City Council - Regular Meeting

Like it seemed pretty good. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You see that house comes in here. So it's supposed to be doing there. Well, I mean, I said, look again. Thank you. Rain. Rain and voice under. Yeah, that's good, actually. Thank you. We ready to go?

OK, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the Syracuse City business meeting for July. The first thing that we're going to do, I would ask Councilman Julie here to say the opening prayer. And I'm asking Abe if you will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll go that far.

Our Father in heaven, we thank thee for the opportunity to gather in service to our community tonight and we are thankful for this special place that we get to call home. We ask thee to bless this council tonight with wisdom and unity and understanding as we make decisions that affect the lives of others and our citizens and residents. Help us to act with fairness and compassion for all and we ask for thy guidance and protection over our city and our residents. And we do so in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

All rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Hey, ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to start, can I get a motion to adopt our agenda as written?

So moved.

Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? So passes. Now, our first item is always public comment. This is a chance for the public to share with us a concern that may not be on our agenda, and we will have to talk about it at a later date. Is there anybody here that would like to share a public comment? Okay, just tell you that it's limited to three minutes. Please state your name and address for the record, and you're welcome to share that with us. Come forward to the mic.

Pete Petrowski, 3235 South Burkill Lane. I'm not really sure why I'm here. I've been in contact with UTA, UDOT, and you guys about the truck stop across from dozens of houses. And the noise is terrible. It's not for, I mean, I don't know why I have to even come here and complain about the noise. I was in contact with, I forget her name. She told me to come here tonight and let you know. I mean, it's terrible, but I mean, bottom line is that's public land. It's not used, not supposed to be used for commercial use. And I'm wondering why this is taking so long. I mean, everybody's been in agreement. UTO, no, can't be parking there. UDOT was even harder on it. They volunteered to give you guys signs. and everything to take care of the problem. And here I go at 4.15 Saturday morning, I'm awakened by somebody starting over two o'clock in the morning. Here comes somebody with their Jake brake on. I mean, it's nonstop.

Okay, sir, let me just clarify for you. We don't have a truck stop in this city, so what are you talking about?

I can ride share. You don't think you have a truck lot, but you do. I mean, they've taken it over. They buy little wash trucks to come in and wash their trucks in that lot. I mean, it's ridiculous. I went right behind when I parked in the spot. We asked moving because I was in the spot.

Nobody has a spot there, sir.

Yeah, well, that's his spot. He was real nice about it. And I told him I wasn't going to do it because he wasn't supposed to park there. But, I mean, you can't get a good night's sleep. I mean, it's not striped. And all I get is, oh, we can't do it because of this. We can't do it because of this. Why not? There's five of these on 177. There's no trucks ever in Farmington, McKinseyville, and Layton. It's too small, but the two in Syracuse are overrun. I don't care about the other one. I don't roll over by there. I care about going to my house. I'd like to get a good night's sleep, relax in my home, something. Everybody's been on board. Yeah, yeah, they're not supposed to be parking there. So what's the problem?

I apologize if you thought this was a response. I did it for asking for clarification. This is not a debate. We can't answer your questions.

Okay. Well, I'm here to tell you it's unbearable. It's not supposed to be used commercially. I mean, if you go to VDOT, they're real hard on stuff. They say they lease it to you. So we're more happy guys out. Give you signs wherever you need to get this resolved and it just keeps seems to be getting pushed back and pushed back. Never somebody was supposed to call me. Heard that three times. Never got called.

Okay, your time is expired. This is not a question and answer. I can clarify for the record, we do not lease that from UDOT. We are in the process of taking it over, at which point when it becomes ours, we can regulate it. And that has been on our agendas in previous agendas. It'll get resolved as soon as all of the legal matters are resolved.

And any idea on that? How long that's going to take?

No.

You can't send somebody over?

This is not a discussion. I'm clarifying for the record because you've said some things that are inaccurate, meaning we lease it, which is not true.

Well, that's the information I got from you, God.

