[0:05] The September 8th, 2026 work session is now called to order. Um, first up, we

[0:11] will have a proclamation for abilities advocacy month with Star Communities.

[0:14] And I would like to ask Sylvia Ge, which is the marketing events manager, and

[0:19] Danny, Sarah, and Scott to come up to the front, please.

[0:43] Okay. The city has a proclamation for abilities and advocacy month. Uh people

[0:47] have have the dignity to be valued and accepted for their abilities and the

[0:50] inclusion of all abilities is integral in the in the growth and prosperity of

[0:54] our community and citizens of Haggartown should raise awareness of the importance

[0:58] of advocating for all abilities and be made aware of the value of people with

[1:02] different abilities and our community must actively respect include support

[1:06] and educate to support a community of all abilities. Therefore, I, William

[1:09] McIntyre, mayor of city of Heggertown, do hereby proclaim and recognize

[1:13] September 2026 as abil abilities advocacy month in Haggartown, Maryland.

[1:18] The city of Heggertown encourages all businesses, organizations, and community

[1:21] members to respect, include, support, and educate to establish Haggartown as a

[1:26] community of all abilities.

[1:36] » Graduate, too.

[1:46] We got five.

[1:51] » Great. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you so much.

[1:57] » Yeah. Yeah, that's great. >> Oh, hi, sir.

[2:03] » Did you want to say anything for me? >> Oh, sure. Yeah. Um, we're we're so

[2:07] thankful for this proclamation. This is the third year in a row that Hagerstown

[2:11] has allowed us to proclaim abilities advocacy month. And it's really great

[2:14] because it shows that we are just making continual um progress in our community

[2:19] being super um supportive of everyone with disabilities and making advocacy

[2:24] something that you do intentionally every day. So, thank you so much.

[2:37] There you go.

[2:42] » You're good. >> Here we go. Good smile. One, two, three.

[2:48] And one, two, three. Okay. Thank you.

[3:08] All right. Next up, um, have Nancy and Tyler come up for presentation of

[3:13] Maryland Department Environment Environment Optimization Award.

[3:28] Okay.

[3:33] » Hello, I'm Marissa Diggins from the Maryland Department of the Environment.

[3:38] Um, I'm with uh the uh engineering and technicals assistance division

[3:44] um with the water supply program. Um I am here to present the 2025 optimization

[3:52] gold award for the city of Hagerstown's water. Um they met optimization goals in

[4:00] uh influent or

[4:06] their um turbid uh turbidities um for all settle water turbidities um and

[4:14] their um

[4:19] individual filter effluentities and combined filter effluentities.

[4:23] um um based on the uh goals set by the Arowide Optimization Program or AWOP. Um

[4:34] so they get um the gold award. Um

[4:39] congratulations everyone. >> All right.

[4:43] » Yeah, just real quick um very grateful for this. MD started this um three years

[4:49] ago and we've received this all three years. So, it's just a testament to hard

[4:54] work, dedication, and commitment of staff. So, thankful for them with this.

[4:58] So, great job. >> Thank you.

[5:04] » Good job, Hagerstown.

[5:12] » Yeah.

[5:16] » Marissa. Marissa.

[5:20] Sorry, >> I didn't realize there was a picture.

[5:38] » Okay, thank you.

[5:44] » Thank you so much. All right, next up we have Nathan Frieder with the cost of

[5:48] service and electric retail operating rates.

[6:00] There they are.

[6:09] » Good evening. Thank you for uh having us this evening. Uh we're here again to

[6:14] discuss operating rates, retail operating rates.

[6:18] Uh last rate increase took effect February 1st, 2025.

[6:24] Uh we were approved by the commission for an increase of about $1.98 million.

[6:30] Uh we recently reviewed the FY25 audited financials

[6:37] and have determined that an additional $1.4 $4 million is uh needed to maintain

[6:45] our current operations. Um this looks like a 19% increase on the bait on just

[6:52] on the b the base operating rate. Um once you factor in purchase power cost

[6:57] adjustment u it'll look like a 3 and a.5% increase on customer bills. uh

[7:04] which for a typical or average residential customer using 1,000

[7:11] kilowatt hours per month of electricity is about $49 per month.

[7:18] Um

[7:22] yeah, so uh we have Jake Thomas and Terara Deose from GDS and Associates on

[7:32] the on the on the line and they prepared a presentation to go through some of the

[7:38] details in the rate making process. So Jake, can you hear us?

[7:46] » I can. Can you hear me? >> We sure can.

[7:52] » Excellent. Uh, Nathan, are you going to do the slides for us?

[7:57] » Yes, I have the vote in hand. >> Okay.

[8:02] Okay. >> I don't know where it is.

[8:04] » All right. Well, uh, good afternoon everyone while they're getting those

[8:07] ready. Yeah. Again, I'm um Jake Thomas with GDS Associates. I'm a principal in

[8:12] our rates and regulator regulatory department. I've been with GDS about 30

[8:17] years now doing cost of service and rate studies for public power utilities all

[8:23] over the country. Um, for those of you who have been around for a couple years,

[8:27] I've worked on the filing in 2024 and made a couple of presentations to city

[8:31] council at that time as well. Uh, and then I have with me Tara Deose and this

[8:36] is her first project with Hagerstown. I'll let her introduce herself real

[8:39] quick and then we'll jump into the presentation.

[8:43] » Hi, thanks Jake. Um, hi I'm Tara Dubose. I'm a director at GDS in the rates and

[8:49] regulatory group working with Jake. Um, my my background is cost of service and

[8:55] rate design for mostly um, regulated investor own utilities, but I'm now

[9:00] working on some municipals and co-op work. I've been doing that for about 25

[9:05] years and I've been with GDS started this year in 2026.

[9:14] » Okay. Thanks, Tara. So, um, we've got a slide deck here we're going to talk

[9:17] through. Um, we're happy to entertain questions as we go through. So,

[9:21] certainly feel free to interrupt and ask questions and we can make it

[9:25] conversational here. So, um, if we can go to the first slide, please.

[9:39] See here. Right now, I see Terra and the slide.

[9:45] One moment. Let me change my view. The same issue.

[9:56] » Okay. Um so sorry for the delay there. So in terms of the process, um when we

[10:02] do a rate study for a utility, there's a three-step process uh that we go

[10:07] through. And this is similar to the process that um that you you know all

[10:12] regulated utilities before the the public service commission go through. Uh

[10:16] and the first step is what's called revenue requirements. And there what

[10:19] we're just trying to understand is what is the total revenue we need to meet our

[10:23] financial objectives and to earn an approved rate of return on our

[10:29] investment in an electric utility system. Um the second step is what's

[10:33] called a cost of service analysis. And in that analysis, what we're trying to

[10:38] do is we're trying to take all of the costs that we incur and book in common

[10:43] and split that out to the different customer classes. So residential,

[10:46] commercial, light and power, and outdoor lights and street lights so that we can

[10:49] understand what does it cost us to serve each of our different customer types.

[10:53] They use the grid in different ways and so that drives costs differently amongst

[10:58] them. Uh with those two pieces of information, we can move into rate

[11:02] design where we design rates to collect the amount of revenue requirement that

[11:06] we've identified and use the cost of service information to help inform that

[11:11] rate design. So, we're going to this afternoon kind of walk through each of

[11:14] these three steps with you to get you to where um the the current case is that

[11:19] we're going to be filing with the commission. Next slide.

[11:23] So in terms of the process uh in a regulated environment uh as as Nathan

[11:28] indicated our last rate change became effective on February 1st of 2025

[11:33] we filed that case in um I think third quarter of 2024. So there is a bit of a

[11:39] lag between when we file the case and then when we reach a settlement or get a

[11:43] a a judgment from the commission on what we're allowed to do and then actually

[11:46] get it instituted. Um, we will be filing this new request for the PSC in

[11:52] September. Um, the case is subject to a regulatory process that includes um some

[11:58] interveners that can uh dig into all of our data and provide testimony on what

[12:03] they think is appropriate relative to what we are asking for. In the last

[12:07] case, there were only two interveners. there was the the public service

[12:10] commission itself and their staff of experts and then there was the Maryland

[12:14] office of the people's council um who is an agency who primarily their their

[12:19] primary focus is protecting residential consumers throughout the state. Um as we

[12:25] go through that process again as I said there's a little bit of a regulatory lag

[12:29] there. So our expectation is that the new rates would become effective

[12:31] sometime in quarter two of 2027. Next slide. So this is going to be the

[12:37] answer slide. I'm going to go ahead and give you the the overall answer here and

[12:40] then we'll kind of go back and dig into some of the details for you. Um and and

[12:44] Nathan's already alluded to part of this. It's a $1.4 million increase that

[12:48] we're requesting. Um which represents a 19% increase on just the base rate

[12:54] portion of the bill. And so that's the service charge and the energy charge.

[12:59] when we include the purchase power cost adjustment, the PPCA

[13:04] that changes from time to time and it's is designed to recover all of our

[13:07] purchase power costs, then it represents a 3 and a half% overall increase in

[13:13] total rate revenue. And so that number is important because that's what your

[13:16] customers are going to feel. Um they're paying both the base and the PPCA. So um

[13:22] from a billing perspective, it's going to look like a three and a half%

[13:25] increase. uh focusing on the bar chart on the

[13:29] lower left down there, we are recommending that that overall three and

[13:34] a half percent increase um is spread among the classes differently. However,

[13:39] and as we'll get to in a few minutes, the cost of service results support

[13:42] this. And so we're recommending an increase on outdoor lighting and street

[13:47] lighting of 10%. Commercial class is 7.2%, 2% the

[13:51] residential 3.3% and the what I've got labeled here is industrial is your light

[13:56] and power rate it's your largest users only a 1% increase so everybody would be

[14:00] participating in the increase but at different levels under our

[14:05] recommendation the pie chart on the right hand side um

[14:09] kind of shows the major factors that are driving the overall $ 1.4 $4 million

[14:13] increase that we're requesting from the commission. And uh this is where I'm

[14:17] going to turn it over to Tara. She's going to walk you through these items a

[14:21] little bit and then go through revenue requirements and I'll return to talk

[14:24] about cost of service and rate design. >> All right. Thanks Jake. Um as you can

[14:31] see on the pie chart, several items make up the increase. I'll start with rate

[14:36] based adjustments. So we've made some rate based adjust

[14:40] adjustments for plan and service that is going into service um what we call

[14:45] during the adjustment period which is after the test year but before rates go

[14:50] into effect um that would be for additions and

[14:53] retirements. There would also be associated

[14:57] depreciation expense for those adjustments.

