[0:32] Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Mar and City Council Workshop Wednesday,

[0:34] September 9th, 2026. If you'd please stand with me for the pledge of

[0:37] » allegiance

[0:45] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[0:50] stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all.

[1:03] Please show all council members present. Um, up next we have review of the

[1:06] minutes. Review of the minutes from August 17th, 2026 combined meeting. Is

[1:11] there any questions, comments, concerns from council regarding that

[1:15] hearing? None. I'm proceeding forward to public hearing ordinance 10-2026

[1:19] accessory dwelling units. I'm opening up for public the public hearing and will

[1:23] be open till the end of this meeting. If you have something you'd like to say in

[1:26] in regards to accessory drawing units, please uh raise your hand. I'll ask you

[1:30] to come to the podium. Um other than that, I am heading down to council

[1:34] member statement regarding conflicts of interest on agenda items. Would any

[1:37] council members like to make a statement today?

[1:43] Hearing none, I am proceeding forward to public comment pertaining to agenda

[1:46] non-aggenda items. To comment on a specific item after has been discussed

[1:49] by council, please assign up with the city clerk and you'll be asked to come

[1:51] forward at the appropriate time. Is there anybody who would like to make

[1:54] public comment today?

[2:06] » Okay. So, like on a specific item, >> I have I have several I have several

[2:10] questions concerning I'm doing an article on quality of life in small

[2:13] towns in >> Okay.

[2:15] » And I have some questions concerning issues.

[2:19] » Okay. Okay. Um, did you want to did you want to do that

[2:23] now? >> Yeah, we can we can do that now.

[2:41] » Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the city of Tony Town. My name is Eric

[2:45] Bender. I am representing the Emittsburg News Journal as an investigative

[2:50] reporter. I'm doing a uh story on quality of life in small towns in the in

[2:57] state of Maryland. And I have several questions um concerning uh issues around

[3:02] the city of Tony Town. Um one of them is is we kind of get the feeling that the

[3:07] city doesn't care about senior citizens and children. Um, the Maryland

[3:13] Department of Environment has had on the law on on the books for years concerning

[3:19] the storage of tires outside collecting rainwater. Now, I'm sure many of you

[3:23] know that mosquitoes can breed inside tires. And there's a lot of diseases

[3:29] that elderly people are susceptible for. And by eliminating standing water,

[3:35] especially in used tires, uh we can reduce the possibility of senior

[3:39] citizens getting sick and dying. Um the other issue is this goes back

[3:46] my my time in school. Maryland state law requires children 16 and under to wear

[3:53] protective head devices. I see kids riding around town all the

[3:58] time without any protective devices on their head. Um that's an issue. Uh we've

[4:05] had a lot of instances where bicycles and automobiles have been colliding

[4:09] recently. Uh I don't think the recent incident I don't believe that kid had a

[4:13] helmet on. So that's those are those are issues that can be prevented very

[4:18] easily. Um one of the other issues that I that I've noticed about is uh there

[4:24] was a period of time where permits were required for fencing. Um, a business in

[4:29] Tony Town pointed out another business uh putting up a fence. Their permit

[4:34] expired and then they uh had to be re reissued a permit to build the fence.

[4:41] The fence still wasn't completed. My my issue is is maybe if the city had

[4:46] followed through and made sure that that fence was completed, then Tony Town

[4:51] Collision would have had a proper storage yard and that precious school

[4:55] bus wouldn't have been vandalized or whatever and that 11-year-old kid

[4:59] wouldn't become a issue for the town as it is right now. Um, the other issues

[5:04] that we have is lighting. Maryland state highway has required requirements for

[5:12] lighting along the right ofways along state roads. Maryland 140 is a state

[5:18] highway. Correct. >> Correct.

[5:20] » Okay. Do you think that the light at Bissimos and the lights at uh at uh at

[5:27] Hedelbridal Insurance are doing good to the benefit of the people driving or are

[5:32] they blinding people when they're driving?

[5:35] I don't notice them in particular when I'm driving by.

[5:37] » I I I you should uh look at the at the zoning laws. The lighting trespass onto

[5:44] the highway blinding people is an issue. It is a

[5:48] » I drive I drive it at night both to and from work many many times. I've never

[5:52] noticed it an issue. >> I also drive it right. Um it is it is in

[5:56] violation. If you go by Jarball down in Westminster on 140 there, those lights

[6:01] blind you. Also, there's there's several issues on that. Um, there's also

[6:07] Maryland State Highway has uh laws about signage, illegal signs

[6:13] along the state highway roads. Now, as many of you know, I'm going around and

[6:17] I'm putting stickers on signs, trying to prompt people to complain, to enforce

[6:23] the law because several years ago, I went around Carroll County and pulled up

[6:28] every single sign and put it in front of the county office building. I got called

[6:33] into the commissioner's office. I pointed out the law. Now, the city, any

[6:38] municipality, according to the way that the law is written, can be collecting a

[6:42] $25 fine per sign. Now, since I have made the city aware of this

[6:49] many, many years ago, I have emails dating all the way back to 2011.

[6:54] Um, how much money has the city collected at $25 per sign?

[6:59] » I couldn't tell you. The city's goal isn't to collect money off of signs,

[7:02] though. >> Yeah. See, it's a with revenue being

[7:05] tight and everything, that would be a good way to bring in some revenue for

[7:08] the city and also enforcing our quality of life and not let letting us look like

[7:14] Montgomery County. I've noticed several things where the redu Carol County is

[7:18] starting to look like McGomery County and and not only here in city of

[7:22] Tonytown. I'm also going to be hitting Westminster uh city government also and

[7:27] pointing out about the signage also. But I don't expect any answers for any of

[7:31] these uh for for this evening. Um I know I've given you guys a lot. Uh but if you

[7:36] want to get back to me, um I'll I'll I'll forward Clara my email address at

[7:41] the Emittsburg News Journal once I once I get everything set up over there. Uh

[7:46] my this is my first gig, so you guys are my my in my inaugural uh bantering, I

[7:53] guess. I don't know. So, but I do appreciate your time and I I thank every

[7:57] one of you. >> Sounds good. I'll have them share with

[7:59] council and I know council has comments, question, concerns.

[8:02] » I I wrote down a few questions right off the bat. Were the tires on private

[8:05] property or government? >> No, they're business properties. It's um

[8:08] » that's still private property though. >> But a business operating has to has to

[8:12] operate under Maryland laws, environmental laws.

[8:15] » And then with the uh the bike helmets, I thought that was a state law already

[8:19] that they're under 16. >> 16 and under.

[8:22] » And it's definitely being enforced by our police. So like what's your what's

[8:25] your >> Iame you just drive around town and

[8:28] you'll see kids >> I was driving for my wife like

[8:32] what but like if >> but do you think it's city government

[8:34] responsibility for kids I guess Kevin Lynch who fell off of his bicycle

[8:40] and was brain damaged and passed away at the age of 22 because of

[8:44] » I get I I get that and like I sympathize with that like my but my question on

[8:48] that one is is again our our police do enforce helmet activity already. What

[8:53] are you like what I what are you trying to

[8:56] » Well, how many how many fines have been issued for children?

[8:58] » We're not going to find children for for helmets. That's not that's never going

[9:01] to happen. But like they they go around and make sure that that the ones that

[9:07] they see are wearing are wearing helmets.

[9:10] » Yeah, we had a whole workshop. >> I would I would burn this building to

[9:14] the ground before we start finding kids for helmet violations. That's crazy.

[9:18] » Okay. >> But but I mean that's it's an

[9:20] enforcement thing that that we definitely do. Well, that's

[9:23] » I can tell you that personally I've witnessed plenty of officers

[9:27] in the middle of a little crowd of kids with no helmets on giving them a

[9:31] lecture. >> Well, also like like around the

[9:32] skateboard park and stuff like that. I've seen also around the I mean I know

[9:36] he does his job. I I know he does his job and they can't be everywhere at

[9:39] every >> I mean I've seen my the police

[9:41] department through my town roll their window down and just ask a kid who's

[9:45] running to put his helmet on. I mean they are communicated about the

[9:49] importance of it but going back to Councilman Kalan is what are we going to

[9:53] find the children or we find the adults? educate them and if they choose to

[9:56] ignore us, that's very sad. But we're trying to tell them to wear helmets,

[10:01] » right? And I don't mean the ultimate result is to find the parents

[10:04] » and and we're also we're also in talks to try and get the police to go into the

[10:07] schools to start doing like bicycle helmet safety like all this stuff. Like

[10:11] there's stuff that we're trying to do because like we agree that it's a

[10:14] problem, but we don't we don't want to go crazy here either. Like again to me

[10:18] bananas to to be talking about about finding children for not wearing

[10:23] helmets. I'm 65 years old and this law has been on the books since the late

[10:27] '7s. >> Right.

[10:28] » Yeah. And kids have been not wearing helmets since then. I'm going to tell

[10:30] you again. I was one of those kids. >> I was a dip, too.

[10:34] » I wrote a hel after after Kevin got brain damaged. I wore a helmet.

[10:38] » Yeah. And that's I'm going to tell you makes sense, you know, because examples

[10:42] would be good. I get it. >> Local government's not going to somehow

[10:45] make everybody wear helmets. I mean, that's just not

[10:47] » No, >> that's not going to happen. Again,

[10:49] that's an individual responsibility for the most part.

[10:51] » No. But on on the other end of it and and I think uh legal counsel might

[10:54] agree. I think that keeping it posted regularly about this helmet laws might

[10:59] alleviate any future situations for future lawsuits for people saying well I

[11:03] didn't know because that's going to be their excuse.

[11:06] » Everybody knows everybody knows it's been around since

[11:10] everybody knows they're just choosing not to do it.

[11:12] » You got to got to make sure you cia yourselves. So

[11:15] » Eric, would you you know I said you're an investigative journalist for

[11:18] Emittsburg News. I mean, would you be opposed to writing an article about the

[11:22] importance of safety and helmets? >> I'd love to. If you guys would be if you

[11:26] guys want to do that, I can and I can bring I can put out personal examples of

[11:31] of people that I know that have brain injuries and are disabled because of not

[11:36] wearing a helmet. And it's a shame, you know, but uh but yeah, I'd be more than

[11:40] happy. I can I could do something on that end. I'd say that that'd be a lot

[11:44] more positive than coming in uh with both barrels uh firing on how the town

[11:49] doesn't care about seniors and kids. >> About children. Yeah. Like

[11:54] I take that was pretty good. I take I get it. It got my attention, but like

[11:58] I've got kids too, brother. Like I care about my kids. I take exception to the

[12:02] entire the entire tone of the questioning. But that's me.

