelessness issue um and that's going to be more directed towards the derelict property

which you don't which I think the thought process behind that one of the conversation I had with Martico when we met to go over some of the ordinances that we passed before was that you really don't want to penalize those that have vacant properties but aren't terrible landlords or terrible owners by penalizing them. That's where that derelch property came into. Okay. Any other questions on any of these pieces? No, just schedule one with Martico. Would you guys be f fine with a I mean we can't call one for tomorrow but the next committee meeting just ask for when Mark Chico is available. I mean if Mark you can come in at five o'clock I mean I think that that's I mean I I don't know what's

5:00 meeting. No we don't just a six. But let me ask a question. What would be your reasoning to not want to support either one I guess would be I and that just around the room I guess. What what would change what would you want to see changed in order to pass these? Because I mean as is I don't see I I tend to lean towards the vacant housing like that is a severe issue that is we have a lot of cities who do a great job with getting return on that. If you can right now landlords aren't incentivized to do anything with their properties and ideally if you charge appropriately for these fees if they aren't doing anything with their buildings we see those turned around and people invest in their properties instead because all of a sudden that's the cheaper option. Um,

but the vacant registry doesn't necessarily force them to do anything with their properties. It does. Like the the old one I I think we needed a better job at uh actually implementing, which I think this does address some of those issues. Uh but I just was concerned I guess with the pricing then if it goes to just $200. I I guess I'm like what's the difference of this versus what codes does? I don't know how to say that otherwise. But um just trying to get a better understanding I guess of that part. But I'm I'm for them generally. I really think we need the vacant housing to come down stronger on and uh get a better understanding what what we it helps uh that Stephanie provided like the derail properties and examples of that for sure. But I just want to get a better understanding of the prices and what we're currently at.

We're not currently at anything. Well, in general, like with codes issues or compar and I don't know if you're on the council then, but I think that when that was passed, one of the arguments that the I don't remember if it was codes or the city had was that the prices were cuz they were not they increased every year. Yeah. They weren't just like, hey, you pay one year this one and then you get penalized. I think it was like they just kept increasing for whatever rate that

that's what that was. I mean, here's the thing. I I we obviously we see we we go around the city, we see the issues that we have, you know what I mean? And I I think that anything that could help the city at this point in time other than what we have in the code of ordinance now, I don't see why that would be a problem either either one. I would have no problem passing. I mean, we've seen many times that we've passed. Well, that's the goal of the administration and I'm I'm for that, too. I just wanted to speak to Martico if he had if he's the one who wrote this. So, I'm on board. I'm just Can you ask Mark if he can come tomorrow at 6:00? Cuz I mean these things are in committee. So you said we didn't have a 5:00 meeting. No, I I thought you wanted to come. Yeah, but you don't have to. He can come at 6. You know what I mean?

If there's if if he's there, these things are already in committee. So I if he has no problem coming tomorrow just to kind of give that explanation if that's the only thing that's that we're hung up on. We all know it's a problem. So we should fix it. And that was kind of the goal of the today's meeting. So I didn't know I don't know who was invited. You know what I mean? so on and so forth. But that is all. So, I mean, honestly, Katie, if that's the only thing that you think that you would have an issue with, I mean, maybe we can have Chico come and even give us something. The six o'clock would probably be Yeah. more than fine. Okay. All right. So, then maybe we can just have him come tomorrow at 600. I I'll I can ask him. I'll reach out to him. Okay. What's next?

Well, like I said, there's no other questions besides those fees that anybody has or is there something? I mean, obviously not every council person's here, but just in the meantime, if I shoot him a message saying, "Hey, can you make it at six?" What do you think as far as passing them? Yeah. I mean, again, I know I know he worked on them. I know he worked with codes. I know the mayor's on board. So, the thought process is having both of these I think will help the administration start to try to curb some of the issues that we're having. Um, at least this is a starting point. Obviously, we had the vacant building registry before, but again, we there was a lot of issues with that, you know,

and it wasn't effective. Um, so I think this is at least a good starting point. Obviously, if if things don't work out, you can always, you know, tailor it to fits your needs, but I think this is going to be a good starting off point. Um, and like I said, Mark worked with codes and, you know, the mayor to to come up with what they felt was was the best. And obviously, Mark is handling our code enforcement. um he's the attorney for that. Um so he knows the ins and outs. So um you know I'd recommend passing him. Um but I will certainly inquire if Mark can be here tomorrow for six o'clock to to answer any questions.