[15:01] And then if you look over to the light blue, there are wages and salaries

[15:06] adjustments of 15%. Those are pre-approved adjustments that the

[15:11] council has already approved along with the pensions and benefits that go along

[15:17] with those increases in salaries and wages.

[15:20] Also, we have a rate case expense adjustment, which is an amortization of

[15:25] the rate case expenses for this rate case,

[15:29] and an OPED adjustment, which is an adjustment for a credit to an expense

[15:34] account that is a non-cash credit and that is non-recurring.

[15:42] Next slide, please.

[15:51] Now I'm going to walk through revenue requirements a little bit. Um

[15:56] the details of what I showed you on the previous uh previous slide are here. So

[16:02] starting with our revenue requirements, those adjustments of distribution, O

[16:07] andM expenses, customer accounts, and administrative in general, those are the

[16:12] adjustments that we just talked about related to increases in salaries and

[16:16] wages and benefits. The depreciation adjustment on line six,

[16:21] that relates to the plan and service adjustments for total operating expense

[16:26] adjustments of about 1.474 million.

[16:32] And that gives us total operating expenses in the test year of 8.7

[16:37] million. When you add to that the return on your rate base, which includes your

[16:41] planted service adjustments, your revenue requirement is 9.9 million. Then

[16:46] we decrease that for the non- rate revenues of 950,000. Those are revenues

[16:52] that come in from other sources besides base rates to give us a total revenue

[16:57] requirement of 8.9 million. And that's the amount that you need to collect from

[17:02] your customers in total. Your present base revenues that you're receiving now

[17:06] are 7.5 million. So the difference between the amount that you need and the

[17:11] present revenues is the 1.4 million that we talked about. And when you divide

[17:17] that by the current total revenues, which includes your purchase cost

[17:20] adjustment, that's a 3.5% increase effectively on the bill.

[17:27] Next slide, please.

[17:33] So as we discussed those adjustments, those adjustments are for known and

[17:37] measurable changes to test year financials.

[17:40] The revenues reflect a full year of the new retail rates. So the test year of 25

[17:47] um had a month of old rates. We had to normalize that to get to um actual

[17:53] revenues using new rates. And then the operating adjustments that we just

[17:57] talked about of the wages and salaries, rate case expenses and other

[18:02] post-employment benefit expense um along with rate base adjustments for

[18:07] new plan and service make up all of the adjustments to the test year that result

[18:12] in our increase. Next slide please.

[18:19] So this is just a little more detail on rate base and rate of return. The plan

[18:23] and service adjustment was about 2.2 million. Um there's a small on and m

[18:29] adjustment in working capital and the working capital allowances are the

[18:35] dollars that you need to cover your expenses until your revenues come in.

[18:41] And then we also include an average balance for materials and supplies and

[18:46] for prepayments to get to your gross rate base of about 52 million.

[18:52] And we have deductions for accumulated depreciation to go with the plan and

[18:56] service increases and also a deduction for cons customer deposits. And that

[19:03] gives you your net rate base of 25 million which is multiplied by the rate

[19:08] of return based off of 30-year Treasury bond forecasts

[19:13] to give you the return on rate base of 1.2 million that you saw on the revenue

[19:18] requirement slides.

[19:22] And I think that covers the adjustments. I'll turn it back over to Jake.

[19:30] » Okay. Yes. Thanks, Tara. I'll pause there. Any questions on what she just

[19:35] walked through. A lot of lot of information there.

[19:42] Okay, we will move ahead. So, the next step of the study is again the cost of

[19:46] service. And this picture just kind of helps give an overview of the process

[19:51] itself. Um, again, all of the costs that we book in our accounting system are

[19:57] incurred at the total level. You know, if we roll a truck out and they work on

[20:01] a line, we don't we don't split those costs between, well, we were helping out

[20:05] residential customers or we were helping out light and power customers for part

[20:08] of the time. Um, and so it's a three-step process to take that and get

[20:13] it down to what does it cost to serve each of those types of customers? And

[20:17] step one is called the functionalization step. Um and that just takes the dollars

[20:22] and and says okay well which function are they you know are those expenses um

[20:27] supporting? Is it the production function actually generating electricity

[20:30] which we don't do. U we don't own production resources. We buy purchase

[20:34] power through contracts. Um is it transmission? Is it distribution? So in

[20:39] this instance um it's mainly distribution related costs that we're

[20:43] talking about. And so the functionalization step is actually

[20:47] pretty straightforward um given Hagerstown's books. The classification

[20:52] step is the next step and that says well what if we split that bucket of dollars

[20:55] and let's just focus on the distribution function into the underlying activity

[21:00] that drives the cost and so is it having a customer and the best example of that

[21:05] is is meter expenses. uh as soon as somebody wants to connect to the system,

[21:10] we have to hang a service drop, hang a meter and incur the cost of owning and

[21:14] operating that equipment. And so that is a customer related type of function and

[21:19] therefore we classify those dollars under the customer bucket. Uh there's

[21:24] also demand and energy buckets. Energy is the total amount of electricity over

[21:30] a given time period. So let's say over a month, you know, it's measured in

[21:33] kilowatt hours. And you'll see that the distribution function in the industry

[21:38] the standard is that there is really no energy classification. Um but there is

[21:43] demand and what demand is is the maximum amount of um you know demand placed on

[21:49] the system at any given moment in time. And so it's usually a one hour type of a

[21:54] value. And we do have to size our distribution

[21:58] system. We have to invest in it based on demand. And so that's why there's a

[22:02] split between customer and demand. And then we can take those classified pools

[22:06] of dollars and we can allocate it to each of our customer classes based on

[22:11] demands and customers and energy. Um, and then that's how we get kind of the

[22:17] the answer that's on the next slide which is the revenue sufficiency of

[22:23] present rates for each of our classes. And now this part there is no purchase

[22:28] power cost adjustment in here. Um, you may have caught on on the revenue

[22:32] requirements. We didn't show any purchase power costs there either

[22:35] because all of those dollars are recovered through that PPCA. So we're

[22:38] only talking about non purchase power costs here. And so what this tells us is

[22:43] that the um for instance the residential class at 85.3%

[22:48] the present rates uh recover only 85% of the um allocated cost of that class

[22:56] whereas the industrial which again is your light and power group is 104%.

[23:01] And so that means that that group is currently earning over their cost to

[23:05] serve under present rates. And if you recall back at the beginning, I had that

[23:10] slide where we had residential at close to that 3.5% overall increase.

[23:15] Industrial was only 1% and the two lighting classes were at 10%. And you

[23:19] can see there the cost of service shows that on our street lights and our

[23:22] outdoor lighting, we're not even making up half of the cost through the rates.

[23:26] Uh, so that's why I'm recommending a more aggressive increase on the two

[23:30] lighting classes, but keep in mind they're also very small. We're talking

[23:33] about less than a million dollar out of four $40 million of the revenue come

[23:38] from those two classes as well. Okay, next slide.

[23:46] So with that information, um, here is what we're recommending in terms of rate

[23:50] design. And so for the residential class, uh, I'm making the recommendation

[23:54] of increasing the customer charge from $5, which is what it is right now, to

[23:59] $6.30. That's a $130 on that charge increase. The energy charge would go

[24:05] from just under two cents to basically 2.2 cents. No change in the PPCA. I show

[24:11] that on this slide just to give us an idea of overall impact for our

[24:14] customers. Um, and you can see there at the bottom bills at 500, 1,000, and 1500

[24:20] kilowatt hours. Uh, as as Nathan indicated in the introduction, for a

[24:24] 1,00 kilwatt hour customer, which is our our average for our residential class,

[24:30] it's a $49 increase uh in a month, which is 3.3%. That's right at that level that

[24:37] we're designing for the whole residential class to experience.

[24:41] And on the next slide, we show a comparison of the present rate, the

[24:46] proposed rate, and then what your customers would pay under PTOIC Edison's

[24:51] current rates. In this slide, we do bring in the purchase power cost

[24:55] adjustment at the 10-cent level, so that it's an applesto apples comparison. And

[25:00] we have all the various Edison writers built into this as well. And so what

[25:04] this shows you that is that even after our modest 3.3% rate increase um on the

[25:11] residential bills, we're somewhere between 35 and 40% lower than the same

[25:16] customer usage on PTOIC Edison's rates.

[25:23] Okay.

[25:26] And then for the the the non-residential rate classes, we have the design here. I

[25:30] believe these slides have been shared with you. If not, we're happy to have

[25:33] one shared with you. Um, and you can see an increase in the customer charges in

[25:38] both the the general and commercial service and in the light and power

[25:41] service. Um, increases to the demand charges and increases to the energy

[25:48] charges for u for both.

[25:53] And so for a for an average, if you will, general and commercial service in

[25:57] the the box in the lower right, that's at 6KW of demand and 2,000 kilowatt

[26:01] hours. The bill would go up $7.76, which is 3.1%.

[26:07] And for the light and power, the average bill is 200 kilowatts and 83,000 kilwatt

[26:13] hours, and it's about a $90 increase on a $9,000 bill. So, um, pretty low, 9/10

[26:20] of a percent.

