Syracuse Library, we're gonna be having a kind of a hot luck style ART event where uh community members in Syracuse are able to bring up two pieces of their art kind of showcase.

That'll be about an hour and a half long or so.

Uh like I said, it's all free, and we're hoping to start that up regularly.

It's just kind of a way to get people out showing their work.

So it's kind of Instagram 2.0 is the idea in real life.

So thanks very much for uh anyone else have a public comment tonight.

So anyone online seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment, and we will start in with item C, which is uh our victim advocate report, Celeste.

Well, we'll get sure.

Oh there.

Come on up to the table.

We got a spot for you.

And share with us the latest report of your work.

Yes, I would love to.

Hi, I'm Celeste.

Um, and I'm the victim's advocate for um Syracuse Clinton and Sunset City, and I'm here to just present the semi-annual report on how the victim service is going.

Okay, so the goal today is to um show the numbers for victim served and services provided for both FY25 and the current year we're in FY26.

Um, and then lastly, we're going to go over just Syracuse City's numbers, which would be you know, same the same year services provided, and then we're only going to look at the victimization categories for Syracuse City for the current year.

And then as always, I would like to end the presentation with a positive story.

Okay, so here um the number one thing that I um wanna point out with this um slide is if we look over this is the overall number of victims served for uh and compare comparing FY25 and FY26.

So you can see that Syracuse has definitely had an increase um in victims served in the last year.

And then um prior to FY25, um, Clinton and Syracuse had always stayed at a pretty um close number.

And lately, we in the last two years, we've definitely have jumped ahead um when it comes to um victims being served and between Syracuse and Clinton.

If you look at the bottom corner, this is total numbers of victims served.

You will notice that there's a small decline or decrease in number of victims served, but we're going to discuss on the next slide show why um I'm still I'm my workload has still increased, although that number might reflect a little um differently.

Celeste know why the drop in Sunset.

Um Sunset, you know, let's just knock on wood.

That is just been a good city to not have any crime committed.

That's really the only reason.

Yeah, knock on wood.

Um so I don't have any other reason than that.

So for um, this is services provided, and this is kind of this is gonna touch more on the um why that decrease in victim, the total number of victims served.

So if you notice um the chart with the yellow, so that is FY25 and pink and purple is FY26.

So you can tell you can tell that there's been a dramatic increase between services provided to victims in the last year.

So we had a big jump with all of them.

Um, and just to keep in mind here, the service quantity um is so one victim can be served, provided services multiple times in each category.

So kind of going for a fresh reminder on what those categories are is information and referrals that um includes providing information on the criminal justice system and referrals to other two community resources.

Emotional and safety is providing that emotional support and discussing um safety issues and um creating safety plans uh with the victim.

And finally, criminal justice assistance and advocacy that's just um includes me communicating with the prosecutors, um, communicating with law enforcement and providing notification of criminal justice events to the victims.

This right here is these numbers are just um Syracuse City again, comparing both years.

Um you can tell again, there's an increase in services provided.

So what this really means is that although there's a small decrease in the victim served overall, I'm spending more time with each victim because with each victim they're receiving more services.

So either the cases um they the victims are needing more emotional support, the cases might need uh more notification of criminal justice events.

There's just so many things that might be included in those services.

And then this is a the victimization category for Syracuse for the current year we're in.

As you can tell, um, domestic violence is still the number one um victim category that I focus on the most.

Those are the cases that are more likely to go to court.

So um that's why there's also there's a lot of services that are provided for that category following stalking and harassment and child physical abuse neglect.

Um, and then the number of victims uh do not they may not add so the total number of victims is not going to add to the not the total number of victimization because one victim can be a victim of multiple crimes.

So domestic violence involving a violation of a protective order or any other case.

And then um ending the presentation with the story or a positive impact that um one of our agencies made on a survivor.

So this case is still very open and very in the midst of investigation, so I can't disclose a lot of information, including where the what agency this is, but I do want to say she is a female, a DV survivor.

And when I first met this um individual, this survivor, it was actually at the ER department, and at Nike the exam was performed.

Um we were there for five hours.

It was a very long night.

Um we I was there to provide emotional support, um, and really just be there and see because she didn't want to, she needed that extra support for her to be able to um move forward with this.

So, anyways, um she has shown so much appreciation towards the agency that she's working with and towards a detective that is um handling this case.

I do have to say I'm really proud of this agency and the detective.

Um they have done a wonderful job, not only in um being able to communicate with this victim, but also show compassion and um being understandable about everything there are um she and the family is actually going to and then um so this happened on a Thursday, and then it was over Mother's Day weekend.

So then we had a schedule, an interview schedule for Tuesday morning, and Jane decided to show up with some red roses, and the red roses worked for me.

Totally got me off guard.

I have to say I did cry because I'm a crier.

I did not cry in front of her.

I did just you know, try to forget about it a little bit, put it to the side.

We did what we had to do, you know, and then after she left, I totally balled.

Um, and little did she know I that's what I really needed at that time.

I've been, you know, it's been hard with the increase of cases and just trying to juggle life in general.

So just having someone who has literally experienced probably the worst thing of her life.

Um, she took a second, thought about me, and brought me some red roses, and that meant the world to me.

Um, just wanted to share that story.

Yeah, that's it.

Do you guys have any questions, concerns, comments?

Good morning.

Thank you.

Thank you for all you do.

Okay.

Seeing no more questions, thank you.

We appreciate that before.

We'll move on to our planning items.

Number one in our planning items, we have a pre-application consultation from blocks development.

Can you pull up a chair and uh I'll defer to Noah first to talk about the um project as presented.

Okay, so we get these occasionally there.

So we have a process for a pre-application consultation.

So we'll occasionally we'll get um different developers, landowners approach the city.

They want to know the the council's general opinion about uh a rezone or a project uh before going and spending a lot of money on uh engineering and architecture, things like that.

So they they I always tell them, well, I don't vote and I don't have a crystal ball.

And but you know, I'm always happy to give them input, but the but the best thing is to kind of get you guys' take on on things and um you know this way it's all in a public meeting, and you get all of their reactions, you know, all together.

uh before going and spending a lot of money on uh engineering and architecture things like that so they they always tell them well i don't vote and i don't have a crystal ball and but you know i'm always happy to give them input but the but the best thing is to kind of get you guys's take on on things and um you know that this way it's all in a public meeting and you get all of their reactions you know all together and that of course this is not these are not official decisions they're you know just input for somebody who's looking at a specific situation i can let him explain kind of what he's looking at um but this project is is um on the northwest corner of the city uh and what what what we're looking at here is the shiners bluff uh golf course and 193 intersecting with west davis corridor okay with a pre-application you're free to ask the council questions we don't make any presumptions sure but how can we help you well uh it's kind of a unique situation um not only are we talking about uh the north side of the road we're actually talking about the south side as well uh i arranged for a meeting if i may know and brody um and with west point city with uh kyle laws and uh boy davis we talked about a couple things uh the property is split almost in the middle between the two cities on both sides of the road and i've met with miss jen barlow who owns the south side and she would like all of the property on that side of the road to come into Syracuse City and on the north side of the road we're looking does it make sense to bring it all to Syracuse does it make sense to take it all the West Point or is let me stop you right there and say this a pre-consultation on the use of property is not a discussion on changing boundaries of cities okay so that's kind of off the table and um we that's a completely separate discussion and we're not in the business of doing land exchanges and I would tell you me personally having experienced this four years ago when Jen Barlow came in here and started trying to drum up the let's make some city or trades between cities both councils were so protective of a city I personally don't even want to mess with that again.

But I want you to be very clear the pre-consultation is not about boundary changes.

Well that's not why I'm here I well we're just looking for a direction um west point city is amenable to those and that's another topic for another day apparently um but with that being said um we are proposing a project to go at the end of the golf course there um and I did bring some uh idea of what that could possibly look like and if you didn't send that ahead of time for our packet then you're gonna have to keep that well I did it so I don't know where it ended up pack it then everybody has it that's what was emailed uh and that's fine that's great but I don't we can't change our rules we don't allow things to be introduced at the table I thought it was just for discussion purposes so I didn't maybe sense that that would be a problem so I'll put it back in my book and um maybe at this point then best thing to do is make an application and come in with a full packet and I mean you can describe the project like talking what what what are the land uses you know this is really to discuss a rezone potential rezone what kind of project what what do you want to build you know we're looking to put a multifamily project at the end there by the with the transportation corridor of the highway in 1930 there's no surrounding properties there that would be uh single family and we felt like it's a a good fit for the area okay so what questions do you have for us regarding that um I I guess I I came a little different prepared than to talk for that so uh maybe misunderstanding on my part um so I I don't even know how I guess how to approach it at this point um I mean I think it's fair to say he wants to build apartments in West Point but that would require a require a boundary adjustment.

No if if I'm more in certain I don't care I don't have a preference I'm just looking to build apartments on that parcel of ground you're talking just north of 193 or both sides just on the north side okay so what's what's that triangle there on the south side on the south side that's fairly the I mean we've talked about where our current city boundary is I mean it's right along the quarter section line it's just straight up and down right there.

Also west of that boundary, you'd want that part of the project boundary.

So it's it's kind of a weird boundary by cities.

Oh, right there.

This is a UDOF surplus thing.

So we've we've been dealing with a lot of UDOT surplus properties where people are buying buy these up and they want to do something with it as an investment.

Sometimes they're not easy properties.

That's why you dot is surplus then.

Sometimes yeah, uh good rates.