Okay. This is not a discussion, sir. Your time has expired. We appreciate you coming in.

Mayor, may I?

Yes, go ahead. It is on our agenda tonight. I think it's item number 10. There are park and ride regulations that you will consider later this evening based on discussion that we had in a previous work meeting.

So tonight might actually is on our agenda so we can talk about it. All right. So it will be item number 10 tonight. If you'd like to stay through that, you'll hear discussion and you'll hear us resolve what our next steps are. It's been on previous agendas and it has to be on the agenda for us to discuss it with anyone.

okay well i'm unclear already because udot made it perfectly clear that you guys lease it from well that would be inaccurate because that is not we've never leased anything from udot well whatever whatever agreement you have with them because i was hoping you'd out because they are crystal clear that you know i am supposed to i mean i got you got people living in there right now sir i'm going to be clear this is not the time for debate this is public comment so there will be a discussion about it when we get to item number 10. All right, whatever that means.

Is there anyone else here that has anything to bring forward? OK, seeing none. Cassie, I hear there are two that were emailed in. Will you read those into the record?

Yes, the first one says, Dear Mayor Mon and members of the Syracuse City Council, I would like to thank the council and city staff for the continued transparency shown throughout recent meetings. As someone who has been following many of the discussions over the past several months, I appreciate the time taken to explain the reasoning behind proposed ordinances and policies and to consider public input. After reviewing the July 14th meeting packet, I support the city's vision of creating a walkable and attractive town center. Investing in quality design can benefit Syracuse for many years. At the same time, I encourage the Council to maintain flexibility in the implementation of the Town Center overlay standards so that design requirements do not unintentionally discourage investment or make it unnecessarily difficult for businesses to locate in Syracuse. Finding the right balance between high-quality development and economic practicality will be important. I also appreciate the effort to revisit the City's recruitment and retention policy with an emphasis on long-term affordability. Maintaining competitive compensation while recognizing the City's long-term financial responsibilities appears to be a thoughtful approach. Regarding the proposed purchase of the Paisley property and the discussion of selling city-owned property, I encourage the city to continue providing clear communication about the long-term vision for those properties and to ensure that all transactions involving public assets remain transparent and demonstrate good stewardship of taxpayer resources. Thank you again for your willingness to engage with residents and for your continued service to our community. Respectfully, Eric Willison. Okay, and then the second one says, good evening. This is a two-fold statement on the correction, and the correction of number one may correct number two. Number one is speeding along 2000 West between the roundabout of Parkview Drive and Trailside Park is unchecked and creating safety concerns and noise pollution in this residential neighborhood. There is a new school that opened last year in this section, as well as another school set to open its doors next month. Also, the new park is adjacent to this as well, along with hundreds of people and small children that play nearby. As I was leaving for work the other day and getting into my vehicle, I heard a loud noise and turned around to see if all things a police vehicle speeding down the street. Not that there was an emergency since he wasn't in code three status. I worked in law enforcement in the military and I have been trained on the use of radar guns and visual estimation of vehicle speeds. Also, in all fairness, I don't believe this vehicle was a Syracuse City Police vehicle, rather a highway patrol vehicle. I have already reached out to the mayor on this issue, and he informed me speed bumps are not allowed in Syracuse. I reached out to the police department, and they said in effect that before the roundabout, people used to drive even faster through there. The police department always offers the same solution of increasing patrols in the area. This has led me seeing the police department stay near the freeway entrance, but then after a few days, they leave and it is back to business as usual and the issue persists. I understand that I'm required to pay out of pocket to do a speed survey, which I think would be a bargain if it actually corrected the issue. However, if I pay for the survey, corrective actions still need to be taken by the city regardless to change the situation. The police department has also put out a radar trailer multiple times, which has no lasting effect. I'm not suggesting the police stay at this location 24-7. Rather, I would like to see traffic abatement measures be implemented. Some suggestions are another roundabout at the park, the park and ride entrance to the highway, a traffic light at the freeway intersection. I understand this is UDOT, and per them, they are not installing a signal in this area as it wouldn't be warranted at the intersection unless there is significant queuing on the northbound or southbound off-ramps or significant delays in queuing for the left turn movements onto the on-ramps. Chicane curves, center islands, permanent speed feedback signs, getaway treatments like pavement modifications, and reducing the speed limit in the area. Number two, at all hours of the day and night, vehicles create excessive noise as they drive down this section. Syracuse has a regulation that caps the noise of vehicles within the speed limit of 80 decibels. This limit is exceeded routinely. I would like to request that this regulation be enforced. The people of Syracuse deserve a quiet and safe neighborhood to raise their families in. And measures can be taken to accommodate the residents of this town and keep them safe. Thank you for your consideration. And that is from Eric Shaw.

