So no changes.

They're their contract uh ends this year.

Okay.

So we have to redo it.

So there will be a contract renewal sometime before the next season.

Um that's but again, there's no official nobody's discussed anything here.

Sure.

The second comment that I want to make is uh it was mentioned that the year was a public comment period for uh a legislative action.

Um anyone in any meeting can participate in public comment.

That's there's no deadline for public comment, just like you all were allowed to discuss it tonight freely on whatever subject you had, that same right is given every citizen at our meetings.

So no one was extending any rules or changes.

Public comment is always open.

That's just part of our policy.

That said, I will move us on to our first item of the evening, which is a planning item.

Uh item one C is recommendation from Planning Commission, proposed amendment for the Syracuse Municipal Code on landscape standards found in section ten twenty-eight.

Um, I don't see Noah here.

Is he does he delegate this?

I might be able to summarize this.

I wasn't planning on it, but I do have some knowledge of it.

Okay.

So that just wasn't nothing but blocks.

Um they've held their public hearing on that, they came up with their recommendation, they're sending that recommendation to the council beside if that's something that you wish to pursue and if so, schedule up for a business meeting.

That's the best I can do.

So uh I'm not sure what places in the city are concerning to them.

I do know that there are some areas near commercial that were established that are not big enough.

They're d they've been determined at this point in time, not big enough for land use.

And I know that some of them have just used a ground cover, whether it's gravel or uh something else, a mulch.

I think the important part for me is the alternative is weeds.

I I much prefer the rocks to the weeds, but I'm gonna leave it there, council.

Is there an appetite for us to pursue a change in this ordinance?

Um anybody have a feeling on this.

So I believe the other property they were talking about was the Utah own plan where the Dutch brothers being built behind the rush.

Yeah, um, how a portion of it's being left undeveloped, and they're putting in the retention in there, and I think that that was another property that they discussed, not wanting it just to be gravel.

We just changed that uh ordinance so that we won't leave remnants like that again.

But I understand that's a problem.

And uh, the only other one I can think of is over by Jack in the Box where there was a remnant piece that hasn't got vegetation on it, but they did, which is really nice.

They actually did cover it with something, which is opposed to, you know, and I mean that's a that's a big step from where we used to be, which was if you don't need it, just let it be natural and weeds and nobody takes care of it like the ER.

Yeah, this this ordinance is is about finding a balance between, I mean, we encourage water-wise landscaping, but sometimes they just do all rocks.

So we want to still have a balance, we still want some plants, they can be water-wise plants, they could be zeric plants.

That's just a lot large swaths of that.

We noticed that that was an issue.

So attention.

What's your feelings, council?

Do you want to pursue this or do you kind of agree with that?

I feel like it would have it it brings value to the city to have it landscape with 50 or 60 percent.

So drought tolerant plants.

Go ahead.

Yeah, sorry, I thought you were pausing.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

That's um, just go ahead.

I I mean, my only thought is the and I'm trying to, I can't think of good examples, but if they're if we're requiring these areas to be to have plants that are going to need water, that's going to have to extend irrigation systems to areas of the development that might be expensive or difficult to get irrigation systems to.

And I don't necessarily want to put that burden on businesses or property owners if uh I don't want it left to weeds, and I think we've we've covered that in other parts of the ordinance, but um I don't know with with the lack of water that we have anyway.

I I don't know that you know, making them have 60% coverage in in all areas is always feasible, but one other thing that comes to my attention is that there's always changes in business.

We didn't used to think that uh the coffee shop model was going to be very prevalent, and then it's become the thing that fills in half acre lots with with commercial development.

We don't know what the future holds.

Maybe there is a new market for a business that is uses these remnant parcels.

The last thing I want to do is it requires somebody to spend a lot of money on them.

I think we have had a history of seeing things that were poorly maintained because they were a bigger responsibility than the landowner was ready to take on, but we required it.

And sometimes they're in places where nobody even sees it.