So if I'm understanding correctly, the boundary line is that black line with the hash marks, the hash marks that go to the right, straight up and down.

So that two acres is in Syracuse, and the remainder on the left is in the West Point, and nothing on the south side of 193, though.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with this.

It's just we're looking at that different landowner.

We're just looking at the north.

But yeah, that's the conundrum.

Scottis, the two cities trying to figure it out.

Well, I I feel very comfortable telling you that I campaigned on no more high density housing in Syracuse, and I made a lot of promises to the community to protect our city from any more high density housing.

It's not necessarily the partial landword goes to me, it's the strain on resources in our public servants.

Um, the high density brings, and uh so I would be a hard no just because of this scope of what your project is.

That's fair.

Um if it remains as as divided, and I'm able to do it on the west side of that, and that comes to be more of say a parking area.

Uh how does that what would that do for our city to have parking and nothing that is taxable on our side of the project?

It wouldn't, but why would we want to approve that?

Uh I guess my that's I'm not saying you would, nor am I suggesting you should, but there is enough room for me to put it on the west side, and if I may, and I I don't intend, but West Point has agreed that if it could go on to Syracuse, they would support that decision.

Um who did you get that information from?

Uh Kyle and Boyd.

Okay.

So Kyle and Boyd are not voting members of their council, and I've talked to their mayor about this project, and he has a different opinion.

Okay, well, I've been told otherwise by the same people, so um it does pose a lot of problems.

Um and I hate to bring in the south side, but since she's involved with me, I I've always given permission to talk about that.

Uh that's a whole nother thing on a separate agenda item.

Yep.

Is that on the agenda?

It is not okay.

It is not a well, I would like to, I would invite you to come back.

I assume this drawing brought that to the table.

So I my assumption was we would love to have you at the table and to have the discussion.

I don't I don't think that there's anybody here that doesn't want to have the discussion if that's the impression you're getting.

Well, no, I I'm the better opinion, and I'll tell you why, because when we talk about city boundary changes, it is a citywide issue, and I'm not of the opinion that we should have single people talking or uh this specific landowner talking about how we should change the boundaries of the city, and that's why they're very separate topics because for us to change the boundaries of the city, we're gonna have to go through a county process, it is quite lengthy, it is not as simple as hey, yeah, we'll just trade, you know, redraw the borders.

So it's a whole different process, and that's why I'm being very careful to keep them separate because reboundarying our city is very complicated dealing with your desire to do something with any property, it's very simple and you should be involved, but you should not be involved if it comes to changing the boundaries of our city.

So in in my take, taking the you know, ignoring the boundary changes, uh I'd probably echo what uh Abe said, and that I don't really have a desire for any more high density housing projects right now, nor do our citizens have a huge appetite for it.

So if we were just, you know, if all this area were in our city and we were looking at uh at a rezone for for a high density project, I wouldn't have an appetite for that.

I would not either that's why you come to these meetings, yeah.

Well, that's a that represents a majority.

So what is the alternate use for that property?

I think it's agricultural today, which probably makes a lot of sense because it doesn't affect either city where it's a divided property.

Other than agriculture, what is uh best use?

I can tell you the general plan is general plan for commercial.

Um there's also uh access to the property is limited.

We have an access agreement with Utah for 193 that allows a ride in right out, kind of at the crux of the shorter point where worse corner, so it's right in right out only.

So we do have some a little bit off the page here on the west, we'd have a planned full signalize the intersection at that third lane.

So we think that there'll be some commercial development up there as well.

Though one thing this property could do is connect the ride in right out with some sort of frontage road over to you know, that would probably be the benefit of the city.

And that is the plan of there, but of work markets whatever it develops land use-wise, but the owner on the south side of it also wins the piece on the north side over there.

So I think we're gonna see a lot of this area in the future because there's some open land, and you know, so they'll there'll be sure this isn't the last time we'll be talking about this part of the city.

On Saturday, I was approached by multiple residents of that neighborhood just to the uh southeast of this area, uh representing to me that they still have strong opposition to Third Good Lane connecting to 193.

It's not necessarily up to them that you can expect that there would be a considerable fight and opposition come forward to any meeting that we discuss that.

Yeah, and and it may not connect all the way through to somehow, but there will be a full intersection, a full signalized intersection right there to service you know, the north side of the road and the south side of the vacant landing lane.

They're good lane if you can see it on this map up here.

If you see a little that little last intersection that kind of leads out into the field, okay, yeah.

Yeah, that is proposed on our master plan that that would connect to 193.

But there was a proposal that came in a couple of years ago.

Gotcha, and uh we had over we had close to a hundred people come to this meeting in opposition of that.

Yeah, they don't want to hear other controversial topics, yeah.

Yeah, so no, I I'm just saying that when we talk about you know, where the intersections are going to be, that is uh passionate point for that group of people.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong.

I'm just saying you're gonna meet the opposition.

Yeah, the road stubbed there, but doesn't necessarily mean it has to connect.

Is is it appropriate for you to share with why they're opposed to that?

Well, they think that no, I mean, keep in mind this is a this is there are two sides to this issue, and I'm very open about it.

And that road was built wider because it was intended to be a through road.

Right.

The people who live there, and I spent uh an evening with them uh at their request.

I met at one of the homes, and they had a good number of people show up to that meeting.

Their opposition is that they believe that if that becomes a through road, they will get instantly a whole lot more traffic.

Now, to be fair, in our city, there are several places where people thought that, and it didn't turn out to be true because it was just one more way to circulate traffic, and it doesn't actually mean everybody suddenly uses that spot.

So I'm not declaring that that's accurate.

I'm saying that that's their opposition.

And fair enough, they have been in a community that has basically one in and one out and a lot of stubs that is planned for the for the future.

And many of them have expressed, well, I didn't understand what that stub meant to anyone in the world.

If you see a stub road, that means it's intended to connect someday somewhere.

So anyway, that's that's what uh has been cleared up.

I'm not suggesting that we do anything there, but yeah, for me, I don't know because of the because of the access, I don't know how this is good for our city.

Um it, I just I mean it's it's on it's it's a cutoff parcel from our city.

That's very clear delineation.

All right, okay, okay.

And as we go from that, council, I will just say if you want to have a discussion about changing boundaries, we that would be a future agenda, very specific to that.

But it the last time that that came up, it was very painful because both city councils were looking at ours too.

Was what do we get out of it?

And they were saying the same thing.

What do we get out of it?

And it went back and forth, and I think everybody thought, well, if I get a little bit better piece of this pie, then I can tell my citizens what killed it is in the end, you will all have to report to your citizens why you made a border change and that it was good for them.

And I don't think either city saw a path that it was good for them that wasn't bad for the other.

And so I personally don't even want to engage in something that we're just going to waste time on.

And I don't think either city is going to give up unless they get some, they get the bigger piece of the pie.

So I'm just that's my take on it.

But if you if you want, I will make a note and we'll put it on the next work session.

If you want to discuss boundaries, I don't think uh the gentleman wants to discuss boundaries.

So I'm I'm okay with where they are.

I don't see any reason to do it.

I don't see the button.

Okay.

Because uh I mean that's it has to be a separate thing.

I'm grateful for your wisdom experience.

I don't want to be pushy, but I'm I'm just I've been through this one already.

And and it was quite painful.

It it was a lot of uh, I mean, it got into their employees were accusing Noah of misreporting something, and we were hearing that they were misreporting stuff, and me and the mayor got into it a couple of times about what are your council versus my council saying.

I'm just telling you, it's painful.

It is not a comfortable discussion.

Yeah, I'm never gonna push it.

All right, so let's move on to the next one, and that is uh proposed uh amendment to Syracuse Municipal Code section 8.10.170 pertaining to building permit issuance practices.

Noah, brief us on this one.

Sure.

Well, um, when you build homes, you need to hook them up to gas, route a furnace, water heater, that sort of thing.

Electric to electricity to run the lights and such.

Um when we have a new subdivision, uh, we would require them to build public roads, and we have some standard road cross-sections where there's some standard locations for the different utilities.

Um we have of course have our city utilities, water, secondary water on the sewer line, things that go in the road.

Then the the gas line is standard location is in the park strip, and then the power is usually right sidewalk, right?

And the utilities right sidewalk.

So uh we and we we the the CD department works really closely with with the public works department and with their inspectors, they're looking at the new subdivision infrastructure, and then they'll tell us when it's ready to accept building permits.

And the the builder understandably is usually in a hurry because they spent a lot of money and then they finally get to sell the lots, and then they start recouping some of their investment.

And so, but we we will not accept a building permit until we get the green light for public works and public works.

There's a list of things in our ordinance that says.

So if you if you scroll there, you see what the existing ordinance says.

Um, it's in the packet, it says that you know, you gotta have uh road base, you gotta have curb and gutter, yeah.

The next page now, yeah.

You go on each one.

Yeah, there you go.

So um curb and gutter, water and sewer it, and uh we have been holding up as a practice the building permits if they didn't have their gas and electric, unless some we we have had a subdivision recently that just from the get go proposed no gas, and they just said they'd have electric utilities, and that's fine.

But we knew that that this particular subdivision, they they're showing on their plans that they need they will need gas.

So we we said, well, sorry, we're not gonna accept the building permits because you don't have gas lines.

Like, well, other cities let us do it.

It's like, well, we don't, and they say, show us in the ordinance where it says we pulled this up, we're like, yeah, it's right here.

Oh, it is not technically right here.

And so this is us making sure that our ordinance reflects what our practice is.