[26:24] And so that's a very high level overview of the case we intend to file and what

[26:28] our what our recommendations are. Um yes. So any any questions or comments at

[26:35] this time?

[26:40] » Any questions? Council, >> I have I have a question about the

[26:45] inclusion of the retirements. Move your voice.

[26:50] » Sorry. I have a question about the inclusion of the retirements in the rate

[26:54] base. Can um someone explain

[26:58] » Okay. >> Why

[27:02] the inclusion of the retirements and the rate base?

[27:06] Um

[27:11] I'm not exactly Nathan, can we go back to the revenue requirement? uh or maybe

[27:16] to the rate based slide so we can kind of discuss

[27:23] » so I can kind of understand >> slide seven.

[27:28] » Yeah, I think it's six or seven.

[27:36] » Okay. And I need to get on my screen because I can't see it either.

[27:42] » All right. So, >> I'm looking at the

[27:47] » slide. Okay, I was thinking slide eight. Um, so are you asking about the OPED

[27:52] expense credit removal? >> I'm just trying to understand why we're

[27:57] including the retirement benefits. >> Um, it's the on slide seven um under

[28:04] rate base where we have inclusion of new plant service test year, inclusion of

[28:09] retirements and revised return on rate base. I believe.

[28:13] » Oh, those retirements. Okay. Yes. So, th those retirements refer to plan and

[28:18] service that's being retired. So, when you have additions to plan and service,

[28:22] you also have retirements because you're replacing plant

[28:26] » and service. So, those are replacements. So, it's not employee retirements, it's

[28:31] plant retirements. >> Yeah.

[28:33] » Okay. Thank you for that clarification. That was what I was asking. So, it's

[28:36] equipment retirement. >> Yes.

[28:38] » Got it. >> Yes.

[28:45] Thank you. No, >> you're welcome.

[28:47] » I don't have a question. It's more of a statement, but there was and I was

[28:54] I think I was pleased to read it or believed maybe is a better word in

[28:59] the

[29:02] uh the presentation. Uh on slide four it says represents a

[29:08] 19% increase in base rate revenue. So I don't know and again you know when

[29:17] information was was was transcribed you know more traditionally in in the

[29:22] newspaper distribution um on these things and I I I always try

[29:28] and stay away from percentages cuz as a customer I don't know what that means to

[29:32] me right but when I read in the memo um where is the sentence a cost of

[29:40] service study was performed based on FY25 audited financials and concluded

[29:46] that an additional 19 19% increase on the current operating rates. So when I

[29:51] read that I thought oh you know we're talking about a 4 and a.5% rate increase

[29:56] in FY25 at one little one and a half and then a 19% and then it equated to like

[30:03] 1.4. It didn't make sense to me but you're talking about a 19% increase in

[30:08] the in the base rate revenue. other words, that's the money it's generating.

[30:11] That's not the rate or percent rate increase people are going to see. The

[30:16] actual number is about three and a half percent or to the average customer is

[30:20] about four bucks a month, >> right?

[30:23] » So, I just when people see that or hear us talking about it, I just think that

[30:27] that's the critical number and I got a little bit lost between

[30:31] » the two documents on that um on on what that is. And I I just I don't I don't

[30:36] want the public to get lost in in that document. Um

[30:41] the important stuff though in the staff document is why and and you know while

[30:47] we have this presentation that tells us what things are going up, this

[30:51] presentation doesn't tell the public really why. Um as and no offense to the

[30:58] presentation that that's really not its point, but the staff memo does a pretty

[31:02] good job of pointing out these two things. one is the why it's going up.

[31:07] Meaning, you know, you're talking about uh a a study and uh analysis and

[31:12] management of more than a thousand telephone poles that cost money to to uh

[31:18] replace uh to relocate um and to reconnect all the different providers

[31:23] and our system on it. Uh the other uh item that you talked about is uh

[31:29] vegetation removal. every power system across the land has has ramped that up

[31:35] in recent years because of the weather related effects and the fact that that

[31:41] and I'm just going to say it that that property isn't attended as it may have

[31:47] been more readily in the past as it applies to allowing vegetation in and

[31:53] around properties and homes and commercial businesses etc to grow up in

[31:57] the utility rightway where these utilities are most impacted by weather

[32:02] related events. Um the other thing that the memo says is okay well well how are

[32:08] other ways than than revenue um rate increases or or how how are

[32:14] other ways other than rate increases going to be generated or going to

[32:17] generate revenue and I was um uh it was good to read how the one development in

[32:25] the city's you know uh uh electric uh service

[32:30] boundary uh is going to positively benefit

[32:33] And I just think that as council we need to hone in on that particular comment

[32:38] because there's one neighborhood that gets developed that that brings in about

[32:42] $140 $150,000 worth of new revenue to the system because they're within our uh

[32:49] um uh electric utility distribution boundaries which are different than the

[32:54] cities. And I just think that if that speaks to uh our

[32:59] uh um necessity to focus on redevelopment of both vacant areas and

[33:04] and underutilized properties that are in the city um that clearly have an impact

[33:09] on um uh revenue, you know, over time in in in

[33:16] uh managing that system. So, I thought that the bullet points in there were

[33:20] were really good in in telling the public the why your bill is going to go

[33:24] up about four bucks a month, you know, possibly, you know, starting, you know,

[33:29] sometime in 2027. >> Appreciate that.

[33:38] » Anybody else >> for this um rate? Um, are you going to

[33:44] continue to work with the Office of People's Council?

[33:48] » No. >> Absolutely.

[33:50] » You have to. Okay. For the public, that's a uh um they work on behalf of

[33:55] Maryland's residential customers to advocate for utility performance at the

[33:59] lowest reasonable cost consistent with the state environmental economic

[34:03] policies. Thank you for that footnote.

[34:09] So the ask from staff is is that you know we would like to go ahead and

[34:14] submit this case in September and we just um kind of need a a nod from from

[34:21] uh from from the elected body uh to go ahead and uh file the rate case.

[34:26] » Everybody good with that? >> I'm in favor.

[34:29] » Okay, got it. >> Thank you very much.

[34:35] » Thank you, Jake. Thank you, Terara. >> Yes.

[34:38] » Thank you. >> Thank you, everyone.

[34:40] » Have a great evening. >> You, too.

[34:41] » You, too.

[34:47] » All right. Next up, we have uh Mr. Jim Bender with our next four items. And

[34:52] first up is the Route 40 pedestrian safety action plan update.

[34:59] » So, good afternoon. um made a presentation to council back in February

[35:04] um about plans that state highway is working on to make safety improvements

[35:09] along the route 44 corridor and that that's from Interstate 70 in the east

[35:14] the whole way out to Garland Boulevard in the west and uh there are a number of

[35:20] good things I think in that in their conceptual plans to improve safety make

[35:25] crosswalk safer um improve signage that sort of stuff but the One thing that I

[35:30] made council aware of at that time is the concept calls for the removal of

[35:34] parking on one side of Franklin Street and one side of Washington Street. Now I

[35:39] I do have an error in the memo. I went back and looked today and I had

[35:43] misinterpreted one of the details um that they had on the concept plan. I was

[35:48] thinking that the on both of those streets they were

[35:52] taking the parking off the north side of the street. They are taking the the

[35:56] parking off the north side of Franklin Street. on Washington Street, they want

[35:59] to take it off the south side. So that would be the courthouse side. Um, you

[36:04] know, and on the on Franklin Street, it's the post office side is the best

[36:07] way to think of it. But they're still removing one lane of on street parking

[36:12] on both of those streets. It ends up being approximately 350 parking spaces

[36:17] that would be lost uh for the full length of the city to do that.

[36:22] » Do you know how many of those spaces are metered?

[36:24] » Um, there are n I don't know the number. There are 19 19 blocks in the study

[36:31] area. I think seven of them have meters. Seven of those blocks. I can get you a

[36:35] count on how many of those spaces are. >> How many spaces did you say?

[36:39] » About 350 total. >> Somewhere around 100

[36:42] » probably something like that. Um, the reason I'm here today, I don't

[36:47] necessarily have any new information, but I wanted to make the council aware

[36:51] that State Highway is holding a publicformational meeting next Tuesday

[36:56] at Eastern Elementary from 5 to 7:00 p.m. They are not going to be making a

[37:03] presentation, but they're going to have the the latest concept plans or boards

[37:07] there, and they'll accept comment or feedback uh from the public at that

[37:12] meeting. I just wanted to make sure that the council was aware and that anyone

[37:16] watching the the meeting today is there because I I really feel that this is an

[37:20] important issue and they are still just at the conceptual stage. They haven't

[37:25] moved into actual real design yet and now would be the time to voice our

[37:32] concerns again about the potential loss of parking

[37:36] » and revenue. >> Yeah.

[37:39] » Spaces. So I I I sat on a call on this subject

[37:45] with state folks last week was it I guess

[37:50] » and ask a number of questions which there were no answers for. Um, one, I

[37:57] think it's odd that you're having a meeting out on eastern uh, you know, and

[38:02] and not library downtown where where everybody that lives and utilizes the

[38:06] spaces is, but but that's So, the one question I had was, you know, how many

[38:10] metered spaces is it going to be impacting the city revenue-wise?

[38:16] Um, uh, the second question was who's going

[38:20] to maintain it? meaning when the snow comes down, you know, the expectation of

[38:25] who's going to plow it and for it to be plowed and, you know, who's not, you

[38:29] know, who's going to and then the third was who's going to police it. Um, then

[38:34] there again, there were no answers for any of these questions. The fourth was

[38:39] there seems to be this notion that there's this run on bicycles uh out

[38:43] there you know uh in in uh commerce you know and the reality is and I said this

[38:50] reality is we're seeing everybody you know uh uh migrate to the eve vehicle

[38:55] system skateboard scooter uh uh bicycle uh you know uh you know whatever device

[39:02] and and you know will these bike lanes uh be uh allowed for use of electronic

[39:11] vehicles. And there was no answer for that. And then who polices that, you

[39:15] know, in terms of of that use? And the other thing I pointed out is, you know,

[39:19] a number of our side streets, we oftent times have folks that that, you know,

[39:23] will park and put the the four-ways on in the bike lanes um for extended

[39:28] periods of time. You know, who's going to monitor and police that? who's going

[39:33] to be expected to tow vehicles that end up saying, you know what, uh, it's the

[39:37] dead of winter, there's nothing available. I'm going to park right here.

