Search · Utica Common Council Records

Sort

Common Council Meeting January 21st, 2026

15 matches · 4 unidentified

1:53:30

A local law amending Utica City Charter, Section 1.016, Notice of Tort Claims Against City, Liability of City in Certain Actions. No civil action should be maintained against the city for damages or injuries to person or property sustaining consequence of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk, crosswalk, park, recreational field, or any other municipal-owned asset, real or personal property and/or facility. Park, recreational field, or any other municipal-owned asset, real or personal property and/or facility delivered. No such action should be maintained for damages or injuries to the person or property sustained solely in the consequences of the existence of snow, ice, water, grass, or other growth, um, upon any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk, crosswalk, park, recreational field, or any other municipal-owned asset, real or personal property and/or facility, unless actual written notice thereof relating to the particular place was in writing and actually delivered to the Commissioner of Public Works and there was a failure or neglect to cause such snow, ice, water, grass, or other growth be removed or the place otherwise made reasonably safe within a reasonable time after the receipt of notice. The city should not be liable in civil action for damages or injuries to person or property or invasion of personal property rights of any name or nature whatsoever, whether casual or continuing, arise at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused or sustained in whole or in part, or because of omission of duty, wrongful act, fault, neglect, misfeasance, or negligence on the part of the city or any other of its agents, officers, or employees, unless a notice of claim was made and served in compliance with Section 50(e) of the General Municipal Law, nor unless the action was commenced thereon within 1 year and 90 days after happening of such act, omission, fault, or neglect. But no action should be commenced to recover upon or enforce any such claim against the city until the expiration of 3 months after the service of the notice. This subsection does not revive any claim or cause bar discard or any requirement, statute of limitations, nor waive any limitation applicable to any claim or cause of action against the city. The actual written notice requirement, which necessitates an actual delivery of said notice to the Commissioner of Department of Public Works, will be satisfied by transmissions of said notice to the designated recipient Such delivery does not include utilization of the City of Utica 311 application or similar electronic applications, text messaging, oral notification, and other methods inconsistent with subsection A above. Your votes, please.