It's up to you, council, how you want to proceed on this, but I would say that as a rule, everything gets better when you require them to complete their upfront work.

It is so much more complicated.

I get it.

Some unknowing city councils have said, oh, well, let's just let them get started.

And what happens is you end up with long delays on the backside because things weren't done that should have been done up front.

And it's just it takes all the pressure off the city and the city staff if you force them to do their upfront work before they can begin the rest of their work.

Otherwise, you'll end up with properties that are even completely built and ready to sell to somebody and don't have permits.

I mean, that I've literally seen that in other cities and mayors talk about I don't know how this happened.

Well, it happened because you didn't force them to do the permitting properly.

Yeah, we were able to lean on the building code.

Yeah, a little bit on this particular issue because they are proposing the gas appliances, and in order to do that, you have to be connected to gas.

Uh you're required to have a furnace and you know, as part of building code to have I I would also say that we I just sorry, but I I want to make sure that you understand too you don't want to limit your future, you know.

Everybody who buys a property today that says I don't want gas or a property that says I don't want water, you know, that may be true of you, whatever it is that you think you can do without, that might be true of the first landowner.

But the problem comes when they sell the home, and somebody comes and says, Well, I want to rip out that electric stove and put in a gas.

Oh, wait a minute, I have no gas in my entire subdivision.

That is kind of a responsible thing that we do as setting the city code that at least logical options or foreseeable options.

This is uh I would make it akin to today, we may not need telephone lines.

But if 20 years ago or 30 years ago you said it's okay to propose a subdivision that had no telephone lines, and somebody comes in and says, You mean I can't connect to anything because it's just not here?

That's why we have make it allowable for all cable services and all Wi-Fi and all fiber.

We open it up to everybody to serve our citizens by not making them put in the infrastructure we could end up having to rectify that, and that would be expensive.

Well, and and just to be clear, this is not saying they have to have a gas line, just says that they have to have utilities required to service proposed buildings.

So if their proposed building does not have a gas appliance, they don't have to have a gas line.

If we wanted to say that we'd want to go to the city, I'm leaning towards these people's them to have at least a gas line in at the street level, you don't have to tap it into the house, but you have to put in the infrastructure for the utility, or what happens is the city might have to come back and do it.

We have a subdivision that does not have gas lines in the roads at all.

Which one?

It's the RC Park West subdivision does not have gas at all.

So their water heater and they're furniture.

Oh, it has to be electric.

That that meets building code, and you know, that was that's scary because what happens when the new homeowner comes in and says, I want to put in a instant water heater that's uh gas, those only work gas, they're not electric.

No, no, they can't.

You've now told them they can't have certain appliances.

They'll probably look for the connection, the gas connection in the home.

Yeah, and it'll be hard to find.

Yeah, it'll be very hard to find.

They may have bought it and paid an installer, and he says, Um can't put this in your house.

I I think I think in that situation, mayor, uh, we we run into the situation where then the person goes, Well, I'm gonna put a propane tank in my backyard and go, well, you can't because the setbacks and easements, and then they go through the state where the state has, I believe, a code that if you have a usage right and you have an opportunity for it, then they can force the city to accept a variance to allow you to get the usage.

I think that that would be the outcome that we would be.

So I'm more scary.

I've never dealt with that, but you do see in rural areas where they'll have they'll have a big old propane tank sitting on the side of the house.

I think the city may be forced to I don't know if you have an opinion on this, but I would think the city would be forced if there's no other option.

That's that's right.

Yeah, and and in this case, they would have electric as an option.

And that's their property.

And that's why I would say we probably need to fix our code to say the option has to be available to each development.

It doesn't have to be available to your doorstep, but it has to be available piped to your development.

Otherwise, what happens if they come and complain and say the city owes me that?

Yeah, there's gas all around RC Park West, I suppose.

Someday if gas was essential, they could tear up the road, or I guess it would be the park strip that they would.

And who would do not be responsible when they it wouldn't fall?

These are these are not city utilities.

I know, but they the expectation of a whole uninformed homeowner is that the city provides.

And that was sort of the developer's argument was that different utility third-party utilities can't come and go, but the city utilities are the ones in the actual road.

So we yeah, well, we certainly don't want to get in the business of choosing a company.

Nope.

Like, you know, we have Montopia or you know, we can't favor any particular company, but we could list out if we wanted to make a requirement for a gas to every home.

But it it would be, I think that would be pioneering and not really a common practice in cities.

I don't know if it would apply in our area, but the gas company, if it's required to be gas, they don't want to put gas in on their dime, they may come to the city and say, Well, if you want us to come, then you're gonna pay for it.

Because it's up to the gas company to run the lines, yeah.

And a lot of times it's probably the developer phase for the extensions, but I think all of these companies are happy to run lines because then they have a forever customer forever option.

Back when they were developing power, they'd run a power line all the way down.

And I would think in Syracuse, it's available nearby in those places.

But yeah, that could be a scenario where you know, if our standard requires something that is viewed as optional.

Yeah, I don't think I think we've gotten a little off track, and it's probably my fault.

Robert, could you have a thought on this?

Yeah, that in these new developments.

Uh, one of the troubles we have is if gas isn't in, uh well, we wait until gas is done before we put street lights in or street signs and uh like uh bar meters and stuff, because um a lot of times if if they if they go in after we put all the infrastructure in, they're either damaging it or they're moving it, or you got lights that are kind of like about ready to fall over.

Uh so we rather have them the gas done if they're coming in or not, whatever.

If they're coming in, have them done first, and then we can get street lights in, and then it's hence street signs, which makes it safe for fire and emergency uh to respond if there's a situation that's safe, it makes it safe so that then they can't build I have heard, and this is just part of this whole whether we should or shouldn't require basic utilities to be available at the subdivision level.

So there are communities in rural Utah who have opted to you don't have to put in electricity, you can be solar only, and we could get to that being a future.

The question is what happens?

Does that home become unsellable?

Does that home become uh a blighted spot in the community because it can't function on what everybody else can function on?

So I've been and the reason is that solar only would be because they're so far from a utility that it would be the expense would be prohibited.

We're not that we are a suburb.

There is nowhere in our city that I think is prohibitive cost to at least get it to the street level of the streets in the city.

That's the question that I would splink to us.

If it's prohibited and prohibitively expensive, then I wouldn't want to lean toward that.

But no, uh and you know, I mean we require other utilities too.

We it is not an option to not have sewer in this city.

No, there are septic.

There are people who say, Well, what if I want to do septic?

We don't even, you know, it's it's illegal here.

There's a maximum density of stuff it takes that you have.

Yeah, there's yeah, and the build the building code requires homes to be heated, yeah, right.

And that's just building code, not development code.

That's just the structure.

That's just the structure that you talk to have gas.

This would be something that I would think is a home buyer, right?

Is if the power goes down, if you have gas, you can light a fireplace.

Yes.

Unless you have a word wood burning fireplace.

Um but you can you can have a fireplace.

I mean, we we had gas go out, what two, three years ago or electrical two, three years ago.

It was out for a weekend, and we all camped out in the living room with the fireplace going.

Anyway, I I tend to look at these type of things as a home uh a developer might say I can lower the cost of this property, but if it hinders its resellability, we know that people don't live there forever.

We we can't hinder future generations by but if we're just stubbing, like if they're stubbing gas into a development, I mean if they're not taking it to each house, how yeah, how hard is that gonna be after the fact?

Stubbing it to your home is a whole different level of uh ease.

Uh you know, I mean, like I've seen people they they say, okay.

Well, I'm just gonna do a new stub or a second stub or a you know, those things are pretty simple to foot if it's in the street, if it's not any close to your neighborhood and you have to do a quarter mile path to get to your house, that is expensive.

So I think stud to the road is recently too.

Yeah, anyway.

Did we answer your question?

Oh, really?

I mean, I'm okay.

I'm okay with my thoughts.

I'm okay with this as a with that requirement.

That's our practice anyway.

I think that's maybe what we're talking about, is a different discussion.

I kind of do too.

But I think do we want to include that?

Well, I think that we probably need to take it separately, and it probably should start with planning commission.

So I would say this.

If you want what the takeaways would be, is this okay?

And the second takeaway is should we send to planning commission a mandatory basic utilities code?

And then if that gets through there, we would see it and review it.

That's what I think.

Yeah, this is the first bite at the potential amendment.

And sounds like under number six, you may want to consider saying rewording that to say that you have to have natural gas and power.

And you if that's the direction, we can send that to planning commission.

They can run it through their public hearing, and they can bring it back and probably have some slightly revised language, and then you guys can approve it in whatever.

And we can slightly revise it.

Yeah, I'd be good with that.

But I think that that's the direction it should go.

I don't have a problem with what it's being asked.

Yeah, if you if you guys have a really strong opinion about does it have to have gas like uh it'd be good to know if that's the majority.

It sounds like maybe it's the majority of the way.

I don't I don't have a strong opinion.

My opinion is I think that we should look at essential utilities, things that are basic to almost every home.

And I think gas, power, sewer, water, those uh are I think there's no option there.

They have to be a possibility.

So you'd have to stunt them to the development.

You don't have to go to each home, but you have to get them to the street level to where within uh 500 feet or so of each home, so that it's a reasonable upgrade for the a homeowner to take if they don't have it.

Yeah, I'd say we'll we'll we'll rework six to say that you have to have gas and power, and that'll give us some time to see if there's any issues with that being independent utility companies.

We can see what other cities require as well.