Yeah. I mean look I just it's the way I think about things. So derelct property property classified three or more separate notice of codes violations. I mean I just think what that could mean if someone has a a busted shutter that's technically a code violation. They have two more of those in 12 months and they're they don't fix them and they just ignore the issue. That's technically a derelch property. But we'll we'll hear more. So, what do you say you'd like to have?

I mean, I think we all have in our minds an idea of what a derelch property is, right? I mean, we we think of the buildings that are, you know, boarded up or there's substantial damage and whatnot. Um, but I I just want to make sure we're not being overly inclusive because I mean, again, we have those ideas of the properties that we'd like to see. You know, in South Utica, for example, there's um there's been a a vacant house where, you know, it used to be in its glory a beautiful house. two massive columns and one collapsed last year. I mean that is what I think of you know it's been empty boarded up for a decade. That's what I think of when I think of a derelch property.

Yeah. So I mean that's the you know that's kind of the example that comes to comes to mind just to make sure we're capturing that that class and not just o being overly inclusive. And then what you're trying to say is you don't want to see somebody get penalized because they got minor and be deemed a derelch property for and I think that that's the again we go back to every single thing that we do as a city. I think that that's the discretion that we use. You know what I mean? If people are walking by somebody's house and taking pictures and you know what I mean? It's kind of like it's not necessarily harassment, but it could be. So it depends. You know,

it it's kind of it's kind of like the legislation that I passed for the large vehicles in the driveways. I mean, nobody's really looking for that unless somebody is actually in complaint, you know, and it's Yeah. No, and that's kind of what it reminded me of. Um, you know, the I think the example when we were talking about this, the person who comes home for lunch with their flatbed isn't going to be dinged versus, you know, an 18-wheeler that's been parked there for two months and it has four flat tires, you know.

And the whole nuisance abatement component that we had to update that wasn't updated updated in over 20 something years. and that was something that that was a tool that we could utilize and we did and that's been that's been able to be used. So I I think that that's something that we have to look at too. All right. So hopefully tomorrow we can talk with it from there. Sounds good. Thanks Steph. Yeah. Do you guys have any other questions for me? I got to go. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Any more questions on this or do you want to transition to any additional pieces or city business?

Alice, I think generally the fee schedules. The fee schedules. I mean, again, we're past winter. I think that everybody agreed on the fee schedules that were submitted. um we we were able to we able to get through it but I think instead of having that thought out there that you know nobody knows what to charge and what it is and you know for the city for the city's sake as long as everybody agrees on the fees and we're past that April 1st I don't see why not updating them and we should do this because if we don't we're going to forget about it before you know fall and winter and

I totally agree with this I I think Councilman B let you speak to the idea that you had uh But I just would want want to put in the actual fees of what they are now instead of just conceding to current rates established by parks and recreation department because again it's supposed to be a council thing that's determined. Um and that's on us and every council before us that hasn't actually properly done this since 19 whenever. Um but yeah that's just the language I'd want to change it to and either we adjust the price currently. I don't know does anybody have a list or who would we go through? So, I actually looked I actually did a cost analysis from what they charged back in 1964 and updated it with uh cost of living cola um fee increase and this is what what what it came up with. I mean, so it wasn't like I just pulled numbers out of nowhere.

Oh, I thought these were the numbers that are currently on e-code. Eode. No, no, I updated the if that's this is proposed ordinance number four. I updated all those all those fees. So you're saying Sam you're saying still a dollar for pools shall be $75. Is that what it says? Am I reading that right for residents? Yeah. Um this one listen Joe I mean I'm not I'm not the fee monster. You know what I mean? Like I that's all I did was take the fees from before and updated that. I mean 21. I think that we want still wanted to make it affordable for for city res code.