[39:41] Um, you know, because nobody's riding a bike, you know, in zero degree weather.

[39:45] Those types of things. And I think it was just and and I think the last thing

[39:50] that's important to note is most people hearing about this

[39:55] should get an idea of of where specifically it's talking about.

[40:01] And I I guess for me, I went into the meeting thinking it was a couple blocks

[40:05] downtown, you know, around the square. >> Yeah.

[40:07] » And it's from McDonald's on the east side of town, you know, to Walmart on

[40:13] the west side of town. And I just I'm trying to like imagine in my head, I

[40:17] mean, are are we back in '92 and, you know, and and the tourup pond's coming

[40:22] through town and, you know, we're having bicycles every day. It just it was just

[40:26] odd to me that it it stretched the entire length of of downtown. And then

[40:32] the last thing, one of the other things I pointed out was there was this notion

[40:35] I think among folks in in that discussion from the state side that they

[40:40] drive through downtown on these two streets or, you know, they Google map

[40:45] and go, "Oh, there's plenty of parking. Look at all these parking lots." And I'm

[40:49] like, that's that's a misconception because 90% of those parking lots are

[40:54] owned by private property owners, you know, that are for the use of of those

[40:59] private entities, you know, and then and I I didn't get into the reminder that,

[41:04] you know, the state has made it very clear uh they have no interest in

[41:08] helping out for parking decks uh but have that expectation that local

[41:11] government provides it. Uh and and you know, we I think that we very

[41:17] briefly touched on the notion that uh you know, parking decks are are $20,000

[41:22] to $40,000 a spot and surface parking lot uh parking spaces are 1 to 3,000

[41:28] bucks a spot. So, you know, the price point for somebody to to pay for that

[41:33] pass is is well different than the price point for somebody to uh to even uh you

[41:40] know, pay for metering or uh or a private lot surface lot surface lot

[41:44] that's available. >> So, well, after we sent our letter of

[41:49] concern in the spring, um State Highway did conduct a parking utilization study.

[41:55] um they came through and over the course of a couple weeks they looked at actual

[42:00] parking usage and parking demand in downtown and there's a copy attached to

[42:04] the memo. Um it's a summary of what they found um when they did that parking

[42:10] utilization study. And basically the point that they are making is that

[42:18] there if you look at available on street parking and public parking in the city,

[42:23] especially in the downtown, there's a surplus of spaces.

[42:27] um between the the parking decks not really being heavily utilized, the

[42:32] central parking lot not not being parked at capacity. So part of their I guess

[42:37] their conclusion is that there are enough spaces, it's just not, you know,

[42:42] it's not just the on street spaces, there are other places people can park

[42:46] downtown. A couple issues with that one is um yes,

[42:51] you could park in the central lot, but you're going to pay to do that or any of

[42:55] the parking decks. And some of these people, a lot of these people aren't

[42:58] paying to park on the street right now. The other argument is that those public

[43:03] parking lots or decks are clustered here in the downtown. So if you live, let's

[43:09] say, out in the 400 block of West Franklin Street, which is just past

[43:13] Burhands heading up to High Street, >> there's a lot of on street parking out

[43:18] there by residents. and they're I measured they're a quarter mile away

[43:22] from the closest public lot and about a half a mile away from the closest

[43:26] parking deck. Um you know they also say that you know those people if we take

[43:32] parking off of one side of Route 40 the people can park on the other side of it.

[43:36] There are issues with that. There are eight or nine reserved handicap spaces

[43:42] along those streets that those residents went through the process and they have a

[43:46] dedicated spot in front of their house because they have a disability and now

[43:51] those are going to go away. It's not so easy to relocate them. Um

[43:56] » well the other thing that I explained and now now that you mentioned it on the

[44:00] like I tried to explain how the west side of town functions differently than

[44:04] the east side of towns. that applies to downtown parking. And I tried to say,

[44:07] listen, if you're going to time lights so that the average person coming in

[44:12] through town can start at like 28 m hour and then get through Burhans Boulevard

[44:19] and then realize they're heading out. You've never obviously been on

[44:24] Wakefield, which doesn't have lights, and tried to cross those two

[44:27] intersections that don't have great line of sight, or be a pedestrian at that

[44:31] location. If you take that parking away, those sort of like outer rim

[44:38] crossblock areas, you're only going to exponentially increase the speed at

[44:44] which people leave uh the city uh heading westbound.

[44:51] » So, the public meeting is next Tuesday. Um, on Thursday is the Secretary of

[44:58] Transportation's tour when they come to all the different counties. Every year

[45:02] they go on a tour and they get to meet with local elected officials and and

[45:07] government staff to talk about transportation issues. And this is

[45:11] certainly one of the things that we will be preparing a slide and going to talk

[45:15] about or speak to the secretary about this. Um, so there's an opportunity in

[45:21] this coming week to definitely make our voices heard, um, and make them

[45:28] aware that we do have concerns. >> We since we have council next week, can

[45:32] we have some sort of city representation at the meeting at Eastern Elementary?

[45:36] » We can. I mean, I know uh, Bill from my staff's going to be there. I don't know

[45:40] who's available from the council to uh, to attend. It would be, in my opinion,

[45:46] it would be good if someone, you know, one of the elected officials could be

[45:49] there. >> And if it's more than three, we have to

[45:52] » Well, we have a meeting. >> Yeah, they're doing it.

[45:55] » They're doing it during >> Tuesday 5 to 7.

[46:01] » Question, Jim. Um, when uh you said next Thursday, who's coming?

[46:07] » Secretary of Transportation or one of their representatives?

[46:11] » They need to visit these streets. They need to physically

[46:16] come downtown on Franklin and Washington and see for themselves because I get it.

[46:22] You can stand behind a computer and you can run the numbers and you can run the

[46:25] analysis, but actually seeing how this would impact these streets and our

[46:30] residents and our businesses and our individuals with, you know, handicap

[46:35] accessible, they need to physically see this.

[46:38] » Yeah. And you know, when I realized today that

[46:42] they were talking about the south side of Washington Street, I immediately

[46:45] thought of the county courthouse because there's reserve parking for judges and

[46:51] the sheriff's department and whatnot that would get wiped out

[46:54] » by doing that. >> So, I think there's there are a number

[46:57] of concerns. >> And then what happens to the bumpouts? I

[47:02] mean there there there's a dozen bumpouts right along both of those

[47:05] corridors on either side of the street that that that you know they paid

[47:12] » millions of dollars uh in that total streetscape

[47:16] » improvement 10 you know 1015 years ago they would have to go in order to

[47:22] accommodate >> the the bike lane

[47:25] » they would and the the ironic thing is those bumpouts are put in to improve

[47:29] safety by making the crosswalk shorter make it easier for pedestrians to get

[47:33] across the street. And now we're, you know, they want to promote safety

[47:38] for bicyclists and I I understand that, but you're right. They're they're kind

[47:43] of destroying what they've worked so hard to create.

[47:46] » How does it affect street flow for water?

[47:48] » Yeah, it's there any number of issues and I've asked that you you don't get

[47:53] answers to your questions. I haven't gotten answers to the pumpout question.

[48:00] I think I can answer one of your questions. Um, there is an agreement

[48:04] between the city and the state, I think from 1956, don't hold me to that, but

[48:09] it's something from the 50s, in which the city is responsible for the

[48:13] maintenance of Franklin, Washington from Cleveland Avenue to Nottingham,

[48:17] including street sweeping and snow plowing. So, that portion of it would be

[48:22] still our responsibility. The traffic signals on both those drives are still

[48:26] owned by the state, but we maintain them. They pay us a fee to help maintain

[48:31] those those traffic signals. So, there's an agreement that we do some of it and

[48:35] they do parts of it um to answer your question. So, my guess is we would still

[48:41] be responsible for street sweeping and snow plowing and all that from that

[48:45] agreement >> because there would be a physical

[48:47] barrier between the road and the bike lane. Then they didn't they mention that

[48:51] » it's a painted >> Yeah,

[48:52] » it's a painted strip. Yeah, it's like a gore.

[48:55] » At the meeting at the meeting, they said there was going they were going to

[48:57] install a physical barrier between the sidewalk and street and the bike lane

[49:01] section. >> They

[49:02] » No, I'm sorry. No, there'll be a physical barrier between the travel lane

[49:07] of the vehicles and the bike lane. They were going to put a physical barrier in

[49:11] along that street. >> That's not what the concept So you would

[49:14] have to go in and like plow the bike lane and throw it all on the sidewalks.

[49:19] No, >> right.

[49:19] » No, >> but I mean that's be wide enough if we

[49:22] could put a plow in there. >> Exactly.

[49:24] » Well, you wouldn't throw it on the sidewalks e anyway.

[49:27] » We try not to, >> but I'm saying you'd have no choice at

[49:30] that point. >> Well, in the streets that have a bike

[49:32] lane on it now, say Locust Street where they took parking off one or we did, the

[49:36] city did. Um, we plow into that bike lane. We plowed away from the cars. And

[49:42] so I would imagine on Franklin Washer what would happen is instead of plowing

[49:45] left and right they even you all right we would plow all to the bike length

[49:51] because if you have that much snow not that many people are going to be riding

[49:54] a bike. Now if there's a physical barrier that's

[49:58] going to be an issue >> that's because we'll still just plow

[50:01] over it but we'll have to make sure we don't plow into it.

