[0:11] Okay, I will uh now call this meeting to
order. Uh we will begin tonight with an
[0:17] invocation. Jordan, would you mind with
that? And then we'll be followed by a
[0:21] pledge. Paul, would you lead us in the
pledge after
[0:24] that?
Our father in heaven, we are truly
[0:28] graciously gathered together today
to review the the issues before the
[0:34] city. Please bless us as
we consider each of these items that we
[0:40] can be sympathetic to those that this
will affect. And please bless us that we
[0:46] can know the best path forward that we
can have wisdom granted from thee. and
[0:50] we are truly grateful for thy guidance
in these things and ask a blessing upon
[0:53] all us the citizens of Syracuse that
they can feel peace and understanding
[1:00] and through these difficult times as we
navigate economic troubles and continue
[1:06] to bless us we can know the path forward
and see the light at the end of the
[1:10] tunnel these things we pray in Jesus
name
[1:13] amen please rise
[1:21] To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:26] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:32] for all.
[1:37] Council, can I get a motion to adopt our
agenda? Motion to adopt. Second. Uh, all
[1:43] in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. With
our agenda going forward, item number
[1:49] two is recognition and presentation of
the Utah Administrative Fire Officer
[1:55] Designation to our Fire Marshal, Golden
Barrett. And for any public in the
[2:00] audience, let me just note that we have
more people who have done the
[2:03] certifications in Utah than any other
department. And I'm very proud of that.
[2:08] Yes. Thanks, Mayor Council, for letting
me have a little bit of time this
[2:11] evening. I'd like to invite Fire
Marshall Golden Barrett up and then read
[2:15] you a little statement
here. So nearly 15 years ago, the Utah
[2:20] State Fire Chiefs Association supported
by the Utah Fire and Rescue Academy and
[2:25] the Utah State Fire Marshals Office
established the Utah Commission on Fire
[2:30] Officer Designation. It's a lot of
Utah's. Since then, the commission has
[2:35] developed a three- tier designation
system for fire officers in Utah. The
[2:40] first level is supervisory fire officer.
The second level is managing fire
[2:44] officer. And the third and highest level
is administrative fire officer. I'm
[2:49] proud to report that of the 175
supervisory fire officers statewide, 13
[2:56] are from Syracuse Fire. There are 15
managing fire officers statewide with
[3:01] five of them being from Syracuse Fire.
Tonight, we're here to recognize an
[3:06] extraordinary achievement. Golden
Barrett has earned the title of
[3:10] administrative fire officer to the
highest designation the highest
[3:13] designation and is only the second
person in the state of Utah to do so.
[3:18] This accomplishment reflects thousands
of hours of dedic dedicated to
[3:22] leadership development through
education, hands-on experience,
[3:26] certifications, and training across all
three designation levels.
[3:30] Golden's achievement demonstrates not
only his personal commitment to
[3:34] professional excellence, but also his
deep dedication to serving the Syracuse
[3:39] community and supporting his fellow
firefighters. Please join me in
[3:42] congratulating Golden on this
outstanding accomplishment.
[3:55] They sent us with a nice little plaque
and a pin that he will have for his
[3:58] uniform and uh like to give that to you.
Congratulations.
[4:05] Thank you. Thank you.
[4:14] The next item on our agenda is public
comment. And this is a chance for you to
[4:17] bring forward something that uh you'd
like the council to be aware of either
[4:20] on tonight's agenda or something that uh
you'd like us to consider in the future.
[4:25] It is not an open discussion, but is
there anyone here that would like to
[4:28] make public comment?
[4:39] You'd please state your name for the
record. Yeah, my name is Matt Swain. Um,
[4:44] I'm one of the owners of the Shadowpoint
Shopping Center and just wanted to take
[4:47] a quick minute during the public uh uh
comment session here to to discuss an
[4:52] item that's later on in the RDA agenda
tonight. Um, just wanted to speak uh
[4:58] quickly about uh the situation there and
also offer up my time to answer any
[5:03] questions during during that time when
the RDA is is hearing uh that item on
[5:08] the agenda to amend the current RDA
agreement with uh relation to the EOS
[5:15] construction.
Um, recognizing that there were two
[5:20] technical non-compliance issues within
the RDA agreement, I'm here tonight to
[5:24] just talk through uh the position of of
the owner and hopefully uh talk through
[5:31] any concerns uh that you might have
relating to our performance on actually
[5:37] delivering the EOS building to the s
city of Syracuse. As you can see, as you
[5:41] drive down analopee drive, you can see
that all the building is moving forward.
[5:45] the walls are up and it's it's obviously
moving forward toward completion. Uh
[5:50] we've made a very significant investment
in the in the city and have tried really
[5:55] hard over the years to try to entice an
anchor into the Shadow Point Shopping
[6:00] Center which is kind of at the gateway
of Syracuse City and finally got one and
[6:05] then it took years to actually get it
built based upon COVID hitting which uh
[6:10] dismantled the healthc care industry and
also created chaos and construction
[6:14] costs and capital markets etc which
delayed the project for years. the RDA
[6:20] as it was outlined in the agreement was
um instrumental and really the catalyst
[6:26] that allowed us to move forward on that
project and we we wouldn't have moved
[6:31] forward without that agreement and and
the the joint cooperation with the city
[6:36] and the RDA. And so my hope tonight is
that we can have a discussion and and
[6:41] work through any concerns relating to
those two technicalities. One of which
[6:47] was the fact that the 100% of the
foundation wasn't in by a certain date.
[6:52] That obviously has been rectified and
we're we're showing good faith is moving
[6:56] forward in building the building. The
second was the size and dimensions of
[7:00] the swimming pool. Uh there was some
changes during CO with the EOS prototype
[7:06] and the prototypical building. So, it is
slightly smaller by only a couple of
[7:10] feet, but the the um the intent of the
structure is in place, and I feel like
[7:16] we've we've put millions of dollars in
good faith into the project uh in
[7:22] participation with the RDA, and would
hope that we can agree to a simple
[7:27] amendment that would allow that RDA to
perform as it was outlined to do uh
[7:34] initially. Again, we're here as
long-term partners with the city. We've
[7:40] made a very significant investment uh
based upon that agreement with the RDA,
[7:44] and I think the end result is going to
be very positive. Uh the city's going to
[7:48] get what they wanted, which is a uh a
full service gym and swimming pool and
[7:54] we're willing to perform. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that would like to
[7:59] address council with public comment
tonight?