[12:05] » House Bill 289 is is concerning the law for the uh for the signage along the

[12:10] highway. And I can uh and then the uh well that's air quality and I can

[12:14] forward the >> you said along the highway. If we don't

[12:17] own the road, wouldn't that fall under the municipality of which the road goes

[12:22] through? So 140 is technically the state highway, but any signage along there

[12:28] that you pulled up, you can collect a $25 fine per sign.

[12:33] » I mean, if state if State Highway wants the signs up, State Highway can come get

[12:36] the signs up, right? >> What's that? the state highway wants the

[12:38] signs up, they can come get the signs up, right?

[12:40] » They they can. Yes. But then again, >> it's their it's their road, so if they

[12:44] want those signs up, they can come get those signs up.

[12:46] » Well, they can, but it's also $25 that the city could be getting per sign. And

[12:50] I I mean, I saw about 85. I mean, I saw about $125 sitting around town right

[12:55] now. >> Um just just for my own edification, was

[12:57] that $25 a state law or a city law? >> It's state law.

[13:01] » Then we don't get that. >> Uh it's any municipality. Any

[13:05] municipality that enforces the law can collect the fine. That's why they that's

[13:09] why they wrote it that way. >> What's their What's their mechanism for

[13:11] collecting the fine? >> What I I'm not sure. I I didn't get that

[13:14] far into the legality of it. I can research it and forward it to you.

[13:18] » For $25, wouldn't our officer have to spend at least a half an hour to

[13:21] processing to be orally an hour. So then we're spending more money than we'll

[13:25] collect in the said fine. >> Well, I mean,

[13:27] » you got to identify the person. You got to send out a notice up by somebody who

[13:31] didn't authorize and they didn't know about it. We wouldn't we want to give

[13:34] him >> a really good point. This

[13:35] » almost signs down. Trust me. >> Okay.

[13:39] » You know, I mean, design associates right over there. He sells signs also.

[13:43] And you know, we we could find out who's who's who's selling the signs, you know.

[13:46] And >> so now so now you want to get customer

[13:48] lists from private businesses of who of who creates signs.

[13:51] » No. No. But I think that that the businesses that produce the signs should

[13:54] be telling the people that, hey, if you put this along the road right away, you

[13:58] could be collected. You could be fined. At what point does it does uh does

[14:04] enforcement stop? What what at what point does it become not somebody's

[14:11] responsibility to inform somebody of state laws?

[14:15] » I should all know what our laws are in our communities.

[14:19] » I mean, I'm still learning. >> Good luck learning all of the Maryland

[14:23] laws because they make more of them every year.

[14:25] » Change all the time >> and they change all the time. And so why

[14:29] would we hold our businesses responsible for

[14:35] the actions >> what somebody's going to do with their

[14:37] sign for what somebody does kind of crazy.

[14:39] » So then I I'll continue to put my stickers on the signs.

[14:43] » Okay. >> I was going to say you can you can

[14:45] continue to vandalize signs and then we'll go with that.

[14:48] » Yeah. >> And and what's this linking the city to

[14:50] the kid who got the crap beat out of him by the by the guy for the vandalism like

[14:55] because of the fence? uh the fencing if the fencing had been followed through

[15:00] and the zoning was and the fence was completed as it should have been.

[15:03] » The kids aren't going to hop a fence, my guy.

[15:07] » Chainlink fence with barb wire on top. Did uh

[15:12] has H has it ever been the city's responsibility to uh to

[15:18] to make sure fences are complete? >> Uh well, I think that if if the city

[15:23] Yes. Yes. As a matter of fact, because I've got I've got letters from Jim Weep

[15:27] and Daryl Hail also. I can go through them if you like. It's going to be

[15:30] » well when they when they call for an inspection of it, I would imagine so.

[15:34] But if it's open-ended, then it does they could have never built the fence.

[15:38] They could have gotten the permit and never built the fence.

[15:40] » The initial request I put in, but the when when I first investigated it, I I

[15:45] found out that they did not have a fence permit. So then they were told they had

[15:49] to have a fence permit. So the fence permit was issued. Here it is. Uh part

[15:54] of it. The uh yeah. Okay. If the fence wall permit shall become null and void

[16:00] if the fence or wall has not been completed within a period of six months

[16:03] after the date of the permit. That fence behind a Tony Town collision went well

[16:07] past 6 months. And that's why I called the city again.

[16:10] » And and when was that? >> Uh that was with Daryl Hail around

[16:14] October of 21. >> Okay. So now now we're looking at at at

[16:19] 5-year-old possible permit uh violations,

[16:22] » right? But I also have, you know, emails all the way up to 2025, you know,

[16:27] concerning issues. Um, you know, the Comar uh uh uh Daryl, I mean, I like

[16:34] Daryl. He was a good guy, but as far as zoning enforcement, he didn't really

[16:38] follow through anything. Um, and then of course, you know, I get a reply from the

[16:43] mayor. I'm not going to go into that. I'm not going to go into that at all.

[16:47] Yep. And again, I think my reply to you essentially was that we use common sense

[16:50] enforcement here. Again, we try to work with business owners. We try to work

[16:53] with people. Our our goal is not to find people. Our goal is not to penalize

[16:56] people. Our goal is to work with people. And that's always

[16:58] » we're trying to be more peopleentric instead of like, you know, the the

[17:01] bureaucratic bureaucratic hellscape that that plagues many other places where

[17:06] it's like, you know, the card says MOO, so that's what it is, right? Like like

[17:11] » Yeah. I mean, we're gonna Well, I'll uh I'll get the rest of these laws

[17:16] together. We'll go over them again, you know, because I I I think that what

[17:20] » Can you do me a favor when you do that? Can you not come in like hot like that

[17:24] and be like, "You guys don't care about kids who are getting the kick out

[17:27] of them for for for for going for vandalizing or going in a thing." Like,

[17:31] like, dude, that is that's dirty and you know it.

[17:34] » That's dirty and you know it. >> I'm sorry, but Mike, you know, I'm I'm

[17:37] learning from Mike, okay? I'm I'm new into this, you know. I I know how to

[17:41] deal with customers. >> I'm happy to chat with you about

[17:43] anything you want, but if you if you come in hot, expect the same energy

[17:46] back. >> Got it. No worries. All right. So, let's

[17:50] get together. Um I I'll write up something seriously about the helmets.

[17:54] I'll bring in I'll I'll put personal examples, photographs, rehabilitation,

[17:59] periods, abilities to walk, all that kind of stuff.

[18:02] » None of us none of back to helmets. None of us disagree that kids need to wear

[18:05] helmets. Literally every single person up here is like, "You should be wearing

[18:08] a damn helmet." >> Right? The the the disagreement, if you

[18:11] go back, was it two months ago or something like that? If you go back to

[18:14] to that workshop, you'll >> you'll see that the the only point of

[18:18] contention was really coming from me where I was like, I refuse to be

[18:21] » the stringency of the enforcement essential.

[18:23] » Yeah. Like I I I refuse to be finding children who are stupid and going to do

[18:27] stupid things and aren't going to listen to us old old farts anyways, you know?

[18:32] They're not going to do that. So, like, but we can we can educate them and make

[18:36] sure that they're wearing it. We can take away their their bikes temporarily.

[18:39] Like, there's there's a bunch of stuff that we have on the books now that gives

[18:42] them more power to enforce it. That we did that for that reason.

[18:45] » Would there be room in the city budget to go to like McDonald's and get get

[18:48] like a a coupon for an ice cream cone and every time you see a kid wearing a

[18:52] helmet? >> I don't know. Maybe that's something

[18:55] they start talking. And I had my helmet on. They gave me a they gave me an ice

[18:59] cream cone. >> Yeah. I mean they they do a lot of stuff

[19:01] like that in in in schools now with kids. Like they give them, you know,

[19:04] snack vouchers and whatever for for their good behavior. Like I'm not I'm

[19:07] not opposed to anything like that, right? Like that's they you you have to

[19:10] have disincentives and incentives. Like you incentives are the things that that

[19:14] really make people act well. Anybody who has a small child knows that it I will

[19:19] say it's hard from a city's perspective to do that because then you'll have

[19:22] people coming in like my tax dollars are going to to to giving kids gift cards

[19:27] because they're doing the thing they should be doing anyways, right? So like

[19:30] that that I do imagine that that would be probably a hard sell. That's just

[19:34] » how about how about if if if I were to get donations

[19:37] » huh >> if how about if I were to go around and

[19:40] get donations from various businesses to them. That's That's a That's a good

[19:44] That's a good nonprofit, right? >> Let's do that.

[19:46] » There we go. >> All right. Cool.

[19:48] » Solutions. >> Solutions. That's what we want. That's

[19:51] what we want. >> That's what you get when you come in and

[19:54] when you don't come in hot, too. We can We can spitball, right?

[19:56] » Oh, come on. Can't I do a little Vic Shirley every once in a while?

[20:00] » Also, you said this. What was the name of your article again?

[20:03] » It's It's quality of life in small towns.

[20:05] » Okay. And where did you get these questions from? I I' I've got several

[20:09] people around town that, you know, and and and over Union Bridge and stuff like

[20:13] that and they're like, "Hey, can you want to you want to do something on

[20:15] this? You want to do something on that?" Like like Union Bridge, the Lehi cement,

[20:19] you know, the dust everywhere all over everybody's cars and stuff like that.

[20:22] So, >> just to go back to just to go back to

[20:25] KO's work session that we did talk about, that was the whole purpose of

[20:28] that, like we don't want to turn into an authoritarian small government. We want

[20:32] to be a small town that fosters community and community engagement. And

[20:37] you don't do that by finding your your citizens.

[20:39] » And if we and if we can engage more people in stuff and into and community,

[20:44] that would be great. That would be great because that's one of the article that's

[20:47] one of the things that I want to touch on in my article is is how much the

[20:51] community pulls together. I mean, when I had my house fire, I had the community

[20:55] pull together. I've seen how people when when when somebody has passed away or

[21:00] something major has happened in a family, how this town pulls together and

[21:03] reaches out and helps that helps. I would strongly recommend you look into

[21:07] the works of our parks department and our director Lorraine and all the things

[21:10] that she's done for this town. >> I've been there. I brought money into

[21:14] this town two times. You know, two different dog shows,

[21:17] » you know. We'll do that again, too. >> Thank you. And then again, if Sorry, one

[21:21] more thing. You talked about blinding lights. I'm actually completely unaware

[21:24] of this issue or this law. So, what are we talking about?