OK, thank you. With that, I will close public comment. And we're going to move into our item number three, which is recognition. The first one I have on our list is the Utah Supervisory Fire Officer designation. Chief, if you'll come forward and handle that. Thank you.

Council, Mayor, thanks for letting me have a little bit of time on your agenda tonight to recognize one of our members from the Fire Department. If I could have Captain Colt Cottrell come up. Captain Colt Cottrell has been awarded the Utah Supervisory Fire Officer designation as outlined by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and adopted by the Utah Commission on Fire Officer Designation. He has combined hundreds of hours of training, education, and experience to meet the requirements for this designation. His hard work and commitment to this process shows dedication not only to the Utah State Fire Service, but also to Syracuse City and our department. Our department, I'm just super proud of our department. We've got a lot of supervising fire officer designations throughout the state. This program started several years ago and we were kind of leading the way along with a couple other departments here in Davis County. And we still continue to do so even as the program grows. So I'm super proud of our team and super proud for Captain for getting this. So he did They did send a nice framed certificate, and then there's a pin that he can wear on his uniform. So we're going to give this to him, and please join me in congratulating him. Thank you.

We're going to skip item B. That's going to have to be rescheduled. The next item is item number four, where we have approval of minutes. We have minutes from June 9 of our regular city council business meeting, June 9 special redevelopment agency meeting, June 9 special municipal building authority meeting, June 23rd, the Syracuse City Council work session. And June 29th, the special City Council business meeting that we held to deal with the governor's order on fireworks. Does anybody have any corrections to those meeting notes? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve those minutes.

I move that we approve the minutes as outlined in agenda item number four.

Second.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. The next item on our list is our consent agenda items. These are items that have been discussed over many meetings and we have come to agreement on. So now just for procedure, if any council member wishes to take them off of the consent agenda, we can do that and immediately discuss them. But without any interjection, we will consent to proposed ordinance 2026-13, amending section 8.10.170 of the Syracuse Municipal Code pertaining to issuance of building permits. Proposed ordinance 2026-14, amending section 4.5.10 and 4.5.22 and 10.92.40 of the Syracuse Municipal Code to adopt single stream recycling program for multifamily residential communities. Item C is authorized administration to execute 2026 local interlocal cooperation agreement between Davis County Cities and Davis County Stormwater Coalition. And then item number D is proposed resolution R26-29 proclaiming commitment to volunteerism in Syracuse City. Does anybody have a reason to pull any of those off? Seeing none, I will take a motion to adopt all of those by consent.

So moved.

Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Those pass. The next item is a public hearing. So this will be an open discussion. The proposed resolution is R26-30, authorizing the adoption of the 2026 stormwater management program for Syracuse City. Is there anything that we need to discuss on this from our previous meetings before we go into open discussion? Okay, we're good. We've covered it quite thoroughly. All right. So seeing no further changes to what we've discussed previously, I will open this for public hearing. If you're here to comment on this, this would be the time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Council, do you have any further discussion for this proposed authorization for the stormwater management program? Seeing none, I'll take a motion.

I move that we approve proposed ordinance 2026-15 amending section 10.100 of the Syracuse Missile Code pertaining, oh, sorry, I skipped. I move that we approve proposed resolution R26-30 authorizing the adoption of the 2026 Stormwater Management Program for Syracuse City.