Should we require internet?

Is that requirements?

I was gonna say the same thing.

If you ask my kids, it is if you ask most of this generation, you yeah, internet has to be available.

I think the only question on that then would be that some people can do it remotely, you know, satellite.

So it wouldn't require an infrastructure because you can do it, and honestly, if you can get gas through the air and remotely, I'd I'd let that happen too.

That'd be great too.

But Tesla theory, so the electricity will be there.

Listen, I'm signing for that.

Anyway, so are we okay with going forward with that amendment?

So I'm sorry, can I confuse?

Are we what you're asking is are we gonna send this one forward and then send the other issue back to planning?

We're send the other issue and we will finish this issue.

Yeah, that's what I think I'm hearing.

Is that what yes?

Yeah, okay.

I think that's good.

This one's been right.

This has been to planning commission.

I haven't seen it.

No.

Okay, then it has to go there too.

This is whether to send it to planning commissioner.

Okay.

So we might as well couple if you're getting the and then we'll pass it when it comes to our um other one, the recycling item.

Okay, so we're going to send this to this planning commission.

The recycling's already been a planning commission.

Yes, it has.

Yeah.

All right.

I'm going to move us on.

Uh next item is discussion review of possible amendments to Syracuse Municipal Code Title 4 and 10 requiring programs for multifamily residential community recycling.

Where are we at on this one?

Because I'd sure like to have it done.

Well, we've got two issues.

One is a um a site development planning issue, which has been the planning commission and has been recommended back to the council for adoption.

And that is on the very last page of the proposed ordinance under development standards 10.92.040.

And there's a new paragraph number eight that says if you're going to come in, you've got to come in with a site plan that shows where you're actually going to put your dumpster, how many dumpsters you're going to have.

It has to be in an enclosed um cement not cement.

What's the word?

Masonry.

Masonry, thank you.

Uh enclosed masonry enclosure, et cetera, et cetera.

The other issue is, and that and that's for all future multifamily home developments.

The other issue that's on the first few pages of this proposal is how do we get the existing multifamily residential developments to start doing recycling?

Um, the mayor through the uh waste management district sent me several dozen, multiple dozens of ordinances from across the United States.

I went through those, I picked out some of the best issues.

This I will admit this is a rather short version of some of their better proposals, and that is simply that we give them a period of time to get compliant, and we say by I think that was January 1st of 2027 that you just have to do it.

You have to provide recycling containers, you have to collect them at least once a week.

The collection is on you, it's not on the city.

You already have a private contractor that's taking away your solid waste.

That same or a different contractor has to take away the recycling.

You have to label the containers.

This one's for recycling only, and there has to be an education component both for new tenants and existing tenants.

We propose them a new tenant application process that they say we do the recycling here, we encourage you to do it, and then once or twice a year for your existing tenants too.

Whether it's a newsletter or a poster at the mailboxes or whatever it is, keep reminding people that this recycling bin is for recycling purposes, and this is how we get rid of our recycling.

If it works the way it should, if you currently got two containers for household waste, and people actually do recycling like they should, it seems to me you should be able to take one of those away and put in a recycling container, and basically they will both say full on the same degree.

One gets dumped every week, maybe one gets dumped every other week or whatever.

So I don't know that space is gonna be a huge issue.

The reason I propose January 1st is that's just giving them six months to figure out how they're gonna do it, where they're gonna do it.

So that's the proposal in a nutshell.

I like it.

And I think it's a great proposal.

Yeah, I think it's good too.

Have we received any kickback on anyone talking about that?

I mean, is there okay?

None.

Well, I mean, we've already made it required for every yeah, the house, everybody that used the city services.

So I I've heard complaints about that, but yeah, but I have heard much more now that we've had it for a while, nobody's complaining anymore.

We're just like, oh, I love it.

I'll take that back.

I've heard the complaint that why do we not have it available at the apartment?

So there's been no negative to putting it in.

There has been negative to why we've been left out.

Right.

So um, and I actually expected we might have one or two people come forward and say, you know, hey, this would, you know, this isn't work that I don't want to do.

Nobody.

So once we notify the apharma complexes and maybe some parking spots, right?

And they'll have to make it well exactly.

You just replace one of the dumpsters.

Yeah, yeah.

You even some of the little ones, like there's a couple of four unit fourplexes over here just south of us.

There's two of them, one on either side of the street.

They currently have a dumpster.

They also, and I've driven around and looked at every one, these particular units and some of the other smaller ones have room for a second dumpster.

The ones where it will be a we've got to figure this out type of approach or the R lows in the Arias and the Viridians life.

The ones where it will be a we've got to figure this out type of approach are the Arlos and the Arias and the Meridians life because they've got their enclosures there, and there's either two dumpsters in there or one, but they'll have to figure out well, if I've got a dumpster here and a dumpster there, maybe this one should be recycling and that one should stay non-recycled.

They'll figure it out.

I think also, I mean, there's only three of the big complexes.

There's enough people there that we have to require this.

It's just too much waste that is uh not being properly dealt with.

Speaking of essential city utilities, you know, you don't get your garbage picked up, that becomes a public health problem fast.

Yeah, we'll get it open.

Okay, well, I'm seeing general approval, so I'm gonna move this.

Uh we okay to put this on consent agenda?

Yes.

Okay.

Item F consideration to vacate utility easement granted by Floyd Hamblin.

Expecting this one to go quick.

Yeah.

So I had a request, it was from Stan Hamlin.

Um about uh an easement.

It's a 20-foot wide easement in their property that used to be for a storm drain and sewer uh line that served the ranchette subdued back when that was built.

Then when Tusney Meadow subvision was built, the drain lines were run down Durral Drive.

So the sewer district realized they didn't need that easy anymore.

They quit claimed, put a quick claim on it, uh, gave it to Syracuse City exclusively, and we've had it since we don't maintain any sort of uh drain line there.

I don't know if there is one still there.

There may be that was abandoned.

Um the other thing I'm not certain on is if those farm fields may be draining into it.

Uh but if they are, it's just on their own.

The city doesn't own the line or maintain it.

So um it's not maintained by the sewer district either.

So it's it's they've abandoned it.

So um we have no vested interest in it.

Uh I did receive um well, we sent out letters and I received responses back from most everyone.

Um either by phone or email, and everyone was in favor of uh the city vacating that easement.

Okay, so so I'm bringing it to you more in a draft form is something that we could bring in the next business meeting if you're good with the consent agenda.

Like before we get to that, let me say there is a state statute that talks about the process for vacating a public road.

It's vacating a public road or a public utility easement.

So we will have to comply with that state statute.

I will need to figure out what the process is, so I may not be able to go to this next meeting.

Okay.

Well, it can go to the next meeting.

I think we just try we may have to have a hearing.

It depends on noticing.

Uh I'll have to figure out the process and work it out with Cassie.

And so I'm I'm worried about consent because we have more than 14 days.

So we do.

All right.

Well, um, whatever the process, let's just get this one done because it's not being used and it shouldn't hold anything else up.

All right.

Next item is the interlocal agreement between uh Davis County Cities for our participation in the Davis County Stormwater Coalition.

It is a requirement for us to uh from EPA, both federal and state, to uh protect our stormwaters.

Uh uh one way and our permit uh has requirements on us too to do that.

And one of the ways we can accomplish some of the requirements in the permit is to participate in a storm coalition, which is uh just a basically a group effort where we all work together on uh messaging for uh the public.

So we are five-year contract, uh ended ends this year.

So this would just be uh renewing that for another five years.

And because it's an interlocal agreement, it does require a public hearing.

Yeah, okay.

Well, but uh is everybody okay that we just advanced that one seems like the no-brainer, just an FYI on stormwater management issues.

I have scheduled a call on Thursday with the uh director of the uh Great Salt Lake Rising project, and we're talking about how to make water more productive as far as storm and wastewater.

And the next item is very much related to this.

This is uh again, a requirement from both federal EPA onto the states.

The states put it on us through a permit.

And their permit is uh the state's permit with us is a five-year permit, which expires uh expired in May.

It'll uh we've already renewed, but part of that permit requires us to update our stormwater management program every five years in conjunction with with the permit.

So uh put the per the stormwater management program in here.

There's a lot of pages to it, but this is uh basically a draft form.

Um this is something that uh uh there's a requirement that it's got to allow for public input and a public hearing would allow for that to happen if the public had any input.

So this would be another that we could put on the next meeting or probably a public hearing.

So with your approval, we'll put a hearing out there.

Honestly, we have rarely had anybody talk about stormwater when we do these hearings, but we'll go through the process.

And if you have any comments, I'd like some storms.

Yeah, yeah, I'd like some storms will have to drain.

Yeah, that would be nice.

Yeah, if we put anything about that in there, definitely require a number of swarms.

That's another essential utility.

Okay, let's move on to uh options for park and ride parking regulations.

I'll take that.

All right, so um the discussion on this covers both the park and rides and the related parking on streets that can occur if we actually do some of these regulations.

I'm not gonna go through the whole minimal assumption is that that you've read it, but I'm happy to discuss any part of it that you have questions on.

Um, there are uh the bottom line is at the at the bottom those policy considerations.

Do we do we want to uh prohibit commercial vehicles from parking in the park and rides?

Keep in mind the the primary intent of a parking ride is for the traveling public.

Commuters for commuters, right?

That is the intent of these parking rides, that's why they build them.

Um, and so it's not a truck stop, right?

It's not a place for you to sleep overnight.

It's not a rest stop, yeah.