[21:27] » Um, okay. the the Maryland well Maryland state highway has has laws about outdoor

[21:32] out outdoor lighting blinding people on the highway. Um on a wet rainy night

[21:38] come down from the come down from the circle and and and see how the glare off

[21:43] of the lights at at at Bissimos and at Hedlebridals glares because a lot of

[21:49] people that have visions cataracts and stuff like that they have a very hard

[21:52] time recovering from a bright light issue like that. So if a blight light

[21:56] blinds them and a peasant pedestrian should walk out in front of them, they

[21:59] might not see them and it is it is it is an issue along the roads especially

[22:04] going through Westminster. Now >> is this a you said it's already a law on

[22:08] the books. Is this a lumen or whatever the word issue like

[22:11] » it's it goes along with like state highway state highway lighting

[22:15] requirements and also with like storage facilities and stuff like that. It's

[22:18] very it's very confusing. It's in like four or five different sections of the

[22:21] Comar. Of course, Marilyn Comar just doesn't make a whole lot of sense a lot

[22:25] of times anyway, >> but but yeah, there are there are laws

[22:29] written on it. And the other thing that I also would wanted to try to do was

[22:33] » I don't know if you all were aware, but the Westminster Astronomical Society

[22:36] wanted to put an observatory in Bowlinger Park. It would have been a 25

[22:40] in 16 ft telescope research grade. I mean, Cherry Springs, Pennsylvania

[22:47] material, Greenbanks Observatory material. and we decided that we

[22:52] couldn't do it because of lighting around town. And I even forwarded the

[22:56] International Dark Sky Association requirements for outdoor lighting. It's

[23:00] not like we want lights turned off. We just want lights shielded. Flow serve as

[23:04] a good example. All those outdoor box lights, they're not shielded. They're

[23:10] shining all the way out into in and light trespass into the neighbors

[23:14] houses. I know about it because I lived in Westminster. They put in uh flashing

[23:20] red and yellow lights and uh it was light trespass. I couldn't do astronomy.

[23:27] I had red and red red and yellow lights flashing in my yard all the time. So, I

[23:30] finally presented the state highway administration uh about my quality of

[23:34] life as being reduced. I have sleep deprivation and they're supposed to put

[23:38] baffles in. It's called light trespass. And so I went round and round with them

[23:43] and I finally had to pull the constitutional right for pursuit of

[23:46] happiness card on them. And the next day they were out putting the baffles in the

[23:51] lights. >> Baffles are the blockers, right?

[23:53] » Yeah. It keeps it from going off the side. You know,

[23:55] » I know what you want. Yeah. >> I mean, my bedroom was red, yellow, red,

[23:58] yellow, red, yellow. >> Yeah.

[24:00] » So, all right. But, uh, but I can forward the the IDA and the lighting

[24:06] forward stuff to y'all guys. >> Yeah. This is the first time I'm ever

[24:09] hearing about it, so I I have no idea what you're talking about.

[24:12] » Yeah, I really wanted the observatory here.

[24:14] » Observatory. I I I knew I've heard told me about it.

[24:17] » Yeah, we're we're we're still looking for a spot for it. We might be out at

[24:20] Harney. I'm not sure. >> But uh but yeah, 25 inch telescope, deep

[24:25] space in your face, man. >> 2inch eyepiece. You see Jupiter through

[24:28] that. I mean, it's incredible. Yeah. So, >> all right. Well, ladies, gentlemen,

[24:33] city, I thank you guys very, very much. >> Yep. Thank you. If you can again, email

[24:36] over to Clara and I'll have them email out to council and

[24:38] » yeah, Clara knows how to get in touch with me. So, what I'll do is we'll get

[24:42] me requests for the information. I'll forward the information to you and like

[24:46] I said, anything that I can do, I'll help out with with we'll get these

[24:49] helmets on these kids. I'll smoo people, we'll get some money and I'll go to

[24:52] McDonald's and we'll get some coupons and then the police officers can

[24:55] whenever they see a kid on a bike or any council, hey, here you go. Five bucks.

[25:00] You know, of course, I like the idea of pulling people over and giving them gift

[25:04] certificates for using their turn signals, too.

[25:08] » Thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[25:14] » I've never any additional public comment pertaining

[25:18] to agenda or non-aggenda items. You got anything?

[25:21] » Thanks. >> Proceeding for consideration review.

[25:25] Does anybody on council need time for consideration review tonight?

[25:29] Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to resolution, ordinances, and agreements.

[25:32] Introduction ordinance 12-2026, site plans. Um, again, this is rather

[25:36] extensive. I know there's been some questions. Jim, did you want to lead

[25:41] off? Um,

[25:44] I can speak to the four questions that were emailed uh

[25:49] earlier today. Uh, let's see.

[25:55] » No, I I I understand there's there's a lot more to come. So, uh, and I'm I'm

[25:59] happy for the discussion because there are a lot of changes in this. Um, and as

[26:04] as, uh, was communicated a couple days ago,

[26:09] you know, this has been in the works a long time. So, uh, it's been several

[26:13] months since you saw the the version comparing the old with the proposed. But

[26:18] um anyhow, in response to uh the questions that came out today, uh

[26:24] basically uh the idea of making the

[26:29] adequate facilities aspect more generic was was intentional. Uh there were some

[26:36] there's some language in the current code that creates a city standard, but

[26:42] the city is not the agency that provides the service. for example, uh fire and

[26:48] emergency services and schools. So the school system tells us whether they have

[26:54] capacity. So the idea is to use use their ranking criteria, their rating

[27:00] criteria the same way they do elsewhere in the county because you know children

[27:06] outside of Tonytown go to schools in Tony Town. Kids in Tony Town go to

[27:11] schools outside of Tonytown. So having a standard for Tony Town that's unique

[27:17] doesn't really make sense. So again, since the school board sort certifies

[27:22] that available capacity, we want them to use their their measurement. Um and uh

[27:29] so that that kind of goes with the storm water piece. Also, now that we've

[27:33] adopted the county storm water management ordinance, and one of the

[27:36] comments in here also was there was some back and forth between the city's

[27:41] ordinance versus the county's ordinance on storm water. And

[27:46] you can kind of see it both ways because we've adopted Carol the count Carol

[27:50] Carroll County ordinance, but that makes it our ordinance now.

[27:56] But if the county is the one that's going to be certifying it, it admittedly

[28:01] does make sense to be consistent and just say county throughout it. It could

[28:05] be interchangeable, but for clarity, it probably is better to say county. So,

[28:09] we'll make that change. Um,

[28:21] there were also some questions about uh having the zone zoning administrator

[28:26] sign off on the uh final approval on the site plans. That's really something

[28:31] that, you know, wasn't required by the code, but we felt like it really should

[28:36] be because the the zoning administrator, that's the, you know, the professional

[28:40] that's reviewing the the plans for the city. So, uh, really they're the one

[28:46] that should be signing off on it, the one that that's coordinating the review

[28:49] from the city end. Um, and, uh, let's see.

[28:54] I think that was the bulk of the

[28:59] immediate items. If there if there are more, you know, certainly we can we can

[29:03] talk through those and you know, just a reminder that

[29:07] Monday this is just on for introduction. Uh the planning commission hasn't had a

[29:10] chance to comment on it yet. Uh so I'm sure that they will have a lot to say

[29:14] and it's going to be a lot for them to absorb also. So, we'll probably

[29:19] circulate that comparison document to them as well so that they'll be able to

[29:24] see the the current version and then what changed um just like we did for you

[29:30] guys. But, um >> um I did have two broader things like I

[29:34] have a lot of questions that are kind of in the weeds that I'll I'll email to

[29:37] you. But, uh two big things that I noticed was one the idea of the

[29:41] simplified site plan. Uh I' I'd like to be walked through that a little bit. uh

[29:46] you know what problem is is it looking to address and how would this specific

[29:52] uh addition um address that problem? And then uh two it looked like it was moving

[30:02] the planning commission from being at multiple touch points and more putting

[30:06] them at the end touch point after things are more finalized for their final stamp

[30:11] of approval. Um, so I'm I have a an idea. I probably have an understanding

[30:18] of why we're we're moving in that direction, but um I I'd like to actually

[30:23] talk about it and and have you give me the information. I'm not in the weeds on

[30:26] this stuff, so I I just don't know. Uh generally the idea is to streamline the

[30:33] process while still providing opportunity for the public to be able to

[30:36] you know ask questions and provide comment on on the plans that are

[30:41] proposed. Uh the current process requires everybody to go before the

[30:46] planning commission I think it's seven times. Um so they they present a concept

[30:52] plan then they come back for approval they present a preliminary plan back you

[30:56] know at each step right. So, um there's a lot of a lot of uh

[31:05] let's see that that seems to be overdoing it for you

[31:10] know for both the planning commission and the and the developers and the

[31:14] engineers. Um, so also the way the code is currently structured, it um

[31:24] creates some some challenges for staff to try to follow with the letter of the

[31:28] code in that um we're supposed to present a a report and and uh once all

[31:37] the different agency reviews are completed and then we're supposed to

[31:41] give a report to council and it's supposed to be um

[31:46] basically at the next meeting from when a plan was presented. Well, at the next

[31:51] meeting, we're not going to have all those comments yet. Um so rather than it

[31:56] it sort of like pressure staff to come up with something, you know, to push

[32:01] other agencies to get comments and turn things around more quickly. Um it it to

[32:08] us it made sense to get the plans in, do the review, make sure everything's, you

[32:14] know, meets the code requirements, and then go to the planning commission with

[32:19] it. Um it it is um it's reducing the number of times the planning commission

[32:27] is going to see the see the project. um they're only going to see it at this

[32:32] point um at the concept stage and the preliminary stage. And that's really

[32:38] where the preliminary stage is where the vast majority of the effort goes in.

[32:42] That's where all the engineering goes in, the storm water management, the uh

[32:46] city specifications, all that is worked out and and included in the plans at the

[32:50] preliminary stage. The final site plan stage

[32:55] is basically the same as the preliminary plan with anything that the planning

[33:02] commission directed them to change. So more often than not, a developer knows

[33:07] what they want to do at the preliminary stage and once they get that approval,

[33:11] they don't want to change anything else and have to go back and rework anything.