Unidentified speaker 42:40

Thank you. So thank you for this invitation to speak with you this evening. In previous years, you've heard from experts on lead poisoning and its impacts, and I am not here to repeat their presentations. I am here as Chairperson of the Environmental and Climate Justice Committee of the Oneida County and Utica Branch of the NAACP. DPW to advocate for a clear and actionable commitment from the Utica Common Council and the Mayor of Utica to reduce lead poisoning in our city. I'm also here to make equally clear our desire to work with you in partnership. I will briefly review key information to ground us all in the challenge and opportunity before us. And then I'm going to outline specifically what we are asking you to consider and why time is of the essence. I ask that you please hold your questions until the end of my remarks so I can keep this brief. Children are recommended to be tested for lead exposure at 12 and 24 months. According to New York State's Department of Health, 14.25% of Oneida County children are not tested, and Utica's blood levels are 4 times the state average for lead poisoning. Elevated lead levels can cause anemia, nausea, hair loss, confusion, muscle weakness, permanent brain damage, poor impulse control, kidney and bone marrow damage. Once you understand the impact of lead poisoning, you can see it reflected, and you can see the effects in our community. We see it. I'm certain you see it in the police department. Young people struggling economically and vocationally. Increased reports of youth violence and conflict. Our police department responding to fights in our streets. Parents overwhelmed by behavioral and impulse control challenges. I spoke with a leader in our community today who works with children And she said she often talks to these kids and they don't understand why they're acting out. They don't understand, but they're lead poisoned. These are not isolated issues. They are symptoms of a community with high levels of lead exposure. And it costs all of us because of the outcomes. That this creates. Census data shows that 48.7% of Utica residences, and that's about 11,244 households, are renter occupied. These renters face limited housing options and tight fiscal constraints. Scarcity creates a power imbalance that makes these tenants fearful of doing anything that might jeopardize the roof over their head. Many feel unable to push for lead testing or remediation. This brings us to the reason why we as the NAACP are here tonight. Utica is one of 25 New York communities covered under the new New York State lead rental registry law. This requires inspections for rental properties with 2 or more units built before 1980, and it begins on May 3rd of this year. The Oneida County Public Health Department is responsible for enforcing this law and is contracting with Mohawk Valley Community Action Agency to conduct those inspections using lead wipe testing to assess the hazards. So our requests— many of our requests align directly with the implementation of this new law because, frankly, we think that we can help you and we can all benefit from collaboration around this. First of all, we are asking for transparency and some citizen oversight. With Utica lead levels among the highest in New York State, residents deserve transparency. We need to know what the City of Utica is doing and planning to ensure effective implementation of the lead rental registry. There is currently no mechanism for citizen oversight of the city's lead poisoning reduction efforts. Establishing such oversight would keep attention on those at highest risk and encourage collaboration across agencies and departments. And here's the kind of collaboration that we're hoping for. Effective implementation requires strong communication between MVCCA, Oneida County Health Department, and the city. Communities that have made progress on reducing lead coordinate inspections and enforcement. Joint inspections minimize disruption for residents and landlords. While providing more comprehensive and timely assessments. The third ask is we would like the city to share data, specifically property data. We ask the City of Utica proactively share any available property data that will help identify addresses covered under this new law with Oneida County Health Department and/or MVCCA, because quickly identifying which households fall under this legislation is essential. The consequences of lead poisoning are irreversible, so urgency is necessary. Citywide lead testing should be a part of certificates of occupancy. We ask the Common Council to pass legislation requiring both lead wipe testing and soil testing for certificates of occupancy for all rental properties, not only the multi-unit, multi-family units that will be covered by this new state law. Single-family rental tenants deserve the same protections. And given the housing shortage, tenants cannot be expected to request testing themselves. If the Codes Department needs additional staff to meet this responsibility, we would urge the council to add those positions. This is an investment in the economic future of our region through improved health outcomes. We— our 5th recommendation, or ask, I heard referenced earlier, and I'm so sad that the engineer is not here. Um, we— our 5th ask is simply to align the paving with lead service line replacement. We urge the city to coordinate its paving schedule with Mohawk Valley Health System, lead pipe remediation efforts because Dig Once is widely recognized as a cost-effective and fiscally responsible approach. Our sixth and final ask is community representation on the Mohawk Valley Water Authority board. We know that's not up to you, but we also know you influence that. While deteriorating paint is a primary source of lead poisoning, lead service lines also pose a risk. Mohawk Valley Water Authority plays a major role in reducing exposure, and we are asking that the city advocate for the creation of a community advocate position on the MVWA board, which would be filled by a Utica resident selected by the NAACP. We have a handout— Shayna, can you distribute? We have a handout summarizing the statistics and our requests. If you would like a digital copy of what we're going to hand out, there is an email address for the NAACP on the last page. And I would just I'll close by saying one of our community committee members last week said, this is a critical time for local government to restore faith by demonstrating open communication, collaboration, and care for community. And so I thank you for doing your part in helping to restore faith in this government here in Utica by taking action around lead. Thank you.

12:03

Meeting will come to order. First piece of legislation we're going to look at is a Board of Estimate and Review appointment. Uh, be resolved that pursuant to Section 523 of Real Tax Property Law, the Councilperson hereby appointed as a member of the Board of Estimate review for the current 5-year term, which commenced on October 1st, 2025, and then September 30th, 2030. And it's Eugene Ciccolella. One of the things that we were talking about earlier on this, clerks, is that— is this— is this correctly dated, or should it be today's date?

23:21

So thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Anybody have any issue with this? No. All right, I'm good with it as well. Thank you. All right, the next one, uh, proposed resolution number 5, uh, Board of Estimate and Apportionment, be resolved that pursuant to Section 523 of the Real Property Tax Law, the following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Board of Assessment and Review for the current 5-year term, which commenced on October 1st, 2025 and ends on September 30th, 2030. Nathan W, cross it. Everybody good with that?