Moved and seconded, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? OK. We will move on to item number eight, which is proposed ordinance 2026-16, amending section 10.20.90 of the Syracuse Municipal Code pertaining to site plan review. Is there anything new you'd like to bring forward from what we discussed last time? OK. Does anybody have any questions?

Did you skip number seven?

Did I skip? Oh, we'll come back to that. We'll finish number eight while we're there. Does anybody have any questions to the site plan review process?

Any discussion?

If not, I'll take a motion, and then we'll go back to seven.

I move that we approve proposed ordinance 2026-16 amending section 10.20.090 of the Syracuse municipal code pertaining to the site plan review.

Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We'll go back to number seven, and I apologize for the skip. This is proposed ordinance 2026-15, amending section 10.100 of the Syracuse Municipal Code pertaining to town center overlay zone. Is there anything new on this one? Does anybody have any questions for NOAA since we last discussed this in a work session?

Sorry, I do have one question. Okay. So this would not prohibit a drive-through restaurant, but they could not have that drive-through in between the building and the sidewalk, correct?

Correct, only if they're on a corner.

Well, and I'm thinking of that vacant lot on 2000, which is right there. And they do have to have a front entrance facing that corner, whatever goes there, correct?

Or a window, yeah.

Yeah.

yeah the the purpose of this is just public safety we want to make sure that they route the driveway somewhere other than up against the sidewalk um that protects kind of our walkable town center so anybody else have any comments on this or clarifications okay i'll take a motion

I motion that we adopt the proposed ordinance 2026-15 amending section 10.100 to the Syracuse municipal code pertaining to the town center overlay.

Second.

Moved and seconded, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Item number nine is proposed resolution R26-31, adopting an amended Syracuse City recruitment and retention policy. We have discussed this over many meetings. Brody, is there something you'd like to clarify before we go into... Yes, go ahead.

Yes. There's a couple of issues that just need to be nailed down that were in the packet. One was the idea of capping the merit increases. So the increase we've done in the last few years, it's a percentage of what the sales tax growth rate is for the city. The merit increase is how an employee moves through their wage scale. Basically it's 30% of whatever the city's sales tax growth rate is, right? Because that number can be very volatile from one year to another, we felt like it would be best to have a cap so that if we have an anomaly year, it's not super high and then the following year, so we funded all these increases and now we have to try to fund it again the following year and our sales tax rate isn't a lot lower. So we felt like it should be capped. And so the proposal right now, and this makes it more predictable, easier to budget, keep it affordable. So in a normal year, the cap would be at 3% at the very max. And just for math purposes, that would require, I think, something like a 12% or 13% increase in sales tax rate. The last several years, the most we've had is around seven or eight. So that'd be a pretty high year to reach three. And then if we have a constrained budget year in the policy, the cap would be at two and a half percent. So that's one issue. The other issue was the definition of what a quote significant tax increase is. So as you recall in the policy, we benchmark at different levels depending on if we have a normal year or a constrained year or a severely constrained year. And that's determined if we've had any significant tax increases in the previous budget years. But that's not really defined. And so the proposal that's in there is anything above 9% would be considered significant. Now, why 9%? Why is that number in there? A couple of things are related to that. One is that covers any of the historic inflation that the city typically has to cover in holding the rate. We've talked about several times in the past how the current truth in taxation law does not allow cities to capture anything for inflation, which means Typically on a given year, if the city council does nothing, then the property tax rate for the city actually goes down. So the last two years, the property tax rate in Syracuse, the certified tax rate has actually gone down. This allows you to do a hold the rate so it doesn't go down or anything like that to capture things like inflation and not consider a significant tax increase. This is totally up to your discretion, but that's the proposal and the reasoning. From a dollar perspective, to give you an idea, and this was in the packet, 9% in this year's dollars, the average homeowner 9% increase would be $5, roughly $5.25 a month. So if it's more than $5, then it's considered significant, $5 a month. for the year. So that's the basis and the proposals. Just wanted to get that out there before we vote on it and make sure it's so we don't have to debate this in the next four or five upcoming budget seasons.