[50:04] » Yeah. Well, it'll be interesting to see what concepts they show on Tuesday night

[50:10] because >> that's that is not the information that

[50:13] they have on the exhibits that I had seen.

[50:16] » So, a painted barrier. >> Yeah.

[50:19] » Basically, as far as going out to >> the Garlic Grow, there's no sidewalks

[50:23] that exist out that far. And so, we've been with them, I don't know, one last

[50:27] winter was >> on one of the colder days. Uh, taking a

[50:30] look at that where the where the sidewalks will go and that sort of

[50:33] thing. So, >> yeah. I mean, there are there are good

[50:36] things in the plan, uh, in my opinion, and that's one of them because I commute

[50:41] that way >> every day. I see people walking along

[50:45] Franklin Street heading out toward Walmart, and it's dangerous because they

[50:49] don't have a sidewalk. They're walking on the shoulder of the road. They're

[50:53] trying to cross where the ramps go off onto 81. You know, they're crossing in

[50:58] front of those. So, you've got all these conflicts. And I think if they had a

[51:01] dedicated a dedicated lane out there is a good thing and that's what they're

[51:06] conceptually that's what they're trying to do. It's it's what's happening in

[51:10] downtown that I think is the is is my concern.

[51:16] » So all the concerns that we shared with them they responded with well the

[51:21] analysis shows otherwise.

[51:25] » The concerns on parking they're the way they summarized it. I mean, in a

[51:30] nutshell, they say there are enough parking spaces around

[51:33] » to make up for what you're going to lose,

[51:36] » but there are a lot of >> I got the same impression from that

[51:40] discussion that I got from this one. Y >> that everybody but council or everybody

[51:43] but me uh supported when they wanted to change these things here going left

[51:48] where they were like, we'll just tell them it's the city's idea and you the

[51:52] city can can have it after. Like I just got the feeling that there it was like,

[51:56] "Hey, just let you know we're going to do this."

[52:00] » I remember, >> you know, and I and that and I said

[52:02] during that discussion, I said, "Listen, you can do it, but it isn't going to be

[52:06] like last time. We're not going to take the wrap for this being our idea,

[52:10] » right? >> You know, this is your idea, right?"

[52:14] » I also see a engineer for DOT for the next three days. So, talk to him as

[52:20] well. He already knows about it. >> Yeah. and the district engineer uh Linda

[52:24] Poffenberger is aware. Um she has she has not

[52:30] formally commented on this yet. I've had some informal discussions with her and

[52:34] she understands our concerns. Um so I think I think she's waiting until

[52:40] thisformational meeting and see what feedback comes out of that. So

[52:46] » Britney's also and I think Jill has as well sent out a communication to the

[52:50] downtown businesses to make sure they're aware and to make an effort to go out

[52:55] there to the public hear to the public meeting.

[52:59] » The road shows more for government people.

[53:05] » Okay. Next up is uh acceptance of funding for

[53:09] storm drainage system. >> Right. So, um, working with our federal

[53:15] lobbyist, uh, the Ferguson Group, last year, we, uh, we were able to to secure

[53:21] an earmark through Congresswoman Delane's office, um, for storm drainage

[53:26] improvements here in Edgartown. And it was a a $1 million earmark.

[53:33] And we didn't specifically say what we were going to use that money for at that

[53:38] point, but one of the one of the main things that we were thinking we would do

[53:43] is try to address the storm drain that runs through the Elizabeth Hager Center

[53:47] that that tunnel in one way or another. Um, we found out earlier uh this summer,

[53:53] late well late spring that the earmark had been approved

[53:59] and we had some preliminary conversations with um the Environmental

[54:04] Protection Agency because they are the ones that are going to administer this

[54:07] grant or the the money that has to flow through them.

[54:11] And the money's been allocated to the city. It's it's there. It's ours. But in

[54:17] order to get that money, we actually have to fill out a a grant application,

[54:21] basically apply for it. Um, and then they would give us the they would

[54:25] release the funds to us. And as part of that application process, we need to

[54:31] send a work plan to them that kind of lays out, okay, here's what we're going

[54:34] to spend the money on. Here are the projects that that we want to

[54:37] concentrate on. And so we would have to, you know, at some point we need to have

[54:42] an evaluation of that drain and figure out what's feasible. um to deal with it.

[54:47] Is it something that we can um line or leave it in place the way it is and just

[54:54] sort of um try to improve it a little bit? Would we look at uh relocating the

[55:02] drain around the Elizabeth Hager Center building? Um which is probably feasible,

[55:08] but it's got some other issues attached to it if we do that. or you know another

[55:12] possibility if the if the drain's going to remain in its current location

[55:17] there's really not in my opinion a feasible way to to replace it without

[55:22] demolishing the building. So I think that would be that's another one of the

[55:26] things that we need to have investigated and evaluated. What makes the most

[55:31] sense? You know there are pros and cons to any of these but what really makes

[55:35] the most sense. So what I would propose is we would do a work plan that would

[55:40] probably be multi-stage. The first part would be to hire a consultant um

[55:46] engineering consultant or construction consultant to come in and evaluate these

[55:51] different options and lay out the pros and cons of what's going on and make a

[55:56] recommendation. This is what the city should do to address this problem. Then

[56:00] once we get to the point where we've made a decision on that, we would go

[56:05] ahead and um probably hire maybe the same consultant, maybe a different

[56:10] consultant to actually do the design of whatever was selected, prepare contract

[56:16] documents so that we could put it out to bid um and go down that route.

[56:21] Um, but the reason I'm here today is I just um wanted to let you know that this

[56:25] is this is kind of how the process has to work in order to um to get that

[56:30] funding. I'm trying to make it so that we're we're as flexible as possible.

[56:35] We're not locking ourselves into saying we're going to demolish a building or

[56:40] we're going to save the building and do something else. I think that we want to

[56:44] maintain flexibility until the point where we have to make a decision and

[56:48] then we we decide on that and and go from there. So,

[56:54] I guess the reason I'm here today is just to let you know I'd like to I guess

[56:57] have authorization to go ahead and start this process of the grant application

[57:02] and a work plan and trying to get this information pulled together so we can

[57:06] submit it to EPA. I'm fine. >> Yes. So

[57:13] you're talking about going through the process of

[57:17] u hiring a consultant an engineering firm to to basically do an analysis

[57:23] and then whatever that analysis determines

[57:29] then proceeding with an engineering design of whatever

[57:34] um you know whatever the the the most

[57:39] beneficial plan is

[57:42] I mean a project of this type million dollars can get eaten up pretty quickly.

[57:49] » Can >> and so I'm just trying to make sure are

[57:52] you looking at using these funds for the engineering process or would that be

[57:57] city funds? >> I think it's it would be both. I don't

[58:01] think that the the initial analysis is going to be as expensive as the actual

[58:06] design of it in the preparation of documents. So I think that I mean the

[58:11] there's this pot of money um from EPA this million dollars which in the memo I

[58:16] forgot to say that we qualify for a waiver of having to provide any matching

[58:21] funds for the so >> so the the full million dollars can be

[58:26] can be used on the project. We also have in the budget in the storm

[58:31] water fund, we've identified capital improvement projects. Um, and this would

[58:36] certainly qualify as one of the one of the projects that we could use to

[58:40] improve our storm drainage system. So, >> I just don't want to use this grant

[58:42] funding for the like the studying process and even the engineering process

[58:46] and then going, "Ah, that's a $7 million project and you know, we got no prospect

[58:51] on using these private properties around it." And then we punt and then the feds

[58:56] go, "Hey, where's that project you were supposed to do with that money?" I mean,

[59:01] the answer can't be we just studied it, >> right?

[59:03] » You know what I'm saying? >> I do. It's complicated and I I think I

[59:07] need to have more conversations with our grant manager at EPA because the one of

[59:12] the complicating things is this is when we send in an application part of the

[59:17] process has to be um an environmental um a NEPA evaluation of the project and

[59:23] that not only looks at environmental issues which I don't think really in

[59:28] downtown Hagerstown you're not going to see endangered species or you know

[59:33] things like that but The other part of that evaluation is historical, you know,

[59:38] and they are looking at, you know, the national historic regulations and trying

[59:42] to preserve things and that property is in the downtown historic district. And I

[59:47] think that because of that, I guess my feeling is we almost need to have we

[59:53] almost need need to know what direction we're going in before we actually go

[59:58] ahead with the design because if it's if we're not touching the building, if

[1:00:02] we're going to relocate around the building, then I I don't think the

[1:00:06] environmental issues are going to be are going to amount to anything. If we're

[1:00:10] talking about a solution that would require the demolition of the building,

[1:00:13] then that's, you know, that's a different story and we would have to

[1:00:16] work through that work through that historic process on that. So, I I do

[1:00:21] hear what you're saying. We don't want to get to the end of this and have a a

[1:00:25] through bonder with recommendations and we don't have any money left to do what

[1:00:30] it's recommending, >> right?

[1:00:32] » But I you know, we're kind of we're kind of stuck. I I because of that

[1:00:37] environmental thing, I don't I'm not sure I'm not sure how we proceed if we

[1:00:43] don't get some sort of an initial evaluation and and make a decision on

[1:00:46] what we want to do.

[1:00:51] » Anything else?

[1:00:56] » Okay, >> next up is 32 North PTOIC Street

[1:01:00] building renovations. >> Right. So, um 32 North PTOIC is where

[1:01:07] the city's relocated our customer service center and the um economic

[1:01:13] development offices to. It's the former MTN Bank building down the street here.