It's not a rest stop.

So so it's not supposed to be so prohibiting commercial vehicles is within the the realm of the regulation you can consider.

Um next one is whether or not we allow overnight parking, period, any kind of vehicle, whether it's a personal vehicle or commercial vehicle.

That would be easy to enforce, either a car's there or it's not, right?

Um, one of the issues that that was brought up, and I I brought it up was some people may commute at night on a on a graveyard shift or whatever, and and they may ride chair and that sort of thing.

So it kind of it kind of impacts that situation.

Um you could maybe have people that commute together down to the airport to go on a business trip and then leave one car there.

Yeah.

So which is another part of it is how long can you leave a car at a park and ride, right?

Do we want cars sitting there multiple days?

How do we distinguish between that situation and somebody who maybe just parks it there because they live down the road and they don't have room in their driveway?

Right.

Um if we limit night time, how do we define night time?

So we've we've talked about midnight to 5 a.m.

Um, and then there's the question of what happens if we do limit some of these things.

There will likely be, you know, those cars and trucks just don't disappear, right?

They just go somewhere else.

And so um the question is is and the most likely place they go is somewhere on our streets, and and they park somewhere on on our streets in in neighborhoods and things like that.

And so um we looked at our code as it relates to um parking things like recreational vehicles and trailers, boats, um those kinds of things on the street, and really tightening that language to be 24 hours maximum.

Um, and that gives you time to you know pack and unpack if you're going on a camping trip or whatever, but um they're not we're not having like detached trailers sitting in the roadway for months on end throughout the year.

Um on that I just like to bring up that this has come before council several times over the years, and there's a pretty consistent outcry from residents on smaller uh streets that are not major streets with parking to find when somebody thinks that they can just pull a motorhome up to the curb for a week because then it becomes it's hard to see around, it's hard, it's a safety issue for kids in the neighborhood.

So that's come before the council a few times, and sometimes it's been very passionate.

I can think of a couple of past councils that got.

I thought our code already restricted it to 24 hours.

They do.

It does today.

Yeah, I can't remember exactly.

Is it is it 24?

You remember?

Yeah, so the code distinguishes based on length and the weight.

And so it's not specific to RVs, but assuming that most RVs fall underneath the 24,000 pounds, they're limited to 24 hours of being parked um in front of the residents.

But we do have some consistent complaints as well of people who apparently are operating businesses out of their home, and maybe we'll have five or six large commercial vehicles uh parked around the neighborhood, and that becomes a concern and a complaint.

And I'm not saying that it's right or wrong.

I'm just saying that it gets irritating for people who feel like they can't park on their own street or see safely.

And that's the one that actually concerns me is when you say I, you know, I could hit a kid because they're trying to dodge between all these vehicles that are oversized on our streets.

I want kids to be safe in neighborhoods.

I I don't want to feel like they can't get around.

But are we defining commercial the I can't remember?

It's it's a certain way because if somebody has a pickup truck that's branded for their company and that's they drive as their yeah, I'm not worried about a pickup truck.

What I am worried about is oversized things that block view.

So box vans, uh the big ones that uh, you know, maybe you've got the apparatus on it, uh things, trailers that uh are hooked up and you know, if you've got if it blocks the view, so you can't operate safely.

If it's if it functions as a regular vehicle, that's different than if it functions as an extension or uh uh view obstruction.

Yeah, okay.

Well, I think the major departure from existing ordinances now we're classifying what can be parked for 24 hours as essentially a recreational vehicle, boat, camp trailer.

So it's it's more what the nature and intended use of the vehicle is.

So that's 24 hours.

And then in the current code, it says two hours for those commercial vehicles.

So you say you know, a moving truck pulls up.

So now we start a two-hour time clock.

Well, you can all recognize that's a very difficult enforcement action to take for officers who are responding to a complaint, right?

It's parked out front, they're unloading it.

So the new statute um or the proposed language in the set or ordinance is that it they have to be actively engaged in some type of loading or unloading of that commercial vehicle.

So if it takes you four hours to unload an Atlas van line at the house, like we're not we're not there trying to take some type of enforcement action.

And it also allows us if someone does park a commercial vehicle out front, rather than waiting the two hours to come back to take enforcement action.

The ordinance has some teeth immediately.

And we want people to be able to do business, which if moving in and moving out is part of it, that's okay.

But it you can't block traffic forever.

And that's the big issue.

What if what if somebody's doing a remodel and they put a dumpster in front of their house?

You know, hopefully according to the ordinance right now, it would be 24 hours.

And I think that's better because uh consistent complaint that I've seen in the city is I bought a dumpster and all my neighbors threw mattresses and couches in it.

Now I have no dumpster.

Well, shame on them.

But if you do your business quickly, that doesn't happen.

If you leave a dumpster out for three days, you're gonna have everybody else's trash.

The dumpster is can typically be put in the driveway or something.

It's not public property.

Thanks, I think it's a fair issue to discuss.

I want to make sure we stay on on topic of what's on the agenda.

But um, we're what the primary the primary discussion item is the park and ride.

Okay.

Um and I think if we what's UDOT's position on the parking rides, they're turning neighborhoods when they own them.

What is their policy for parking right?

So I reached out to them, and and they don't necessarily have they couldn't produce a policy for me, but they have typically uh restricted overnight parking.

Yeah, I've seen sign in commercial vehicles and things like that, similar to what what we see in the draft here.

Because if the intent is to have it a true park and ride where daily commuters are using it, then overnight parking restriction, restricting restricting commercial vehicles and campers trailers.

And I've heard from the community a conversation on both fronts, like people that are completely upset that there are trucks parked in the park and ride, and people that are like, no, I'm super glad that the trucks are parked there versus parking in the neighborhood or parked in a Walmart parking lot taking up half the parking lot.

Um, so I've I've heard both.

So I could go either way.

I I like that how we discussed before maybe doing a permit because I've also run into members in our community that do over the road trucking, and when they're in town, they park their truck at the park and ride and go home for the weekend.

Yeah, one of the one of the related complaints we've received from from neighbors, um, and and there's a way to address this and allow that that um is the refrigeration trucks.

So yeah, um overnight, overnight refrigerator trucks running, and you know, that's uh disrupting people at night, and that's where they so I mean it could be like a you can't have a refrigerated commercial vehicle um sitting there running.

Two things I chime in with um one, we are gonna have a future issue because it's on a UTA's long-term plan that uh cities off of a main freeway.

We're not we're like off 515.

Part of their solution to uh not putting in more bus lines is that you could subscribe to a share a ride share van, and that you know, maybe that ride share UTA marked van would be able to stay there overnight and everybody meets there in the morning.

So that could be one issue.

The other one that uh concerns me is that we are very different as a city with our park and rides.

If you go down and you follow 177 all the way across, every other one is up against nature preserve.

We're right in our city, so it is fundamentally different.

And I also notice traveling that road a lot that the ones that are way out in the middle, they don't have big trucks parked in that lot.

Nobody wants to walk that far, but here, you know, in the middle of our city, it starts to look like a truck stop.

And what we don't want is the behavior of a truck stop.

Yeah, we don't want people thinking that this is a hangout or a yeah, it's and it's hard to tell, you know.

I I drive by the 2000 West one all the time, and a lot of unmarked vans that are not branded, you don't know what they are, and they've been there for days.

Um, and you don't you don't know why, not that we have to know why, but um they start to collect and they've grown in number uh since we've got for sure.

Yeah, and it's the same thing with RVs.

You have one trailer there, and then next week you have three, and they're not the trucks and they're barked from storage versus you do not want them to become communities or storage units, right?

Right, yeah, there's places for that communities, yeah.

Good point, right?

That's true too.

Yeah, you can have residential, uh, you know, some habitation going on, but you know, it's yeah, so there's places to store vehicles other than parking rides.

There's places for truck stops to uh stay overnight in their in their trucks other than to park and rides.

Um, and we're not on I-15, which is the main long haul thoroughfare, right?

But um, so these are the the issues that we're starting to address.

We've we've purposefully not put a lot of regulations on the park and rides as of yet, because all of the undeveloped land around them was was soon to be developed, and we didn't want to invest in signage and security cameras all you know, just to be torn out because the new development, you know, maybe modifies it a little bit.

So we've kind of been waiting for everything to see how it's going to develop.

It looks like 3,000 West.

Um, and in that area, they're not going to need to touch the park and ride.

So we feel good about we can move forward with whatever regulation we're going to do, enforcement signage, and it's not going to be torn out.

2000 West is still a question mark because there's a lot of undeveloped land around it that's not going to be developed within the next year, probably.

Um, but there's a lot going on down there that we probably need to take some stand on what the rules are.

Have we had an increase in crime or costs for service that are park and rides for vandalism or theft or anything like that?

No.

Uh we've just had more of like the code, yeah, the noise complaints and stuff.

Those are very persistent persons living in the area.

I mean, just observing it, driving by.

Um, I drove by 3,000 West and 2000 this afternoon, and there's five disconnected trailers in the 3000 house parking.

And then there's another seven commercial vehicles in that lot right now.

And I think there was nine private vehicles in we just don't want to be a parking lot for yeah, I agree.

I mean, I I like I I think restriction is necessary, especially for the trailers and things like that, probably commercial vehicles.

I know enforcement it's easier for to have the no nighttime parking, but I'm just that that one's that I have the hardest time with because I don't because who knows when people are commuting or traveling or or whatever.

And we don't have to do all of these.