[8:05] Seeing none, I will close public
comment. Item number four, we have uh
[8:10] five items of uh common consent agenda.
The first is proposed resolution
[8:16] R25-17 authorizing the mayor to inter to
execute an interlocal agreement with
[8:20] Davis County for third-party building
inspections. The second is proposed uh
[8:25] resolution
R25-18 establishing a temporary free
[8:28] speech zone at Kentterbury Park North.
Uh the third is proposed ordinance
[8:36] 2514 amending Syracuse Municipal Code
Chapter
[8:40] 4.50.30 pertaining to hardship waiverss
for monthly charges for collection of
[8:45] solid waste, green waste and/or
recyclable materials. Uh the fourth one
[8:49] is proposed ordinance R25-15
uh amending the Syracuse city code title
[8:55] 7 chapter 25 pertaining to the
regulation of fireworks and other
[9:00] ignition sources. And the last one
tonight on our common consent agenda is
[9:04] proposed ordinance
25-16 adopting Syracuse Municipal Code
[9:11] 4.35.225 regarding the new Happy Tales
Dog Park. These have all been discussed
[9:16] in work sessions at great length and
found to be uh unanimous support. Is
[9:21] there any that anyone would like to take
pull off common consent before we move
[9:27] forward? Seeing none, I would accept a
motion to adopt these five items.
[9:34] Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the
items on the consent agenda as outlined
[9:39] in on the agenda. Second. Moved and
seconded. All in favor? I I any opposed?
[9:47] That passes unanimously as expected. And
item number five is consideration of
[9:52] possible action to authorize execution
of a proposed development agreement
[9:57] between Syracuse City and Costco
Wholesale Corporation. Uh this has been
[10:02] uh something that's gone on for a great
deal of time and we just finally have
[10:06] the last uh version of that development
agreement. Uh, I will open it up to
[10:11] council if you have any discussion
before we consider a possible action
[10:15] here
[10:21] tonight. If uh there's no discussion,
could I get a
[10:27] motion? Mr. Mr. Mayor, I move that we go
ahead and um authorize execution of the
[10:33] proposed development agreement between
Syracuse City and Costco Wholesale as
[10:37] listed in the packet. Second. Moved and
seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
[10:43] I. Okay, that passes 4 to one. We'll
move on to number six. Authorize
[10:49] administration to award contract to West
Averick's corridor aesthetic
[10:54] improvements project. Uh Steve, thank
you for coming forward. This is a
[10:58] project we've had uh on the books for
some time and uh just barely getting
[11:04] through the the holdup's really been uh
UD do folks and I just want to be clear
[11:08] about that. the people that we've worked
with other outside of UD do have been
[11:13] great to keep on top of this but as you
can see we have some budgetary issues
[11:18] and so uh with that um we have to decide
uh which options within this bid you
[11:26] would like to move forward with who
would like to start the
[11:32] discussion I will if no one else will
and I will say that uh I think it's
[11:38] important that this project was always
planned to use UT betterment money that
[11:42] was uh from the West Davis project and
to do that we are not going to be able
[11:48] to get the full uh measure of the
possible bid. Um I am comfortable
[11:56] uh cutting the bison not because I don't
love them but because they go over
[12:01] budget. I I feel like I feel like with
the sod Yeah. I Why aren't we just using
[12:08] natural? I'm okay with that, too. Yeah.
Like, instead of using sod that we have
[12:13] to maintain, why can't I mean, we It's
out there with bison. Why would we get I
[12:18] agree with you. What falls under budget
is the signs, including the bison and
[12:22] the and the Syracuse side. That is
totally in in budget. And I'm I feel
[12:27] like all this extra like it's going to
take a lot more extra effort just to
[12:32] keep it maintained rather than just use
like natural native plants and wild
[12:35] flowers and things like that which is
free from the state if no if you don't
[12:39] know that. Well, and for that reason I
would agree entirely with you that the
[12:43] boulders and sod could be cut as well.
Um the the real issue is the extra bison
[12:49] uh that would be on the uh left hand
side of the exits. So there would still
[12:54] be the bison by the sign. Yes. The bison
by the sign would still continue, but
[12:59] the uh bison on the hillside go over. So
if we get rid of the sod, can we get the
[13:05] other bison? Not entirely in budget. If
you look at the budget, the outline
[13:10] would still go over a little bit and the
rocks, the boulders,
[13:15] nix. Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting
is I agree with that. I think I don't
[13:21] think the sod boulders is necessary. And
those the sod would be hard to add
[13:24] later, but the the boulders and the
bison could be added at a later date. It
[13:28] could. It's so pointless that sod it's
going to it takes so much to maintain in
[13:33] that area. And it it the manpower alone
that you're going to have to use from
[13:37] now until we rip it out because
everybody's going to get tired of it
[13:40] probably. Look at Roy and Riverdale.
They did they pulled theirs out. This
[13:45] the sign and the area around the sign, I
think, is the critical part. And I would
[13:49] I would lean towards uh making sure we
have the sign at both exits as opposed
[13:54] to having the bison at the one exit.
That's just my Sorry. Which option is
[13:59] that? Can we pull that up? I like the
bison. I think they mean I like that as
[14:04] well. You got behind
the bison everywhere. We love them. I
[14:08] agree with you. It's a matter of what's
in budget. We need more bison. Could we
[14:12] pull this up from the packet so that we
can look at the And they eat of grass.
[14:16] Agree.
so that we can get the actual numbers
[14:19] because I did not write them down
outside of the packet. I can Oh, I got
[14:24] them here, but Okay, you want to talk to
that?
[14:29] Yeah, Cassie's pulling it up here.
Meadow grass irrigation and including
[14:33] filter control. It's grass. Oh,
goodness. So, we would be uh
[14:39] over Yeah. I don't think either of them
say like what this so we can afford with
[14:47] the betterment money the signs without
the bison the change is if
[14:53] you have the 410
bison without the holders we would need
[14:59] 76,000 to make up the difference to me
that's as far as I would that's without
[15:04] the holders and without saw but keeping
the vice keeping the vice I'm and I'm So
[15:10] where are we where are we pulling those
funds from then? And if we don't pull
[15:15] any funds, we eliminate the bison. So
because we do have some
[15:21] I do not believe we can use impact fees
on this because this would be a freeway.