[1:01:18] Um as we had said before in different council present council presentations,

[1:01:24] the project did not go as well as we would have liked. We had contractor

[1:01:28] problems. We ran into unexpected conditions at the site and it ended up

[1:01:34] significantly delaying the project and it also increased the project's cost

[1:01:38] above what was originally budgeted. We were, you know, as that project was was

[1:01:44] going on, we were under some time pressures um to get the project

[1:01:48] finished, to get that building occupied. And so as the costs continue to

[1:01:55] increase, we went to Scott and to Michelle and said, "Okay, this work

[1:02:01] needs to be done. Um, we have a change order, a proposed change order from the

[1:02:05] contractor. Can we go ahead and authorize this work without coming to

[1:02:10] council to get authorization for those extra expenditures, knowing that we

[1:02:14] would have to come back at some point to get authorization?" And so that's what

[1:02:17] we did in an effort to not only keep the project moving um but we did we really

[1:02:23] only wanted to come back one time um to ask we didn't want to have to come back

[1:02:28] you know one month and say well we need to increase the budget by 30,000 and

[1:02:33] then come back another time and said let's increase it another 45,000.

[1:02:37] Uh we we wanted to make the project flow get it completed and then come back at

[1:02:42] the end. Michelle found other funding sources um within the budget to cover

[1:02:48] the extra costs. So really what what this is is an after the fact coming to

[1:02:53] you asking for authorization for money that we've already spent on the project

[1:02:59] and that that lines up with our purchasing policy.

[1:03:03] » Okay. >> Okay.

[1:03:05] » Okay. So we'll we'll prepare a motion uh for the regular session. I'm not exactly

[1:03:11] sure how I'm going to word it, but it's going to it's going to say that the

[1:03:14] council authorizes the additional expenditures that were that were made on

[1:03:19] the project. >> Right. Next up, you have the closed

[1:03:23] circuit television inspection of city standards.

[1:03:26] » Right. And this is this is just for awareness more than anything. Um when

[1:03:32] the storm water protection fund was set up, one of the things that was

[1:03:36] recommended by our consultant is we the city really needs to get a handle on the

[1:03:41] condition of the storm drainage network. Uh we have over a 100 miles of pipes and

[1:03:46] tunnels and other things in the city. A lot of them um have never really been

[1:03:51] inspected. We don't know what kind of condition they're in. And some of these

[1:03:55] things are old, like the the drain at the Elizabeth Hager Center is probably

[1:04:00] 130 140 years old. Um, anything downtown is really is really old and we really

[1:04:06] don't have a good idea of what condition it's in. So, we did a contract um to

[1:04:11] hire a specialty contractor that basically this is all they do. They come

[1:04:15] in and they'll clean and CCTV storm drains or sewers or things. give us that

[1:04:23] footage so that we can analyze it and see where we have problems and that's

[1:04:27] going to help us prioritize if we've got serious issues in the system. Here's

[1:04:32] here's a CIP project that we need to plan for, you know, to fix what's going

[1:04:36] on. So, we do have them under contract. Um, we have a kickoff meeting with them.

[1:04:42] We've already had one kickoff. We have another one tomorrow. And I would

[1:04:46] anticipate that they're actually going to mobilize and start this work probably

[1:04:51] before the end of September. Um, tomorrow we're going to be sort of

[1:04:55] prioritizing areas where they're going to start. My guess is it's going to be

[1:05:00] the somewhere in the west end um and work their way downtown.

[1:05:05] Um, but that's yet to be completely ironed out. Uh, we're going to prepare

[1:05:10] um a couple things. We're going to prepare door hangers that the contractor

[1:05:14] is going to put out um on residents doors when they're moving into a

[1:05:18] neighborhood just to give them some awareness. Going to be working with West

[1:05:22] to push out some notices on social media and the city's web page. Um but I just

[1:05:27] wanted to make the council aware that this project is starting. It's going to

[1:05:31] be somewhat disruptive because they bring big trucks in with all this camera

[1:05:37] equipment and and everything they need. said, "We're going to have to remove

[1:05:40] parking temporarily in certain streets so that they have room to work." Um, you

[1:05:46] know, a lot of a lot of details that we need to need to work out with them, but

[1:05:52] this is this is work that they do all the time. I think the contractors well

[1:05:56] well qualified to do it. It's just we've never done this in Hagerstown before um

[1:06:00] on on our storm drainage system. So, um, hopeful that it's going to go smoothly,

[1:06:06] but just wanted to make the council aware, um, I'm sure you'll get reached

[1:06:11] out by residents asking what's going on and what's what's the whole purpose of

[1:06:16] this, but this project is funded again out of the storm water protection fund.

[1:06:21] So, this is people are paying into that fund, they're paying their storm water

[1:06:24] fee. This is one of the things that we're going to be using that money to to

[1:06:28] get a handle on what our system, what its condition is.

[1:06:32] Thank you. Thank you. >> Find Jimmy Hoffa or the Holy Grail or

[1:06:38] » We actually had um last week a guy showed up in our office, older

[1:06:43] gentleman, I'd say in his at least in his 70s and he was asking questions

[1:06:49] about the storm drain system and and in particular these tunnels downtown. And I

[1:06:56] looked at him, I said, "What's your interest?" and he said, "Oh, well, I

[1:06:58] used to work for the engineering department here back in the I guess late

[1:07:02] 60s, early 70s." And and they had us crawling through those things trying to

[1:07:06] figure out where the where they went and what was in them. He said they found

[1:07:09] some interesting things. Found some cannonballs somewhere and in one

[1:07:13] section. >> Of course, you couldn't with today's

[1:07:16] regulations. Nobody would be allowed to crawl through there, but I guess back

[1:07:20] then that was >> that was not unusual. So,

[1:07:24] » right. Thank you. >> Thanks, Jim. Very next Next up we have

[1:07:28] Steve Bachm Miller, the 20 25 2026 annual land management code amendment

[1:07:33] package.

[1:07:42] » Somebody's looking for a new home for those cannonballs. I'll be happy to take

[1:07:45] them. >> Oh yeah, I'm sure you will.

[1:07:48] » You'd crawl through those storm drains to find out. I guarantee it.

[1:07:51] » In a heartbeat. >> Okay. Um coming to follow up on the

[1:07:57] public hearing that y'all had on the annual package of text amendments. Uh we

[1:08:03] did receive some public comment at the hearing. Uh the record was left open for

[1:08:08] 10 days. We did receive one piece of information. I was on vacation last

[1:08:13] week. Um I prepared uh my report to you in advance of my going on vacation, but

[1:08:20] I did check today and we have not received any additional comments in my

[1:08:23] absence. The one comment that we received was from a gentleman by the

[1:08:27] name of Tom Thorson who lives on Ideal Circle

[1:08:32] and he said, "One of the main purposes of adopting ADUs is to increase the

[1:08:36] housing stock. You may want to consider banning these units from being used for

[1:08:39] short-term rentals like Airbnb. Some communities that currently have the

[1:08:45] ADU provision in their zoning restrict ADUs from being used as short-term

[1:08:49] rentals. I am also surprised that there was no mention of data centers in the

[1:08:53] proposed amendments. To the best of my knowledge, they are permitted within the

[1:08:57] city of Hagerstown and industrial zones. The county moratorium stops at all city

[1:09:01] and town lines. Uh so that was I read that uh word for word into the record.

[1:09:06] Um the um if there is a desire to look at

[1:09:14] regulating abuse, it kind of opens up a uh a whole another can of worms because

[1:09:18] you would need to look at it more holistically, not just on these

[1:09:21] accessory dwelling units in my opinion. Um, and also that it is something that

[1:09:26] is so outside of what the existing proposed

[1:09:31] language is, we would have to come back to you later with a different uh or an

[1:09:35] additional proposal that we have to go through the hearing process. That's not

[1:09:38] something that we could just tack tack into this. So, what I want to do is I

[1:09:42] don't I don't want to belver the process and go through these one by one. And I

[1:09:46] figure what I would do is if you have any questions or concerns about

[1:09:48] individual proposals uh or suggestions for adjusting them, I would be um you

[1:09:54] know, we could just go through the ones that you do have interest in. Before we

[1:09:58] do do that, I do have one um staff level requested adjustment to one of the

[1:10:04] proposals which I'm going to hand out here. There's three for there.

[1:10:12] Two,

[1:10:16] three, four, five. And this is for uh proposal

[1:10:22] number 17 on page 23 of your packet. Uh this is the one about um um limiting u a

[1:10:31] specific type of townhouse development in the city. Um, I looked at a a a

[1:10:36] development, a small development that's coming our way in the next year or so,

[1:10:40] and I realized that um given the circumstances, maybe a little bit of

[1:10:44] adjustment to the language to make the regulations a little bit more uh

[1:10:49] flexible uh on the planning commission's part. Uh so that is the material that I

[1:10:54] just passed out to you. Uh it's just a few minor word adjustments to make it a

[1:10:57] little little bit uh more flexible. So, with that, um, I guess I'll open the

[1:11:02] floor and if you have any specific concerns or comments, you're not obliged

[1:11:08] to, uh, adopt this in its entirety, um, uh, or reject its entirety. You can also

[1:11:16] give us direction to pick any number of them, say go with these and don't go

[1:11:20] with other ones. And, um,

[1:11:25] also, oh, I'm sorry, that's all I have for that. So, I figure I'll let you uh

[1:11:31] » There was there was still some concern over the bicycle parking.

[1:11:34] » Yes. >> 33 on in the packet.

[1:11:38] » Mhm. >> And the

[1:11:40] the requirements. >> Yeah. Uh I believe council member

[1:11:45] Alshshire thought that uh maybe they might be a little uh on the high side.

[1:11:50] Again, we did not do an in-depth dive into this comparing a whole bunch of

[1:11:55] jurisdictions. We found one example that seemed to work. If these are high, we

[1:11:58] can make if you want us to reduce these numbers, it's very easy to do so. Uh,

[1:12:03] cut it by 20%, 50%, whatever it is that you would like.

[1:12:08] But we thought something ought to be on the books. Right now, we have nothing.

[1:12:23] And for me, I would I would prefer reduceing

[1:12:33] it for now.