I mean, really at this point, you can say I like this one and I don't like that as rules for and and we could change it later if we find that um after six months that something we did or didn't do becomes necessary.

How long until the vehicle is considered advanced?

Do we have any idea on statute for that?

So we can take enforcement after 48 hours, but if the vehicles used throughout the day, say they they're just leaving it there overnight, they get in their vehicle, they go drive it, then that resets that time block for the 48 hour parking.

Well, and it's not enforceable at this time, right?

Because we're not considering it's part of our um ordinance because the property is kind of in the limbo, right?

So that's part of this defining.

It's in the gray area, so we can certainly clarify it by say we're specifically we're going to include parking rights.

Yeah, and we have them.

We've been enforcing it based on the existing ordinance.

But again, when you have that time clock in place and that truck's moved over three stalls, did they just come and move the truck three stalls, or would they go out and engage of work and go back?

So it does create some challenges as it's currently.

What about creating some special use lanes that are limited?

Uh for which of the purposes, like for the commercial or it could be any of them.

I mean, if you've got an over the truck driver that lives in the area or stopping, there can be a lane available for that kind of use.

Or for neighboring.

So it I if I'm imagining what what you're explaining, something like a resident that lives nearby, maybe they drive a truck.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, or overnight.

So it isn't open to everybody in every lane, but whoever gets there.

So yeah, I mean, you can do uh you could do like a resident permit type situation um that gets a large vehicle you know off the street, you uh you'd want to limit it, but it's interesting the idea that maybe we take so many stalls and we make them overnight, special purpose special purpose as long as the primary and our agreement with you dot you can do that.

Um as long as the primary use of the property is park and ride, the traditional park and ride use.

I do I do like that too, because I do think doing a special use permit for somebody who's going to invest into that, that also gives us the revenue to be able to maintain the park and rides and do the snow removal when necessary, and that that becomes less of a strain on the city finances if if we can find a way to make it self-sufficient to where it pays for itself for upkeep and all the things as well.

But I also think that that would be beneficial to prohibit people that have trailers from parking there and residing there or leaving their trailer there as storage, because that would fall under the permit, so they couldn't buy a permit for that, right?

And you'd read we would be able to redirect them to no, no, you cannot store it here.

In fact, you're only allowed to have it 24 hours in front of your house, and the park and ride is not storage, it's not a storage.

So you don't get 48 hours or even you you get if we wanted to give them anything 24 hours for loading and unloading if your house happens to be right here, but I don't know why you would do that when you can park it in front of your house.

So I mean, if it is an intriguing thought that you make so many X number, whether it's eight, 10 what stalls that are special use by permit only, because then they have to register and get a permit, or they would be in violation of everybody else.

Correct.

So that oh, sorry, well, I just could say so.

That gives the opportunity, but what I don't want to do is have somebody think, well, can't I get a yearly rate?

This is my permanent parking.

Correct so that oh sorry well I just say so that gives the opportunity but what I don't want to do is have somebody think well can't I get a yearly rate and I this is my permanent parking no that this is like a temporary thing not a not a you know well you could do uh I I would think you would only want it for residents yes right um it's to accommodate residents probably with like large vehicles that are otherwise a problem not recreational vehicles I don't I don't think you don't we want recreational because that becomes storage yes um but it has to be their trade truck you know their um and still at their own risk we're not taking responsibility it's sign an agreement no security that we're taking and we can we can give them rules of restrictions too like you can't have the engine running uh overnight on unattended you know like so that would restrict three three units from being there running you know you got to find a different place if you're going to refrug in go park at Walmart they don't they don't really care they're not to do a little difficult so let's narrow this down because I'd like to be able to bring this back for a vote at the next meeting which ones do we feel or or staff do you feel like you have what a census on which ones we want in there sounds like you're okay prohibiting the commercial vehicles from parking there.

Definitely um with the caveat that we might entertain this resident resident special use permit special use permit yeah okay um yeah no recreational vehicles boats trailers of any kind no habitation no habitation I don't I don't know that I'm super grumpy on if somebody is driving through and they have to camp in their car but like there's got to be a restriction like I mean you can't go stay on BLM land for more than X amount of days right like I don't want somebody living there but like yeah if somebody pulls over because they're falling asleep I don't want Syracuse police going and knocking on their door they've literally just been there an hour right where like hey you can't sleep here like well I'd rather you sleep then yeah I think how do you differentiate though between somebody run the plate yeah back the next night if there's somebody in there sleeping again the next night that's two nights in a row you're done like yeah I think that's that's where the discretionary you know the the I'm okay with that the decision making at whatever the situation is they can decide if it's someone it's safer for them to sleep rather than be on the road I agree or they're just taking advantage of it might determine that.

Like we don't want somebody living in their car in the right um as far as so it sounded like there's some mixed feelings on just an outright time restriction um for like personal vehicles like are you okay with personal vehicles parking there overnight I got parking there overnight but I got a sense that it was not uh the hour of day as much as the amount of time meaning like we would be okay if somebody parked there during the night because maybe they're working a night ship right we would not be okay if they were there more than 24 hours.

Yeah well what what if somebody goes on a business trip so like I I've traveled for work where I was gone for weeks at a time and I have a place down by the airport that I happen to know management that they let me park and then I Uber to the airport so that I'm not paying for airport parking but my car is there for a week so like I I think having some type of time restriction like 72 hours a car not moving right maybe I don't I don't know I don't know necessarily or you pay for a special special use permit.

Is that too hard to enforce though for trying to track that's for chief if there's it definitely not easy the water when it comes to so that that's maybe where the special use permit falls into place as well that if you're gonna be gone for a week maybe you call the city and maybe give me a permit that you don't get a ticket for being there.

So does it more than 24 or 48 hours that's requires special use permit or is it more than a week or what are your thoughts on that council if less than a week I think if if you want to lump that into like the the special permit type thing um you know I I think it's easier to set whatever time frame we want um because they're gonna have a little thing hanging on their their right their dash or whatever.

I think more than 48 hours you get a permit yeah I think that makes sense and it's for residents.

Yeah so again you can get permit if you're I'm parking my car here and I'm going on vacation car pooling or whatever.

But I I honestly think that maybe we leave it open to that because what if you meet a friend that's a resident here you don't want to leave it at their house but you're willing to leave it in the park and ride for a weekend trip and on their way back you're picking up your car and going home but that seems reasonable right maybe you want to go out hang out on Antelope Island with the mosquitoes for the weekend to me the community concern that I'm hearing about are the commercial vehicles in the parker I thought.

Okay.

Yeah you can probably detect eventually if someone's living in their car.

I mean there's there's telltale signs the lack of rain and the wind becomes fairly obvious that those cars haven't moved for a while at which point it can draw the attention of law enforcement we do already have the 48 hour rule in place if we were to leave that if we didn't want to prime at it I think we can just say that gives our officers some enforcement action it's not our primary concern but when it does become obvious then we can I think 48 hours is a good number and it's already in yeah we've already got it yeah and then we don't have the we don't have the timers the you know time of day and night restriction for passenger vehicles.

Okay.

What else we know we've got uh so we automatically address the refrigerated trucks issue because they're not allowed to park there anyway so that one's all right take care of um and then we have the actual on street parking situation so the the suggestion in here was um for commercial vehicles it's based on the activity so when we get to these big commercial vehicles the idea is you can park on the street to do your business but once you're done with your business get need to get moving can't park it there overnight or even all day um how do you feel about that yeah I I think if you're actively working I think to have a rent my servant in front of somebody's house while they're actively working on the HVAC is not an issue.

Don't think I don't think we want Karen calling our police to yell about somebody that's actively having plumbing issues or electrical issues or roofing because that can take sometimes days to get your roof done.

Yeah I think the concern is ones that don't leave every day or that are becoming a visual hazard to getting around the neighborhood that's the I may or may not have a neighbor that has a business running out of this house that may or may not have box van parked nearby that I've talked with them several times to not have block the stop sign.

Yeah I mean 15 year olds learning to drive it's the visual impediment that's the problem it's not that you have business there are businesses that have very large commercial vehicles that parked at their residence and if they are parked back offset from the property line like no problem you can do that.

It's the ones that are out on the street blocking traffic signals or making the road so tight you can't get two cars past that's the problem.

I don't know I I feel like maybe we've got enough to to draft an ordinance whether you two feel like you need any further clarification on anything that's no okay sensing that we've beat this one into submission let's move on I think the next one here um oh wait a minute I wanted to bring up well I'll bring it up when I was going to bring it up the next one is discussion regarding option for pursuing just serve city desk or designation there isn't designating a designation that we can get as a just served city what are your thoughts on that council is that desirable is that something you'd like us to pursue do you want to hear first what that takes yeah I want to hear to print a protein that way.

You get to add that on to your branding and your newsletters um and things like that.

And uh what it what it really means is we support volunteerism.

Um what it requires to be a just serve city is to first pass a resolution that says we support volunteerism and we recognize our volunteers, and then after that, we actually do that.

And um, and then we actually uh for not not like our volunteering like planning commission or arts council or things like that.

Um, but for certain volunteering, we we post on just serve to try to get volunteers to help out.

To help with a project, yeah.

So if we do that and for volunteers that do exceptional work, we recognize it.

Maybe a certificate in council meeting or something like that.

Which in in a lot in a lot of ways, like for example, the Lions Club with fingerprinting.

These are things a lot of these things we already do.

We'll we'll post on just serve on for some of our projects already.

We recognize some of our exceptional volunteers already.