I mean and that's that's something I have no problem doing. I mean it's not like we're offering rates, you know what I mean? During a certain time or anything like that. I mean I have no problem. I think 75 is cheap to be honest with you. Very cheap compared to what we pay for. Almost too cheap. But I think it's I I think that it's an incentive to to want to come here, want to get a season pass and and enjoy your time as a family. $5. Wait, so is the city pool pass a dollar? No, there is no fee. There is no fee right now. No, there is no fee. So if we pass this as though then there is this but but here's but here's the thing. These were all on the code right now. So whatever you want to take out, you have to just eliminate out of this out of this ordinance

and then just strike it out and then just update it. And then there's actually no fee and there's nothing on the code to actually have to have a fee to adjust to that. So who can we get uh all these departments individually? Should we reach out to tell us what their updated fees are? Say that again. I would just like to know like like because this says this right here, but to know how much the swimming pool fees are right now. Uh we There is none. There is none. Right. But for each section though, we can go through any of these. Tennis, youth bureau programming, Arab aerobics. Uh we should if the point of cleaning up

like tennis we don't charge for. I mean so that's another one that you have to eliminate if you if you don't want to charge that. You know what I mean? like that's something that I mean the city that we had to look at. I just I wasn't in the debate of eliminating anything that was already there. I was just updating what the fees were on the on the schedule as of now in the actual code if that makes sense. And I think uh you know regardless of what we

do for I know I know I know like I said I didn't do this as a as a I just did it as an update so that we could get the discussion going because we didn't have any we didn't have legislation to actually discuss. Does that make sense? Yeah. I was more concerned that we had the fees for the skillet. That's why that that was in a separate That's why that was in a separate ordinance just from Valley's office to give us the updated fee that we charge on everything. So Chuck gave them Chuck gave them to me. Okay.

He he has those um but like no person should play on the Valley View golf course without paying the required maintenance or green fees. That's set by the actual Valley View board. So we have nothing to do with that. That's that's one thing. Swimming pool fees, you could actually just eliminate that out of the actual code because we don't charge anything for any person to go to. So the only other one would be Valis. You could take the use of tennis courts because we don't charge for that anymore. So that could be eliminated out of it. Um the youth bureau program, they don't do cheerleading anymore. They really don't do any of those. So you could take you could take that out minus MUN softball because we don't do golf instruction. These are all free services now that the city offers from I think it's like the end of beginning of July till the end of August. We don't have uni basketball,

but they do they do offer that. So they offer clinics now. So if you look at the summer program that the city puts forth, they do golf. They do basketball. They do baseball. But when you're here, community basketball is like adult baseball. Yeah. Right. Softball. We don't have

But that's what I'm saying. They don't do cheerleading programs anymore. They don't do youth youth tennis instructional programs. It's all for free. might I mean if again if obviously if anybody wants to utilize those components they're more than welcome to but there's not a fee to charge um aerobics that could be eliminated because they don't do that fee for organized groups um this is actually not even in this code anymore I'm pretty sure that you could take these fees for organized groups and that's actually already done through

isn't it like a permit like a park permit So yeah. So that's what I'm saying. You could actually take these and remove them and put them into like what the park permit is because Thalia deals with that and Chad deals with the longo field but not. So I mean it is a little it is a little confusing and there's kind of duplicates in our actual code. The band shell is not in this. We could I mean it is but we can move it we could move it to one where it's under the permits. I mean we we updated the permits fees. I think it was like maybe like 2,000. Yeah. If you're out of the city, it's more if you're a city res.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I mean, that's that's all there. So, we can kind of just clean this up a little bit and then just take out what we don't have. As long as you guys let me like I don't mind amending it as long as you guys know, let me know what fees that you want to do.

I was just going to add I think regardless of the fees we settle on, I think part of the problem that caused us to lead into this in the first place is that the fees aren't self-executing. They're not automatic. we have to go back and and actually do it. So the thought is if we include some language that you know let's say the fee is $100 and each subsequent year the fee can go up a maximum of 3% or the cost of living whichever is less. It's kind of like the collet increases for elected officials. That way the administration could decide up to that 3% if they want to increase fees and then no future councils, you know, 30 years from now have to go and look and say these haven't been amended since 2026. So it's it's automatic up to a point which gives the council authority over it and then you know the administration or the city youth bureau whatever departments involved

and Joe to be honest to be honest with you too like we talked when we were redoing the pools

