[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6093855,"mediaKeyId","2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8","parentId",2845295,"title","Votes at a glance: council adopts traffic and property motions; several items approved unanimously","audioSeconds",419,"startMs",6582000,"endMs",7001000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8&start=6582&end=7001","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8/thumbnail_6582000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6093855/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-council-adopts-traffic-and-property-motions-several-items-approved-unanimously","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6093855-6a48bc1438c9470cc13dd2de18e891bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173092&Signature=dakhRs8dU-NIVT9PAjywHsQM3itkpsvtZHrqGtwMr1ZLMB8W9rvVfkcnI3m7~eQjK714MjVbXtGdCwiijZoWpkMaZQDQlKErkLrMx4G5dfOv2Vy8vXvlb0rEykrURnqyuxbGJuVaAa5TIhcZ5VLAjteqOxb8lncF0PzpFsXpMxz8-XwIETHUFCck6WZAdo3pniUsEdlCrYzvChBmBbzxB0wdo-JLbAaUyAb6dkJYr1QzcKrUwEqtfCzP8X3ycZ1ApqQGwft1LVCegpA7-dWYv-IuFMgExyYwc3ebec1crckUkGhSV2NF24KoYuECcVRg0MhMivKqUpH6kmJUZ3-I3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Utica, NY","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","The Utica Common Council recorded several votes on routine and land‑use items during the meeting.

Key recorded outcomes included: a commissioner of deeds appointment, a proclamation recognizing firefighter Mel Testa Jr., amendments to stop and no‑parking schedules at neighborhood intersections, and an encroachment permit to allow a cooling tower to occupy a small portion of Sherman Drive right‑of‑way for relocation at Mohawk Valley Community College (MVCC). Those items were recorded in the minutes as adopted by an 8‑yea vote.

Separately the council moved multiple proposed ordinances into committee for further review and made a motion to pull proposed Ordinance 19 (sharps ordinance) out of committee for floor consideration. The local law to override the state tax cap was also brought to the floor later in the meeting and was defeated (see separate coverage).

Below are the formal actions recorded in the meeting minutes as adopted or introduced.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Utica Common Council Meeting March 5th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council passed a series of routine measures by unanimous recorded votes and introduced multiple items for committee review. Highlights include approval of a commissioner of deeds appointment, a proclamation recognizing a retiring firefighter, traffic-safety amendments and an encroachment permit for a cooling tower at MVCC.","taxTitle","Utica, Oneida County, New York","taxId",3680,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6093860,"Council declines to approve tax-cap override; local law defeated after wide debate",5277,1971000,7248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8&start=1971&end=7248","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8/thumbnail_1971000.jpg","/articles/6093860/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-declines-to-approve-tax-cap-override-local-law-defeated-after-wide-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6093860-89ef4cc0b7dd1c4814c01152d1a07575/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173092&Signature=FH0N-dgtFFwUyVFBFlIvJLgd4Vn6nkrVjOFko6lsvaajG-1n0MFiGtI5IFL5AznDT32Vv~iBs0HPArHVmDwhXc~30diSfyBVPP23oIjJ0c0iIxCU~74mn6Pj0cDIiyL4~aQIZ63eixpJxE5LCjH9OdNnYRv~c~5HsaJqFn6FhtfI0cX-H92nhjZCHmfGn28SfuZKBDp3aC-tcJIOFeer6Abcz3kABFM84B1E9pC0jiEklAtZMFA9Nje3LRJb0dGmD5sJTHtGdLmBTBODK2y0ABVWJ097A3VeXNHEe~KUHexmHxaHVX1y3TtA1CHT07262ZcFstuR2JIvJnB2Yikk1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utica Common Council voted on a local law that would have authorized the city to adopt a property-tax levy exceeding the limit calculated under General Municipal Law §3‑c for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2025. After extended discussion and a public hearing, the council recorded a vote of '5 nays' and the measure was defeated.

The chamber heard public comment before the vote, with several residents urging either a zero tax increase or adherence to the 2 percent tax‑cap figure. Council members and legal staff debated technical aspects of the state formula used to compute the cap, whether the statutorily referenced figure is the lower of 2 percent or the rate of inflation, and the consequences if the council adopted a tax levy that exceeded the cap without the required override.

Corporation Counsel and speakers on the floor explained that to override the tax cap the local law requires an affirmative super‑majority; council members repeated that six affirmative votes are needed to permit a levy over the statutorily calculated limit. Legal discussion addressed what happens to funds if the council passes a budget over the cap without the override: transcript participants said funds above the cap would be sequestered for the following year and could not be used for the current fiscal year absent the override.