Okay. So hearing that, Council, does that raise any questions that you'd like clarification on or discussion that you'd like to have?

When you say $5, what is the price of that house?

That's based on the average or the median value in Syracuse, which I think is around $660,000, something like that.

But that's still not enacted unless the council votes to have that increase. To me, this is kind of fine-tuning what we've already agreed to in concept, but it's putting some limitations or some definitions on... on what we need to enact the compensation plan that we've all kind of agreed to that's going to hopefully greatly reduce that deficit between what our costs for labor and what we're bringing in is. So for me, this makes sense because it just defines some of those things that are kind of left open-ended. So I don't have any issues with this.

Mayor, if I could make one correction. My numbers were mixed up. The average tax bill is $660. I think the value was in maybe the high 500s or something like that. Yeah, sorry about that.

Noted. Any other discussion? or points to raise. Again, a lot of this is about putting forth something that's just defined rather than undefined. I appreciate staff going to the effort to make sure that we clarify these things. The more we know, the easier it will be to administer. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I will ask for a motion on resolution R26-31.

I move that we approve proposed resolution R26-31, adopting an amended Syracuse City recruitment and retention policy. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Item number 10, this would be proposed ordinance 2026-17, amending the Syracuse City Code section 11.20.60 and adopting Syracuse City Code section 11.20.75 pertaining to parking regulations at park and ride lots. There's been a lot of effort that's gone into this to prepare this, and we do finally own the property, I assume at this point. Almost. It has been a long journey getting this into our hands instead of in the hands of UDOT. So this is preparatory so that we can administer and actually hold people accountable for what happens there. We have to become the authority and we have to have an ordinance that we can hold people to. Is there any discussion amongst council on this proposed ordinance?

I just would like to make a note just based on the public comment that we had earlier that We are proactively cognizant of our community and the frustrations that our community feels towards the excessive use by commercial vehicles in the park and rides is something that the council agrees with. And that's why we put forward this ordinance together and worked on it and have been discussing it in preparatory for us to receive that property and staff has done a lot of work. And so we, I just wanted to make that note and hope that the gentleman got a copy of the ordinance that we're putting in place that will restrict the restrictions that he was asking for, that we hear you and we do care.

And all of this was in the packet, so it was available to anyone prior to the meeting. Any other questions or comments?

No. Just sort of clear on ownership, management, all of that stuff. The city does not have title to the property yet, but we do have an agreement that UDOT will turn it over to us. It just has to go through their central office and that sort of thing. But they have given over the authority to enforce and manage the property.

So as of our vote on this ordinance, we would then have authority whether we are the owner or not at this point.

By state law, Mayor, as you know, ordinances go into effect approximately 10 days after you approve them. So if you approve it tonight, there will be the approximately 10-day waiting period before it actually goes into effect.

Okay. I appreciate that clarification. So again, yes, we have to file these, and they have to be cleared. So any other questions or comments on this before we take a vote today?

Would it be good just to review kind of the main points of this?

Yep.

Just for the public. Love it.

Who would like to do that?

I'd love to do that, but I gave my copy to the gentleman with the comments. So if someone else has it in front of them, that would be great. Okay, so the first change that we'll see there is a change to the existing parking ordinance. Currently our parking ordinance says you can't park a large commercial vehicle on the street for more than two hours. Pursuant to a discussion we had a couple of weeks ago, we are proposing that we change that. You can't park it for longer than two hours unless you're actively loading or unloading. That would accommodate a moving van that's going to fill a house full of furniture. They're not going to get that done in two hours. Then you go down to the park and ride lots, the prohibitions are in paragraphs B, C and so forth. Nothing more than 26,000 pounds at any time, nothing more than 24 feet at any time. So that should take care of those large trailers that are always parked there. No recreational vehicles, no boats, no trailers, no construction equipment. You can't stand or park in a parking lot for more than 48 hours, regardless of what type of vehicle you have, and no overnight camping or sleeping.