I think Bill Phillips was the council person at the time and we didn't have money to fix the pools and they wanted to charge money to to you know help supplement what the cost of the actual pools were to help run. So it was like the argument was back and forth. So do you charge a dollar? you charge $2 like and it's there the discuss, you know what I mean? You could have that discussion, but the problem is is that nobody really cared with Rob P in in previous administration from Tim Julian to Dave Rafero to to whoever that really wasn't an issue because these these fees were so outdated that the only time that we would actually amend them is if something came up. That's why you see fees for, you know, swimming pools that were out last updated in 1991. No, and that's and that's the point. I think now that we're looking at everything, I think we could just put something in there that allows the

administration the administration to raise it a certain percentage, whether it's cost of living or 3%, whichever is less, whatever that number is. So, never have to circle back and come back to the table on this and allows the the mayor's office some flexibility. And here's here's the biggest problem, Joe, and this is this is this is something that we we I other council people in previous years had an issue with.

These departments are supposed to give us an annual or quarterly component of what goes on too. So, there really is another part of the city code that's out of date as well. And it's like, okay, you know, do you really want to go after each department head for something that's maybe they didn't know or it's part of the city code because it's been there for so long that they've just learned from the previous person that that's that's the way to do things. So there there's a lot of issues in our code that really kind of lead us into this and unless there's an issue and that's why I don't I don't want it to take it personal like to to if say it was a new mayor coming in next year and we had these same fees like I wouldn't pinpoint them because they were doing something or charging something when you know the council has let it go for over 40 six you know 60 years if

no I think that's ultimately the point we were chatting about this but um a lot of part parts of the code or charter what's on the books isn't what happens in practice. I've tried to go through a lot and there's there's parts that conflict and you know I think to the extent we can when we do recognize something at least chip away and fix those provisions. So

that's why I don't like to replace like I that's why I do resend and replace instead of amending because there are a lot of parts of the code. So you try I' I've done a lot of it over the years but there still is a lot of stuff on the books that you know hasn't been updated and that's that's the biggest issue. So, like I said with this one, if you guys are okay, I can clean it up and just kind of keep the golf course valis um and then just go for the fees for the organized groups and the band shell. Clean those up and put those in a separate part of the code. So, that's up that's up to you guys. Whatever if you guys are okay with that, I have no problem cleaning this up. And

yeah, if you had no other I'd appreciate that. That'd be good. And I think a council var like your take two because on the other side of course we don't want some fees that are higher than what the council

we can't. So the problem is is that from my understanding and maybe judge garmon can clarify this is that you can't because it's an ordinance you have to amend the ordinance. So it's like that was the biggest argument when they had the police department in there like they wanted to sunset the actual jobs and you really can't sunset jobs because you actually have to amend the ordinance. So even if so, so if say you wanted to add that cola increase, you could add this into maybe the beginning of the year um discussion each council person, you know what I mean? Because next year's council could come in and they could eliminate this whole entire code of ordinances. So you really don't want to sunset those those those components in there adding that adding that in there because there is no other piece of legislation that changes

to cap it at 3% for the to give the administration the ability to update if they want. So like for for example for the cola increases right that states that's done through the actual budget right so those cola increases are done through that right this doesn't sunset this doesn't change the fees like there still has to be an ordinance so if the mayor wants to increase it 3% he still has to submit the ordinance to amend at that 3%. It's not like it's a pay increase where you're putting that 3% into a budget based on the law. Like you you if you want to add in 3% every year or 3% to the mayor's discretion, they still have to submit an ordinance and you still have to amend it to whatever fee that they are. If they choose to do it, we don't do that with salaries though. What's that?

Why don't we do that with salaries then? What do you mean? we like 3% like the mayor any so like for example if you actually look in the if you actually look in the charter when they did increase it the fees were in there of what the mayor's starting salary was and what's what they were what they were but the the allowance when we do get if we wanted to do something that was like 20% raises then the ordinance comes to us but because that formula exists the council never has to right that's why we approve it in the budget does that make sense you're saying that's like its own ordinance yeah because we pass it by way of we pass the budget by way of ordinance like we set that we set that fee. I mean, you could take you could take whatever I'm saying with a grain of salt. That's just my my opinion based on this,

right? Like we add that cola increase to the budget, which we approve every single year. If you wanted a sunset adding a 3% cola into this actual ordinance, I believe that the mayor would have to still submit it to the council and have them add it to it when he when he wants to change it. So you could say that the mayor could increase it 3% but he would still have to submit it back to the council in order to amend the ordinance which is okay. Yeah. Then the Galisa council knows and there's not any change.