Members who opposed the override emphasized their constituents’ concerns about successive recent tax increases, and one council member said she had collected signatures urging no increase or adherence to the 2 percent limit. Members who supported allowing an override said it was a pragmatic safeguard so the council and administration can complete a budget without being forced into a larger series of last‑minute cuts; supporters also said the mayor would likely not want to raise taxes further and that passing the override preserves negotiating flexibility.

The council did not adopt the local law. With the failure recorded as '5 nays defeated' in the provided transcript, the body returned to other agenda items without overriding the state cap.","After a lengthy public hearing and extended debate among council members, the proposed local law to override the state tax-cap limit failed on the council floor. Members discussed calculation of the cap, implications for the budget and how sequestered excess levy would be handled if the override failed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6093865,"Council debates syringe ordinance language, moves draft out of committee for revision",6096,1089000,7185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8&start=1089&end=7185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2845295-1c99cfc288f598fb415a70d10af447f8/thumbnail_1089000.jpg","/articles/6093865/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-debates-syringe-ordinance-language-moves-draft-out-of-committee-for-revision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6093865-54ea626deec15fa58f0f17c3d6e6ebd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173092&Signature=SZtaVDMyLbUExn-t6gTehebAUtsHJCdFdZOx5EMvMKtFFkkPQFuCQWREwQd8O17jtHwGvj4HGNIrcNRISgo0AffAYIr-BQbdxRN4mh8iwzexLaOHoqZTqINbUIv7N1R7bhZCt79WZDkglA1QNQcQ9yoKSNjs7gCxzcANx6eyEm1mqCasUcfE4-DlI9dQ2IVDKchwacvcYTYGYt24UXbefWI63mDtoyBYa76wHTYWcklbZ49uWEHvzUDPQ2S0O4gYUy7tQl44SnPvv1m3IO9Z7~FIdQv~1n13xq2HmzCVRSWf~NJkqT6XafD3rcHjB9Rp5PiXj35L9XVvoxOF5~gRqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Utica Common Council members spent the evening debating proposed Ordinance 19, a local measure intended to reduce accidental sharps injuries by limiting the distribution of traditional (non-retractable) hypodermic syringes and encouraging the use of retractable safety needles.

Supporters pressed the council to act after social-media videos and local cleanups that they said showed dozens of used needles at specific sites in the city. Council discussion centered on four practical issues: whether the ordinance would conflict with New York state public-health law, how enforcement and fines would be applied, what entities (providers or individuals) would be liable, and the timeline for implementation to allow suppliers to exhaust existing stock.

Corporation Counsel Stephanie Georgio said a staff attorney drafted the ordinance language and that the city can attach the state public-health definitions to make enforcement clearer. Council members agreed to remove a clause that would have required a prescription to obtain a needle — language several members and counsel said risked making the local rule stricter than state law. The council also discussed a July 1 effective date to give nonprofits and providers time to switch to retractable devices.

Members emphasized the ordinance’s intent is to target organizations that distribute free needles rather than individual users. The draft includes a penalty range that, according to the draft on the table, would subject violators to a fine “not less than $2.50 and not more than $1,000 for each violation,” with court-set amounts left to the judicial process. Council members asked for clearer enforcement language so that officers and code personnel know whether to cite an organization distributing needles or an individual in possession.

After extended floor debate the council moved to take the draft ordinance out of committee so the amendments discussed on the floor could be finalized and circulated. No final adoption vote on the amended ordinance appears in the transcript; the item was set for further consideration with direction to clarify enforcement, cite relevant public-health law definitions, and preserve an implementation buffer to July 1.

Council members and counsel said they would undertake outreach to affected providers and plan a press notice if the revised ordinance is advanced to a final vote. The council also discussed allowing exceptions for people with medical need (for example, diabetics with prescriptions) and building in prosecutorial or court discretion so individual users who need needles would not be penalized.

The item remained under active council revision at the meeting’s close; the body did not adopt the ordinance that night.","Council members discussed proposed Ordinance 19 to reduce accidental sharps injuries by restricting distribution of non-retractable hypodermic needles. Law office staff and council members debated prescription language, enforcement, penalties and an effective date; the draft was pulled from committee for further refinement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: council adopts traffic and property motions; several items approved unanimously

Council declines to approve tax-cap override; local law defeated after wide debate

Council debates syringe ordinance language, moves draft out of committee for revision