Okay. And just for the record, we went over this in multiple meetings to make sure we captured all of those possible violations so that we would be able to enforce them. Is there any other that anybody wants to throw in there before we conclude with this round of this ordinance?

Is that good enough? 24 feet? 24 feet?

That takes care of big rigs. Yeah, so.

Or 22 feet and then they can camp over. No, no, no. For 48 hours.

So my trailer that I camp in is 43 feet long. 24 feet would be a small trailer. Like a small.

Like a motor vehicle trailer. Yeah. Or a no-mobile trailer.

very small which would be recreational which we don't allow the big commercial trailers that you see there now are 45 foot trailers the smaller pup trailers are still 29 feet so this will capture all of those commercial ones especially the ones with the reefers on the front other clarifications okay uh seeing none i will take a motion uh on this ordinance

I move that we approve proposed ordinance 2026-17, amending Syracuse Municipal Code section 11.20.060 and adopting municipal code section 11.20.075 pertaining to the parking regulations for park and ride lots.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. So that one is done. Item number 11 is discussion regarding process for selling property at 546 West, 2525 South. Steve's out of town. So I just want to bring forward why we're having this discussion. We had the other discussion, which was the 508 property. We agreed to leave it open for a month and we found people did not want to wait a month. They wanted to make an offer and have us respond to offers. So we feel like we have to handle this one differently. It's probably not going to be as popular as this other one. But we want to open discussion on what we can do to facilitate the moving of this property. It was purchased so that we could modify the property for road expansion. Now that it's been modified, we need to get it off the city books. We are not in the business of holding property. So that's kind of the history of this one and where we're at. Brody, you're going to fill in for some of the discussion, please.

Yeah, just so the council is aware, there is a new state law this year, but we do have to, there is a meeting period before we can go to settlement from when we first advertised it. So there is still that time to go to closing. But the issue here is we've had buyers come through. And Chrissy Young, she's our realtor. She's actually here today. If we have any in-depth questions for her on the market and that sort of thing, feel free to invite her up. But we've had people come interested. willing to make the offer, but their timeframe did not match the 30 days. So they walk. And the the input we're getting from our professionals, marketing the houses is that if we can just capture the buyers as they come, we can actually possibly get the best price out of it rather than having this waiting period before we entertain any offers. So the question on the table is for the second house, can we do it that way?

Yeah. So does that make sense to everybody what we're talking about? We probably should have handled the other one differently, but we didn't. We're moving on. So any other questions?

We're not realtors.

We are not. I think it makes sense because if you're looking at a residential real estate transaction, people want to know. And if they can't find out for 30 days, they're going to move on to the next one. And our real estate agent probably has the ability to take multiple offers and issue a, have them submit their highest and best offer if we get into a multiple bidding situation anyway. I think it makes sense to move along quicker.

Okay. Anyone disagree with that philosophy? Okay, seeing none, this is not up for a vote because we don't actually have to take a vote on this. We just need to have a general consensus that we're gonna handle it differently because we were kind of stuck. We announced a different process. We kind of had to stick by it on the other house. So unless somebody's got an objection, I am going to go ahead and say, rule that we are in agreement with moving forward with this process.

On the first house, we still think we're going to get a price that's above the appraised value or close to it. Right.

Yeah, we did not suffer from that. We just couldn't move as fast as some of the people wanted to move. That's really it. Okay, so seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and direct that we've got agreeance to change our policy on the second property. At this time, I'm going to adjourn us from this meeting for just a minute because we have one more business item to discuss. So I'm going to adjourn this from this meeting and call to order a special redevelopment agency meeting. We only have one item on this agenda. We do need to adopt the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda?