[33:15] Um, so the proposed code will make that final plan approval an administrative

[33:22] function because the only thing that would change would be something the

[33:28] planning commission directed. So it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to

[33:33] post the property again, have it go before the planning commission again for

[33:37] essentially the exact same plan that was just approved.

[33:41] » Does this No, go ahead. Does this bring it down to two touch points or three

[33:45] touch points for the planning commission?

[33:47] » A minimum of two. >> Okay. Thank you.

[33:50] » So, say the planning commission says, "Hey,

[33:53] we need you to make these changes." You're saying instead of going back for

[34:00] a final touch point for the planning commission to make sure that the changes

[34:05] they requested are there, it just becomes an admin an administrative

[34:09] matter. Correct. >> Yes.

[34:11] » Okay. Um so >> with that clarity becomes very

[34:17] important. So we would need to be sure that staff and the developers engineer

[34:24] fully understand what the commission is is asking.

[34:26] » That's that's where I'm going. And right if if there is any any vagueness or

[34:31] uncertainty to that then at that point I believe you know I feel that the

[34:38] zoning administrator or planning director would need to go back to the

[34:42] planning commission and say is this what you guys meant

[34:45] » or at a minimum the chair to to get clarity.

[34:48] » Now the right the administrative approval would be the the zoning

[34:52] administrator and the planning commission chair.

[34:57] and and and that's essentially a little bit closer to the Carol County

[35:03] process. So in the county, they they require plans to be uh more

[35:10] fully developed before they go before their planning commission. Uh for

[35:14] example, you need to achieve a storm water management concept approval um

[35:20] before you can be on the planning commission agenda. that storm water

[35:24] concept approval is like 80% completion of the design to get that that level of

[35:31] approval. So your plan is much more fully developed um before you go to the

[35:39] planning county planning commission than is the case currently for the city. Um

[35:44] so we're we're leaning a little bit more towards that model. We're not requiring

[35:48] storm water approval before you get to the planning commission. you can still

[35:51] present a concept plan or a sketch plan that doesn't have that level of detail.

[35:56] Um,

[36:00] but it it it is reducing the the times that it's before the planning

[36:04] commission. >> So, I think I generally understand the

[36:06] benefits. Are there are there any risks that you can think of with reducing the

[36:12] number of touch points?

[36:16] And I'm not necessarily asking for like this was going to be one of my questions

[36:20] that I was going to email to you. Like I'm I'm totally fine taking this offline

[36:23] and and chatting about it there. >> Um because I I know that's putting you

[36:27] on the spot, but like that's something that I'm also thinking about, right?

[36:31] Because like I'm not against reducing the number of touch points, especially

[36:34] if if it's excessive, which is to me based on my limited knowledge, it it has

[36:39] seemed excessive. Um, but I I I am also concerned about, okay, well, what are

[36:44] the risks to like the city to develop? >> Just to get some feedback on that, I'd

[36:47] say one of the main risks is just uh you're subtracting a point of public

[36:51] comment essentially. >> Yeah,

[36:52] » that I think that's the main >> already have a hard enough time getting

[36:56] out to to make comments when when they want to. That'd be my that'd be my main

[36:59] thing is seeing that is again when uh when you're reducing the number of touch

[37:03] points that are going over to the planning commission is again the

[37:04] planning commission is one of the larger points where members of the community

[37:08] are actually getting to speak up for public comment and whatnot. So again

[37:11] that'd be I would argue one of the biggest risk factors as far as all that

[37:14] goes. >> A planning commission is probably the

[37:16] most attended uh body slashboard in in town. So

[37:21] » usually only if it's Taco Bell >> and where are we at on that Taco Bell?

[37:26] Why are you guys holding up the Taco Bell?

[37:28] » We're not doing anything to the Taco Bell.

[37:30] » I know. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. My My wife

[37:32] » I had to. My Yeah, my wife was asking me the other day. I was like,

[37:35] » the Taco Bell like I can't do anything about the damn Taco Bell.

[37:38] » Jim Jim doesn't want to doesn't want to go. No,

[37:42] » I'm I'm sure the planning commission will have comments um related to the,

[37:46] you know, reduction of the number of times a plan comes before them. Uh but I

[37:52] think as far as um risk of something getting through the process that maybe

[37:58] shouldn't um you know noting the mayor's comment you

[38:03] know certainly you know that's you know a minimum of two times that the public

[38:09] has the opportunity to you know come here and explain you know how they think

[38:15] it should change or why it shouldn't be next door to them or whatever the case

[38:18] may be. um which is more often than not when when the room is full is when

[38:23] somebody doesn't want something to happen in their neighborhood.

[38:27] » Um you know but um so that that could be perceived as a negative that you know

[38:33] you're reducing the opportunity for public comment. Certainly there's still

[38:36] opportunity at the concept stage which is where it it's you know kind of in a

[38:41] formative stage at that point to a degree. I mean people have already spent

[38:46] money to have the engineers draw things up but It's not it's not locked in stone

[38:50] at that point. >> I don't think you're necessarily taking

[38:52] like a risk as far as like the design goes or anything like that because again

[38:56] that specifically is being drawn up by engineers. There's specific there's

[38:59] specific criteria you have to meet on all of that stuff. So again I don't

[39:01] think you're >> necessarily seeing a design risk or

[39:04] something maliciously getting through or something like that. I think it's a

[39:06] perception risk. >> It's a perception and again public

[39:08] comment risk is what you're facing. >> Right. So, but again, as as long as the

[39:13] various review agencies are doing, you know, thorough reviews, which I have

[39:17] confidence that they're going to do. >> Well, and and this will probably be

[39:21] unpopular, >> but um honestly, it would reduce the

[39:26] number of times. I mean, a positive could also be on that same uh line that

[39:33] that it's it reduces the number of times because right now, as we're seeing with

[39:37] Taco Bell, we get the same complaints every time.

[39:41] » Yeah. >> So, it's it's just reiterating the same

[39:45] issues every meeting that we have. It's like, okay, well, the back entrance is

[39:50] going to happen. So, uh, um, so at that point, it's it

[39:57] reduces the the number of times that the,

[40:01] uh, presenters are going to get beat up over the same issue over and over and

[40:04] over again when it's when it when it's a perfectly legal and and fine thing to

[40:09] do. >> And it'll save you guys time, too. Like,

[40:11] you don't want have to see the same thing come up 20 times. And, you know,

[40:15] » it's not even ready for prime time. Like, why is it coming to you guys

[40:18] anyways? I think everybody's also kind of agreed again the process for us

[40:22] getting things through the through the queue and everything like that is taking

[40:26] just a bit of time. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because if it's seven touch points

[40:30] that's seven months >> to do anything

[40:33] » long time. and and and certainly during the site plan process um it's not

[40:39] unusual for a project to go before the commission um

[40:45] and you know they'll hear comments and and then we uh may not see them again

[40:52] for several months. So there's obviously a lot of work that goes into engineering

[40:57] and designing these things. uh you know I'm not I'm not

[41:02] diminishing the level of effort but we do spend a lot of time you know between

[41:07] those touch points now where we may issue a comment letter um in April and

[41:12] we may not see those comments addressed and a plan resubmitted until June. Now

[41:18] the engineer is waiting until they get all of the comment letters probably and

[41:22] making all the changes they think they need to before they resubmit. But

[41:26] typically there's a lot of lag time between the time that we are actively

[41:30] engaged on a review. >> And I agree there. It's not necessarily

[41:33] just on us that's making the process longer. Again, some of it is that again

[41:37] the back and forth >> engineering like the county like they

[41:40] have to go. >> But then if we need to, you know, but if

[41:42] then we need to have them, you know, address the comments, present at one

[41:46] meeting, wait until the next month for um, you know, to request approval and

[41:53] then move to the next step. and you know and then they need to once everything's

[41:57] addressed they still need to wait a month and present again it it can add

[42:02] you know additional months into the the the timeline for the developer that

[42:07] really isn't benefiting anybody >> and I think that's the big thing is is

[42:11] the benefit aspect um and again it's it's kind of like again taco t talk is

[42:16] one example um but you know people are asking why it is taking so long why so

[42:22] many meet you know you have to go back and forth on so many meetings and again

[42:25] like I said earlier the biggest risk is that public comment is the perception

[42:28] part but the actual risk on the design stuff I mean those are all professionals

[42:31] those are professional agencies working through all that stuff so

[42:34] » should be some level of trust in what they're doing

[42:37] » on the simplified >> definitely get that the yeah the

[42:38] simplified >> on the simplified site plan um the

[42:41] current process we we don't have a simplified site plan process

[42:46] » um so what what often will happen is if a

[42:53] project you ticks the box that that says yes, you need to do a site plan. Uh

[42:58] which the site plan chapter casts a pretty wide net for things. So uh for

[43:03] example, any non-residential building that's being constructed triggers the

[43:07] site plan ordinance. So right now the planning commission if if the project

[43:15] does not impact the things that the planning commission or other review

[43:20] agencies are going to be looking at. For example, if the project is small enough

[43:25] that they don't need a grading permit or they don't need to do storm water

[43:29] management um or erosion and sediment control, say um

[43:35] the planning commission currently has the ability to wave the site plan

[43:39] approval requirements is the way our code words it now. Um, at that point,

[43:45] the zoning administrator will still require, you know, a a site

[43:50] drawing of some sort to know, you know, where the accessory building or whatever

[43:54] it might be is going to go on the property that it meets the code and and

[43:58] so on. Uh but having a simplified site plan process kind of gives us a a better

[44:04] fleshed out process for the zoning administrator or planning director to

[44:08] follow that is maybe a step above just a one sheet. You know, here's where my uh

[44:16] storage building for my business is going to go. Um, you know, the the

[44:20] simplified process is going to lay out um specific things that need to be on

[44:26] that drawing rather than it just be um you know, the choice of the zoning

[44:32] administrator or planning director at at the time to you know, oh well, give me

[44:36] this. You know, there there may be inconsistency with that

[44:39] » just a list of criteria. >> This this lays out a process for that

[44:43] person to follow each time. simplified site plan have to still get

[44:48] the stamp of approval from from uh planning and zoning?