[15:27] Yeah, that wouldn't work. This is one of
those questionable moments when you know
[15:32] you got to make the right decision
because you're like it could be but
[15:34] we're like no. Well, also you need to do
it. Go ahead. Chances are you won't come
[15:39] back to it. So I think it needs to be
done right the first time. I agree. I I
[15:45] agree with that. But I I don't think
something that you're promoting like
[15:49] Analopee Island is a nature reserve. I I
feel like the sod and the things it's
[15:54] just excessive. It's like let's get
bougie was our nature reserve. Why?
[15:57] Okay. So can we agree that the sod and
boulders are unnecessary? Yes. Okay. I
[16:02] get a sense that that's that's decided.
But but even if we just go with the the
[16:07] extra bison,
[16:11] it's still an additional 70,000. So we
have that would be the question. We'd
[16:14] have to know where we're getting those
funds from. Why need boulders? We don't.
[16:19] Well, and isn't that something that
could be brought in later? Easier
[16:23] spaces. There's got to be boulders. We
can just have them reload. The boulders
[16:27] can be easier brought in than sculpture.
I agree with that. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I do
[16:32] have some information about the boulders
if you'd like me to share. Yeah, go
[16:35] ahead, Noah. So, uh, the boulders were a
significant amount if you look at the
[16:40] details of it, but we have been talking
with Analope Island. They have a
[16:44] construction project with their visitor
center. There's a possibility that we
[16:48] might be able to get them for free to
get some for free. Yes, please. But uh
[16:53] that would, you know, that might include
some creative thinking to be able to
[16:59] save that money since we don't have
equipment to transport it. But it's
[17:02] something that could be done after is my
point. And we may be able to get them
[17:05] for free. They they actually offered
their timbers for the a museum project
[17:10] because they're uh age relevant for what
they were doing. So they're really great
[17:14] about reusing stuff and not They've been
awesome. Yeah. Really kind. Yeah. I
[17:19] think I like the idea of authentic
boulders because as opposed to what?
[17:24] Nonauthentic ones. You're going to mold
it out of crepe paper an authentic
[17:30] antelope island boulder. We only use
local boulders. Local locally sourced
[17:35] localally locally relevant. So with our
natural grass. Let me bring this back. I
[17:40] believe the only real discussion point
is whether we do the additional C10
[17:45] steel bison as were originally designed
or not. We do. I feel like we should.
[17:51] Yes, I feel like we should as well.
Where is the money? Where's the money
[17:54] coming? There they Sorry, just to be
clear, you're you're talking about
[17:58] option four or you talking about three
without boulders?
[18:03] Three without boulders. Four sides.
Three without boulders and then we find
[18:07] boulders. Well, three without boulders
for now. But but three without boulders
[18:12] still we have to come up with $76,000.
That's correct. Where are we getting? So
[18:17] that would be the second part. Question
of the hour. Will we take a motion?
[18:22] 76,000.
Yeah,
[18:26] but they're like these signs are going
to be there. That's correct. They are
[18:30] very nice and they have been a theme of
our city. Again, we need to have that
[18:35] our welcome signs. So, so the one place
I know of was we approved uh 50,000 for
[18:41] art in the roundabout in front of the
fire station if you wanted to make a
[18:45] trade and do this one now and that one
later. I feel like that's good
[18:49] suggestion. It's going to take them a
while to put that roundabout in. No,
[18:56] it's really want to put art in there
while they're building things or we
[19:00] after. I just wanted to open with it
because if we Well, we put it in this
[19:05] budget side. I doubt we'll use it
before. Do we have Okay, so let me point
[19:10] of clarification because I know we have
money from the bid. Do we actually have
[19:14] money in our budget for that?
You're talking about the roundabout,
[19:19] Steve. Do we actually have money in the
city budget? Uh for the pit or for the
[19:25] No, for the city budget. City budget. I
don't think we do. um not without all
[19:30] reallocating money. The the probably the
best you best source would be our
[19:34] capital projects fund. So it' be use
postponing or changing priorities in
[19:39] that to do my money for the artwork
comes from the PID which is not eligible
[19:45] to be moved because that is specific to
that property. Yeah, mayor. For the for
[19:50] the roundabout project,
um whether the city fronts some of the
[19:55] money for for design and that sort of
thing, um should be reimbursed by the
[20:00] CRA, right? From the from the
organization of the PID. So, that would
[20:06] not be eligible to be moved. Different
color of money. Yes. you you did
[20:11] previously talk about uh to help you out
with the $76,000, you did previous talk
[20:16] about maybe making amendments to
um the irrigated meadow grass. Um that
[20:23] would be an option. I feel like that's
probably reason you're saying in this
[20:28] bid this
right? Mhm. So you're saying option
[20:33] three without boulders and then also
take off the irrigation around the signs
[20:40] themselves which we don't know exactly
how much that will take off if that will
[20:44] be equal to 76. So if you I mean if we
end up using natural prairie grass like
[20:50] they like that's out on analopee island
just
[20:54] uh that won't that takes care of itself.
You don't need to water maintain it.
[20:59] Yeah. Uh, no. I think we're I think
we're talking mainly the grass. Wasn't
[21:03] there going to be grass around the
bison?
[21:06] Yes. The the plan includes grass around
the bison on the side slope and then it
[21:13] also
includes grass and landscaping around
[21:17] the sign itself. Sod or it's called
biionative sod. It's a native grass.
[21:23] It's not like Kentucky blue grass that
you have to mow. It's it's like
[21:26] wildflower stuff. Okay, you got me
there. Awesome. And I think but you lay
[21:30] it down and you have to fine. It has to
be irrigated. Okay. So, let's
[21:38] let me be clear on option number
two. That takes out the sign
[21:46] from that takes the signs off of
2000. But in option three, they're in.
[21:53] Correct.
[21:56] That That's correct. Okay. because
that's I'm feeling like the signs at
[22:01] 2000 are more important than the bison
because that's another entrance to the
[22:08] city
[22:14] that No, I don't think so because I I I
understand why you say that but we're
[22:18] kind of catering around this area of of
you prefer to have So I feel like if
[22:24] people are coming off of that highway to
come in to write in here Costco i.e.
[22:29] Costco um it wants to be welcoming.
Okay. So if I understand correctly then
[22:35] let me just be clear then there is an
option that we don't do signs at the
[22:41] 2000 exit only signs at the antelope
interchange without the boulders and the
[22:48] difference is only $642.50.