[1:12:42] Would that be reducing all of them? And if so, by a uniform

[1:12:47] amount or >> I just don't know. Like for me, I just

[1:12:52] don't know. in this particular item why it needs to

[1:12:56] be so specific. And I think the more specific it gets with the more specific

[1:13:00] types of uses >> Mhm. It's like the more odd the numbers

[1:13:04] become because

[1:13:10] one non-residential properties change uses you know what I mean all the time

[1:13:16] and it seems like we are looking at having them installed in a more

[1:13:20] permanent fashion >> than previously and until and

[1:13:26] um any type of similar uses can can have

[1:13:32] drastically dissimilar um types of patrons and and patron you

[1:13:39] know what I mean >> right

[1:13:41] » uh attendance >> the the issue that I would have as as

[1:13:46] your adviser on this is if we're going to have a regulation there needs to be

[1:13:50] some sort of minimum threshold so somebody who is submitting a site plan

[1:13:55] can say I've complied with your rules or I haven't um if we put in something that

[1:14:01] says there should be bicycle parking, but we don't have some sort of minimum

[1:14:04] threshold, then it becomes very subjective in the review process, which

[1:14:08] we can do. I'm not saying that it can't be done that way. I'm just letting you

[1:14:12] know what the pluses pluses and minuses are to the situation.

[1:14:15] » I just look at the fieldhouse as an example. You know, I'm there several

[1:14:18] times a week and and you know, there there there are no bikes to be seen and

[1:14:23] there are tons of patrons, >> right,

[1:14:25] » on any, you know, given average night. >> You know what I And then I read that

[1:14:29] that rule and I'm like, you know, what it needs in in the the

[1:14:35] crux of those, you know, it's it's it's trying to find places to put cars on the

[1:14:41] busy weekends and and the number of bikes that will apply to that type

[1:14:46] location is just eating into that space. I I guess that like I just use those or

[1:14:51] the church example where you know >> how many people bike to church.

[1:14:55] » Yeah. >> Yeah. you know, and how many seats per

[1:14:58] queue, you know, do you count? >> Right.

[1:15:01] » Um, >> do we need this table?

[1:15:05] » The problem with not having a table is is that it makes compliance totally

[1:15:09] subjective. >> Um, and if you think that this needs

[1:15:12] some work, I mean, we could pull it from this package and bring it back in the

[1:15:15] next year's package. I mean, >> like like for me, for me it would be

[1:15:19] something as simple as saying uh and again, I'm just sort of

[1:15:23] spitballing now, >> right? But like I look at uh CVS over on

[1:15:28] Wilson and South PTOIC like to me I see a number of bikes there you know when I

[1:15:34] go by not a large number but maybe like two or three of people riding there to

[1:15:38] get whatever >> right

[1:15:39] » and so that to me says oh that place probably could benefit from a bike rack

[1:15:43] for eight bikes right >> but then when you get above that like

[1:15:46] there to me there should be like something that says you know commercial

[1:15:49] establishment of this type and size one rack you know what I mean and a

[1:15:53] commercial establishment of some type and size, you know, two racks or

[1:15:57] whatever. And so you base it on, >> you know what I mean?

[1:16:01] » The square footage of >> Yeah. like square footage and and size

[1:16:03] and use that kind of dictates that versus

[1:16:06] » like >> seats per per, you know, per table or

[1:16:12] those types of things. >> So changing the metrics,

[1:16:14] » right? Like like nobody's biking to to eat at Cracker Barrel, you know what I

[1:16:17] mean, >> right? Um, so to me, like, yeah, a

[1:16:20] square footage seems to be more appropriate

[1:16:25] than than a per seat number. Um,

[1:16:33] uh, for that uh, well, we have retail, sales, use,

[1:16:37] and service operations. The greater of two or one per 5,000 square feet. So,

[1:16:42] some of these are already based on the size.

[1:16:45] » Yeah. Um, that's what I said. Some of them seem

[1:16:48] like, oh yeah, that that's, you know, that's about right. But then some of

[1:16:52] them are like, >> okay, so we have one,

[1:16:57] two, three, looks like about four of them that are

[1:17:01] based on seats as opposed to square footage. You want us to convert those

[1:17:04] out? >> I just think that's the simplest.

[1:17:07] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:17:08] » Okay. Um, what I'll do is I'll I'll check to

[1:17:12] see uh if there's comparables out there and then adjust accordingly.

[1:17:17] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[1:17:20] » All right.

[1:17:27] » Got it. All right. Um,

[1:17:41] are there any other proposals in here that uh cause you

[1:17:47] concern uh or things that you want to suggest

[1:17:51] changing or specifically want to support?

[1:17:56] Um, I mean the the the first 16 or so are

[1:18:00] really routine kind of housekeeping kind of stuff. The la last 10 are really

[1:18:04] where your your policy content is.

[1:18:13] Um

[1:18:18] I will bring up the um the one that I suggested to you the uh the adjustment

[1:18:22] to the language here at the table. That is uh one that we did receive some

[1:18:27] comment on but and we encouraged the development community to comment on it

[1:18:32] during uh this hearing process with the mayor and council. We got nothing from

[1:18:35] them. And this is the one about regulating this the one type of uh

[1:18:40] townhouse development.

[1:18:45] » Yeah. >> You talk to me about it.

[1:18:47] » Yeah. And and actually um that that actually spurred Okay.

[1:18:52] » this adjustment. So we're good. Um, but in general, as the city, as your advisor

[1:18:59] on planning issues, we're going through a period here where we're not begging

[1:19:04] for development anymore. Um, there's a lot of demand. Housing developments are

[1:19:09] coming online. Commercial development is coming online.

[1:19:12] And it's my advice to you all to think 100 years in the future. Uh, that the

[1:19:18] development that gets approved ought to be the best development we we can get.

[1:19:23] And anything that we could build get built, especially housing, is going to

[1:19:26] be here long long after we are all gone. So the idea is to have the best possible

[1:19:31] design that you can have. And we've just found that no matter where we see it,

[1:19:36] the uh design of front-loaded town houses with a single wide car, single

[1:19:41] car wide driveway just fails everywhere. So, we're we're encouraging and we do we

[1:19:47] do have a provision that allows some exceptions uh on limited basises, but we

[1:19:52] want to encourage uh developers of town houses to do one of two things. Either

[1:19:57] put the parking behind uh the driveways in their backyard behind the building,

[1:20:01] or if you're going to have front yard driveways, do it two cars wide so the

[1:20:04] cars are side by side. And if you're going to kill the on street parking

[1:20:07] along that side anyway, might as well do it with a twocar wide driveway.

[1:20:14] So,

[1:20:19] » I know the open space stuff is in here and there's some minor adjustments. Uh,

[1:20:24] I feel like that's a bigger conversation for another day.

[1:20:27] » You're talking about the one with the school stuff.

[1:20:30] » No, no, no. I'm talking about open space requirements for new development. I

[1:20:34] think that that's a bigger conversation for another day.

[1:20:37] » Okay. >> Than than, you know, the minor

[1:20:40] adjustments.

[1:20:43] uh in this particular process,

[1:20:47] » right?

[1:20:51] » Okay. >> I think that it needs to be a

[1:20:52] conversation about open space, what our expectations are for that open space,

[1:20:56] its uh contiguousness, uh you know, whether it's public or

[1:21:02] private, how that works. I think we need to have a conversation about uh you

[1:21:06] know, the the benefits uh and and the pros and cons of HOAs. I just think that

[1:21:11] that has to be a conversation at some point uh among uh the body.

[1:21:16] » This periodically has come up in these annual uh studies. Would you all want to

[1:21:22] want us to look at that specifically and come back and meet with you before we

[1:21:26] start processing the next an annual process or do you want us to be more

[1:21:32] sooner than that? So for me I think that that conversation needs to come to this

[1:21:37] body and I think that two items need to happen in that discussion. one, I think

[1:21:42] that this body needs to be given some physical reference to um I'll say more

[1:21:48] recent developments in city past, how those HOAs operate, how they're working,

[1:21:54] » uh you know, what we've had to what we've had to address, you know, what has

[1:21:59] worked good. And then I think, you know, I think also those neighborhoods the

[1:22:04] same look, you know, what did what open space, you

[1:22:08] know, did we get? What was its quality? How did it function? And I use this

[1:22:12] example. >> There are two Lowe's in Edgartown.

[1:22:16] » You can clearly tell the difference between which Lowe's was built first and

[1:22:21] which was built second. And I guess I look at that in a very similar way and

[1:22:25] say, you know, the Lowe's at one specific location is our preference for

[1:22:29] how we would want a shopping center designed and to function

[1:22:33] than the the more hardened, you know, streetscape look,

[1:22:39] » you know, of of that older shopping center. I sort of use that that example

[1:22:42] to say >> 22 20 years ago I wrote those standards.

[1:22:45] So thank you. >> So we sort of like learn from that. You

[1:22:48] know what I mean? >> Yeah. Um, and I do like the newer

[1:22:50] housing developments that have the driveways in the back because I do feel

[1:22:54] like it, you know, kind of frontloads the townhouse and it's overcrowded on

[1:22:58] there and then it's everywhere. It's just kind of disaster cuz, you know, I

[1:23:01] visited my friend in, you know, the Shady Grove Metro. He had the new limb,

[1:23:04] the LAR town home and he had the back garage and everything like that and

[1:23:08] there just wasn't that much cluster of cars all out front and just easier to

[1:23:12] park and stuff like that. So, I think a better, like you said, we got to we got

[1:23:16] to build it for something for 100 years or later. Yeah.

[1:23:19] » You know, so get what we want it to look like out.

[1:23:22] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:23:26] » So, are we okay with uh introducing an ordinance to uh to adopt these uh at the

[1:23:33] end of the month? >> Pulling the bikes. You're going to pull

[1:23:36] » We'll pull the bikes. >> Okay.