[44:51] » No, this would be an administrative approval. So, it it it's kind of an So,

[44:56] right now, if the planning commission waves the site plan approval

[45:01] requirements, the the planning director, zoning administrator, you know, will

[45:05] still need to issue a zoning certificate for that. And in order to do that, there

[45:09] still needs to be an application. There still needs to be a drawing. plan is

[45:13] also eliminating the touch point for small projects where it's like we don't

[45:17] really need the planning commission to be like yeah you can put a shed on your

[45:20] » if there's exactly and and that's a that's a frequent you know uh example of

[45:27] of something that would be a candidate for a a site plan waiver. Um, you know,

[45:32] we've we've done them for multiple businesses around the city where

[45:36] somebody, you know, was out of space in their storage room and they wanted to

[45:40] put a a a shed on the property. Well, it's not a residential property, so it's

[45:45] a non-residential building that's being built or being installed. So, we go to

[45:50] the planning commission, the person asked for a waiver. More often than not,

[45:54] it's granted. Um and you know but um you know and and the

[46:01] example of somebody putting a shed on a property. Okay, this might seem a little

[46:05] much for that, but it you know it could be a building that actually has a um

[46:10] a an active commercial use. Um it it may

[46:15] not be just a storage building. It could be, you know, a materials yard. It could

[46:20] be a fenced in sales area. But that's why you're saying the professional, the

[46:23] zoning administrator gets to take a look at it and make a determination like okay

[46:28] this this is something that can be simplified. We don't have to go through

[46:32] this draw more drawn out process so you can get this thing done. A a current

[46:36] example is uh the planning commission recently reviewed uh the tractor supply

[46:42] company has presented plans to uh develop a space at the Tonytown Shopping

[46:48] Center and they're going to incorporate an outdoor uh sales area for you know

[46:54] larger merchandise as tractor supply companies typically do. Um, so they

[47:01] the planning commission waved our site plan requirements for it because it was

[47:06] an area that's going to be uh on existing imperous surface. So there's

[47:12] no change to storm water management. There's no erosion and sediment control.

[47:15] There's no grading. Um but the planning director um advised that it should go

[47:23] through the the Carol County simplified site plan process to ensure that that

[47:29] any you know um nuances that might be missed by one individual are still

[47:34] caught. So they're going through that process now. Um but this this will bring

[47:38] it inhouse. So

[47:42] » I think those were my two broader questions. I'll I'll follow up with with

[47:46] » Okay. And yeah, we can certainly, you know, communicate offline

[47:49] » and that also again goes to all council. Again, if you have any questions on the

[47:52] site plan stuff, you know, don't hesitate to email the city manager. Um,

[47:55] again, this is introduction, so that just starts the clock. And again, you

[47:59] guys technically got two months on that essentially after you start the clock

[48:02] whether you want to adopt it or not >> and we can restart the clock if

[48:05] » you can re and you can restart the clock. I I would like to point out one

[48:09] thing that um in in reviewing this responding to uh the councilman's

[48:14] questions earlier uh we realized that there was one aspect in the adequate

[48:21] facilities portion that um we would like to revise and that is if I

[48:28] can find it here emergency services

[48:34] um

[48:39] under our fire and rescue services. Um we inadvertently I think still left in

[48:58] Never mind. I think I think we might I was jumping back and forth between a

[49:01] couple versions there, but we want to make sure that we get rid of um that was

[49:05] another area where we had a specific standard

[49:09] defined, but it wasn't something that we certified. Um so, we do want to make

[49:15] sure that we don't still specify um you know, a certain ratio of late and no

[49:20] response times or um or no response times. So, I think we may have gotten

[49:25] that taken out, but if if it wasn't, it'll be taken out before it goes to

[49:29] public hearing. >> Going to clean up the other references

[49:32] that I >> Yes. And we'll make those revisions as

[49:34] well. So, yep. >> And I I expect that there may be further

[49:40] revisions recommended after the planning commission gets a chance to review it

[49:44] and comment. >> They and they've seen it, right? Like

[49:47] it's been mailed to you guys or they have not seen it yet.

[49:50] » Yeah. you guys >> once it's once it's introduced it'll go

[49:54] before them so they'll they'll have it at the September their September meeting

[50:00] » any additional comments questions concerns from council before I proceed

[50:02] from site plans >> just for my sleep that night

[50:08] » hearing none I'm proceeding forward um adoption under adoption we got ordinance

[50:13] 10-2026 accessory dwelling units Jim did you have anything you want to follow up

[50:17] with that on I know we've had some back and forth conversation regarding We've

[50:20] Yeah, we've been working on the uh the parking study. Uh the police

[50:24] department's been helping out with that during the uh weekend and evening hours.

[50:28] Um so we'll make sure that we have the the data in our uh tracking sheet. Uh

[50:38] so far, I don't think we've seen any surprises as far as uh

[50:44] observed parking availability or observed parking uh congestion. So, it

[50:50] it so far it seems like, you know, the areas that we all kind of knew were

[50:54] going to be packed with parked cars uh seems to be kind of playing out the way

[50:59] we expected. >> They are in fact packed.

[51:01] » So, yes. Um so, but we'll we'll have that finalized before Monday night so

[51:06] that the study will be, you know, formally completed before.

[51:10] » Was this one we reintroduced last month? >> Yes.

[51:13] » Okay. Just wanted to double check on that. And this has the we we we had one

[51:18] recommendation from planning on this and I'm forgetting the exact wording.

[51:24] » It was uh >> I it was I believe it was in the appeal

[51:29] process that we wanted there to be >> something Yeah. something that changed

[51:35] that was um there needed to be something particular to that property that that

[51:42] made providing off- streetet parking um >> Oh yeah, there was that it wasn't like a

[51:48] blanket. Um just >> that that one mile provision that you

[51:52] guys put in >> um

[51:55] it was um

[51:59] it was under the waiver.

[52:04] Oh yeah, >> it was it was um

[52:06] » yeah it was it was under the waiver um >> the general cost to construct off

[52:11] streetet parking spaces and the planning commission's comment was or after after

[52:16] discussion I think the consensus was that um

[52:20] the general cost to construct off- street parking spaces that we add to

[52:24] that um uh that there is uh some unique

[52:30] characteristic that makes it different than other properties in in the

[52:35] district. Much much the same as if we had

[52:38] » Yeah, it was the compar it was the comparative cost because it's like

[52:42] » it the way that it's worded, it could be the general cost to construct offse

[52:46] parking uh spaces. It's like everybody's going to complain about the general cost

[52:51] to construct offite offsite parking spaces. It's it's the comparative cost

[52:55] of is there something about your property,

[52:58] » right? >> That that was the wording we were trying

[53:00] to get into. was something like the general cost

[53:04] right there. >> Yeah. Because it it's like Yeah. It's

[53:06] not necessarily the general cost. It's I would say even the comparative general

[53:10] cost to uh to other uh other comparative uh lots.

[53:18] » That that was what we were aiming for in that

[53:20] » that right that that was the planning commission's thought on on that. And if

[53:24] if council's supportive of of making an amendment like that, we can revise the

[53:28] text before Monday night and have it um in in your packet for Monday.

[53:33] » You just want like a consensus on that. >> Oh,

[53:38] » so >> okay. So right now,

[53:40] » so right now you can you can so the waiver section says if the above cannot

[53:46] be obtained um meaning the off streetet um

[53:52] parking section >> off street parking

[53:54] » the applicant may apply for a variance before the board of appeals in which the

[53:58] board shall require a parking study that considers and the first item and and

[54:04] this is basically trying to satisfy the state. the state requires that we have a

[54:09] a waiver process for the parking because they really don't want the they don't

[54:15] want parking to be used as like a hammer basically to you know to

[54:21] » stop ADUs from being developed. Um, so the first thing in that waiver

[54:26] consideration is the general cost to construct off streetet parking spaces

[54:31] and that was deemed and and I concur that's very broad and um thinking back

[54:38] to what the board of appeals looks at in other cases where somebody's ex looking

[54:44] for uh you know a variance to a setback or something like that. We look to see

[54:49] that there's something different about that property that makes it harder to

[54:54] comply than another property. So the example might be

[54:58] » if the house if the property is a steep slope and in order to create an extra

[55:04] parking space they would have to build a you know a huge retaining wall to be

[55:09] able to fit a vehicle on the lot. That would be kind of a you know a special

[55:14] circumstance that might be considered in in terms of granting a waiver different

[55:18] than a normal >> that that you know would be it. So that

[55:22] would get rid of just the blacktop is expensive. You know my payback period

[55:28] will be too long to to do this. um that there needs to be something some some

[55:34] you know compelling reason you know that that

[55:39] you know other than just you know I don't want to pay for a parking space.

[55:42] » Yeah. And I have I'd have to go back and look and see what the I thought we had

[55:45] really good wording, but uh but basically the comparative to make it the

[55:49] comparative general cost to construct off- streetet parking spaces

[55:55] uh I'm using comparative too many times, but the general cost to construct off

[55:59] streetet parking spaces compared to other similar properties. So basically,

[56:04] if every a property on that street it would cost the same to put a driveway in

[56:08] the back or or whatever you would have to do, that's not an extra hardship. If

[56:15] you have to cut through three people's property and get get variances for for

[56:21] all of that plus all then that or you have to cross a stream or something that

[56:26] that that might be that might be something that could be unique, right?

[56:30] » Yeah. a unique >> characteristic

[56:33] » characteristic as opposed to just the general cost to construct off street

[56:37] parking. >> Um because uh because yeah because right

[56:42] now you can complain about anything. >> I'll probably chat with you offline. I

[56:48] think I'm just it's not clicking in my head. So like we'll you'll you'll you'll

[56:53] make it right. >> Could you prepare two copies for Monday?

[56:57] I guess then I guess one with the change, one without the change and then

[57:00] council can decide which one they want to adopt.

[57:01] » Sure. >> Yeah. Go ahead and do that.

[57:03] » And I I will Yeah, I >> apologize for not having the language

[57:09] pasted in here. Um >> I was going to say it's because I think

[57:12] we did settle on >> we settled on some decent language and I

[57:15] we should go back and and double check that because I thought we had we had

[57:19] something that really >> Let's uh let's just have both in case

[57:22] council defaults to not >> I wanted to change it. We'll we'll have

[57:26] we'll have version A and version B in the packet for Monday.

[57:29] » Sounds good. >> Wait, did we need a consensus to do

[57:31] something though? >> No, I I think just having two versions

[57:34] should be fine and council can decide what they want.

[57:36] » Oh, I think I think Dan's uh Dan's pulling it off. If the general cost is

[57:40] atypical, that was that was the word I used.