[22:53] Okay. I support that. That's that's
close to our budget on the 2000 because
[22:58] we can always add those later. They
could be added later.
[23:03] They're a little bit smaller than the
ones that are going to be at the the
[23:06] Analopee exit to begin with. That's why
there's less money. So, but they could
[23:09] be added later. If we did the Analopee
exit in its entirety first and then the
[23:16] 2000 exit later to add those signs. If
we vote for that now, the difference is
[23:21] $642, which is not that much to find
somewhere.
[23:26] Is that what I I support that? Then we
just put the the 2,000 on the five-year
[23:33] plan. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather do
that because we don't have a clear
[23:37] answer on when where we'd come up with
six. That makes sense to me. I'm good
[23:41] with that. And then as long as we
actually put it on the plan, I I think
[23:45] 2000 is going to be changing a lot over
the next few years that area get a
[23:52] a see that develop a little bit more
before we start putting stuff in. And we
[23:57] still have a freeway exit that goes
right onto 2000 as well. Yeah. Okay. So
[24:02] I guess I'll take a motion to that
effect. How are we how Okay. It would be
[24:07] option two without boulders. Okay. I
move that we approve Wait a second.
[24:19] Where's the number for it? Uh, this
would be just West Davis aesthetic
[24:24] improvements option two. Okay. Without
boulders. That we authorize
[24:28] administration to award contract for
West David course corridor aesthetics
[24:32] option two without the boulders. Okay.
Without paying for the boulders.
[24:41] Side note, so that would be a separate
project if we could get holders. Is that
[24:45] correct? Asterric is what you without
including in this project bid. Okay. Do
[24:49] I have a second? Second. All right. All
in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that one
[24:55] is decided and I am excited to have that
go forward. That's I'm excited for the
[25:00] bison. It'll be nice to have one whole
exit area completed. Okay, instead of
[25:05] little here, a little there. Item number
seven is proposed ordinance 25-17
[25:09] amending the Syracuse city zoning map to
approve 1.7 acres of real property
[25:15] located at 3281 West 700 South. It's
currently res or uh zoned as A1 and they
[25:23] would like to move it to
R3. Uh this is that uh odd little piece
[25:28] of property that was a U dot remnant and
um this has been discussed before. Is
[25:33] there any further discussion on this
particular
[25:40] property? If not, I'll take a motion.
I motion that we accept the proposed
[25:46] ordinances 25-17 amending the Syracuse
city zoning map for approximately 1.7
[25:52] acres of real property located at 320
3281 West 700 South Agriculture A1 to
[26:01] residential R-3 applicant Land and
Costley
[26:07] and do I have a second? Second. All in
favor? I I Any opposed? Okay, that
[26:13] motion passes unanimous. Item number
eight is part of the shoreline
[26:18] development agreement part 5A and this
is in two parts which I believe we can
[26:24] take an action together. Correct? Okay.
So this is in two parts and let me
[26:28] explain the two parts. Part A would be
taking this one parcel out of the
[26:34] development agreement from the shoreline
development phase 5A. Part B would be a
[26:40] proposed ordinance
25.18 amending the zoning map for
[26:46] approximately 1.5 acres of real property
to make that take it out of the RPC zone
[26:52] and move it to A1. This would be a down
zone.
[26:57] This is so nice to finally see this on
here. Oh my goodness, this property.
[27:01] We've been waiting for this for a minute
and this is this is turning this back
[27:05] into a horse property. if you if the
rest of folks to my left don't know
[27:09] that. Yeah, it's but it's zoning it back
too so they can legally have horses on
[27:14] the property and it's correct. Wonderful
to see this on here. Fine. Would you
[27:18] like to make a motion then? I would if
if nobody else has anything they would
[27:21] like to Yeah, go ahead. Um, I would like
to move that we approve the proposed
[27:26] amendment to the shoreline da reszone
from PR from RPC to A1 and as well as uh
[27:34] the part B to that uh part A was the
development came out of the development
[27:39] agreement and part B is the resone.
That's what I said. Okay, then in that
[27:44] case I'll second. Second. All in favor?
I. Any opposed? Okay, that passes
[27:51] unanimously. That property is now A1.
Congratulations applicant in the
[27:55] audience. Good luck to you. Um item
number nine, proposed ordinance 25-9
[28:02] amending the Syracuse municipal code
chapter
[28:05] 10.75.30 and
[28:09] 1030.20e pertaining to planned
residential development PD zoning. Noah,
[28:15] can you give us a quick recap of this
one?
[28:19] Uh yeah, the proposal is to be able to
put ADUs, accessory dwelling units in
[28:23] the PRD zone. Planning Commission
reviewed it. They're recommending no. Uh
[28:30] we've reviewed it in our work session.
Um the applicant is Mike
[28:36] Bastion. Um but yeah, I don't know if
you have any other questions. I'd be
[28:40] happy to answer them. Nope. Um, I'll
just begin by saying I think this is a
[28:44] horrible idea and I I hope that we do
not make this adjustment.
[28:50] I do have a couple of questions. What
what is the difference between
[28:55] uh the RPC zone and this zone? Why why
is there a difference?
[29:03] So, one of the biggest difference
between the RPC and the PRD zone is the
[29:06] PRD allows town homes. RPC doesn't. But
the uh the RPC does allow a similar
[29:14] housing type than what you're seeing in
some of the PRD developments, especially
[29:18] the single family portions of the PRD
developments where uh an RPC might have
[29:24] a lot as small as 3500 square ft. And if
you read through um the RPC, they do
[29:30] allow ADUs, but the lot has to be bigger
than that's in the reports, 5,400 square
[29:35] feet, I think.
52. Thank you. Um, so that's that's part
[29:41] of the logic that the applicants is is
asking. You know, I think he's willing
[29:45] to limit the PRD allow if they were if
it were allowed into the PRD. I think
[29:50] he's willing
to have some qualifi qualifiers on there
[29:55] like lot size or something like that.
But the thing we have to consider as a
[30:00] city is whether or not there's going to
be room for parking and the added people
[30:05] and the overall density of a
development. There's some give and take
[30:09] there. The parking is uh set to a
threecar garage though based on the
[30:14] ordinance. Is that right? Yeah, that
could be a qualifier or a minimum lot
[30:18] size or both.
So I I still don't understand the
[30:23] distinction between property that's
quarter mile away or half a mile away.