[1:23:37] » Yeah. >> Um the alternative is for us to just

[1:23:41] take an arbitrary stab at adjusting those few, but if we can just pull it

[1:23:44] and come back with it in the next annual package. That's fine.

[1:23:48] » Okay. >> The council.

[1:23:49] » Yeah. >> Yep.

[1:23:50] » Okay. >> And and you're okay with this adjustment

[1:23:53] to the the townhouse limitations? >> Yes.

[1:23:57] » Next up is your draft update of the historic district commission design

[1:24:00] guidelines.

[1:24:11] Okay. Um, last month, uh, Mike Gear and I, uh, Mike Gear is the chairman of the

[1:24:17] Historic District Commission and I presented to you all the draft, uh, uh,

[1:24:22] update revision to the historic district design guideline, historic district

[1:24:27] commission's design guidelines. Um, currently they operate off of two

[1:24:31] separate distinct sets of guidelines. Uh, one for the downtown district and

[1:24:35] one for the residential. um they have grown rather out of date and we're

[1:24:40] missing things that really commonly are found in design guidelines for HDC's. So

[1:24:46] over the last few years as time allowed uh and resources allowed uh we uh came

[1:24:52] up with a uh a more comprehensive uh complete and singular uh draft for you

[1:24:58] to review um and endorse. Um the majority of this is stuff that's already

[1:25:04] in the in the existing design guidelines. Uh we did add some material

[1:25:09] which is highlighted in blue in your draft that is material that is either

[1:25:15] just non-policy background like glossery issues uh things like that things that

[1:25:21] are not policy oriented and things that are have been common practice over the

[1:25:25] years with the HDC with uh with no issues that we decided that needs to be

[1:25:30] written down somewhere so people can actually read and understand them. Um,

[1:25:35] and then in red is stuff that is associated that is actual new whole

[1:25:40] cloth content. And then that's mostly designed uh to address last year's

[1:25:45] amendments to these owning ordinance that um made various uh historic types

[1:25:51] of signs which have been regulated out of existence in the downtown to actually

[1:25:55] be uh be able to be used again. So that content in red is actually uh new and is

[1:26:00] an essentially it's an application or an administration of those text amendments

[1:26:05] that were adopted last year regarding those signs. Um it's like 20 pages long.

[1:26:12] Um I don't think any of you want to walk through it page by page, but um

[1:26:17] » I actually found myself reading it because I think it's super interesting

[1:26:21] on a historical basis on Hagerstown, too. So,

[1:26:25] » thank you. So, and it's it was uh this was a team effort. Uh it actually

[1:26:31] started uh back with Megan uh Flick and then it

[1:26:36] was passed to Joanna and then I've I'm bringing it up the rear and finishing it

[1:26:40] off. We wanted to get this um as a win and and on the book so we can move on to

[1:26:45] other projects and not have this hanging out there. Um

[1:26:50] but uh it's it's it's a comprehensive document. uh we we wanted to make sure

[1:26:55] we we created it as a manual for anything that

[1:26:59] anybody would have an uh desire or an issue with uh in dealing with historic

[1:27:03] preservation issues in the city, not just uh how to uh navigate the HDC. So

[1:27:09] with that um if you have anything specific you want to talk about um uh

[1:27:15] then we can have a conversation. The one thing that we would ask administratively

[1:27:18] is once you give us the go-ahehead on this and you u formulate a a motion to

[1:27:24] endorse it so that the HTC can be can begin using it, we would ask that that

[1:27:28] motion be worded in such a way that allows us to make nonpolicy updates to

[1:27:33] it because occasionally information will change. Uh let's say the county changes

[1:27:38] its uh tax credit program for historic preservation. That's nothing that you

[1:27:43] all have any real control over. but then the data, the information is obsolete.

[1:27:46] So, we want to be able to make non-policy updates to it um as needed.

[1:27:52] Anything that would be something that changes how things are done, obviously

[1:27:56] we'd have to come back to you all for for a formal revision.

[1:28:05] » Anything guys?

[1:28:10] » Wow, that was easy. >> There you go.

[1:28:12] » Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[1:28:21] » Next up, we have Sue Tyler and Amanda Greg with the Maryland Energy

[1:28:25] Administration Residential Energy Equity Grant.

[1:28:34] » All right, we'll try to keep this short. I know you guys are trying to get out of

[1:28:38] here. Um, so I just said on

[1:28:43] staff went um to the city administrator CFO to recommend to apply for the

[1:28:49] Department of Energy, Maryland Department of Energy Administration,

[1:28:53] residential energy equity program. Um we're looking at two grants. One for

[1:28:59] residential energy efficient projects are 500,000 and appliance installation

[1:29:04] of 75,000. Key parts is the city does not need to

[1:29:08] match on the grant. It's for low to moderate income Maryland households. It

[1:29:13] can be owner occupied or renter occupied which we currently in community

[1:29:17] development housing do not have any renter occupied programs.

[1:29:24] Um they'll allow up on the AOI1 21,000 per resident and on the appliance

[1:29:31] installation up to 32,000 for kitchen appliances or 1,500 for washer and

[1:29:36] dryer. Again, it's 100% of the eligible cost if

[1:29:40] it doesn't exceed that. And we have till October 1st to apply. We did get um some

[1:29:46] help from the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center tomorrow to

[1:29:51] help us do a grant writing for the grant. There is possibly up to $5

[1:29:56] million going into Western Maryland is available up for grabs. So, pretty

[1:30:00] significant amount that we thought would be great. It is a year of two years to

[1:30:06] extend extend the funding. So, we do have two years if we get awarded the

[1:30:11] full 500,000 or 75,000. >> That's awesome. You have me at full um

[1:30:16] You have no match. >> Yep. No match.

[1:30:19] » Yeah. No match. >> Yeah. So, we thought it was something

[1:30:22] different to be able to offer the residents if we can get approval.

[1:30:27] » Good. >> Yes. For sure.

[1:30:29] » All right. >> Thank you.

[1:30:30] » Thank you. >> Thanks.

[1:30:33] city administrator. >> All right. Just a couple things, mayor.

[1:30:36] Um, this Saturday, um, 11 to 2 on South Pem Street is the Washington goes purple

[1:30:42] block party. Um, also on Saturday, September 12th and Elizabeth Hagar lot

[1:30:48] is the uh, Battle of the Wings competition. One room media and down and

[1:30:53] Main Street are partnering up partnering up for that. Um, you can buy tickets

[1:30:59] online. Uh, go to akerstownmd.org. or and uh do that. Sunday, September 13th

[1:31:06] is Hagerstown Latinfest, 11 to 8 uh in University Plaza. Live music, food, uh

[1:31:13] free admissions, um that I remember that from I think last

[1:31:18] year. It was a great event. And then of course the farmers market is the 13th.

[1:31:24] Also, big shout out to the downtown businesses. Uh last Wednesday I went to

[1:31:29] the Seinfeld uh show and I have never seen that many people in a Maryland

[1:31:35] theater before to where I don't recall there even being an empty seat that I

[1:31:38] could see. Uh every restaurant was packed. Um I heard nothing. I I tend to

[1:31:45] like to ease drop on people I don't know's conversations just to see what

[1:31:49] they're saying. And um everyone was so like so impressed. A couple from Carlile

[1:31:55] were down uh said that they had no idea Hagerstown was like this and uh they

[1:32:02] were going to they wanted to come back see Leno on the 28th. Um so it was it

[1:32:08] was a good night. Uh even after the show uh the restaurants most of them stayed

[1:32:15] open and um it was it was a good night. It was a good night in in Hagerstown.

[1:32:20] So, shout out to the Maryland Theater also putting on a great show and um we

[1:32:25] may see Steinfeld back in another couple of years for that. So, that's it for me.

[1:32:31] Thanks, >> Councilwoman Anderson.

[1:32:33] » I agree with everything that you just said only because I was there too and I

[1:32:38] was listening in on the conversations and a lot of people were just so

[1:32:42] surprised to even, you know, the fact that he chose Hagerstown as a location.

[1:32:46] And one of the comments that he made that I thought was so funny on why he

[1:32:50] chose Hagerstown, um it had to do with it being a Wednesday night, of course,

[1:32:54] and you know, it being sold out, but uh he was really funny and I could tell

[1:32:58] that he really um felt connected with our town based on his uh his wanting of

[1:33:06] not leaving the show immediately once it was done. He made like a real connection

[1:33:10] with the folks here. Um that was really nice. And back to what you said with the

[1:33:14] restaurants, I we actually ate at um Rice Thai and what she mentioned was

[1:33:20] from 4 until 8 she was slammed. Um Soprito also was slammed from 4 to 7

[1:33:26] p.m. So I could tell you that a lot of the restaurant businesses were really

[1:33:30] heavy and that might have had something to do with um Britney's email because

[1:33:34] she did send out something to the business communities letting them know

[1:33:37] like, "Hey, we are having a huge event. you might want to, you know, be prepared

[1:33:41] and ready for this. So, I think it was a great turnout and who knows, he might be

[1:33:45] back because he really did enjoy, he really did enjoy Hagerstown.

[1:33:50] And that's all I have. >> Council Flity,

[1:33:52] » I don't have anything. >> Counciloman Bernett,

[1:33:56] » nothing tonight. >> Councilman Al,

[1:33:58] » I have nothing to say. Well, I uh do not, but I will say uh not only did we

[1:34:04] had that going on, we had a baseball game going on at the same time as as

[1:34:07] that was going on and it was well handled downtown. So, I want to give a

[1:34:11] shout out to um everybody, police department, everybody that that worked

[1:34:15] that evening. So, thank you. Um with that, do I have a motion to adjurnn?

[1:34:19] » So, moved. >> Second. Second.

[1:34:21] » Any discussion on any items tonight? Okay, we're journ.

September 09, 2026 | Mayor & Council Meeting: Work Session

Transcript