[57:42] » Choice of words. >> Atypical.

[57:46] » Yeah, it the Dan the general look at Dan pulling the uh pulling pulling it out.

[57:52] Words matter in laws, man. But yeah, but no, that was that was the wording that

[57:56] we used. It was atypical. If the the general cost is atypical to construct

[58:00] off- streetet parking spaces, and that was and that covered it.

[58:04] » And then Yeah, that's right. Thank you, Dan.

[58:09] » Atypical. >> And then we had to talk about the word

[58:12] atypical. >> Then we had to talk about atypical for

[58:15] » That's a great word for for the law. It really is a great word.

[58:17] » Wonderful. The amount of times Harry just said it was pretty

[58:21] » That's so funny. Any additional >> came up with it during the meeting. I I

[58:25] was proud of it. >> You should be. You should be. That's

[58:27] that's that's >> a typical 10 times fast though.

[58:31] » Any additional comments, questions, concerns on ordinance 10-226 accessory

[58:34] dwelling units before I proceed. >> Remind me the deadline is literally we

[58:37] have to vote for it on Monday. Correct. Because it's due what next month or this

[58:41] month? >> It must be adopted before 1st of

[58:43] October. >> So So our deadline unless we in do

[58:46] another meeting, we got to make a decision on Monday. All right. Thank

[58:49] you. Proceeding forward to ordinance 11-2026

[58:53] fiscal year 226 budget amendment number three. Um Jim, there were some questions

[58:58] about whether some of this had already been adopted in a previous Well, no,

[59:02] because we that's right. We introduced the budget amendment. That's why you saw

[59:04] question. >> Okay. So that so that that's why

[59:07] everything looked really familiar. Okay. >> That's why

[59:09] » I was just I'm running through this. I'm like we talked about all of this

[59:12] already. >> Because it was introduced, as the mayor

[59:15] said, it was just introduced last month. >> No problem. Remember I'm good. No

[59:19] changes since since last month to it. >> Uh any additional comments, questions,

[59:24] concerns from council regarding it? Hearing none, proceeding forward to

[59:28] resolution 226-07 updates to fee schedule. Again, this is part of the

[59:32] reason why we are considering a third meeting for council this month. Um

[59:37] I know they had worked again on the numbers.

[59:40] » I think here it's showing only two changes, right? It's showing the park

[59:44] impact fee increasing and a new accessory building. Yeah, because it

[59:49] came back that we couldn't do >> the police impact fee.

[59:54] » Ah. Oh, that's Yep. Okay. >> And yeah, and the accessory building one

[59:58] is just it it just now says accessory building instead of sheds

[1:00:02] » uh because it's the same fee for a garage or a greenhouse or whatever

[1:00:07] building it might be. >> So, that was kind of the big thing

[1:00:09] though was we can't charge a police impact fee. So,

[1:00:12] » um and this can probably taken offline too, that's fine. How how

[1:00:17] did the park impact fee uh number got to

[1:00:23] » um Lena provided that calculation I believe last month in in a memo. I will

[1:00:30] suggest referring back to that. It's it's um

[1:00:32] » yeah it's it's the same fee from last month. She did have the memo at the

[1:00:35] beginning of the >> and it's basically the same the same

[1:00:38] formula that was used when we determined the original fee. Uh but what changed is

[1:00:45] um she went back and reworked the anticipated costs for the things in the

[1:00:50] capital improvement program and and those increased costs. A little bit

[1:00:55] about that, >> right? So basically

[1:00:57] » basically what their share what their share would be. Yeah. What their share

[1:01:00] would be of those costs essentially. >> The formula stays the same but the the

[1:01:04] cost >> related to the project changes

[1:01:07] » has changed. So you know those variables changed,

[1:01:10] » right? It was never included in the original calculations. Yeah.

[1:01:13] » Well, actually, it's just the the idea that construction costs and materials

[1:01:16] costs have just >> increased so dramatically since the fee

[1:01:21] was first adopted. >> Yeah.

[1:01:23] » Um, you know, and and again, you know, right right now,

[1:01:28] blacktop and, you know, are just um through the roof. So, um, yeah. So, we

[1:01:36] can't we can't do the same amount of work

[1:01:40] » at the same time >> for the thousand fee that that we

[1:01:43] originally expected we could do. So, >> inflation's killing everybody.

[1:01:48] » Any additional comments, questions, concerns regarding resolution 22607

[1:01:51] updates to fee schedule? >> Yeah, just that it's too low still. I

[1:01:55] know that's her recommendation, but like when you look at like other governments,

[1:01:59] even Carol County went from like $500 to like $3,000 recently. Might have been

[1:02:04] nice to me a few years ago, but I'm if I just double check what all other

[1:02:08] Maryland counties are at, I mean, we would be peanuts in comparison to what

[1:02:12] other towns and and counties are charging. So, I would just say we we

[1:02:16] might want to still consider something much higher than $1,600. I think I

[1:02:20] remember the comparison that Mackenzie showed me versus the other

[1:02:22] municipalities and I think we do now fall higher than the other

[1:02:24] municipalities. But the problem I mean again the problem comes is you have to

[1:02:28] have a you have to correlate the number to something factual or else basically

[1:02:32] the developer can contest it. >> We also have to have development to even

[1:02:35] collect it to begin with. So >> yeah. So again there's a couple the

[1:02:39] biggest thing though is again you can't right we can't just make up a number.

[1:02:42] the number has to correlate to some kind of factual number or else the developer

[1:02:47] could contest hey we are paying a fee that has no relation to the actual

[1:02:51] impact of this house this these people living here in the park. Um that's my

[1:02:56] under >> yes and and and basically when we do the

[1:03:00] calculation you know we start from a point of you know that that as far as

[1:03:04] the fee goes we need to establish you know the level of adequacy that we're

[1:03:10] starting with right because we can't we can't burden new development with

[1:03:14] something that we're already behind on. So we can't make new development pay for

[1:03:18] the sins of the past. So we we look at it starting at you know okay we're

[1:03:23] adequate today here's what we need to do to stay adequate and it's going to cost

[1:03:28] us X to remain adequate for the next you know whatever it may be thousand you

[1:03:35] know thousand houses or a thousand people and then you divide it out and

[1:03:39] that's you know >> and I imagine that's why it's more fluid

[1:03:42] through a resolution because again if the idea is you have more projects that

[1:03:45] hit the capital budget all you have to do is go back to the resolution adjust

[1:03:48] the number again that's why the >> maybe something I can speak all offline.

[1:03:52] I guess my concern is how we came to 20% as the share and that's how we got to

[1:03:56] 1600. That that was the part that I never jived with

[1:03:59] » is how do we say we're only doing 20% of the fee of as an impact fee. That was

[1:04:04] where I kind of had the disconnect >> unless somebody's able to I can have

[1:04:07] Lena reach out to you. >> Yeah, that was the part because I'm like

[1:04:09] if you do 100% well then it's over $8,000 if you do 50. That was just how

[1:04:13] do we get to 20% is the impact. >> I'll have Lena reach out to you and talk

[1:04:16] with you a bit about it. If you can can you coordinate that?

[1:04:20] » Yeah. >> Um any additional questions, comments,

[1:04:23] concerns regarding resolution 22607 updates to fee schedule.

[1:04:28] » Hearing none, proceeding forward. City manager report. Jim, what you got for

[1:04:30] us? Uh let's see. We touched on this uh a

[1:04:35] couple minutes ago for the ADU, the parking study. Um we've we've I believe

[1:04:40] done all the field work there. So we might have some more updating in the the

[1:04:44] tracking sheet to do, but um we'll make sure that that's locked in before Monday

[1:04:49] night. Um, site plans is in the packet and we already talked a little bit about

[1:04:54] that and uh, Andrew and I are uh, hoping that we can get the sign ordinance uh,

[1:05:02] close to introduction um, you know, with his remaining time with the city. Uh, so

[1:05:08] which is drawing to a close. So, uh, trying to crank through that as best we

[1:05:13] can because he's uh, been the lead on on that one. Um,

[1:05:18] » for those unaware, Andrew has taken a job closer to home.

[1:05:21] » Our Andrew Gray. >> Yep.

[1:05:23] » Oh, well, congratulations to him. >> So, again,

[1:05:27] beat up the Manchester guys. They they poached him.

[1:05:30] » It is definitely a loss for us, but >> Well, that's what I want to say. It's a

[1:05:33] big loss for the city, but also congratulations to him on being closer.

[1:05:37] » Yeah, that's a huge win for his fans. >> Okay, so I got to go all flock camera on

[1:05:41] uh on Manchester. No problem, >> right? Yeah, they declared war. Then

[1:05:44] when we see when we see them in MML, we're going to get them.

[1:05:47] But again, you know, just in his just in his short time of being here at the

[1:05:50] city, you know, again, he is an exceptional professional professional

[1:05:54] here. So, I gota say we appreciate his work and it'll definitely be a loss. So,

[1:05:59] » yeah. So, moving on. Uh nothing new on the Roberts Road uh uh project. Uh

[1:06:05] Memorial Drive, we had the uh the final walkthrough today. Uh very very short

[1:06:11] punch list. There were I I think two spots that need a little blacktop work.

[1:06:17] Um and and I'm talking about an area uh probably the size of my my notepad that

[1:06:24] uh was like sticking up a half inch. I mean really minor stuff. Uh and there

[1:06:30] were some areas where where the contractors are going to come back in

[1:06:33] and some where DPW is going to come back in uh just where the the black top is uh

[1:06:39] a little bit prouder of the grade, you know, above the grade a little bit. So,

[1:06:42] we want to back fill some dirt and and seed it just so there's not like a drop

[1:06:46] off at the side of the road. And that that's pretty typical. Once the paving's

[1:06:49] done, you kind of come back through and see if there's areas where

[1:06:52] » How all the connections look, the house connections and everything like that.