This in large part is just sort of a recognition to help um signal to our public and help our public understand that we are supportive of volunteerism and that um you know this is something that we encourage.

So it's kind of a signaling to our our public that we're we we want to encourage volunteerism.

Um it ties in with some of our our key results and our KPIs that we just recently adopted.

And so we thought this would be a good thing to bring forward to see if it's something you'd like to do.

Um anybody have an objection?

Because I think this one's kind of a simple, you know, sounds great, doesn't have any negative effects.

Not really a financial obligation.

Yeah, doesn't costing recognition.

Okay.

All right, I'm gonna move that forward to the consent agenda.

The next item is a little bit more complicated.

So we have the option to talk about implementation of a transportation utility fee.

We've talked about this before, and I do want to kind of wrap this up and decide we're either going forward or not.

So that's the intent of the discussion spite is whether we are moving forward at this time.

We can always do it later if you don't feel like now is the time.

Steve, I'm gonna turn some time over to you to talk about where we're at present.

Okay, so last council meeting we talked about this in kind of a lot of detail.

Um, one of the questions that came up was can we go with a different category system rather than just the square footage of the building size of the business?

Um the short answer is yes, we can do that.

So in the in the packet, there is a an example or proposal that the council could go with, and it's more based on traffic impacts and the low low low traffic, median traffic, high traffic generation, and categorize the business types into those three categories.

Um, and and also separate out in industrial.

So there'd be four four categories on the business use.

Um, and you can see in in the packet examples of what fits into those categories.

Um not going to go through all of them in detail if you have questions on them.

The only concern that I had on this, because I I liked the idea and I thought it was good.

Well, but what system do we need to have in place if somebody protests that they're in the wrong category or they're an exception to the rule?

Correct.

And and one of the things, if we went to this new category, we would have to revise the study and the plan to support whatever methodology we're going to use.

That would come at a cost uh to revise the plan.

And then yeah, you gotta you got to consider the exemptions or the you know, if someone wants to challenge, hey, I'm in the medium category, but I feel like I have a little trick generation.

Are there um parameters or or things we can set up that would allow us to move them to a different category?

I know it makes it more complicated, and again, this may be self-serving, but I represent a small business.

Um to lump my business in with businesses up to 5,000 square feet, and you know, whichever yeah it's a large impact for a small business like my sure.

Um, and so I would lean towards more the actual impact of traffic generation.

I realize there are challenges with that.

Um, I like the categories that were created.

Um, but you're right.

If someone says, hey, no, no, no, I'm in I'm in this other category, how do they how do they prove that, or how do we and I'm not against it?

feet and you know whichever yeah it's a large impact for a small business like my sure um and so i would lean towards more the actual impact of traffic generation but i realize there are challenges with that um i like the categories that were created um but you're right if someone says hey no no no i'm in i'm in this other category how do they how do they prove that or how do we i and i'm not against it there just have to be some defined system to so that it's not arbitrary or it's not where they feel like they have no recourse there'd have to be some kind of it gets reviewed by a committee a person does it get reviewed by city council we've found that with watering issues that's probably not a good thing because then people are thinking oh yeah well my neighbors city councilman I'm gonna pressure them to give me a that's something you saying officer so that's an appeal yeah manager I feel like you could uh have uh the traffic set excuse me the study updated uh to determine what levels those are based on the ITE adopt IT Internet International Transportation of Engineers or Institute Transportation Engineers trip generation manual and then those would be kind of your your trip generation numbers and yeah then if someone challenges it uh it would be based on a study you could go back and have them provide what the trips vehicle trips are um and then and we could determine if it falls in whatever category that's one way to do it and then yeah I think doing a uh uh an appeal to uh hearing officer hearing officer um we could go that route we've learned in the past that if you have a good system in place then it makes it academic and so we don't want to we don't want to make it more arbitrary yeah I don't feel like it'd be too burdensome we're talking about about 110 businesses initial categorization would take some time but as new businesses came in I mean I think it'd be manageable it's just getting the getting the plan in place and the study the support and the trip counts to have others that feel like this is the right direction rather than the previous one more scalable it is more scalable to grow so that seems like the way to go away I would see it one challenge would be if a business scales considerably and they were categories they were categorized when they entered business and they're in a different scale so I think that you'd have to in the ordinance you'd have to allow for business license renewal to to review or revise if it's obvious I'm not thinking that we revive review every business every year but if we note that they have gone from a home based business to a large warehouse office or something that they are in a different category and it needs to be reviewed would you be uh would you want us to go forward with just updating that study then I think so that's really the question that's the first step we can do that and then we can bring it back to another work session and and review what the results of that looks like um I feel like this is uh we just take this as a process a little bit at a time to where we're not you just we're moving forward with the intent to do this I don't want to like put all this effort into it and then say hey wait a minute I mean I'd love to vote no but our roads are going to cost way more if we don't do something so if we update that study though does that give us the ability to update kind of what the projected fee structure would look like yeah I would come back with a structure like this.

Yeah yeah so if this sounds like a good road map then we'll do this with the intent that the the study modifications will give us the ability to move forward okay because I don't want to drag this on for a year I want to move forward and it may take us a few months to get that which is okay I'm just saying I don't want to I don't want to do 12 more meetings the goal would be update the study it maybe takes 90 days then we do this one more time and we move forward.

Yeah great thank you great resolution all right next item I thought that was going to be a lot more painful actually I did too it's not that's coming up discussion and review of draft proposal of senior retention plan and I'm turning this one over to Brody with the intent that this is probably going to be the last time we talk about this we'll go to a vote after this.

So yeah we've been taking this in sections um and I think you know we've this uh memo talks about sections two c two and two c three if if we can get a consensus on two c two that section tonight that's the meat and potatoes of the compensation plan anyway and so um some things uh to go over uh I'll just I'll just go over because some of these are answering questions that the council had at the last meeting um one is uh where do we set the wage scales uh and the wages and uh the the proposal in the draft um moves moves the and where we compete in the market today in our current policy we look at the averages top three cities and then that's where we set our wage scales right and um as that moves so do the wages in the city this proposal changes that so it's average of the

Um one is uh where do we set the wage scales and the wages?

And uh the proposal in the draft um moves moves the in where we compete in the market today in our current policy, we look at the average of the top three cities, and then that's where we set our wage scales, right?

And um as that moves, so do the wages in the city.

This proposal changes that.

So it's average of the top three for the non-supervisory positions and average of the top four for supervisory positions.

Um just doing that.

Um we we went back and looked at every position and did some analysis.

Um the difference in the budget would be about 90,000 to do that, and that would be 90,000 less.

Um with assumptions that you know, you have to make assumptions in all of these projections, right?

So, you know, we're assuming that you know, wages and the change in the competition wages still remains pretty strong.

That may or may not materialize.

So keep in mind when we we talk about numbers today, there's a lot of variables that go into that.

So, you know, just know that these are these are projections.

Um, they're not absolutes.

Uh so that's on a normal year, it'd be a 90 savings.

Um, if we go into the constrained years or severely constrained years where we where the proposal is to drop down even further to average of the top four and five, um, then we're looking at a 200 to 250,000 savings in those years.

Um, so which is pretty significant.

Um I will say that in the proposed draft, I I do have some concerns about our our competitiveness of it.

Um it's what we don't want to do, and some of the cities around us, uh, we've seen in the news have done is they have not kept up, and then they start having problems with their labor and um and and employees and that sort of thing.

And so they end up having to do this huge tax increase to get back into a competitive wage scale, and it becomes an absolute nightmare for the council and and for the residents.

And so the the idea is to find that balance to where we can run efficiently.

So, you know, all the supervisory staff doesn't spend their whole time training new employees because they're turning over.

We don't want that.

Um that that doesn't help our service.

Um, we want to be able to compete so that we can attract good employees, but we don't want to go too far to where it's it's burdensome and overburdensome, especially you know, on our on our on our residents.

So that's what we're that's the balance we're trying to hit.

Um when we look at um, I think maybe councilman Watson, you had a question at the last meeting.

If we just dropped from the average of the top three down to average of the top four for all positions, um, on a normal year that would be about a 180,000 dollar difference.

So um but do you feel if that were to take place that we'd lose we would not be competitive?

Um the the concern uh is over time, yeah.

Um you know, we're in in in certain places we're struggling to to attract lateral hires.

So for I'll give you like an anecdotal uh evidence.

So we got the police department, right?

We've had a generation of retirements recently.

Um a lot of a lot of uh people have retired in the last so you know three or four years.

Um I can think of one lateral hire we've we've taken from someone else to replace.

And so the ability to attract lateral hires, people with experience is extremely difficult.

Um and we've our our average um years of experience in the police department is is dropping fast.

I think it's around nine nine years in the whole department.

Um I think our last six or seven hires, and we're a 30, 30 uh officer department, 31.

Um six or seven, they're all out of academy, no experience, or maybe like six months or a year that so that's what we're we're dealing with out there.

Um anything that drops is just gonna make it harder, you know.

So I think to help with that situation, you know, that's why we did average of the top three for the front line and average of the top four for supervisory, because a lot of times when you promote into a supervisory position and you have a lot more responsibility and you get a higher pay and that sort of thing, you're you're you're further invested in your career.

Because under the plan, the promotion comes with a 10% correct increase.

Yeah, and so um, and you're usually going or you're going into another uh job.

It's a different job, right?

And so you're going into a whole different scale anyway, that's usually higher.

Um, otherwise, a lot of people wouldn't want to promote if you got more responsibility and you know, less pay.