[30:28] Yeah. Most people when they drive
through a development, they don't know
[30:31] what zone it is. And if you're looking
at a single family home in an RPC zone
[30:35] with the third car garage in the ADU
that's 5200 ft² or if you're driving
[30:40] through a neighborhood that's zone PRD
with the threecar garage on a 5200 foot
[30:46] that there's no difference in the actual
end. But the the difference in a PRD
[30:51] area, you may have town homes nearby and
the overall density may be slightly
[30:57] higher, but the density is simply
people. It's not actual structure. I
[31:04] mean, so an accessory dwelling unit is
not considered a unit of density per se.
[31:09] There they do add people, but the
principal structure is still the unit of
[31:13] density.
Um, if that makes sense. It's a little
[31:17] bit confusing, but um it does add more
people. And when we count number of
[31:25] units per acre uh for an overall
development, like for example, village
[31:31] at the bluff, it has town homes and also
on the south end, it has some single
[31:35] family
lots. The the overall density um is
[31:42] probably only four or five, which is
very similar to RPC. It's just the
[31:47] housing types a little bit different.
And then sometimes the town home areas
[31:50] have more people. And obviously if you
were to look just at the density of the
[31:56] town home area, it's probably closer to,
you know, 10 or 12 maybe units per acre,
[32:02] but because of the southern part of it
is single family, it lowers the and they
[32:07] have some open space and stuff, so it
lowers the overall units per acre down.
[32:13] So it's all all relative. Most people
when they drive through a neighborhood
[32:16] don't look at a neighborhood as a whole
what's on the platted subdivision and
[32:21] what zone it is. They usually just kind
of determine what they're seeing right
[32:26] in front of them. Is there an
inconsistency with the 5200 square feet
[32:31] from the
ordinance? And is it 5600 in the RPC? Is
[32:38] that right?
Uh, I'd have to let me I can pull up the
[32:44] I'm just looking at the packet.
Yeah. What does it say in the packet? I
[32:48] forget. Agenda item number nine in the
summary says ADUs are allowed in an RPC
[32:54] at
5600 and the ordinances proposed is
[32:58] 5200. Oh, okay. Yeah, I would I mean if
we were interested in looking at this, I
[33:03] would recommend making them the same
just for administrative purposes.
[33:08] I my thinking behind this is I I don't
like the inconsistency that's there. So,
[33:13] if they were not changed, I would not go
for this. Uh I do think that there is
[33:17] some reasoning behind this. Uh allowing
an ADU to a property like this could
[33:24] allow a family to come in and purchase a
property that they would not otherwise
[33:31] be able to purchase.
uh that would allow people to come into
[33:36] Syracuse that may not otherwise be uh it
may not be open to that and would also
[33:44] provide an additional dwelling unit
which would be different from an
[33:47] apartment but a similar kind of
arrangement uh without the the issues
[33:52] that have arisen from the apartments
that have come in. you have a a family
[33:58] that owns a a property with potential
other people that are there that would
[34:04] be under the un the oversight of those
uh property owners. Uh I don't see how
[34:11] this adds to physical density very much.
It may add a person or two to a location
[34:18] which may be there anyway. Uh, I see
this as an alternative to apartments.
[34:24] Uh, that is, at least the reasoning
makes sense to me. If the reasoning does
[34:29] not make sense, I'd like to hear why.
I I'll chime in there. Uh, Brett, I I
[34:35] appreciate your reasoning and I
understand the logic. Um, I will
[34:39] respectfully disagree on a couple of
points. Uh number one, when we have a
[34:44] interioronly access ADU, then that's
very hard for any form of deliveries.
[34:50] They don't have a front door. The second
pro property, nobody knows where that
[34:54] is. It doesn't bear a second address. So
that's always a challenge. The other
[34:59] thing is that in this particular case,
the property in question that where the
[35:03] applicant is referring to uh already
gained additional density um that is
[35:10] already built on the basis that he would
not have qualified for that density had
[35:15] this been factored into the equation. So
we're giving him additional density
[35:22] after the fact by allowing ADUs. Now the
other thing that I would like to point
[35:27] out is while there is a technical
allowance for uh the 5600 size lot or
[35:34] larger in RPCs, we do not have any that
were designed uh from the inst or from
[35:39] the onset as ADUs.
It was an allowance that after the fact
[35:45] if somebody wanted to modify a property
to have a mother-in-law type apartment
[35:51] within the same dwelling, it would be
allowable only if the lot was large
[35:56] enough for that. Uh I it's never been
used and I'm against that option, but it
[36:01] was there. So, I think that more
consistency would be to make sure that
[36:06] that never happens in the city because
effectively what we're doing is we're
[36:10] creating illegal duplexes. We're
creating a duplex apartment for a house
[36:15] for two where they are not authorized
because they weren't proposed in the
[36:20] original. Um, this was proposed. This is
also the one project where I get the
[36:27] most complaints for dense lots because
it has more dense uh buffer zones
[36:33] between houses than we have ever allowed
in this city. So, we're already at a
[36:38] higher density. Um and and I feel like
we're doubling that with the remaining
[36:44] lots because they've had a hard time
selling the lots. I don't think that's
[36:48] the reason to allow an ADU because they
struggled to sell the lot at the price
[36:53] they proposed.
Well, and and and I think that it does
[36:59] even though even though you may
initially have someone that you know
[37:04] maybe rents out the accessory dwelling
unit
[37:08] uh and is the primary occupant when they
sell that if it's ever sold to an
[37:12] investor or anything like that like Dave
said, it's going to create illegal
[37:16] duplexes and the the already dense PRD,
especially with town homes and adding a
[37:21] PRD to a town home is definitely going
to is definitely going to cause parking
[37:26] challenges because if you've got one
family unit or, you know, renting the
[37:30] main unit and then another family unit
renting the ADU, you're going to have
[37:35] the potential for more cars that can
that can fit on on the property. So, I I
[37:42] mean, I I'm concerned with with the
density. We've had an we've had an
[37:46] outcry from citizen citizens that they
they want less less density, not more.
[37:51] And so I I I don't see any benefit for
us adding more density to a PRD zone.
[37:57] And that may be the case, but I still
don't understand the reasoning with a
[38:01] with a threecar garage. Uh there should
be parking that's there. And if we're
[38:07] dealing with ADUs,
uh we keep talking about illegal ADUs.