I don't I'd like to look at that more because I don't know about that because I feel like a lot of legislation in certain areas do just that. So for the exact reason we're talking about so nothing ends up getting outdated. And I mean the rates are still posted. The rates would still be posted publicly online. What I'm saying is that that's why you should do it the right way and actually amend the ordinance so that you're not 20 years from now saying, "Well, how the hell did the mayor change it 3% and add the coal increase when our legislation says $3 and not six?" Like, that's really what it ultimately. Yeah. But now we're in a situation saying this the ski rates haven't been amended since 1964, right? They haven't the mayor that the mayor has done it. That's what I'm all I'm saying is that if you put that in there,

like the previous mayor did it. Every mayor has done it, right? But if you're putting in there that you're adding 3% and you want the mayor to give that flexibility, have that caveat in there that a piece of legislation has to come with it. Think about this. Let's say let's say that legislation from 1964 for the ski rates had that in there right now that said 3% up to 3% per year. We'd say, well, that allows for the increases. Whereas now there's nothing there. We say, well, how do we get a do you still shouldn't be able to sunset that in an ordinance is what I'm saying. It's not sunseted. It's not sunset. Oh, because you're saying that you can allow that increase just like you amended that just like you amended that ordinance for the police department to add five people in. But you said on the December 31st, 2025 that that expired. Yeah, that's a

ordinance. The ordinance doesn't sunset though. You still have to amend that ordinance. We don't want this to expire though. It would be accumulating 3%. Yeah, but that's all I'm saying is that if you add that in there that the piece of legislation still has to be amended. That's not the case with our COLA raises though. The COLA says that you are allowed to add 3% to your COLA increase, right? The only time we get an ordinance is when they wanted to do like that 80,000 or that 93,000. It was completely off%. We get it every year. We pass that three whatever the increase. We don't pass an ordinance. We pass the budget. But right, which is done by ordinance that

it's not the table of organization and that's what we don't. We don't touch our salaries. We allow the council does not the council does not approve the table of organization. They set the fees for the salaries. So that 3% increase is in there through the salaries when we approve it. Yeah. But I'm just I'm just telling you that that if the if Judge Garmon says you can allow that 3% and allow that discretion through the mayor and corporation council's okay with that, then that's fine. But I'm just telling you the arguments that they've had is that if you want to change something by the way it's done in an ordinance is that you have to amend it through that ordinance. Listen, we're sitting here talking about this and it's all good. It's really Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I mean, we're talking apples and oranges

saying we're saying they didn't do anything since 1964 when prior administrations just said, "Okay, we're going to charge this much to ski." They never charged $5 to ski. They charged 20. That's all I'm saying is that if you allow a 3% increase for the mayor, you should every year submit that 3% increase to amend the actual No, no. We'll we'll look into it. You can't amend the code. Like say that the mayor does a 3% increase every year. It's can't just you can't just amend the code without an ordinance. Like an ordinance has to come. You don't have to amend anything. The 3%'s already built in. That's why it's self-executing. Oh, so what you're saying is that you're going to do like do a 15-year thing and increase it 3% every year. No, because that would be a sunset.

He would be able. But that's what I'm saying. You still have to amend the ordinance, otherwise the ordinance isn't going to match what's actually being charged. Well, that's that goes back to our salaries. It's in the in the code. $7,000. But the code, right? But that's But it takes cola into effect. The same example. That's what it was set to, but we never amended that ordinance. We still amend the actual budget. I don't know. Do you pass Do you pass an estimate budget through an ordinance? No, I get I get your analogy. I get your analogy. You pass the annual estimate, right? Well, hold on. Let's let's say this example. Let's say the budget fails and and we all vote it down. It goes back to last year. per the per the charter, the elected officials would still be entitled to that 3 plus% because it's a completely separate thing goes back.