[1:06:56] » Generally good. Um there's there's one driveway that we're going to come back

[1:06:59] and add some gravel because the just the construction it

[1:07:04] » Yeah, it's always hard because it's all different. There's there's a couple

[1:07:07] areas where, you know, the existing driveway or or alley was um you know, a

[1:07:13] hodgepodge of dirt, gravel, and concrete and black top. And you know, that trying

[1:07:18] to tie into that is, you know, a little difficult. So, you know, we may we'll be

[1:07:23] coming back maybe adding some gravel to help transition that. And there's a

[1:07:27] driveway that we're going to add some gravel to because they've got a pretty

[1:07:30] good drop off, you know, at the black top to their existing gravel driveway. I

[1:07:35] haven't had a chance to look, but what about the connection to the fire uh the

[1:07:39] carnival grounds? Was that >> you guys satisfied with Yeah,

[1:07:43] » I think Yeah, I I think the contractor did a really nice job on that seam and

[1:07:48] um and the city came back in and repainted the lines for the parking

[1:07:51] spaces that were um you know, partially obliterated with it. And um Okay.

[1:07:55] » And we actually went around the corner and

[1:07:57] » satisfied over there. >> Nice.

[1:07:59] » And you know, painted some of the white lines that just to freshen them up that

[1:08:03] we didn't even touch. So, um, >> yeah, so I I think, uh, you know, we're

[1:08:08] we're in good shape there. You know, as I said, you know, mostly just kind of

[1:08:11] back filling along the edges where there's a little bit of a drop off, but

[1:08:16] um and and I think there were two valve boxes or curb stops that uh the

[1:08:21] contractor is going to have to where they didn't um they didn't get the valve

[1:08:25] box to be quite flush with the black top. So, very very minor things. So, um

[1:08:30] you know, that'll be addressed in the coming weeks. and the uh the blacktop

[1:08:35] subcontractor is going to be back in town uh working on the approaches to the

[1:08:40] uh railroad bridge across Robert on Robertsmore Road. Um so that's when

[1:08:44] they'll take care of those black top defects at Memorial. Um if I can even

[1:08:49] call them defects, but anyhow, so so that's wrapped wrapping up. Um,

[1:08:58] see George Street and Middle Street. We're

[1:09:03] still uh waiting for CDM Smith to give us a proposal for the project design and

[1:09:09] construction services. uh we held a scoping meeting with them and today at

[1:09:16] the end of the walkth through uh uh the CDM Smith engineer that was on site uh

[1:09:22] we had a brief kind of just impromptu meeting uh answering some questions and

[1:09:28] furthering the you know making sure that we're on the same page designwise. Uh so

[1:09:35] we did talk about uh doing all new curb and gutter and sidewalk uh much as we

[1:09:40] did on Broad Street with this uh because right now there's a lot of areas where

[1:09:44] the uh the black top is only you know an inch inch and a half uh below the top of

[1:09:51] the curb. So in heavy rains the water can you know go above above and beyond

[1:09:57] the curb um and not get where it's supposed to be or not drain properly.

[1:10:02] Um, >> yeah, I know people are looking forward

[1:10:03] to that project at least getting done. I know we've had a lot of comments,

[1:10:06] concerns on it. So, >> but but generally speaking, we're we're

[1:10:09] planning to put the utilities back in the same trenches that they're in now.

[1:10:12] So, there shouldn't be a lot of worry about rock and things like that as far

[1:10:16] as excavation. Um, and we're also going to incorporate some

[1:10:22] uh sewer lining in Carol Heights and Bankard Terrace um that still have

[1:10:26] terracotta lines. So, we've kind of expanded the scope a little bit beyond

[1:10:31] um beyond Midland George that we're going to be right there in George

[1:10:35] Street, which connects to Carol Heights. So, we're going to go ahead and take

[1:10:38] care of the terracotta that's in Carol Heights at the same time. So, the scope

[1:10:43] is expanding a little bit, but it just makes sense to try to hit it when the

[1:10:46] contractor's right there in that in that area. Um so, uh that's where we are on

[1:10:53] that one. So hopefully we'll have a proposal from CDM Smith um before you

[1:10:57] next month for the engineering and construction services. And uh that's all

[1:11:02] that I have for this evening. Um unless there are questions,

[1:11:06] » questions, comments, concerns on city manager report.

[1:11:08] » One question. Do you I haven't heard much about the audit. Is the audit and

[1:11:13] underway? Where are we? >> It's still targeted for uh the workshop

[1:11:17] night in in October. So October 7th, I believe, is our workshop. Yeah, they've

[1:11:22] already >> So, they're still on target for for

[1:11:24] that. And usually it's kind of down to the wire because we have to approve it.

[1:11:28] Um it has to be finalized in October. >> Um so, usually it's it's

[1:11:35] » they're crunching it at the very end to meet that that October workshop

[1:11:39] deadline. >> Right.

[1:11:42] » Any additional comments, questions, concerns for the city manager report?

[1:11:46] Hearing none, present department reports. Jim, did you have anything

[1:11:49] specific department reports?

[1:11:56] Are things kind of I guess settling down with uh water usage

[1:12:03] » since the summer's kind >> I have not heard much about the weekend

[1:12:06] spike in the last couple weeks. So um we're still on target, you know, as far

[1:12:11] as nutrient and everything on the wastewater side. Um Kevin hasn't

[1:12:16] contacted me about any uh about the pumps running excessive amounts of time

[1:12:22] the last >> that's what I haven't heard anything

[1:12:24] either. So I was assuming we're >> Yeah. So I expect that to be I mean

[1:12:30] » that Yeah. that we're not seeing the same spike that we were during the you

[1:12:34] know 95 degree period.

[1:12:39] » Yes. We'll have a combined meeting for the um October since Columbus Day is on

[1:12:46] that Monday.

[1:12:51] » Uh the anything else gym department reports can

[1:12:56] specifically >> unless there if there are questions I

[1:12:59] can get answers for you for Monday. >> Any questions, comments, concerns

[1:13:03] regarding department reports for the city manager?

[1:13:06] Hearing none, I am proceeding forward to old business. Again, I'm going to kind

[1:13:12] of run through old business because most of it's just staple items. Um, charter

[1:13:15] resolution CR 22601 and O2, term limits, amendments to terms of office and

[1:13:20] amendment to removal of office. Again, those are just chilling as we go through

[1:13:23] charter review stuff. Charter article one, again, there's been some back and

[1:13:26] forth of some draft language as far as definitions in article one goes. We will

[1:13:31] have probably the first draft for council to review at the October

[1:13:34] workshop. Um, but again, just be reminded that we're not looking for

[1:13:38] actual introduction and adoption of these things just yet. The idea is to

[1:13:40] basically put them on the docket, have them sit on the docket until the end of

[1:13:44] the process, and then lump them together into one bigger repeal and adoption

[1:13:48] essentially, not repeal and replace, I guess. Um, up next be campaign finance.

[1:13:53] I know me and you talked a little bit, Jim, about some additional language to

[1:13:56] add into there for the minor or the underage age 18 donations part. Um, so

[1:14:01] let's make sure that is good to go and then put in for the October meeting as

[1:14:06] an introduction for ordinance. Um, I'm just going to go through and

[1:14:10] then I'll ask for comments, questions, concerns. Impact fee funding model.

[1:14:13] Again, that's the same thing we're working on as part of the updates to the

[1:14:17] fee schedule. Mountain Brook developer rights and responsibilities agreement.

[1:14:21] Same thing. You know, that's an ongoing discussion between staff and developer

[1:14:24] currently. Memorial Park expansion. And Jim, did you have anything particular

[1:14:29] update? >> We just make need to make our formal

[1:14:32] decision go no-go on it so that Lena can get back to the the uh grtors.

[1:14:38] » So I will say Commissioner Vigliotti uh me and him talked yesterday and we and

[1:14:42] we're going to meet up on Friday to discuss if there's any options at the

[1:14:45] county level available for funding. Um so again,

[1:14:50] we'll talk more Monday um because I'm supposed to be discussing with him this

[1:14:53] week. The only option that we had from Johnny O was uh

[1:14:58] » was put in for the community, >> put it in for for the million dollars. I

[1:15:02] think the work or something like that. Yeah.

[1:15:05] » Yes. >> Um for to try and get on get on the ear

[1:15:08] marks. I will say that they and I think I forwarded it to everybody and I I chat

[1:15:12] with somebody briefly afterwards, but like they they seem pretty bullish on on

[1:15:16] this is the kind of project that they want obviously because the park is, you

[1:15:21] know, so I would I wouldn't expect us to to have

[1:15:26] any major issues getting on that, but I mean, you never know. But yeah,

[1:15:29] » that's something we can put in for the federal

[1:15:31] » make sure we go to the thing >> for the federal earmarked funds. Yeah.

[1:15:34] And again, we we've talked with him on different projects for that as well as

[1:15:36] part of that was the um recreation centers, something we've discussed with

[1:15:39] them as far as a project goes to put on that earmarked fund. Um so again, the

[1:15:43] only thing is, you know, we'll have a lapse of the grants that we already have

[1:15:45] in between that period. So again, I'll give council an update on Monday after

[1:15:49] discussion with the commissioner, you know, if there's any viability to any

[1:15:52] additional options at the county. Um, other than that though, you know, we'll

[1:15:57] going forward, we're going to have to look once we get past the part of the

[1:16:00] grant process, you know, what what it looks like as far as funding that

[1:16:03] project goes in the future. Um, so again, we'll talk more on that Monday

[1:16:07] then. Um, any additional comments, questions, concerns from council

[1:16:10] regarding anything under old business currently?

[1:16:14] hearing none. I'm proceeding forward to new business monthly financial report.

[1:16:19] Any additional comments, questions, concerns from council regarding the

[1:16:21] financial report? >> No, I think we chat an email about about

[1:16:25] one issue >> just the yeah that um

[1:16:29] we weren't prepared with all the figures that we usually have. So um the net

[1:16:33] working cash just uh from the general fund net working cash is uh a

[1:16:38] million93016 and uh from the utility fund the

[1:16:44] unrestricted cash right now is 3,684260

[1:16:49] » that was utilities. >> Yep.

[1:16:51] » And that's because we used the other part of it. Well I guess there's more

[1:16:56] money. Yeah. >> Yeah. We

[1:16:57] » and we used we used restricted um funds to pay that down but um yeah. So our it

[1:17:02] basically you know general fund cash flow is is is very tight right now. So

[1:17:08] » any additional comments question concerns regarding the monthly financial

[1:17:10] report hearing none I'm proceeding forward to

[1:17:13] accounts payables. Any additional comments concerns from council regarding

[1:17:16] accounts payables hearing none. I'm proceeding forward to

[1:17:20] approval of memorial park pavilion number two construction proposal. Any

[1:17:24] questions, comments, concerns from council regarding that proposal

[1:17:27] currently? No, this is just replacing that pavilion that that correct got

[1:17:31] messed up because of the storm a couple weeks ago or month, however long ago it

[1:17:35] was. >> Yep.

