Search · Utica Common Council Records

Well, it's already on the book, so I mean, like I said before, I have no problem adjusting the fees. I mean, whatever's on the book, I have no problem because everyone's supposed to get a permit now for a garage sale. So whatever that fee aligns 1964, I had no problem.

I've got a point of order because I've got a serious question that actually relates to the Common Council in regards to legislation tonight. So Miss Aiello sent us a proclamation in regards to Juneteenth. Okay, no problem with that because usually you do proclamations all the time, no problem. She said, hi everyone, attached is a proclamation honoring Utica's role and significance in Juneteenth to be introduced and voted on tonight. Please let me know who would like to have their names added as a sponsor, as a sponsor, and we'll get this ready for tonight's meeting. So I responded to her, I said, dear Councilmembers, I have a genuine question. I promise it is not intended to be sarcastically. Do proclamations simply serve to recognize a month or cause, or does supporting a proclamation also imply support for a related flag raising? I ask because in the past the Pride Month proclamation and flag raising seemed to coincide. And I'm not— and I'm trying to better understand the distinction. If a councilmember supports proclamation recognizing a particular month or group, does that necessarily mean that they also support raising the associated flag, or are those considered separate actions? Thank you for clarifying this for me. And Miss Aiello responded, any and all ordinances, resolutions, or proclamations are deemed city expressions. People and organizations can fill out an application for a flag-raising ceremony for any number of city expressions. Now here's the thing, I mean, you're also now tying this to the flag because again, in that ordinance, it states that you have to have a resolution that supports that in order to have that raised.

I understand that. So what I'm saying is that what the city is responsible for is the city's already done and they did tree inventory on. I understand that you're talking about somebody's backyard and stuff like that. And I personally, and you know my feelings on this, like I don't see how the city can go in, they can't even go in somebody's backyard for a codes issue if they have chickens or anything anything like that. So the point to this, and I understand what Joe's saying, and it is a big problem, and I don't know how the City of Rome does it. I thought maybe because it's a bigger city and they might have more land and it's easier to see something on somebody else's property. But I think that the inventory that we have is based on the tree inventory that we did as a city. We hired somebody to do. Anything outside of that scope, I think, is just too much for the city to handle and outside of their scope of—

The inventory that needs to be done on that behalf. I mean, and we've been criticized for taking down trees even with the inventory, so I think that that's another whole other issue that people are making a big deal about. How many calls are you getting that this is coming about now that this is a problem?

Okay. Very briefly, the only thing that I want to say is the difference from Rome and Utica is that there is a lot of open space in Rome. Rome's a city, right? And they've got fields, they've got this, they got that. If you're trying to tell somebody that lives on, I don't know, any random street in the city that their neighbor's got to take a tree off their fence that's in a backyard, that's when you go into a problem from what I see, the way this legislation is written, from anything that I could understand. Okay. With that said, Rome might be able to do it. I don't see how we can do that in a city our size that's as condensed as it is. So I mean, maybe that's the only way that Rome's able to get away with it, but—

And you could even have a tenant that's lived in your— an apartment for 6 months that hasn't paid rent. So maybe you were gaining on having that money come to you, and then it'll pay you, and then you have to take them to court. So imagine what those costs incur because you have somebody that's living in your apartment that should have been evicted and chooses not to be evicted. So now you've got court cases, you've got somebody that hasn't paid rent, and you're still living in that apartment, right? So that's a huge problem too. I mean, we see it all the time. I mean, it's right in front of us and we don't choose to take action.

But the problem is, is that Rome is a different breed than Utica as far as linear footage. So they might be able to get away with this on certain parcels.

All right, we can ask her to come in again. The next piece is an ordinance amending the fees. This is something that we've got to talk about from the beginning of the year. So again, if anybody has any recommendations that's other than free and they want to adjust this, I have no problem, but I still haven't gotten anything from any Councilperson.

I remember in North Utica at the Riverside Center, well wherever they had trucks or tractor-trailers that would sit overnight and just stay there, and they would hear the idling components of it, and that was a problem. So I didn't know if this— does this entail that, or is that something totally different, or do we have to include that also?

The only— the only last question that I have, um, is there anything else that you see in the code that when they pass a zoning code that is not in there that could be a problem to you that, again, I mean, like convenience stores. Now we go into this, that was in the zoning code previously that's not in there now that we might need to address.

I think that the problem that they're facing, and I could be speaking out of turn, but Brian Thomas brought it up that there are more popping up and it's kind of not in the general vicinity of where a billboard should go. But that's why we put the moratorium originally, going back to the fact of how are we going to regulate it as best we can so that it kind of coincides with the district that they're going in.

I know, but, but I'm just saying, if you go to Woods Valley, because there's nothing in our vicinity, it costs about $150 to $170 a day to go. And, and whatever you want to compare those to, I mean, I have no problem adjusting that. I just think that you have to pay for the cost that of who you have patrolling those. And Marques, thank you. I don't know if you're involved in this.

And here's the thing again, $58 to go, to go 45 minutes away. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the amounts. I have no problem if you guys— you guys are in the super majority, you can make them $0 if want to. My point is, is that I don't want to get into the point where we can no longer afford to be able to keep the ski lift open and the hard work that we've gotten in order to get it open. So whatever you guys decide, I am— I am no— that, that's on you guys. But here's the thing, what I'm going to say, but Jack, again, it's adult ages 13 to 64 is $58 a day and you have to drive 45 minutes to get there.

So I think that half point of what they're able to do in Woods Valley for 4 hours a day, I mean, we're, we're less than that. Who's to say that people aren't going— I mean, I know I will no longer go to Woods Valley because I can now ski in Utica, New York. Like, and I know a lot of people that feel that way. So again, if you want to add discounted rates or so on and so forth to, to students and things like that, I have no problem doing that.

And, Jake, that's something— or, yeah, Joe, that's something that I have no problem doing. I'm just saying, if you look at the rates across the, across the scale, we're less than— more than half of what other people charge.

I have no problem if you want to go through adults, teens, juniors, seniors, college, and active military, 70 All right, so it's under—

Um, the only other thing, I mean, Stephanie, we do have that local law, so you're here and you've been here a couple of times in regards to it. So if you want to speak on it tonight, I mean, I have no problem bringing that local law out. I mean, it's, it's been sitting on the table, so we've got you here here, and I don't want to waste your time to come for no reason.