24:00

All right, number 6. Proposed resolution number 6, Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Another one. Be it resolved, pursuant to Section 523 of the Real Property Tax Law, the following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the current 5-year term which commenced on October 1st, 2025, and ends on September 30th, 2030. And that would be Carolyn E. Marino. Everybody good? And this was from Councilman Betrus. Joe, I'll just read the first part and you could discuss it.

24:48

Uh, It's the purpose, repurposing ordinance amending Chapter 2-16 of the City of Utica Code of Ordinance. Be it ordained that in Chapter 2-16, Motor Vehicle and Traffic of the City of, uh, of Utica Code of Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 216.184 entitled Large Industrial and Commercial Vehicles Prohibited in Residential Districts read as following: Large Industrial and Commercial Vehicles Prohibited in Residential Districts. I'll just give the purpose here. The purpose of this section is to regulate the keeping of large industrial and commercial vehicles in residential zoning districts in order to protect neighborhood character, reduce adverse land use impacts, prevent the use of residentially zoned property for industrial vehicle storage and providing clear and objective standards for enforcement. This section is not intended to regulate brief or incidental stopping of vehicles for personal transportation, loading, unloading, or servicing. So once again, this is, uh, Councilman Betrus. Would you like to speak on this?

25:58

Yes, and I'm going to let Marcus talk to us. So this is basically just helping our Codes Department to give them some teeth on, uh, problems. So I've been having a lot of issues where people are calling me, uh, one specific area on Riverside Drive where, um, you know, a resident cut a bunch of trees down, has 7 or 8 big large trucks there. And, um, so I, I talked to Marcus every time they send people there, and it's not just this property, it's all over where people are bringing dump trucks home, um, taking— buying a bus. Um, we have a place on, uh, Lorain Ave where a person has a bus that they bought a bus and they're redoing it into a camper. Um, and when we send our codes there, there's nothing in codes. So I've gone to Marcus, uh, he's been extremely helpful. I'll let him— he helped me draw this up and I'll let him speak on this a little bit. And the only thing I do want to say about this, I'd like— we're in the next month or so, we're going to have a lot of stuff going on. To bring this out for a vote tonight, it has to be unanimous. I'd like to, you know, I'd like to get this done and pass it. It's, um, you know, I did my homework, I worked with the Codes Department, and it's something I think it benefits all the residents of the city. The one thing I want to say beforehand, if anybody's listening, you know, we have, we have a code that you have to have 4-foot fencing. There's a lot of people that will come in front of the zoning that they have a 6-foot fence, and if they have a reason, it gets sent that they can, you know, if it's proper, they can put the fence up. The same thing with this. If somebody has a food truck that's parked on the side of their house that is not being, you know, a deterrent to the neighborhood or making things bad, they are able to get a special permit to be able to do that. This is basically to stop, you know, what's going on in a lot of places— people running businesses out of their house with large vehicles. And guess what? All of you guys sitting around here, you all have people in your, in your districts doing the same thing. So I'll let Marcus speak on this, and I have another piece, um, after, um, kind of the same type thing, um, and I'll let him talk on that too.

Unidentified speaker 29:50

Yeah, that's, that's, that's— in the districts named in this legislation, they wouldn't be able to do that. They haven't been able to do that historically. What's supposed to happen theoretically with those vehicles is if you drive a truck, you pay for a place to park it in an industrial zone and the parking lots off of near the Thruway or on Broad Street. You pay for a parking space to park your truck. You can't drive your truck through a small city street and run it and park it in your driveway. That's what the law used to be. This law would make that illegal again in residential neighborhoods. That's up to you, you know what I mean? I don't care whether the truck's there or not. It wasn't there— if it's a day, a day here and there, it's okay. It's not a permanent thing where they can stay there. The word we used is keeping. You can't keep a truck on residential property, so it depends on what you mean by keeping.