[38:12] Well, then outlaw them totally because
why is that not creating a duplex on any
[38:17] lot where that's allowed? because it's
permissible as long as the primary
[38:21] occupant is is in part of the the
building. I don't think the ADU gets a
[38:26] threeU threec car garage also. No, it
gets it gets. So, I'm going to I'm going
[38:30] to be Captain Obvious because that's
what I'm known for. Have any of you
[38:34] driven through there? Yes. Yes. Okay.
So, the thought of allowing any any more
[38:42] vehicles to be piled up in that
neighborhood is insane. It is so hard to
[38:48] get through there already at any point
of the day, let alone after work when
[38:53] everybody's coming home or on weekends.
It's it's it's a nightmare. It's a
[38:58] nightmare. It I think you you'll see
that especially apparent when we get
[39:03] into snow season. We're telling them
none of them can park. Exactly. And it's
[39:06] so dangerous for those kids and at
summertimes darting between those cars
[39:11] and people driving like jerks down those
roads. It's a nightmare. And my point,
[39:16] my comment is that I just feel like
Syracuse has turned a corner here and we
[39:21] don't want to continue that trend of
identity overload. We don't want to keep
[39:26] doing that. Well, I think for me it's I
think there will come a day when we'll
[39:32] be looking for more places to put
people. I don't think that day is today.
[39:37] Well, and it's not tomorrow either. And
remembering what we have coming in the
[39:41] next five years, you know, we're far
from that. So, okay. I feel like
[39:44] everybody's had a chance to weigh in. Do
I have anyone willing to make a motion?
[39:48] Yes. Okay. I move that we decline
proposed ordinance 25-9 amending
[39:55] Syracuse Municipal Code Chapter
10.75.030
[40:00] uh pertaining to the planned residential
development PRD zone. Second. Moved and
[40:05] seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
Nay. Okay. That will pass or is declined
[40:11] four to one. Item number 10 is proposed
ordinance 25-20 repealing and reenacting
[40:18] the Syracuse Municipal Code Title 4
Chapter 30 pertaining to cemetery
[40:23] regulations. This has been a great deal
of discussion on this. Um the logical uh
[40:30] option here is that we totally uh
reenact the code uh because there are
[40:35] some significant changes. Uh, do we need
to go over those at this time or are we
[40:39] okay with what we did in the last work
session? I mean, are we saying it's the
[40:43] same? I It just wasn't in the packet.
All we had was a factual summary. Yeah,
[40:48] we haven't changed from the what was in
the work session. There there were two
[40:51] issues raised in the work session. One
was increasing the penalties for second
[40:56] offenses. That's in there. The other one
was that uh Jordan wants to be buried
[41:01] with his clothes on. That's now in there
as well. What about me under the tree?
[41:05] Rude. No. No, Jennifer under the tree.
Sorry, I meant this just so you know.
[41:09] Okay, so I guess my only issue is I
didn't get to see it, but I wasn't Okay,
[41:15] I think I would like to actually look at
it before I approve it.
[41:20] Um um I mean I I would I would fully
support that. You know that we do have I
[41:28] have a summary of a couple of people
considerably uh upset about the
[41:33] management without the Penins. Could we
just have somebody read that to those
[41:37] changes to us? Yes. Could I Colin will
do that for us? If we could bring those
[41:42] up, I would appreciate just so I can see
the changes.
[41:45] You will agree, Jordan. And I I hope I
will. I'm happy to do that. I try not to
[41:51] approve. Go ahead. All right. The the
original language on the interament of
[41:56] human bodies only was to the effect that
nothing other than a human body can be
[42:00] buried in the cemetery. Human remains
only. Yes. The revised version is only
[42:05] the remains of human bodies together
with burial clothing and accutrants may
[42:10] be interred in the cemetery. Okay, that
was for you. So you can keep your
[42:14] clothes. I appreciate that cuz the other
one and what's the violate? What's the
[42:19] what's up in the fee? What's the fee?
The increased penalty. The original
[42:23] paragraph said up to $500 for per
violation. Now, there is additional
[42:28] language that says, "For any second or
subsequent violation, persons or
[42:33] companies that violate any provision of
this chapter shall be subject to a civil
[42:38] penalty not to exceed $1,000 per
violation, plus the actual costs
[42:43] incurred to by the city to remedy the
situation or violation." So, my petty
[42:49] self, okay, just hear me out. I feel
like anything that happens to any
[42:54] headstones by a company should
automatically warrant a cleaning bill.
[42:58] Like
if you leave any marks on a headstone,
[43:02] it should automatically warrant a
cleaning bill. Well, doesn't it already
[43:05] address that? Because they're
responsible for correcting any damage
[43:08] they caused. Wow. So, we just said
there's no surprises. We just said
[43:11] remediation was only on the second and
third offense.
[43:15] That's what I just heard. The first one
was 500. 500, but without remediation.
[43:19] Yeah. up up to 500 for a first violation
or a second or subsequent violation up
[43:25] to a thousand. But do they both include
any things that have to be fixed? They
[43:30] both include repairing the damage or
paying the cemetery personnel to repair
[43:34] the damage. Yes. Okay. As long as that
isn't both of those. It is because um we
[43:39] have some damage over there that needs
to be repaired. I I have received more
[43:43] pictures yesterday of a different one
uh that is damaged. Turns out it was my
[43:48] uncle
also is driven over. Do I have anyone
[43:53] who's ready to make a motion? Me. Go. I
move that we approve proposed ordinance
[43:58] 25-20 repealing and reenacting the
Syracuse Municipal Code, Title 4,
[44:01] Chapter 30, Cemetery Regulations and its
changes. Do I have a second? Second. All
[44:07] in favor? Any opposed? That post or that
passes unanimously. We now have our
[44:12] second period of public comment. If
anyone would like to bring to our
[44:16] attention something maybe for a future
agenda. Okay. If not, we can uh move
[44:21] into
our I don't have the other agenda for
[44:24] our RDA
[44:27] meeting. Do I have any public
[44:34] comment? Okay, I will close public
comment. And can I get uh Cassie, will
[44:40] you pull up the agenda for the Thank
you. Okay, so we will now move
[44:45] temporarily into our RDA meeting. Uh
this is I call this meeting to order.
[44:51] Can I get uh motion to adopt the agenda?
So moved. Second. Second. All in favor?