It's not dependent on the budget. No, no, no, no, no, no. You don't get that 3%. If you fail, it reverts back to the previous year's actual budget. Now, when we're talking colar, the part of the charter is completely separate from the budget. Listen to me. The council by way of by way of being a council person has to pass a budget. If you don't pass a budget, then it reverts back to what either ENA passed or the previous year. I'm on board with you with that aspect. Yes. Right. Because we we face those questions ago. So you failed as your responsibility for not passing an actual budget with that cola increase in there if you actually wanted it. So you're you're bundling the two up though. They're two completely different separate things. The bud the bud the budget aspect is different than the cola increases. No, Joe, you still approve the cola increase inside the actual budget.

Do you approve your cola increase inside the budget? No, we through salaries. We allocate money. So you don't So you No, because look at this. This is exactly what we didn't do. We We didn't approve the cola increases two years ago and the council still received it even though we didn't. That's exactly because there's a what? Because a local law that says that you have to take the cola increase. Well, we'll see in a couple weeks. Exactly. Cuz they're two separate things. That's the point. The coal increase with the local separate with the salary increase in it. No, we didn't. Two years ago, we didn't. Remember, we zeroed them out. We all agreed. We we the the mayor, the comproller, and the council all zeroed out our salary increases through the budget. Anyway, I should actually take my salary increase. What I'm saying is they're two separate things. That's up to you. I won't get into that, but

I'll take my Everybody get six o'clock tomorrow. Or was there any others? Discussion. I don't care either way. I just want if you want to do that then you write your own ordinance and you submit it and just have the judge look at it whatever we're authorized to do that makes the most sense to keep you let me know and you sub you submit your ordinance. So either way we have a six o'clock meeting tomorrow. No five o'clock. Yeah. I didn't know we didn't have a 5:00. I thought we had a 5:00. Any other business for the committee meeting? No.

And listen the only other one is really s is it's it's really simple. I mean, and this was something that Pam Patricia Lindsay, who was the city clerk at the time, and I really couldn't grasp the concept of it, but it was the citywide garage sale um um legislation. And what that does is it actually so random people have garage sales all over the city, right? Like somebody in South can have one in March, somebody can have one in April, somebody can have one May. The thought process that behind it and this is just for the council to take some thought thought for this is designate it so that you have specific weeks throughout the throughout the you know summer months that say North Utica wants to have a citywide wants to have a garage sale right now you know that in North Utica every single person that weekend or that week is having a garage sale somebody in South Utica and that way you you know that if somebody's not having a garage sale out of turn or not you know doesn't have a permit or so on and so forth because you are supposed to get a permit. Um, but I don't know. I thought that that was something that

So, you're saying that if you're having breakfast, you can only have it that one week? No, you can have it whenever you want, but just to give people the idea that that's, you know what I mean? There's two there's two two dates in there that you could that you could utilize for that. Yeah. Okay. So, there's two dates. It's not saying that somebody can't have a garage sale whenever they want. It's just to know that, hey, this part of the neighborhood wants to have a garage sale during that time. like a map like like Deerfield does it. Like they have streets that have certain New Hartford does it. They have certain I'm pretty sure New Hartford does it, but I'm I'm a thousand% positive Deerfield does that. Does it? Yeah, that's what I mean. So that they that you know when you can go there, they have it that week, but then if you decide two weeks later you want to have another one, you can do it yourself, right? Yeah. But that's just it's just to kind of unify the neighborhoods.

No. Yeah, that I mean that makes sense from the buyer's perspective. If you want to go to a garage sale, you look, are there two or three in the same area? And you go to those. I mean, if you know, they're all close by like we used to they wanted to they wanted to have one and it was actually kind of cool and they did it years and years and years ago and I could have sworn that they had it at um it was either down on Broad Street or it was at um the train station and they actually did like a citywide garage sale where people can go and just bring their items and stuff like that too. So that was just you know another thing just to kind of clear up the code. But you guys let me know what you thought about that. I thought that that was kind of cool. fees are too cheap. All right, you submit. You submit what fees you want and we'll go from there.

Come on, man. Or you know, it's nice. I don't care. I don't. Yes, that's good. Sounds good. Is that it? Motion. Motion. Second. All right, we're concluded.