[1:17:36] » I did have a question on it. Do I'm assuming we have an actual cash value

[1:17:39] policy for why we got such few dollars for a total loss.

[1:17:47] » Obviously, it was on a replacement cost policy.

[1:17:49] » I am going to confess to not being familiar with the terminology there. Um,

[1:17:55] » yeah, Mr. Insurance Man. >> Yes. I'm like, I don't understand it

[1:17:58] either. >> I was like, all right, so we're getting

[1:18:00] essentially the asset minus depreciation for why we're getting so few dollars

[1:18:04] versus the cost it actually incurs to replace it. It's usually a more

[1:18:09] affordable policy, but the trade-off is when you have a claim, you don't get a

[1:18:12] lot of money. >> Yeah, because the

[1:18:16] » I I was fell off my ear when I saw the settlement.

[1:18:20] » Yeah, that's my reaction, too. >> It was It should have been three times

[1:18:24] that.

[1:18:27] I had damage on my barn and I'm still waiting to hear from them. They haven't

[1:18:31] come to meet with a with a settlement >> number yet, but it better be more than

[1:18:36] that. >> Well, as as Alex cited, um by way of

[1:18:41] example, um >> you know, the depreciated value of of

[1:18:45] the asset is is how the insurance company does look at it. Um, and I can

[1:18:51] say that when >> uh

[1:18:55] » when we had the the individual that rammed the the finance office and

[1:19:00] decimated the the finance office, >> the insurance amount was very very

[1:19:07] modest uh for that. And uh, Councilman McCarron, you may remember how expensive

[1:19:14] those front the front window and door was when they were installed originally,

[1:19:20] and they were replicated from the original firehouse doors. They were

[1:19:24] thousands and thousands of dollars to to replicate those doors and and, you know,

[1:19:29] have them fabricated. And the insurance uh settlement basically was, you know,

[1:19:37] large door $200, you know, it was that sort of a thing. And

[1:19:41] » yeah, so basically what the replacement >> and you know, she not the direct

[1:19:44] replacement, you know, 10 years old or whatever is worth this. And so yeah, and

[1:19:50] again, the policy is very affordable, I guess, that way. But um

[1:19:54] » how often do we have storms or or you know weather events that cause this kind

[1:20:03] of damage to city? >> I think this is the first time I've

[1:20:08] » I mean we've we've certainly incurred storm damage before. Um and and more

[1:20:14] often than not it's it's been in the parks because we have you know more

[1:20:19] trees and things like that. Uh, so you know, we have we've had tree limbs come

[1:20:23] down and cause damage. We've had wind peel back metal roofs and things like

[1:20:28] that, but we've never had a a situation where a you know, structure was unsound

[1:20:34] as a result of >> I was going to say this is the first one

[1:20:36] I've seen any of these. >> Um, and we've we've had insurance, you

[1:20:40] know, payments before. Um not not too long ago, uh high winds ripped the uh

[1:20:48] part of the roof off the uh field one grandstand and um yeah, we did get some

[1:20:53] insurance money to help repair that, but um usually it's been more of a repair

[1:20:58] situation. nothing >> was a full full scale like

[1:21:01] » now admittedly this pavilion has been there for many many years and you know

[1:21:06] was not constructed to the standard of the others um back in the day

[1:21:11] » this is one of the this is one of the original ones right

[1:21:14] » so this this was the only you know wooden post pavilion that that was left

[1:21:19] down there so um it certainly wasn't as stout of a structure as the others

[1:21:26] » any additional comments concerns regarding the approval of the memorial

[1:21:29] park number two construction proposal. >> The out of pocket cost is like this 70k

[1:21:33] here. Am I >> reading that correct?

[1:21:37] » Yeah. >> Balance balance be paid by city

[1:21:39] 68,79607.

[1:21:43] » That's that's how much is coming out of us.

[1:21:44] » That's that's right. This would be >> would not be currently budgeted. So this

[1:21:51] would be an budget amendment, right? That's going to be an additional

[1:21:55] expense. >> Yeah. We didn't we didn't put it in the

[1:21:58] current the current budget, right, Jen? >> We didn't have this when the budget

[1:22:01] amendment was introduced. >> We passed this before all that. So, it

[1:22:04] wouldn't have been right. >> It wouldn't be in that budget.

[1:22:06] » Okay. So, that this would be a draw on on the current cash reserves then,

[1:22:10] right? It's it's a use of the fund. Okay.

[1:22:12] » So, we still had a higher increase in revenue than expected, which was greater

[1:22:16] than this loss we incurred from what I was reading. Correct.

[1:22:21] » That's a very loaded number question right there.

[1:22:23] » Well, now Yeah. Yeah. I got I got you. >> Yeah, I I see what you're cooking.

[1:22:27] » Yeah, >> we can we can wait for me to scroll back

[1:22:30] up to the or I can just tell I can just >> I can remember it was a 250 increase in

[1:22:35] state tax revenue minus this >> or I can just confirm it if that's all

[1:22:38] right. Okay,

[1:22:46] » Tim, would we just roll would we would we just roll that into the midyear

[1:22:49] budget amendment then or are you looking to do something sooner than that?

[1:22:54] I I think this can be rolled into the midyear.

[1:22:56] » Midyear. That's what I was thinking too. Okay.

[1:23:00] » Um any additional comments, questions, concerns regarding an approval of

[1:23:03] Memorial Park number two? >> You're right. It was like a in a net

[1:23:06] increase of like 570K. >> We had a good situation. It was better

[1:23:09] than our bad situation. So, we're not in a worse situation.

[1:23:13] » I think we should sit pretty comfortable this budget cycle, but you know, we'll

[1:23:17] see. So, um,

[1:23:22] hearing no additional questions, I'm going to proceed forward. Approval of

[1:23:24] special event permit Tonytown Pride, June 20th, 2027. Any comments,

[1:23:28] questions, concerns for council regarding that?

[1:23:31] Hearing none, proceeding forward. Approval of sewer flow study. Again,

[1:23:34] this is something we had talked about previously at the water meeting back in

[1:23:37] April. Um, you know, we've been working back and forth with the cont or the what

[1:23:42] is it? CDM Smith on this. Um, so does council have any additional comments,

[1:23:47] questions, concerns regarding that?

[1:23:52] » We we had talked about this uh I think back the last time that Brian Lubenau

[1:23:56] from CDM Smith was here. Um, >> it was April for the water meeting

[1:24:00] » talking about the water water and sewer stuff. Um, and the question came up

[1:24:03] about the um, effectiveness of the INI program and um, so there's

[1:24:09] » found that it was effective, right? That's what I remember. Like it did it

[1:24:13] job doing what it was supposed to do. >> Yes.

[1:24:18] » And yes. So the the CEM Smith memo included in your packet um has a lot of

[1:24:23] uh a lot of data uh to share, but the >> it has charts.

[1:24:28] » I like charts. >> I know.

[1:24:30] » Yeah. The estimated RNI uh or the RN INI rates. I was like, nice trending down. I

[1:24:37] like this chart. This is good.

[1:24:42] Good information. But as as um you know we did target the projects that we

[1:24:50] expected the biggest reduction you know we did those projects first.

[1:24:54] » So the next project going to have a lesser impact right? So as we you know

[1:24:58] for example we we replaced and relined um terracotta sewer that was next to a

[1:25:05] stream bed. So, we know there's going to be a lot of water coming in there. Um,

[1:25:10] you know, so we're we've we've basically gotten all those um projects completed

[1:25:16] now. Uh, you know, more recently we did the the um manholes closest to the

[1:25:23] treatment plant on the main sewer interceptor. Um, and you could on a dry

[1:25:28] day you could pop a manhole and see water pouring into the, you know, from

[1:25:32] the sides of the manhole. Um so you know again those kind of big big reduction

[1:25:38] things you know have been already taken care of. So we are at the point where

[1:25:43] we're going to see a smaller INI reduction with our future projects as as

[1:25:48] the memo you know summarizes. So, um, they're suggesting a very conservative

[1:25:56] estimate on gallons per day u of inflow and in infiltration reduction per linear

[1:26:02] foot that we do here on out.

[1:26:08] » Flattens.

[1:26:12] » Okay. Any additional comments, questions, concerns regarding the

[1:26:14] approval of the sewer flow study?

[1:26:19] Hearing hearing none. Proceeding forward. Um

[1:26:23] I am looking Well, I can't remember. Do I do the motion of a German first before

[1:26:28] the close session or close session first? Um I guess I'm looking for a

[1:26:32] motion of a German to go into close session and then I'm going to read the

[1:26:34] close session stuff. That's what I'll do. Okay. In a minute here, I'm going to

[1:26:38] be looking for a motion of adjournment to go into close session of council on

[1:26:42] the what >> I already said. So moved.

[1:26:44] » No, I got I got a read the statement first.

[1:26:48] » So one last call for a public hearing regarding ordinance 10-226 dwelling

[1:26:52] units. Anybody would like to make a comment. I'm seeing everybody in the

[1:26:54] audience leave. So that is a no. Um so I'm going to go ahead and close the

[1:26:59] public hearing regarding ordinance 10-226 accessory dwelling units. With

[1:27:03] that said, I am looking I'm going to be looking for a motion to go into close

[1:27:06] session. Give me one second to read the close session statement on the date

[1:27:09] September 9th, 2026 at city hall at 8:56 p.m. In accordance to the Maryland

[1:27:16] Open Meetings Act, title 10 governmental procedures subtitle 5, meaning section

[1:27:20] 3-305B, this meeting will be closed is disclosed only to consult with council

[1:27:24] to obtain legal advice. The following is a list of the subjects

[1:27:28] to be discussed. Citation 3-305B7 deoper matters and to obtain legal

[1:27:33] advice in regards to them. I am looking for a motion of a German to go into that

[1:27:36] closed session. >> So moved.

[1:27:38] » Looking for a second. >> Second.

[1:27:42] » Uh all those in favor signify by saying I.

[1:27:44] » I. I. >> We are closed in we are adjourned in a

[1:27:48] closed session. So let's go ahead and wrap up the public stream and let's get

[1:27:51] directly into that unless somebody needs a break.

[1:27:53] » Can I have like a five minute bathroom? >> Five minute break real quick.

Mayor & City Council Workshop / Public Hearing for September 9, 2026

Transcript