We certainly adopt the agenda.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. The item before us, well, there's two items, but they're to the same issue. Authorized Mayor Mond to execute real estate purchase contract, REPC, for a property located approximately 2,500 west and 1,650 south that we've designated by code name the Paisley, because that helps us all understand because there's several parcel IDs involved in this. We agreed in principle to purchase this property so that we can do what we've done in some of our other key business properties in the city. And we just need to take an official vote so that we can go ahead and finish that purchase. Does anybody have anything more? We did have a comment during public comment that regarded that. Does anybody else have anything to say about this before we move forward?

Sorry, I do have a couple of questions. And we probably talked about it, but I can't remember. So you have to remind me. So if we're using the RDA funds, when this property is sold, do those proceeds have to reimburse that RDA? So with the funds that we're using to purchase this, what does that leave our...

We're actually going to use, we believe that this affects two RDAs. So we're going to use funds from two different ones. And it will leave them in different positions. So we can review RDAs. We won't jeopardize anything we have on the docket is what we're, I'm trying to figure out. I can't remember exactly where our funds are, but yeah.

So the cash available is around $3 million. This was two of the three. One of the RDAs is generating a half a million a year. So it's replenishing fairly quickly. And then once this property, the RDA is going to try to do some economic development with it, sell the property, the funds go back to the RDA.

Any other questions? Again, I'm very excited about this one based on what happened with the last property we were involved in. We came out pretty good on the city side. All right, so can I get a motion to authorize the mayor to execute the purchase contract?

So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The second would be proposed resolution RDA 2602, adopting bylaws for the Syracuse City Redevelopment Agency. And this is because we missed doing this earlier or?

We simply have never had bylaws, Mayor, and a few months back, several months back, you asked me to prepare some, and it just took me forever to get to it.

Okay. Yeah. So we are solving something that just wasn't previously done. Anybody have any questions about that? It's consistent with our other RDAs. This is not new.

The significant difference between the RDA and the city council is in the city council, the mayor generally does not vote except in limited situations. Under the RDA statutes, the mayor is a voting member. So instead of five voting members in city council, you will have six voting members for the RDA. Everything else is pretty standard. Complicates it so much more.

All right. Seems that we almost always are unanimous on these RDA issues. All right. Does anybody have, can I get a motion on RDA 26-02? So moved. Second moved and seconded all in favor. Any opposed. Okay. I will adjourn us from the RDA meeting and we will resume our Syracuse business meeting. At this point in time, we have our second motion for public comment. If anybody has a public comment, same rules apply. We are probably the only city that allow people to comment before and after our business, but we continue to do that in fair transparency. Seeing none, I will close public comment and move into mayor and council announcements. We'll start down on your end tonight, Brett. Do you have anything to bring before us? No, nothing for me, thanks. Andrea.

Youth court is getting excited to take applications. So any high school age kids that are excited to serve the committee, look on the website for a report and apply.

Great. Paul? I don't have any announcements. Julie? I'll give you a mosquito report. Mosquitoes are out there. But surprisingly, the service requests have gone down 30% last month.

That's actually good.

And Syracuse hasn't, you know, it's affected every city. They're not calling in as much. So the Mosquito Abatement District wanted me to pass on that. Please call them. They love to spray.

Okay. Abe.

Nothing.

Okay. I have two quick announcements. One would be if you have the chance, come see Wizard of Oz at the high school this week, Wednesday through Saturday. There will be multiple performances. Really excited for that production. They are doing some amazing things where they will actually do live action black and white. You'll have to come see that for the first part of the show. I think it's a phenomenal effort that they figured that out. The other thing would be, I just did get a report this last week from the recycling group. And Syracuse, once again, has the highest recyclables of any city in the county. And we are recapturing, according to their process of measurement, we are capturing over 70% recyclables from the stuff that we throw away, which is phenomenal. And I think that's great. We'll do even better now that we've got multifamily options. So that's my only things to bring forward. Does anybody have any last comments before I take a motion to adjourn? I'll take a motion to adjourn then. move that we adjourn second all in favor aye aye we are adjourned thank you the short one surprisingly

Thank you.

Yeah, there you go. At least my excuse.

um um