As the Onondaga County Legislature prepared to vote on replacing four board members of a critical economic development agency, Republican Minority Leader Brian May made an offer: a veto-proof $5 million toward affordable housing in exchange for reducing the replacements.
May had come up with the idea in the shower a few days before, he told Central Current. He had a resolution pre-drafted and ready to add to the agenda in a moment. It had been approved by the county law department and by County Executive Ryan McMahon, he said.
If the Democrats agreed to the deal, the money would be in a legislature-controlled account Wednesday, May told Central Current.
“That is a deal being made on the floor, not behind closed doors,” said Legislator Tim Burtis. “Because some of us are not comfortable with a deal being made behind closed doors.”
After May’s offer, the legislature broke for a quick recess.
“Our values are not for sale,” said Legislature Chair Nicole Watts, shortly before the vote. As she spoke, a Republican legislative aide passed a copy of the resolution around to all the legislators.
Democrats rejected the deal in a 10-7 vote along party lines. Four members of the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency will be replaced.
Moments later, Legislator Maurice “Mo” Brown attempted to bring to the floor May’s legislation to commit $5 million in county funds to affordable housing.
But only the bill’s sponsors were allowed to bring it to the floor. Despite all seven members of the legislature’s Republican caucus sponsoring the bill, none moved to bring it back.
“The chair made it very clear the political nature of this move was the priority, not to try to target and approach the mission of affordable housing separately,” said May. “I’ve just been notified there is no executive initiative.”
McMahon had contacted someone at the legislature to communicate his withdrawal of the offer when the board appointments were made, said May. He would not say who McMahon had contacted.
During the meeting, legislative staff drafted another version of the resolution. It was exactly the same, but listed Brown as the sponsor. Brown did not see it in time to bring it up during the session but said he intended to bring it to the floor in June.
“Appropriate funds from the fund balance to housing is my love language,” he joked, adding that they could just pass it.
Spending that money would likely require executive approval, said May and Burtis.
“That’s why this group will not be able to spend any new money in ‘26,” May said. “This was an opportunity to do that.”
As justification for the deal, May emphasized that economic development and affordable housing were both important issues but should be addressed separately. The sole mission of OCIDA, he said, was wealth and job development. That would provide the tax base which could support social programs in the future. Housing development was “noble,” but would not pay the bills, he said.
Asked why he chose not to give the available money to the legislature for housing anyway, he deferred to McMahon.
But McMahon spokesperson Justin Sayles said the money had “nothing to do” with the county executive.
“This was an initiative that was driven by the Legislature, but the County Executive agreed to. It was not any dollars that we would control or have any stay over,” Sayles said. “We already have historic levels of funding that have been approved that the County Executive is investing into housing.”
He added: “If there is some suggestion made that somehow affordable housing initiatives are suffering as a result of a proposed compromise made by the Republicans and the legislature that will be 100% without a question false.”
The deal was not widely publicized before it came to the floor. It came an hour and a half into the legislative session, and was not on the agenda. While the Republican caucus had discussed the possibility of the offer amongst themselves yesterday, they had not been certain it would come to the floor, said Burtis, who called the deal “weak.”
The deal came after extended discussion on the topic of the new OCIDA appointments.
Less than an hour before the session started, the agenda was amended to include a statement from the legislature’s outside counsel, who found the maneuver to be legal.
During a thirty minute public comment period, members of the public expressed concerns about the appointments. Legislators also addressed their concerns before the deal was proposed.
Concerns were split into two buckets: one related to process and another related to the appointees themselves.
Removing OCIDA appointees before their terms had ended was a “dangerous path” that would risk their independence, said Burtis.
“Now they’ll serve at the whim of the chair,” he said. “The chair has a lot of power, but to me, today, this is abuse of that power.”
Burtis was the chair of the legislature until December 2025, and was criticized at the end of his term for filling board spots too quickly. He brought that up in contrast to these appointments, which he pointed out had not gone through a committee.
David Stott, a candidate for the Town of Salina Supervisor, said that he worried the switch would be a “signal of instability” to potential investors.
Legislator Cody Kelly said the move “effectively turns the OCIDA board into a mouthpiece for the majority caucus, serving at their behest, until, of course, they vote in a way that rubs somebody the wrong way.” Then, he said, they could be removed with no process.
Others questioned the appointees themselves.
Wendy Van Der Water, the town supervisor in Van Buren, said the appointments read “like a list of unqualified activists.” She worried they would disobey home rule and attempt to change zoning laws, she said.
It was a “terribly partisan slate of appointments,” Legislator McCarron said, saying he thought this was part of a bigger plan to force higher density housing on rural areas.
Brown defended the Democrats’ decision to change board appointments. High density housing was not a partisan issue, Brown said, citing that it was a priority in the McMahon designed Plan Onondaga.
“Micron is coming,” Brown said. “If we don’t build housing for the people that are coming, they will take our housing.”
Beyond being an economic engine, OCIDA was a public health organization, argued Kiara Van Brackle, a clinical neurophysiologist and advocate. It would determine which communities would receive investment and which would be left behind, she said.
Before proposing the original housing deal, Republicans first motioned to deny a waiver to bring the appointments to the floor. They then motioned to refer it back to a committee.
Both attempts were unsuccessful, with votes along party lines.
Read more of Central Current’s coverage
Onondaga County Legislature unanimously passes law requiring more disclosure for aquarium donations
The law would require county leadership to disclose names of donors who gift more than $10,000 to fund the aquarium to the legislature’s chair.
Central Current honored at Syracuse Press Club Awards
Central Current received nine awards including Best News Website, Best Photo Essay, and Best Print/Digital Human Interest Feature.
Local advocates hope to avoid environmental inequality from I-81 demolition with new air quality monitors
Wary of past harm, three monitors will be installed at Syracuse community centers to boost residents’ air quality awareness as the I-81 viaduct comes down.
Syracuse lawmakers table local law banning biometric surveillance in some public places
Three city councilors want to block businesses in Syracuse from collecting, storing, and sharing customers’ biometric information through proposed legislation that exempts financial institutions.
I-81 local hire initiative was a success, advocates say. What’s next?
Urban Jobs Task Force of Syracuse released a report reflecting on the I-81 Local Hire Initiative’s success.