That usually doesn't add up for most people.

So yeah, I would say it becomes harder to compete if if you drop everybody to the average of the top four, but I feel like this, you know, average of the top three for the front line uh kind of mitigates that as much as we can.

Um there was some questions on you know uh cost of living increases and things like that with the private sector.

So um there's some data in there I provided.

Um then um down at the bottom.

I wanted to walk through and maybe I'll just share my screen so we can look at this.

Okay, so in the memo you'll see these graphs, and these these bars are purposefully drawn that way because again, they're estimates, so it's representing sort of a low estimate and a high estimate for each of these lines.

What you're looking at in this first one, um, this is a hypothetical historical analysis is if we propose if we had this proposed uh policy in place back in 2022, and how that would have played out, and it's easy for us to, you know, Monday morning quarterback, right?

So that's this combination five year.

So the assumptions here there are important.

Um the assumptions were if you remember in 22 and 23, we had some significant tax increases.

So that's the green line, the revenue.

Um, and then uh in this model, there would not have been any other tax increases.

But if you remember, I think in 24, I think it was, or maybe fiscal year 25, there was a 20 or 21 percent um increase that was done.

That wouldn't have probably wouldn't have even been needed um under this model.

Um and so what you're looking at by fiscal year 26 is there would have been around pretty big number, three million, that you would have had room to add staff.

Now there's still the argument if uh some of these years were severely constrained, so our ability to attract people may have been compromised.

So there it's debatable whether we would still get good people to work for us with that money, but we would have had that money to try to find those people.

Yeah.

Um this assumes no additional staff in the in that model.

So this is just you know with the existing staff.

But the the bottom line here is we could we would have realized some additional space in our budget, right?

Um then looking forward, so that's a that's an academic exercise.

There would have been a lot of things that changed probably anyway.

Those tax increases probably wouldn't have been what they were.

So uh we would have altered history if if this were the you know, if we were to able able to do this, right?

So this next one is a projection going into the future.

So this is fiscal year 27, 28, 29.

Um this particular one assumes no tax adjustments at all.

Um I only go three years out because once you go beyond three years, we're all throwing darts anyway.

There's so many variables with inflationary pressures and construction costs that we don't know what's gonna happen in 2030.

So sorry, on this projection, I know it includes Costco and it I'm assuming it's the regular tax increase projection as well.

Uh no tax increase.

Or not tax increase, sorry, sales tax.

Uh there's there's baseline assumption, but there is no consideration in this in this graph for the additional uh commercial development that we expect around Costco.

Okay.

So it only includes we know that's happening, but it's not in the yeah.

So the revenue here is very conservative.

In fact, the amount we project for Costco in here is probably about 80% of what it probably will be.

So even that's uh conservative.

What other businesses do you anticipate would be paying in sales tax during that period in this well we're expecting within a year that we'll start to see the properties on the hot triangle?

We but I mean how much sales tax is there any anticipation that there will be additional sales tax within this window?

Yes, yep.

Where uh around uh the Costco, the pads around Costco and uh like Mayor said the hot triangle.

The hot triangle the and the stuff that's being built on the Fourth Street property as well.

Yeah, we're aware of everything on there's at least one or two that we're we have proposals for on Antelope that within a year we should know whether that comes in.

So yeah, there are there are other I I could see easily another hundred, 150,000.

The hard part is we just don't know for certain, although we can't put it in.

Yeah, yeah, that's why I didn't want to include that.

That's why it's not we do expect that, yeah.

Um and the costs, um, so on on the costs.

One thing to remember, um starting fiscal year 29, the the bond payment for fire station 31, police station goes goes off the books.

So there's a million dollar savings in our costs, and so you see that included in this on the brown, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

And so we're just trying to figure out why that goes down.

Yeah, and that's that's the biggest reason, right?

Following payment, yeah.

And so this is three normal years under the retention recruitment policy.

So it's you know, it's the just traditional normal averages top three and four, right?

What we're saying here is there's a fighting chance that we'll have by fiscal year 29 actual room in the budget.

We'll be back in the black in our operating um with room to add staff, like we did in the early 2020s.

We had room to add some significant staff.

Um, fund our capital program, our vehicles and things like that.

So again, these are estimates, they're they're projections, but based on our our knowledge of what we know now and the numbers we have now, we think these are pretty good projections.

Conservative estimates.

Yeah, we keep this is not on the optimistic side, this is on the absolutely sure side.

Right.

Um, another another factor in here.

I want to see optimism.

Another factor in here to assume is that um the wage competition remains high like it has been.

So we just kind of put that forward.

Yeah, we're actually seeing signs that it's it's kind of leveling off in a lot of our high competition positions a little bit.

There's still some that is pretty strong, but the early 2020s, there was a lot of real movement in there.

It's just not been in the last year or two.

And then the final projection here is if there was a 10% tax increase spread out over three years.

So this scenario is if you were to hold the rate, so to speak, yeah, right.

So uh there's talk a lot of like with all the the cities at least cities and towns and everything, with you know, booth and taxation doesn't really account for inflation.

So by holding the tax rate, just keeping it what it is, not increasing it, um, you get a little more revenue.

And so that's what this one is.

That's really the only difference in this model.

If if you were to do that, then it's closer to one to one and a half million um of uh in the black source.

And conservatively, it looks pretty positive just on that model, and that doesn't have any real and this is total expense.

This is total expenditures, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

General fund.

Yeah, general fund expenses.

So hopefully, and those are some of the questions.

I at least I I think I'm responding to the questions I heard from the last meeting, but yes.

Now, is this taking into account the utility fees that we're adding for the okay?

Yeah, that's all that's all separate um accounting.

Because that's not completed that we can't put it in the model yet.

But when it is, it will have an impact for the positive.

So I guess you know, the bottom line is under the proposed policy, there's there's a like I said, a fighting chance that by fiscal year 29, we're we're back in good shape.

Um again, I I will have the asterisk.

I I'm a little concerned on our ability to compete and getting good people in all of our in all of our positions.

There are some positions in the city where there's tons of applicants.

Um, you know, we're gonna find good people in those pools, but you know, there are there are some positions where it's getting it's getting tough, and they're there's some critical positions.

So that's what in summation here we feel like we can make an attempt at this in our next meeting going forward, or there's some major revisions or things you'd like to address before that.

For me, I am I'd just like to say I'm thoroughly impressed at the work that you guys have done to offset that gap in our trajectory.

Um, and I think this policy puts us back in line of where we need to be.

I mean, I'm thoroughly impressed with what you've done because we've we've asked the taxpayers to do uh a lot over.

We had some some big tax increases, and I realize it might not be the you know, uh I realize there might still be some concern about challenges about being competitive, but I I think this is what it takes is a little bit of give and take on on both sides, the taxpayer, the um the staff, and I I'm impressed.

I I would support something like this.

Other comments feel very grateful for our staff and the hard work that you guys all do.

Well, I want to commend Brony, he has really put in the research and the uh back work to make sure that we really understood where we're at without him.

This it wouldn't be possible.

His experience in this position is invaluable to us.

So I thank him for that.

It it's yeah, it's really a lot of work.

Oh, thanks.

And nobody does anything in government alone.

There's a tip, there's a whole team behind me.

So um, and they're they're uh they're they're the top-notch team that any you know any manager would ever ask for.

So I have a couple of uh items.

Um is just a head nod since we're gathered as a and and that would be uh there's an issue we've talked about quite a bit um on the backburn.

And I want to see if council has an appetite to send to the planning commission uh discussion about uh about that would uh give an expiration date to zone changes.

I've learned that they do this in a neighboring city where they say, okay, we will change the zoning from say R1 to commercial or commercial to R2 or whatever, but it has a time limit, but if you don't act on it, it reverts to the original zoning of their master plan.

And um, in our city, we have had some things that have taken years and years, and the city fundamentally changes by the time they get around to their project.

So I thought this might be a good thing for us to consider.

The first step would be to go to planning commission as a new ordinance that would say zone changes get 18 months or 24 months, or they revert to the original.

Do you have an appetite to even explore that?

We would have a whole separate meeting to discuss it, but the first step would be planning commission reviewing whether it fits in our ordinances.

Sure.

That would be fun looking at that one.

Because I think it has potential.

I mean, we've we've got a development that's just now getting started that's been on our books nine years, and we are a different city considerably than we were.

And I feel like it would only make sense if the zone reverted back by not having acted on it.

So I and it's not about one example.

When I heard that another city does this with everything, I thought, wow, that could be a real impact for us.

It's the we'll discuss like what that looks like.

We will discuss.

Yeah, I'm just trying to see if we have an appetite to send it to get it started.

The other thing I'm going to recall a few uh earlier discussion item just for clarification.

Um when we when I I shut down the boundary discussion, that would take a separate uh agenda or situation.

And I don't want to be overbearing on this because I shut it down pretty quick because we can't do the two together.

They have to be separate.

But if you have an appetite for that, I'm willing to entertain it because it is your council.

Um it was extremely painful the last time, and there were fighting words said.

So I just want to be clear that it's not up to me, it's up to you.

I I could see potential in other projects, but for high density housing, yeah, there's no reason for me.

I don't have a desire to okay.

I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't just making that decision for you because I have a concern because the mayor of the other city in question said we have no appetite for this.

If you open this can of worms, we're probably just gonna shut it down.

And I'm like, well, I don't want to be the one holding can of worms either.

So all right, okay.

With that, uh, I will does anybody else have anything else that they need to just mention or ask a question before we.