[44:57] I. Any opposed? Item number two is
consideration of a possible action to
[45:02] authorize execution of the proposed
interlocal tax sharing agreement between
[45:07] Syracuse City RDA and the Gateway uh
public infrastructure district. PID
[45:14] number one.
uh this would uh this has already been
[45:18] talked about and in place but it is a
formal uh agreement that the RDA will uh
[45:24] repay the PID. So
I I have so many problems with this
[45:29] right now. Um first of all there was no
where was this two like where was the
[45:34] conversation two weeks ago when we were
discussing this and there wasn't really
[45:38] anybody here with us. Um if you wouldn't
have moved forward with this we did our
[45:43] part. We did our part. You guys moved
forward with it because we agreed to
[45:48] terms and the pool having chang this one
isn't the pool. This is this one is this
[45:55] is the P. This is the CRA that we
created a few months ago. So this isn't
[46:00] the one we were talking about earlier.
Yeah, that that's Oh, you don't want to
[46:03] hear my side of the story. This one. You
guys go ahead. Thank you. Mayor,
[46:07] can I give you a quick update? Yes. The
version of the agreement that was in the
[46:12] packet had some bracketed areas. is they
were highlighted in yellow. Yes, those
[46:16] have all been resolved. The only two
remaining issues are the effective date
[46:20] on the cover page which cannot be
determined until the market study is
[46:25] complete and that same date in the text
of the agreement. So all of the issues
[46:29] have been resolved. It's now as you saw
it but the yellow brackets are missing
[46:33] except for those two things. So this
agreement has to be in play council.
[46:37] this agreement has to be in place so
that we can allow that bond to go to
[46:41] market so that we can proceed. So I
would ask that we take a motion to uh to
[46:48] authorize this execution of this
agreement that we have been working on
[46:52] for uh quite some time.
So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any
[47:01] opposed? Okay, that m motion passes 4 to
one. Now, the second item on our RDA
[47:08] agenda is request from Matthew Swain of
Perry Commercial to amend the first
[47:13] amendment to the agreement of the tax
increment rebate for the EOS gym. And
[47:19] Jen, if you'd like, I'll continue now.
Thanks.
[47:23] Um, talking about how this pool was
offbalanced in CO. I was not on the city
[47:29] council when CO hit and we discussed
this since I was on the city council. So
[47:35] co had nothing to do with the pool size.
I understand at the last our last
[47:41] meeting we discussed how there was
something brought up that um the
[47:47] developer building the pool said that
the other ones were this size and it was
[47:51] okay there. Well, those other EOS gyms
didn't have an agreement with our city
[47:57] and our city agreed to certain
stipulations under a legal binding
[48:02] contract. Nobody showed up beforehand to
say, "Hey, there's a little bit of a
[48:06] hold up." It's only after the deadline
does anybody care to come forward and
[48:10] say, "Hey, by the way, we didn't make
it, but we want you to make an exception
[48:14] for us." And I feel like this is what
developers do all the time. And I'm so
[48:20] frustrated over this. It's not hard to
communicate. It's not. It isn't. You
[48:24] just pick up a phone, send an email.
It's super simple. But the fact that
[48:28] none of this was communicated until well
after it was supposed to be done for me
[48:34] that's ridiculous. And it's and then
holding it to us telling us that well we
[48:38] set up a thing with the city so we are
doing great business with the city. I
[48:42] love some of the little shops you have
in there. I I patron them frequently but
[48:46] coming to us with this that there's a
problem on your end and then trying to
[48:51] make us seem like it's we're responsible
for it. It's a no for me.
[48:56] Hey, would anyone else like to comment
on this?
[49:01] So I so I'll I'll comment a little bit.
So I I understand that there were delays
[49:08] in moving forward and I think that is
the portion that probably was impacted
[49:14] by CO because gyms were not allowed to
be open and things like that. So there
[49:18] there was a delay but we addressed that
by extending the agreement. We extended
[49:25] it. We set new deadlines. We increased
the
[49:29] incentive and then the new deadline was
not met and the stipulation of the pool
[49:35] size was not met as well. And so yeah, I
I while again I think Shadow uh
[49:42] Shadowpoint Shopping Center is great. I
think it's it's great to have good good
[49:47] partners in the city, but I also think
that we both have to be up we we both
[49:53] have to uphold our end of the agreement.
And I I just don't see that that that
[49:57] was done in this case. Okay.
Anyone else? I mean, I I think they've
[50:04] largely said it is at the end of the
day, contracts matter and words matter.
[50:09] Um this was reviewed by both parties. It
was signed by both parties. I agree that
[50:15] the uh it the part that is as far as
building that has largely been
[50:24] remediated. I mean they are definitely
out of the ground now and and I love
[50:28] that. But if I do not see
where they have fixed the pool size. I
[50:36] mean, the reason why we kind of went
into that was to allow
[50:41] um hopefully some of our student
athletes, we don't have a pool for them
[50:44] in the city. This what we are trying to
get at least somewhat of a a regulation
[50:50] size pool in there to to fulfill a
public need for which we are spending
[50:56] public
dollars to
[50:59] to
incentivize and that need was not met
[51:04] and and it is I've never even heard
someone make an offer to change it. It's
[51:08] probably too late at this point. Um,
we've tried to be upfront, but at the
[51:14] end of the day, the agreement was not
upheld by the end of the recipient. I I
[51:21] I guess I I I wish I could go back and
say, well, I didn't really look at this
[51:26] part of the agreement or I didn't like
this part of the agreement, so I just
[51:29] didn't do it. That that would not hold
up in any court of law that I know of.
[51:34] And so, I'm just going to say at the end
of the day, words matter. And in this
[51:39] case, the words were the the the
stipulations and the other words were
[51:45] the signatures.
It's just a great disappointment. I feel
[51:49] like the reduction in the pool size has
to do with wear and tear on the pool and
[51:53] to discourage the high schoolers from
using the pool. I think it's a it's it's
[51:57] sad for our city that that that didn't
happen. It was promised.
[52:03] Any thoughts, Brit? I I guess I have two
concerns. one it's already been raised
[52:07] is the notice issue. Um this is
something that may have been able to be
[52:11] addressed had we known beforehand. The
second one which is even more
[52:15] challenging for me is is that if we go
back after the fact and and make
[52:21] adjustments that sets a course of
dealing from the for the city in my
[52:24] opinion where it would be hard for
somebody else had they had somebody come
[52:29] in in the future and uh if a similar
situation arose where uh different terms
[52:36] had been reached or different um
performance had been done, they could
[52:41] point to another situation and say,
"Well, you did it here or you did it
[52:45] here. Um I feel a bit constrained even
though some of this may be minor, some
[52:49] of it may not. I don't like the the
precedent that is being set moving
[52:54] forward. So that's my opinion. Uh having
heard from all the council, can I get a
[52:58] motion?
[53:02] I move um that we deny the
request for the first amendment to uh
[53:10] agreement for tax increment rebate for
the EOS gym facility.
[53:15] Second. Moved and seconded. All in
favor? I. Any opposed? That passes
[53:20] unanimously. No. Well, it's denied. It
was the motion. So that Okay. Uh item uh
[53:29] number four is to adjourn from the RDA
meeting. I will now adjourn us from that
[53:32] meeting and resume with our regular
business meeting. At this time we have
[53:38] uh mayor and council announcements. Um
I'll start with you Brett. Do you have
[53:43] anything for us tonight? Nothing for me.
Thank you. Okay. Gosh, I don't have my
[53:48] We've been doing great work with the CTC
and um addiction recovery and
[53:54] prevention.
Yeah. Okay. Well, nothing from me,
[53:59] Jordan. Yes, I have something. Go ahead.
Finally. Um, so coming up in April on
[54:07] the 26th, we will be having our annual
disaster preparedness exercise at 8:00
[54:14] a.m. We are asking. You already laughed.
Well, because you schedule a disaster
[54:20] and I really think that's a little
funny. I I sleep through stuff like
[54:23] that. I'm sleeping through this. So
anyway, so we will be having a a um
[54:30] disaster scenario where we are going to
have uh red envelopes strategically
[54:36] placed throughout the the city. Every
district will have a red envelope with
[54:42] some puzzle pieces in it and we are
going to see which districts can find
[54:46] all the red envelopes in their district
areas and put the puzzle together. Uh
[54:53] what we are hoping to do by this
assessment is first of all practice uh
[54:57] the rapid disaster assessment program uh
also known as ARDAP. We are also trying
[55:03] to work on the communications so that in
the event of a real disaster and instead
[55:08] of red envelopes we have you know fires
or injured persons. We want to be able
[55:12] to assess those areas get that data get
them to the people who can communicate
[55:17] it to city so in a disaster we know how
to allocate our resources. Um, that's
[55:22] really the critical part here. So, super
excited. We ask everyone please
[55:26] participate. We will also be testing out
our Everbridge program, also known as
[55:31] reverse
911. Uh, a call out will be going out
[55:35] the night before. So, uh, listen for
that. If you don't get that call out, it
[55:40] means either you're not registered or
your information is incorrect. So, if
[55:44] you don't get that call out, please
double check that information to make
[55:47] sure that the next one we do, well,
hopefully not a disaster. um you will
[55:52] get and have the information necessary.
Uh there is also a post online as part
[55:58] of the city newsletter uh for all this
information. Go ahead and take a look at
[56:02] that. It is there as well. So super
excited to do this and as a city we we
[56:06] are always trying to plan for the future
and this is part of that. Make sure we
[56:11] have one.
Great. Thank you. Thank you. Um I got a
[56:17] couple things. So, the CTC had a they
were invited to the police department to
[56:22] do a mental health class there for the
police officers and some of Clarefield's
[56:26] people came and I got to attend that and
it was wonderful and amazing and they do
[56:30] great things and I love that our police
are starting to f like they're putting a
[56:34] lot more focus on their mental health.
Um, so your mental health has improved
[56:38] as well. No,
but that's that's irrelevant. Um but um
[56:45] and the other thing was I have been
stopping in some of our cute little new
[56:49] stores here in Syracuse. And before I
offended you, sir, like I said, there is
[56:54] many adorable little places that I
frequent in that parking lot. And
[56:57] there's a cute little solstice store. So
if your wife's like tea tasting, they do
[57:02] that there. And that's the only place in
Syracuse that really does it. So send
[57:06] your wife on a little ladies night. They
do that there. It's so wonderful. Um and
[57:10] there's a couple other And I went to
Morty's just recently. If you haven't
[57:13] been there, go there. It's delicious.
Thood crearyy is always on point. Yep.
[57:18] Um Oh, in Old School, they have some
great stuff going on there. Those are
[57:22] just the places I frequented lately. The
only issue I have with Thood Crearyy is
[57:25] it's on my regular walking route and I'm
not losing weight anymore. So, just so
[57:30] you guys know, I I set up a thing. So,
if you are ever around on Thursdays,
[57:35] stop by Thood Goods at 3 and I'll be
there. You can come hang out, have a
[57:39] conversation, and an ice cream. So,
yeah. that. And um the dog park, the I
[57:44] keep getting questions about that. The
grass is still not rooted in, folks. So,
[57:48] you can't go there yet. Um but when it
does open, again, my apologies to the
[57:53] police department. Good luck on that. Uh
that's all I got, though. Okay. Uh I
[57:58] will draw your attention to the fact
that I sent an email today after I uh
[58:03] attended a meeting with Wasatch Front
Regional Council. Uh a couple of details
[58:08] from that meeting. I'll just let you
read the real details, but it addressed
[58:12] the Analopee uh bike trail and in that
meeting. So, that's an update and uh
[58:19] also a note in there regarding uh
possible alternative funding for parks
[58:24] that I've been working on for about a
year now and got some real traction with
[58:28] that committee. So, still working on
other ways that we can improve the city
[58:32] without uh using our own funds in every
opportunity.
[58:38] Um, I want to draw your attention to the
fact that we will have our budget
[58:42] meeting on Friday. So, hope you're all
going to be there. It be overly
[58:48] exciting. And um, other than that, I
will take a motion to adjurnn. So,
[58:54] moved. Second. Second. Moved and
seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
[59:00] We are adjourned right before 7. That's
awesome. So, our budget meeting will
[59:05] start at 9. 9:30.
It was 8:30. Huh? The appointment at
[59:11] 8:30.
My agenda said 9:30. You know, I was
[59:15] wondering where all of our city managers
were at, all of our department heads,
[59:18] and then you guys all popped in at once.
It is 9:30. Okay.
[59:26] All right. I know.
[59:31] So, I looked in the
says 8:30. The agenda says 9:30. They
[59:38] need to Yeah. Yeah.
[59:46] So, it's 9:30.
[59:52] You
[59:59] guys need some